Is anyone else having problems at OrthodoxChristianity.net?

[ioannis]

My ultimate point therefore, was that there is no more validity in the complaint amongst the Chalcedonians, regarding a Copts' claim to Orthodoxy, or a Syrians' claim to Orthodoxy, any more than a Greeks' claim to Orthodoxy or a Russians' claim to Orthodoxy. The Coptic Church officially goes by the name "The Coptic Orthodox Church", and not the "Coptic non-Chalcedonian Church" or the "Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church".

Yes, I understand. The Assyrians go by the name "Orthodox" too, and they are Nestorian. The name "Orthodox", and "Catholic", and "Christian", can be used by anyone, and most people are willing to loosly apply those names to anyone who wants them, but ultimatley those names are only properly attributable to the one and only true church. Only the true Church with the true faith has validity, no matter if most of the people in the world agree with her or not. There is no such thing as equal validy of differing faiths because only one faith is the faith of God, and all the others are inventions of men.

But the issue here is, that in presupossing his own faith to be "THE Orthodox faith" he is attempting to argue the invalidity of the Coptic Church laying claim to be of "The Orthodox Church".

Exactly. Orthodox ("Diophysites") don't believe anyone but them can lay claim to the title "Orthodox", or "Catholic", or "True Church", or even "Christian" in the true sense of those words. Nobody can properly be called a Christian except those who have been Baptized in the Church. We in fact do believe that the Coptic Church is "invalid"; you shouldn't be offended by that, you should consider it only natural. And I expect that you consider me "not orthodox" since I don't share the same faith as you.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear ionnas,

Orthodox ("Diophysites") don't believe anyone but them can lay claim to the title "Orthodox", or "Catholic", or "True Church", or even "Christian" in the true sense of those words. Nobody can properly be called a Christian except those who have been Baptized in the Church. We in fact do believe that the Coptic Church is "invalid"; you shouldn't be offended by that, you should consider it only natural. And I expect that you consider me "not orthodox" since I don't share the same faith as you.

I do in fact consider you “not Orthodox” on a strictly canonical and ecclesiological basis. However, I must stress that the reason you continue to make perfectly valid points, in principle, of which I am found to be in absolute agreement with, is because you are misunderstanding my essential point. Maybe I am not making myself clear enough, so I will try to be as explicit as I can this time.

I am not offended by you, a “diophysite”, subjectively believing that the Orthodox (“miaphysite”) Church is not Orthodox, or Catholic, or even Christian if you want to take it that far. I respect your right to subjectively believe whatever you want. In fact I respect you even more for holding onto that belief, as opposed to believing that I am Orthodox, because according to Orthodox ecclesiology, which I believe both our Church’s profess, I cannot possibly be considered Orthodox from your perspective, just as you cannot possibly be considered Orthodox from my perspective, by mere virtue of the fact that we are not in Communion with each other; that fact alone suffices, putting all, if any, Christological differences aside.

The issue that I have is with those who elevate their subjective beliefs to being objective truths, in effect projecting those subjective beliefs as if they are self-evident truths, before an audience that does not accept the presuppositions underlying such statements, and hence consequently those stamenets themselves. This is, in effect, exactly what joselauro did when he came onto OC.net, a forum that was never created as an exclusively Chalcedonian forum, nor one inhabited by exclusively Chalcedonian members, openly declaring that we have no right to the title “Orthodox” by virtue of the fact we do not confess his councils.

This scenario is akin to the following hypothetical: imagine yourself in a group of Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends, and one of the Muslims proclaims axiomatically:

“Trinitarians are not ‘Christians’! They do not follow Isa the prophet (i.e. the Muslim version of Christ)! True followers of Christ i.e. true Christians, deny that He is The Son of God!”.

You’re going to think:

“Hold up buddy, what is your proof that denying Christ as The Son of God and denying the Holy Trinity, are qualities of a true Christian? Instead of axiomatically asserting your subjective beliefs as objective truths, why not try and prove the basis behind all the presuppositions upon which that very statement of yours is contingent, since we do not share or agree upon those presuppositions”.

That is indeed what you would reasonably expect, just as I reasonable expect joselauro to provide an evidential basis of a claim that is representative of his subjective beliefs, and one that was asserted as a self-evident truth in the context of a forum inhabited by members who do not all share those presuppositions defining those subjective beliefs in the first place.

[ioannis]

I think I understand you a little better, sorry for being so thick headed.

"The issue that I have is with those who elevate their subjective beliefs to being objective truths, in effect projecting those subjective beliefs as if they are self-evident truths, before an audience that does not accept the presuppositions underlying such statements..."

This can be a point of frustration between people. I for one don't see it this way, but rather, I see it as a more honest and faithful approach, because essentially, for those that HAVE found the true church, it is in fact not subjective but rather objective.

The Church IS a self-evident truth. It is just that there are those who see it and those who do not.

I personally would not mind dialoging with someone while referrring to eachothers churches as if they were on an equal footing, as long as they understood I did not believe this was in the least bit true. To not have this kind of honesty would be like talking about Jesus and Mohammed as if they were equally legitimate men - how could you NOT feel a sense of betrayal? One is God, the maker of everything and the One who loves you more than your own mother, the other a murdering pedophile who was possessed by demons.

From the sounds of it, I think we both agree.

[Brian]

I've been trying to access http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php for the last day and keep getting a "Server Not Found" error.

Is the site completely down? Anyone know why?

Peace in Christ,
Brian

[尼古拉前执事]

Dear Brian,

They are in the process of changing hosts, so they picked this (American) holiday weekend in hopes to have the least effect since so many people travel this weekend. They had hoped to be back up today, but these swirchovers are not aslways as painless as one would hope. I would think that they will be up by Tuesday at the latest. Until then, there is the Cafe.

[Brian]

Ah, that explains it then. I was wondering if they had come under a dos attack or something as before. Thank you.

[The Apostate]

While we're on the subject of the state of other Orthodox message boards, does anybody know what is currently happening over at monachos.net? The homepage has been working sporadically for the past couple of days and the message boards now seem to be completely inaccessible.