Ethiopian/Eastern reunion essay idea.

[尼古拉前执事]

Okay, first off I wanted to say that I respect EkhristosAnesti for standing for what the Anti-Chalcedeonians believe, that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Nestorian and not Orthodox. He obviously is of the same mind as the post-schism "saints" of the the Anti-Chalcedeon churches.

As I had stated above, talks for union have been going on for 1,500 years and like EkhristosAnesti here, the leaders of his church and the churches in communion have been unwilling to accept the 4th-7th Ecumenical councils as they see them as councils of schism.

That being said, this is a traditional Orthodox Christian forum and we are pro-Chaledon and the following 5th through 7th Ecumenical councils of the Church.

We do not allow people to come here and attack the Orthodox Church nor her 7 Ecumenical councils. While the non-Orthodox are welcomd to come here and inquire about our Faith, we in no uncertain terms do not let people attack our faith nor out saints. If EkhristosAnesti and Kollyvas would like to debate Chacedon and Orthodoxy on an even playing field, I would reccomend doing so at OrthodoxChristianity.net which accepts both confessions of faith as valid in their EO-OO discussion forums.

[Kollyvas]

As you lack any Fathers or Canons to justify any of your islamist inspired agitprop, it's clear that the liar and deceiver is Y-O-U.

The context of the statements highlighted was in regard to NON-CHRISTIAN ecumenism AND REASESSING TRADITIONAL PARADIGMS OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. Porto Allegre last I checeked was not intrested in assessing the "Christian character" of non-Christians or the sexual views of early gnostic heretics. LOL! The one implication being that the Holy Spirit works in the religions of the heathen, like your moslem friends, that they too are vehicles to eternity, paradise, etc. The clear and utterly heterodox nature of such ideas has continually been rejected by the Church, ie OUTSIDE OF CHRIST AND HIS BODY THERE IS SALVATION. Your representative offered his thought not on gnostic sects but on groups advocating TRADITIONAL ORTHODOX anthropology, which teaches that sexuality is a result of fallen eros. Here he chastizes those groups advancing paradigms of chastity, sexual purity and traditional morality while acknowledging the sanctity of the bed of matrimnony: HE CALLS FOR BROADER INCLUSIONS OF SEXUAL PARADIGMS IN OPPOSITION TO CENTURIES OF CANONICAL AND PATRISTIC TEACHING. This is what your representatives are telling the world, not the links they've contradicted. They endeavour in such a way as to turn Orthodoxy on its head in a cabal of relativism. No amount of spin makes that any less so. The fact that you can't even put this together in its presentation, hold its context, and focus on its enormity further disqualifies your validity as an interlocutor. You have no credibility, but you do have invective.

Now, YOU DON'T HAVE FREE REIGN TO ADDRESS ME IF I TELL YOU NOT TO: that is the boundary between dialogue and harassment. And, moderators, he certainly doesn't have free reign to slander me.

I've had enough of your islamist based agitprop. Your intent is clearly inflammatory without gravitas. But that is the difference between dhimmi in mosque versus Orthodox Christian.
R
mohammed's mother was a prostitute and his true father no one is aware of to this day.

[Kollyvas]

Evlogeite Pater.

While I am aware of the levity given to some in their exchanges with me, I ask kindly as to whether or not IF roles were reversed between this provocateur and myself moderator responses would be as irenic. For instance, merely implying once that one spoke as an ecumenist heretic merited me suspension when that person clearly did speak so. No, this provocateur has not illusatrated himself to be anything but a person trying to slander others and shout them down. While I am by no means innocent in the use of street methodologies in advancing an idea, I find it rather objectionable that any and every personal assault against myself be "honoured" as a valid representation of any faith tradition. Again, I have consistenly annotated my sources and sought to be honest in my presentations here, and the implication I have not is utterly out of line. Moreover, while I admit the contentiousness of my style, I can honestly state that my engagements are structured to not be personal in their visceral honesty. I wouldn't care if this person called me "silly cookie monster fan club" or any epithet, but legitimizing his assault on my integrity--which heretofore I felt was acknowledged--is uncharitable and unworthy of any Orthodox Christian, regardless of rank.
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[尼古拉前执事]

Rostislav,

I was only condoning that he was indeed a true representitive of the Anti-Chalcedeon church opinion, that he is not watering down his beliefs for a union based on compromise.

I told him his actions is attacking were not acceptable here and to move it to another forum where he could do this.

Thus, I do not see what your issue is with how I publicly handled things in this thread.

[EkhristosAnesti]

I have never lied or misrepresented anything on this board and have always fully documented my assertions.

Even your claim to having never lied is a lie. The truth is right before everyone's eyes. Again, who are you trying to fool but yourself my friend?

Lie/Misrepresentation 1:

The context of the statements highlighted was in regard to NON-CHRISTIAN ecumenism

There is NO context to anything. This is a polemical commentary and perspective on the position of the persons in question based on one-sentence (and at times, two-three word quotations) taken out of their spoken or written context. Hardly a reliable source; but I am going along with it, because I still feel that it presents oppportunity to expose just how desparate satan has inspired you to conspire against the Bride of Christ.

First of all, by "non-Christian ecumenism" I assume you mean inter-faith dialogue? LOL Wow, what a crime. The Orthodox Church is not afraid to undergo dialogues with other faiths, it increases understanding and tolerance between its members. Such dialogue is intent on enhancing the human relationships between members and heirarchs of other faiths. Sounds like Christian charity to me. Do they read the Bible in the Chalcedonian Church? You might want to check out John's epistles.

the Holy Spirit works in the religions of the heathen

Actually, he does not state this. Your polemical commentator falsely interprets this in the following out of context quoted statement:

“Likewise, according to Christian pneumatology, the Holy Spirit’s work is cosmic; it reaches in mysterious ways to people of all faiths.”

This does not imply that other faiths are vehicles for the Holy Spirit, but rather that the Holy Spirit operates on a cosmic level, convicting all people in the attempt to bring them to salvation through the Church, regardless of their faith. Any idiot can clearly see this. Apparently, you are more idiotic than an idiot.

OUTSIDE OF CHRIST AND HIS BODY THERE IS SALVATION. Your representative offered his thought

First of all, he clearly makes NO STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR SALVATION, which is ultimately contingent upon their response to the Holy Spirit who so works cosmically.

Second of all, I CAN SHOW YOU HEIRARCHS OF YOUR OWN CHURCH WHO BELIEVE THERE IS SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. Bishop Kallistos Ware and another Bishop in Sweden (Bishop Ailfeyov) - who wrote an article regarding Christ's descent into hades which implied the possibility of one's ability to turn to faith in Christ and repent subsequent to their death.

Lie/Misrepresentation 2):

You blasphemously implicated that the Holy Church endorses homosexuality. I gave you explicit evidence, from the official declarations of the Holy Synod and the Patriarch, that the Church strongly condemns homosexuality:

The Holy Synod condemns homosexuality:
http://www.stanthonycopts.com/the_holy_ ... uality.htm
His Holiness Pope Shenouda officialy condemns homosexuality:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2 ... uality.php
Coptic Orthodox Church officially condemns homosexuality:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2 ... Social.php

I in turn asked you to give me evidence to back up your own claim. You then referred me to the following comment:

"George Mathews Nalunakkal, a Syrian Orthodox priest from India spoke against “conservative” views of human sexuality.

“When this appeal to the Bible [in a literal way] is combined with natural law,” he said, “it leads to exclusive and conservative positions.” He also objected to “statements [that] reflect a rather negative anthropology, where man is seen as a ‘fallen’ creature and sin is sexual.”

Putting aside the obvious fact that positions stipulated by Holy Synods and Bishops (which I referred to) are the only positions which carry authority within the Church and which hence represent the position of the Church, this one priest's remarks nonetheless have NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Putting aside the fact his comments aren't even in any sort of a coherent context, one can clearly see that the "conservative" positions he is criticising is not conservative Orthodox positions, but rather conservative according to their literalistic interpretation of certain verses out of context which can provide the basis for certain gnostic idealogies concerning the body and sexuality.

You state:

Here he chastizes those groups advancing paradigms of chastity, sexual purity and traditional morality

Are you this stupid? Read his comments:

“When this appeal to the Bible [in a literal way] is combined with natural law,” he said, “it leads to exclusive and conservative positions.” He also objected to “statements [that] reflect a rather negative anthropology, where man is seen as a ‘fallen’ creature and sin is sexual.”

Now explain to me where you read his alleged condemnation of sexual purity, traditional morality and chastity, from that one out-of-context sentence? The statement is so ambiguous it could mean anything. Obiously in your Satanic agenda to humiliate the Bride of Christ (though to no avail) you will attempt to force the worst into that comment, but clearly there is no necessity in that interpretation. There are many so-called Christians who view sex as intrinsically or inherently sinful, and it is this false idealogy that he is clearly attacking. There is a limit to Orthodox conservatism before it comes unOrthodox; one who tries to assert the practise of chastity as a dogmatic necessity, then they are open to valid criticism, based on the teachings of the Apostle St Paul, who clearly did not condemn all sexual activity per se.

In the end, even granting your ridiculous unwarranted argument for arguments sake, one priests opinion on any matter does not overrule dogmatic Synodical declaration WHICH I HAVE ISSUED YOU. And if you want to continue this attempt to character assisinate clergy, how about I show you CLERGY OF YOUR OWN CHURCH WHO EXCERCISED INCLUSIVE SEXUALITY WITHIN YOUR OWN MONASTERIES. This is nothing new, it is well know, and I can gather links within 2 seconds. Far-fetched interpretations of ambiguous out-of-context stataments quoted in a polemical article are no match for news articles recalling facts concerning your monks PRACTISING INCLUSIVISM.

Lie/Misrepresentation 3: You accused the Church of rejecting your latter four Councils upon the mere basis that we were not physically present. I asked you to give me just ONE quote of ANY OO heirarch who proclaimed that this was the primarily and essentially significant reason.

I refer you to H.H. Sarkissian's "The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church"; this is a WHOLE book written about why the Church rejected Chalcedon. He lists many reasons as to why we reject that Council; our mere physical absence is never stressed as a factor of any relevant significance.

So your claim to "ecclesiological relativism" is also a lie, not grounded upon any fact or reason.

Your intent is clearly inflammatory

I love it how you make this comment directly preceding the following comments:

But that is the difference between dhimmi in mosque versus Orthodox Christian.
R
mohammed's mother was a prostitute and his true father no one is aware of to this day.

LOL Do you always contradict yourself this bad? My oh my, how foolish you look at the moment. Islam used to be my biggest enemy my friend, you can locate my debates with Muslims on oc.net, do you think I really care what you say about Muhammed's mother? You cry about harassment, yet knowing that I as a Copt am a persecuted minority under islamic rule, you continually harass me with comments regarding Islamics. And then you accuse ME of being inflammatory. What a joke!

[EkhristosAnesti]

Nikolaos,

I told him his actions is attacking were not acceptable here and to move it to another forum where he could do this.

Isn't there any objectivity on this forum? Fair enough if you don't want me to debate Chalcedon, but I have the right to defend my Church from lies concerning other issues. Furthermore, you can't take his claim to being personally attacked seriously, after he made consistent comments implicating me with Islamics, knowing full well the enmity between Copts and Islamics in our homeland.

I will continue answering his lies. You can ban when you feel appropriate, but I will not shut my mouth as long as I have the opportunity to expose him for the liar that he is.

[Kollyvas]

The only thing you illustrate is that you can't read an article in context. The relativism expressed is clear and that was the point of the statements in their contexts. NO, THE CHURCH IS CALLED TO WITNESS ORTHODOXY NOT COMPROMISE AND NOT "preach another christ." The vapidly stupid is the position that outside the Body of Christ there is salvation. No one mentioned your Non Chalcedonian inanities and they weren't the CONTEXT OF THE STATEMENTS. Again, YOUR representatives expressed themselves seeking paradigms to reassess the boundaries not only of "Church" but of true religion , and another argued for inclusiveness in reassessing their views of licit human sexuality and relations. THAT WAS THE CLEAR CONTEXT OF THE ARTICLE. INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO CONCERN OVER gnostic sects of the 1st-4th. centuries at Porto Alegre, your spin unravels as the disingenuous nonsesne it is. We're done as I don't deal with liars--I leave them to their father. DO NOT ADDRESS ME ANY FURTHER. besides, dhimmis aren't free to speak on their own anyways. You welcomed them into "your homeland" and gave it to them and offered generations to them. Tha's why it's THEIR HOMELAND NOW. LOL!
R
Father, my point succinctly had to do with the double standard to the extent that this islamist inspired provocateur was allowed to impugn my integrity, not with fact, but with nonsensical and dishonest verbal assaults. It took all within me to not flood these threads with quotes and open nasty bouts of verbal melee. I did not because I discounted the source and I respected your group. Father, he is one type of Non Chalcedonian of atypical degree who doesn't even honestly express his side and his goal is assaulting Orthodoxy and those he views as zealous voices of it to provoke acrimony and dissensions. His zeal isn't for Anti-Chalcedonianism, it is for disharmony and ill will to persist between Orthodox and Non Chalcedonians. That is why I object to his being seen as a legitimate representative of their side. Think of him as a crazed GOC or Orthodox ecumenist on a poison the well campaign. He doesn't even recognize your rank as a Deacon.