this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
35 points (88.9% liked)
Christianity
194 readers
1 users here now
A place to discuss Christianity and aspects of Christian life.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree. I come from a protestant background and am now Orthodox. I never knew why I was so disinterested in church as a kid. I guess it seemed disingenous, trivial or arbitrary. This turned out to be true. A few years ago I acknowleged that something was missing and attended an Orthodox church. I had been researching for a while.
It is a world of difference. The problem with a lot of these denominations is that they try to "stay relevant" when Christ is always relevant. The liturgy does not put man at the center either. The entire parish faces God. Much of Western Christendom is falling victim to the self worship of the secular world. You can see it most recently with the acceptance of the gay agenda splitting the last remaining mainline protestant denominations even though it is clearly a sin.
People want boundaries and guidance. They hunger for it. The Orthodox church has changed very little in 1300 years and provides clear direction. The structure seems constricting from the outside but in reality it is freedom. Freedom from sin and to worship God in the way of the apostles.
There's no way to make it "more relevant" because everything else is irrelevant.
Friend, this is exactly the kind of thing Jesus called people out for. Right now, you are in the scribes and Pharisees group.
I don't understand your point. We should love the sinner but hate the sin. We should certainly never condone it as part of church teaching and culture.
Jesus was meticulous about defining sin, and that it is primarily how you treat others (Matthew 25).
Homosexuality is not a sin and no scripture supports such an interpretation. Paul’s letters also do not support such an interpretation. Any scripture used to defend such an anti-Christ stance is a gross and deliberate mistranslation. (e.g. Leviticus 20)
What Jesus also taught is to live by example, not to judge others, and to not worry about what you perceive other’s shortcomings to be. (Matthew 7)
Also: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is not scriptural. It is a corruption of a saying from Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: “with love for mankind and hatred of sins.”
Regarding your first point -- Jesus makes clear the way we should live our lives by his words and his actions. He is compassionate and, as you mentioned, demands that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us especially if we don't want to for whatever reason. He made an example of this multiple times by conversing with schismatics, gentiles, prostitutes, tax collectors etc Through his love these people repent of their sins. God loves us but demands we have faith and earnestly try to obey his commandments if we want to enter the Kingdom of God.
Also I don't see how you are using Leviticus 20 to say homosexuality (specifically acting on same sex attraction) is not a sin. It says the exact opposite.
Romans 1:26-27 also calls out homosexual acts between men as sin.
You've provided no justification while disagreeing with over 2000 years Christian teachings. Which church do you attend?
Sure. I try and fail everyday to live up to the standards of Christ. Such is the life of a Christian. When I speak about Churches failing I'm not happy about it. I legitmately sympathize. When I talk about homosexuality being a sin I'm not puffing up my chest. I feel empathy for people who are either ignorant of or struggling with that lifestyle. Furthermore as a sinner I am in the same boat. My sins are different but every bit as sinful. I pray daily for the mercy of God.
The two phrases literally mean the same thing. It is scripturally based. Christ loves us but hates our sin. Christ died on the cross for our sins. We must accept Christ and work daily to abide by his commandments.
Leviticus 20 - you may not rape (force a sexual relationship upon) a boy of your household the way you would a woman.
The problem you are having is that you have no concept of the culture or context in which scripture sits. As Jesus would say, “you are lost because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” This has never been a mystery. This interpretation did not appear until around 1000AD as part of the Roman cult’s ongoing attempts to distance themselves from Judaism… the religion that Jesus taught and practiced.
Romans 1:26-27 is explicitly about temple prostitution. Something else that is extremely obvious to anyone with even a little historical context.
2000 years of church teaching: You mean 1000 years of pagan cult teaching? I follow Jesus and I follow scripture. I do not follow scribes and Pharisees or their unscriptural anti-Christ teachings.
Last bit: I am pointing out that this phrase is not scripture. You quoted it as if it was. This is a common problem in the modern church… it does not teach or understand scripture, its context, or its purpose. It’s little more than a political tool meant to keep peasantry in line.
🤔
Again asserted without justification. Are you a gnostic? Because this is quite the theory. Do you believe in the trinity?
It doesn't sound like you follow anything because the early church would not agree with you.
Lol... I am an Orthodox Christian. It is THE ancient church. Their canons and interpretations are locked in time from the 8th century. It is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church left to humanity at Pentecost. I do not attend a "modern" church. The church has scripture AND tradition that is passed down from the time of Christ. There is innate understanding of the culture and practices at the time of Christ and tomes of literature by Church Fathers and scholars to illustrate that point.
You make broad sweeping claims with no justification while accusing me of being a heretic. Homosexuality is a sin. It's in the scriptures, it's in the tradition and it's in the history of the church. The Orthodox church has two millenia of teachings to back up their interpretations. This is the same church that produced the Christian canon that you are citing to me.
Regardless I can tell we arent going to get anywhere. You didn't reveal which church you're a member of which leads me to believe you are a gnostic or some other sect that claims to "know better".
When you say “what Church are you a member of” - you are looking for labels. You talk about the age of your cult as if that gives it authority. You are looking for a way to disengage from the topic of scripture so that you can compare institutional history. This is bad faith.
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who taught and practiced Judaism. I follow those teachings and the scripture upon which they are based. I do not follow Roman cults or the unscriptural Hellenist paganism they have added. That is the “tradition” you mention.
What Jesus taught is painfully simple: the way you treat others, God takes that personally. Love (respect/honor/obey/take joy in) God and love (respect/honor/obey/take joy in) others as you would God. These are the commandments upon which all other Law is based.
Whatever else you believe is inconsequential, unless it runs afoul of those. I warn you, that twisting scriptures explicitly concerning abuse of others into something else entirely - and the biases and treatment of others that result from such twisted reinterpretations - that is a danger to both you and others.
Be warned. Jesus himself has warned you.
I'm trying to understand your worldview.
I'm starting to think you lack an understanding of church history. The "cult" of the Orthodox Church produced the scriptures you're citing. Based on your responses I'm certain you cannot give an account for why the scriptures are inerrant much less why your interpretation is correct. Christ left us the church not a bible. The church produced the canon of scriptures after many hundreds of years being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Early Christians might have only had one book of what we recognize as the New Testament in the first centuries following Christs resurrection. How would your worldview apply then? Early Christians engaged in liturgical worship led by an episcopate. (e.g. the churches the apostles set up in Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria etc.) Tradition was integral to Christian life as was an episcopate that extended throughout the known world.
Lol okay now we're getting somewhere. When Christ died on the cross the old covenant ended, human nature was sanctified and he preached to all the souls in Hades until he was resurrected on the third day. When Christ ascended into heaven the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles who then ministered to gentiles that they might receive Christ and enter the Kingdom of God. In 70AD the Jewish Temple was destroyed ending Temple Judaism entirely. Rabbinical Judaism which is what exists today would not reach any kind of formal existence until the 7th century.
The Old Testament is Christian. Isaiah isn't called the fifth gospel for no reason. Theophanies in the old testament reveal the trinitarian nature of God. Modern jews are schismatics who denied their Messiah despite Christ ministering only to jews during the life of his ministry.
God has commandments. Love is his cardinal commandment but it is paired with repentance. (e.g. faith amd works)
Hating sin does not run afoul of loving someone. Loving each other despite our sinful natures actually what being a Christian is all about.
Also unrepentant sin is literally the only thing God will not forgive. It's not inconsequential which is why allowing sin in a place of worship is most egregious.
You are the one that eschewing "labels", using a (I'm assuming edited) bible that was received from the church you call a cult yet acting as if you have any authority to tell anyone anything. It's peak hypocrisy.
…
This bit kind of explains this dialog. Historical Christianity doesn't fit the insane politics and values of today so it needs to be edited to make things like homosexuality tenable.
Where is this in scripture?
...
And honestly I have to know where you are getting this stuff please give me link.
Edit: Also a clarification that should be made because I get the feeling you think I want to set gay people on fire or something. Homosexuals can (and absolutely should) be welcomed as Christians but part of that is repenting of sins including but not limited to anything related to acting on their same sex attraction. We all must repent. Be it envy, sloth, lust, pride etc etc
If you don't know who the scribes and Pharisees are, or who their analogues are today... well, like I said before, that explains everything... including your twisted, hateful, anti-Christ beliefs. There's nothing left to be said here. The scripture is as it has always been... written black-and-white in Koine and Hebrew and Aramaic. It's still there, unchanged. Ready to be read, as it always has and always will be. Jesus left behind the teaching... not a political institution that can just add whatever it wants whenever it wants to suit it's purposes.
Fair enough. Can you send me a link to whatever source you are using for this theology? (assuming you didnt just make it up)
Sure thing. It’s called “The Bible”.
If you don’t read Koine or Hebrew, this is a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/Interlinear-Bible-Hebrew-Greek-English-English-Hebrew/dp/1565639774
I have a Bible. I want to know where you get your screwball exegesis from.
Well, if you have one you should read it some time. But since most english versions are awful at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst, I recommend the one I linked.
You asked where my plain recitation of scripture comes from, and I answered you. If you don’t like that scripture doesn’t support your wickedness, that’s between you and God, not me. That you can only attack me rather than the scripture itself is telling. 😞