Ikhnaton Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I have never attended a real Greek Orthodox (since it is not licit for us Roman rite peeps), but i have been to Byzantine masses and recently went to a Melkite rite mass which was all in Arabic. that was pretty interesting. I have a real respect and appreciation for the rites of the Eastern churches. I think it is a zillion times more reverent and the ceremonies are beautiful and the prayers almost seem to come from a childish faith perspective but with incredible wisdom. I didn't like the Melkite rite as much as the Byzantine rite (old Slavic), however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Ikhnaton I have never attended a real Greek Orthodox (since it is not licit for us Roman rite peeps), but i have been to Byzantine masses and recently went to a Melkite rite mass which was all in Arabic. that was pretty interesting. I have a real respect and appreciation for the rites of the Eastern churches. I think it is a zillion times more reverent and the ceremonies are beautiful and the prayers almost seem to come from a childish faith perspective but with incredible wisdom. I didn't like the Melkite rite as much as the Byzantine rite (old Slavic), however. Very interesting, Ike; thanks for sharing that. Incidently, there should be no problem with simply attending an Orthodox liturgy, as long as you did not receive Communion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Fondas Nute buddy, it's Easter not Christmas that we celebrate on different dates ( a week later) My Orthodox friends celebrate Christmas on what, on my Catholic calendar, is the Feast of the Three Kings or hwatever its called, in early January. They must be crazy which would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fondas Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Nute Gunray My Orthodox friends celebrate Christmas on what, on my Catholic calendar, is the Feast of the Three Kings or hwatever its called, in early January. They must be crazy which would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Well, Nute this gonna be hard to explain... obviously your friends belong to the "old calendar dogma". I don't even know if thats the right title , I just translated directly from greek The "mainstream", official Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the birth of Christ on December 25, as Catholics do. In a nutshell, the only difference is that the official church follows the Gregorian Calendar regarding the religious celebrations while your friends dogma follows the older Julian one.... does this make any sense....?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 at the end of the day I dont think the date is important, I think whats important is that we celebrate the birth of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 But from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, communal worship has a certain significance that it does not from the Protestant perspective. It would be a very significant thing for all Christians to celebrate these things on the same days. It could also have an impact in a symbolic sense that could help a little in the hoped-for Catholic/Orthodox reunificaton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Sorry if im going a little off topic, but why should we reunifie denominations. The idea is that they cater for everyones differing beliefs, whats important is that we have respect for all denominations and accept that we have basically the same beliefs. Within the last few years I've come to the belief that alot of what is taught in churches in general is not completely what God wants us todo. I think theres is far too much empahsis placed upon ceramony and tradition. What is more important is your relationship with other people, and your relationship with God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt Sorry if im going a little off topic, but why should we reunifie denominations. The idea is that they cater for everyones differing beliefs, whats important is that we have respect for all denominations and accept that we have basically the same beliefs. Well, in the specific case of Catholic and Orthodox, the beliefs are practically the same anyway. The "split" resulted more from political issues and communications problems than any true theological differences. The split should never have happened in the first place. (Well, none of the them should have, but this in particular.) But in a more general sense, Christian unity is extremely important. If there are various churches running around catering to everyone's differing beliefs, then clearly all of then except possibly one are teaching wrong things. There is one truth. If your church teaches something contrary to that truth, then it offers false teachings. Maybe they are minor issues in your view, but you may not fully understand the true extent of the issues. Maybe no one but God does? Ultimately, religion might be called an interface between Man and God. Since Man does not know all about God, he cannot define this interface. God, knowing all about Man, however, can and did. In other words, God gave instructions on how we are to correctly relate to him, and allow him to relate to us. Consequently, practicing any religion founded on the authority of Man is to relate to God not as he as commanded, but however we feel like doing it. So we short-change ourselves by doing that, because God, being perfect, designed the perfect interface for us. Anything different from that is, by definition, imperfect. So what we need is a church that cannot err in teaching about faith and morals. But we already know one exists, because of Christ's promise to this effect which can be found in the Gospel. And because of the perfect nature of God, we can easily conclude that this was the Church he himself established (built on Peter, also told about in the Gospel). If we need further convincing that Christ did not intend any division with that Church, again look to the Gospel and see where Jesus prays for this ("...that they may be one..." etc.). So it is clearly the will of God there there be only one church. Since we know that the true Church that cannot err, the one established not by Man, but by God, is out there somewhere (again, we know this based on Christ's promise to this effect), it follows that if all Christians were united in one Church, it would be that one, true Church. So we pray for unity because it is God's will (Christ himself prayed for it), and because it will bring the full truth to all Christians. But there is also a practical aspect to it, in terms of evangelization. Think of how much more effective it would be if all Christians were united in this endeavor. The world would see a united Christian community, a community of love and truth, intead of one filled with internal bickering and arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadPilot Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Originally posted by edlib I have no desire to remove anybody's strongly-held personal beliefs or freedoms... I DO, however, wish to make sure that the beliefs of the majority don't steamroll right over what the some in the minority might belive, perhaps just as strongly. You have your beliefs, that's great, please practice them to your hearts content... but I also have mine, and I just want to make sure that you don't have the power to try to enforce your belief system over mine, despite the fact that it might be a bit contradictory to yours and you have majority power behind you. *applaudes* I couldn't agree more. Originally posted by Ikhnaton The thing about the liberals is that through their efforts, the beliefs of conservatives and anyone else who holds strong beliefs slowly but surely get whittled away and watered down. (....) There are people out there, and don't be fooled into thinking there aren't, whose mission in life is to rid the world of anything religious. I'm not sure I follow the logic here. It's obvious you have a different opinion to me, but that doesn't mean you're slowly eroding my beliefs away. As edlib said, I have no interest in taking away someone else's beliefs, in the same way no one wants to take away mine. If they can change the name of Christmas, then the emphasis is taken off Christ, and thus it gets watered down. Do this for long enough and people will eventually forget. (....) Halloween has already lost its religious significance, and Easter is pretty damn near secularized. The important thing here is that it still has a religious significance to you. You are perfectly entitled to celebrate Christmas and other such holidays in the same way you always have done. Obviously it's not going to have the same kind of significance to an atheist or agnostic and I really don't see why there's a problem with that. Would you prefer that everone dedicated the holiday to something they don't believe in just to keep you happy? And the whole idea of Christians "trying to tell others who they can and can't marry" is just ridiculous liberal bull****. First of all, you CAN'T marry anyone you want in any civilized society. You can't marry your sister or your first cousin or your mother or your aunt, etc. You can't marry your dog or horse or sheep no matter how many Scotsman want to. And you can't marry a person of the same sex. It is a category mistake. The definition of marriage, by its nature, excludes same sex "unions". If society as a whole had reached the conclusion that gay marriage isn't civilised, you might have a point. But as things stand, it only seems to be the religious section of our society that is so adamantly opposed to it, particularly to the point of trying to prohibit it altogether. Lemme guess, you hate George W. Bush, too, right? If by "hate George W. Bush" you meant "would have preferred to see John Kerry win", then yes, and it's exactly for reasons like this one. Either he's never heard of "seperation of church and state" or simply doesn't understand the concept. Just because it's a vote winner with the intolerant majority, that doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Originally posted by MadPilot If by "hate George W. Bush" you meant "would have preferred to see John Kerry win", then yes, and it's exactly for reasons like this one. Either he's never heard of "seperation of church and state" or simply doesn't understand the concept. Just because it's a vote winner with the intolerant majority, that doesn't make it right. [/b] Actually, it's John Kerry who clearly hasn't the first clue what it means when you consider that he put that forth as an excuse as to why he wants legal abortions. Dubya has demonstrated a surprisingly clear understanding of it so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Originally posted by Fondas does this make any sense....?? That makes perfect sense actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhnaton Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I don't think the majority of people out there, not just politicians, understand the idea of separation of church and state. Nowhere in the consitution does it indicate that religion and government should be mutually exclusive. The first amendment merely states that Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor any law prohibiting the practice thereof. This does not include state governments, nor does it include anything about the executive or legislative branches. In fact, when the constitution was ratified, and for some time after, many of the states had official established churches. The modern idea of separation is a new thing and not what the founding fathers had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Originally posted by Ikhnaton This does not include state governments, nor does it include anything about the executive or legislative branches. In 1961 the Supreme Court ruled state constitutions had to follow the Constitution too (previous to that, state and local officials technically could break your door down without a warrant, beat a confession out of you, and then torture you in prison without even the courtesy of a trial.) Without Congress, there is no legislature. And the executive branch can create no laws (under the Constitution, which doesn't have executive orders). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Originally posted by Nute Gunray In 1961 the Supreme Court ruled state constitutions had to follow the Constitution too (previous to that, state and local officials technically could break your door down without a warrant, beat a confession out of you, and then torture you in prison without even the courtesy of a trial.) Yeah, those were the days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhnaton Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 regardless, separation of church and state, as it is writting in the constitution, simply regards making laws pertaining to an established religion. It says nothing about expunging every last trace of religion from government work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Originally posted by Keyan Farlander Yeah, those were the days... Back then they also had something I like to call "bonus crimes" wherein they could find extra crimes while serving a warrant. Now they have to get warrants for that stuff and even then its still hard to do that instead of just racking up more stuff to charge you with on the original arrest warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I don't like the name "Winterfest", I prefer Chrismahanukwanzaakuh. Anyone with me on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 "A Festivus, for the rest of us!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Yes, now we must compete in the feats of strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I find tinsel distracting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadPilot Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Here's another article of a similar nature, this time regarding school nativity plays: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4102277.stm Again it's not something that I find myself concerned about, as nativity plays aren't representative of my beliefs. To me, it would make more sense for it to be a church activity, rather than a school one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by edlib "A Festivus, for the rest of us!" chrismakkuh owns that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.