Religion: What is the one true faith?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Hey! The Protestant Episcopal Church is way ahead of the Church of England in terms of social progress. We're ahead in terms of our treatment of women and gays.

true

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MrFun


true

But not necessarily for long. The Protestant Episcopal Church may not survive the latest controversy. There are those for both the left wing and the right gunning for our demise. Something I've learned, and I must admit I'm not certain if its truth or propaganda, is that the election of Robertson as bishop of New Hampshire may have been contrived. New Hampshire is a small diocese. Episcopalian bishops are elected, serve a set term, and can not be re-elected. Candidates have to meet certain requirements in terms of age and length of service. Robertson had just moved into the New Hampshire diocese before openly coming out of the closet. He met the requirements to become a bishop and in fact he was the only qualified candidate in the diocese. His move to New Hampshire appears to have been strongly backed by bishop Spong shortly before his retirement, and it now appears that Spong knew about Robinson's oreintation but kept it a secret. Moving Robinson to New Hampshire may have been intended as a strategic move to force the Episcopal Church to elect a gay bishop. The problem is that the Protestant Episcopal Church now appears to be unraveling. Some parishes are voting to join the Roman Catholic Church, others are joining the renegade "Anglican Chuch of the USA" which hopes to displace the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion.

I think it will be a great tragedy if the church that was literally the "Faith of our Fathers" becomes the fatal victim of a struggle between two polar factions, each of which are under the influence of external forces that falsely claim to reflect the philosophy of those very same founding fathers.

[Elok]

Well, I think I lost my temper in mid-post last time, for which I'm sorry, but what I meant to say was that the Pope's position, in addition to being purely nominal, was based on his inheritance of Peter's role as spiritual guide and leader of the disciples. Our denial of his right is largely due to the fact that he no longer takes the role St. Peter had. Far from being a steady "rock" of the church, the Papacy is inconsistent, has set itself up in a dictatorial fashion contrary to what we think the church ought to be and has been, is continuously coming up with new doctrines with no apparent justification, and, as I said, doesn't really resemble the ancient church in either services (which isn't a big deal, really) or general spirit. With that said, Rome is closer to us than any of the Protestant churches, but they resemble the Church of old to the same extent that America's government resembles the Roman republic it was modelled on. We are all but identical to the Church of the ecumenical councils, so we think it would be pretty silly to call us a "new" religion.
And we are more or less in our own communion, in response to Ben's question. We believe that participation in a non-Orthodox eucharist (with the possible exception of the Copts and maybe the Ethiopians) is essentially an act of self-excommunication, because it implies tacit acceptance of the ideals and beliefs of a heretical church. If I took a Catholic communion, I would have to be re-chrismated as an Orthodox Christian, probably after undergoing the full catechesis to boot. We don't let non-Orthodox participate in ours either.

[Dr Strangelove]

Peter's spiritual heir would have to be someone whose spiritual leadership reflects Peter's historical spiritual leadership. There is nothing written that indicates that there can't be more than one spiritual heir, or that the idea of spiritual heritage really applies to a particular person or persons as opposed to the abstract idea of a greater church united by a common heritage, or that it necessarily applies to the guy in Peter's old seat. Christ said that Peter was the rock on which the church would be based. Peter went out and spread the faith further than any other apostle, reaching the very heart of the Roman empire. Maybe Christ was trying to say: "Look, even though you're going to embarass yourself by deserting me when the chips are down you will recover and go on to create a ministry which literally will be unstoppable." Nothing was said about administrative details.

[Ben Kenobi]

as opposed to the abstract idea of a greater church united by a common heritage,

Dr. Strangelove:

I'm hungry, so I'm going to go for lunch.

In the meantime, I think you've hit on a very important point, the difference between the 'invisible' and visible church.

I think that Pope John Paul reinforces this idea, if I have it correctly, when he traces Apostolic succession as being the succession of the college of bishops, and priests, not merely through one individual priest or bishop. I believe that the pope then would be one of the college, though the most significant member of the college of bishops.

There seem to be two features of Succession, in that it passes on from one bishop to another, but also, that it carries on with it an orthodox faith. Any priest who strays from the teachings, regardless of the origin, would no longer have authority.

Elok:

I'll reply when I get back. Thanks for replying to my question.

[realpolitic]

If the one true faith is JudeoChristian, then maybe the best way to find it is look for the common thread:

Jewdism = The 10 Commandments = Treat each other with decency & respect

Christianity = Love thy bother as thy self

Anoyone who follows these priciples: Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist or Moslem is a member of the True Faith.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Only if you take that quote as literally as possible. The quote should really be hope in things not perceived. We perceive air, though we don't see it. We perceive subatomic particles, though we don't see them. We perceive gravity, though we don't see it.

For all these things there is evidence that indicates that there existence is real even if we cannot see it with our own eyes. Observation and experimentation still shows that these things are there.

And before you think that your sight is so reliable, you should know what seeing is. Photons, generally emitted by the sun or from our own artificial sources, strike atoms, exciting the electrons of those atoms. The electrons, in order to maintain a stable orbit, release photons that correspond to the properties of those atoms and then sink back down to their normal position. These photons - which are both particles and waves at the same time - make contact with our eyes. This produces an electrical signal that travels throughout our brain, is flipped around a good deal, and is then interpreted based upon our knowledge of the universe, our experiences. Then we "see" it. Seeing is believing?

And now to faith. "Faith is hope in things not seen." If a thing is not seen (read: perceived) then it can have one of two sources. The first source is the supernatural, an area above and beyond our natural universe that does not necessarily follow any of the laws we are familiar with. People with faith trust that the supernatural exists.

Or, if a thing does not exist in the physical, detectable universe, then it exists in our mind. If a thing cannot be shown to be real, then it would have to be an artificial construct of our brain. In addition, this thing must be willed into existence by our consciousness, for it cannot have an external source. If it were to have an external source, it would be "seen" and would not be faith-based.

In other words, faith is more accurately described as hope in things greater than ourselves, or hope in things desired. And there is absolutely no way that we can ever tell the difference.

Of course,
I was just making fun of it
by, as you mentiond taking it as literally as possible

Although from a certain standpoint it also camn be seen as truth.
To say "Air is for real" I have to trust into the experiments made by Scientists (of course some of the Experiments are so easy that even someone from outside of the Comunity can do it, for example the Expriment with the Rat [or candle] within the Cheesecover which shows, that there is a certain [although invisible] stuff which causes the rat to breathe and the candle to burn).
But for other things, like Quantum Mechanics Sceience borders to belief. Quantum Mechanics (and Astrophysics) are so complex, that it is very difficult for people outside of these physical fields of study (and more so for people with no academic background) to understand these theories and almost impossible to check them by maing their own experiments (unless of couse you are superrich like Bill Gates and can afford to rent things like Particle Accelerators or Radio Telescopes for sopme time )
All the people can do is trust the Scientists that they interpreted the Observation from their Experiments corectly and of course made no failures in setting up the Experments (from my field of Study, Biology (with a Specialization in Neurbiology), I know how much influence the correct Setup of an Experiment can have on Sucess or failure and how much room there often is for interpreting the Experiments )
Of course, it isn´t true Belief, as Scientists are preying like Hawks over their Colleagues in the same field of Study, trying to find errors in the Experimental setup and of course and there is the method of Peer Review for Publications of Experimental Reslts and Theories.
But it still somehow borders on Belief for ordinary people as they have no chance to check the scientific Theories for themselves.
(and of course one the one hand there are still cases of fraud gouing unetcted for some time, revealing gaps in the scientific system and also often Theories, which seemed to be established get falsified [just look at the cosmological Constant, which was cald by Eimnstein to be the greatest failuire of his life, disapeared rom the scientific world and now is brought back into light again, as if fits to new Observations made ith betr Instruments; here are also Experments a colleague of mine makes with a certain Blood Enzyme which, if he succeeds may topple things which were taken for granted about this Enzyme for everal Decades]).

[Ben Kenobi]

Anoyone who follows these priciples: Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist or Moslem is a member of the True Faith.

You got that half right.

They also have to believe in the first and greatest commandment, to love the Lord God with all your strength, heart, soul and mind.

And it's not love your brother, but your neighbor.

Elok

We believe that participation in a non-Orthodox eucharist (with the possible exception of the Copts and maybe the Ethiopians) is essentially an act of self-excommunication, because it implies tacit acceptance of the ideals and beliefs of a heretical church.

So what if I attended a mass, though did not take the bread and the wine, would that not also be tacit acceptance of the teachings of Catholicism?

The Catholics I think have a better reason not to accept the Protestant's communion because of the potential for confusion since we do not believe in the presence of Christ in the eucharist (or at least most Protestant churches do not.)

They have no problem with the acceptance, but rather the confusion because the two are not the same thing. Now, with the Orthodox church are there any theological differences between the two communions?

[Whaleboy]

Religion sucks. Worship Lennon!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Worship Lennon!!

Worship a dead man or a living God?

Tough decision.

[Whaleboy]

Dead man. Its so much easier.

Still, if you must be religious, be Jewish. Theres no actual hell!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Its so much easier.

Well, if you're right, than you can only be wormfood.

The problem with Judaism, is how would you ever get into heaven?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by elijah
Dead man. Its so much easier.

Still, if you must be religious, be Jewish. Theres no actual hell!!

Same holds true for Buddhism

Just keep on living on and on in this world all the while tryng to become perfect in a certain sense

[Elok]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Nothing was said about administrative details.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "god is in the details"? If you believe in one truth (and if you don't, why would you even be Christian?), there is a right way to do things, and we're called to do things the right way.
I suppose it depends on what you define as the purpose of religion, but it seems to me that to allow the dominion of one man's will over the entire body of the church is a serious infraction, which is what the existence of a Papacy means. Our Ecumenical Patriarch only has the power to call a council, which hasn't been done in over a milennium. That's how it's always been done; in Acts, when they had to decide about whether or not circumcision was required, they got together and discussed it-it wasn't just Peter saying how it was going to be and the rest nodding along. It naturally grew more formal over the years but the spirit remained the same. The papacy is a corrupt tradition.
Also, why do there have to be separate churches? Has anything changed to justify the split of the church into such a ridiculous number of factions? As I have said, we've been doing things the same since before the time of Constantine. While I realize that we live in a time that automatically reviles tradition and permanence, what has really happened in the intervening years that made the old ways wrong? Apostolic succession is more than just a set of hand-me-down titles, it's a record of who has really tried to shoulder the burden carried by our forefathers.
As to Ben's question, think about what the word "communion" really means. It is supposed to be the full participation in the spiritual life of the church. If you do that with heretics it's a sign of approval waaaay beyond just attending the service. Actually that's true of any sacrament, with the important exception of marriage to a non-Orthodox, which is tolerated and possibly even officially recognized, though I'm not sure. I think there's a verification ceremony or some such to make it official with us, though I never checked since I don't plan to get married any time soon.

[Panag]

hi ,

well since we are still here on this planet after 5764 years , the answer is clear , ......

have a nice day

SHANA TOVA