Only One Truth

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
802


Psalm 1:1
Blessed is the man that had not walked in the counsel of the ungodly… Allelujah

A mighty spiritual giant, who was broken by nothing and by no one, whose image does not fade with the ages, Venerable Maximus the Confessor is a faithful indicator, even till now, of how one may follow after Christ by that path by which Saint Maximus so faithfully followed the Lord.

Saint Maximus was born at the end of the sixth century in Constantinople of noble parents and received an excellent philosophical and theological education. Under the Emperor Heraclius (610-641), he was among the imperial counselors. Seeing the spread of the heresy of the Monothelites, with which even the Emperor himself was infected, (the Monothelites rejected a human will in Jesus Christ, whereby they diminished the significance of His sufferings on the Cross; the Monothelites incorrectly thought that the human nature of Jesus Christ was swallowed up and annihilated by His Divine nature), he left the imperial palace and joined the monks in the Chrysopolis Monastery. Subsequently, Venerable Maximus became the superior of this monastery.

A profound theologian of his time and a strict defender of Orthodoxy, Maximus very ably and successfully demonstrated the incorrectness of the Monothelite heresy, for which he was subjected to persecutions many times by the enemies of the Church.

Venerable Maximus’ arguments in behalf of Orthodoxy were so powerful that after a public debate on the faith with Pyrrhus, the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, the latter renounced the heresy in 645.

Venerable Maximus was sent into exile several times and each time would again be called back to Constantinople. The heretics often passed from admonitions and promises to threats, abuse and the beating of Venerable Maximus.

On one occasion, Saint Maximus was called back to Constantinople, where the imperial grandees, Troilus and Sergius, again subjected him to interrogation. They began to accuse Saint Maximus of pride for esteeming himself as the only Orthodox who is being saved and for considering all others to be heretics who are perishing.

To this, the Saint replied: “[b]When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Youths did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with what others were doing, but took care only for themselves, so as not to fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, Daniel also, when cast into the den, did not condemn any of those who, in fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God; but he bore in mind his duty, and desired rather to die than to sin and be tormented by his conscience for transgressing God’s Law. God forbid that I, too, should condemn anyone, or say that I alone am being saved. However, I would sooner agree to die than, having apostatized in any way from the right faith, endure the torments of my conscience.[/b]”

Then Troilus and Sergius began to point out to Saint Maximus that already the whole Christian world recognized the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople as legitimate, that all the Eastern Patriarchs and their locum tenentes were in communion with him, and that the plenipotentiary representatives of the Roman Pope will serve with the Patriarch and commune with him. Thus, he is the only one remaining in the whole world who does not recognize the Patriarch.

The Saint answered: “[b]If even the whole universe should begin to commune with the Patriarch, I will not commune with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit will give over to anathema even the angels, if they should begin to preach any other gospel, introducing anything new.[/b]”

Venerable Maximus remained unshaken in his religious convictions. Finally, they cut off his right hand and tongue, so that he could not proclaim or defend the truth either by word or by epistle. Then they dispatched him to confinement in Lazov (a region of Mingrelia) in the Caucasus. Here, Venerable Maximus died on the 13th of August 662, knowing in advance of his end.

Venerable Maximus wrote many theological works in defense of Orthodox Christianity. Especially valuable are his instructions on the spiritual and contemplative life, some of which were included in the “Philokalia” (a collection of patristic instructions on prayer and the ascetic life). In these ascetical instructions, the spiritual profundity and perceptiveness of Saint Maximus’ thought is revealed. Also, an explanation of the Liturgy that has a great theological significance has come down to us from him.

Venerable Father Maximus, entreat God for us!

Kontakion, Tone 8
O faithful, let us acclaim the lover of the Trinity, great Maximos who taught the God-inspired Faith, that Christ is to be glorified in two natures, wills and energies: and let us cry to him: Rejoice, O herald of the Faith.

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
For our faith, brethren, is not of men nor by man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ, which the divine Apostles preached, the holy Ecumenical Councils confirmed, the greatest and wisest teachers of the world handed down in succession, and the shed blood of the holy martyrs ratified. Let us hold fast to the confession which we have received unadulterated from [ungodly] men, turning away from every novelty as a suggestion of the devil.

803

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Some interesting questions to reason on:

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, where would they be now?

Were Adam and Eve warned they would go to hell if they disobeyed?

Who/what did Job think was causing his problems and was he wrong or right?

Why does the bible relate Jesus to Adam and in what way?

Not too many for now.

Go.[/quote]

Some answers, from the Liturgy of Saint Basil:

Priest: Together with these blessed powers, loving Master we sinners also cry out and say: Truly You are holy and most holy, and there are no bounds to the majesty of Your holiness. You are holy in all Your works, for with righteousness and true judgment You have ordered all things for us. For having made man by taking dust from the earth, and having honored him with Your own image, 0 God, You placed him in a paradise of delight, promising him eternal life and the enjoyment of everlasting blessings in the observance of Your commandments. But when he disobeyed You, the true God who had created him, and was led astray by the deception of the serpent becoming subject to death through his own transgressions, You, 0 God, in Your righteous judgment, expelled him from paradise into this world, returning him to the earth from which he was taken, yet providing for him the salvation of regeneration in Your Christ. For You did not forever reject Your creature whom You made, 0 Good One, nor did You forget the work of Your hands, but because of Your tender compassion, You visited him in various ways: You sent forth prophets; You performed mighty works by Your saints who in every generation have pleased You. You spoke to us by the mouth of Your servants the prophets, announcing to us the salvation which was to come; You gave us the law to help us; You appointed angels as guardians. And when the fullness of time had come, You spoke to us through Your Son Himself, through whom You created the ages. He, being the splendor of Your glory and the image of Your being, upholding all things by the word of His power, thought it not robbery to be equal with You, God and Father. But, being God before all ages, He appeared on earth and lived with humankind. Becoming incarnate of the holy Virgin, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, conforming to the body of our lowliness, that He might change us into the likeness of the image of His glory. For, since through man sin came into the world and through sin death, it pleased Your only begotten Son, who is in Your bosom, God and Father, born of a woman, the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary; born under the law, to condemn sin in His flesh, so that those who died in Adam may be brought to life in Him, Your Christ. He lived in this world, and gave us precepts of salvation. Releasing us from the delusions of idolatry, He guided us to the sure knowledge of You, the true God and Father. He acquired us for Himself, as His chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Having cleansed us by water and sanctified us with the Holy Spirit, He gave Himself as ransom to death in which we were held captive, sold under sin. Descending into Hades through the cross, that He might fill all things with Himself, He loosed the bonds of death. He rose on the third day, having opened a path for all flesh to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible that the Author of life would be dominated by corruption. So He became the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep, the first born of the dead, that He might be Himself the first in all things. Ascending into heaven, He sat at the right hand of Your majesty on high and He will come to render to each according to His works. As memorials of His saving passion, He has left us these gifts which we have set forth before You according to His commands. For when He was about to go forth to His voluntary, ever memorable, and life-giving death, on the night on which He was delivered up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy and pure hands, and presenting it to You, God and Father, and offering thanks, blessing, sanctifying, and breaking it:

804

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
All philosophies, whether theistic or atheistic have axioms. …does it follow from this that they aren’t axioms and can’t be used as such? Of course not.[/quote]

Axioms should be axioms. Not axioms if you believe such and such. That’s why “axioms” of faith are called dogma.

True axioms are self-evidently true, no matter what your beliefs are.

Dogmas are proclaimed true without further proof.

Do you believe in flying-killer-ninja-monkeys? Is your absence of belief in flying-killer-ninja-monkeys a belief?

A for the big bang theory, what I believe is irrelevant. The theory makes sense, but it does not impact how I live my life. If a better theory comes along and seems to be better supported by evidence and observations; I’ll “believe” that theory.

Origin of man: Evolution.

Origin of the universe: no definitive theory for now. “Inventing” a God being to explain it away doesn’t help.

[quote]Is it as scientific, logical, and as reasonable as Dr. Crick’s theory of “Directed Panspermia”? This ought to be good. I’ll try not to laugh.

Simple logic huh? That’s funny since I don’t see any evidence for the big bang theory, or whichever modification of it that you happen to hold to. [/quote]

Put “big bang theory” in Google and read on it. You’ll see what evidence we have, and what problem the theory has.

It’s not perfect, but that’s the problem when you try to build you theory from available evidence, and not simply make up stories as you go along.

Er, no. No swirling mass. I mentioned a recent Scientific American issue back there. Look it up, your local library should have a copy.

Making up stuff about a theory you obviously know nothing about doesn’t help your argument.

No “swirling mass”, so…

Good question. A swift kick to my ass while I’m alone in a room would do it.

Ah, but there is evidence for it. Many of the predictions made by the big bang theory (expansion of the universe, background radiation level, “lumpiness” of matter in the universe, etc) are observed. The Hubble telescope in recent years has confirmed many thing about the theory that where believed to be true but hadn’t been confirmed.

Like I said, Google is your friend. Or Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.”

In that sense, those aren’t “beliefs” but “our best current explanation” from observable evidence. Closer to “fact” than “belief.”

It’s a bit like the difference between “believe” the earth to be flat and “believing” it to be round.

And where did your God come from? He’s his own cause, of course, the “uncaused cause”… And he magically created Adam and Eve from dirt. Much more logical and reasonable.

I find it interesting that things that “faithfulls” find so “impossible” (ie, evolution, cosmology) are so readily accepted once God is thrown in.

You mention Crick a lot. You might want to broaden your horizons a bit. DNA was discovered in 1953; science has advanced since and other theories have been formulated.

One of the best books I’ve read on the subject is Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker”. It is one of the better layman explanation of evolution and how it starts (your “life from non-life” question).

I meant: WTF is “dookie?” Please use words that exist. Green Day album titles don’t count.

But there is evidence. You seem to think that science is a bunch of guys sitting around making stuff up. Those are called “theologist”, not scientist.

Google “scientific method” for further details. It is probably the crowning achievement of man’s intellect after language and writing.

[quote]** I think that you even admitted regarding the Big Bang theory that it?s “just the best one we have right now”–or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Theories aren’t dogmatic. They evolve and change over time as problems are found; new explanations proposed and tested and eventually rejected or incorporated into the theory.

You can scoff and smirk and find it all laughable; but when you use a computer, watch TV, listen to a CD, call on your cellphone, track your movement by GPS, etc. you’re using devices that where made possible in the last 50 years because of scientific theories like quantum mechanics (transistors, lasers, etc) and general relativity (GPS, spaceflight, etc). Cosmology and evolution are also scientific theories and are subject to the same rigor and testing.

805

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
The God of the Bible actively controls what you do, say, and think Pookie. And this is not a human invention, for human inventions say things like “there is no God”, or “there is an impotent little idol god who wishes that you would let him save you.” What say you to that?
[/quote]

I keep forgetting you’re the “Puppet Master God” guy.

A few thoughts:

  1. What about free will? Didn’t God grant men free will?

  2. So, from what you’ve said, your God “wills me” to be an atheist. How then could I be anything else but an atheist. Maybe I’d like to be a good Catholic (might as well follow the One True Church, right?) but I can’t because God is willing me to reject faith.

Gotta go, God is willing me to go get another coffee.

806

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
pookie,
Christians are people teaching you about concepts you understand only on the shallowest of levels. When you observe a tree, you see the bark, the branches, the fruits, and the leaves but testify that the tree must be hollow and have no roots beneath the soil. You need to grab an axe to start chopping and a shovel to start digging. Hopefully you do this sooner rather than later because when you die and a lumberjack chops that tree down and makes a coffin from its heartwood, and a gravedigger sets your burial 6-feet under along its deepest of roots, it’ll be too late for you to change your views or ways. By then, the epitaph [i]Rest in Peace[/i] may well be irrelevant in describing you.[/quote]

Do you think God would be more honored if I pretended fake belief? Or if I’m honest in my views and reject His existence? If your God rewards honesty with oblivion and faking it with eternal existence; I’ll take oblivion. Wouldn’t want to spend eternity with that kind of God.

807

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
How ironic that three glorious Crosses should decorate the crown depicted in your avatar. Just remember, every knee shall bow to the Great King in that Day of Judgment.[/quote]

And how about yours? Looks closer to Satan than any saint or Jesus… or was there a St. Minotaur I’m unaware of?

808

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
I must have skimmed over this one the first time and missed it.[/quote]

You seem to do that a lot.

There is probably an historical figure on whom the Jesus mythology is based upon; what I meant was that he was simply a man, didn’t walk on water or raise the dead, etc.

An historical basis; embellished throughout the ages until the current story about the son of God.

The greek had similar example (Hercules), same for the Hindues (Krishna) and so on. All “sons of God” who performed miracles.

Keep in mind that the Church itself has been keeping historical records for century. Most of our “history” is of european origin; from a time where the Church’s power and reach was nearly absolute.

Try to find secular sources backing up the existence of Jesus; that’s a lot harder. And the very few original documents that document the period when Jesus lived make surprisingly little mention of him.

Even more interesting is comparing Church provided copies of old documents with recently discovered originals of those same documents. Somehow, all passages refering to “Joshua” have been altered to add refences to his being the Messiah; a fact never mentioned in the original.

Again, Google for “historical jesus” and read. Make up your own mind after reading BOTH sides of the debate.

I’m not denying his historical existence. I’m saying the the Gospels’ account of his existence have been embellished to make him “divine.”

I’m sure the real historical Jesus was a fascinating man (like many great philosopher of antiquity), I simply don’t buy his divinity.

I think you meant the opposite of what you wrote. But you’re right: It is a rational and reasonable statement. Believing otherwise is irrational and unreasonable.

809

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
b[/b] He guides sinners onto the path of salvation thru His Body, the Orthodox Christian Church, so that we commune with Him and be purified, illuminated, and sanctified and thus be prepared to experience the reign of God’s kingdom within our hearts.[/quote]

First, the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ’s true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles’ Creed and the Primitive Christian letters).

Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: “Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.” Our Lord said: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd”, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church.

Just thought you’d like to know. :wink:

810

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm[/quote]

Tell that to the 250,000 dead from the december tsunami in the Indian ocean.

811

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Saint Maximus was born at the end of the sixth century in Constantinople…[/quote]

You’re posting Catholic saints: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintm96.htm

812

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
If Adam and Eve had not sinned, where would they be now?[/quote]

It’s a story. You can make up any alternative ending you’d like.

Here’s one:

After eating a tasty Serpent for lunch; Adam and Eve eventually found out they could reproduce. Amazed by the navel of their first born, they promptly produced a few more kids to see if the first one’s belly was normal.

Eventually, they found themselves with 4 kids ages 2 to 4. Then they knew Hell.

No, God lied to them, telling them they would die. “(Genesis 2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Some bad shellfish he ate. He was fucked.

Jesus is referred to as “the second Adam”. They share the same daddy.

813

[quote]pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
b[/b] He guides sinners onto the path of salvation thru His Body, the Orthodox Christian Church, so that we commune with Him and be purified, illuminated, and sanctified and thus be prepared to experience the reign of God’s kingdom within our hearts.

First, the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ’s true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles’ Creed and the Primitive Christian letters).

Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: “Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.” Our Lord said: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd”, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church.

Just thought you’d like to know. ;)[/quote]

Thanks, correct-the Orthodox Catholic Church. Even the Romans call us Catholic.

814

[quote]pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm

Tell that to the 250,000 dead from the december tsunami in the Indian ocean.[/quote]

How is it different from the 250,000 who die in an average day on earth?

815

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Thanks, correct-the Orthodox Catholic Church. Even the Romans call us Catholic.[/quote]

Sorry, I’ll make it a little clearer for the dimwitted: Catholic Church - Wikipedia

“… the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ.”

Accept no substitute.

816

[quote]pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
If Adam and Eve had not sinned, where would they be now?

It’s a story. You can make up any alternative ending you’d like.[/quote]

Just when I thought the thread was dying Pookie comes back ablazing!
Anyway, Pookie, humor me here and let’s reason on what the biblical conclusion would be. Again I ask, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, ever, where would they be today?[quote]

Here’s one:

After eating a tasty Serpent for lunch; Adam and Eve eventually found out they could reproduce. Amazed by the navel of their first born, they promptly produced a few more kids to see if the first one’s belly was normal.

Eventually, they found themselves with 4 kids ages 2 to 4. Then they knew Hell.[/quote]

Not bad. Unfortunately we know they didn’t eat meat at that time. And if you were perfect and saw a naked, perfect woman, I don’t think it would take you long to figure out what to do. I’d probably agree witht the hell comment.[quote]

Were Adam and Eve warned they would go to hell if they disobeyed?

No, God lied to them, telling them they would die. “(Genesis 2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[/quote]

Dead on. No mention made of anything other than ‘you shall die.’ ‘From dust you are and to dust you will return.’ Nothing immortal about them nor a ‘spirit’ side. No need for it as can be seen once the first question above is answered.[quote]

Who/what did Job think was causing his problems and was he wrong or right?

Some bad shellfish he ate. He was fucked.[/quote]

Again, humor me. I’m interested in your conclusion BASED ON SCRIPTURE to this question. [quote]

Why does the bible relate Jesus to Adam and in what way?

Jesus is referred to as “the second Adam”. They share the same daddy.[/quote]

True. However what similarity was there between Adam and Jesus that no other human has ever shared? Relates to why Jesus could not possibly have been God.

817

[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Thanks, correct-the Orthodox Catholic Church. Even the Romans call us Catholic.

Sorry, I’ll make it a little clearer for the dimwitted: Catholic Church - Wikipedia

“… the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ.”

Accept no substitute.[/quote]

No shit they have to claim that. Note the term putatively. They also changed the creed-and that’s where you get the word Catholic anyway. Just historically speaking, there was only 1 church until 1054 (officially) from which Rome broke off (although of course they would argue that we broke from them). And historically, even their OLDEST records show that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. Ovet that last 1000 years they have changed about 25% of their core theological beliefs-and the taken back many of them when they realized how ridiculous they were. And in 1900 there were more Orthodox than Romans (which together were about 35% of the worlds population). The Orthodox were decimated by Communist and Moslem persecutions.

818

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
True. However what similarity was there between Adam and Jesus that no other human has ever shared? Relates to why Jesus could not possibly have been God.[/quote]

You spoke to us through Your Son Himself, through whom You created the ages. He, being the splendor of Your glory and the image of Your being, upholding all things by the word of His power, thought it not robbery to be equal with You, God and Father. But, being God before all ages, He appeared on earth and lived with humankind. Becoming incarnate of the holy Virgin, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, conforming to the body of our lowliness, that He might change us into the likeness of the image of His glory. For, since through man sin came into the world and through sin death, it pleased Your only begotten Son, who is in Your bosom, God and Father, born of a woman, the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary; born under the law, to condemn sin in His flesh, so that those who died in Adam may be brought to life in Him, Your Christ.

819

[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Thanks, correct-the Orthodox Catholic Church. Even the Romans call us Catholic.

Sorry, I’ll make it a little clearer for the dimwitted: Catholic Church - Wikipedia

“… the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ.”

Accept no substitute.[/quote]

And from the same source:

Clearly, its claim against claim when you hold the GREAT ENCYCLOPEDIA up as the ultimate source of scholarly information in the western world. IT is for dimwits and 6th grade reports.

820

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Just when I thought the thread was dying Pookie comes back ablazing![/quote]

I’m not quitting until stellar_horizon has gotten laid at least once. I’ll accept a partner of either gender too.

What is this? No one told me they’d be a pop quiz during the weekend.

They’d still be in Eden with a lot of descendants.

We know? Sheesh. Pretend the Serpent was made of tofu.

Yeah, but since God is lying, maybe He’s also lying (by omission) by not telling them they have souls and that He’ll gleefully roast those for eternity if they’re bad.

God was often in a foul mood in the old testament and maybe it was a bad day for Him. (He’d just worked for seven days straight for the first time in an eternity, He probably had “uncaused soreness” all over.) He didn’t feel like explaining what eternal torment and gnashing of teeth was, so “die” was close enough.

I wonder if He’s pissed that His “pain of childbirth” curse to Eve has been lifted by the simple anaesthetic procedure known as an epidural.

I don’t know how long you’ve been following this thread, but I have to inform you that I’m not the most assiduous reader of scripture.

I give up, why don’t you tell us?

821

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
pookie wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm

Tell that to the 250,000 dead from the december tsunami in the Indian ocean.

How is it different from the 250,000 who die in an average day on earth?[/quote]

Non sequitur.

“He only bestows blessings and never does harm.” Seems to me that preventing or averting the tsunami might have been a blessing. Allowing it to happen did harm.