axel

Well, I beg you pardon, you don't I have to admit I took the sentence out of its context. It doesn't mean I misunderstood the latter quoting from the article I posted in a separate thread: "The focus of Orthodox worship is not on the personality of the priest, nor is it focused on meeting the needs of individuals, or on contrived emotional experiences -- the focus is on God." Aside from that, one should be aware of the danger of spiritual illusion/blindness. One might get the impression of being satisfied/fulfilled, yet be on a wrong path. It is not difficult to come up with examples (sometimes tragic). Is that what God "wants" for us? Individual "satisfaction" possibly outside of the Truth? Think carefully about it.

this is totally untrue. Protestantism is a rationalistic and humanistic response to the Roman Catholic church deviations, themselves induced by rationalism (Thomas d'Aquin...). The following article outlines some elements of protestantism. __________________________________________________________________ II. Protestant Ethos. (...) A. Humanism/ Individualism/ Secularism The first characteristic of the Protestant Worldview is that it is Humanistic. Now for conservative Protestants this statement will come as quite a shock, and no doubt they would hotly dispute it -- but the statement is an historic truth as well as an observable fact. Protestantism was birthed out of and became the religious expression of the humanism of the Renaissance, and as Frank Schaeffer has put it: it has been the engine of the Secularization of Western Culture. Humanism is characterized by its idealization of individual autonomy and it promulgation of secularization. Church authority was rejected in favor of the subjective judgment of the individual. The idea of a Christian nation was replaced with the concept of separation of Church and state -- and for those who would argue that this was a later development, while it is true that Luther and Calvin saw no need for the separation of Church and State (because they were in power) the earliest Anabaptists championed this from the beginning. What is amazing is how conservative Protestants have viewed humanism and secularization as a foreign invader that is completely at odds with their faith -- when in fact it is the fruit of their own intellectual wombs. (...) B. Modernism. The second chief characteristic of Protestantism is Modernism. From the very beginning Protestantism has been marked by a complete contempt for ancient Christianity and Tradition. It must be conceded that Protestantism was not without justification in protesting the form of tradition that it was confronting -- because far from being faithful to Ancient Christianity, Papism was itself an innovation. But rather than return to the authentic Christianity of Orthodoxy, Protestantism sought to remedy the situation by ostensibly returning to the ancient purity of the Scriptures, but in reality it was simply replacing the arbitrariness of a single pope with democratic papism -- in which each individual was his own infallible pope -- receiving direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Protestants claimed that they held Scripture to be the only authority, and rejected the interpretations of the Fathers whenever they contradicted the Scriptures -- but in reality they were really placing their interpretations of the Scriptures above that of the Fathers, and in essence saying that when the Fathers contradict their individual interpretations -- their interpretations are to be taken as more authoritative. In its fight against Romanism, Protestantism sought to discredit all the ancient wisdom of the Church. The previous period was termed pejoratively as "the dark ages." "New" became synonymous with "good"; "Newer" with better; and "New and Improved" as better still. "Change" is used almost like a magic amulet, that justifies whatever it is associated with. The ancient Christian view was that novelty and innovation were absolute proofs of error, but in Protestantism this was turned on its head to the point that innovation is to them proof of truth. While Protestants attacked (often with justification) the Roman Tradition for its post apostolic additions -- they developed new Traditions at a rate that would make any Papist's head spin. At heart, Modernism is not really at war with the past nearly so much as it is at war with God. Modernism is simply the lever with which Humanists and Secularists have sought to unseat God from His throne and place man in His stead. The Secular Humanism that conservative Protestants view as their mortal enemy is simply a more highly developed form of Protestantism. The pietist Protestantism of the past has now outlived its usefulness for the Secularization process, and so has been discarded by the more advanced Protestant Secularists. (...) source: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/orthodox-mind.html

Dear Sasun, this gratuitous statement is totally unchristian! And it is wrong, even dangerous. Think about it... As far as the "fear of God" is concerned, true christians (alas, I feel obliged to say "true" for there seems to be a lot who do not understand the essence of their faith) do not do good out of fear but for the sake of God. PS: READ DOSTOEVSKY!!! and the NEW TESTAMENT!!!

KOA, I too am a nationalist but as a christian, I cannot agree with this: "the ends justify the means". This is totally unreligious, I would say atheistic. In a religious perspective, it is the path that matters not the (earthly) goal. In any circumstance, the corruption that would follow from using unethical means would make our noble end unreachable (the end we might reach would have nothing to do with the initial one). This is precisely the problem with contemporary judaism/zionism.

This is what I got. SEEMS THIS FORUM IS FULL OF HERETICS 1. Eastern Orthodox (100%) 2. Roman Catholic (100%) 3. Orthodox Quaker (94%) 4. Seventh Day Adventist (90%) 5. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (90%) 6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%) 7. Sikhism (74%) 8. Orthodox Judaism (73%) 9. Liberal Quakers (63%) 10. Islam (62%) 11. Hinduism (61%) 12. Bahá'í Faith (59%) 13. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (55%) 14. Reform Judaism (52%) 15. Unitarian Universalism (50%) 16. Jehovah's Witness (43%) 17. Jainism (31%) 18. Neo-Pagan (28%) 19. Mahayana Buddhism (25%) 20. Theravada Buddhism (25%) 21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (24%) 22. New Age (22%) 23. New Thought (21%) 24. Secular Humanism (21%) 25. Scientology (21%) 26. Taoism (18%) 27. Nontheist (16%)

America-Hye, you have one point in common with Rousas and that is the fact you are denying (or forgetting) apostolic succession. This protestant and essentially secular point of view makes no sense from an authentically christian perspective. How can you pretend that the Apostolic Church (I say the Church, the union of the faithful, not a particular individual who as any human may err) doesn't follow the essence of Jesus' teachings?

Take the time to read this this (actually the whole book is a must) and maybe you will get some insight into what atheism is. I don't think giving you an explanation with respect to my original post in the MJ article thread would be productive so I won't.

Where did you get that from? I think you did not understand my point if this is how you interpreted my post. Nor do you understand MJ's spirit.

Btw, there is some irony in a non-christian giving us christian lessons.

A Christian should forgive evil that is brought upon himself. Forgiving evil brought upon others is something quite different. Only God may forgive.

To avoid any confusion with what I've said, what I mean by Christian Orthodox is Armenian Apostolic and/or Russian/Greek Orthodox (Although we are not in full communion, we have a lot in common)

Have I tried to a impose a belief on you? I don't see anything artificial in the Creed or everything is. Free will and freedom of conscience is the core of orthodoxy but misinterpretations can be quite devastating. Each one giving his own interpretation is the reason for the current divisions among christians and the rupture of communion. I encourage you to learn about history of medieval sects to see where some misinterpretations may lead. You want me to believe in your masters but at the same time you nullify the action of the Holy Spirit inside the universal Church of the early centuries. This is my last message on this topic.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. It is not "people other than Christ", it the Church that is the Body of Christ. You are not an orthodox christian, that is all I can say. This is not "my understanding", it is a commonly held view if you stick to what you have written above. Anyone offering "his understanding" is quite dangerous for our judgements are sometimes altered by our subjectivity. This is how heresies were born btw. May the Lord be with you.

I fundamentally disagree. Anyone who rejects the Nicene creed or minors its significance cannot call himself christian. I will quote the russian theologian Khomiakov "Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fulness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5:12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Savior and Head, "not to judge another man's servant" (Rom. 14.4). " and I will add: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3.8) The sad truth of non-christian judaism is atheism Sorry, I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate on this topic. To find the answer, you should spend time studying our religion instead of Sri Chinmoy

1 Corinthians 13 1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Rousas, I do not espouse the liberal views of Americ-Hye but, on the other hand, your cult seems to have more to do with orthodox judaism (with its emphasis on the letter of the old testament...) than with orthodox christianism. Where is Christ in all of this? I only see "biblical law" and a reduction of the Christian Faith to a legalistic concern.

Great thread, gamavor! Thanks for posting. Regarding this particular subject (Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder), MJ really knows what he is talking about...

Sasun, I found the quote I was referring to and that is unacceptable from the christian standpoint in your Sri Chinmoy thread: this is in complete contradiction with the Nicene creed: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come, Amen.

Sasun, some of Buddha, Krishna...'s teachings may not contradict Christianism. I am to ignorant of these to express an opinion but things like reincarnation are not acceptable. And why would we need them when we have Christ? There is a lot to explore in christianism itself and there are a lot of fascinating christian authors such as Dostoevsky among others (Have you read "The brothers Karamazov"?). Judaization as its name implies is an attempt to judaize (transform as the -ize implies) christians. if you agree to this "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.", then it follows that post-christian judaism is against Christ. So judaizers following the teachings in the synagogue (not praying) are serving the anti-christian spirit. One cannot serve two opposite spirits at the same time.

I think what was meant is "imposed by external powers". If so, "imposed democracy" indeed amounts to an oxymoron (contradiction). But that is not what was meant by MJ if I correctly follow his false reasoning. pleonasm is the word he should be using.

from the same source: "I would avoid people who like to dismiss the Patristic witness because of flaws in the character of the Fathers, whether real or imagined. I befriended at Princeton a brilliant philosopher (Rose Rand), then an old woman, who was one of Wittgenstein's few female students. She was a rabid anti-Semite. But this did not make her philosophy inadequate. It did not invalidate her brilliant insight into some very intricate theories about human thought and language. The same could be said of the Fathers. If perchance some were anti-Semitic (and again, to say this unreservedly and without a clear definition of terms is to nullify the meaning of intellectual history and to use language wrongly), does this mean that the Truth which they taught was tainted by their anti-Semitism? I think not. To say so is, again, simple-mindedness and ultimately constitutes an anti-intellectual stand. And anti-intellectualism, despite its moldy and revolting presence in some Orthodox circles, is inimical to the Patristic spirit. The matter at hand is, once more, complex. It should not be discussed with people who lack an appreciation for that intelligent shade of gray that lies between the antipodes of white naivete and lack ignorance. As a case in point, Dr. Rand, my aformentioned, virulently anti-Semitic friend, was a Polish Jew!"

"Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity" source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.htm

Judaization is an attempt to destroy Christianism. As such, it is not surprising that judaizers are not criticized by jews (By jews here, I mean the followers of the jewish faith not ethnic jews for there are obviously ethnic jews who are christian and not judaizers)

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luke 11,23) Sasun, I know you are a well-intentioned person and I appreciate you a lot but there are elements of christianism you seem to ignore and tend to replace by your own sentimental judgements (I am not sure "sentimental" is the correct english word but I guess you understand my point) . Some of your syncretic views on religion, such as considering Christ as a man, not as God-man (if I recall what you wrote some time ago) are unacceptable from the christian standpoint. The latter is actually known as Arius' heresy which has vigorously been condemned for it reduces christianism to a simple humanistic philosophy (which it is not)