Why not orthodoxy?

>>1855266

Because Christianity as a whole is rather unconvincing.

>>1855276
It's so unconvincing that it's the largest religion in the world?

>>1855276
This. Some of the core beliefs are absolutely appalling (anyone that disagrees with me suffers for all of eternity) and a lot of it is quite ridiculous.

>>1855266
Most Orthodox churches are aggressively nationalistic so unless you're an ethnic Slav you'll probably feel out of place.

>>1855282
>judging a belief system by your own personal preferences rather than its truth

There are a lot of things about life that are "appalling" but that doesn't make them any less real.

Because I'm not a perpetually drunk Ivan or Giorgios the sodomite.

>>1855281

Probably to do with the fact that most people didn't actually read the Bible until comparatively recently, at which point Christianity has been in a decline.

>>1855282

I wasn't really going for the horrific nature of it; after all, something absolutely terrible might very well be true. I was more going for the lack of credibility of the Christian holy texts insofar as they can be checked against other historical knowledge, and how they build off of what is supposedly a more or less correct theological underpinning in previous revelation a la Judaism. (Or more precisely, how they don't)

>>1855293
Scripture reading (in the vernacular) has been a hallmark of Christian praxis since the 16th century. Christianity has only begun to decline significantly in the 20th century so your argument is invalid.

>>1855307

>Scripture reading (in the vernacular) has been a hallmark of Christian praxis since the 16th century

And in the 15th century we see the reformation of the catholic church actually taking place, splitting off into literally hundreds of separate groups as Protestantism picks up steam (why can't they all agree if it's the same Bible?)

>Christianity has only begun to decline significantly in the 20th century so your argument is invalid.

Please, the enlightenment was way before the 20th century and represented an enormous decline in Christianity, with people finding alternate reinterpretations of Christainity that would be enormously heretical (consider Jeffersonian Deism) or just flat out thinking the stuff is bunk.

Christianity's decline has been way longer than the 20th century.

>>1855317
>why can't they all agree if it's the same Bible?

Because human beings are fallible and the distinctions between denominations have more to do with subtle theological differences rather than how to live a Christian life. For example, Calvinists and Arminians may disagree about the nature of justification but both agree that Christians ought to be charitable and love their neighbors.

>the enlightenment was way before the 20th century and represented an enormous decline in Christianity,

Only among the academic class (aka the scribes). Even during the Enlightenment Christianity was still the driving ethos of day-to-day Western society. It's only in the 20th century when this skepticism has trickled down to the average person.

>>1855349

I'll take the French revolution for 600, Alex.

>>1855266
Why not Zoroastrianism?

>>1855359
Cute snark, I'm sure the guys over at /r/atheism think you're a real riot.

Just because the French didn't want the Roman Catholic Church to have political authority over them doesn't mean that the average person didn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

>>1855371

And just because the average person believes in a vague way that Jesus is a deity doesn't mean that Christainity wasn't in decline from earlier eras, when it was a political force to be reckoned with and the will of the church(es) dictated the fate of nations, when you have things like 15 years of war in tiny Bohemia over the execution of an itinerant preacher, when the Turks were Bad with a capital B because they were Moslem, and you couldn't run a kingdom without the support of the church because the Church had a near monopoly on literacy.

By the enlightenment era, sure, Christian faith still existed, but it was a very shallow, neutered kind of faith, the sort that fewer and fewer people were willing to go to any great length in defense of.

>>1855383
> it was a very shallow, neutered kind of faith

That's a hot opinion you got there. I'm really impressed by how you're confidently able to pass judgment on the intimate spiritual beliefs of people who lived hundreds of years before you were born.

It's also pretty fascinating how you equate the decline of church influence in worldly affairs to a decline in belief in Christ when Christ himself said His kingdom is not of this world and that the faithful ought to render unto Caesar. Are you the same anon who was talking about how the more people read the Bible the less they believe? Because it seems you're pretty unfamiliar with what Jesus actually taught.

Really gets the synapses firing.

>>1855266
Dunno why, but that icon in particular is somewhat... unnerving. One eyes looks like a cyborg or something. Like Jesus is going to go Terminator on you.

>>1855266
I suppose because one would rather enter into heaven than spend a few hours a week in a church building.

>>1855282
Anyone who is dead goes to where the dead people go.

What's wrong with that?

Do they not bury the dead in your town?

What make Orthodoxy different/better than other religions and/or christian sects?

>>1855414
>I'm really impressed by how you're confidently able to pass judgment on the intimate spiritual beliefs of people who lived hundreds of years before you were born.


Nice strawman you've got there.

>It's also pretty fascinating how you equate the decline of church influence in worldly affairs to a decline in belief in Christ when Christ himself said His kingdom is not of this world and that the faithful ought to render unto Caesar.

Yeah, it's almost like when people started reading the Bible, the Church's influence declined.

>Because it seems you're pretty unfamiliar with what Jesus actually taught.

I find it hilarious to assume that a bunch of anonymously written gospels that came to the surface decades after a historical Jesus was around is proof positive of what said Jesus actually said.

>>1855542
It's not a strawman, you literally judged their faith as "shallow and neutered" despite being separated from them by several centuries and I'm amazed that you feel authorized to pass such a judgment.

And again Jesus LITERALLY taught his followers to cooperate with worldly political authorities and not try to usurp them. Christianity is fundamentally about preparing for eternity and not temporary political authority. If anything the decline of the church's influence in politics is the return to what Christ actually taught away from Constantine's politicization of the faith.

And finally, if you want to deny the authenticity of the Gospels you're free to do so but why you would and then think that your opinion holds any weight in a thread directed at believers escapes me. Although at this point I don't think you're actually interested in persuading anyone and just want to have the last word.

>>1855576
>It's not a strawman, you literally judged their faith as "shallow and neutered" despite being separated from them by several centuries and I'm amazed that you feel authorized to pass such a judgment.


Considering that it wasn't acted upon to nearly the same degree as it was in previous centuries, which can be demonstrably measured, I think it's fair enough.

>And again Jesus LITERALLY taught his followers to cooperate with worldly political authorities and not try to usurp them

You cannot prove that outside of a citation to the Gospels which might or might not be accurate to what Jesus said. You also run into difficulties that the whole "render unto Caesar" can easily be interpreted as "and the Romans should fuck off back to Rome"; as other usages of the "kingdom of God" refer to Israel in a very practical, very political sense, and if Jesus was saying that, it sure seems odd to use such terminology if he really meant something wholly spiritual.

>If anything the decline of the church's influence in politics is the return to what Christ actually taught away from Constantine's politicization of the faith.

Which is of course why every form of Church authority had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from such temporal power. Funny how the people who you think would know this stuff the best apparently disagreed with your assessment.

>And finally, if you want to deny the authenticity of the Gospels you're free to do so but why you would and then think that your opinion holds any weight in a thread directed at believers escapes me.

OP asked why his readers, myself included, aren't of the Eastern Orthodox faith. I gave my reason; Orthodoxy is a sub-set of Christianity, and Christianity is extremely unconvincing. Someone then tried to use the old argument by popularity routine, and I've been contesting it.

>>1855503
It's the only religion I've ever seen that will slap you in the face with a handful of grass on Easter. So, if that's your thing, you're golden.

>>1855613
The way a Christian acts on their faith is by loving God and their neighbor not by controlling territory or collecting taxes. That you equate the decline of church influence in politics with a decline in people "acting on their faith" shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood what Christianity is.

If you want to try and weasel Christ's statement about rendering unto Caesar to mean that the Romans should "fuck off back to Rome" I can point to other instances in scripture where believers are told to be deferential to worldly political authority (Romans 13:1-7).

Also Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world so equating it with Israel as a political entity is further evidence that you have no understanding of Christ's teachings and should stop speaking as if you know what you're talking about.

By the way, you wouldn't happen to be Jewish would you?

>>1855625
What you know about orthodox Easter?I think nothing

>>1855661
>Also Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world so equating it with Israel as a political entity is further evidence that you have no understanding of Christ's teachings
Funny that he only says this in the latest and most divergent gospel, and the only gospel he actually claims to be God in.

>>1855281

If size equals truth, then why is Islam 100% false?

>>1855687
So at least we've established that all you can do at this point is deny the Gospels and have no argument beyond saying "well what if Jesus didn't actually say that huh???"

>>1855661
>The way a Christian acts on their faith is by loving God and their neighbor not by controlling territory or collecting taxes. That you equate the decline of church influence in politics with a decline in people "acting on their faith" shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood what Christianity is.


Except it's not just the church's influence on politics. It's overall religious influence on politics. Where was the outrage among the french religious when Francis I allied with the Ottoman sultan? Why did the religious wars of the protestant reformation era suddenly stop with the enlightenment?

> can point to other instances in scripture where believers are told to be deferential to worldly political authority (Romans 13:1-7).


Ooh, look at that. A book that isn't even attributed to Jesus.

>Also Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world so equating it with Israel as a political entity is further evidence that you have no understanding of Christ's teachings and should stop speaking as if you know what you're talking about.

Yes, I have not drank the kool-aid. I realize that looking at the holy books with skepticism is anathema to you types, but really, a lot of people do it.

>By the way, you wouldn't happen to be Jewish would you?

Nope, tip tip of the hat. Why would it matter?

>>1855700
Well I guess it wouldn't matter to someone who takes it to be true on faith, but for anyone else the discrepancies between John and the synoptic gospels put serious doubt on the the legitimacy of the former.

>>1855707
You're assuming that just because a leader claims to be Christian that means Christians are obligated to follow them. This ignores the instances in scripture where God uses non-believers to accomplish His ends (using the Assyrians to punish Israel immediately comes to mind Isaiah 10:5-7). Supporting the the Ottomans can be justified as functioning similar to the Assyrians as a heathen force used to correct God's people.

The wars of religion ended because the protestants won treaties granting them recognition and independence from Rome. It wasn't like Voltaire or whoever started making euphoric pronouncements and then the German princes suddenly realized that "hey maybe these wars are unreasonable. Science FTW xD!!" To suggest that the Enlightenment is what ended the wars of religion is ignorant at best and more likely a disingenuous attempt to smear Christianity in general. If you want to argue that le science and reason will lead to world peace and it's only because of de eebil x-tians that we aren't colonizing Mars right now you can take it back to /r/atheism.

Paul's epistles are canonical and inform much of Christian theology which is what we're debating. You can't just plug your ears and say they don't count because they refute your argument. I mean you can, but it's just further evidence that you're an ignorant troll who wants to pontificate on a subject they don't understand. But hey, this is a Chinese comic book blog so knock yourself out.

>>1855366
This.

Why settle for the copy when you can have the original?

>>1855809

>You're assuming that just because a leader claims to be Christian that means Christians are obligated to follow them. This ignores the instances in scripture where God uses non-believers to accomplish His ends (using the Assyrians to punish Israel immediately comes to mind Isaiah 10:5-7). Supporting the the Ottomans can be justified as functioning similar to the Assyrians as a heathen force used to correct God's people.

No, I'm assuming that if Christainity is a serious political force, religious issues and divides will make themselves felt in the political arena.

>The wars of religion ended because the protestants won treaties granting them recognition and independence from Rome.

Well, no, not really. It's a shame, because that's a beuatiful theory you came up with. I would point out that there were no treaties or recognition given to say, the English and Spanish wars, who fought over religion quite a bit, nor to the perceived importance of having a protestant monarch, who upheld protestant interests, which just kind of dribbled away come the 18th century.
>Paul's epistles are canonical and inform much of Christian theology which is what we're debating

Considering "what we were debating" is what, if anything, Jesus actually taught, the fact that they're canon is meaningless. >>1855414

>>1855809

>It wasn't like Voltaire or whoever started making euphoric pronouncements and then the German princes suddenly realized that "hey maybe these wars are unreasonable. Science FTW xD!!"

No, it wasn't. Rather, you had a gradual retreat of religion as a political force from the public life, (probably likened to the rise of secular education enabling absolute monarchies that weren't possible in earlier centuries) and with freer hands inside the apparati of state, you were no longer bound to religious ties as having to be the basis of your alliances because you needed the church to administrate your lands.

>To suggest that the Enlightenment is what ended the wars of religion is ignorant at best and more likely a disingenuous attempt to smear Christianity in general.

It seems to be a rather clear explanation; as you had the Enlightenment, you had more secular humanist values, and importantly, more secular education. States were less tied to the church to be able to function, and religion's impact on politics declined precipitously. Note how none of that involves strawmen, such as

>If you want to argue that le science and reason will lead to world peace and it's only because of de eebil x-tians that we aren't colonizing Mars right now you can take it back to /r/atheism.

Of course not, but look at the wars of say, the 20th century. You've got realpolitik driving WW1, and secular ideological divides driving WW2 and the Cold War. The way religion causes war isn't because teh gawd demands blood sacrifice, it's because it divides people into an "us" and a "them", and people always hate the "them". Nah, war is here to stay. It's just that the dividing lines will be non-religious ones when religion declines.


Apologies, that came somewhat out of order. The last part of >>1856325 is supposed to be at the very end.

>>1855281
This is the dumbest argument for just about anything.

I mean, just to begin, if you're at all familiar with critical thinking you should know how many mistakes humans are naturally inclined to make. Most people can't even defend very basic principles that they base their life on, like not even a little.

>>1855266
Because at your best your a cultural tradtion desperately clinging to an imagined past,

At worse your a nationalist club mascaraing as a religion.

Either way you spam why to much shit on this board

>>1855266
Orthodoxy is the only valid Christianity.

The only alternative is sola scriptura heretics and the "vicar" of "Christ".

>>1856361
>At worse your a nationalist club mascaraing as a religion.

This is what my local Greek Orthodox church is. Just a place for the migrants to meet up and shoot the shit.

>>1855366
Parsis don't accept converts and the few iranian zoroastrians that still exist would consider you a silly western larper.

>>1855266
I really love the music especially from the Russian Orthodox.

>>1856380
>muh cult, best cult

>>1855672
Are you denying that I saw an Eastern Orthodox church on Sunday where the "priest" had a handful of some sort of grass, and a huge line of people in front of him, and he was slapping them in the face?

Do you want to deny that?

Do you think it is not on youtube?

File: cchantipper.jpg (92KB, 829x589px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 829x589px

>>1856456

>>1856470
>against muh cult, must be against Jesus

>>1855266
Constantine let me behold you visage. Show me as much as a hand, a fingertip, a nail, an object you touched.

Let me hear a phrase from your lips, a word, a syllable, a breath, something you smellt or tasted.

>>1856470
When you have no arguments, just post a shitty meme

>>1856502
Honestly, I don't know what you guys are even arguing about. I just wanted to shitpost. Is that a sin?

>>1856521
I think being disingenuous just to stir up shit literally is a sin. Be sure to tell your priest.

>>1855282
>anyone that disagrees with me suffers for all of eternity
That's not what Christianity has ever taught you dipshit.

the only positive contribution of christ was socialism, which will inevitably lead to the NWO and the end of individualism via the singularity, thusly, an effective total death of mankind.

lets just end it all lads, it is inevitable

>>1855429
He is referring to Hell.

>>1856826
>If you disagree with me but you're virtuous you go to a boring part of hell where you're not tortured and is basically The Villages, Florida
-Dante

>If you disagree with but its out of ignorance we can reasonably hope you're saved but we can't be sure
-Catholic Church today

>>1856871
>-Dante

Dante is a representative of christianity when his magnum opus was literally a piece of scholastic poetry?

>>If you disagree with but its out of ignorance we can reasonably hope you're saved but we can't be sure

This is not equivalent to 'If you disagree you're burning in hell forever'.

>>1855281
>It's so unconvincing that it's the largest religion in the world?

State sanctioned violence and suppression of competing thoughts.

>>1856929
>'If you disagree you're burning in hell forever'.
Yeah, it's pretty disingenuous. What it should have been is "If you disagree you're probably burning in hell forever," which is much fairer.