GOA Website Article

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 1 January 2004 3:04 pm

Moronikos,

Since you admit that the author did a poor job, I suggest you take it up with him instead of making personal judgements about people who share your critism.

Moronikos · Post by **Moronikos** » Thu 1 January 2004 3:12 pm

What relationship does Christ have with Belial? What common ground is there? Yes, we can talk to them, but I would personaly never admit to any followers of non-Orthodox faiths that there is anything in common. There is nothing in common because Orthodoxy is not a composite of different truths which can stand independently; Orthodoxy is the fountain of truth and its only proper context.

Evidently, according to some, the Apostle Paul was deceived. He was able to find common ground with a pagan and explain to him who the pagan's altar to an "unknown God" really was an altar to. I think also that some would have a heart attack if they read about St. Innocent and his work in Alaska.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 1 January 2004 3:27 pm

Moronikos,

Thank you for bringing this example to light. Here St. Paul clearly leads people away from paganism using terms they could understand. He was certainly an "exclusivist". This article says Orthodox Christians should follow a spirit into paganism and be "inclusivists". The is contrary and opposed to the church, which is why I call them the anti-church.

St. Paul is a perfect example of the kind of dialog anyone should have with people of other faiths. He did not pray with them about the environment or sign agreements with them. Every word from his mouth was for the express purpose of converting - this is true ecumenism.

Exactly how is this article an effort to convert people to the true and ONLY faith?

TomS · Post by **TomS** » Thu 1 January 2004 4:41 pm

moronikos wrote:
For instance, cannot we agree with the Dalai Lama that abortion and homosexual acts are wrong? I am not talking about embracing Buddhism because Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible. However, there can be some common ground for discussion.

Sure. But those "truths" are evolved from common social morals (i.e. Don't murder, Don't steal"). I am taking about "truths" from the Holy Spirit.

moronikos wrote:
The interpretation taken by some seems to be rather reactionary and something passionate, angry young men always looking to find fault tend to do.

Well, I am 46. Personally, I don't consider myself that young.

The article is very misleading. And for those either new to, or weak in the Faith, it could be VERY damaging.

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Fri 2 January 2004 1:13 pm

The Scriptures and Pagan Religions

17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. (Deuteronomy 32:17)

37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, (Psalm 106:37)

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. (1st Corinthians 10:20)

The Scriptures and Heresy

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (1st Timothy 4:1)

"heresies...shalll not inherit the Kingdom of God"

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

CONCLUSION: False religion has it's source in the devil, whether it's full blown paganism, or the subtle deception of heresy. Neither are from God. Obviously, they will have some truth in them - satan himself is prone to quote the Holy Scriptures themselves when it suits his end. Hopefully, by God's grace, the wickedness of the devil can be used against him in the case of some, and serve as a means to liberate these souls from the grasp of the kingdom of darkness. In this sense, despite himself, the devil left a proto-evangelium with the pagan nations (though his intent was satanic parody, as the Fathers teach.) Of themselves, however, pagan religions are pits of delusion and falseness, which not only do not save men, but work to further alienate them from God.

Seraphim

Moronikos · Post by **Moronikos** » Fri 2 January 2004 1:33 pm

Seraphim,

So are you saying all non-Christians will burn in Hell?

Are you saying all non-Orthodox Christians will burn in Hell?

Are you saying Orthodox on the non-Julian calendar will burn in Hell? (You believe, don't you, that the new calendar is a heresy?)

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Fri 2 January 2004 1:49 pm

(You believe, don't you, that the new calendar is a heresy?)

Does anyone believe this? I only know of people who consider the usage of the New Calendar an act that creates a schism. Most of the Greek Old Calendarists have taken this position (with short-lived deviations from this position by some noteworthy hierarchs). ROCOR, for her part, never saw the calendar innovation as being a significant enough deviation that it would cause a schism (though obviously ROCOR spoke out against using the New Calendar). Apparently many Greek Old Calendarists didn't consider the New Calendar too bad (ie. at the level of heresy), since they accepted bishops consecrated by a ROCOR that had New Calendarist parishes (and, from what I've read, one of the bishops who participated in the consecrations was the bishop who oversaw these New Calendar parishes!).

Of course, according to the canons, even schism deprives a group of grace, so the more rigorist position (e.g., taken by the Greek Old Calendarists) sees those who fully use the New Calendar to be in schism (apparently they differentiate from those groups, like ROCOR, who allowed the New Calendar in some parishes for a time via economy). Nevertheless, a schism does not always mean the same thing as a heresy. I doubt Seraphim would say that the New Calendar is a heresy (though certainly it's a manifestation of the pan-heresy, the heresy of heresies, Ecumenism). I'd be interested in hearing of a case in which anyone declared usage of the new calendar to be a "heresy".

PS. I just noticed the "joke" on your blog. A fine example of how wonderfully uniting and loving "humor" is when directed at those crazy traditionalists. But hey, you get a laugh out of it and get to feel good about being more moderate in your stances, right?