This type of belief in god is known as deism and most of the "founding fathers" of the united states were deist.
I would not equate Spinozanism with the deism of Jefferson and Adams. (I would also not so swiftly dismiss the rest of the Founding Fathers who were not expressly deist.) The deists imagined a "watchmaker God", who created the universe then stood back to let it run along according to the laws he set down. For Spinoza, there's some controversy about how to interpret him, but he seems to have instead equated God and the universe: the universe is not a creation of God's, but is God, or exists within God as a part of God. This is called pantheism (all-is-God) or panentheism (all-is-in-God). The watchmaker God exercised his will in designing the universe to achieve his intentions, but the Spinozan God does not have free will, designs, or intentions, instead acting at all times according to his own perfect nature. To the deist, the laws of reality are like a blueprint, but to Spinoza, they're more like a heartbeat. Big difference.
Panentheism and deism are sorta cousins. They just see spirituality slightly different. My wording wasn't quite clear instead of "type" I should have used "another belief in a similar vain of no person god."
but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned?
This thought most certainly has struck other people besides you. You are correct, if God damns people who do not believe in him, then God has behaved monstrously.
As Blinking pointed out, you're ignoring a lot of Congregationalists and Presbyterians in making that statement.
The majority of the big names. Washinton, Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison could all be described as deist. The only typical protestant of the big names is the much less know john jay who wanted to keep Catholics from holding office because he viewed them as the enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
The majority of the big names. Washinton, Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison could all be described as deist. The only typical protestant of the big names is the much less know john jay who wanted to keep Catholics from holding office because he viewed them as the enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States
Except for Jefferson and Adams, the deism of these men is strictly hypothetical on the part of historians. Washington was an observant Christian of some sort but bent over backwards to obscure the details of his convictions, probably so as not to give any impression of favoritism. Hamilton was during the relevant years rather snarkily irreligous, and Madison as far as his writing can reveal does not seem to have spared the subject any thought at all. It's certainly possible that they harbored deist beliefs. But it's also possible that they didn't. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that Madison was probably a deist, Hamilton a vacillating skeptic, and Washington a pretty orthodox Episcopalian.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The majority of the big names. Washinton, Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison could all be described as deist.
Even if we granted that all of those were deist, which as Blinking pointed out is not something we can just presume, that still does not constitute "most of the Founding Fathers."
I'm an agnostic, and I want to debate with Christians about the figure of God. I'm not really interested in what atheists have to say if they come here to insult the beliefs of others, and really, I want to know the christian point of view on this because well... I belive there's a God, I just don't think he's good.
First of all, I've already made my experience as a confirmed catholic. I used to be an atheist but I started doubting we're really here out of the blue, in my opinion, it's impossible to explain the universe based on cience alone, I'm sure there must be an entity greater than us. After years of defending my religion tho, I noticed how God seems not to care about what you want, as an individual, as a person, but what he BELIVES is better. Christians call this "freedom", I call it a disguised Tyrany.
Ok, so if God is our father, isn't he supposed to listen to us once in a while? People say God follows this logic: Don't ask God for a bike because he doesn't works that way, steal the bike, and ask for forgiveness. People say God gives, on his time, and only what he thinks is good for you, so in a way or another we're limited to what God thinks s best for an individual instead of him trying to listen to what we expect and want from life. Other religions seem to have gods who actually care, but I am more inclined to belive the cosmos is the creation of an individual entity.
Then there's the issue on Heaven, eternity. If you follow God, act like a good human being and help others out, you go to heaven. But what is Heaven? A place where pretty much you'll lose your identity and individuality in order to be one with God, the cosmos, whatever. As I've seen many Christians and people who's had NDE describe Heaven that way. You won't feel the air never again, not taste the food. Your family won't br your family. You won't be able to kiss your wife any more, hug your kid... That's pretty much hell without the physicall tortures. And that reafirms God only cares about what he thinks is right for the soul instead of trying to listen.
Also if he's our father, he needs like, to do something other than showing nothing but indiference once in a while. If he's a fatherly figure he's doing it wrong. We live in the *****tiest world possible and he really, doesn't seems to care, he just makes a miracle once in a while to some random person to say "Hey, I enjoy looking at all of you suffer, keep it up, maybe in 4 months or so I'll let Mary appear again somewhere so you all get paranoid and belive world's ending again!"
I mean, mother says "Thank God because you're fortunate to have a house, parents and a meal". Why should I? Father is the one who has tried to give us that. Indeed God is much like my father; he's only worried about giving the "basics" and the rest well... I've had to work for it.
And when I need divine intervention to get what I desire, even non material stuff, it just never comes. "Ask God and you'll get what you want" is to me the biggest lie after unicorns.
So, I belive there's a God, but one that cares nothing about us, and really I have my doubts about Jesus being the son of God...
Interesting thread. I'll reply from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, since our views are radically different than the West's yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity.
I have a completely different view of prayer and existence. Prayer isn't suppose to be about receiving anything, but rather to become one in unity with God. From an Orthodox perspective, the whole purpose of life is to become deified and transfigured, like the resurrected and transfigured Christ. Orthodoxy is very ontological, so from our viewpoint, the only reason we exist is due to the immanence of God and if God were to take his presence away from anything, it would become non-existent. This is because Orthodoxy has a weak panentheistic outlook on the world, meaning that God's essence is entirely separate from reality and is unknowable, but God's grace brings everything into existence and is present within everything that exists. People have a choice to make whether they want to move closer to God or to move away from God, closer to true existence or closer to non-existence and this choice is made by people's disposition towards life and those around them, not through moral acts or by adopting some sort of belief system. It is the spiritual path of growing towards agape for all people and things or towards hatred or indifference.
There isn't a literal Heaven or Hell in Orthodoxy in the sense of literal places or realms. Orthodox Christianity teaches a one-story universe just like atheists do, the difference being that we believe that this universe is both material and spiritual. Heaven and Hell is simply one's disposition towards reality and the presence of God within reality. For some they may experience the presence of God as joyous paradise while those who have a disposition towards hating others and thus hating God will experience it as suffering.
As far as suffering in the world goes, from an Orthodox perspective, we believe in a suffering God, we believe the essence of all being became incarnate as a part of being in the form of Christ who suffers all the same that we suffer as a cosmos. Thus rather than having a magical man in the clouds who grants wishes, we believe in a God who is present at all times and experiences everything we experience.
So yes, I agree with you asking for whatever you want is the stuff of unicorns and fairies. Western culture's version of God is very disfigured and transforms the Absolute into an old man who sits up in some throne in the clouds rather than being the Ground of all Being that is ever present in all of the cosmos and in each human being's unique experiences.
I'll share two links just in case you want to look into what I'm talking further to get an even more rounded understanding of this outlook.
yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity.
There isn't a literal Heaven or Hell in Orthodoxy in the sense of literal places or realms.
If this is true, then how can Orthodoxy claim to be the most authentic when Scripture describes Heaven and Hell as being literal places?
The Orthodox interpretation of Scripture has always been that the images of Heaven and Hell are symbolic images for Paradise and Hell rather than literal images. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the Scriptures were written for the Church, by the Church, to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church because the tradition of the Church is formed through the acting of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church. The Bible is not seen as the Christian equivalent to how Islam sees the Quran. Rather the Bible was written by human beings who were inspired by God in the sense of having an epiphany towards the Divine. We do not get our authority from the Bible rather the Bible gets its purpose only because the whole Orthodox Church had agreed on what was canonical by the 5th century. The Bible becoming the centerpiece of any form of Christianity post-Reformation, transforming the Holy Scriptures into an idol. Outside of the context of the Orthodox Church, the Bible loses its inherent meaning and purpose.
The Orthodox interpretation of Scripture has always been that the images of Heaven and Hell are symbolic images for Paradise and Hell rather than literal images.
Again, assuming this is true, how can it possibly be, then, that the Orthodox Church is "the most authentic," when Heaven and Hell refer to literal places in the Bible?
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the Scriptures were written for the Church, by the Church, to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church because the tradition of the Church is formed through the acting of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church.
So in other words, "We're right because we say so."
That's not a reason.
The Bible is not seen as the Christian equivalent to how Islam sees the Quran. Rather the Bible was written by human beings who were inspired by God in the sense of having an epiphany towards the Divine.
Even if this were the case, the Orthodox Church didn't exist in the time the books of the New Testament were written. Furthermore, the New Testament depicts hell as a literal place that a soul goes after death. So you are apparently in conflict with the original Christ movement, which again, makes me wonder from whence Eastern Orthodoxy gains the title of "most authentic."
We do not get our authority from the Bible rather the Bible gets its purpose only because the whole Orthodox Church had agreed on what was canonical by the 5th century.
Ok, let's back up for a second.
You're claiming that the Orthodox Church is the "most authentic Christianity," right?
Now you're saying that it doesn't matter what anyone else believed before the 5th Century, it only matters if the Orthodox Church says it mattered.
So I go back to my original question: by what means is the Orthodox Church the "most authentic" Christianity?
You're claiming that the Orthodox Church is the "most authentic Christianity," right?
No, he's saying that's what the church claims. I don't see how that's different from the Catholic Church. Or any religion, really. If you don't believe your brand of a religion is the most authentic brand, why would you follow it?
Now you're saying that it doesn't matter what anyone else believed before the 5th Century, it only matters if the Orthodox Church says it mattered.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Isn't this the same thing the rest of the Church did? Christianity was a diaspora of beliefs before the ecumenical councils.
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the Scriptures were written for the Church, by the Church, to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church because the tradition of the Church is formed through the acting of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church.
So in other words, "We're right because we say so."
That's not a reason.
It's also not an accurate statement of Orthodox teaching.
Interesting thread. I'll reply from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, since our views are radically different than the West's yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity.
As far as I understand it, nothing you say here would be particularly objectionable to a Catholic theologian. The "magical man in the clouds who grants wishes" is the pop image of God, not the serious one in any major denomination East or West. Give your counterparts a little credit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'll reply from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, since our views are radically different than the West's yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity.
"I'll reply from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, since our views are radically different than the West's yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity."
If you don't believe your brand of a religion is the most authentic brand, why would you follow it?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "authentic." "Most authentic" can mean "most truthful." It can also mean "most faithful to the original."
I was unclear as to whether Prideless Panther was going by both definitions or merely the first one, whereas I initially associated it with the latter.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Isn't this the same thing the rest of the Church did? Christianity was a diaspora of beliefs before the ecumenical councils.
True, but what I'm referring to here is specifically with regards to Heaven and Hell, namely how can one claim that the belief that they're metaphors is more authentic than the belief that they are literal places when it's pretty clear that the people who wrote the Scriptures believed they were actual places.
Of course, this goes back to what "most authentic" is "authentic" to, exactly.
True, but what I'm referring to here is specifically with regards to Heaven and Hell, namely how can one claim that the belief that they're metaphors is more authentic than the belief that they are literal places when it's pretty clear that the people who wrote the Scriptures believed they were actual places.
Of course, this goes back to what "most authentic" is "authentic" to, exactly.
Well, I agree with you that there is no true 'authentic' religion, because usually the claims to authenticity are based simply on having beliefs they believe are true.
I would note that the Orthodoxy's opinion on hell is similar to many Jewish beliefs on the topic, but that's a convoluted subject to get into.
Again, assuming this is true, how can it possibly be, then, that the Orthodox Church is "the most authentic," when Heaven and Hell refer to literal places in the Bible?
You've answered this question yourself, the claim is that the Orthodox faith is the truest form of Christianity.
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the Scriptures were written for the Church, by the Church, to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church because the tradition of the Church is formed through the acting of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church.
So in other words, "We're right because we say so."
That's not a reason.
Even if this were the case, the Orthodox Church didn't exist in the time the books of the New Testament were written. Furthermore, the New Testament depicts hell as a literal place that a soul goes after death. So you are apparently in conflict with the original Christ movement, which again, makes me wonder from whence Eastern Orthodoxy gains the title of "most authentic."
The Orthodox view is that the Church existed since Christ because in Orthodoxy we claim Apostolic Succession. And again, Orthodoxy would take this with an apocalyptic interpretation, not one of literal places. Of course there are those within the Church itself who do take a literal interpretation of Heaven and Hell, especially in America due to its Deistic/Protestant heritage, but this is not in line with the Church Fathers.
Ok, let's back up for a second.
You're claiming that the Orthodox Church is the "most authentic Christianity," right?
Now you're saying that it doesn't matter what anyone else believed before the 5th Century, it only matters if the Orthodox Church says it mattered.
So I go back to my original question: by what means is the Orthodox Church the "most authentic" Christianity?
Actually it does matter what people believe before the 5th century. What I am saying is that there wasn't a decided canon until the 5th Century which shows that Scripture is not the basis of the teachings of the Church and wasn't a basis for a church until the Reformation.
Yes, most atheists will agree with this statement, but the very claim of Orthodoxy is the Scriptures were written by the Church, for the Church.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Isn't this the same thing the rest of the Church did? Christianity was a diaspora of beliefs before the ecumenical councils.
I didn't dismiss pre-5th Century Christianity, but I will agree that there was a diaspora of beliefs before the councils.
As far as I understand it, nothing you say here would be particularly objectionable to a Catholic theologian. The "magical man in the clouds who grants wishes" is the pop image of God, not the serious one in any major denomination East or West. Give your counterparts a little credit.
Note that I said Western culture. I've come across plenty of people who in are culture either believe this is truly what Christians believe and indeed those from Protestant and Catholic backgrounds who have had this mistaken belief. I would agree that most theologians in West would not believe in the "magical man in the clouds", but I have found either it or something very close to it among most laity I've interacted with from the Western traditions.
[quote from="Highroller »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/565437-a-debate-with-christians-what-makes-you-think-god?comment=243"]It's also not an accurate statement of Orthodox teaching.
How is written by the Church, for the Church, to be interpreted by the Church not in line with Orthodox teaching? You'll find this teaching all across Orthodoxy from the laity to the priests and bishops. For example:
Well, I agree with you that there is no true 'authentic' religion, because usually the claims to authenticity are based simply on having beliefs they believe are true.
No, that's not what I said. I said that "most authentic" can mean "most true" OR it can mean "most faithful to the original/earliest version" (like, historically authentic).
These are not mutually exclusive (usually schools of religions that seek authenticity with earlier versions do so out of a belief that the earliest version of a movement is the truest/purest), but they are separate things. So whenever someone claims authenticity of something, we must immediately ask "authentic to WHAT, exactly"?
I would note that the Orthodoxy's opinion on hell is similar to many Jewish beliefs on the topic, but that's a convoluted subject to get into.
I mean, Jewish beliefs on the topic are REALLY varied. Consider that Christianity was a cult out of the apocalyptic school of Judaism.
You've answered this question yourself, the claim is that the Orthodox faith is the truest form of Christianity.
That's the exact opposite of an answer. I asked HOW you can claim that the Eastern Orthodox church is the truest form. Saying, "because it is" answers nothing.
The Orthodox view is that the Church existed since Christ
Except that's not what you claim. You said the Scriptures only hold validity if the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 5th Century decided it did, right? And nothing those communities in the first or second or whatever centuries before this determination of canon represents truth unless the Eastern Orthodox Church declared it does, right?
So clearly, those movements were not the Eastern Orthodox Church. How could they be? If they were, then how is it valid to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church then judges those movements to determine whether they were true or false, when those movements supposedly WERE the Eastern Orthodox Church?
You are simultaneously arguing that these movements were and were not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which makes no sense.
[qupte]because in Orthodoxy we claim Apostolic Succession.[/quote]So do the Catholics. As I understand it, so do the other churches with the word "Orthodox" in their name. So what do you have over them?
Moreover, you accept the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John as canon, correct? Jesus describes hell as a literal place in the Gospels.
And again, Orthodoxy would take this with an apocalyptic interpretation, not one of literal places. Of course there are those within the Church itself who do take a literal interpretation of Heaven and Hell,
So this claim that "we" believe something is not as united as you would have us believe.
especially in America due to its Deistic/Protestant heritage, but this is not in line with the Church Fathers.
For example?
Actually it does matter what people believe before the 5th century. What I am saying is that there wasn't a decided canon until the 5th Century which shows that Scripture is not the basis of the teachings of the Church and wasn't a basis for a church until the Reformation.
So, again, what gives the Church this divine validity you so claim? If an Eastern Orthodox Church canon didn't even exist until the 5th century, why should we care what it says, much less regard it as authentic?
You claim that the Eastern Orthodox faith is the truest form of Christianity. Why? What makes it the truest form? And why is it more true than any other form of Christianity that predated it?
Yes, most atheists will agree with this statement, but the very claim of Orthodoxy is the Scriptures were written by the Church, for the Church.
How can that be? The Eastern Orthodox Church didn't exist when the Scriptures were written. They predate them by anywhere from centuries to millennia.
Moreover, you argued that the only reason that the Scriptures have any validity is that the Church proclaimed they did. But how does that make any sense if you're now arguing it was the Church that wrote them? If the Church itself wrote them, then wouldn't the Church's authenticity be dependent upon the Scriptures, and not the other way around?
Note that I said Western culture. I've come across plenty of people who in are culture either believe this is truly what Christians believe and indeed those from Protestant and Catholic backgrounds who have had this mistaken belief. I would agree that most theologians in West would not believe in the "magical man in the clouds", but I have found either it or something very close to it among most laity I've interacted with from the Western traditions.
You can't just compare Eastern doctrine to Western pop culture. That's like comparing a $200 sushi restaurant in Tokyo to a hot dog stand in New York. You've got to compare Eastern doctrine to Western doctrine, or Eastern pop culture to Western pop culture.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You've answered this question yourself, the claim is that the Orthodox faith is the truest form of Christianity.
That's the exact opposite of an answer. I asked HOW you can claim that the Eastern Orthodox church is the truest form. Saying, "because it is" answers nothing.
You asked what I meant by authentic.
Except that's not what you claim. You said the Scriptures only hold validity if the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 5th Century decided it did, right? And nothing those communities in the first or second or whatever centuries before this determination of canon represents truth unless the Eastern Orthodox Church declared it does, right?
So clearly, those movements were not the Eastern Orthodox Church. How could they be? If they were, then how is it valid to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church then judges those movements to determine whether they were true or false, when those movements supposedly WERE the Eastern Orthodox Church?
You are simultaneously arguing that these movements were and were not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which makes no sense.
Before the 5th Century there were a variety of texts read throughout the Church, some that ended up in the New Testament and plenty that didn't. When the canon was finally compiled for the Church it was an affirmation of what was Holy Scripture and what was to be read within the Church. These texts were already read within the Church beforehand, but there was not an official canon until the 5th Century. The Orthodox Church is recognized as a specific strand of Church history, the same strand that Roman Catholicism claims as at the time the Pope of Rome was in Communion with the Orthodox Church.
So do the Catholics. As I understand it, so do the other churches with the word "Orthodox" in their name. So what do you have over them?
For the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism held the Orthodox faith and was part of the Orthodox Church before the East-West Schism. Afterwards it lost its validity of Apostolic Succession because the Pope was excommunicated for heretical teachings. As for the other Orthodox Churches, while we are not in Communion with them, most Orthodox Christians agree that our differences are only in semantics and there are efforts to restore the various Orthodox Churches to Communion.
Moreover, you accept the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John as canon, correct? Jesus describes hell as a literal place in the Gospels.
That is a point of disagreement between us that I don't think we'll be able to find a common understanding on. Christ was using symbolic language and parables when he described Hell as a physical place. We use Christ's teaching of "And this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" as our understanding of what Hell is.
So this claim that "we" believe something is not as united as you would have us believe.
Yes, not everyone agrees with the traditional teaching of the Church, especially those influenced by outside influences, but it is the traditional teaching of the Church.
For example?
St. Athanasius, St. Isaac of Syria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom to name a few of the Early Fathers. There are more and more as the Church Fathers in Orthodoxy who distinctly describe condemnation as a state of existence rather than a physical place. And if you want to speak of Paradise, the entire teaching of Theosis in Orthodoxy reveals this tradition including St. Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Athanasius, St. Macarius, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Gregory Palamas...I could go on and on.
So, again, what gives the Church this divine validity you so claim? If an Eastern Orthodox Church canon didn't even exist until the 5th century, why should we care what it says, much less regard it as authentic?
I answer this previously in this post, but just to clarify. The Scriptures were not canonized until the 5th Century (by any small o Orthodox Church). There wasn't seen to be a need to have an official canon because there were Scriptures that most communities agreed were inspired. However, when Marcion of Sinope who was considered a heretic by the Church created his own canon, those in the Church began to more readily divide what was considered Holy Scripture and what were texts that promoted heresy. The Orthodox tradition existed before any canon was compiled.
How can that be? The Eastern Orthodox Church didn't exist when the Scriptures were written. They predate them by anywhere from centuries to millennia.
Again, we claim Apostolic Succession, so obviously we claim that the traditionally held writers of the New Testament were members of the Church, the Apostles being the first bishops of the Church. The Church of course was not at the form it is today because of the whole history of the development of Christianity.
Moreover, you argued that the only reason that the Scriptures have any validity is that the Church proclaimed they did. But how does that make any sense if you're now arguing it was the Church that wrote them? If the Church itself wrote them, then wouldn't the Church's authenticity be dependent upon the Scriptures, and not the other way around?
No, because the Church is the authority, not the Scriptures. The Church does not derive its true belief from the Bible, rather the true meaning of the Bible is revealed within the Orthodox Church.
One thing I don't understand is what makes the claim of apostolic succession on the part of the line of Catholic Popes or the line of Orthodox Patriarchs more valid than the other? It seems like both can demonstrate a line of succession back to the early church fathers. If the two excommunicate each other, how do you decide which is the bearer of apostolic succession and which is the heretic? What about other smaller churches that also can demonstrate some form of succession?
And, do the technical questions about the legitimacy of the excommunication (Leo being dead and all) matter? If the Pope wasn't actually excommunicated, was the Catholic line of succession actually broken?
You can't just compare Eastern doctrine to Western pop culture. That's like comparing a $200 sushi restaurant in Tokyo to a hot dog stand in New York. You've got to compare Eastern doctrine to Western doctrine, or Eastern pop culture to Western pop culture.
Yet Western culture has a lasting effect on those who live in the West, myself included, because it is something indoctrinated in us at birth if we grew up in said culture. It thus has effects on how people view topics such as philosophy, religion, politics, etc. in the West.
One thing I don't understand is what makes the claim of apostolic succession on the part of the line of Catholic Popes or the line of Orthodox Patriarchs more valid than the other? It seems like both can demonstrate a line of succession back to the early church fathers. If the two excommunicate each other, how do you decide which is the bearer of apostolic succession and which is the heretic? What about other smaller churches that also can demonstrate some form of succession?
And, do the technical questions about the legitimacy of the excommunication (Leo being dead and all) matter? If the Pope wasn't actually excommunicated, was the Catholic line of succession actually broken?
That ultimately depends on which theological claims you feel are more valid. In Orthodoxy, the rejection of the teachings of the Pope were rooted in changes made in doctrine, the mostly noted changes in history books on the subject are the Filloque and Papal Authority. From an Orthodox perspective, there were no basis for adding the Filloque to Orthodox doctrine and in fact makes the Holy Spirit subservient in the Trinity rather than an equal in the Trinity because traits of the persons with the Trinity are either shared by all three or only by one. On Papal Authority, the understanding of the East had always been that the Pope was regarded as the first among equals while the Pope began to claim supremacy over the whole Church. From my reading of history, I found the Filloque and other doctrinal differences to be quite contradictory to the teachings of the Church prior to this conflict as well as finding Papal Supremacy having no ground to stand on in the history of the Church. Thus, I came to the belief that the Orthodox Church had the right to claiming Apostolic Succession.
Another thing to note about Apostolic Succession is that it is not just the lineage of the Apostles that is important, but also the maintaining of Apostolic theology which is the very basis of Apostolic Succession, the idea that the teachings and traditions are being maintained from one generation to the next. So simply because a church can claim Apostolic Succession because of ordination is not enough, they must also maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church.
As for this question, not necessarily because death traditionally in Christianity hasn't been a factor in the understanding of a person's excommunication since death is seen as a way of passage to afterlife rather say a more secular perspective of eternal oblivion.
That ultimately depends on which theological claims you feel are more valid. In Orthodoxy, the rejection of the teachings of the Pope were rooted in changes made in doctrine, the mostly noted changes in history books on the subject are the Filloque and Papal Authority. From an Orthodox perspective, there were no basis for adding the Filloque to Orthodox doctrine and in fact makes the Holy Spirit subservient in the Trinity rather than an equal in the Trinity because traits of the persons with the Trinity are either shared by all three or only by one. On Papal Authority, the understanding of the East had always been that the Pope was regarded as the first among equals while the Pope began to claim supremacy over the whole Church. From my reading of history, I found the Filloque and other doctrinal differences to be quite contradictory to the teachings of the Church prior to this conflict as well as finding Papal Supremacy having no ground to stand on in the history of the Church. Thus, I came to the belief that the Orthodox Church had the right to claiming Apostolic Succession.
If it just comes down to who you believe on the theological controversies, what's the value of apostolic succession? It can't be that apostolic succession tells you how to properly interpret scripture, and your interpretation of scripture tells you who has true apostolic succession.
Another thing to note about Apostolic Succession is that it is not just the lineage of the Apostles that is important, but also the maintaining of Apostolic theology which is the very basis of Apostolic Succession, the idea that the teachings and traditions are being maintained from one generation to the next. So simply because a church can claim Apostolic Succession because of ordination is not enough, they must also maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church.
Who gets to judge whether or not a church is properly maintaining that tradition?
As for this question, not necessarily because death traditionally in Christianity hasn't been a factor in the understanding of a person's excommunication since death is seen as a way of passage to afterlife rather say a more secular perspective of eternal oblivion.
The problem isn't that Leo was dead when he was excommunicated (Leo wasn't excommunicated). It was the Leo was dead when his legates excommunicated the eastern patriarch. Because the Pope was dead, his legates didn't have the authority to excommunicate the patriarch, and the patriarch's excommunication of the legates doesn't seem to have any impact on the next Pope's standing.
The Church does not derive its true belief from the Bible, rather the true meaning of the Bible is revealed within the Orthodox Church.
Wow. I had no idea the Orthodox Church was still so... arrogant. Even the Catholics had to make an effort to justify their claim to authority after the the whole Reformation thing... but you guys never did have to deal with that kind of challenge, did you?
And beyond arrogance, what you're talking about is just plain bad scholarly practice. You always, always put the primary source first. Historians interested in, say, George Washington base what they believe on very close readings of his papers and contemporary accounts of his life, which they cite as justification of their claims. They do not look to the organization Washington helped found - to wit, the United States federal government - as any sort of arbiter of truth.
You see, when claims are justified by close criticism of primary sources, then you can examine the reasoning and notice if there is any mistake or dishonesty. We can know that Washington didn't actually chop down the cherry tree, because we can trace that anecdote to Parson Weems. But when a claim is allegedly revealed truth - well, how do you know if it is or not? There's no critical thinking to be done, and a false revelation sounds no different than a true one. Do you think the people who think Catholicism is the revealed authority and Orthodoxy the heresy are just stupider than those who think the reverse? And what about everybody who thinks that both of them are bunk? These are all people of the same average intellectual capabilities who have come to completely different conclusions because there's no real reason to trust one conclusion over another. What's worse, for an organization like the Orthodox or Catholic Church with a history of nearly two millennia, any mistake or dishonesty that creeps into their doctrine is inevitably going to compound, like interest, over the generations. They're playing a long, long game of telephone where whatever message comes out at the end of the line is dogmatically believed to be truer than what went in at the beginning. In short, the authoritarian structure of the Church is, far from an assurance of unified truth, rather a guarantee of error and schism. One would think that an omnipotent and omniscient God could arrange something better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, I think we've all gathered that you think that your church is the most special. Except so do most churches. So what makes yours superior, aside from, "We say that we're superior"?
Before the 5th Century there were a variety of texts read throughout the Church, some that ended up in the New Testament and plenty that didn't. When the canon was finally compiled for the Church it was an affirmation of what was Holy Scripture and what was to be read within the Church. These texts were already read within the Church beforehand, but there was not an official canon until the 5th Century. The Orthodox Church is recognized as a specific strand of Church history, the same strand that Roman Catholicism claims as at the time the Pope of Rome was in Communion with the Orthodox Church.
No, you're missing the point.
You're saying that the only value these Scriptures have is in the Eastern Orthodox Church saying that they have value, right? Otherwise, no value?
But how does that make sense? The whole point of determining a canon was the Church at the time was trying to find the texts that reflected what they believed in, right?
So, obviously, the church didn't just pop out of thin air. It's not as though God caused the Church and all of its followers to come down from On High, or sprouted out of the ground. They were people who were Christians, and specifically were part of a tradition of Christianity that came from people before them passing down their traditions, and people before them passing down their traditions, and so on and so forth, right?
Ok, so recognize that these people in the 5th Century didn't emerge from thin air, but were people who were part of a then-500-years-old tradition of Christianity, and that these people were separating the texts that reflected their beliefs vs. the texts that didn't. How can you argue that the people in the 5th Century are the sole determinants of what is or is not worth, to the point where the values of any previous generation's beliefs are solely dependent on them?
Especially since the 5th Century Christians were 5th Century Christians because Christians from previous centuries passed on their beliefs to them?
And with this in mind — yet again — how are the 5th Century Christians the most authentic? To say nothing of the modern day Orthodox Christians?
For the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism held the Orthodox faith and was part of the Orthodox Church before the East-West Schism. Afterwards it lost its validity of Apostolic Succession because the Pope was excommunicated for heretical teachings.
So? At one point, two Popes excommunicated each other.
We get it. You think the Pope is wrong because he's not Eastern Orthodox. But why should we accept that? The Catholics would argue you're wrong for being Eastern Orthodox. Many Christian churches who aren't Eastern Orthodox would agree with them in that regard.
So why should we accept your opinion over theirs?
As for the other Orthodox Churches, while we are not in Communion with them, most Orthodox Christians agree that our differences are only in semantics and there are efforts to restore the various Orthodox Churches to Communion.
And I am sure they don't view themselves as needing any restoring and think you are the ones who went astray. Or just don't care.
Either way, why is your opinion superior? Again, don't just say, "It is because we say it is." Give a reason. Any reason at all.
That is a point of disagreement between us that I don't think we'll be able to find a common understanding on. Christ was using symbolic language and parables when he described Hell as a physical place.
I know you are arguing that he's using a metaphor, but why should we accept that? Why can't Christ be describing a literal place? People believed in a literal afterlife where souls go to a literal place. Paul even outright describes an afterlife in which people have bodies. By what measure do you deem your interpretation superior?
Yes, not everyone agrees with the traditional teaching of the Church, especially those influenced by outside influences, but it is the traditional teaching of the Church.
According to? Paul certainly doesn't teach that the afterlife isn't a physical place. He goes into detail about how the afterlife involves us having bodies.
I answer this previously in this post, but just to clarify. The Scriptures were not canonized until the 5th Century (by any small o Orthodox Church). There wasn't seen to be a need to have an official canon because there were Scriptures that most communities agreed were inspired. However, when Marcion of Sinope who was considered a heretic by the Church created his own canon, those in the Church began to more readily divide what was considered Holy Scripture and what were texts that promoted heresy. The Orthodox tradition existed before any canon was compiled.
But that wasn't the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was the so-called "Orthodox" Christian movement, but not the Eastern Orthodox Church. Again, the Catholics have just as much claim as you do to that ancestry because they too were descended from the same lineage. That's how a schism works.
But that's not the real problem. The real issue is that you're claiming that the ancestry matters, but then saying that none of what any early Christ follower thought, did, or said matters unless it fits with your doctrine. How can you same that and still claim about how important the ancestry of the Church to the original Christ movement is?
Put another way: you are claiming that the original Christ movement's authority is dependent upon the Eastern Orthodox Church deeming them having authority, and NOT the other way around (that the Eastern Orthodox Church is given authority by its link to the original Christ movement). If this is true, then why would any sort of lineage matter?
Again, we claim Apostolic Succession,
I can claim to be James Franco. That is a completely false statement, yet I can still claim it. Again, why should we regard your claim as true?
so obviously we claim that the traditionally held writers of the New Testament were members of the Church, the Apostles being the first bishops of the Church. The Church of course was not at the form it is today because of the whole history of the development of Christianity.
Yeah, and the fact that it split into a bunch of other churches that all regard themselves as the capital-C Church and all disagree with you.
No, because the Church is the authority, not the Scriptures.
Then you are contradicting yourself. You claim that the source of the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is in its lineage to the original Christ movement, but you are also claiming that the original Christ movement only has authority because the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does.
That makes no sense. So, once again, from whence does this authority come?
Yet Western culture has a lasting effect on those who live in the West, myself included, because it is something indoctrinated in us at birth if we grew up in said culture.
Ok, I have asked you repeatedly why you believe your church has authority, and the only answer that you have given thusfar is, "Because they said they do."
In light of this, do you REALLY want to have a discussion about indoctrination?
Yeah, I think we've all gathered that you think that your church is the most special. Except so do most churches. So what makes yours superior, aside from, "We say that we're superior"?
Because the Orthodox Church maintains the traditions of Apostolic theology and the Tradition of the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
No, you're missing the point.
You're saying that the only value these Scriptures have is in the Eastern Orthodox Church saying that they have value, right? Otherwise, no value?
But how does that make sense? The whole point of determining a canon was the Church at the time was trying to find the texts that reflected what they believed in, right?
So, obviously, the church didn't just pop out of thin air. It's not as though God caused the Church and all of its followers to come down from On High, or sprouted out of the ground. They were people who were Christians, and specifically were part of a tradition of Christianity that came from people before them passing down their traditions, and people before them passing down their traditions, and so on and so forth, right?
Ok, so recognize that these people in the 5th Century didn't emerge from thin air, but were people who were part of a then-500-years-old tradition of Christianity, and that these people were separating the texts that reflected their beliefs vs. the texts that didn't. How can you argue that the people in the 5th Century are the sole determinants of what is or is not worth, to the point where the values of any previous generation's beliefs are solely dependent on them?
Especially since the 5th Century Christians were 5th Century Christians because Christians from previous centuries passed on their beliefs to them?
And with this in mind — yet again — how are the 5th Century Christians the most authentic? To say nothing of the modern day Orthodox Christians?
Yes, it was specific tradition of Christianity passed down from generation to generation. I am claiming that this whole tradition that was 500 years old at that time is the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is the most authentic because it maintained this tradition which is revealed by the Holy Spirit. I didn't say the 5th Century Christians in particular were the most authentic, just simply that this was when the canon was formed.
So? At one point, two Popes excommunicated each other.
We get it. You think the Pope is wrong because he's not Eastern Orthodox. But why should we accept that? The Catholics would argue you're wrong for being Eastern Orthodox. Many Christian churches who aren't Eastern Orthodox would agree with them in that regard.
So why should we accept your opinion over theirs?
Actually the Catholic Church doesn't see a serious difference between the Orthodox faith and Roman Catholic faith, similar to how the Orthodox Church doesn't see a serious difference between it and the other Orthodox traditions.
In the most I made before this one, I gave the reasons why I believe the Orthodox Church is correct about the Schism as I've found that indeed the Roman Catholic Church did introduce doctrines that were not in line with the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
And I am sure they don't view themselves as needing any restoring and think you are the ones who went astray. Or just don't care.
Either way, why is your opinion superior? Again, don't just say, "It is because we say it is." Give a reason. Any reason at all.
Actually, it is a mutual movement of ecumenism between the Orthodox traditions, the reason we are seeking restoration is because the Orthodox faith should be united rather than divided. The other Orthodox faiths agree that the most of differences are semantics.
According to? Paul certainly doesn't teach that the afterlife isn't a physical place. He goes into detail about how the afterlife involves us having bodies.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear on this, but Orthodoxy believes Heaven and Hell are experienced now as well as in the afterlife. There are bodies in the afterlife because we believe in the Resurrection. But the Resurrection takes place here and is a transfiguration of this reality, not the going to a different realm that is Heaven or a different realm that is Hell. Hopefully that makes it more clear.
But that wasn't the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was the so-called "Orthodox" Christian movement, but not the Eastern Orthodox Church. Again, the Catholics have just as much claim as you do to that ancestry because they too were descended from the same lineage. That's how a schism works.
But that's not the real problem. The real issue is that you're claiming that the ancestry matters, but then saying that none of what any early Christ follower thought, did, or said matters unless it fits with your doctrine. How can you same that and still claim about how important the ancestry of the Church to the original Christ movement is?
Put another way: you are claiming that the original Christ movement's authority is dependent upon the Eastern Orthodox Church deeming them having authority, and NOT the other way around (that the Eastern Orthodox Church is given authority by its link to the original Christ movement). If this is true, then why would any sort of lineage matter?
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the same Church as what you call the "Orthodox" Christian movement. It is the Church that had the five ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome.
What I am trying to claim is that what matters is the the Tradition accepted by that ancestry is what matters because the Tradition is the Church.
And I am claiming the original Christ movement is the Orthodox Church, one and the same.
Then you are contradicting yourself. You claim that the source of the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is in its lineage to the original Christ movement, but you are also claiming that the original Christ movement only has authority because the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does.
That makes no sense. So, once again, from whence does this authority come?
Again the Orthodox Church (the official name of which is the Orthodox Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox is simply a way to identify it in differentiation with other "Orthodox" and "Catholic" Churches, are one and the same with the Apostles as the Apostles were the founders of the Church.
Ok, I have asked you repeatedly why you believe your church has authority, and the only answer that you have given thusfar is, "Because they said they do."
In light of this, do you REALLY want to have a discussion about indoctrination?
I gave an answer to this in my reply to Tiax, so I'll just quote it and put it here again.
In Orthodoxy, the rejection of the teachings of the Pope were rooted in changes made in doctrine, the mostly noted changes in history books on the subject are the Filloque and Papal Authority. From an Orthodox perspective, there were no basis for adding the Filloque to Orthodox doctrine and in fact makes the Holy Spirit subservient in the Trinity rather than an equal in the Trinity because traits of the persons with the Trinity are either shared by all three or only by one. On Papal Authority, the understanding of the East had always been that the Pope was regarded as the first among equals while the Pope began to claim supremacy over the whole Church. From my reading of history, I found the Filloque and other doctrinal differences to be quite contradictory to the teachings of the Church prior to this conflict as well as finding Papal Supremacy having no ground to stand on in the history of the Church. Thus, I came to the belief that the Orthodox Church had the right to claiming Apostolic Succession.
Because the Orthodox Church maintains the traditions of Apostolic theology and the Tradition of the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Ok, so here is the problem with what you are saying.
You have claimed that none of the Scriptures or anything else we have in terms of thoughts, words, and actions from the early Christ movement have any validity or authority unless the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does. However, you are also trying to claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church derives its authority from the early Christ movement.
This is contradictory. Either the early Christ movement has authority because the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does, thereby making their authority subordinate to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or vice-versa. It cannot be both.
So when you claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church has authority because it has a link to the Apostles, you are claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is derived from the Apostles, and is therefore subordinate to the Apostles.
But that's a problem for you. Not only does this contradict what you said earlier, but if we can find anything from the early Christ movement that would contradict the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority would therefore be undermined.
And indeed we have precisely that: your claim that heaven and hell are metaphorical places, whereas in Scripture, they are identified as literal places.
Yes, it was specific tradition of Christianity passed down from generation to generation.
More than one, but yes.
I am claiming that this whole tradition that was 500 years old at that time is the Orthodox Church.
Yes, it is the "Orthodox" Christ movement. But that's not the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church would not come about until multiple centuries later.
The Orthodox Church is the most authentic because it maintained this tradition which is revealed by the Holy Spirit. I didn't say the 5th Century Christians in particular were the most authentic, just simply that this was when the canon was formed.
Then who were the most authentic, and why?
Actually the Catholic Church doesn't see a serious difference between the Orthodox faith and Roman Catholic faith, similar to how the Orthodox Church doesn't see a serious difference between it and the other Orthodox traditions.
You're kidding right? Your posts in this thread have repeatedly lamented the Western world's misconstrued perceptions of Christianity and God, and now you're saying there's no serious differences between the two?
In the most I made before this one, I gave the reasons why I believe the Orthodox Church is correct about the Schism as I've found that indeed the Roman Catholic Church did introduce doctrines that were not in line with the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
Yes, there are certainly differences between the Roman Catholic Church in the second millennia AD and Christianity in the previous thousand years. But there are also plenty of differences between the Christ movement in the fifth century and the Christ movement in the first century. A second century Christ follower would have been unrecognizable to a first century Christ follower, as would a fifth century follower to a second century follower, as would a Christian in the year 1000 from a Christian in the fifth century.
This also doesn't take into account the changes made between the Eastern Orthodox Church from the fifth century Christ movement, or the second, or the first.
Nor does it establish that earlier is necessarily better.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear on this, but Orthodoxy believes Heaven and Hell are experienced now as well as in the afterlife.
This goes completely against Scripture.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the same Church as what you call the "Orthodox" Christian movement. It is the Church that had the five ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome.
Yes, and that Church split. That's how a schism works.
So any one of those movements, including the Catholic Church, can trace their lineage back to the Orthodox Christ movement. Furthermore, any movement that split off from any one of those movements can trace their lineage back to the Orthodox Christ movement.
Again, what makes your claim superior? And furthermore, why does lineage even matter in the first place?
What I am trying to claim is that what matters is the the Tradition accepted by that ancestry is what matters because the Tradition is the Church.
Ok, so now you're saying that tradition matters because it's your Church's tradition. So in other words, tradition's authority is subordinate to the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
But earlier in the post, you argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church has authority because of Apostolic Succession. Which means that the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is subordinate to tradition.
So which is it? Which one is subordinate to the other? Is the Eastern Orthodox Church subordinate to the authority of the early Christ movement and its traditions that have been passed down, or is it the other way around?
And if the former, which generation of Christ followers has the most authority, the people who were there with Jesus, or the ones who came after? And if the ones who came after, which ones of the 2000-ish years worth of Christ followers have the most authority?
And I am claiming the original Christ movement is the Orthodox Church, one and the same.
Except they're not the same. By very definition. They are not doctrinally the same, they are not organizationally the same, and they are not physically composed of the same people.
You might say that the Eastern Orthodox Church traces its history back to the original Christ movement. That's fine, but recognize that literally every Christian denomination will do the same thing.
So again, what makes your claim superior? And please give an answer that is not, "Because we said we are."
In Orthodoxy, the rejection of the teachings of the Pope were rooted in changes made in doctrine, the mostly noted changes in history books on the subject are the Filloque and Papal Authority. From an Orthodox perspective, there were no basis for adding the Filloque to Orthodox doctrine and in fact makes the Holy Spirit subservient in the Trinity rather than an equal in the Trinity because traits of the persons with the Trinity are either shared by all three or only by one. On Papal Authority, the understanding of the East had always been that the Pope was regarded as the first among equals while the Pope began to claim supremacy over the whole Church. From my reading of history, I found the Filloque and other doctrinal differences to be quite contradictory to the teachings of the Church prior to this conflict as well as finding Papal Supremacy having no ground to stand on in the history of the Church. Thus, I came to the belief that the Orthodox Church had the right to claiming Apostolic Succession.
Except nothing you said in that paragraph brings you to that conclusion.
First of all, so what if the Catholic Church made changes? What if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Second, are you seriously claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church made no changes to its doctrine ever? That they are preaching the exact same thing that that was preached in the first century? Because that's clearly wrong. And since it is clearly wrong, how many changes is a church allowed to make?
To that end, can you demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox Church has made less changes than the Catholic Church did?
Also, doesn't this put a preference on the first century Christ movement? Saying that they were the most genuine Christians and every other Christian's authenticity is measured on them? If this is the case, doesn't that undermine your claims of the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Also, what about literally every other religious denomination - Christian and non-Christian - ever?
Basically, all you've said amounts to, "The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects Catholicism because Catholicism has things in it that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects." Yes, we get it, you're Eastern Orthodox. But WHY does that make the Catholics wrong? What is wrong about it?
As far as I can tell, I don't think anyone else in this thread is Orthodox - correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who is - and the majority of the people in this discussion are not Christian. As such, we do not come into this discussion assuming as a given that the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. In fact, NO ONE should come into a discussion assuming as a given that the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct, because that's how logic works: no one should assume that ANYTHING is correct without reasons for thinking it is.
That said, you need to actually give us reasons WHY we should regard the Eastern Orthodox Church is credible, because all you're doing is just saying, "This is correct because I say it's correct," which has no justification and is therefore freely dismissable.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The majority of the big names. Washinton, Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison could all be described as deist. The only typical protestant of the big names is the much less know john jay who wanted to keep Catholics from holding office because he viewed them as the enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Interesting thread. I'll reply from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, since our views are radically different than the West's yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity.
I have a completely different view of prayer and existence. Prayer isn't suppose to be about receiving anything, but rather to become one in unity with God. From an Orthodox perspective, the whole purpose of life is to become deified and transfigured, like the resurrected and transfigured Christ. Orthodoxy is very ontological, so from our viewpoint, the only reason we exist is due to the immanence of God and if God were to take his presence away from anything, it would become non-existent. This is because Orthodoxy has a weak panentheistic outlook on the world, meaning that God's essence is entirely separate from reality and is unknowable, but God's grace brings everything into existence and is present within everything that exists. People have a choice to make whether they want to move closer to God or to move away from God, closer to true existence or closer to non-existence and this choice is made by people's disposition towards life and those around them, not through moral acts or by adopting some sort of belief system. It is the spiritual path of growing towards agape for all people and things or towards hatred or indifference.
There isn't a literal Heaven or Hell in Orthodoxy in the sense of literal places or realms. Orthodox Christianity teaches a one-story universe just like atheists do, the difference being that we believe that this universe is both material and spiritual. Heaven and Hell is simply one's disposition towards reality and the presence of God within reality. For some they may experience the presence of God as joyous paradise while those who have a disposition towards hating others and thus hating God will experience it as suffering.
As far as suffering in the world goes, from an Orthodox perspective, we believe in a suffering God, we believe the essence of all being became incarnate as a part of being in the form of Christ who suffers all the same that we suffer as a cosmos. Thus rather than having a magical man in the clouds who grants wishes, we believe in a God who is present at all times and experiences everything we experience.
So yes, I agree with you asking for whatever you want is the stuff of unicorns and fairies. Western culture's version of God is very disfigured and transforms the Absolute into an old man who sits up in some throne in the clouds rather than being the Ground of all Being that is ever present in all of the cosmos and in each human being's unique experiences.
I'll share two links just in case you want to look into what I'm talking further to get an even more rounded understanding of this outlook.
http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/christianity-in-a-one-storey-universe/
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/orthodox.htm
If this is true, then how can Orthodoxy claim to be the most authentic when Scripture describes Heaven and Hell as being literal places?
The Orthodox interpretation of Scripture has always been that the images of Heaven and Hell are symbolic images for Paradise and Hell rather than literal images. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, the Scriptures were written for the Church, by the Church, to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church because the tradition of the Church is formed through the acting of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church. The Bible is not seen as the Christian equivalent to how Islam sees the Quran. Rather the Bible was written by human beings who were inspired by God in the sense of having an epiphany towards the Divine. We do not get our authority from the Bible rather the Bible gets its purpose only because the whole Orthodox Church had agreed on what was canonical by the 5th century. The Bible becoming the centerpiece of any form of Christianity post-Reformation, transforming the Holy Scriptures into an idol. Outside of the context of the Orthodox Church, the Bible loses its inherent meaning and purpose.
So in other words, "We're right because we say so."
That's not a reason.
Even if this were the case, the Orthodox Church didn't exist in the time the books of the New Testament were written. Furthermore, the New Testament depicts hell as a literal place that a soul goes after death. So you are apparently in conflict with the original Christ movement, which again, makes me wonder from whence Eastern Orthodoxy gains the title of "most authentic."
Ok, let's back up for a second.
You're claiming that the Orthodox Church is the "most authentic Christianity," right?
Now you're saying that it doesn't matter what anyone else believed before the 5th Century, it only matters if the Orthodox Church says it mattered.
So I go back to my original question: by what means is the Orthodox Church the "most authentic" Christianity?
Most atheists agree with you.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Isn't this the same thing the rest of the Church did? Christianity was a diaspora of beliefs before the ecumenical councils.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's also not an accurate statement of Orthodox teaching.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"I'll reply from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, since our views are radically different than the West's yet we claim to be the most authentic form of Christianity."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "authentic." "Most authentic" can mean "most truthful." It can also mean "most faithful to the original."
I was unclear as to whether Prideless Panther was going by both definitions or merely the first one, whereas I initially associated it with the latter.
That's fair.
True, but what I'm referring to here is specifically with regards to Heaven and Hell, namely how can one claim that the belief that they're metaphors is more authentic than the belief that they are literal places when it's pretty clear that the people who wrote the Scriptures believed they were actual places.
Of course, this goes back to what "most authentic" is "authentic" to, exactly.
I would note that the Orthodoxy's opinion on hell is similar to many Jewish beliefs on the topic, but that's a convoluted subject to get into.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You've answered this question yourself, the claim is that the Orthodox faith is the truest form of Christianity.
So in other words, "We're right because we say so."
That's not a reason.
The Orthodox view is that the Church existed since Christ because in Orthodoxy we claim Apostolic Succession. And again, Orthodoxy would take this with an apocalyptic interpretation, not one of literal places. Of course there are those within the Church itself who do take a literal interpretation of Heaven and Hell, especially in America due to its Deistic/Protestant heritage, but this is not in line with the Church Fathers.
Actually it does matter what people believe before the 5th century. What I am saying is that there wasn't a decided canon until the 5th Century which shows that Scripture is not the basis of the teachings of the Church and wasn't a basis for a church until the Reformation.
Yes, most atheists will agree with this statement, but the very claim of Orthodoxy is the Scriptures were written by the Church, for the Church.
I didn't dismiss pre-5th Century Christianity, but I will agree that there was a diaspora of beliefs before the councils.
Note that I said Western culture. I've come across plenty of people who in are culture either believe this is truly what Christians believe and indeed those from Protestant and Catholic backgrounds who have had this mistaken belief. I would agree that most theologians in West would not believe in the "magical man in the clouds", but I have found either it or something very close to it among most laity I've interacted with from the Western traditions.
How is written by the Church, for the Church, to be interpreted by the Church not in line with Orthodox teaching? You'll find this teaching all across Orthodoxy from the laity to the priests and bishops. For example:
http://www.antiochian.org/interpretation-bible
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/09/28/bible-bible/
These are not mutually exclusive (usually schools of religions that seek authenticity with earlier versions do so out of a belief that the earliest version of a movement is the truest/purest), but they are separate things. So whenever someone claims authenticity of something, we must immediately ask "authentic to WHAT, exactly"?
I mean, Jewish beliefs on the topic are REALLY varied. Consider that Christianity was a cult out of the apocalyptic school of Judaism.
That's the exact opposite of an answer. I asked HOW you can claim that the Eastern Orthodox church is the truest form. Saying, "because it is" answers nothing.
Except that's not what you claim. You said the Scriptures only hold validity if the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 5th Century decided it did, right? And nothing those communities in the first or second or whatever centuries before this determination of canon represents truth unless the Eastern Orthodox Church declared it does, right?
So clearly, those movements were not the Eastern Orthodox Church. How could they be? If they were, then how is it valid to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church then judges those movements to determine whether they were true or false, when those movements supposedly WERE the Eastern Orthodox Church?
You are simultaneously arguing that these movements were and were not the Eastern Orthodox Church, which makes no sense.
[qupte]because in Orthodoxy we claim Apostolic Succession.[/quote]So do the Catholics. As I understand it, so do the other churches with the word "Orthodox" in their name. So what do you have over them?
Moreover, you accept the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John as canon, correct? Jesus describes hell as a literal place in the Gospels.
So this claim that "we" believe something is not as united as you would have us believe.
For example?
So, again, what gives the Church this divine validity you so claim? If an Eastern Orthodox Church canon didn't even exist until the 5th century, why should we care what it says, much less regard it as authentic?
You claim that the Eastern Orthodox faith is the truest form of Christianity. Why? What makes it the truest form? And why is it more true than any other form of Christianity that predated it?
How can that be? The Eastern Orthodox Church didn't exist when the Scriptures were written. They predate them by anywhere from centuries to millennia.
Moreover, you argued that the only reason that the Scriptures have any validity is that the Church proclaimed they did. But how does that make any sense if you're now arguing it was the Church that wrote them? If the Church itself wrote them, then wouldn't the Church's authenticity be dependent upon the Scriptures, and not the other way around?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You asked what I meant by authentic.
Before the 5th Century there were a variety of texts read throughout the Church, some that ended up in the New Testament and plenty that didn't. When the canon was finally compiled for the Church it was an affirmation of what was Holy Scripture and what was to be read within the Church. These texts were already read within the Church beforehand, but there was not an official canon until the 5th Century. The Orthodox Church is recognized as a specific strand of Church history, the same strand that Roman Catholicism claims as at the time the Pope of Rome was in Communion with the Orthodox Church.
For the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism held the Orthodox faith and was part of the Orthodox Church before the East-West Schism. Afterwards it lost its validity of Apostolic Succession because the Pope was excommunicated for heretical teachings. As for the other Orthodox Churches, while we are not in Communion with them, most Orthodox Christians agree that our differences are only in semantics and there are efforts to restore the various Orthodox Churches to Communion.
That is a point of disagreement between us that I don't think we'll be able to find a common understanding on. Christ was using symbolic language and parables when he described Hell as a physical place. We use Christ's teaching of "And this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" as our understanding of what Hell is.
Yes, not everyone agrees with the traditional teaching of the Church, especially those influenced by outside influences, but it is the traditional teaching of the Church.
St. Athanasius, St. Isaac of Syria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom to name a few of the Early Fathers. There are more and more as the Church Fathers in Orthodoxy who distinctly describe condemnation as a state of existence rather than a physical place. And if you want to speak of Paradise, the entire teaching of Theosis in Orthodoxy reveals this tradition including St. Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Athanasius, St. Macarius, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Gregory Palamas...I could go on and on.
I answer this previously in this post, but just to clarify. The Scriptures were not canonized until the 5th Century (by any small o Orthodox Church). There wasn't seen to be a need to have an official canon because there were Scriptures that most communities agreed were inspired. However, when Marcion of Sinope who was considered a heretic by the Church created his own canon, those in the Church began to more readily divide what was considered Holy Scripture and what were texts that promoted heresy. The Orthodox tradition existed before any canon was compiled.
Again, we claim Apostolic Succession, so obviously we claim that the traditionally held writers of the New Testament were members of the Church, the Apostles being the first bishops of the Church. The Church of course was not at the form it is today because of the whole history of the development of Christianity.
No, because the Church is the authority, not the Scriptures. The Church does not derive its true belief from the Bible, rather the true meaning of the Bible is revealed within the Orthodox Church.
And, do the technical questions about the legitimacy of the excommunication (Leo being dead and all) matter? If the Pope wasn't actually excommunicated, was the Catholic line of succession actually broken?
Yet Western culture has a lasting effect on those who live in the West, myself included, because it is something indoctrinated in us at birth if we grew up in said culture. It thus has effects on how people view topics such as philosophy, religion, politics, etc. in the West.
That ultimately depends on which theological claims you feel are more valid. In Orthodoxy, the rejection of the teachings of the Pope were rooted in changes made in doctrine, the mostly noted changes in history books on the subject are the Filloque and Papal Authority. From an Orthodox perspective, there were no basis for adding the Filloque to Orthodox doctrine and in fact makes the Holy Spirit subservient in the Trinity rather than an equal in the Trinity because traits of the persons with the Trinity are either shared by all three or only by one. On Papal Authority, the understanding of the East had always been that the Pope was regarded as the first among equals while the Pope began to claim supremacy over the whole Church. From my reading of history, I found the Filloque and other doctrinal differences to be quite contradictory to the teachings of the Church prior to this conflict as well as finding Papal Supremacy having no ground to stand on in the history of the Church. Thus, I came to the belief that the Orthodox Church had the right to claiming Apostolic Succession.
Another thing to note about Apostolic Succession is that it is not just the lineage of the Apostles that is important, but also the maintaining of Apostolic theology which is the very basis of Apostolic Succession, the idea that the teachings and traditions are being maintained from one generation to the next. So simply because a church can claim Apostolic Succession because of ordination is not enough, they must also maintain the teachings and traditions of the Church.
As for this question, not necessarily because death traditionally in Christianity hasn't been a factor in the understanding of a person's excommunication since death is seen as a way of passage to afterlife rather say a more secular perspective of eternal oblivion.
If it just comes down to who you believe on the theological controversies, what's the value of apostolic succession? It can't be that apostolic succession tells you how to properly interpret scripture, and your interpretation of scripture tells you who has true apostolic succession.
Who gets to judge whether or not a church is properly maintaining that tradition?
The problem isn't that Leo was dead when he was excommunicated (Leo wasn't excommunicated). It was the Leo was dead when his legates excommunicated the eastern patriarch. Because the Pope was dead, his legates didn't have the authority to excommunicate the patriarch, and the patriarch's excommunication of the legates doesn't seem to have any impact on the next Pope's standing.
And beyond arrogance, what you're talking about is just plain bad scholarly practice. You always, always put the primary source first. Historians interested in, say, George Washington base what they believe on very close readings of his papers and contemporary accounts of his life, which they cite as justification of their claims. They do not look to the organization Washington helped found - to wit, the United States federal government - as any sort of arbiter of truth.
You see, when claims are justified by close criticism of primary sources, then you can examine the reasoning and notice if there is any mistake or dishonesty. We can know that Washington didn't actually chop down the cherry tree, because we can trace that anecdote to Parson Weems. But when a claim is allegedly revealed truth - well, how do you know if it is or not? There's no critical thinking to be done, and a false revelation sounds no different than a true one. Do you think the people who think Catholicism is the revealed authority and Orthodoxy the heresy are just stupider than those who think the reverse? And what about everybody who thinks that both of them are bunk? These are all people of the same average intellectual capabilities who have come to completely different conclusions because there's no real reason to trust one conclusion over another. What's worse, for an organization like the Orthodox or Catholic Church with a history of nearly two millennia, any mistake or dishonesty that creeps into their doctrine is inevitably going to compound, like interest, over the generations. They're playing a long, long game of telephone where whatever message comes out at the end of the line is dogmatically believed to be truer than what went in at the beginning. In short, the authoritarian structure of the Church is, far from an assurance of unified truth, rather a guarantee of error and schism. One would think that an omnipotent and omniscient God could arrange something better.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, you're missing the point.
You're saying that the only value these Scriptures have is in the Eastern Orthodox Church saying that they have value, right? Otherwise, no value?
But how does that make sense? The whole point of determining a canon was the Church at the time was trying to find the texts that reflected what they believed in, right?
So, obviously, the church didn't just pop out of thin air. It's not as though God caused the Church and all of its followers to come down from On High, or sprouted out of the ground. They were people who were Christians, and specifically were part of a tradition of Christianity that came from people before them passing down their traditions, and people before them passing down their traditions, and so on and so forth, right?
Ok, so recognize that these people in the 5th Century didn't emerge from thin air, but were people who were part of a then-500-years-old tradition of Christianity, and that these people were separating the texts that reflected their beliefs vs. the texts that didn't. How can you argue that the people in the 5th Century are the sole determinants of what is or is not worth, to the point where the values of any previous generation's beliefs are solely dependent on them?
Especially since the 5th Century Christians were 5th Century Christians because Christians from previous centuries passed on their beliefs to them?
And with this in mind — yet again — how are the 5th Century Christians the most authentic? To say nothing of the modern day Orthodox Christians?
So? At one point, two Popes excommunicated each other.
We get it. You think the Pope is wrong because he's not Eastern Orthodox. But why should we accept that? The Catholics would argue you're wrong for being Eastern Orthodox. Many Christian churches who aren't Eastern Orthodox would agree with them in that regard.
So why should we accept your opinion over theirs?
And I am sure they don't view themselves as needing any restoring and think you are the ones who went astray. Or just don't care.
Either way, why is your opinion superior? Again, don't just say, "It is because we say it is." Give a reason. Any reason at all.
I know you are arguing that he's using a metaphor, but why should we accept that? Why can't Christ be describing a literal place? People believed in a literal afterlife where souls go to a literal place. Paul even outright describes an afterlife in which people have bodies. By what measure do you deem your interpretation superior?
According to? Paul certainly doesn't teach that the afterlife isn't a physical place. He goes into detail about how the afterlife involves us having bodies.
But that wasn't the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was the so-called "Orthodox" Christian movement, but not the Eastern Orthodox Church. Again, the Catholics have just as much claim as you do to that ancestry because they too were descended from the same lineage. That's how a schism works.
But that's not the real problem. The real issue is that you're claiming that the ancestry matters, but then saying that none of what any early Christ follower thought, did, or said matters unless it fits with your doctrine. How can you same that and still claim about how important the ancestry of the Church to the original Christ movement is?
Put another way: you are claiming that the original Christ movement's authority is dependent upon the Eastern Orthodox Church deeming them having authority, and NOT the other way around (that the Eastern Orthodox Church is given authority by its link to the original Christ movement). If this is true, then why would any sort of lineage matter?
I can claim to be James Franco. That is a completely false statement, yet I can still claim it. Again, why should we regard your claim as true?
Yeah, and the fact that it split into a bunch of other churches that all regard themselves as the capital-C Church and all disagree with you.
Then you are contradicting yourself. You claim that the source of the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is in its lineage to the original Christ movement, but you are also claiming that the original Christ movement only has authority because the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does.
That makes no sense. So, once again, from whence does this authority come?
Ok, I have asked you repeatedly why you believe your church has authority, and the only answer that you have given thusfar is, "Because they said they do."
In light of this, do you REALLY want to have a discussion about indoctrination?
Because the Orthodox Church maintains the traditions of Apostolic theology and the Tradition of the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it was specific tradition of Christianity passed down from generation to generation. I am claiming that this whole tradition that was 500 years old at that time is the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is the most authentic because it maintained this tradition which is revealed by the Holy Spirit. I didn't say the 5th Century Christians in particular were the most authentic, just simply that this was when the canon was formed.
Actually the Catholic Church doesn't see a serious difference between the Orthodox faith and Roman Catholic faith, similar to how the Orthodox Church doesn't see a serious difference between it and the other Orthodox traditions.
In the most I made before this one, I gave the reasons why I believe the Orthodox Church is correct about the Schism as I've found that indeed the Roman Catholic Church did introduce doctrines that were not in line with the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
Actually, it is a mutual movement of ecumenism between the Orthodox traditions, the reason we are seeking restoration is because the Orthodox faith should be united rather than divided. The other Orthodox faiths agree that the most of differences are semantics.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear on this, but Orthodoxy believes Heaven and Hell are experienced now as well as in the afterlife. There are bodies in the afterlife because we believe in the Resurrection. But the Resurrection takes place here and is a transfiguration of this reality, not the going to a different realm that is Heaven or a different realm that is Hell. Hopefully that makes it more clear.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the same Church as what you call the "Orthodox" Christian movement. It is the Church that had the five ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome.
What I am trying to claim is that what matters is the the Tradition accepted by that ancestry is what matters because the Tradition is the Church.
And I am claiming the original Christ movement is the Orthodox Church, one and the same.
Again the Orthodox Church (the official name of which is the Orthodox Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox is simply a way to identify it in differentiation with other "Orthodox" and "Catholic" Churches, are one and the same with the Apostles as the Apostles were the founders of the Church.
I gave an answer to this in my reply to Tiax, so I'll just quote it and put it here again.
You have claimed that none of the Scriptures or anything else we have in terms of thoughts, words, and actions from the early Christ movement have any validity or authority unless the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does. However, you are also trying to claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church derives its authority from the early Christ movement.
This is contradictory. Either the early Christ movement has authority because the Eastern Orthodox Church says it does, thereby making their authority subordinate to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or vice-versa. It cannot be both.
So when you claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church has authority because it has a link to the Apostles, you are claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is derived from the Apostles, and is therefore subordinate to the Apostles.
But that's a problem for you. Not only does this contradict what you said earlier, but if we can find anything from the early Christ movement that would contradict the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority would therefore be undermined.
And indeed we have precisely that: your claim that heaven and hell are metaphorical places, whereas in Scripture, they are identified as literal places.
More than one, but yes.
Yes, it is the "Orthodox" Christ movement. But that's not the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church would not come about until multiple centuries later.
Then who were the most authentic, and why?
You're kidding right? Your posts in this thread have repeatedly lamented the Western world's misconstrued perceptions of Christianity and God, and now you're saying there's no serious differences between the two?
Yes, there are certainly differences between the Roman Catholic Church in the second millennia AD and Christianity in the previous thousand years. But there are also plenty of differences between the Christ movement in the fifth century and the Christ movement in the first century. A second century Christ follower would have been unrecognizable to a first century Christ follower, as would a fifth century follower to a second century follower, as would a Christian in the year 1000 from a Christian in the fifth century.
This also doesn't take into account the changes made between the Eastern Orthodox Church from the fifth century Christ movement, or the second, or the first.
Nor does it establish that earlier is necessarily better.
This goes completely against Scripture.
Yes, and that Church split. That's how a schism works.
So any one of those movements, including the Catholic Church, can trace their lineage back to the Orthodox Christ movement. Furthermore, any movement that split off from any one of those movements can trace their lineage back to the Orthodox Christ movement.
Again, what makes your claim superior? And furthermore, why does lineage even matter in the first place?
Ok, so now you're saying that tradition matters because it's your Church's tradition. So in other words, tradition's authority is subordinate to the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
But earlier in the post, you argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church has authority because of Apostolic Succession. Which means that the Eastern Orthodox Church's authority is subordinate to tradition.
So which is it? Which one is subordinate to the other? Is the Eastern Orthodox Church subordinate to the authority of the early Christ movement and its traditions that have been passed down, or is it the other way around?
And if the former, which generation of Christ followers has the most authority, the people who were there with Jesus, or the ones who came after? And if the ones who came after, which ones of the 2000-ish years worth of Christ followers have the most authority?
Except they're not the same. By very definition. They are not doctrinally the same, they are not organizationally the same, and they are not physically composed of the same people.
You might say that the Eastern Orthodox Church traces its history back to the original Christ movement. That's fine, but recognize that literally every Christian denomination will do the same thing.
So again, what makes your claim superior? And please give an answer that is not, "Because we said we are."
Except nothing you said in that paragraph brings you to that conclusion.
First of all, so what if the Catholic Church made changes? What if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Second, are you seriously claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church made no changes to its doctrine ever? That they are preaching the exact same thing that that was preached in the first century? Because that's clearly wrong. And since it is clearly wrong, how many changes is a church allowed to make?
To that end, can you demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox Church has made less changes than the Catholic Church did?
Also, doesn't this put a preference on the first century Christ movement? Saying that they were the most genuine Christians and every other Christian's authenticity is measured on them? If this is the case, doesn't that undermine your claims of the authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Also, what about literally every other religious denomination - Christian and non-Christian - ever?
Basically, all you've said amounts to, "The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects Catholicism because Catholicism has things in it that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects." Yes, we get it, you're Eastern Orthodox. But WHY does that make the Catholics wrong? What is wrong about it?
As far as I can tell, I don't think anyone else in this thread is Orthodox - correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who is - and the majority of the people in this discussion are not Christian. As such, we do not come into this discussion assuming as a given that the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct. In fact, NO ONE should come into a discussion assuming as a given that the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct, because that's how logic works: no one should assume that ANYTHING is correct without reasons for thinking it is.
That said, you need to actually give us reasons WHY we should regard the Eastern Orthodox Church is credible, because all you're doing is just saying, "This is correct because I say it's correct," which has no justification and is therefore freely dismissable.