Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell

[Crashland]

I understand what you're saying, but I only partially agree. Yes, it is a significant experience even if it's for atheism or another religion.... and in a sense, that person is starting their new life.

BUT, truth is truth. Not all paths lead to life.

Try forgetting religion for a moment, and think of it this way....

If a branch is cut off from the tree, it dies, right? It is cut off from the source.

In the same way, our source as human beings is God. The source of all life is God, the Creator, sustainer and ruler of the universe.

So if you choose to cut yourself off from the source of life, you are basically like that cut off branch, that will eventually die.

That's not what God wants for anyone. (contrary to what some Calvinists here might say) He said to choose life.

Correct. Not everything is true. My point though is that a belief does not have to be true in order for it to be life-changing in a way that the person perceives as good.

[lilymc]

Correct. Not everything is true. My point though is that a belief does not have to be true in order for it to be life-changing in a way that the person perceives as good.

Yes, that's where we agree.

We just disagree on what the ultimate truth is.

[Ronin Truth]

As the copy-paster, it is your responsibility to make the thread cohere or "hang together" as many prose writers call it. Not too many people are going to read 100+ posts to figure out your cryptic meaning. Clarity, dear editor, will make or break your anthology-and your lack of clarity is currently breaking your anthology.

That's an interesting point of view. Thread posting is more of a committee endeavor. My anarchic and chaotic spirit just prefers to let threads meander and end up where they will. (With a very few exceptions, that are really outisde of my control anyway.) Since they really will do as they please, whether I like it or not. I just think it's really fun to watch the process and how it all turns out.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. < shrug >


"I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is ... try to please everybody." -- Sammy Davis Jr,

[Ronin Truth]

I fully agree with you on that. In fact, that was one of the reasons why I was a nonbeliever for most of my life. Because as a kid, I only saw the cultural/nominal version of "religion." I saw people go to church, then the rest of the week act just like anyone else.

Because I didn't see any truth attached to it, I assumed it was all just a cultural thing. Thankfully, I finally DID (many years later) have an awakening, so to speak, that changed my life. God opened my eyes, and in a moment, I began to believe, even though I wasn't even looking for God.

I still have an intense dislike for "religion", but I love Jesus. And if you're an atheist I'm sure you will scoff at this, but I truly believe that life does not begin until we come to God and make the decision to trust and follow Jesus.

That's why I have 2 birthdays. The day I was physically born, and the day I was born again. (July 9, 2000)

Congrats for your epiphany. I'm happy for you. I've had a couple myself. I'm not an atheist because I realized that I'm just not smart enough or know enough to be a good one, so I just chose to abandon that effort. Laziness and other interests may have also been influencing factors.

Under other circumstances do you think you might also have had a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. awakening?

[robert68]

...

List of people burned as heretics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_as_heretics

Good link, and not surprisingly there wasn’t a truthful response from RPF’s Byzantinist evangelist. The first of the 3 listed was in fact done by a Byzantine Emperor (Alexios I Komnenos), after being condemned as a heretic by Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople. Furthermore, Emperors, Princes, and Czars are typically members of the ‘Orthodox Church’ and "coronated into power by it in a Cathedral" (and considered “God’s representative on this earth”). The 2 Czars cited in the list were also both members of the ‘Orthodox Church’. Consequently, the ‘Orthodox Church’ is culpable for all the burnings.

One also finds burnings of heretics strongly advocated by the later canonized Archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov and church councils he called on, and ordered by the Orthodox imperialist Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III. There are likely more burnings, but Byzantinists aren’t going to be the ones telling you about it. And that’s not counting all the deaths caused in the building of the vast “Christian” Russian Empire.

Persecution

The struggle against the adherents was led by hegumen Joseph Volotsky and his followers (иосифляне, iosiflyane or Josephinians) and Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod.[4] After uncovering adherents in Novgorod around 1487,[5] Gennady wrote a series of letters to other churchmen over several years calling on them to convene sobors ("church councils") with the aim "not to debate them, but to burn them." Such councils were held in 1488, 1490, 1494 and 1504. The councils outlawed religious and non-religious books and initiated their burning, sentenced a number of people to death, sent adherents into exile, and excommunicated them. In 1491, Skhariya the Jew was executed in Novgorod by the order of Ivan III. More adherents were executed with Gennady's approval, including archimandrite Kassian of the Iuriev Monastery (who had allowed a number of adherents to hide there), Nekras Rukavov (they first tore out his tongue and then burnt him at the stake), a Pskovian monk Zakhar and others.[6]

[heavenlyboy34]

That's an interesting point of view. Thread posting is more of a committee endeavor. My anarchic and chaotic spirit just prefers to let threads meander and end up where they will. (With a very few exceptions, that are really outisde of my control anyway.) Since they really will do as they please, whether I like it or not. I just think it's really fun to watch the process and how it all turns out.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. < shrug >


"I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is ... try to please everybody." -- Sammy Davis Jr,

Fair enough. There is technically no "right" or "wrong" in prose writing. However, there is "effective" and "ineffective" in communication. There's a pretty large gradient of these, but, like in every art (Sammy would agree), those who wish to communicate have to find a way to do so effectively. Well, unless your goal is pointless waxing and rambling ala fire11 and some avant garde writing.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good link, and not surprisingly there wasn’t a truthful response from RPF’s Byzantinist evangelist. The first of the 3 listed was in fact done by a Byzantine Emperor (Alexios I Komnenos), after being condemned as a heretic by Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople. Furthermore, Emperors, Princes, and Czars are typically members of the ‘Orthodox Church’ and coronated into power by it in a Cathedral (and considered “God’s representative on this earth”). The 2 Czars cited in the list were also both members of the ‘Orthodox Church’. Consequently, the ‘Orthodox Church’ is culpable for all the burnings.

One also finds burnings of heretics strongly advocated by the later canonized Archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov and church councils he called on, and ordered by the Orthodox imperialist Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III. There are likely more burnings, but Byzantinists aren’t going to be the ones telling you about it. And that’s not counting all the deaths caused in the building of the vast “Christian” Russian Empire.

Non-sequitur. By this reasoning, every POTUS' church is responsible for their attrocities.

ETA: plz let the Presbyterian Church know that they're responsible for Eisenhower's mass murdering spree in Japan and Europe. I'm sure they'll be surprised.

[robert68]

Non-sequitur. By this reasoning, every POTUS' church is responsible for their attrocities.

ETA: plz let the Presbyterian Church know that they're responsible for Eisenhower's mass murdering spree in Japan and Europe. I'm sure they'll be surprised.

You’re blatantly ignoring the facts I cited, the church-state marriage that existed, the fact that Nicene Christianity had been formally the only legal religion since the 4th century, and that heresy had always been harshly punishable. This is elementary stuff, and you’re comparison in nonsense. Furthermore, those emperors and Czars, not surprisingly, were not excommunicated from the Byzantinist Church for what they did.

Also, btw, Emperor Theodosius I, who formally made Nicene Christianity the only legal religion in the Roman Empire, is a “Saint” in the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’.

[Ronin Truth]

Good link, and not surprisingly there wasn’t a truthful response from RPF’s Byzantinist evangelist. The first of the 3 listed was in fact done by a Byzantine Emperor (Alexios I Komnenos), after being condemned as a heretic by Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople. Furthermore, Emperors, Princes, and Czars are typically members of the ‘Orthodox Church’ and coronated into power by it in a Cathedral (and considered “God’s representative on this earth”). The 2 Czars cited in the list were also both members of the ‘Orthodox Church’. Consequently, the ‘Orthodox Church’ is culpable for all the burnings.

One also finds burnings of heretics strongly advocated by the later canonized Archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov and church councils he called on, and ordered by the Orthodox imperialist Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III. There are likely more burnings, but Byzantinists aren’t going to be the ones telling you about it. And that’s not counting all the deaths caused in the building of the vast “Christian” Russian Empire.

Thanks for the info. It's very interesting. And to continue the "Christian" historic galleries of horrors. I've read that there were tens of thousands of murdered "witches" over the centuries, so the following list is obviously incomplete.

List of people executed for witchcraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...for_witchcraft

WWJD?

[otherone]

Also, btw, Emperor Theodosius I, who formally made Nicene Christianity the only legal religion in the Roman Empire, is a “Saint” in the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’.

We don't hold corporations responsible for the bad acts of their CEOs. That the customers don't mind is the problem...the flock's judgement is more important than God's; can't let the coffers go empty.

[Ronin Truth]

Fair enough. There is technically no "right" or "wrong" in prose writing. However, there is "effective" and "ineffective" in communication. There's a pretty large gradient of these, but, like in every art (Sammy would agree), those who wish to communicate have to find a way to do so effectively. Well, unless your goal is pointless waxing and rambling ala fire11 and some avant garde writing.

Does the phrase "attempting to herd cats", ring any bells or have any meaning for you?

[heavenlyboy34]

You’re blatantly ignoring the facts I cited, the church-state marriage that existed, the fact that Nicene Christianity had been formally the only legal religion since the 4th century, and that heresy had always been harshly punishable. This is elementary stuff, and you’re comparison in nonsense. Furthermore, those emperors and Czars, not surprisingly, were not excommunicated from the Byzantinist Church for what they did.

Also, btw, Emperor Theodosius I, who formally made Nicene Christianity the only legal religion in the Roman Empire, is a “Saint” in the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’.

Actually, I didn't ignore it. It's a non-sequitur. ETA: why the scare quotes around "saint" and "Eastern Orthodox Church"?

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for the info. It's very interesting. And to continue the "Christian" historic galleries of horrors. I've read that there were tens of thousands of murdered "witches" over the centuries, so the following list is obviously incomplete.

List of people executed for witchcraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...for_witchcraft

WWJD?

I only see one RC cited there, and 0 Orthodox. If the point is that Protestants can be quite irrational, you're right.

[TER]

Good link, and not surprisingly there wasn’t a truthful response from RPF’s Byzantinist evangelist. The first of the 3 listed was in fact done by a Byzantine Emperor (Alexios I Komnenos), after being condemned as a heretic by Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople. Furthermore, Emperors, Princes, and Czars are typically members of the ‘Orthodox Church’ and coronated into power by it in a Cathedral (and considered “God’s representative on this earth”). The 2 Czars cited in the list were also both members of the ‘Orthodox Church’. Consequently, the ‘Orthodox Church’ is culpable for all the burnings.

One also finds burnings of heretics strongly advocated by the later canonized Archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov and church councils he called on, and ordered by the Orthodox imperialist Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan III. There are likely more burnings, but Byzantinists aren’t going to be the ones telling you about it. And that’s not counting all the deaths caused in the building of the vast “Christian” Russian Empire.

The Emperors do not dictate the doctrine of the Church. They issue decrees of the Empire. The Emperor's role is to run the State and the Church's role is to create citizens of Heaven. That there was an eventual 'marriage' of the two was inevitable given the rise and influence of Christ's teachings within the political landscape of the day. It was also the will and consent of the majority of the people during the Byzantine Empire, which is why this Christian Empire survived for 10 centuries (5x longer than the history of our own nation).

A 'marriage' of the Church and the State is actually a poor term to how the relationship was viewed by those Christians who lived in the Byzantine Empire. Such a marriage would better describe the Papal States. Rather, for the East, it was more of a working relationship. But even in this relationship, there was indeed a separation between the Church and State in matters of policy and administration. Of course, not to the great extant as this separation would be under the future novel and revolutionary libertarian ideals of the later centuries. But for it's time, it was pretty damn separated (as separated as it could be).

We must remember, with regards to the leaders of the State, just because these Emperors were baptized Orthodox Christians and coronated by the Church did not mean they were not fallible humans and not sinners. They made decisions which we centuries later and epochs removed sit and harshly judge. But we cannot really know the circumstances, choices, options, and line of thinking they had in their day and their position of power. This is not a defense of the evil which rulers have done, this is simply an acknowledgment that Monday morning quarterbacks often times are wrong even though they can be a force for good change in future scenarios.

One thing the Emperors certainly did not do was invent new doctrines of the Church, although they did call Councils to be held so that the true faith could be proclaimed amongst the heresies which were sprouting up and creating tension within the Empire. But the proclamations of the faith was done by the Bishops who represented their respective flocks.

The Emperors ran the State in which the members of the Church lived in, but they did not run the Church. Of course, there have been evil rulers who have attempted and in some degrees succeeded in overpowering the local Church leaders to be pawns for them. These are unfortunate instances and eras in the Church's long history, and these are sad exceptions and not the rule.

Yet even still, because of the ecclesiology of the Church, because of its decentralized structure spread across patriarchates and metropolitans, with Christ (and not the Emperor!) as Head, when one part of the Church was being threatened into heresy or sedition, the remaining faithful would become the guardians and defenders of the faith. So a rogue bishop under the evil influence of some king may be causing harm to the faithful in that particular kingdom, but the witness of the remaining Church spread far and wide, both clergy and laity, would uphold the truth. And we see this play out in the history of the Church, for example when the patriarch of Antioch or Constantinople was falling into heresy, then the patriarch of Alexandria or Jerusalem would speak up to defend the apostolic faith. This is part of the dynamic of having a living organism that is the Church and her contention in the world down the ages.

Sometimes the influence of the Emperors and their dictates were to the advantage and benefit of the faithful (St. Theodoros) and sometimes severely against the faithful (Julian the Apostate). But we must not confuse the sins of particular state rulers and hold it against Christ and the greater Church.

Yet even with all that being said, and through 2000 years of human history, the instances of Church policy-driven pogroms have been extremely rare, indeed, the exceptions and not the rule. So to try and weigh these rare instances perpetrated by certain fallible individuals against the innumerable works of charity from the Church as a whole is both unfair and dishonest.

The point in my previous post in this thread was that it was never the general policy of the Church such pogrom or persecutions occur, for while a bishop in Novgorod may have been calling for it, the greater and wider Church spread throughout the world would not have agreed, or at least not directly interfered having incomplete knowledge of the threats and circumstances involved. This was especially true in the Orthodox Church which has no Pope or central head apart from Christ but rather works in synod. One bad apple may ruin the bunch, but with the Church which is a divine-human organism guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, there has always and always will remain enough apples to deliver and pass down the apostolic faith and teachings of Christ, regardless of who is sitting on an earthly throne or what edicts and decisions they make either for or against the Church. This was and still remains the experience of the Church in the world.

[robert68]

We don't hold corporations responsible for the bad acts of their CEOs. That the customers don't mind is the problem...the flock's judgement is more important than God's; can't let the coffers go empty.

I’m not sure what is acceptable these days in the US, if that’s what you mean by “we”. But the concept of “causal linkage” in law goes way back and is fundamental to protecting individual rights. Without it, even heads of state aren't responsible for what they do.
"Causation and Aggression"
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_7.pdf

Furthermore, the comparison is invalid. “Orthodox Christians’ define themselves by ‘The Church' and it’s past, and it’s considered infallible ("guided by the ‘Holy Spirit"). You don't hear hierarchs in the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’ or from its members that ‘the Church’ was wrong "here" or "there". It doesn’t work that way. For example, they have no debate over issues like abortion rights or ordination of women among the laity like they do among the laity of the Catholic Church. Also, RPF’s Byzantinist evangelist is always lauding ‘the Saints”. They don't cherry pick and say “the Church was wrong to make this guy a ‘Saint’, but "right to make this guy a Saint"; it doesn't work that way with their 'Church' and they know it.

[Ronin Truth]

I only see one RC cited there, and 0 Orthodox. If the point is that Protestants can be quite irrational, you're right.

As long as "Christianity" remains more like the Roman Empire and less like Jesus of Nazareth, I figure that all of the branches and splinters are equally open to criticism and verbal abuse, and ridicule.

I'm betting, my soul I guess, that Jesus will not ask me why I wasn't a better Christian, but is much more likely to ask me why I didn't follow his instructions better.

[TER]

“Orthodox Christians’ define themselves by ‘The Church' and it’s past, and it’s considered infallible ("guided by the ‘Holy Spirit"). You don't hear hierarchs in the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’ or from its members that ‘the Church’ was wrong "here" or "there". It doesn’t work that way. For example, they have no debate over issues like abortion rights or ordination of women among the laity like they do among the laity of the Catholic Church. Also, RPF’s Byzantinist evangelist is always lauding ‘the Saints”. They don't cherry pick and say “the Church was wrong to make this guy a ‘Saint’, but "right to make this guy a Saint"; it doesn't work that way with their 'Church' and they know it.

The Church when guided and infused with the Holy Spirit is infallible. The members of the Church and their actions, however, are of course fallible.

For example, St. Paul reprimanded St. Peter with regards to circumcision. St. Paul told St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, that he was wrong. The solution to this was to convene a council, and through prayer and deliberation and guided by the Holy Spirit they established and proclaimed what was good to them (that is, to their conscience, understanding and knowledge of the teachings Christ taught) 'and the Holy Spirit'. These decisions were made in accordance to the faith handed down to them and these councils took this deposit of faith and applied it pastorally to resolve whatever issue had arisen which threatened the unity and community of the body of baptized believers (in the case above, with regards to circumcision and how it was threatening alienation and schism within the Church).

There is a structure of concilliar synod to the Church, and this was the way Christ taught His Apostles to establish the Church. Christ did not leave them unaided or unprepared when He ascended, but gave them instructions and sent the Paraklete to guide them in all things. Thus, where there are two or three, there He is amongst them in the Holy Spirit. Even the Ecumenical Councils, which Orthodox Christians proclaim to be the infallible source of doctrine and teachings of the Church, are not considered so until the next Council (how ever many centuries later) confirm them to be. It is the Church as a whole, the laity and the clergy spanned across distance and time, which confirms the truths in the living experience of the Church contending within the world as having endured the test of time and the test of contention which demonstrate the truth of the Council before it. That is why the first thing done in a new Ecumenical Council is affirm the teachings and proclamations of the one before it if they indeed proved to be true.

The saints, who are fallible humans are lauded not because of their sins or their errors in judgement, but by the grace of God working within them in their lives of virtue, prayer, and almsgiving. The specific allegations and sinful acts of a few do not spoil the witness and lives of the very many, and neither do they disqualify the very sinner who has caused such sins from being saved and even becoming a saint. St. Moses the Ethiopian was a murderous leader of a gang of thieves before he repented and became a monk and lived his life in holiness, humility, and prayerful dedication to God and his fellow man. Every saint has sinned, just as every saint has repented. Had they not repented, then they could scarcely be called a saint, even if mistakenly considered so by others.

It is the people, that is both the clergy and even more importantly the laity, who push for the recognition of sainthood of those whom they have looked upon as God-breathed models to live by. Can these people be wrong? Can there be ones regarded as saints by many and yet in the Kingdom they will be absent? Yes, of course this is possible. No one is claiming infallibility in a local Church's recognition of saints. In other words, who the Russian Church has officially recognized to be a saint does not necessarily translate to that person being recognized as such within another jurisdiction. The Church in Russia may commemorate the Archbishop of Novgorod, but the Church in Greece or in Egypt might not, nor are they required to. What keeps the sacramental unity of the Church does not rely on a particular saint, it relies on the unity of confession and belief regarding Christ and the fundamental doctrines of the faith, as well as our shared commitment to live in Christ and in communion with one another in unity of faith and body.

As for debates with regards to abortion and the ordination of women, there are things which are unchangeable with regards to the apostolic teachings and examples of the saints. Abortion has always, from the beginning, been considered a great sin and prohibited amongst the faithful. There is no reason for a debate. If someone disagrees, they are free to leave the Church. And if they have performed this sin and have truly repented, than the Church is there again for them to enjoin. As for women ordination, this too applies in that there is no debate for women priests and those who disagree are free to leave the Church and start their own. Orthodox Christians do not conform the Church according to the spirit and the popular thoughts or movements of the day which run contrary to the delivered faith. Rather, to remain a member in sacramental communion, the Christian must conform themselves to the Church. Just as St. Peter, one of the greatest saints of all time, conformed to the Church when he was corrected in his own error. This is an important reason why and how the apostolic truths have endured down the ages and been preserved.

[otherone]

Furthermore, the comparison is invalid. “Orthodox Christians’ define themselves by ‘The Church' and it’s past, and it’s considered infallible ("guided by the ‘Holy Spirit"). You don't hear hierarchs in the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’ or from its members that ‘the Church’ was wrong "here" or "there". It doesn’t work that way.

That was precisely my point.

[heavenlyboy34]

As long as "Christianity" remains more like the Roman Empire and less like Jesus of Nazareth, I figure that all of the branches and splinters are equally open to criticism and verbal abuse, and ridicule.

I'm betting, my soul I guess, that Jesus will not ask me why I wasn't a better Christian, but is much more likely to ask me why I didn't follow his instructions better.

The Orthodox Church is not a branch or splinter. It is the tree planted by Christ through his apostles.

[robert68]

...

A supplement:

Basil the Physician (died 1118) was the Bogomil leader condemned as a heretic by Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople and burned at the stake by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus.
...
Basil was convicted and condemned as a heretic before the patriarchal tribunal of Nicholas the Grammarian. Refusing to renounce his opinions, Basil was ordered to be burnt at the stake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Physician

----

From "Causation and Aggression"

One is a cause-in-fact of a result if “but for” the person’s actions, the result would not have occurred.”
...
Also: "Every action which is a condition for an outcome is, with respect to the intentional crime, a cause of this outcome in the sense of the criminal law. . .

------
Reinach, Adolf. 2000. “On The Concept of Causality in the Current Criminal Law.” Trans.
Berit Brogaard. Jonathan Sandford, ed. (1998) and Ed Rackley (2000); unpublished
draft translation; available at www.stephankinsella.com/texts
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_7.pdf

Similar causation was in the others burning as well. But with some, what's good for the goose (the Roman Catholics for example) just isn't good for the gander.

[TER]

That was precisely my point.

There are relatively very few things which are considered fundamental doctrine in the Orthodox Church, and these are those doctrines expressed in Ecumencial Councils. The list is quite short, and is mostly Christological and soteriological, pertaining to Who Christ is and how He saves us. With these fundamental doctrines, there are no arguments between the various jurisdictions and churches. Because so few doctrines have been professed by the Ecumenical Councils, there exists a lot of theological opinions on other (more minor) aspects of the faith. So what you do hear is theologians who argue about other theological points which have not been clearly expressed in Council. The list of these disagreements is quite long. So this charge that heirarchs do not criticize other heirarchs is a fantasy. They always have and they always will when one perceives the other to be in the wrong, just as St. Paul perceived St. Peter and set out to correct him. But what will not be tolerated are opinions which go against those few doctrinal beliefs which have been proclaimed by the Church in Ecumencial Council. When that happens, then there is loss of communion which eventually leads to schism. And such schisms unfortunately happen even today.

It is therefore untrue to say that there are not disagreements within the Church, for there are, and in time and by the grace of God the truth prevails and becomes the cry of the Church. But with regards to the few fundamental doctrines agreed upon and accepted by the Church in council, there can be no disagreement, otherwise they cannot be called one Church, and those who persist to teach against what the fathers have handed down in Ecumenical Council are already then apart and outside of the Church, even if they had not yet been officially excommunicated.

[robert68]

That was precisely my point.

I misunderstood then. Cheers.:-)

[robert68]

Ronald Reagan wasn’t a libertarian, but before he became President he had some good libertarianish lines for conservatives in speeches. Here’s a memorable one that's relevant to the long historic church/state marriage that existed, both east and west:

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

[TER]

A supplement:

What you failed to mention in digging for another example to denigrate and attack the Church is that Basil (a follower of gnostic dualism) was condemned a heretic but the punishment was meted out by the Emperor for sedition. It was not the Patriarch that determined the sentence. And even with this sentence handed down of the Bogomol leader by the Emperor, the execution did not happen until 8 years later because "every attempt was made to convince Basil of his wrong opinion by the Emperor". You forgot to mention these things from the article which I think is important to point out, specifically that it was the Emperor as leader of the State and not the Church which condemned Basil to death even though the Patriarch excommunicated him (which is the most a Patriarchate can do to disciple a baptized person).

[robert68]

What you failed to mention in digging for another example to denigrate and attack the Church is that Basil (a follower of gnostic dualism) was condemned a heretic but the punishment was meted out by the Emperor for sedition. It was not the Patriarch that determined the sentence. And even with this sentence handed down of the Bogomol leader by the Emperor, the execution did not happen until 8 years later because "every attempt was made to convince Basil of his wrong opinion by the Emperor". You forgot to mention these things from the article which I think is important to point out, specifically that it was the Emperor as leader of the State and not the Church which condemned Basil to death even though the Patriarch excommunicated him (which is the most a Patriarchate can do to disciple a baptized person).

There was causal linkage between what the Patriarch and his tribunal did and the burning of Basil. That was the point of the post, but not surprisingly, you don't care about that. There's also in law things like "a reckless disregard for human life". Furthermore, 8 years in prison for heresy is a grave injustice in itself.

The emperor had been excommunicated by a Pope, and it was lifted long before the burning of Basil.

Alexius began his rule by driving away the Normans who tried to invade Anatolia and Macedonia[5]. In retaliation Alexius banned the Latin churches of Constantinople from offering unleavened bread for the Eucharist at mass.[6] This led to Alexius being excommunicated from the Church but in 1089, Pope Urban II lifted the excommunication.

https://hist2615.wikispaces.com/Empe...s+of+Byzantium

[Ronin Truth]

The Orthodox Church is not a branch or splinter. It is the tree planted by Christ through his apostles.

Would you care to give me that last sentence again, please, and hold the metaphors? A supporting biblical reference might help out too. Thanks!

[Ronin Truth]

There are relatively very few things which are considered fundamental doctrine in the Orthodox Church, and these are those doctrines expressed in Ecumencial Councils. The list is quite short, and is mostly Christological and soteriological, pertaining to Who Christ is and how He saves us. With these fundamental doctrines, there are no arguments between the various jurisdictions and churches. Because so few doctrines have been professed by the Ecumenical Councils, there exists a lot of theological opinions on other (more minor) aspects of the faith. So what you do hear is theologians who argue about other theological points which have not been clearly expressed in Council. The list of these disagreements is quite long. So this charge that heirarchs do not criticize other heirarchs is a fantasy. They always have and they always will when one perceives the other to be in the wrong, just as St. Paul perceived St. Peter and set out to correct him. But what will not be tolerated are opinions which go against those few doctrinal beliefs which have been proclaimed by the Church in Ecumencial Council. When that happens, then there is loss of communion which eventually leads to schism. And such schisms unfortunately happen even today.

It is therefore untrue to say that there are not disagreements within the Church, for there are, and in time and by the grace of God the truth prevails and becomes the cry of the Church. But with regards to the few fundamental doctrines agreed upon and accepted by the Church in council, there can be no disagreement, otherwise they cannot be called one Church, and those who persist to teach against what the fathers have handed down in Ecumenical Council are already then apart and outside of the Church, even if they had not yet been officially excommunicated.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

More, often just results in opening additional cans of worms and causing more trouble.

K.I.S.S.!

[Christian Liberty]

I only see one RC cited there, and 0 Orthodox. If the point is that Protestants can be quite irrational, you're right.

I thought Eastern Orthodoxy condemned Rome for being too "rational"?

Of course, people like Gordon Clark and John Robbins, theologians who purposely created logically consistent systems of thought (and were anti-statists to a large degree) don't really fit your conclusion, do they?

As long as "Christianity" remains more like the Roman Empire and less like Jesus of Nazareth, I figure that all of the branches and splinters are equally open to criticism and verbal abuse, and ridicule.

I'm betting, my soul I guess, that Jesus will not ask me why I wasn't a better Christian, but is much more likely to ask me why I didn't follow his instructions better.

The gospel is this:

1. All men have sinned.

2. The punishment for even one sin is eternal, no sinner can enter heaven.

3. Jesus came and died as a substitute in the place of sinners who believe and trust in his work alone to save them.

4. Jesus came back from the dead and ascended into heaven, promising to someday return.

There's a lot of nonsense that many modern Christians believe, support for their modern day Caesar's and so forth, but these things do not have to do with Christianity as such.

[Ronin Truth]

The gospel is this:

1. All men have sinned.

2. The punishment for even one sin is eternal, no sinner can enter heaven.

3. Jesus came and died as a substitute in the place of sinners who believe and trust in his work alone to save them.

4. Jesus came back from the dead and ascended into heaven, promising to someday return.

There's a lot of nonsense that many modern Christians believe, support for their modern day Caesar's and so forth, but these things do not have to do with Christianity as such.

And Christianity doesn't have enough to do, or correspond with Jesus.

God's universe, God's game, God's rules. Play or not.

[pcosmar]

God's universe, God's game, God's rules. Play or not.

Choose wisely.