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.
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.
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.
Hi, I'm a new player looking to get into standard and I'm very drawn to Green's flavor. I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for what I should try to buy both in starting a collection and cards for build for Green in specific. Thank you.
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:
I do not believe there is an objective moral code. There is an evolution of ideas definitely, but those grow within the contexts of cultures, not as a human race as a whole. Though with the advent of globalization, cultures begin to fade more and more creating more of a global culture. But even if there comes a point when humanity as a whole accepts a global morality, it is still the result of an intersubjective agreement rather than some natural law outside of reality.
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.
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.
I've decided to try to get into MTG since I desperately need a hobby, haha. I've played a few times before and have played plenty of other card games before. So just trying to get into the game, so if anyone has any recommendations for someone starting out who doesn't have any cards at this moment, that would be really cool.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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
I've decided to try to get into MTG since I desperately need a hobby, haha. I've played a few times before and have played plenty of other card games before. So just trying to get into the game, so if anyone has any recommendations for someone starting out who doesn't have any cards at this moment, that would be really cool.