"Look on my right hand and see—there is no one who takes notice of me; no refuge remains to me; no one cares for me" (Psalm 142:4).
Lord, have mercy!
I'm am appalled by the majority of the reactions here to our brother Gabriel. The reactions here are not just unChristian, but also unwarranted. You may judge yourselves with what you wrote, and see whether your reaction was Christ-like - or even appropriate to your rank in the Church. I will not judge you; but I am appalled at how easy it is for people who are called to gather to throw out instead. No one here has the authority to call anyone a heretic. Even a bishop on his own does not have that authority. It's amazing how easy it has become for so many Orthodox Christians to throw out condemnations of heresy at anyone they disagree with -- and usually out of fear of the other, stronger, opinion that's not easy to find a response. I hope you realize that the Church goes through many pains of loving conversation with someone who has a variant opinion, and only through many years of conversation, can an issue be debated in front of bishops in a council, and only after a lot of back-and-forth discussion, and the ability of the person being questioned to defend him/herself, can a person be held to be a heretic. The Church claims someone to be a heretic as a VERY last resort, when the person insists on their opinion as dogma of the Church.
You must notice that this is not the place to condemn anyone as a heretic. First, it's not your place to say that to anyone. Second, no one is arguing here that atheism should be a dogma of the Church, nor that secular humanism should be the mind of the Church. Third, Gabriel was asking a genuine question to a post I made, and it's not to be dismissed with your ad hominum agreements because you think he's a bad person with an evil agenda -- even though none of us met him face-to-face, nor genuinely loved him in our prayers.
With that, let me reply to Gabriel's original question with regards to slavery in the Old Testament, which he used as an objection to the statement I made regarding the necessity of God's existence in order to maintain human freedom, dignity, and rights.
My response to the objection on human slavery in the Old Testament is that both the Jews of the Old Testament, and people who bring up these laws as objections, are reading and interpreting the Law incorrectly. As a Christian, I believe in interpreting the Bible with the mind of Christ - so Christ of the New Testament enlightens the Old Testament's meaning. Since in Christ we can see that all humans are made equally in the image of God, this would mean that no one can possess any other human being, because no one can possess God. Also, to be in the image of God means that no one has authority over your being, except the Creator of your being. So, in short, because all humans are in the image of God, no human can be possessed - and the Church is thus opposed to slavery (as well as possession of any kind of any human, including the possession of a "wife" and "children" by a husband). This belief in Christianity, then, supports my argument (a Christian argument, as found in the Vatican II quote I brought up in my previous post in this thread) that without God there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights.
Interestingly, this interpretation is not my own. One of the Church Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century A.D.) was among the first people (some 1400 years before the abolition of slavery!) to bring up this argument about all humans being in the image of God as an objection to slavery, which was very common in the Roman Empire.
So... you'll ask me now how all this works with the Old Testament's laws on slavery? Doesn't this New Testament God contradict the Old Testament God who did not do anything to abolish slavery? The answer to this would be: no, there's no contradiction between the N.T. and the O.T., and God does not contradict himself. The O.T.'s Laws are to be understood in light of Christ, in light of the teaching of the New Testament and the living Tradition of the Church. From the Christian perspective, the Law was completely misunderstood by the Jews, who did apply it literally (and expanded on the Law) in their social, political, and religious lives historically and presently. This same mistake is done by contemporary Bible critics and atheists, who only read the O.T. in the literal perspective and think it only should apply in the literal perspective in every society. The Law, however, is meant to point to Christ and to our inward, spiritual lives, and not at the social and historical level. This kind of interpretation of Scripture is known as typological (the O.T. as a figure of Christ in the N.T.) and tropological (Scripture as a sign of our inward spiritual lives and interior battles).
I haven't had time to look into what some Church Fathers said in their interpretation of these parts of the Law that deal with slavery, but I can attempt to tell you what I think they would say (please remember that what I say below is MY OWN):
Typological interpretation: the slavery under the Law can be interpreted as slavery to the Law, of which we were made free by Christ on the seventh "year" (or age), when the time was the O.T. was completed in the fullness of time (hence, the seventh year of freedom). This interpretation would be based on what St. Paul says about freedom from the Law: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children" (Gal. 4:4, 5).
Tropological interpretation: we have been slaves to sin and death for all our lives, but with our baptism, we obtain freedom from this slavery through Christ and by living in righteousness, guided by the Holy Spirit. We can still choose to remain in sin, by walking according to the flesh, and that's the meaning of having the ear pierced, as that is symbolic of allowing the flesh to corrupt our minds, and we become slaves of our own passions. Freedom, though, is by walking in righteousness according to the Spirit. This interpretation can find support from the following verse, also from St. Paul: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:2-8).
With all that said, I highly suggest you re-read carefully the quote I gave from Vatican II in my previous post. Perhaps, with this new information, you'll be able to see how human dignity and human rights find their essence in God.
believe it or not I have reflected on what you've said, well at least the first few times i've been accused of having ulterior motives. I've concluded that I have no ulterior motives and these accusations are a result of my position on certain issues and the way I represent them, I think. I obviously give off vibes that set people's alarms off. Furthermore, your statement that "I have no purpose here or in any church" is a mere opinion, which you're entitled to, just know that as far as opinions go, not only is it unsolicited but its divisive and not helpful to anyone.
Ioannes, debating is not ALL that I do at church (and i'm not sure how you claim to know this). I actually strive to engage in useful discussion with people, and sure I challenge people's beliefs and scripture but I do try to do so with respect of the people around me and the place I'm in. I don't sneakily try to plant seeds of doubt in people, actually I'm very upfront about my position on issues pertaining to religion and sexuality, and a lot of things, and a LOT op people know this. In fact the coptic church here provides an open forum to discuss the existence of God, where atheists and free thinkers are invited to discuss with Copts about these philosophical topics. So if there was a perfect opportunity to 'sow doubt' it would be on those nights, but because some people are not afraid to discuss these things openly, we can actually bring our doubts to the table and address them.
Peter A,
I didn't have the intention to provoke, I intended to generate discussion, which I think could have happened if you didn't jump to conclusions based on assumptions. I highlighted words to emphasise not to insinuate.
"You are pro homosexual reform. You don't believe in God. What responses did you expect from a Coptic Orthodox forum?"
I didn't expect much, but i thought through some rational discussion I could actually contribute or instigate useful discussions. I suppose you're not the only one operating under assumptions.
"They must know something we don't. They must see goodness in you, hope, a willingness to participate without discreetly introducing your thoughts. I'm on the fence as to whether you can stay or not. "
Peter I think this is the crux of the matter, no one here actually knows me, they see one side of me (which I probably don't present very well anyway) and people jump to conclusions about my entire character. Sure, for some it may appear that I give them reason to jump to certain conclusions because of the things I talk about and my position on certain issues and the way I talk about them, but I have never told anyone how to think about a certain issue. I often give reasons as to why I believe/don't believe certain things, and I also appraise people's arguments that I feel don't make sense to me. And thats just the nature of online forums, we only see a small part of each other and we all make assumptions, and pass judgements about the people we're talking to. I just think we pass harsher judgements toward people we don't agree with.
Remnkemi,
I wasn't trying to prove anything, yes i was challenging a claim, but it was to incite discussion. And really, I can't say anything else that could possibly add anymore merit to this. Take it or leave it dude.
"Without God, you wouldn't be human. Without being human, you wouldn't have human dignity. Is that not in the context of the discussion?"
Yes with in context but still does not address my confusion as to how an omni-benevolent God could allow slavery under the conditions in the old testament.
"Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites."
"None of this is in the Bible.."
Was this your explanation? Cause clearly what I was refering to is in the bible (Exodus 21:20-21) and then you go onto say 'this chapter is about the jubilee' and that ' not enslaving your brothers is healthy favouritism'. What did I miss?
"If no one has the right to encroach the right to live than why does the US constitution allow capital punishment."
Ok so the original point I was in response to Peter A's comment that 'our only right is to led to repentance', let me use another example to demonstrate at least in a fair legal system would show that I have other rights as a human being, ok so for example, a right to a fair trial or a right to defend myself when I'm in danger.
"Again, deflecting the response. You claimed Christians are not happy. Psychologist know that anyone who is religious and frequently attending religious services is happy. Your response is nothing but a weak deflection and proof you are avoiding any type of discussion about the scientific method. "
I have no interest in discussing the scientific method, as its not relevant. Someone made the universal claim that ' People cannot be truly happy unless they have God in their lives' I said that some Christians, that I know aren't actually happy (at least not happy in the everyday sense) which in turn undermined/contradicted the claim (look up the word contrary). Giving me an experiment that demonstrates that religious people are happier does no favours for the original claim, since religious could mean 'Buddhist, hindu, islam, new age' which contain different or no gods. Therefore this experiment that you are referring to is essentially irrelevant.
"IF you had no ulterior motives, I was extending my apologies. As Ioannes said, it is clear you have ulterior motives."
I see how this works now, if Ioannes says someone has an ulterior motive then you jump on the band wagon.
"it has now become clearly evident to me that you were not honest"
What evidence? and dishonest about what?
"It is obvious you do not want to believe in God "
No, actually i am open to the existence of God, if you bothered to push away the assumptions you are operating under and actually read what I've said countless times, I have found no good reason to believe in God, there may be one out there, but till I come across it I therefore have no reason to accept the claim that 'God or any God, exists.'
"You have been educated. Why are you still here arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
No i haven't been educated, actually I clearly haven't had the opportunity to, where you could have spent this time actually edifying me you have wasted it making accusations that you still have not given any good reason for, at least not to me.
Furthermore, unlike you (seemingly) I don't only speak with people I agree with, I like to have discussions with people who have a different perspective on life I get to learn more about the people and the world, I even sometimes get to learn about myself.
And where have i ever said that I subscribe to nihilism? Thats another assumption. I'm not a nihilist. Just because I don't believe in an afterlife or a god that doesn't mean I therefore think life is without purpose or meaning.
"..Arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
I have nerver argued on this site that God doesn't exist, I've explicitly expressed my non belief. I don't think Christians are hypocritical I think some christians are hypocritical, and I probably should have used the word 'sound' not valid, as I'll admit there are many valid or good things in the bible. And all i meant to imply was that there are some claims in the bible, or at least claims that have been interpreted in a certain way that are contradicted by reality.
"That's because you and your friends see Church as a social club."
You're wrong, considering some of my friends are in fact priests. How could you actually make a claim to knowledge like this without actually knowing my friends? More assumptions and more judgements.
"Such childish behavior is not justification for deception. God will deal with you and your friends the way He sees fit. "
I wasn't talking about my friends champ. There is a social aspect to church, well at least some churches. People go they see friends, and they may equally be there for what ever service is on and the people there.
"Ironic, since you admitted you had no idea what it is making you the unintelligible one." Yep ok, i'm unintelligible.
"And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)?
" I already said Atheism is demonic. "
Ok you think I'm demonic, thanks for your opinion, as unsolicited as it maybe.
"He befriended sinners who sought repentance. He did not befriend those who refused to repent, like the Pharisees and scribes of the law. You again are twisting the Gospel for your deception."
So when its commanded in the bible to love your neighbours as yourselves, what do you think the world 'love' means there? Or neighbour actually?
"There are 2 reasons why Christians do acts of kindness: Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 25:40. "
Oh ok well you better let these missionaries know that they are befriending lawless people and that they are going against scripture!
"the authority to adjudicate unbelievers with lawless and disobedient people and demons is not mine. It is from Christ Himself who gave it to the disciples in the Gospels and in turn gave it to the Orthodox Church who in turn give it to anyone who seeks the Truth, which is only Jesus Christ. "
And Jesus also said to be 'as wise as serpents' and considering the amount of assumptions you've operated under, you've done the exact opposite.
"Like I said, I can do this as long as you want. As long as you insist atheism is logical, insist that we tolerate atheism and insist that Christians are unintelligible, I'll be here to prove you wrong."
I've never insisted that atheism logical, i have given reasons as to why I don't believe in God. People can claim to be atheists for completely illogical reasons, I however have given fairly logical reasons to justify my non belief. I haven't insisted that you tolerate 'atheism' i have insisted that you tolerate atheists, nor have claimed that Christians are unintelligible, I may have said that of one person, but I never then made a judgement call of every christian.
Oh I have no doubt that you can keep this up I just don't think I have the time or the patience to keep correcting you.
You do have a purpose in the church, but not a Christian purpose. Your purpose is to alter the churches view, in some way, to suit your own. Believe me, I know plenty of people in plenty of churches around the world. I know many people in Australia and converse with them frequently, so I know what you do and can make an assessment based on that. Seek out a group that shares your opinions and views, do not try to destroy our church because you will be unsuccessful.
Biboboy, accusations are not "un-Christian". Gabriel is here for un-Christian purposes and it is our right to call him out on everything he says on an ORTHODOX website! While we should be careful in throwing the "heretic" word around, someone who is an admitted atheist and supports the homosexual agenda AND is in the church seeking to turn others aside to foolish fables is certainly running the risk of being condemned heretical or at least excommunicated. Unless you think all Christians should speak the way Gabriel does. He certainly is not a Christian, admittedly so, and seeks to confuse and shake peoples faith, what is not heretical about that? Defending a person who is actively trying to destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters is disturbing behavior.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=9818.msg150094#msg150094 date=1326028957] "Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights."
leviticus 25:44-46
And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying....."as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves."
Can you please explain this post to me Gabriel? Are you saying God is contradicting himself?
For me it is not a contradiction but a progression of God's commandments. When God gave the laws to Moses, it was for the jews. The forth commandment being the Sabbath in which they were to worship God. No-one worked, including slaves. If you notice in your quote that the jews could buy slaves from nations around them. These were gentiles. Maybe the first to come under God's law. They didn't have to worship, but they also didn't have to work on the Sabbath. These people had a taste of God's righteousness. They had a right and a dignity, even if it was for one day as they weren't to come under God's commandments until Jesus Christ came.
The Christ set the world free from the worst slavery; sin, in which is death in the spiritual sense. Athiest will always be slaves to this world as long as they don't repent and feel no reason to do so. They will argue for dignity and rights without having to earn any of it. They will say we all are part of the animal kingdom but expect to be treated otherwise. It was God's law that gave them dignity and rights in the first place but find they can forsake him for their own pride. I think it would be hard for them to understand that we are going for something unseen, this they cannot reason or analyse.
We are fighting to free the world from the slavery of sin and I don't think athiest are helpful and sometimes try and stop us, all because of reason and pride.
I read somewhere that we were to treat outsiders with the grace that God gives us. I can't find it now, maybe later. But increasingly the church is being attacked by athiests and I think it will do damage to peoples rights and dignity because it takes away the foundation of God's law and ends up being man's creation. There are people who suffer in a way that only their trust in God can help them. Do athiests want to take this belief away from them?
I pray for you Gabriel to try and stop reasoning life by putting your trust in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Joshuaa, in Gabriels rationalistic post-modern mind, everything is a contradiction. Remember a fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Can we expect Gabriel to understand anything outside of his own foolishness?
He is tolerated at the church he attends by the priests there, so his heart cannot be totally dismissive of christian teachings. I'm sure if he had or has changed anyones minds or hearts at the church, that the priests would not accept this. I won't be calling him foolish though just because his truth is different than ours. He will defend his own heart when it needs to be open for our arguement. We argue against those who are hard of heart. It's interesting that Darwin based his arguement for evolution based on time. We say there is eternity in our life, but they will say when you die that's it. In this I have pity for them not anger.
Christianity is based mainly on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the proof of eternity for us, so the things that happened in the old testament are a leadup to the truth of Jesus Christ. It is relationship. One full of hope and trust. I would not be worried Ioannes by what they have to say inside of a church.
He is tolerated at the church he attends by the priests there, so his heart cannot be totally dismissive of christian teachings. I'm sure if he had or has changed anyones minds or hearts at the church, that the priests would not accept this. I won't be calling him foolish though just because his truth is different than ours. He will defend his own heart when it needs to be open for our arguement. We argue against those who are hard of heart. It's interesting that Darwin based his arguement for evolution based on time. We say there is eternity in our life, but they will say when you die that's it. In this I have pity for them not anger.
Christianity is based mainly on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the proof of eternity for us, so the things that happened in the old testament are a leadup to the truth of Jesus Christ. It is relationship. One full of hope and trust. I would not be worried Ioannes by what they have to say inside of a church.
It's good to have you back by the way. God bless.
Priests are generally accepting of people. Their job is to guide people to salvation and perform the sacraments. Gabriel would have to get pretty bad before they booted him out.
Then I hope the priests acceptance rubs off on to him and he accepts our Lord.
I noticed he has the words 'The things you own end up owning you' under the picture of Kurt Corban. Does that mean he feels he is a slave to this world? If so, then I guess he has gone to the right place to free himself.
In regards to the question of slavery, this is a wonderful explanation of slavery in the bible and the new testament. Truly, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament, ad the Orthodoxy Church the truest preservation of the messages of this God.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=9818.msg150481#msg150481 date=1326676973] In regards to the question of slavery, this is a wonderful explanation of slavery in the bible and the new testament. Truly, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament, ad the Orthodoxy Church the truest preservation of the messages of this God.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Watching it now, but looking at the comments is seems like many people are still unconvinced.
People will remain unconvinced because they can. god has given us complete freedom, and there it is the choice of the person to accept the explanation or not. If not, they have that choice. As for me, I choose to believe so I will, and I choose to accept the explanation given.
Then I hope the priests acceptance rubs off on to him and he accepts our Lord.
I noticed he has the words 'The things you own end up owning you' under the picture of Kurt Corban. Does that mean he feels he is a slave to this world? If so, then I guess he has gone to the right place to free himself.
Bibo, It is my understanding of heresy that no one but the clergy has the authority to declare a person heretic because such a sin is bound in heaven. However, what others were trying to say (albeit obtusely) is that a heretic has already condemned himself if he continues in his heresy and refuses to repent as Andrew succinctly quoted Titus 3. That does not mean we have the authority given to the clergy. It only means that is our observation that Gabriel is committed to a heresy he does not want to repent from and it has become obvious that he is doing so to put a wedge in his audience's faith in God, faith in Orthodoxy and faith in Scripture, at least on this forum. What he does elsewhere and how the clergy of his church deal with him is irrelevant to the debate here.
This is not an ad hominum claim. I rebutted his claims with scriptures and references (both to his own words and outside information), while he does no such thing. In fact, he has tried to detract my responses with his ad hominum claim that I am fickle and dishonest and I need to pass some sort of test for him to reevaluate his opinion of me.
I have a response to your discussion of slavery, which I will research a little more. I am reluctant to continue in this side discussion because it is no longer about atheism and it will detract from the main conversation. Suffice it to say that I gave Gabriel an alternative understanding of slavery in the Old Testament that excludes involuntary labor and racism. He did not want to accept it. I will wait to see if he accepts your alternative understanding of slavery in the mind of Christ. Given that he has a history of quoting scripture verses out of context and insisting on a negative understanding, I have a personal prediction of what he will say. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, Gabriel, I did not forget to respond. I will be working on a response soon.
Comments
Lord, have mercy!
I'm am appalled by the majority of the reactions here to our brother Gabriel. The reactions here are not just unChristian, but also unwarranted. You may judge yourselves with what you wrote, and see whether your reaction was Christ-like - or even appropriate to your rank in the Church. I will not judge you; but I am appalled at how easy it is for people who are called to gather to throw out instead. No one here has the authority to call anyone a heretic. Even a bishop on his own does not have that authority. It's amazing how easy it has become for so many Orthodox Christians to throw out condemnations of heresy at anyone they disagree with -- and usually out of fear of the other, stronger, opinion that's not easy to find a response. I hope you realize that the Church goes through many pains of loving conversation with someone who has a variant opinion, and only through many years of conversation, can an issue be debated in front of bishops in a council, and only after a lot of back-and-forth discussion, and the ability of the person being questioned to defend him/herself, can a person be held to be a heretic. The Church claims someone to be a heretic as a VERY last resort, when the person insists on their opinion as dogma of the Church.
You must notice that this is not the place to condemn anyone as a heretic. First, it's not your place to say that to anyone. Second, no one is arguing here that atheism should be a dogma of the Church, nor that secular humanism should be the mind of the Church. Third, Gabriel was asking a genuine question to a post I made, and it's not to be dismissed with your ad hominum agreements because you think he's a bad person with an evil agenda -- even though none of us met him face-to-face, nor genuinely loved him in our prayers.
With that, let me reply to Gabriel's original question with regards to slavery in the Old Testament, which he used as an objection to the statement I made regarding the necessity of God's existence in order to maintain human freedom, dignity, and rights.
My response to the objection on human slavery in the Old Testament is that both the Jews of the Old Testament, and people who bring up these laws as objections, are reading and interpreting the Law incorrectly. As a Christian, I believe in interpreting the Bible with the mind of Christ - so Christ of the New Testament enlightens the Old Testament's meaning. Since in Christ we can see that all humans are made equally in the image of God, this would mean that no one can possess any other human being, because no one can possess God. Also, to be in the image of God means that no one has authority over your being, except the Creator of your being. So, in short, because all humans are in the image of God, no human can be possessed - and the Church is thus opposed to slavery (as well as possession of any kind of any human, including the possession of a "wife" and "children" by a husband). This belief in Christianity, then, supports my argument (a Christian argument, as found in the Vatican II quote I brought up in my previous post in this thread) that without God there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights.
Interestingly, this interpretation is not my own. One of the Church Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century A.D.) was among the first people (some 1400 years before the abolition of slavery!) to bring up this argument about all humans being in the image of God as an objection to slavery, which was very common in the Roman Empire.
So... you'll ask me now how all this works with the Old Testament's laws on slavery? Doesn't this New Testament God contradict the Old Testament God who did not do anything to abolish slavery? The answer to this would be: no, there's no contradiction between the N.T. and the O.T., and God does not contradict himself. The O.T.'s Laws are to be understood in light of Christ, in light of the teaching of the New Testament and the living Tradition of the Church. From the Christian perspective, the Law was completely misunderstood by the Jews, who did apply it literally (and expanded on the Law) in their social, political, and religious lives historically and presently. This same mistake is done by contemporary Bible critics and atheists, who only read the O.T. in the literal perspective and think it only should apply in the literal perspective in every society. The Law, however, is meant to point to Christ and to our inward, spiritual lives, and not at the social and historical level. This kind of interpretation of Scripture is known as typological (the O.T. as a figure of Christ in the N.T.) and tropological (Scripture as a sign of our inward spiritual lives and interior battles).
I haven't had time to look into what some Church Fathers said in their interpretation of these parts of the Law that deal with slavery, but I can attempt to tell you what I think they would say (please remember that what I say below is MY OWN):
Typological interpretation: the slavery under the Law can be interpreted as slavery to the Law, of which we were made free by Christ on the seventh "year" (or age), when the time was the O.T. was completed in the fullness of time (hence, the seventh year of freedom). This interpretation would be based on what St. Paul says about freedom from the Law: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children" (Gal. 4:4, 5).
Tropological interpretation: we have been slaves to sin and death for all our lives, but with our baptism, we obtain freedom from this slavery through Christ and by living in righteousness, guided by the Holy Spirit. We can still choose to remain in sin, by walking according to the flesh, and that's the meaning of having the ear pierced, as that is symbolic of allowing the flesh to corrupt our minds, and we become slaves of our own passions. Freedom, though, is by walking in righteousness according to the Spirit. This interpretation can find support from the following verse, also from St. Paul: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:2-8).
With all that said, I highly suggest you re-read carefully the quote I gave from Vatican II in my previous post. Perhaps, with this new information, you'll be able to see how human dignity and human rights find their essence in God.
Ioannes,
believe it or not I have reflected on what you've said, well at least the first few times i've been accused of having ulterior motives. I've concluded that I have no ulterior motives and these accusations are a result of my position on certain issues and the way I represent them, I think. I obviously give off vibes that set people's alarms off. Furthermore, your statement that "I have no purpose here or in any church" is a mere opinion, which you're entitled to, just know that as far as opinions go, not only is it unsolicited but its divisive and not helpful to anyone.
Ioannes, debating is not ALL that I do at church (and i'm not sure how you claim to know this). I actually strive to engage in useful discussion with people, and sure I challenge people's beliefs and scripture but I do try to do so with respect of the people around me and the place I'm in. I don't sneakily try to plant seeds of doubt in people, actually I'm very upfront about my position on issues pertaining to religion and sexuality, and a lot of things, and a LOT op people know this. In fact the coptic church here provides an open forum to discuss the existence of God, where atheists and free thinkers are invited to discuss with Copts about these philosophical topics. So if there was a perfect opportunity to 'sow doubt' it would be on those nights, but because some people are not afraid to discuss these things openly, we can actually bring our doubts to the table and address them.
Peter A,
I didn't have the intention to provoke, I intended to generate discussion, which I think could have happened if you didn't jump to conclusions based on assumptions. I highlighted words to emphasise not to insinuate.
"You are pro homosexual reform. You don't believe in God. What responses did you expect from a Coptic Orthodox forum?"
I didn't expect much, but i thought through some rational discussion I could actually contribute or instigate useful discussions. I suppose you're not the only one operating under assumptions.
"They must know something we don't. They must see goodness in you, hope, a willingness to participate without discreetly introducing your thoughts. I'm on the fence as to whether you can stay or not. "
Peter I think this is the crux of the matter, no one here actually knows me, they see one side of me (which I probably don't present very well anyway) and people jump to conclusions about my entire character. Sure, for some it may appear that I give them reason to jump to certain conclusions because of the things I talk about and my position on certain issues and the way I talk about them, but I have never told anyone how to think about a certain issue. I often give reasons as to why I believe/don't believe certain things, and I also appraise people's arguments that I feel don't make sense to me. And thats just the nature of online forums, we only see a small part of each other and we all make assumptions, and pass judgements about the people we're talking to. I just think we pass harsher judgements toward people we don't agree with.
Remnkemi,
I wasn't trying to prove anything, yes i was challenging a claim, but it was to incite discussion. And really, I can't say anything else that could possibly add anymore merit to this. Take it or leave it dude.
"Without God, you wouldn't be human. Without being human, you wouldn't have human dignity. Is that not in the context of the discussion?"
Yes with in context but still does not address my confusion as to how an omni-benevolent God could allow slavery under the conditions in the old testament.
"Where is the legal equality when the master can beat his slaves to death, drill a hole through his ear, and essentialy hold his servant's family ransom? This sounds very similar to 'colonial slavery'. And leviticus 25: 44-46 sounds like favoritism toward the Isralites."
"None of this is in the Bible.."
Was this your explanation? Cause clearly what I was refering to is in the bible (Exodus 21:20-21) and then you go onto say 'this chapter is about the jubilee' and that ' not enslaving your brothers is healthy favouritism'. What did I miss?
"If no one has the right to encroach the right to live than why does the US constitution allow capital punishment."
Ok so the original point I was in response to Peter A's comment that 'our only right is to led to repentance', let me use another example to demonstrate at least in a fair legal system would show that I have other rights as a human being, ok so for example, a right to a fair trial or a right to defend myself when I'm in danger.
"Again, deflecting the response. You claimed Christians are not happy. Psychologist know that anyone who is religious and frequently attending religious services is happy. Your response is nothing but a weak deflection and proof you are avoiding any type of discussion about the scientific method. "
I have no interest in discussing the scientific method, as its not relevant. Someone made the universal claim that ' People cannot be truly happy unless they have God in their lives' I said that some Christians, that I know aren't actually happy (at least not happy in the everyday sense) which in turn undermined/contradicted the claim (look up the word contrary). Giving me an experiment that demonstrates that religious people are happier does no favours for the original claim, since religious could mean 'Buddhist, hindu, islam, new age' which contain different or no gods. Therefore this experiment that you are referring to is essentially irrelevant.
"IF you had no ulterior motives, I was extending my apologies. As Ioannes said, it is clear you have ulterior motives."
I see how this works now, if Ioannes says someone has an ulterior motive then you jump on the band wagon.
"it has now become clearly evident to me that you were not honest"
What evidence? and dishonest about what?
"It is obvious you do not want to believe in God "
No, actually i am open to the existence of God, if you bothered to push away the assumptions you are operating under and actually read what I've said countless times, I have found no good reason to believe in God, there may be one out there, but till I come across it I therefore have no reason to accept the claim that 'God or any God, exists.'
"You have been educated. Why are you still here arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
No i haven't been educated, actually I clearly haven't had the opportunity to, where you could have spent this time actually edifying me you have wasted it making accusations that you still have not given any good reason for, at least not to me.
Furthermore, unlike you (seemingly) I don't only speak with people I agree with, I like to have discussions with people who have a different perspective on life I get to learn more about the people and the world, I even sometimes get to learn about myself.
And where have i ever said that I subscribe to nihilism? Thats another assumption. I'm not a nihilist. Just because I don't believe in an afterlife or a god that doesn't mean I therefore think life is without purpose or meaning.
"..Arguing that God doesn't exist or God is unethical or Christians are hypocritical or there is no validity in the Scriptures? These are all things you said and now you claim there is no justification for these accusations against you. "
I have nerver argued on this site that God doesn't exist, I've explicitly expressed my non belief. I don't think Christians are hypocritical I think some christians are hypocritical, and I probably should have used the word 'sound' not valid, as I'll admit there are many valid or good things in the bible. And all i meant to imply was that there are some claims in the bible, or at least claims that have been interpreted in a certain way that are contradicted by reality.
"That's because you and your friends see Church as a social club."
You're wrong, considering some of my friends are in fact priests. How could you actually make a claim to knowledge like this without actually knowing my friends? More assumptions and more judgements.
"Such childish behavior is not justification for deception. God will deal with you and your friends the way He sees fit. "
I wasn't talking about my friends champ. There is a social aspect to church, well at least some churches. People go they see friends, and they may equally be there for what ever service is on and the people there.
"Ironic, since you admitted you had no idea what it is making you the unintelligible one."
Yep ok, i'm unintelligible.
"And what accord has Christ with Belial (or atheists)?
" I already said Atheism is demonic. "
Ok you think I'm demonic, thanks for your opinion, as unsolicited as it maybe.
"He befriended sinners who sought repentance. He did not befriend those who refused to repent, like the Pharisees and scribes of the law. You again are twisting the Gospel for your deception."
So when its commanded in the bible to love your neighbours as yourselves, what do you think the world 'love' means there? Or neighbour actually?
"There are 2 reasons why Christians do acts of kindness: Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 25:40. "
Oh ok well you better let these missionaries know that they are befriending lawless people and that they are going against scripture!
"the authority to adjudicate unbelievers with lawless and disobedient people and demons is not mine. It is from Christ Himself who gave it to the disciples in the Gospels and in turn gave it to the Orthodox Church who in turn give it to anyone who seeks the Truth, which is only Jesus Christ. "
And Jesus also said to be 'as wise as serpents' and considering the amount of assumptions you've operated under, you've done the exact opposite.
"Like I said, I can do this as long as you want. As long as you insist atheism is logical, insist that we tolerate atheism and insist that Christians are unintelligible, I'll be here to prove you wrong."
I've never insisted that atheism logical, i have given reasons as to why I don't believe in God. People can claim to be atheists for completely illogical reasons, I however have given fairly logical reasons to justify my non belief. I haven't insisted that you tolerate 'atheism' i have insisted that you tolerate atheists, nor have claimed that Christians are unintelligible, I may have said that of one person, but I never then made a judgement call of every christian.
Oh I have no doubt that you can keep this up I just don't think I have the time or the patience to keep correcting you.
You do have a purpose in the church, but not a Christian purpose. Your purpose is to alter the churches view, in some way, to suit your own. Believe me, I know plenty of people in plenty of churches around the world. I know many people in Australia and converse with them frequently, so I know what you do and can make an assessment based on that. Seek out a group that shares your opinions and views, do not try to destroy our church because you will be unsuccessful.
Biboboy, accusations are not "un-Christian". Gabriel is here for un-Christian purposes and it is our right to call him out on everything he says on an ORTHODOX website! While we should be careful in throwing the "heretic" word around, someone who is an admitted atheist and supports the homosexual agenda AND is in the church seeking to turn others aside to foolish fables is certainly running the risk of being condemned heretical or at least excommunicated. Unless you think all Christians should speak the way Gabriel does. He certainly is not a Christian, admittedly so, and seeks to confuse and shake peoples faith, what is not heretical about that? Defending a person who is actively trying to destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters is disturbing behavior.
"Without God, there can be no such thing as human dignity and human rights."
leviticus 25:44-46
And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying....."as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves."
Can you please explain this post to me Gabriel? Are you saying God is contradicting himself?
For me it is not a contradiction but a progression of God's commandments. When God gave the laws to Moses, it was for the jews. The forth commandment being the Sabbath in which they were to worship God. No-one worked, including slaves. If you notice in your quote that the jews could buy slaves from nations around them. These were gentiles. Maybe the first to come under God's law. They didn't have to worship, but they also didn't have to work on the Sabbath. These people had a taste of God's righteousness. They had a right and a dignity, even if it was for one day as they weren't to come under God's commandments until Jesus Christ came.
The Christ set the world free from the worst slavery; sin, in which is death in the spiritual sense. Athiest will always be slaves to this world as long as they don't repent and feel no reason to do so. They will argue for dignity and rights without having to earn any of it. They will say we all are part of the animal kingdom but expect to be treated otherwise. It was God's law that gave them dignity and rights in the first place but find they can forsake him for their own pride. I think it would be hard for them to understand that we are going for something unseen, this they cannot reason or analyse.
We are fighting to free the world from the slavery of sin and I don't think athiest are helpful and sometimes try and stop us, all because of reason and pride.
I read somewhere that we were to treat outsiders with the grace that God gives us. I can't find it now, maybe later. But increasingly the church is being attacked by athiests and I think it will do damage to peoples rights and dignity because it takes away the foundation of God's law and ends up being man's creation. There are people who suffer in a way that only their trust in God can help them. Do athiests want to take this belief away from them?
I pray for you Gabriel to try and stop reasoning life by putting your trust in our Lord Jesus Christ.
He is tolerated at the church he attends by the priests there, so his heart cannot be totally dismissive of christian teachings. I'm sure if he had or has changed anyones minds or hearts at the church, that the priests would not accept this. I won't be calling him foolish though just because his truth is different than ours. He will defend his own heart when it needs to be open for our arguement. We argue against those who are hard of heart.
It's interesting that Darwin based his arguement for evolution based on time. We say there is eternity in our life, but they will say when you die that's it. In this I have pity for them not anger.
Christianity is based mainly on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the proof of eternity for us, so the things that happened in the old testament are a leadup to the truth of Jesus Christ. It is relationship. One full of hope and trust. I would not be worried Ioannes by what they have to say inside of a church.
It's good to have you back by the way. God bless.
He is tolerated at the church he attends by the priests there, so his heart cannot be totally dismissive of christian teachings. I'm sure if he had or has changed anyones minds or hearts at the church, that the priests would not accept this. I won't be calling him foolish though just because his truth is different than ours. He will defend his own heart when it needs to be open for our arguement. We argue against those who are hard of heart.
It's interesting that Darwin based his arguement for evolution based on time. We say there is eternity in our life, but they will say when you die that's it. In this I have pity for them not anger.
Christianity is based mainly on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the proof of eternity for us, so the things that happened in the old testament are a leadup to the truth of Jesus Christ. It is relationship. One full of hope and trust. I would not be worried Ioannes by what they have to say inside of a church.
It's good to have you back by the way. God bless.
Priests are generally accepting of people. Their job is to guide people to salvation and perform the sacraments. Gabriel would have to get pretty bad before they booted him out.
Then I hope the priests acceptance rubs off on to him and he accepts our Lord.
I noticed he has the words 'The things you own end up owning you' under the picture of Kurt Corban. Does that mean he feels he is a slave to this world? If so, then I guess he has gone to the right place to free himself.
ReturnOrthodoxy
In regards to the question of slavery, this is a wonderful explanation of slavery in the bible and the new testament. Truly, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament, ad the Orthodoxy Church the truest preservation of the messages of this God.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Watching it now, but looking at the comments is seems like many people are still unconvinced.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Then I hope the priests acceptance rubs off on to him and he accepts our Lord.
I noticed he has the words 'The things you own end up owning you' under the picture of Kurt Corban. Does that mean he feels he is a slave to this world? If so, then I guess he has gone to the right place to free himself.
He is quoting fight club.
It is my understanding of heresy that no one but the clergy has the authority to declare a person heretic because such a sin is bound in heaven. However, what others were trying to say (albeit obtusely) is that a heretic has already condemned himself if he continues in his heresy and refuses to repent as Andrew succinctly quoted Titus 3. That does not mean we have the authority given to the clergy. It only means that is our observation that Gabriel is committed to a heresy he does not want to repent from and it has become obvious that he is doing so to put a wedge in his audience's faith in God, faith in Orthodoxy and faith in Scripture, at least on this forum. What he does elsewhere and how the clergy of his church deal with him is irrelevant to the debate here.
This is not an ad hominum claim. I rebutted his claims with scriptures and references (both to his own words and outside information), while he does no such thing. In fact, he has tried to detract my responses with his ad hominum claim that I am fickle and dishonest and I need to pass some sort of test for him to reevaluate his opinion of me.
I have a response to your discussion of slavery, which I will research a little more. I am reluctant to continue in this side discussion because it is no longer about atheism and it will detract from the main conversation. Suffice it to say that I gave Gabriel an alternative understanding of slavery in the Old Testament that excludes involuntary labor and racism. He did not want to accept it. I will wait to see if he accepts your alternative understanding of slavery in the mind of Christ. Given that he has a history of quoting scripture verses out of context and insisting on a negative understanding, I have a personal prediction of what he will say. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, Gabriel, I did not forget to respond. I will be working on a response soon.