Comparing my experience of the Bible in Orthodoxy to the Bible in Evangelicalism is sort of like this:
( Read more... )
You have seen it written: do not lie with a male as with womankind, for it is an abomination. But I say unto you: I tell you the truth, unless your abominations against womankind come to an end also, you will not see the kingdom of heaven until all of Sodom and Gomorrah have been saved.
What to rename the Blog Formerly Known as the Stainless Steel Blog-Like Object?
riotouseaterofflesh (same as tumblr)
matthewtheglutton (same as github)
horizesthaiktulu (same as aim)
ps38-7 (couldn't write the entire line)
eusocialconstruct (NOT THE BEEES)
chroniclesofnarmia (this requires a 2/3 vote or more to even consider)
mattymcmattface (i.e., keep the current name and stop making polls)
other in the comments (but feel free to comment regardless!)
God does not in fact exist in the same way as created things which form the only object of experience for our natural faculties. Therefore, contact with supernatural reality is at first felt as an experience of nothingness.
The Reformed Protestant position does not eschew tradition as useless, as Brown rightly states, it simply rejects it as authoritative. "Traditions" are necessary in terms of the particulars of living out our faith, and may even express themselves in the distinctives of denominationalism (within the pale of orthodoxy with the small "o") but the essence of the faith is clear and centered on the Biblical truth of the gospel. The Orthodox Tradition obscures the gospel, for it is itself obscure and contradictory, subjective and mutable. It solves nothing that it claims to solve, for the presence of Tradition as an Interpreter of Scripture only serves to set back the problem one step: if the Bible needs an infallible Interpreter, who interprets the Interpreter?This is a bit of unfortunate polemic: Mr. Carrino describes himself as "an avid student of Eastern Orthodoxy" and reasserts that authority throughout the articles, and yet here is a rhetorical question that has a simple and explicitly stated answer in Orthodox doctrine: the Holy Spirit abides in and is active within the Church to guide that Tradition. Indeed, that point could have been inferred even if he had somehow not seen it in his studies: whatever your theological basis, some point up the chain must have God directly involved, or the theology is self-evidently false no matter what it says.
Thirdly, no authorized canon of the Church Fathers exists.This, of course, is a substantial misunderstanding, but its genesis is easy to understand if you assume the writer is lumping Orthodox and Catholics together and has no idea why the former are so resistant against reunification with the latter. The Orthodox approach to being a Church is less like a gatekeeper that elects bosses to say what's wrong and right, and more like the sort of emergent "hivemind" that has given us the use of the word "Anonymous" as a singular proper noun. A flock of sheep, a school of fish, a colony of bees will have a similar dynamic, if in the former cases much less hierarchical (and accordingly much less like a body).
The heavy emphasis on the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice within the pre-Mosaic period as well as in the Levitical system is not only clear, but essential to any proper understanding of the earlier covenants.There are people who have rebutted this old canard much better than I ever could. Suffice it to say that this "heavy emphasis" simply does not exist when you read the actual prescriptions, except only for the scapegoat which of course is clearly not sacrificed, merely gotten rid of. (And even that is more of a symbol than a substitution.) A comparative approach with other sacrificial ritual systems - whether offering a chicken to the ancestors or the old champagne on the boat, or even the way "sacrifice" is used in modern military rhetoric - would clarify this rather quickly.
Learning to the read the Scriptures, in which its stories reveal things to us about God is difficult. All Christian reading of the OT must be read through the lens of Christ. Those who do this in a backward sense fall into error.Fr. Stephen's comment to his article "Getting Your Mind Right"
The Fathers said that the OT is a “shadow” of the truth. Too many people try to read it as though it was a clear, literal presentation of the truth. It is not. That is the witness of the Fathers. It is shadow.
The New Testament is “icon of the truth” according to the Fathers. It is a faithful image and can be used to understand and clarify the shadow. The age to come is the truth itself, the fathers said, when all things will be clear.
Frankly, at a certain point in Christian history, an alternative gospel was created. This was not the gospel of Pascha, the primitive and abiding witness of the Orthodox faith. Instead, it was the story of the wrathful God and the infinitely indebted people of earth. We are the bad guys, deserving of every possible punishment. Etc.
The scope of Scripture and the message of Pascha is utterly foreign to that story. The true Paschal story is of a people who are in bondage, held captive. They are to be pitied rather than blamed. Christ comes to destroy the false debt of death and set us free. He leads us into the promised land. He tramples down death by death. He becomes what we are that we might become what He is.
If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.and then come up with the following?
First, it is clear that he is speaking specifically about the Judgment, for he calls it “the Day.” And what fire is this that reveals on Judgment Day? Is it not the eternal fire? And, how is someone saved by fire? For clearly, some are. Who is not saved by fire?Emphasis mine. We are not saved from the destruction of the fire, but rather the fire in destroying saves us.
This verse should rightly puzzle us. Particularly that “but he himself will be saved…”
Of course, there are many who will say, “He’s only writing here to Christians.” This fire that burns and saves – is it the same fire that the “wicked” enter? If it doesn’t save everyone it burns, why not?
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
if of any the work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; and himself shall be saved, but so as through fire.
If the work of any one shall be consumed, he shall suffer loss, but *he* shall be saved, but so as through [the] fire.
If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as fire.("Why not become pure flame?")
εἴ τινος τὸ ἔργον κατακαήσεται, ζημιωθήσεται, αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός.
After death, the gods transformed him into an immortal, or alternatively, the fire burned away the mortal part of the demigod, so that only the god remained.
Thetis attempted to render her son Achilles invulnerable. In the well-known version, she dipped him in the River Styx, holding him by one heel, which remained vulnerable. In an early and less popular version of the story, Thetis anointed the boy in ambrosia and put him on top of a fire to burn away the mortal parts of his body. She was interrupted by Peleus and she abandoned both father and son in a rage, leaving his heel vulnerable. A nearly identical story is told by Plutarch, in his On Isis and Osiris, of the goddess Isis burning away the mortality of Prince Maneros of Byblos, son of Queen Astarte, and being likewise interrupted before completing the process.(I was under the impression that there were two heroes and only one of these happened to Achilles. Nope, it's both.)
Early modern scholarship tended to accept the Biblical and Greco-Roman accounts of child sacrifice at face value, although there were early suggestions that the biblical account might refer to a symbolic practice, among them an essay by John Selden of 1617 with the suggestion that the phrase h'byr b'sh lmlk "making to pass over the fire to Molek" might have entailed a februation (purification ritual) rather than human sacrifice.(tangential interesting point:
In 1841, both Georg Friedrich Daumer and Friedrich Wilhelm Ghillany published influential works on the topic. These authors came to the conclusion that the Biblical text reflect an original identity of Molek and Yahweh, and that the cult of Yahweh grew out of that of Molek by the abolishing of human sacrifice. The authors find numerous instances of vestigial references to human sacrifice, most notably the law that all firstborns must be "consecrated" or "given" to Yahweh (Exodus 13:2, 22:28).Relatedly, I can't help but notice how little time Jesus spent rebuking the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees - it seems close-but-not-quite is worse than not close at all.)
Firewalking has been practiced by many people and cultures in all parts of the world, with the earliest known reference dating back to Iron Age India – c. 1200 BCE. It is often used as a rite of passage, as a test of an individual's strength and courage, or in religion as a test of one's faith.The article also mentions that this is done by Eastern Orthodox Christians in Greece and Bulgaria - the only Christian group on the list. Also of interest: reference to judicial trial by fire.
So, I went to the Zandronum forums and I found an interesting topic that I'd like to discuss further, what if Doom games were shorter than what it really is? Imagine if Doom 1, 2 and 64 were 10 maps, each. This gave me the idea of maybe porting some of the Maps of Chaos Doom 1 maps into Doom 2, and having the entire series play in a progressive sort of order, but I have no idea how to port Doom 1 maps into Doom 2 properly, without missing textures, so that will be for another time.