Gaming Expert Pat Robertson: ‘Murdering Somebody In Cyberspace’ same as murder

[Yaro]

You can't prove it's not corrupted.

Yes I can, however, the question is whether my proof is good enough for you... on the other hand feel free to provide a historic proof that the the Eastern Orthodox Church has corrupted practices... I seriously would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

1. The Orthodox Church has maintained an unbroken historical continuity with the original Church founded by Jesus in Jerusalem.

2. The Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.

3.The Orthodox Church faithfully worships God the Father in Spirit and in Truth, providing mankind with personal access to the life and grace of the All-holy Trinity.

4. The Orthodox Church has produced untold numbers of Saints throughout the centuries – persons who bear within themselves the uncreated grace of God.

In summary: The Orthodox Church of today does not imitate that original Christian community; She is that community. The historical continuity of the Orthodox Church, therefore, is the first pillar of Her claim to be the one, authentic Church of Christ. Others may try to imitate the Church of the New Testament, some more closely than others, but no Christian denomination can claim an organic unity with Her. The Orthodox Church teaches today exactly the same thing it was teaching 2000 years ago and exactly the same thing that it was teaching 100 years ago. The basic structure of the Christian Orthodox service(we call it Liturgy) today is the same as it was 2000 years ago, when first Christians met in secret to worship, as it was in the grand Churches of the Roman Empire, as it was in the 15th century Russia. Following is a description of a typical Christian service in the year 150:
And on the day which is called the Sun’s Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or country; and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples. Then we all rise together and offer prayers; and, as I said above, on the conclusion of our prayer, bread is brought and wine and water; and the president similarly offers up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his power, and the people assent with Amen. Then follows the distribution of the Eucharistic Gifts and the partaking of them by all; and they are sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons (Apology I).


shortened version of today's Divine Liturgy.

To me, your faith is much more about humans than about God.

It appears therefore, that to worship God in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24) and to offer Him pure homage is an effect of the Holy Table. From this mystery, therefore, we obtain the gift of being Christ’s members and thus of being like Him. While we were dead it was impossible to offer homage to the living God. But unless we constantly feast at the Banquet is impossible to be alive and to be released from dead works. Just as God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24), so it is fitting that those who choose to worship the Living One should themselves be living, for, as He says, He is not God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:32) (The Life in Christ).






 

[Yaro]

To Yaro:
Interesting. An Orthodox Christian defending the faith.

Thanks for your kind word. I am not defending the faith because it does not need me to defend it. My knowledge is that of a humble member of a laity. I mainly aim to provide an official and objective position of the Orthodox Church on matters that I'm aware of and that are being discussed here. Not a single thing that I have posted here is my opinion, but the official position of the Church.

[Nightmare798]

this reminds me of jack thompson

[Utrakil]

2. The Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.

I respect your faith and believe, but sometimes when I see churches or their autorities act words once spoken by jesus come to my mind and make me wonder how these words go with the seen acts.

Here comes an example:
I see your video with all the gold and plingpling. And then I remember Mt 19:21
(Jesus said to him, If you have a desire to be complete, go, get money for your property, and give it to the poor, and you will have wealth in heaven: and come after me.)

can you help me to understand how this is still the same faith without adding or substracting from it?

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

hahahahaha wtf just happened!

[Yaro]

Here comes an example:
I see your video with all the gold and plingpling. And then I remember Mt 19:21
(Jesus said to him, If you have a desire to be complete, go, get money for your property, and give it to the poor, and you will have wealth in heaven: and come after me.)

can you help me to understand how this is still the same faith without adding or substracting from it?

I will try my best... First of all, the quote you provided does not refer to the service, or it does not say how we should worship. Needless to say, Jesus did not teach us HOW to worship God, humanity has worshiped God prior to the coming of messiah, but WHY we worship Him. Our traditions by which we Christians worship God come from Judaism with appropriate changes, for example: the Jewish liturgical day, the yearly calendar of fasts and feasts and the belief that worship is a sacrifice directed toward God. If you look at the historic garment of high priests in Israel Temple, you will see that they wore a very elaborate dress. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the continuity of the historic tradition when we look at our priests' liturgical garments today. That being said, although Jesus himself was wearing humble garments and lived in humility does not mean that we should come to worship in his temple wearing casual clothes. Also, remember that what priests wear during the Divine Liturgy is not what they wear outside of it. Orthodox priests do dress very humbly(Black robe and a head piece in accordance to their rank) and once the Liturgy is over they remove the liturgical garments. That might not be the most elaborate answer to your question feel free to ask further questions if you have any doubts.
   Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.Psalms 29:2

[Utrakil]

I will try my best... First of all, the quote you provided does not refer to the service, or it does not say how we should worship. Needless to say, Jesus did not teach us HOW to worship God, humanity has worshiped God prior to the coming of messiah, but WHY we worship Him. Our traditions by which we Christians worship God come from Judaism with appropriate changes, for example: the Jewish liturgical day, the yearly calendar of fasts and feasts and the belief that worship is a sacrifice directed toward God. If you look at the historic garment of high priests in Israel Temple, you will see that they wore a very elaborate dress. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the continuity of the historic tradition when we look at our priests' liturgical garments today. That being said, although Jesus himself was wearing humble garments and lived in humility does not mean that we should come to worship in his temple wearing casual clothes. Also, remember that what priests wear during the Divine Liturgy is not what they wear outside of it. Orthodox priests do dress very humbly(Black robe and a head piece in accordance to their rank) and once the Liturgy is over they remove the liturgical garments. That might not be the most elaborate answer to your question feel free to ask further questions if you have any doubts.
   Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.Psalms 29:2

Alright you divide the private and the ceremonical. fair enough.

but then what about Mt 6;5-9
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Doesn't this say he doesn't approve the Judaistic way of worshiping?

And Mt 6;19-21
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

I know this is addressed to the people. But don't you think jesus's general attitude toward the accumulation of wealth should also apply to the organisation which claims to represent his will ?

And you say :" If you look at the historic garment of high priests in Israel Temple, you will see that they wore a very elaborate dress. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the continuity of the historic tradition when we look at our priests' liturgical garments today."
And I have to admit you are right with the continuity but may I show you what jesus thinks about this garment and tradition?
Mt 23;1-12
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

[F i n]

I don't trust a guy whos name is similar to an emo-vampire that bonks christian stewards.

[Casimir]

From a "technical" POV there's no difference between being attracted to females, males, underages, animals, objects, whatever - it's just the way your body is. The difference is that hetero and homosexuality does not hurt anyone else. There's of course no question that sex with children is forbidden and that is good.

The question gets more complicated when the partner is close to 16/17/18. In most countries, society agreed on that young people like that are not yet able really consent, and are too weak of mind to decide for themselves. What the correct age is, is up to the democracy to decide. But it's of course hard to find a hard line for that. A 17 year old doesnt turn clever and reasonable at the 18th birth day. But you have to put a line somewhere, I guess.

Also, media always depicts paedophiles as evil monsters out there to hurt children. Nearly all paedophiles are normal human beings with the knowing that they have an "illegal and immoral sexdrive" - and would never act on it. Just like not every horny guy goes out raping women in the park, not every paedophile tries to have sex with children. Only a very small percentage is actually "dangerous".

visit chadzboyz.net for more

[CrazyCracka420]

Yaro:

The Orthodox Church teaches today exactly the same thing it was teaching 2000 years ago

And there's the rub.  How is a 2000-4000 year old instructions relevant in today's world?  I can see if you take the teachings with a grain of salt, but you're talking a literal interpretation, are you not?  I think a lot has changed in 2000-4000 years, and we've learned a lot as people.

[Kafein]

Yes I can, however, the question is whether my proof is good enough for you... on the other hand feel free to provide a historic proof that the the Eastern Orthodox Church has corrupted practices... I seriously would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

1. The Orthodox Church has maintained an unbroken historical continuity with the original Church founded by Jesus in Jerusalem.

2. The Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.

3.The Orthodox Church faithfully worships God the Father in Spirit and in Truth, providing mankind with personal access to the life and grace of the All-holy Trinity.

4. The Orthodox Church has produced untold numbers of Saints throughout the centuries – persons who bear within themselves the uncreated grace of God.

In summary: The Orthodox Church of today does not imitate that original Christian community; She is that community. The historical continuity of the Orthodox Church, therefore, is the first pillar of Her claim to be the one, authentic Church of Christ. Others may try to imitate the Church of the New Testament, some more closely than others, but no Christian denomination can claim an organic unity with Her. The Orthodox Church teaches today exactly the same thing it was teaching 2000 years ago and exactly the same thing that it was teaching 100 years ago. The basic structure of the Christian Orthodox service(we call it Liturgy) today is the same as it was 2000 years ago, when first Christians met in secret to worship, as it was in the grand Churches of the Roman Empire, as it was in the 15th century Russia. Following is a description of a typical Christian service in the year 150:
And on the day which is called the Sun’s Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or country; and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples. Then we all rise together and offer prayers; and, as I said above, on the conclusion of our prayer, bread is brought and wine and water; and the president similarly offers up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his power, and the people assent with Amen. Then follows the distribution of the Eucharistic Gifts and the partaking of them by all; and they are sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons (Apology I).


shortened version of today's Divine Liturgy.

My point is that if the message of the Bible has been given to men from a source outside of this world and never re-stated after that, there is the possibility that human errors caused the original meaning to be lost or changed in parts, most likely without malicious intent. More importantly, one can't know whether this has happened or not because one can't ask God about it. For all we know God might want you to kill your child if he or she is redhead, or always picking your nose after eating a banana.

That is unless what the Orthodox community as a whole believes and applies is that message, whatever it happens to be, in which case I don't see why there's a God involved.




Another point I'd like to make in light of what has been said in this thread is that, if the message of God has been kept untainted by the Orthodox Church and every verset of the Bible following the Orthodox Church's reading is true, how comes current science literally disproves some parts of it ?

[Lt_Anders]

Another point I'd like to make in light of what has been said in this thread is that, if the message of God has been kept untainted by the Orthodox Church and every verset of the Bible following the Orthodox Church's reading is true, how comes current science literally disproves some parts of it ?

Before you read below: Tell me one. I like hearing these because I find them Fascinating. The listed example below only illistrates a facet of science which is just as belief based as religion.

Ah, if you use the most common example(IE Carbon Dating) that is actually, and never will be, an Untested Theory. Carbon Dating uses the mathematical principle of Exponential Decay. But, you see, there is 1 thing wrong with carbon dating. Anything past written records can't be trusted. Because, Carbon Dating relies on this theory: What has happened in the world, now, has always happened at the same rate before now.

Logically, we can see that, if we Carbon date the Mona Lisa, it will give us exactly the year it was made. We can then verify this because of Historical records. Scientists and Mathematicians have taken that same principle and said: Since it's this way now, then it has always had the same rate.(IE Carbon decays at the same rate regardless, thereby meaning that if the rate of decay is the same, then you can calculate the year once you find the amount of decay.)

Point being: Anything that relates to objects of time before written record can't be trusted due to the implicit theory of rate of change being equivalent.
And, btw, this is proven. Look it up. We can't mathematically determine the ago rating of things older than a written record corroborates. This is why archeology is so important. Finding the wheres, and then trying to match multiple records to prove an item or object.

[Kafein]

Before you read below: Tell me one. I like hearing these because I find them Fascinating. The listed example below only illistrates a facet of science which is just as belief based as religion.

Ah, if you use the most common example(IE Carbon Dating) that is actually, and never will be, an Untested Theory. Carbon Dating uses the mathematical principle of Exponential Decay. But, you see, there is 1 thing wrong with carbon dating. Anything past written records can't be trusted. Because, Carbon Dating relies on this theory: What has happened in the world, now, has always happened at the same rate before now.

Logically, we can see that, if we Carbon date the Mona Lisa, it will give us exactly the year it was made. We can then verify this because of Historical records. Scientists and Mathematicians have taken that same principle and said: Since it's this way now, then it has always had the same rate.(IE Carbon decays at the same rate regardless, thereby meaning that if the rate of decay is the same, then you can calculate the year once you find the amount of decay.)

Point being: Anything that relates to objects of time before written record can't be trusted due to the implicit theory of rate of change being equivalent.
And, btw, this is proven. Look it up. We can't mathematically determine the ago rating of things older than a written record corroborates. This is why archeology is so important. Finding the wheres, and then trying to match multiple records to prove an item or object.

By rejecting the principle of stationarity, it's not carbon dating that you put in doubt but almost everything science has ever said or done. We suppose that when we find a rule, it has always been the same because that's the simplest hypothesis that is coherent with our observations. All findings done via carbon dating are coherent with previous scientific knowledge. The "previous" part is important because this implies that no human tried to skew either theories in order to make it work, it just so happens that everything fits in. That's not a very frequent thing with scientific hypotheses and a very strong indication that something is right with what is being done. For example, Kepler's law linking the mass of planets and their orbit (I don't remember the exact terms but that's not relevant) worked for all known planets at the time. That's not really a feat because anybody can come up with a mathematical expression complicated enough to match the data. The impressive thing about it is that it was extremely simple (an equation of the type x^2 = y^3) and, more importantly, that we later found out that it correctly matched the data of a planet Kepler had no idea existed. The same thing occurs with theories that are validated through carbon dating.

This principle is not based on belief, it is based on pragmatism and also the most basic aspect of scientific work : find the simplest model which fits known data. Up until now, we never needed anything evolving with the age of the universe, so up until now we assumed there was none. By breaking this principle (I'm sure you have heard of the name Occam's Razor) you can basically add any spurious and trivial hypothesis you want and call it science.

Btw, this also means that in the same line of thought I can make the hypothesis of the existence some phenomemon that would have happened at some point in 1044 and which added a negation in an important sentence in all representations of the Bible, including people's memories. You can't prove that it never happened, just like I can't prove there is nothing that changes with the age of the universe, but it is also equally useless to explain the universe as we know it and therefore not accepted by the scientific community.

[Armpit_Sweat]

.. science which is just as belief based as religion.

Here is a definition of science from Merriam-Webste dictionary: 
"A department of systematized knowledge as an object of study" 
 
It is a method of systemizing information. It has nothing to do with believing.   
 
As an example: if someone gets sick, and will keep trying to believe in getting better as hard as possible - nothing will happen. Otherwise no one would waste time on modern hospitals and professional medics, who are, without any doubt, a product of science. 
 
Let's forget about science for a moment! Let's use logic, a method you have used, and hopefully "believe" in yourself. 
Let's assume all humans, as a species, are equal. I hope, that not many people will deny this fact in 2013. Why are we even talking about Bible, and Christianity in particular, when there are hundreds of religions and thousands of sects?.. And how many there were, before Christianity?..   
 
Check this list: 

(click to show/hide)

 
Christianity: 2.1 billion 
Islam: 1.5 billion 
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 
Hinduism: 900 million 
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million 
Buddhism: 376 million 
primal-indigenous: 300 million 
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million 
Sikhism: 23 million 
Juche: 19 million 
Spiritism: 15 million 
Judaism: 14 million 
Baha'i: 7 million 
Jainism: 4.2 million 
Shinto: 4 million 
Cao Dai: 4 million 
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million 
Tenrikyo: 2 million 
Neo-Paganism: 1 million 
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand 
Scientology: 500 thousand 

 
 
Even if it's not 100% precise, it still gives a good picture. 
 
So every time I see a quote from any particular religious book - i don't even bother to take it seriously, as it is one of so many, and they can't be all true. You can not, CAN NOT assume that every other religion, every single non Christian that ever existed throughout the human history - is wrong. That is against all logic or common sense, however you want to put it.   
 
As for christianity in particular, look at this: 
 

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

 
 
Do you really imply, that only one of these "franchises" is true?.. And every other is somehow incorrect? Or displeases God some way?.. It is insane! What makes YOUR religion better, compared to every other?   
 
That is, of cause, assuming there are no "superior" races or nations, who are "blessed" with the only correct word of God. So yeah.. can you see any logic here?.. 
 
When someone talks about spirituality in general, about a higher power of sorts, and it helps them to live a better life, with hopes for purpose of their existence - it is something i can relate to. If mother loses a child, and hopes to see it in afterlife - i will never, under any circumstances mock her Faith. On the other hand, when someone starts quoting scriptures, taking some ancient texts as words of a specific God - i see danger in it, since i consider it to be a potentially violent form of insanity.

[Lt_Anders]

By rejecting the principle of stationarity, it's not carbon dating that you put in doubt but almost everything science has ever said or done. We suppose that when we find a rule, it has always been the same because that's the simplest hypothesis that is coherent with our observations. All findings done via carbon dating are coherent with previous scientific knowledge. The "previous" part is important because this implies that no human tried to skew either theories in order to make it work, it just so happens that everything fits in. That's not a very frequent thing with scientific hypotheses and a very strong indication that something is right with what is being done. For example, Kepler's law linking the mass of planets and their orbit (I don't remember the exact terms but that's not relevant) worked for all known planets at the time. That's not really a feat because anybody can come up with a mathematical expression complicated enough to match the data. The impressive thing about it is that it was extremely simple (an equation of the type x^2 = y^3) and, more importantly, that we later found out that it correctly matched the data of a planet Kepler had no idea existed. The same thing occurs with theories that are validated through carbon dating.

This principle is not based on belief, it is based on pragmatism and also the most basic aspect of scientific work : find the simplest model which fits known data. Up until now, we never needed anything evolving with the age of the universe, so up until now we assumed there was none. By breaking this principle (I'm sure you have heard of the name Occam's Razor) you can basically add any spurious and trivial hypothesis you want and call it science.

Btw, this also means that in the same line of thought I can make the hypothesis of the existence some phenomemon that would have happened at some point in 1044 and which added a negation in an important sentence in all representations of the Bible, including people's memories. You can't prove that it never happened, just like I can't prove there is nothing that changes with the age of the universe, but it is also equally useless to explain the universe as we know it and therefore not accepted by the scientific community.

Suppose, suppose, suppose! Yes that's right! We suppose they work because we haven't been contradicted. If, at anypoint, we find that stationairity changed, what happens then? In terms of Science, nothing, actually. Most science isn't built on past reference data(other than theories of change and evolution for things like the universe or soil mechanics, etc).

Plate tectonics happens. Proven.
Did it happen faster, same, or slower: Science says same, but we can't prove.

Same with other major theories. The basic Application is PROVEN, but anything that relates to length of time outside of 10,000+ years is speculation on that stationary principle.

It doesn't change science. Algebra, Calculus, Newtonian Physics are all unchanged by this principle(Unsure of modern Physics applications as they are outside of my interest/learning). That's the thing about Math, it is a logical, and precise tool. Carbon dating, though is an empirical application of the current mathematical application of Radioactive decay.

All I said was that we take it as a fact that stuff happened "linearly," for lack of better word, through time.

And that's why science is nice.
Theory(based on Observation) > Data > Confirmation or Change > New Theory > Law(End)

But what we have on some things is this:
Theory(based on Observation) > No previous data > Confirmation > New Theory > Law(End)

It's similar to Quantom Mechanics. We have knowledge its there(mathematically, it was shown to be true, if I remember correctly), but we are still at the DATA stage.

Carbon Dating: Is it False? NO, but maybe, we can't say for sure, but it is not logical or mathematical to say it hasn't happened.
We climb to high, oft times, and don't pay careful attention to our floors.

I actually had a serious calculus book(grad level) that mentioned all of this. It wasn't some crazy right wing math nut, but a normal non partisan book. Always be careful that while it's mathematically possible, doesn't mean it can happen IRL.

Here's a Fun question: If we lose the gravity from Sol, how long until we lose the light too?
(That's a classic Newtonian Answer)

@Armpit: Good job selectively quoting. I'm talking about a key theory of science, ignoring religion entirely.