Christians on Yea Forums, what do you think of Eastern Orthodoxy...

I read somewhere that the Orthodox perception is that heaven and hell are two sides of the same kind. Closeness to God for one who has rejected God is as painful as it is joyful to one who loves God. I don't know how accurate that is but it made more sense to me than the popular depiction of Hell

>But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother? But as no heresy at all, and equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against Christ the Lord God?
This is why early Christianity is better. You Catholics (and the Orthodox too) think your church is the Bride, but you Catholics in particular accept baptism regardless of if a Catholic priest performed it. Baptism makes you part of Christ's Body/Bride, so the logical consequence of your 3rd and 4th century innovations should be that you've made the Bride into the sum of Catholicism and all non-Catholicism whose baptisms you accept. This very doctrine is how Luther justified his idea that he didn't need the priesthood in his church to perform baptisms, it legitimized his schism. At least some Orthodox interpretations require rebaptism if the baptism wasn't done by an Orthodox priest.

No. Read the catechism. God is three Persons in one unity. Go back to your LGBT-Protestant reverend's "church."

Attached: false.jpg (400x400, 29K)

>God is an impersonal monad
Based

Different user, but I think he's Orthodox. Where are you getting any crap about him being liberal Protestant? It sounded clear to me that user was referencing the essence/energies distinction, an Orthodox point of contention with Catholicism. But maybe I'm wrong and reading into things.

Is Yahweh God the Father or God the Son?

>doesn't understand the implications of Absolute divine simplicity
oof, you goofed.

>if you don't agree with muh catechism entirely then you're a lgbt-sjw-blabalbla
Again you goofed with a stupid adhominem.
Your catechism also says Catholics and Muslim worship the same God. fuck outta here.

CCC paragraph 841.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/841.htm

Attached: 1508481922569.jpg (1025x725, 337K)

Episcopalians believe that though. They also pray for the catholic church.

I didn't mean the Catholics teach unitarianism, I said that they teach absolute divine simplicity, and by extension this teaching has conflicts with an actual trinity that has 3 distinct persons with actual distinctions beyond the level of essence.
Trinity collapses if you take ADS seriously.

Protestants are wayward Catholics. Muslims revere the same Abraham we do. I'm fine.

he's a brainlet who hasn't read or prayed enough

Simplicity means without parts. God is one. He is also three. All of this is revealed in Scripture.

>newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC
>we need to employ a multitude of predicates, ... and that while truth, goodness, wisdom, holiness and other attributes, as we conceive and define them express perfections that are formally distinct, yet as applied to God they are all ultimately identical in meaning and describe the same ultimate reality — the one infinitely perfect and simple being.
ULTIMATELY IDENTICAL

And ineffable. Seriously, read the Bible carefully. It is evident that you have not.

>muslims revere abraham
Your catechism says they are part of God's plan for salvation in that they also worship the same God, the same Creator, as catholics.
Last time I checked muslims disparage the Trinity and call it polytheism and the idea of the incarnation is blasphemous to them

How can you take the Catechism seriously?
Either it's misrepresenting Islam or Christianity, can't have both in agreement about God

Christian infighting is so amusing

absolute divine simplicity is not biblical, it's borrowed from greek philosophy , it's a hasty reductionism that has no place in Christianity.

Go actually read the theory you don't understand it one bit and what it implies for your faith. youtube.com/watch?v=0IOO5k7X1pA

Your amusement belies your genuine interest. Go to church, user.

youtube.com/watch?v=7LhOmqb95nM

Dummy, I'm aware of divine simplicity. You're right it is not biblical, it is the work of many philosophers. Aristotle, Eriugena, Duns Scotus, Aquinas. You are very wrong about it being a hasty adaptation. Again, I tell you, read the Bible. The facts of the Trinity and the unity of God and the three Persons of God are right there for you to read, if you only would. You don't seem to have considered that it is possible (even probable) that philosophy would confirm to man what God had already revealed.

What kind of church?

The catechism passage you misunderstood and quoted only mentioned salvation, genuis. It didn't say Muslims would partake of it, only that God should be merciful to them because they praise him. Again: it's the same Abraham, who spoke to the same God as Catholics (and Jews).

The catechism has much more to say about salvation, even about people who have not heard the gospel. You should read the rest.

Catholic ofc. Catholic churches vary. If you don't like one, try another. The theology is all the same, sometimes performed to the letter and sometimes not.

>you're right it's not biblical
>but go read the bible
If it's not biblical stop telling me to go investigate the bible in regards to it.
ADS goes far beyond God's "unity" and collapses all his properties and persons into basically emanations/illusions of his essence.
The problem is its philosophical implications, not a superficial reading of it.

I should take this statement back. The celebration of the Mass, the sacrament of the Eucharist is ALWAYS the same. But some priests incorporate some practices aside from this that you may not agree with.

Abraham worshiped our God.
The muslims don't.
Your catechism says muslims and christians worship the same God.
Unless muslims recently became trinitarians and believe in the incarnation this passage is a blatant lie. What it's doing is depersonalizing God, reducing the importance of Christ, and treating him as a vague "Creator force".

In the future expect to see more lukewarm teachings like this from the Roman Church.

Is it true that Eastern church is more tolerant and about love than Western orthodoxy? Because their symbol is Mary with infant Jesus instead of the Jesus on cross.

No, sorry. You don't understand and won't until you actually believe scripture is a revelation from God. Seriously, go read the New Testament. I'll wait. Read John and Corinthians especially closely.

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>He was with God in the beginning.
>Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
>In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

There's your starter. Now go look for the Holy Spirit.

different congregations have sutil differences tho. I like franciscans churchs.

Another brainlet taking stabs at the Church. Why am I not surprised.

The God of Abraham is the God of the Old Testament. The same God the Father who shares a hypostatic union with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (as per John and Cor, respectively).

The God of the Quran is the God of Abraham. Called God the Father, but never actually depicted. This is why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are called Abrahamic religions.

Franciscans are dope. They're my favorite. If you have one near you, go. They are sure to be doing it right and showing proper reverence.

Their churches have so manly elements: paints of warrior monks, statues of carpenters, monks taking care of animals, even crusaders.

That's what I like about them, too. Franciscans are like the Marines of the Catholic Church. OFMs all take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They are Friars MINOR. They ask for no great stature, and that service mentality keeps them fulfilling Christ's mission. Other orders are more dedicated to study or apologetics, Franciscans are in the trenches feeding the poor and living like Christ.

It's heresy, they still worship statues and sprinkle babies for baptism, both very unbiblical

The biggest thing in the Orthodox is practicing forgiveness. The path to heaven requires you to seek the forgiveness of others and always strive to forgive those who've done something wrong to you. It is incredibly hard and really a life long endeavor.

Fasting and Iconography are elements which the Orthodox is known for but they are simply elements to aid in the fostering of one's relationship with Christ. The more secular way of phrasing that is that icons and fasting help remind us of what should always be on our minds.

semper rah Lance Corporal.

Attached: 1555381917800.jpg (733x741, 210K)

What are you on about? Baptisms not done by a pastor are such a rare occurrence, hence they are called emergency baptisms.

In Catholic theology, non-Catholic priests can legitimately baptize people, enough that Catholics are (theologically) forbidden from rebaptizing them. I'm not talking about the rare practice of emergency baptisms, though the doctrine is what permits this and Luther latched on to this. Rather I'm talking about the fact a Protestant or Orthodox convert to Catholicism doesn't need to be rebaptized. Only Nontrinitarians are rebaptized, since only their baptisms are viewed as illegitimate. But the illegitimacy has nothing to do with lack of priesthood; it has to do with their non-Nicene theology while performing the baptism.

No pope and human infalliblety
Difference in the Trinity
Original sin is not inherited
No newage liturgy still has the original church liturgy from the time of Christ

But the split happend becouse of political reasons more so than theological once. The pope and Rome wanted more control over the eastern part.
Afther that the Catholics continued to change doctrine and that is why the churches seem so different.

Catholic here: orthodox are based not heretics. Their reason for separating were political and paid plenty already.
>What makes catholicism and protestantismo more sound?
There's no substantial theo logical difference between the RCC and the orthodox churches. They both are kilometers above (((protestant))) brainlets and manlets

Heh

>The God of Abraham is the God of the Old Testament. The same God the Father who shares a hypostatic union with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (as per John and Cor, respectively).
Muslims reject all that, and don't believe in a "God the father" nor any hypostatic unions. They don't even apply the term "Father" to Him.

>God of the Quran is the God of Abraham
No. If you're equating muslim believe to abraham's belief you're a lost cause.
God in the OT manifests on earth, enters into his creation, God of the Quran is fully tanscendent and doesn't enter his creation, muslims think he would get sullied if he did.

Face it your catechism misrepresents both islam and christianity. It shouldn't even hint at such a similiarity, instead it should've emphasized the DIFFERENCES how they reject Christ, the trinity and incarnaiton AND crucifixion and God's manifestation in the world.
Anyone who says "muslims and christians worship the same God" is a new-age spiritualist, not much different than the LGBTQ unitarian universalists who spread gibberish about all religions being equal and hell is just a metaphor.

ctrl+f "jay"

Attached: tenor[1].gif (234x240, 1.8M)

You're either ignorant or a troll.

Very obviously Muslims don't believe in the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, you fuckin dope. They believe in the same God (called by Jesus "the Father") as Abraham. Their theology is very different altogether and should not be equated with the same Person of God in Christianity or even Judaism as you are doing.

>Christians believe the God of Abraham and the God of the Incarnation are different gods

This is why Christianity in trying to be friendly sonetimes fails. Like the Pope kissing the feet of Muslim immigrants to show his humility, not knowing Muslims consider bowing to anyone but Allah to be haram.

Attached: 1511702836532.jpg (369x363, 21K)

You can't separate God the Father from the trinity. A unitarian is not a trinitarian.
You can't say someone worships our God if they only have a concept of 'the Father', unitarians don't worship the same God as trinitarians.
Mormons don't worship the same God as we do.
Muslims don't either. Neither do Jews.

>their theology is very different
That's why it's important to never say "they worship the same God as we do" that's a misrepresentation of their position, it's ecumenical garbage and I think we both know why that crap was added to your catechism.

And it's not even fair to equate them to Abraham's belief, since Abraham's God is far more personal and actually manifests in creation, while their Islamic God is totally transcendent and interacts with creation strictly via angels and what not.

Assume you loved someone. If someone lied to you about that person's most essential properties, are you going to conclude you didn't love that person after all? You're not wrong that Muslims have a different idea of God, and it might be the wrong idea. It's still true (in a way irrelevant to ecumenism) that in at least one sense, they do worship the same God which Abraham worshiped. It's as simple as this: Can I think "God of Abraham" just by intending the God (whatever he is like) which the historical Abraham worshiped? Absolutely. And then can I intend to worship that God, even if I have entirely wrong ideas about that God? I don't see why not. Maybe God won't recognize that worship, and reject it, and it won't save you at all. That's a different matter. And maybe it's true. But you have to tell the two matters apart.

Abraham's God uses angels, he visited him with some when he said Sarah was going to be pregnant and also to stop the sacrifice of his son. Also while you are right that al-Islam says Allah only communicates with angels, it does not say He is strictly transcendent. In fact al-Islam accepts the essence-energies distinction, and further distinguishes Allah's attributes from His energies.

Read the Old Testament you absolute brainlet. You have no idea how Christian theology works, or the timeframes of when these works were written. If you aren't going to read the Bible, just go look at wikipedia.

>Abraham,[a] originally Abram,[b] is the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions.[1] In Judaism, he is the founding father of the covenant of the pieces, the special relationship between the Jewish people and God; in Christianity, he is the prototype of all believers, Jewish or Gentile; and in Islam he is seen as a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Muhammad.[2]

Simple, right? Not for you. Islam is basically the Mormonism of the early Church.

>their Islamic God is totally transcendent and interacts with creation strictly via angels and what not.
Idiot. Muhammad had his visions around the 6th century iirc.He received the message from an angel of God, EXACTLY like an Old Testament prophet: Ezekiel or Isaiah or Moses in the centuries before Christ, or the Blessed Virgin Mary did in the 1st century. Whether you believe Muhammad or not is irrelevant. The point I'm making and which you don't understand is that Muhammad took the God of Abraham, that tradition, and linked his own revelations to it. You can say "it's a different God" but you are wrong. You could say it was a demon that deceived Muhammad, and you might be right. Or maybe Islam has just had too many centuries of bad leadership backed by faulty theology and has become as much an ethnocentric wasteland as Judaism; interested only in its own preservation and laws.

What you CAN'T deny is that the God of Abraham is used by all three of the Abrahamic religions and references the same Person regardless of what later theologians determined of the matter.

It's not about "trying to be friendly" ye of underdeveloped brainpan. It's history.

Is the traditional Christian God not totally transcendent also? At least in Western theology, but I assume Orthodox have some way around this with the essence/energies distinction. Even then, if his essence is transcendent but the energies aren't I don't see how we can say God is in totality accessible. Sounds like a partition, which is the Western (Catholic) criticism of Orthodox theology on this point. I guess you can say Jesus was manifest in creation, and that the Holy Spirit also is when it dwells in the hearts of men and inspires them and all of that. But is it really their essence in creation? I mean honestly traditional Christian theology is really weird for reasons like this.

>It's not about "trying to be friendly" ye of underdeveloped brainpan. It's history

Then why not put we worship the same God Jesus did as well?

Can you express this idea more clearly please. Try a sentence.

Stop treating religion as a fashion statement

>Islam is basically the Mormonism of the early Church.
People say this all the time, it's not. Mormonism adds new revelations, and informs its believers on how to understand past ones, but it doesn't radically toss the past ones out. It's more like original Christianity's relationship to Judaism. Christians, of course, believe themselves to be a continuation of the original Judaism, and Mormons think the same. More importantly, Mormons don't deny that Jesus was the savior of the world, and that he is the Son of God. Maybe they understand it in ways that other Christians find heretical and unacceptable. But again, Muslims radically reject that completely. There's a nice continuity of Judaism to Christianity to Mormonism. Islam is radically revisionary however. In that regard it's much more like Gnosticism, which was similarly radically revisionary (with its alternate gospels and radical rejection of the accepted mainstream scripture).

Aha, I see, you mean why doesn't Islam say "we worship the God of the Christians"? Because "there is no God but Allah." Which is true. Allah is just the arabic word for the God of Abraham, aka the Father. Who is one of the persons of God with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (established by scripture well before Muhammad).

"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" leaves no room for Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. Muslims do not believe in the Trinity.

Yes

Fair point. Especially on the Gnosticism bit. This was all happening towards the end of late antiquity as Platonism was being outlawed and Arabs were inheriting much of Greek thought and Europe was falling into early middle ages, dogmatism, more heresies, and war.

Mormonism would not have survived if Smith had rejected Christ. I think that was very canny on his part.

Yahweh is one of the Jewish sacred names for God. HaShem also works, and is more respectful ('the Name'). In the gospel of John, Jesus is associated with being with Yahweh at the time of creation and also *being* Yahweh.

No, I am asking why your Catholic Catechism does not say Muslims worship the same God Jesus did

keep in mind Yahweh existed since the Iron Age or before, 10th-8th centuries BC or around there. Jesus didn't come until much much much later.

I already explained that. Muslims do not believe in the Trinity.

God is three Persons sharing one ineffable name, which we call Lord (roughly equiv to the Jew's "HaShem"): God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Muslims do not believe in the last two.

Also, Jesus thought of Yahweh as his father. Jesus was fully man and fully divine. Take the story of prayer in the garden Gethsemane, where the apostles fell asleep guarding him. He prayed to God and asked to be spared from his fate but ultimately accepted his father's will. Immediately after, he was arrested. Thus began the story of the Passion. He laid down his life and picked it up again, as he said he would.

Did Jesus pray to a different God than Muslims do?

Muslims would say no

He prayed to his father. Yahweh, Elohim, HaShem, etc etc.

(...in 33AD. Muslims did not exist then, nor for several centuries.)

>He prayed to God and asked to be spared from his fate but ultimately accepted his father's will.

If God in this theory loved the world so much that He needed to die for it, why didn't He incarnate and die Himself instead of forcing His Son who clearly did not want to?

Attached: APTOPIX-Mideast-Israe_Webf-20.jpg (1200x676, 111K)

If Muslims pray to the same God Jesus did, that should really go in your catechism, might be even more relevant than referencing Abraham

Yes, it's part of ur-Theology, "God is always home", "Hell is locked from the inside", etc. Catholicism missing the point entirely.

>But to the Mind-less ones, the wicked and depraved, the envious and covetous, and those who murder do and love impiety, I am far off, yielding my place to the Avenging Daimon, who sharpening the fire, tormenteth him and addeth fire to fire upon him, and rusheth upon him through his senses, thus rendering him readier for transgressions of the law, so that he meets with greater torment; nor doth he ever cease to have desire for appetites inordinate, insatiately striving in the dark.

The "yielding my place" is quite shrewd. Looking for God in PLACES, in Material or Material-related terms, and title or title-related terms, is contrary to Idealism in general, and contrary still to Dialectical Monism, like Christianity. God "yielding his place" as in limiting himself as per the misguided inquiry is tragically ironic, earnestly fulfilling it to the inquirer's content, and thereby becoming a monster.

It's not a theory, dummy, it's scripture. Try reading.

>why didn't He incarnate and die Himself instead of forcing His Son who clearly did not want to?
Read John 1. Then read the thread again, all of it, you weren't paying attention.

Jesus and God the Father are the same person.

Attached: trinity.png (549x485, 52K)

According to Trinitarisn theory they are different persons.

Attached: 1552940446331.jpg (366x361, 30K)

>Catholics are humanists that worship people.
>Orthodox are Christians and they worship God.

No, dummy. I've already said it multiple times. Muslims do not believe in the God as understood by Catholics. To ONLY believe in the God of Abraham is to deny Christ and the Holy spirit, which is not Christianity or Catholicism and does not go in the catechism. Muhammad came centuries later after Christ's sacrifice. It does not belong in the catechism of the Catholic Church because the message of Muhammad is not in accord with Christian scripture.

Are you indoctrinated to any religion, user? Did your parents raise you without any religious beliefs?

>According to Trinitarisn theory they are different persons.
They are one Being.

edit to say: they are the same person in God

Seriously. How are any of you making arguments without doing even the most basic of reading?

Read the green part in again. The first line especially. Carefully.

God is not a body. He does not exist in a place.

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

Did Jesus and Abraham pray to the same God?

>Are you indoctrinated to any religion, user? Did your parents raise you without any religious beliefs?
I was raised to believe in God but not exactly religiously, also you don't know what a theory is, it means an explanation, you can have a dogmatic theory

Nope

Is the Son the Father? If not, they are not one being, because "is" means identity of being/am/be/is

>Did Jesus and Abraham pray to the same God?
I don't know the minds of others. According to scripture that records the life of Jesus *before the Resurrection* yes. According to theology after the Resurrection and especially after the testimonies of the apostles after Jesus' Ascension into Heaven no.

>I was raised to believe in God but not exactly religiously
This answer confuses me. I wasn't knocking you or your upbringing, I was just curious about what preconceived notions you may have had.

>According to scripture that records the life of Jesus *before the Resurrection* yes. According to theology after the Resurrection and especially after the testimonies of the apostles after Jesus' Ascension into Heaven no.
So Christians are polytheists?

Attached: yIP3Tj1Mtv-Be7VCAVpK3w.png (112x112, 17K)

Stealthy devil trips ignored. Like I've said: read scripture. Don't @ me with your language game if you're ignorant of the material.

>So Christians are polytheists?
No. I know you're just baiting now. Three Persons. One unity, one ineffable being. Read the book.

I have read the entire New Testament multiple times, I find it contradictory in some places. Jesus says for example the Law will not pass away until heaven and earth do and whoever teaches otherwise is least in the kingdom of God. Whereas Paul says the Law is kaput. Also Paul says works don't save, just faith alone, but James says faith alone does not save, you need works

>prot level logic

Alright I'm gonna try analogy. Any of you frogposting nerds who have played the Elder Scrolls will remember the Eight Divines, the gods of the Cyrodiils. The dragonborn hero-emperor Tiber Septim achieved apotheosis and became the Ninth Divine, Talso, and having become a god he also always existed.

This premise is 100% stolen from Christian theology. At the Resurrection, if you believe, Jesus -- the Word made flesh -- rejoined with God the Father. Alpha and Omega, he always was and always will be. Mankind, being mortal, never knew him until he came and gave himself for us.

>The dragonborn hero-emperor Tiber Septim achieved apotheosis and became the Ninth Divine, Talso, and having become a god he also always existed.
>This premise is 100% stolen from Christian theology.

Qasim....
GET THE JIHAD

Attached: its-not-our-cultur-the-bigoted-left-hate-that-pepe-19026697.png (500x464, 98K)

the writers admitted it, in writing, on their company forum

these are still controversial subjects today. I'm assuming we're past the Trinity doubting.

Paul says the law is kaput because he was reborn in Christ. Heaven and earth do indeed pass away when one enters eternal life with God. This is why Baptism is so important, and also Holy Communion which is a reenactment of the last supper. The priest is acting in persona Christi. "The body and blood of Christ." "Amen. (I believe.)" You are affirming to the Real Presence in the Eucharist, sharing in his body and blood which is life itself.

>Heaven and earth do indeed pass away when one enters eternal life with God.
They pass away at the end times.

Attached: 8da100ddf0f95f10dbf0107b89339a12.jpg (428x600, 40K)

>implying the end times are not now

>2Cor 6:2
>for He says, "AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU, AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU." Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME," behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION "--

The end times is the end of the world

>Eph 4:22-24
>You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

>Gal 2:20
>I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

>taking Revelation completely literally
youtube.com/watch?v=I8yCkYT50No

I am talking about heaven and earth and time passing away

I'm aware.

Which relates to those verses how?

Do you know what eternal means?

>Which relates to those verses how?
Did you listen to Robert Barron, a Bishop of the Catholic Church, speak on the nature of participating in the Mass and reading the Book of Revelation? I know you didn't, because its a 14 minute video and you posted 2 minutes after me. Your question would be answered if you did.

Yes...? That is my point.

>Catholicism missing the point entirely.
Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church.