Agape Love and Non-Orthodox Christians

[ignatius]

[green]This thread was split from the following discussion:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19524.0.html

--YtterbiumAnalyst[/green]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

 

[Papist]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

 

[ignatius]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

 

[ialmisry]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky.

Au contraire, many claim just that.

I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'.

LOL.  Have you heard of the English Civil War, for starters?

Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

Unfortunatley not at all on point on the issue at hand.  It would be for the Quakers, Shakers, etc. But they have their own problems.

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

In the battle between the Possessors and the Non-possessors, one of the issues was that of alms and care of the poor: the possessors (who favored persecusion of heretics) insisted on a network of monastic assets to fund and run hospitals, poor houses, soup kitchens etc.. whereas the non-possessors eshewed such things.

The Amish etc. are quite self reliant, but pretty much irrelevant for those not in that community.  Quite frankly, the grass isn't greener over there.

 

[ialmisry]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

 

[ignatius]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

With seven Children of his own and many Grand-Children... you think?

I think not. I think his example will live on far longer than his earthly life. He is a Saint because he is worthy to be imitated. After all isn't that the definition of a Saint? To the larger world, he will be little known but perhaps the least will be first as our Lord taught...

 

[ialmisry]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

With seven Children of his own and many Grand-Children... you think?

I think not. I think his example will live on far longer than his earthly life.

Actually, no.

That's why I said mostly.  His own personal affects (which you refer to) will live on, but will merge into an amorphous heritage.  No example willl remain, just a faceless affect.  Better, to be sure, than a bad influence, but unable to transcend the ages.  St. Seraphim, however, is still able, centuries latter, to affect lives of people who never met him.

 

[ignatius]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

With seven Children of his own and many Grand-Children... you think?

I think not. I think his example will live on far longer than his earthly life.

Actually, no.

That's why I said mostly.  His own personal affects (which you refer to) will live on, but will merge into an amorphous heritage.  No example willl remain, just a faceless affect.  Better, to be sure, than a bad influence, but unable to transcend the ages.  St. Seraphim, however, is still able, centuries latter, to affect lives of people who never met him.

So to you it is more important to make a hero out of a man than for the man to be a hero. Advertising is necessary. Perhaps if we spent less time admiring Saints whom lived hundreds of years ago we might find time to admire the Saints living today?

 

[ialmisry]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

With seven Children of his own and many Grand-Children... you think?

I think not. I think his example will live on far longer than his earthly life.

Actually, no.

That's why I said mostly.  His own personal affects (which you refer to) will live on, but will merge into an amorphous heritage.  No example willl remain, just a faceless affect.  Better, to be sure, than a bad influence, but unable to transcend the ages.  St. Seraphim, however, is still able, centuries latter, to affect lives of people who never met him.

So to you it is more important to make a hero out of a man than for the man to be a hero. Advertising is necessary. Perhaps if we spent less time admiring Saints whom lived hundreds of years ago we might find time to admire the Saints living today?

No, we have plenty of living saints (until recently, Patriarch Pavle was one). And we can honor the men (and women) being a hero hundreds (and even thousands) of years ago-that's what the feast of "All Saints" is about-but we cannot admire them, as they are known only to God.

 

[ignatius]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

With seven Children of his own and many Grand-Children... you think?

I think not. I think his example will live on far longer than his earthly life.

Actually, no.

That's why I said mostly.  His own personal affects (which you refer to) will live on, but will merge into an amorphous heritage.  No example willl remain, just a faceless affect.  Better, to be sure, than a bad influence, but unable to transcend the ages.  St. Seraphim, however, is still able, centuries latter, to affect lives of people who never met him.

So to you it is more important to make a hero out of a man than for the man to be a hero. Advertising is necessary. Perhaps if we spent less time admiring Saints whom lived hundreds of years ago we might find time to admire the Saints living today?

No, we have plenty of living saints (until recently, Patriarch Pavle was one). And we can honor the men (and women) being a hero hundreds (and even thousands) of years ago-that's what the feast of "All Saints" is about-but we cannot admire them, as they are known only to God.

I'm talking about within your own families... and parishes. Look around and you might see a few worthy to imitate.

 

[ialmisry]

In all honestly guys and gals I don't think Protestants thought that the Sacred Text just 'dropped' out of the sky. I get the impression that they just got tired of all the nationalistic and religious bickering between all the 'groups' claiming 'they are the real Church' and willing to 'kill' over it as history serves to illuminate on 'all sides'. Did Our Lord 'kill'? What about Paul? Are 'we as Christians' to 'kill' or is this more of a worldly activity... more proper of nations?

The Radical Protestants more often than not held very strong beliefs against violence and I, for one, deeply admire them for that. They often live as Christians ought more often than Catholics and Orthodox in this regard. I know Mennonites and Amish and some Primitive Baptists and they are pretty 'fruitful' people in the Spirit. I'm not altogether sure 'right' doctrines and dogmas insure 'fruitful' Spiritual People of God. Sometime I think we 'are' the Pharisees in this light because we have, in a sense, traded this Spiritual Fruitfulness for this 'new' measure of Holiness...

I don't see Saints like Francis of Assisi or Seraphim of Serov in protestantism.

Perhaps it is because they don't have large Church Traditions promoting them? My Father-in-Law for example is a very Saintly man and a African American Baptist. I've learned far more from his daily walk of grace than any Catholics or Orthodox that I know personally.

Perhaps that is why his example will mostly die with him.

With seven Children of his own and many Grand-Children... you think?

I think not. I think his example will live on far longer than his earthly life.

Actually, no.

That's why I said mostly.  His own personal affects (which you refer to) will live on, but will merge into an amorphous heritage.  No example willl remain, just a faceless affect.  Better, to be sure, than a bad influence, but unable to transcend the ages.  St. Seraphim, however, is still able, centuries latter, to affect lives of people who never met him.

So to you it is more important to make a hero out of a man than for the man to be a hero. Advertising is necessary. Perhaps if we spent less time admiring Saints whom lived hundreds of years ago we might find time to admire the Saints living today?

No, we have plenty of living saints (until recently, Patriarch Pavle was one). And we can honor the men (and women) being a hero hundreds (and even thousands) of years ago-that's what the feast of "All Saints" is about-but we cannot admire them, as they are known only to God.

I'm talking about within your own families... and parishes. Look around and you might see a few worthy to imitate.

Indeed!  But when we are talking about groups (and the Radical Protestants are a group), compared to the Church, that holds no relevence.

 

[ignatius]

I'm talking about within your own families... and parishes. Look around and you might see a few worthy to imitate.

Indeed!  But when we are talking about groups (and the Radical Protestants are a group), compared to the Church, that holds no relevence.

So you are saying that my Father-in-Law is not worthy to be imitated because he is not Orthodox?

 

[Papist]

I'm talking about within your own families... and parishes. Look around and you might see a few worthy to imitate.

Indeed!  But when we are talking about groups (and the Radical Protestants are a group), compared to the Church, that holds no relevence.

So you are saying that my Father-in-Law is not worthy to be imitated because he is not Orthodox?

Perhaps in some things but you have to remember that he is practicing a faith foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. Do you want to follow his example in that?

 

[ignatius]

I'm talking about within your own families... and parishes. Look around and you might see a few worthy to imitate.

Indeed!  But when we are talking about groups (and the Radical Protestants are a group), compared to the Church, that holds no relevence.

So you are saying that my Father-in-Law is not worthy to be imitated because he is not Orthodox?

Perhaps in some things but you have to remember that he is practicing a faith foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. Do you want to follow his example in that?

I am speaking of the Fruits of the Spirit ill-regardless of what 'tradition' produced them. For example, my daughter of seven doesn't understand the doctrinal distinctions in which most of us bicker about. She only recognizes if someone is 'kind' to her and 'humble' and 'modest'.... virtues. She doesn't recognize that 'this' person articulates a doctrine or dogma in this way and another in that. She only recognizes the Fruits... that she can see.

 

[katherineofdixie]

She doesn't recognize that 'this' person articulates a doctrine or dogma in this way and another in that.

Just to clarify for my own curiousity, are you saying that it doesn't matter what anyone believes, as long as they're nice or good?

 

[ignatius]

She doesn't recognize that 'this' person articulates a doctrine or dogma in this way and another in that.

Just to clarify for my own curiousity, are you saying that it doesn't matter what anyone believes, as long as they're nice or good?

'We know them by their fruit" is all I'm saying.

 

[katherineofdixie]

She doesn't recognize that 'this' person articulates a doctrine or dogma in this way and another in that.

Just to clarify for my own curiousity, are you saying that it doesn't matter what anyone believes, as long as they're nice or good?

'We know them by their fruit" is all I'm saying.

So it does matter?

 

[ignatius]

She doesn't recognize that 'this' person articulates a doctrine or dogma in this way and another in that.

Just to clarify for my own curiousity, are you saying that it doesn't matter what anyone believes, as long as they're nice or good?

'We know them by their fruit" is all I'm saying.

So it does matter?

I don't know, does it? St. Paul taught a more excellent way... Love.

Love is the more excellent way – love is the greatest of these – because, in this time of incompleteness, love builds up, and love lays hold of the One in whom we believe and for whom we long.

Love is the more excellent way, because, when the complete comes, the Love in whom we have trusted, the Love for whom we have yearned, will never depart from our sight.

Love is the more excellent way, because love prepares us to see God face to face.

 

[ialmisry]

She doesn't recognize that 'this' person articulates a doctrine or dogma in this way and another in that.

Just to clarify for my own curiousity, are you saying that it doesn't matter what anyone believes, as long as they're nice or good?

'We know them by their fruit" is all I'm saying.

So it does matter?

I don't know, does it? St. Paul taught a more excellent way... Love.

Love is the more excellent way – love is the greatest of these – because, in this time of incompleteness, love builds up, and love lays hold of the One in whom we believe and for whom we long.

Love is the more excellent way, because, when the complete comes, the Love in whom we have trusted, the Love for whom we have yearned, will never depart from our sight.

Love is the more excellent way, because love prepares us to see God face to face.

Unfortunately, much is done in the name of love.  Look at Gov. Saunders' pursuit of his "soul mate." Adultery is usually done in the name of "love."

I know a lot of Muslims who have been personally kind to me, although their heart is with the fundamentalists.

I was once listening to a Holocaust survivor who was telling how a Polish farmer came in to where he was hiding her Jewish family.  Another Jewish family had been found out, and the Polish Christians were going out with bells on their wagons in celebration.  He told her that she and her family had to remember that "when you killed the Lord, you rang bells in celebration." The farmer, as she pointed out, was risking his life and the life of his family hiding them, but he still believed in the deicide charge.  A strange love indeed.

You were trying to make a general statement about Radical Protestants from the example of your father-in-law, who does them proud.  There are less stellar examples of the Radical Protestants: the Pentacostal/Evangelical minister here who a few years ago beat his 5 year old to death because "the Holy Spirti" told him that his son was masturbating.  The secular press of course jumped on that to paint a broad brush on not only Radical Prostentants, or even Protestants, but all Christians.

So while a childlike faith is good, a childish one is not: not all people who are kind to children are good fruit.  Child molesters work very hard in cultivating a "kind" facade.  Smiling faces are not all the same.  A study of Nazis (GOODWIN! GOODWIN! GOODWIN!) showed the men who were very kind to their families and friends would go off and treat their fellow humans as subhuman.

 

[HandmaidenofGod]

And you still haven't explained why you are not guilty of plagerism and copyright infringment.

Huh?  ???

In other words, the Ecumenical Councils.

I had no implication toward any ecumenical councils in mind, no. Rather I had gospel preaching, gospel experiences, and the virtual Christian consensus along with the blessing of the Spirit on the use of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

That "virtual Christian consensus" that you speak of also confirms belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the importance of oral tradition, the need for Bishops, priests and deacons, a sacramental understanding of the Chirstian faith, baptismal regeneration, etc. etc. etc. Again, your thinking is inconsisetent.

Please don't muddle the argument with facts and logic.

 

[ozgeorge]

You hit a string of nails on the head

Perhaps or perhaps not. In either case, I'm actually interested in hearing what David Young has to say about the question I have in reply no. 186.

 

[ignatius]

Unfortunately, much is done in the name of love.  Look at Gov. Saunders' pursuit of his "soul mate." Adultery is usually done in the name of "love."

I know a lot of Muslims who have been personally kind to me, although their heart is with the fundamentalists.

I was once listening to a Holocaust survivor who was telling how a Polish farmer came in to where he was hiding her Jewish family.  Another Jewish family had been found out, and the Polish Christians were going out with bells on their wagons in celebration.  He told her that she and her family had to remember that "when you killed the Lord, you rang bells in celebration." The farmer, as she pointed out, was risking his life and the life of his family hiding them, but he still believed in the deicide charge.  A strange love indeed.

You were trying to make a general statement about Radical Protestants from the example of your father-in-law, who does them proud.  There are less stellar examples of the Radical Protestants: the Pentacostal/Evangelical minister here who a few years ago beat his 5 year old to death because "the Holy Spirti" told him that his son was masturbating.  The secular press of course jumped on that to paint a broad brush on not only Radical Prostentants, or even Protestants, but all Christians.

So while a childlike faith is good, a childish one is not: not all people who are kind to children are good fruit.  Child molesters work very hard in cultivating a "kind" facade.  Smiling faces are not all the same.  A study of Nazis (GOODWIN! GOODWIN! GOODWIN!) showed the men who were very kind to their families and friends would go off and treat their fellow humans as subhuman.

Agape... nothing else. With 'God' everything is possible.

From your examples you think Agape has been tried and failed so you think treating others of subhuman because they aren't part of your group is any better?

 

[ialmisry]

Unfortunately, much is done in the name of love.  Look at Gov. Saunders' pursuit of his "soul mate." Adultery is usually done in the name of "love."

I know a lot of Muslims who have been personally kind to me, although their heart is with the fundamentalists.

I was once listening to a Holocaust survivor who was telling how a Polish farmer came in to where he was hiding her Jewish family.  Another Jewish family had been found out, and the Polish Christians were going out with bells on their wagons in celebration.  He told her that she and her family had to remember that "when you killed the Lord, you rang bells in celebration." The farmer, as she pointed out, was risking his life and the life of his family hiding them, but he still believed in the deicide charge.  A strange love indeed.

You were trying to make a general statement about Radical Protestants from the example of your father-in-law, who does them proud.  There are less stellar examples of the Radical Protestants: the Pentacostal/Evangelical minister here who a few years ago beat his 5 year old to death because "the Holy Spirti" told him that his son was masturbating.  The secular press of course jumped on that to paint a broad brush on not only Radical Prostentants, or even Protestants, but all Christians.

So while a childlike faith is good, a childish one is not: not all people who are kind to children are good fruit.  Child molesters work very hard in cultivating a "kind" facade.  Smiling faces are not all the same.  A study of Nazis (GOODWIN! GOODWIN! GOODWIN!) showed the men who were very kind to their families and friends would go off and treat their fellow humans as subhuman.

Agape... nothing else.

That would be Andrew Young's excuse for facilitating and covering up Edwards' affair (and child).

With 'God' everything is possible.

From your examples you think Agape has been tried and failed so you think treating others of subhuman because they aren't part of your group is any better?

I didn't say it failed: the Nazi officials were full of agape, but only for the right persons.

Did Jesus love the money-changers in the Temple?  Sure, but I expect they didn't take to kindly to the whipping He gave them.

I was just pointing out that your positing of a dichonomy between dogma and works is a false one: St. James says that his works will SHOW his Faith.

 

[katherineofdixie]

Just a general observation, and not directed personally at anyone, but I've noticed that many people, many of them Christians, seem to do a lot of talking about love, but not much loving, in an active practical sense. Or that simply talking about love somehow gives them the moral high ground.

It's easy to talk about loving one's neighbor but how does that work out in real life? What are we, what am I, actually doing? (I've been giving this a lot of thought since listening to the Gospel on Judgment Sunday). Loving one's neighbor doesn't only mean that we have no animosity toward them, or have refrained from stealing, lying, murdering and coveting. It seems to me that it's not enough to talk about it, or to have nice kindly feelings toward one another.
Thus, what we believe does matter.

 

[ignatius]

Unfortunately, much is done in the name of love.  Look at Gov. Saunders' pursuit of his "soul mate." Adultery is usually done in the name of "love."

I know a lot of Muslims who have been personally kind to me, although their heart is with the fundamentalists.

I was once listening to a Holocaust survivor who was telling how a Polish farmer came in to where he was hiding her Jewish family.  Another Jewish family had been found out, and the Polish Christians were going out with bells on their wagons in celebration.  He told her that she and her family had to remember that "when you killed the Lord, you rang bells in celebration." The farmer, as she pointed out, was risking his life and the life of his family hiding them, but he still believed in the deicide charge.  A strange love indeed.

You were trying to make a general statement about Radical Protestants from the example of your father-in-law, who does them proud.  There are less stellar examples of the Radical Protestants: the Pentacostal/Evangelical minister here who a few years ago beat his 5 year old to death because "the Holy Spirti" told him that his son was masturbating.  The secular press of course jumped on that to paint a broad brush on not only Radical Prostentants, or even Protestants, but all Christians.

So while a childlike faith is good, a childish one is not: not all people who are kind to children are good fruit.  Child molesters work very hard in cultivating a "kind" facade.  Smiling faces are not all the same.  A study of Nazis (GOODWIN! GOODWIN! GOODWIN!) showed the men who were very kind to their families and friends would go off and treat their fellow humans as subhuman.

Agape... nothing else.

That would be Andrew Young's excuse for facilitating and covering up Edwards' affair (and child).

With 'God' everything is possible.

From your examples you think Agape has been tried and failed so you think treating others of subhuman because they aren't part of your group is any better?

I didn't say it failed: the Nazi officials were full of agape, but only for the right persons.

Did Jesus love the money-changers in the Temple?  Sure, but I expect they didn't take to kindly to the whipping He gave them.

I was just pointing out that your positing of a dichonomy between dogma and works is a false one: St. James says that his works will SHOW his Faith.

Agape can't simply have a single object... it's object-less love. An outpouring of good-will which is indiscriminate to all.

The Love of God is Agape.

 

[ignatius]

Just a general observation, and not directed personally at anyone, but I've noticed that many people, many of them Christians, seem to do a lot of talking about love, but not much loving, in an active practical sense. Or that simply talking about love somehow gives them the moral high ground.

You're the second poster coming up with excuses as to why we don't talk about love and perhaps put it into practice in the life of this forum...

It's easy to talk about loving one's neighbor but how does that work out in real life? What are we, what am I, actually doing? (I've been giving this a lot of thought since listening to the Gospel on Judgment Sunday). Loving one's neighbor doesn't only mean that we have no animosity toward them, or have refrained from stealing, lying, murdering and coveting. It seems to me that it's not enough to talk about it, or to have nice kindly feelings toward one another.

We could start right here by not being so divisive on the forum. That is an act... "doing" something.

I would much rather 'be' loving in the Godly sense than to claim to know 'truth' and repeatedly beat everyone over the head with it. I think St. Paul would agree...

 

[katherineofdixie]

You're the second poster coming up with excuses as to why we don't talk about love and perhaps put it into practice in the life of this forum...

I'm sorry that I was so unclear in my meaning that you seem to have totally misunderstood what I was saying. Please point out to me where I offered "excuses" and I will either clarify or apologize.

We could start right here by not being so divisive on the forum. That is an act... "doing" something.

I would much rather 'be' loving in the Godly sense than to claim to know 'truth' and repeatedly beat everyone over the head with it. I think St. Paul would agree...

I suppose that I will earn your scorn for being divisive and unloving by this observation, but it seems to me that you are doing something similar to what you accuse others of doing. That is, you are beating them over the head with your "truth" about love. How do you understand "being loving in the Godly sense"?

 

[ignatius]

I suppose that I will earn your scorn for being divisive and unloving by this observation, but it seems to me that you are doing something similar to what you accuse others of doing. That is, you are beating them over the head with your "truth" about love. How do you understand "being loving in the Godly sense"?

Ha Ha Ha... bringing it up... as the proper object of the Christian Life shouldn't be divisive or unloving.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1Co 13:4-13)

Agape is like this... It doesn't leave a lot of room to be divisive.

 

[katherineofdixie]

I don't know you at all, and I don't understand your last post at all, so I am probably being unfair to you, but it seems to me,  that agape doesn't exactly shine through your posts. But then, that's just me being divisive and unloving, isn't it?

Glad to have provided you with a good laugh, at least!

 

[ignatius]

I don't know you at all, and I don't understand your last post at all, so I am probably being unfair to you, but it seems to me,  that agape doesn't exactly shine through your posts. But then, that's just me being divisive and unloving, isn't it?

Glad to have provided you with a good laugh, at least!

No, don't take my laughter as a sign of contempt but just light humor. I find it strange that we all find 'Love' such a difficult topic. It seems all so important to categorize and separate 'these' from 'those' and exclude. I guess in a way that is important when we say 'we are the Church' and 'you are not'... but I think 'Love' is our primary calling as Christians but I don't see it that often on forums... not just this one but most forums... seems to display a real lack of love towards our internet neighbors.

It seems it's far more important to establish our 'orthodoxy' than our Christian Love... I find that a bit wrong headed.

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

 

[katherineofdixie]

I find it strange that we all find 'Love' such a difficult topic... but I think 'Love' is our primary calling as Christians...

Perhaps you are one of the blessed for whom lthis is not difficult. But my observation/experience is that love, true agape, loving our neighbor as ourselves in the spirit of Matthew 25 is dadgum hard, and a 24/7 job with no time off, no coffee breaks, no vacations. As I said, I've been thinking about this since hearing the Gospel last Sunday. It's not enough to talk about love, or to say that love is a good thing. We have to put it into practice, not simply by refraining from hurting our neighbor (as I said, not murdering, lying, stealing, coveting etc.) but by acting positively in his/her best interests at all times. In a sense, true love is an action verb. It's not about warm feelings or being nice, but about sacrifice.


(

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

I do hope you meant to say "not spoken" -  )

 

[ignatius]

I find it strange that we all find 'Love' such a difficult topic... but I think 'Love' is our primary calling as Christians...

Perhaps you are one of the blessed for whom lthis is not difficult. But my observation/experience is that love, true agape, loving our neighbor as ourselves in the spirit of Matthew 25 is dadgum hard, and a 24/7 job with no time off, no coffee breaks, no vacations. As I said, I've been thinking about this since hearing the Gospel last Sunday. It's not enough to talk about love, or to say that love is a good thing. We have to put it into practice, not simply by refraining from hurting our neighbor (as I said, not murdering, lying, stealing, coveting etc.) but by acting positively in his/her best interests at all times. In a sense, true love is an action verb. It's not about warm feelings or being nice, but about sacrifice.

Instead of criticizing me for bringing it up... why don't we strive to be more loving? I don't see how all this helps Orthodox act as Christians... it just seems to me that most here are too focused on making others look back and then saying 'if you were Orthodox... all of this would be fixed'... I don't see it happening.

(

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

I do hope you meant to say "not spoken" -  )

Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say.

 

[ialmisry]

I suppose that I will earn your scorn for being divisive and unloving by this observation, but it seems to me that you are doing something similar to what you accuse others of doing. That is, you are beating them over the head with your "truth" about love. How do you understand "being loving in the Godly sense"?

Ha Ha Ha... bringing it up... as the proper object of the Christian Life shouldn't be divisive or unloving.

No one said that.  What we did say: living the proper Christian Life as an objective often requires division. Loving the sin but hating the sinner applies also to loving the heretic but hating the heresy.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1Co 13:4-13)

Agape is like this... It doesn't leave a lot of room to be divisive.

But the Gospel does.
34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’e

37“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
(Matthew 10)

It's not enough to talk about love, or to say that love is a good thing. We have to put it into practice, not simply by refraining from hurting our neighbor (as I said, not murdering, lying, stealing, coveting etc.) but by acting positively in his/her best interests at all times. In a sense, true love is an action verb. It's not about warm feelings or being nice, but about sacrifice.

 

[ialmisry]

I don't know you at all, and I don't understand your last post at all, so I am probably being unfair to you, but it seems to me,  that agape doesn't exactly shine through your posts. But then, that's just me being divisive and unloving, isn't it?

Glad to have provided you with a good laugh, at least!

No, don't take my laughter as a sign of contempt but just light humor. I find it strange that we all find 'Love' such a difficult topic. It seems all so important to categorize and separate 'these' from 'those' and exclude. I guess in a way that is important when we say 'we are the Church' and 'you are not'... but I think 'Love' is our primary calling as Christians but I don't see it that often on forums... not just this one but most forums... seems to display a real lack of love towards our internet neighbors.

It seems it's far more important to establish our 'oOrthodoxy' than our Christian Love... I find that a bit wrong headed.

You speak as if the two are opposites: they are twins, conjoined twins in fact.

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

Christ doesn't.

 

[ignatius]

You speak as if the two are opposites: they are twins, conjoined twins in fact.

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

Christ doesn't.

I think Christ does care. I don't think the passages you cite exhort us to act toward any of our family in a way that lacks the true and genuine charity of the Christian Faith.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

It seems it's far more important to establish our 'orthodoxy' than our Christian Love... I find that a bit wrong headed.

No offense, but you're head's wrong.

"Orthodoxy" doesn't mean "all the right answers."  Orthodoxy can be translated in a lot of ways: correct way; straight worship; right honor, proper conception, etc.

I prefer "True Glorification."  Doxa is to give glory in Greek.  If we are Orthodox, then it is not only a proposed set of ideas that we subscribe to.  It's not all arguing about how many wills Christ has (a conversation I haven't even bothered to try and understand yet).  It's about giving Glory to God in Truth.  There can be no love where there is no Truth.

If someone does not love, then they are not Orthodox.  What are the greatest of the commandments?

 

[ialmisry]

You speak as if the two are opposites: they are twins, conjoined twins in fact.

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

Christ doesn't.

I think Christ does care.

You think wrong.
John 2:15 So He made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn My Father’s house into a market!”

17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume Me.”

I don't think the passages you cite exhort us to act toward any of our family in a way that lacks the true and genuine charity of the Christian Faith.

Luke 14:25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them He said: 26“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—He cannot be My disciple."

 

[ignatius]

You speak as if the two are opposites: they are twins, conjoined twins in fact.

This is spoken to insult 'you' but it's an observation that I find problematic as Christian ultimately.

Christ doesn't.

I think Christ does care.

You think wrong.
John 2:15 So He made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn My Father’s house into a market!”

17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume Me.”

I don't think the passages you cite exhort us to act toward any of our family in a way that lacks the true and genuine charity of the Christian Faith.

Luke 14:25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them He said: 26“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—He cannot be My disciple."

So you believe these passages validate 'hate' and 'violence' against others? I've heard Muslims use quotes like these 'out of context' to make this pretext but I've never heard a Christian do it. Are you sure this is how the Church interprets these passages?

 

[SolEX01]

Luke 14:25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them He said: 26“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—He cannot be My disciple."

So you believe these passages validate 'hate' and 'violence' against others? I've heard Muslims use quotes like these 'out of context' to make this pretext but I've never heard a Christian do it. Are you sure this is how the Church interprets these passages?

Is "hate" to be interpreted literally?

If the Kingdom of God is to take precedence over family ties and our own lives, we have to hate the way our relationships with others can hinder our own dedication to the Kingdom of God.

(The above is paraphrasing the comments of Luke 14:26 in the Orthodox Study Bible, page 1396).

If suffering is the cost of discipleship, then Luke 14:33 sums it up:

So, likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

The Martyrs who perished forsook everything to be with Christ.  That is love; That is the cost of discipleship.  Each and every one of us has something which hinders our own dedication to the Kingdom of God whether its sins of flesh, sins of thought, sins of hatred, anger, avarice, etc.

 

[John Larocque]

One of the (not so) great ecumenical moments of history was when Catholic and Protestant princes of Germany teamed up against the Anabaptists.
http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/speyer_diet_of

Diet of Speyer (1529)

Diet of Speyer, 1529, the notorious Imperial Diet at which the first imperial law was passed against the Anabaptists threatening death to anyone who did not recognize infant baptism. Thereby the mandate of Charles V of 4 January 1528, acquired the consent of the estates, including the Protestants, who at the same diet protested against compulsion in religious matters. The delegates from the cities (Catholic and Protestant) declared in a petition presented on 8 April  to the two estates of princes that they would give their consent to the article on Anabaptism and on 12 April the Protestant princes also expressed their willingness to agree with the majority in the matter of the Anabaptists. Prince Louis V, a Catholic of the Palatinate, suggested a lightening of the penalty to the effect that only those should be punished with capital punishment who would not desist from Anabaptism. In the session of all the estates of the diet of 17 April, a draft of a decision made by the committee, to be included in the mandate against the Anabaptists, was announced to the estates and received the consent of both princely chambers, whereas the cities were for the time being still debating it. The Protestant princes in addition, in their protestation of 19 April and again on 20 April, declared their express agreement with the measures to be adopted against the adherents of adult baptism. The imperial law against the Anabaptists was issued 23 April 1529.

The content of the mandate--printed in the Neue und vollsta"ndige Sammlung der Reichsabschiede (Frankfurt a.M., 1747) II, 284; in J. J. Schmaussens Corpora juris publici Academ. III (1755) No. XIX, 141-43; Krohn, 213; and Bossert's Quellen (TA Wu"rttemberg, 1930) 3*-5*--was about as follows (literally according to Ney, 216, who gives an excerpt): Although the common law forbids upon penalty of death to baptize again an already baptized person and the emperor at the beginning of 1528 has given a new warning against the transgressors of the prohibition, that sect is still increasing. Therefore the regulation is ordered again, that each and every rebaptizer and rebaptized person, man or woman, of an accountable age shall be brought from natural life to death with fire, sword, or the like according to the circumstances of the persons without previous inquisition of spiritual judges. Against the preachers and leaders of the sect as well as those who persisted in the same or fell back into it no mercy shall be exercised but the threatened penalty shall be ruthlessly performed. Those who confess their error, recant, and beg for mercy may be pardoned. Whoever does not have his children baptized shall be considered an Anabaptist. No pardoned person shall be permitted to emigrate, so that the authorities can see to it that he does not backslide. No prince shall receive the subjects of another who have escaped. This mandate shall in all points be most strictly performed by all in order to perform the duties and oaths to the emperor and empire and to avoid the serious displeasure and punishment of the emperor.

The edict of Speyer brought brutal punishment upon the Anabaptists such as was inflicted upon no other religious party of the Holy Roman Empire. The law was repeated at Speyer in 1544, and was finally renewed at the diet of Augsburg in 1551. As late as 1694 the court councillor of Ju"lich, von Heyden, justified his sudden expulsion of the Mennonites from Rheydt by the edict of Speyer.