Orthodoxy And The Religion Of The Future

[Based Kantian]

No. It is actually you who needs to read his writings more carefully. Paul specifically brings up the example of him or one of his “strong in conscience” disciples EATING IN AN IDOL’S TEMPLE:

“We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating[c] in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged,[d] if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?”

For Paul, the issue is not him or one of his disciples eating in an idol’s temple, the sin would be doing so in the presence of a disciple who is weak in conscience. That’s why he says “take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” because if Paul’s disciples who are “strong” in conscience aren’t careful and eat in an idol’s temple in the presence of one who is “weak in conscience” (AKA thinks this is blasphemous idolatry) ONLY THEN is it a sin to eat in an idol’s temple.

This is absurd, however, for both a Jew and a Christian who wanted to follow their God. You can’t eat in an idol’s temple period if you are a Christian. This is common sense.

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

[Gone Peating]

Paul is discussing three matters here:

eating sacrificed meat in the pagan temple

buying sacrificed meat in the markets

being given sacrificed meat in a non believers home as a guest.

The last two he allows, so long as one does not know the source. Once one knows the source, he should desist but in the first, there is no question, and therefore sharing a table with demons.

See my last post and you’ll see that he the sin for Paul is not in eating in an idol’s temple. The sin is eating in an idol’s temple when in the presence of a “weak in conscience brother”. Also read this quote carefully:

“But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?”

Paul says don’t eat the meat if someone tells you it is idol meat. His reasoning is for the sake of the one who told you, not for yourself. He clearly states he is free to eat the idol meat if he wants; the only thing holding him back would be “for the sake of the one who informed you”. Paul makes it as clear as possible that he believes it is not blasphemous idolatry for him to eat meat sacrificed to an idol.

 

[Gone Peating]

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

he was talking about dietary laws when he said this. This is a completely different case than eating something that has been sacrificed to a demon.

If some Satanists were sacrificing a cow to Satan, could you really picture Jesus joining in and eating the cow with them? Obviously not.

Yet Paul would say that eating the meat sacrificed to a demon is no big deal. It’s only a problem if someone “weak in conscience” is there to see you do it, AKA someone who calls a spade a spade and sees that this is idolatrous.

 

[Mary Lyn]

In my Marshall The New International Version Greek Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, it has from Acts 15:29:

You are to abstain from idol sacrifice.

Does this mean that a Christian could eat the offerings later in the Temple but not watch the actual killing? Or perhaps not do it themselves? I think we need to understand more Greek here.

In that case Paul is merely explaining in more detail regarding making a brother stumble.

But anyway, if Paul actually did contradict the apostles, in allowing it, it is no problem as it is not a salvation issue. The early church fathers often disagreed with each other and it was okay so long as was not heresy. They understood that no man has all knowledge (though he should be perfect morally) and we already have an example of Paul being mistaken when he insisted on going up to Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit had repeatedly warned him not to go. It does not make him a false apostle. In the state of perfection, one can fall from that and misjudge the leadings of the Spirit.

 

[Gone Peating]

he was talking about dietary laws when he said this. This is a completely different case than eating something that has been sacrificed to a demon.

If some Satanists were sacrificing a cow to Satan, could you really picture Jesus joining in and eating the cow with them? Obviously not.

Yet Paul would say that eating the meat sacrificed to a demon is no big deal. It’s only a problem if someone “weak in conscience” is there to see you do it, AKA someone who calls a spade a spade and sees that this is idolatrous.

In my Marshall The New International Version Greek Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, it has from Acts 15:29:

You are to abstain from idol sacrifice.

Does this mean that a Christian could eat the offerings later in the Temple but not watch the actual killing? Or perhaps not do it themselves? I think we need to understand more Greek here.

In that case Paul is merely explaining in more detail regarding making a brother stumble.

But anyway, if Paul actually did contradict the apostles, in allowing it, it is no problem as it is not a salvation issue. The early church fathers often disagreed with each other and it was okay so long as was not heresy. They understood that no man has all knowledge (though he should be perfect morally) and we already have an example of Paul being mistaken when he insisted on going up to Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit had repeatedly warned him not to go. It does not make him a false apostle. In the state of perfection, one can fall from that and misjudge the leadings of the Spirit.

Ridiculous

 

[mariantos]

Ridiculous

I've already explained it to you, but I will try again in detail this time. I have a strange feeling that we are talking together and we understand each other separately.



The meat was sacrificed to idols, then distributed in butchers, markets etc. Later people bought it. The heathen and even the least informed, believed that in this way they were partaking of a sacred feast.


In other words, is a christian believer allowed to eat this meat? Or is it something horrible, disgusting etc. ?

These were probably questions from Paul's letter and are now our main topic of discussion.

Some, who were philosophically and theologically informed, argued that idols did not exist, so their sacrificial meat could be eaten in peace, like any meat. But other believers, who were less informed, seemed outraged.

This problem is solved by Paul as follows: "I can eat this flesh in the name of my knowledge, but if this gesture bothers, scandalizes, and therefore harms the faith of others, then I will never eat this flesh."

In other words, those who are called “strong,” that is, “those who know the truth,” can enjoy Paul's support because he also knows the truth. He knows that this meat sacrificed to idols can be safely bought and eaten. So these better informed, "strong people who know" have the inner freedom to participate in all the feasts and thus feel free. But in order to be free in the christian sense, they must take into account their neighbor, please note that everything comes down to our neighbor, I will explain below, also based on the text we are discussing.

Freedom springs from two principles, which must be respected at the same time, namely.

I. The first is knowledge, and they, both the strong or gifted corinthians and Paul, have this knowledge.

II. The second principle is love.

They must know and also they must love, that is, there must be truth, but there must also be charity. Love is the decisive, ultimate condition, it is the higher point of view, which tells us how to use knowledge. If you look closely at the text to the Corinthians, you will see that in:

1-3 shows us the knowledge of the strong, enlightened. But their knowledge is devoid of love

4-6 emphasizes monotheism, for Paul lived in a polytheistic pagan climate

7-12 Paul criticizes the position, the behavior of the so-called "strong" toward the weak. Knowledge of the strong, instead of helping them, confuses the weak, instead of causing them to love, uses them to be proud, to sin

13 Paul gives us the example of his freedom, guided by love. He who is enlightened by love, though free, will never eat meat sacrificed to idols, that is, he will not do anything that does not help his neighbor.

Compared to those who know, who have had a formation of consciousness, there are also the weak, because "Not everyone has knowledge" says the text. These are the ones who have recently converted, have recently abandoned the pagan idolatrous experience and obviously, for them, returning to participate in pagan feasts, or feeding on these meats sacrificed to idols, may be a risk of falling. in idolatry. These people still have poor knowledge. Therefore, the freedom of the strong, of the one who knows, must take into account the weak conscience of the brethren, who is always in danger of falling back into slavery, of returning to serve idols.

A brother gave the example of Mark I believe above where, Jesus Christ the Lord said that all food is clean, nothing is unclean.

But in our text this is not the defining question. It does not mean that if we eat what we are allowed to do, we draw closer to God or if we do not eat we move away from Him. Even those who do not eat, the weak christians, still uneducated deeply in the sphere of faith, do not lose anything.

The issue is not to be enlightened or not about the value of food so the criterion is not to eat or not the meat sacrificed to idols, to have a better or worse knowledge, but the criterion is the "good of the weak", which everyone must take into account before doing or saying something it is about our brothers in principle. The real issue for connoisseurs is that they must know and that their freedom must not be against the weak, against care, attention and love for them.


That's because the weak one who sees you, who is strong in knowledge, present in the temple of idols, will be tempted to follow your example. But, in the type that you eat of the sacrificed flesh, knowing that you are not wrong, the weak one eats, having a different kind of knowledge, he thinks that he is wrong and through your knowledge, the weak one will perish. In other words, your knowledge, which you are proud of, risks being a reason for loss for the weak. Therefore, ask yourself, before doing a thing, in our case (eating from this meat) if you do good by behaving like this, if you respect the weak one.


You made a selfish statement above, in my opinion, but you have to take into account that our neighbor is very important, I had mentioned above that we will get here and as you saw from the words of Paul, who says “your brother, for whom Christ died! ” Paul emphasizes the value of his brother or neighbor. The value of the brother cannot be estimated in gold and silver, because it consists in the blood of Christ who raised us, redeemed us, not with silver and gold, but through His blood, giving His life. So the brother values, is worth as much as the life of Jesus. The value of the weak is therefore infinite.


I hope you notice, what is the true freedom that the christian must have. He, who has the knowledge and love, he, who knows that he is free to eat, decides not to eat, because if he ate he would cause great harm to his brother. It's true that the brother shouldn't be outraged, but he's weak,without full knowledge so he's crazy. Therefore, Paul says, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. "


In conclusion, true freedom does not consist in doing, or not doing, a certain thing, although it is lawful, but in doing what helps and edifies our neighbors or brothers. If we do not take into account what helps our neighbor, then our freedom becomes an opportunity to push him to sin, so not a deliverance from sin. We have the freedom to love, if not, then this is the slave of our selfishness. In fact, freedom from sin means being free to love one another. I will tell you again that there is nothing contradictory in what Paul says.


I hope I've clarified this "meat problem". If you still don't understand now, then your problem is not that you are not able to understand, but only that you do not want to understand and unfortunately I can't help you more than I do now, because you need to increase your vision spectrum and allow yourself to see beyond words and that's up to you. Until then a lot of people might come to explain to you, so that you can understand, the problem is that you have a well-established set of ideas, based on your knowledge and nothing more, which of course, prevents you from seeing things clearly. I was like you, and I understand you, trust me.

There is no truth more absolute than the Word of God. You will not find contradictions in the Bible, others have toiled before you and failed.


Apparently at first reading it can be very confusing, but if you are really interested in understanding, then you will understand. There were many things that caused me problems and that I gradually came to understand, there are still certain issues that confuse me, but I am firmly convinced that I will find out their meaning at the right time, as long as I do not harden my heart and I will start looking for a knot in the rush, because otherwise God will surely allow me to remain asleep and lost in my supposed correct findings.



Rest assured, I'm sure that sooner or later, you will understand everything, only if you truly want that.

 

[Based Kantian]

he was talking about dietary laws when he said this. This is a completely different case than eating something that has been sacrificed to a demon.

If some Satanists were sacrificing a cow to Satan, could you really picture Jesus joining in and eating the cow with them? Obviously not.

Yet Paul would say that eating the meat sacrificed to a demon is no big deal. It’s only a problem if someone “weak in conscience” is there to see you do it, AKA someone who calls a spade a spade and sees that this is idolatrous.

Idolatry means worshipping idols

 

[Gone Peating]

Idolatry means worshipping idols

Eating foods offered to idols is considered idolatry by the God of Israel

“You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim 14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), 15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice” Exodus 34:13-15

“Then they yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor,
and ate sacrifices offered to the dead;
they provoked the Lord to anger with their deeds,
and a plague broke out among them.”
Psalm 106:28-29

Eating food that has been sacrificed to idols is a form of worshipping those idols/demons

 

[Gone Peating]

I've already explained it to you, but I will try again in detail this time. I have a strange feeling that we are talking together and we understand each other separately.



The meat was sacrificed to idols, then distributed in butchers, markets etc. Later people bought it. The heathen and even the least informed, believed that in this way they were partaking of a sacred feast.


In other words, is a christian believer allowed to eat this meat? Or is it something horrible, disgusting etc. ?

These were probably questions from Paul's letter and are now our main topic of discussion.

Some, who were philosophically and theologically informed, argued that idols did not exist, so their sacrificial meat could be eaten in peace, like any meat. But other believers, who were less informed, seemed outraged.

This problem is solved by Paul as follows: "I can eat this flesh in the name of my knowledge, but if this gesture bothers, scandalizes, and therefore harms the faith of others, then I will never eat this flesh."

In other words, those who are called “strong,” that is, “those who know the truth,” can enjoy Paul's support because he also knows the truth. He knows that this meat sacrificed to idols can be safely bought and eaten. So these better informed, "strong people who know" have the inner freedom to participate in all the feasts and thus feel free. But in order to be free in the christian sense, they must take into account their neighbor, please note that everything comes down to our neighbor, I will explain below, also based on the text we are discussing.

Freedom springs from two principles, which must be respected at the same time, namely.

I. The first is knowledge, and they, both the strong or gifted corinthians and Paul, have this knowledge.

II. The second principle is love.

They must know and also they must love, that is, there must be truth, but there must also be charity. Love is the decisive, ultimate condition, it is the higher point of view, which tells us how to use knowledge. If you look closely at the text to the Corinthians, you will see that in:

1-3 shows us the knowledge of the strong, enlightened. But their knowledge is devoid of love

4-6 emphasizes monotheism, for Paul lived in a polytheistic pagan climate

7-12 Paul criticizes the position, the behavior of the so-called "strong" toward the weak. Knowledge of the strong, instead of helping them, confuses the weak, instead of causing them to love, uses them to be proud, to sin

13 Paul gives us the example of his freedom, guided by love. He who is enlightened by love, though free, will never eat meat sacrificed to idols, that is, he will not do anything that does not help his neighbor.

Compared to those who know, who have had a formation of consciousness, there are also the weak, because "Not everyone has knowledge" says the text. These are the ones who have recently converted, have recently abandoned the pagan idolatrous experience and obviously, for them, returning to participate in pagan feasts, or feeding on these meats sacrificed to idols, may be a risk of falling. in idolatry. These people still have poor knowledge. Therefore, the freedom of the strong, of the one who knows, must take into account the weak conscience of the brethren, who is always in danger of falling back into slavery, of returning to serve idols.

A brother gave the example of Mark I believe above where, Jesus Christ the Lord said that all food is clean, nothing is unclean.

But in our text this is not the defining question. It does not mean that if we eat what we are allowed to do, we draw closer to God or if we do not eat we move away from Him. Even those who do not eat, the weak christians, still uneducated deeply in the sphere of faith, do not lose anything.

The issue is not to be enlightened or not about the value of food so the criterion is not to eat or not the meat sacrificed to idols, to have a better or worse knowledge, but the criterion is the "good of the weak", which everyone must take into account before doing or saying something it is about our brothers in principle. The real issue for connoisseurs is that they must know and that their freedom must not be against the weak, against care, attention and love for them.


That's because the weak one who sees you, who is strong in knowledge, present in the temple of idols, will be tempted to follow your example. But, in the type that you eat of the sacrificed flesh, knowing that you are not wrong, the weak one eats, having a different kind of knowledge, he thinks that he is wrong and through your knowledge, the weak one will perish. In other words, your knowledge, which you are proud of, risks being a reason for loss for the weak. Therefore, ask yourself, before doing a thing, in our case (eating from this meat) if you do good by behaving like this, if you respect the weak one.


You made a selfish statement above, in my opinion, but you have to take into account that our neighbor is very important, I had mentioned above that we will get here and as you saw from the words of Paul, who says “your brother, for whom Christ died! ” Paul emphasizes the value of his brother or neighbor. The value of the brother cannot be estimated in gold and silver, because it consists in the blood of Christ who raised us, redeemed us, not with silver and gold, but through His blood, giving His life. So the brother values, is worth as much as the life of Jesus. The value of the weak is therefore infinite.


I hope you notice, what is the true freedom that the christian must have. He, who has the knowledge and love, he, who knows that he is free to eat, decides not to eat, because if he ate he would cause great harm to his brother. It's true that the brother shouldn't be outraged, but he's weak,without full knowledge so he's crazy. Therefore, Paul says, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. "


In conclusion, true freedom does not consist in doing, or not doing, a certain thing, although it is lawful, but in doing what helps and edifies our neighbors or brothers. If we do not take into account what helps our neighbor, then our freedom becomes an opportunity to push him to sin, so not a deliverance from sin. We have the freedom to love, if not, then this is the slave of our selfishness. In fact, freedom from sin means being free to love one another. I will tell you again that there is nothing contradictory in what Paul says.


I hope I've clarified this "meat problem". If you still don't understand now, then your problem is not that you are not able to understand, but only that you do not want to understand and unfortunately I can't help you more than I do now, because you need to increase your vision spectrum and allow yourself to see beyond words and that's up to you. Until then a lot of people might come to explain to you, so that you can understand, the problem is that you have a well-established set of ideas, based on your knowledge and nothing more, which of course, prevents you from seeing things clearly. I was like you, and I understand you, trust me.

There is no truth more absolute than the Word of God. You will not find contradictions in the Bible, others have toiled before you and failed.


Apparently at first reading it can be very confusing, but if you are really interested in understanding, then you will understand. There were many things that caused me problems and that I gradually came to understand, there are still certain issues that confuse me, but I am firmly convinced that I will find out their meaning at the right time, as long as I do not harden my heart and I will start looking for a knot in the rush, because otherwise God will surely allow me to remain asleep and lost in my supposed correct findings.



Rest assured, I'm sure that sooner or later, you will understand everything, only if you truly want that.

I’ve already demonstrated very succinctly that Paul does not say what you think he says or want him to be saying.

Take the example he gives of eating in an idol’s temple. Why would he even give this example? To even go into an idol’s temple is idolatry! Yet for Paul this is not a sin. Even worse, to eat the food that has been sacrificed to an idol in this temple is not sinful in itself. It only becomes sinful if a brother “weak in conscience” is there to see you do it.

could you really picture Jesus eating in an idol’s temple?

 

[mariantos]

I’ve already demonstrated very succinctly that Paul does not say what you think he says or want him to be saying.

Take the example he gives of eating in an idol’s temple. Why would he even give this example? To even go into an idol’s temple is idolatry! Yet for Paul this is not a sin. Even worse, to eat the food that has been sacrificed to an idol in this temple is not sinful in itself. It only becomes sinful if a brother “weak in conscience” is there to see you do it.

could you really picture Jesus eating in an idol’s temple?

The Savior ate with sinners and publicans, so it would not be surprising to see Him eating a simple piece of meat sacrificed to idols, as long as He does not participate in those rituals and if by what He does, He does not put His weak brother in danger.

It's not about meat anyway, It's about sending a message, but I'm forcing myself in vain.

I already told you, the problem is that you don't want to understand, I feel compelled to let you sleep. May the Lord keep you safe!

 

[Gone Peating]

The Savior ate with sinners and publicans, so it would not be surprising to see Him eating a simple piece of meat sacrificed to idols, as long as He does not participate in those rituals and if by what He does, He does not put His weak brother in danger.

It's not about meat anyway, It's about sending a message, but I'm forcing myself in vain.

I already told you, the problem is that you don't want to understand, I feel compelled to let you sleep. May the Lord keep you safe!

Eating with “sinners and publicans” is not the same as eating with fallen angels, as Paul himself claims people who partake of things sacrificed to idols do

You have gone from claiming Paul didn’t actually say it’s ok to eat things sacrificed to idols to a completely different claim now: that apparently Jesus would do so. Evidently, you realized your original arguments were wrong and made up a new one with zero logical justification for it. You should not be afraid of the truth. Don’t try to put truth where there is obvious contradictions and falsity

 

[Missenger]

Eating with “sinners and publicans” is not the same as eating with fallen angels, as Paul himself claims people who partake of things sacrificed to idols do

You have gone from claiming Paul didn’t actually say it’s ok to eat things sacrificed to idols to a completely different claim now: that apparently Jesus would do so. Evidently, you realized your original arguments were wrong and made up a new one with zero logical justification for it. You should not be afraid of the truth. Don’t try to put truth where there is obvious contradictions and falsity

Maybe he's a "judeo-christian", there's plenty of them.

 

[mariantos]

Eating with “sinners and publicans” is not the same as eating with fallen angels, as Paul himself claims people who partake of things sacrificed to idols do

You have gone from claiming Paul didn’t actually say it’s ok to eat things sacrificed to idols to a completely different claim now: that apparently Jesus would do so. Evidently, you realized your original arguments were wrong and made up a new one with zero logical justification for it. You should not be afraid of the truth. Don’t try to put truth where there is obvious contradictions and falsity

My initial arguments are not wrong, nor do I change as the wind blows. Your attack is not supported by anything truthful and does not affect me. I am disturbed instead by the fact that you do not want to see clearly the message that Paul wanted to convey.

We know very well that the old commandments that Moses received from God, the ten, were later summarized by the Savior in two great and simple commandments. One of them, respectively the second, mentions that you have to love your neighbor as yourself. So our neighbor is very important. Understand that you who know, you strong man, can eat from that flesh and you will have no problem, because you know that there is only one God and that idols are nothing, but if your knowledge can endanger your brother more weak who has doubts and you do nothing for him, that is, you prefer to eat from that flesh, then your acquaintance is devoid of love for your brother and only serves to feed your pride. Why would Paul mention "love"? Do you really think that God would punish you or consider it a sin to eat a piece of meat? Let's be serious!


I have told you countless times that the only absolute truth is the Word of God, at the risk of sounding cliché. It is my opinion based on the whole Word of God.

I may be wrong because I am human, but the Bible has nothing contradictory, and if you are eager to truly discover, you will find out and understand at the same time. I apologize if my answers were disappointing. Don't take anything I wrote you seriously, but let me ask you a few questions, to get an idea, to know if it still makes sense to continue the discussion.


I. Do you believe in God?

If we start from the presumption that in the Word of God you found contradictions, then automatically that makes me think that if in a book of any kind it is, I will find contradictions that cannot be explained based on the entire content of that book, by default the book is fake.

II. Do you think God's Word is false?

III. Then, the God you have in your vision, what is He like, if He is different from the One in the Bible?

IV. If you vehemently exclude even any hypothesis about any Creator, then;
Where are you coming from?
Who are you?
Where are you going?

Thank you!

 

[mariantos]

Maybe he's a "judeo-christian", there's plenty of them.

My dear brother, why do you use terms whose cannotation you do not fully master?

My religion is Jesus Christ the Lord!

Although I am corrupt and it is still a sin in my life, a sin that lies between me and God and does not allow me to approach Him completely, I want to follow in the footsteps of the Teacher and hope that He will help me to get rid of this obstacle.

I was born an orthodox christian, I was taught from an early age that the religion under which I was born is the right one and that the others are untrue or not of God, that we make the sign of the cross from right to left, which is correct and not the other way around , that we worship correctly, that our saints are the true ones etc. I suspect, however, that others born under a different religious denomination were similarly indoctrinated. Over time, however, I noticed that this is not the case. I witnessed the hypocrisy of society, where many orthodox christians believed that if they went to church and attended a service and some repetitive rituals, they would be saved, only on the way home to start gossiping about one and another of the brethren who came to attend the service and so on. I have also witnessed the corruption in the church, how far they have distanced themselves from the Word of God, through their practices, the repetitive rituals within it, the superstitions and customs that have spread and so on.



Why should I feel privileged because I was born under the umbrella of orthodoxy as opposed to my muslim, buddhist brother, or my catholic or hindu sister etc. ? Here on earth we are not treated equally and it is a little difficult for us to treat each other equally. But before God, are we not all equal?

If our religion could save us, then the Savior should not have died for us.

However, suppose that even if only one of the religions could have saved us, then our Lord God would have done an injustice and would not have loved us all equally, which is false.


That being said, I renounce any religious denomination you attribute to me, because I am firmly convinced that none can save us, but only through faith in the Son of God Jesus Christ can we be saved.

If, however, you feel the need and it makes you feel better if you categorize me in a worldly religious group, then continue like this, anyway, from the messages you posted on other topics, you gave me the impression that you don't believe in the Biblical God. If so, then why does a person with unshakable beliefs feel the need to attack my messages? Why would some messages from a "religious fanatic" affect you?

Isn't your soul fueled by repressed anger, disappointment, suffering and fear? These seem to be the fuels that carry your soul on the path of search, to find inner peace.

Talk to the one inside you.
Meditate on your actions, ask yourself why you do what you do.

Leave your life in the hands of Christ and you will be saved!

 

[Pistachio]

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

If Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church that is the legitimate succession of the apostles, why didn't the apostles or the Church Fathers teach hesychasm?

 

[Gone Peating]

If Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church that is the legitimate succession of the apostles, why didn't the apostles or the Church Fathers teach hesychasm?

1) I never said this. Throughout this entire thread ive been showing how the Orthodox do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the gospels

2) I’ve shown how being a follower of Paul is incompatible with being a follower of the God of Israel and Jesus

3) You can look up what St. john Chrysostom said about the Jesus Prayer. The “desert fathers” also spoke about ceaseless prayer as did many “church fathers” around this time like St. john damascene or st macarius. But it makes no difference, as I have shown before St. Anthony was a delusional man who thought satyrs were real mortal beings who worshipped Jesus. Also Constantine made an idol of himself in the likeness of a demon and nobody told him he needed to repent and knock it down before he died, not even Sts. Anthony or Athanasius the Great. Its very clear these people would have been severely condemned by Jesus and the Apostles for their obvious idolatry and delusions.

4) I’ll do a long post in another thread about everything I’ve learned about religion and the god of this world

5) Please stop being a Roman Catholic. It’s literally a giant pedophile organization man.

 

[Pistachio]

1) I never said this. Throughout this entire thread ive been showing how the Orthodox do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the gospels

2) I’ve shown how being a follower of Paul is incompatible with being a follower of the God of Israel and Jesus

3) You can look up what St. john Chrysostom said about the Jesus Prayer. The “desert fathers” also spoke about ceaseless prayer as did many “church fathers” around this time like St. john damascene or st macarius. But it makes no difference, as I have shown before St. Anthony was a delusional man who thought satyrs were real mortal beings who worshipped Jesus. Also Constantine made an idol of himself in the likeness of a demon and nobody told him he needed to repent and knock it down before he died, not even Sts. Anthony or Athanasius the Great. Its very clear these people would have been severely condemned by Jesus and the Apostles for their obvious idolatry and delusions.

4) I’ll do a long post in another thread about everything I’ve learned about religion and the god of this world

5) Please stop being a Roman Catholic. It’s literally a giant pedophile organization man.

Yet on another thread you said you follow nothing. So which is it? Why are you being so vague and secretive about your own personal beliefs?

 

[Gone Peating]

Yet on another thread you said you follow nothing. So which is it? Why are you being so vague and secretive about your own personal beliefs?

I do follow nothing. I am not affiliated with any religion. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the existence of the “gods”

 

[Pistachio]

I do follow nothing. I am not affiliated with any religion. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the existence of the “gods”

More vagueness. Are you agnostic or what?

 

[Gone Peating]

More vagueness. Are you agnostic or what?

I don’t doubt the existence of the “gods” as they have appeared to people throughout recorded history. What exactly are they? There are many possibilities.

It could be elite humans who have always ruled the world without us knowing who they are using their advanced technology to work “miracles” and appear to men in one form or another in order to get a group of people to do what they want.

It could be extraterrestrial life forms doing the same thing.

It could be a “god” or group of “gods” who have a high level of control or total control over our universe, or who even created our universe.

It could be that the creator of the universe is an entity unknown to any of the religions of mankind, and he created less than perfectly good gods as a way of “separating the wheat from the chaff” as your god Jesus would put it. Those who worship the gods of the Hindus or the Romans or Buddha or the God of Israel are worshipping gods who are obviously less than perfectly good based on their own revelations.

The god of Israel is appealing because of Jesus’s beautiful words and parables, but at the same time the idea of sending his enemies to hell in order to torture them for eternity is quite evil and unnecessary. He could just as easily eliminate them. There is no reason to keep them alive forever in order to torture them endlessly. This is the most disgusting thing ever. I wouldn’t wish such a fate on my worse enemy, even someone who tortured me my entire finite life.

Also, just meditate on what Christianity is based on: the covenant with Abraham. Why was Abraham deemed so righteous by God? Because he unthinkingly obeyed his god when he told him to slit his son’s throat and burn his corpse as a sacrifice to him. Of course I know god was never going to allow Abraham to go through with it, but why would he command him to do such a thing and then deem it a “good” thing when Abraham was ready to do it without thinking about it. I can’t imagine slitting my own son’s throat, or anyone, because some powerful force told me to, even if everything up to that point that he had previously done was “good”