Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

So excited to be part of this community!
  • Hi All!

    My name is Marina from the Marina Show on CYC http://youtu.be/Z3wKWoiPJvU

    Looking for interesting topics to cover on the show!
  • Whats your opinion on esharbs?
  • Mandatory.
  • LAWLZ! Can I get your autograph?!!
  • [quote author=BeautifulDove link=topic=14150.msg162632#msg162632 date=1358059565]
    Hi All!

    My name is Marina from the Marina Show on CYC http://youtu.be/Z3wKWoiPJvU

    Looking for interesting topics to cover on the show!
    [/quote]

    I love your show - what a great service!

    I just thought I would make one comment - in one of your shows, when you were interviewing a feminist, you said it's OK to be Coptic (ie Orthodox) and feminist.  I think you should have clarified that you meant feminism in societal terms (eg equal opportunities for women etc), not inside the church or the Orthodox family.  Feminism has no place inside the church, for men and women are already equal.  The perception that they are not is what needs to be countered.

    I understand you were interviewing a staunch feminist on the show, so you couldn't say anything too drastic, but maybe it might help to have a part at the end of your show where you present the balanced, considered viewpoint of the church, so as not to be constrained by your interviewee.

    God bless.
  • Pardon me, but I don't have any topic ideas.

    But skimming a few episodes, I do have some concerns. If you are open to hearing them, I can share.

    God bless the service.
  • [quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162663#msg162663 date=1358155427]
    Pardon me, but I don't have any topic ideas.

    But skimming a few episodes, I do have some concerns. If you are open to hearing them, I can share.

    God bless the service.
    [/quote]

    Likewise. I actually am geographically a little closer than you think to you, marina lol. Wow I sound like a stalker. Since you are excited to be part of this community, I feel it fair to warn you that most here are hard knockers, which means that while you may find support, you will find criticism just about as much. We do this in love, though we do not censer the reality of our views.

    God bless your service, and that of your family!

    RO
  • Dear Marina,

    Keep doing what you do; your show is a fun, accessible and authentic Orthodox witness to Christ.

    God bless you.
  • [quote author=InChrist7 link=topic=14150.msg162688#msg162688 date=1358227901]
    Dear Marina,

    Keep doing what you do; your show is a fun, accessible and authentic Orthodox witness to Christ.

    God bless you.

    [/quote]

    I appreciate your spirit of encouragement, InChrist7, but to call this show an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch. If we were to censor the CYC label in the background, this show could pass for a TBN program. You wouldn't call a program on TBN an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ", would you? Assuming you wouldn't, why do you label this show as such? Is it merely because the host is Coptic Orthodox?

    The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.



  • All the criticisms on this topic revealed some very concerning judgmental natures of people. If this is all in Orthodox Christianity's name - then I am ashamed to be part of the same faith as some of you.

    I am sincerely disappointed that your criticism was in the name of 'orthodoxy'. That being said, please don't ever post this kind of criticism on the internet in the name of my faith- because what was said was simply judgmental - now, is that a Christian virtue? No, its not.

    Let's act as Christians with one another first, and not as 'Orthodox' extremests.
  • [quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162691#msg162691 date=1358233044]

    I appreciate your spirit of encouragement, InChrist7, but to call this show an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch. If we were to censor the CYC label in the background, this show could pass for a TBN program. You wouldn't call a program on TBN an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ", would you? Assuming you wouldn't, why do you label this show as such? Is it merely because the host is Coptic Orthodox?

    The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.
    [/quote]

    Hey Andrew. Nice name. Interesting post. It sparked my curiosity...

    I just finished watching the show linked in the original post. When I read your comment, it made me wonder why you believe this show should not be considered orthodox. Is it only because of the reasons you listed?
  • I think Andrew and Orthodoxy should be invited as guests on the show, Marina.
  • [quote author=solidman link=topic=14150.msg162693#msg162693 date=1358236319]
    [quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162691#msg162691 date=1358233044]

    I appreciate your spirit of encouragement, InChrist7, but to call this show an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch. If we were to censor the CYC label in the background, this show could pass for a TBN program. You wouldn't call a program on TBN an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ", would you? Assuming you wouldn't, why do you label this show as such? Is it merely because the host is Coptic Orthodox?

    The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.
    [/quote]

    Hey Andrew. Nice name. Interesting post. It sparked my curiosity...

    I just finished watching the show linked in the original post. When I read your comment, it made me wonder why you believe this show should not be considered orthodox. Is it only because of the reasons you listed?
    [/quote]

    I have yet not said the show is un-Orthodox, though there are some concerning aspects I raised above.
    Just because the host is Orthodox, does not mean the show is. It may contain beneficial advice, and that is great.

    For me, this show is on somewhat neutral territory. My only issue was with InChrist7 anointing this show as an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ". That type of language is much too charitable.

    Look - my intention was not to criticize the show. I gave Marina an opportunity to express openness to receiving my thoughts, but she did not respond, so I withheld them. I really have nothing further to say.

    That said, I do hope this has made some people think about the question underlying some of our discussion: what makes something Orthodox?



  • [quote author=Andrew]
    That said, I do hope this has made some people think about the question underlying some of our discussion: what makes something Orthodox?
    [/quote]

    Sounds to me like that's the exact question you dodged. But since you're the one asking it now, I'll let you answer it first :)

    Why do you believe that labeling this show as an "authentic orthodox witness to Christ" is a stretch?
  • The problem is not in my, Andrew, or Orthodoxy having a problem with this show. The problem is found in others, who refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the opinions of others regarding the same TV show which they watch may be actual criticisms, and thus be liable to an actual Socratic approach. This is more than expected. When people take a more majestic approach than those willing to roll up their sleeves, the silent appear noble, while the outspoken appear filthy. Names such as "extremist" are nothing but cop-outs. They are an attempt to discredit an opinion without any information. I don't buy them for a second.

    I am much more privy to a lot of information than one may assume. I am currently working with CYC on a project which I am hoping to launch soon (apart from another pitch which I was thinking of delivering.) I have been in contact with some priests who share the exact same concerns as me regarding much of the shows on CYC. I have reserves about the Marina Show, regardless of how others may see me, or how my fellow thinkers are demeaned.

    It is a shame that true dialogue is over-ridden by hostile defenses of people rather than the defense of the truth (from both sides.) Orthodoxy, you were correct to take down your criticism. I did not see it, but I am going to assume that the were not accepted by the general consensus. This, however, does not mean that you should shy away from voicing them. Speak to the CYC committee, and try to get straight to the top.

    Any time that I know Abouna Bishoy or Bishop Marcos is coming to my city, I prepare a list of things that need to go on CYC. Some of them have gone. I have recently sent a message to Abouna Bishoy regarding 2 shows, and he assured me that he will deal with the issue. I guess what I am trying to say is that while Tasbeha.org may no longer be a place for dialogue (instead replaced with two extremes; being: A- Wars of opinion, or B- Misguided agreeableness) that need not shut us up.

    Solidman, there is no dodging of questions, but a desire for mutual understanding. I don't think what Andrew is doing is trying to pigeon hole you into describe Orthodoxy, but rather, trying to reach along with you a common ground for qualifying something as Orthodox. This need not turn into a debate that wastes both all our time, or hurts the feelings of Marina (who, regardless of my opinion of the show, I can admit is a true Christ-like individual). So why do we not try to work together, first, to come up with a qualification of what Orthodoxy is. From that point, we can move forward, and assess together. This prevents us from forming extreme opinions which polarize through the conversation.

    If I may begin, I would like to put together a few ideas of what it means to be Orthodox. I would appreciate if others did the same, and then we use a Socratic approach to see whether the Marina Show is fine. If it is fine, we leave it, and support it. If we realize it has problems, then we try to fix it lovingly, and I am more than certain that Marina is by no means opposed to suggestions (in fact, the very reason she came here was for our suggestions.)

    Orthodoxy is:

    • [li]Built on a Scriptural foundation (both verbal and spiritually implied)[/li]
      [li]Built on a spirit of love[/li]
      [li]Built on a deep devotion to the words of our divinely inspired fathers[/li]
      [li]Built on an academic understanding of theology, lived out and made clearer by prayer. It is not, however, over-rational, nor heartlessly academic.  [/li]
      [li]Orthodoxy is an ethos. There cannot be Orthodox spirituality, without an Orthodox spiritual demeanor. This means that calmness, love, wisdom, and sacramental spirituality must be an integral component of this Orthodoxy[/li]


    I am by no means saying that the Marina Show contradicts all of these. In fact, I think that it wonderfully fulfills many. I just want to, for once, have a conversation directed on ideas common to all, with the intent that it will lead to a conclusion common to all, and a better understanding of one another.

    Pray for me,

    RO
  • Very well put, RO.

    Solidman,

    I did not dodge your question, but perhaps my answer to it did not meet your expectations. You
    should realize that your question and mine are not the same. You ask a question that merely requires
    me to list things that can disqualify something as Orthodox. I, on the other hand, have asked you to indirectly define Orthodoxy. Answering your question may give us a picture of Orthodoxy, negatively -answering my question requires a positive account.

    In any case, I have said all I wanted regarding this show. If you want to start another thread to continue this discussion, please do. But, out of respect for marina's thread, I won't continue here.
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162698#msg162698 date=1358256545]

    This need not turn into a debate that wastes both all our time, or hurts the feelings of Marina (who, regardless of my opinion of the show, I can admit is a true Christ-like individual). So why do we not try to work together, first, to come up with a qualification of what Orthodoxy is. From that point, we can move forward, and assess together. This prevents us from forming extreme opinions which polarize through the conversation.

    If I may begin, I would like to put together a few ideas of what it means to be Orthodox. I would appreciate if others did the same, and then we use a Socratic approach to see whether the Marina Show is fine. If it is fine, we leave it, and support it. If we realize it has problems, then we try to fix it lovingly, and I am more than certain that Marina is by no means opposed to suggestions (in fact, the very reason she came here was for our suggestions.)

    [/quote]

    I like the option ReturnOrthodoxy came up with. We first define what is Orthodox & then we can work from there.

    The Orthodox Teaching boils down to 5 sources or rather one source - Tradition. To be specific the The Church Fathers, those who have passed before us, starting with the Apostles to the Fathers that are with us i.e. our Bishops & priests. Anything that comes out side of this pure apostolic line might not be  heretic but we are not interested.

    So, the one source is the Tradition of the Church Fathers. The five sources of Orthodoxy that are derived from this one source of the Church Fathers are the following:

    1)  Holy Scripture - Bible
    2)  The Divine Liturgy
    3)  The Patristic Writings
    4)  The Church Councils & their Canons
    5)  Art: Icons, hymns & architecture

    Ideally, homilies & lessons should have more than one of the above to maintain the strong Patristic root & the moderate approach of Orthodoxy.

    Can we agree that this approach is Orthodox enough?  ;)


    In Christ
    Theophilus.
  • I really like this, theophilus! Does anyone have reservation?

    Marina, it would be awesome to have your valuable input in this! :)

    RO
  • [quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162701#msg162701 date=1358270143]
    Very well put, RO.

    Solidman,

    I did not dodge your question, but perhaps my answer to it did not meet your expectations. You
    should realize that your question and mine are not the same. You ask a question that merely requires
    me to list things that can disqualify something as Orthodox. I, on the other hand, have asked you to indirectly define Orthodoxy. Answering your question may give us a picture of Orthodoxy, negatively -answering my question requires a positive account.

    In any case, I have said all I wanted regarding this show. If you want to start another thread to continue this discussion, please do. But, out of respect for marina's thread, I won't continue here.
    [/quote]

    I agree that RO's bullets regarding orthodoxy are well-put. However, Andrew, I will have to insist that you still failed to answer anything definitively. In fact, RO's type of answer (as well as Tehophilus1's reply) is what was required of you to give a real response to my question; instead, you shuffled around the sentiments of your old post and decided not to commit to a responsive answer. At least own up to it.

    No matter--someone else stepped in and answered for you, and now we have a starting point. So let's go with that...

    I think Theophilus1's reply is the most concentrated, so here it is:

    Theophilus1 said:
    So, the one source is the Tradition of the Church Fathers. The five sources of Orthodoxy that are derived from this one source of the Church Fathers are the following:

    1)  Holy Scripture - Bible
    2)  The Divine Liturgy
    3)  The Patristic Writings
    4)  The Church Councils & their Canons
    5)  Art: Icons, hymns & architecture

    Ideally, homilies & lessons should have more than one of the above to maintain the strong Patristic root & the moderate approach of Orthodoxy.

    Can we agree that this approach is Orthodox enough?


    This is great, but I'd like to point out one very important line (and word):

    Can we agree that this approach is Orthodox enough?


    We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it. Orthodoxy provides us with tools, from the agpeya to the church fathers to the sacraments; it might be fair to say Orthodoxy is a very special set of preserved rites/tradition that we use as tools.

    But that begs the question: what is the purpose of Orthodoxy? What is the purpose of these wonderful tools that have been perserved and passed down to us? Tools are never the end--they are only the means. When's the last time you bought a hammer to hang on your wall? I doubt there are many hammer enthusiasts among us... Besides, you'd have to buy another hammer to hammer in the original hammer.

    At the end of the day (or rather, at the end of the world), Orthodoxy is a tool to help us reach salvation (by GOD's grace). Here's the kicker: salvation comes from a relationship with GOD. And I think that's very key here: we use Orthodoxy to build a relationship with GOD. That's the point.

    So why do we hail our orthodox faith so much? Well, for one thing, we know it works. It's a set of tools, yes, but it's a tried and true set. We know all the tools within Orthodoxy link us to our GOD. They are points of contact with the Divine.

    Unfortunately, many of us (myself included) are so caught up in defining and recognizing what is orthodox (i.e., what are the tools) that we fail to recognize the relationship that orthodoxy urges us to build with Christ. We shy away from focusing on the emotional side of that relationship. We shy away from examining the individual's story of using those tools... we just stick to learning about the tools themselves.

    From what I saw of the Marina Show, I've noticed that it is more focused on the emotional aspect of an individual's relationship with Christ. It's not a discussion about the most recent canonical debates, nor is it providing us with updates on the latest findings in hymnology (or what some call "hymnastics"). It does not necessarily provide us with more orthodox "tools", which is what we're used to hearing as Orthodox youth. What presentations like the Marina Show are doing is actually showing us those tools at work. They are not concerned with telling us about the tools directly, but they show us the results of using those tools.

    If we reexamine RO's post and Theophilus1's post, we can easily see that the discussion on the linked show relates to several of those points. We're just hearing it differently because the focus is shifted away from the tools themselves and onto the person who used the tools.

    Now, I'd like to go back to Andrew's post which originally drew my attention:

    Andrew said:
    The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.


    Friends, this is NOT sufficient to portray Orthodoxy. To say the name of the Holy Trinity before each show would be nice, but I don't think that defines or negates the presence of GOD. We're not muslims here. And yes, we all love the interpretations of the Fathers, but whose interpretations do you think they had when they were reading the Bible? Did that make them any less Christian? (hint: they had a relationship with Christ). And if you say that an orthodox host does not make the show orthodox, why do you think that orthodox guests would do the trick?

    As for the whole feminist thing, yeah I agree. I only hope PRAY that these women weren't speaking while inside a church...

    The point I'm making is that many of us (myself included) seem to miss the purpose of Orthodoxy: that it is a tool by which we forge a relationship with GOD. Sometimes, I feel that we think the point of orthodoxy is orthodoxy itself, so whenever we hear a sermon or have a discussion about something other than the study of the tools, we condemn it to be "unorthodox". Au contraire... it is in fact very valuable for us to see the tools at work in the lives of others to fully understand "the orthodox approach".
  • [quote author=solidman link=topic=14150.msg162710#msg162710 date=1358282430]
    [quote author=Andrew link=topic=14150.msg162701#msg162701 date=1358270143]
    Very well put, RO.

    Solidman,

    I did not dodge your question, but perhaps my answer to it did not meet your expectations. You
    should realize that your question and mine are not the same. You ask a question that merely requires
    me to list things that can disqualify something as Orthodox. I, on the other hand, have asked you to indirectly define Orthodoxy. Answering your question may give us a picture of Orthodoxy, negatively -answering my question requires a positive account.

    In any case, I have said all I wanted regarding this show. If you want to start another thread to continue this discussion, please do. But, out of respect for marina's thread, I won't continue here.
    [/quote]

    I agree that RO's bullets regarding orthodoxy are well-put. However, Andrew, I will have to insist that you still failed to answer anything definitively. In fact, RO's type of answer (as well as Tehophilus1's reply) is what was required of you to give a real response to my question; instead, you shuffled around the sentiments of your old post and decided not to commit to a responsive answer. At least own up to it.

    No matter--someone else stepped in and answered for you, and now we have a starting point. So let's go with that...

    I think Theophilus1's reply is the most concentrated, so here it is:

    Theophilus1 said:
    So, the one source is the Tradition of the Church Fathers. The five sources of Orthodoxy that are derived from this one source of the Church Fathers are the following:

    1)  Holy Scripture - Bible
    2)  The Divine Liturgy
    3)  The Patristic Writings
    4)  The Church Councils & their Canons
    5)  Art: Icons, hymns & architecture

    Ideally, homilies & lessons should have more than one of the above to maintain the strong Patristic root & the moderate approach of Orthodoxy.

    Can we agree that this approach is Orthodox enough?


    This is great, but I'd like to point out one very important line (and word):

    Can we agree that this approach is Orthodox enough?


    We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it. Orthodoxy provides us with tools, from the agpeya to the church fathers to the sacraments; it might be fair to say Orthodoxy is a very special set of preserved rites/tradition that we use as tools.

    But that begs the question: what is the purpose of Orthodoxy? What is the purpose of these wonderful tools that have been perserved and passed down to us? Tools are never the end--they are only the means. When's the last time you bought a hammer to hang on your wall? I doubt there are many hammer enthusiasts among us... Besides, you'd have to buy another hammer to hammer in the original hammer.

    At the end of the day (or rather, at the end of the world), Orthodoxy is a tool to help us reach salvation (by GOD's grace). Here's the kicker: salvation comes from a relationship with GOD. And I think that's very key here: we use Orthodoxy to build a relationship with GOD. That's the point.

    So why do we hail our orthodox faith so much? Well, for one thing, we know it works. It's a set of tools, yes, but it's a tried and true set. We know all the tools within Orthodoxy link us to our GOD. They are points of contact with the Divine.

    Unfortunately, many of us (myself included) are so caught up in defining and recognizing what is orthodox (i.e., what are the tools) that we fail to recognize the relationship that orthodoxy urges us to build with Christ. We shy away from focusing on the emotional side of that relationship. We shy away from examining the individual's story of using those tools... we just stick to learning about the tools themselves.

    From what I saw of the Marina Show, I've noticed that it is more focused on the emotional aspect of an individual's relationship with Christ. It's not a discussion about the most recent canonical debates, nor is it providing us with updates on the latest findings in hymnology (or what some call "hymnastics"). It does not necessarily provide us with more orthodox "tools", which is what we're used to hearing as Orthodox youth. What presentations like the Marina Show are doing is actually showing us those tools at work. They are not concerned with telling us about the tools directly, but they show us the results of using those tools.

    If we reexamine RO's post and Theophilus1's post, we can easily see that the discussion on the linked show relates to several of those points. We're just hearing it differently because the focus is shifted away from the tools themselves and onto the person who used the tools.

    Now, I'd like to go back to Andrew's post which originally drew my attention:

    Andrew said:
    The show neither begins nor ends in the name of the Holy Trinity; the reflections on the passages from the Bible do not appeal to any of our Fathers' interpretations; the guests do not seem to be Orthodox, the undertone of each episode I've seen is feminist. . .etc.


    Friends, this is NOT sufficient to portray Orthodoxy. To say the name of the Holy Trinity before each show would be nice, but I don't think that defines or negates the presence of GOD. We're not muslims here. And yes, we all love the interpretations of the Fathers, but whose interpretations do you think they had when they were reading the Bible? Did that make them any less Christian? (hint: they had a relationship with Christ). And if you say that an orthodox host does not make the show orthodox, why do you think that orthodox guests would do the trick?

    As for the whole feminist thing, yeah I agree. I only hope PRAY that these women weren't speaking while inside a church...

    The point I'm making is that many of us (myself included) seem to miss the purpose of Orthodoxy: that it is a tool by which we forge a relationship with GOD. Sometimes, I feel that we think the point of orthodoxy is orthodoxy itself, so whenever we hear a sermon or have a discussion about something other than the study of the tools, we condemn it to be "unorthodox". Au contraire... it is in fact very valuable for us to see the tools at work in the lives of others to fully understand "the orthodox approach".
    [/quote]

    I deleted my previous comments because they were simply too long and people wouldn't have read them. Here's one of my concerns condensed.

    There's some truth to what you're saying, Solidman. But what's worrying some of the members here are the lack of things being taught..Orthodoxy. Indeed, Orthodoxy does carry within it tools and traditions that cultivate a fuller communion with God and perhaps a person's speech stems from that without having to mention them.

    But the person being interviewed, I still assume, isn't Orthodox. So, with all due respect, I don't see how your point is valid. If Abouna spoke in a sermon without mentioning the Eucharist we can let it pass because he believes in it, he's implying it and the Eucharistic language permeates his words. Do you see the difference?

    But what is a person to think when he sees a non-orthodox, although a very nice person, speaking about her relationship with God on an Orthodox channel. This may provoke the idea in some minds that sacraments aren't important which could lead to neglect.
    There are plenty of youth who don't pray the Liturgy regularly anymore, believing they can foster and cultivate spirituality without the Holy Eucharist, let alone needing the Orthodox Church.

    Did not st Cyprian say "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."

    Many centuries ago non-believers could only attend the Liturgy of the word (up to the gospel) and left once the Liturgy of the believers commenced. This is how Holy the faith was regarded. Now we allow anyone to speak on our channels to millions of believers. We should see the disconnect and damage this can possibly do.

    Marina, we would appreciate it if we heard your input. I'm sure you're not new to these concerns, which I assure you are done in the spirit of love. But these things need to be talked about.
  • RO to the rescue again. Wonderful post.

    The point I'm making is that many of us (myself included) seem to miss the purpose of Orthodoxy: that it is a tool by which we forge a relationship with GOD


    Orthodoxy is not a tool. Orthodoxy is Christianity. It is the ONLY way to God. There is no other way through which one can know God.

    We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it.


    We cannot agree to that. What you just described above is nothing short of heresy, suggesting there is another way outside of Orthodoxy and the Apostolic Faith that would lead to salvation. There is none.

    Andrew and "Orthodoxy" were correct all along. It is really sad that "Orthodoxy" had to delete his valuable posts because of abuse and intimidation.
  • While I'm not Marina or Andrew and I don't represent what they believe, I would like to make a few comments.

    In Theophilus' list, I would change #2 from "The Divine Liturgy" to "The life-giving Sacraments". While the Divine liturgy may mean the Eucharistic sacrament, it can also mean liturgical customs or rites. If it is the latter, I would place it with #5. I would rename #5 to "Religious culture". Art, icons, hymns, history, architecture, foreign language use and sermons all reflect a religious culture which is specific to a locale but share common features we would call "Orthodox". Keep in mind, all items in #5 reflect the themes in the other 4 sources. A Coptic icon is a reflection of the iconographer's biblical, patristic and often sacremental understanding of the saint or even in the icon. The same with sacred music or hymns. It is a reflection of the hymnographers understanding of a spiritual theme he draws from biblical, patristic and sacramental language and music. I would also move #4 into #5 since councils and history often are a matter of interpretation from one locale. (And as we saw last year, even canonicity is a matter of interpretation). On the other hand, I would rename #4 to "Theology" which encompasses "Trinitariology, Christology, Soteriology, Mariology, Ecclesiology, Canonology, Eschatology, angelology, demonology, histioriography, monastic theology (or monasticism), and religious philosophy"

    So my list would be
    1. Holy Scripture
    2. Sacramental faith
    3. Patristic writings
    4. Theology
    5. Religious culture

    In reality all 5 are so interconnected that you can't have one without  the other. Many patristic writings, especially Sts Athanasius and Cyril, are a reflection of an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity's manifestation in Scripture and Sacraments. Many hagriography stories (saint biographies) are a reflection of Chalcedonian and Islamic rhetoric. I can give multiple examples. I have to agree these 5 sources are actually a definition of Tradition, which is also the definition of Orthodoxy.

    Solidman, I don't agree with your concept of defining Orthodoxy as a tool. Usage of a tool implies it's optional. It implies there are other tools to get to the goal that are as effective. From scripture, we know some sacraments are not optional. Christ Himself said no one can enter heaven without baptism. We also know that Christ Himself sometimes responded to conflict by quoting His human elders with phrases like "what is written in the prophets and law of Moses." We learn from His example and respond to conflict  with patristic writings. I would consider the Scriptures, the sacraments and the patristic writings more than tools. They are a glimpse of what is to come given to us already. In other words, these devices (a better word is grace but I'll use devices for clarification) are the end we are promised given to us now before the end. In the words of St Basil, in the end [of times] we will become God, to the limit of our nature by grace, where we will live with God and be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But this is already happening in these "devices" or sacraments. So these tools or devices are simultaneously both the end and the means to becoming everything God promised us. And this can only be found in Orthodoxy.

    Secondly, I want to point out that beginning or ending with the Trinity, is not simply a lifeless name calling excerise. It is a way of life. As I mentioned already, St Cyril and St Athanasius interpreted all scripture as a manifestation of the Trinity. All our theology is a manifestation of God. God, by Orthodox definition, can only be defined as "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit". All other definitions of God are inadequate. All theology, philosophy and manner of thinking that does not portray the Trinity is not life. I agree that we should not hold people in contempt if they do not specifically mention the Trinity, but at the same time, we must forget or dilute our Orthodox identity.

    By the way, I haven't even seen the TV show and the episodes. But I don't think it was Marina's intention to show an "un-Orthodox" or even a "not-so-Orthodox" view point. Nor was it Andrew's or anyone else's intention to discourage or challenge. Rather, God in His mercy gave Marina an opportunity for the TV show, an opportunity to discuss modern issues on that medium and bring her here to ask her question while God also brought others here to offer good criticism so we all can explore our faith and make our inheritance more sure, living according to His "exceedingly great and precious promises" (2 Peter 1:4 again).
  • [quote author=Orthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162716#msg162716 date=1358285234]
    I deleted my previous comments because they were simply too long and people wouldn't have read them. Here's one of my concerns condensed.

    There's some truth to what you're saying, Solidman. But what's worrying some of the members here are the lack of things being taught..Orthodoxy. Indeed, Orthodoxy does carry within it tools and traditions that cultivate a fuller communion with God and perhaps a person's speech stems from that without having to mention them.

    But the person being interviewed, I still assume, isn't Orthodox. So, with all due respect, I don't see how your point is valid. If Abouna spoke in a sermon without mentioning the Eucharist we can let it pass because he believes in it, he's implying it and the Eucharistic language permeates his words. Do you see the difference?

    But what is a person to think when he sees a non-orthodox, although a very nice person, speaking about her relationship with God on an Orthodox channel. This may provoke the idea in some minds that sacraments aren't important which could lead to neglect.
    There are plenty of youth who don't pray the Liturgy regularly anymore, believing they can foster and cultivate spirituality without the Holy Eucharist, let alone needing the Orthodox Church.

    Did not st Cyprian say "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."

    Many centuries ago non-believers could only attend the Liturgy of the word (up to the gospel) and left once the Liturgy of the believers commenced. This is how Holy the faith was regarded. Now we allow anyone to speak on our channels to millions of believers. We should see the disconnect and damage this can possibly do.

    Marina, we would appreciate it if we heard your input. I'm sure you're not new to these concerns, which I assure you are done in the spirit of love. But these things need to be talked about.
    [/quote]

    I'm glad you responded Orthodoxy. I understand your reason to be cautious here. You'd rather not sell the youth on a path that is not orthodox, since we are only truly sure of the apostolic faith. I side with you on that principle.

    However, what you are arguing is a logical fallacy. To discredit the argument based on the source is a red herring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring You do this in two ways:

    First, you state that if Abouna did not mention the Eucharist (something unique to the apostolic faith), we can imply that he is still speaking with the spirit of the apostolic faith. While we trust the great priests of our Church, that is not necessarily true. What if an Abouna (GOD forbid) preaches heresies? What if a bishop preaches a heresy? Is that not what happened in the early Church? To simply pass off on the argument based on the source would not only be unwise, it would be illogical.

    The second time you use red herring is the converse: you believe that a non-Orthodox person speaking about her relationship with GOD somehow refutes orthodoxy altogether (e.g., the need for sacraments). Not only is that an assumptive argument (invalid to make that jump when she never mentioned sacraments), but it also is red herring because you are disputing what she is saying (which is actually true) by attacking the source (whether or not she is orthodox).

    To demonstrate why this doesn't work, I urge you to watch the show again, but instead of assuming that the guest is not orthodox, assume that she is. Does anything she says sound like heresy to you? If you determined that she was in fact orthodox, would you not show this to your sunday school on the grounds that "it is not orthodox"? Doubtful.

    While I understand you want to preserve the orthodox faith while simultaneously shielding the youth from believing that there are "easier" alternatives, I find it unwise to shut out everything we're not used to by one sweeping brush that doesn't actually examine things for what they are. In fact, that sort of narrow outlook on anything that seems different can be viewed by others as a lack of us knowing what our faith really is. Think about it: if we really knew our faith, we would be able to recognize (and articulate) what it is that makes this video (or any other "new" media) orthodox or non-orthodox. We wouldn't just condemn it because it doesn't look like everything else we're used to.

    If you're worried that our sunday school kids won't know what to think, that's on us for not teaching them what our faith really is.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14150.msg162718#msg162718 date=1358289767]
    Solidman, I don't agree with your concept of defining Orthodoxy as a tool. Usage of a tool implies it's optional. It implies there are other tools to get to the goal that are as effective. From scripture, we know some sacraments are not optional. Christ Himself said no one can enter heaven without baptism. We also know that Christ Himself sometimes responded to conflict by quoting His human elders with phrases like "what is written in the prophets and law of Moses." We learn from His example and respond to conflict  with patristic writings. I would consider the Scriptures, the sacraments and the patristic writings more than tools. They are a glimpse of what is to come given to us already. In other words, these devices (a better word is grace but I'll use devices for clarification) are the end we are promised given to us now before the end. In the words of St Basil, in the end [of times] we will become God, to the limit of our nature by grace, where we will live with God and be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But this is already happening in these "devices" or sacraments. So these tools or devices are simultaneously both the end and the means to becoming everything God promised us. And this can only be found in Orthodoxy. [/quote]

    I appreciate your clarifications and response, Remnkemi.

    A device is a tool... I think we're getting caught up in semantics here. I did not mean to belittle the grace of all that our orthodox faith has preserved for us. I merely meant to clarify that orthodoxy, in and of itself, is NOT salvation.

    Yes, Christ taught us that some sacraments are necessary to enter heaven. Do you think He made an exception for Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament? What about all the other examples people can think of where the necessary sacraments were unavailable to believers? The thief on the cross? The point is, we are not the Judge, and He will decide who enters and who does not.

    But see that's the thing... it's about entering heaven, not just about living a good life. We do as our orthodox faith has taught us for one purpose and one purpose only: union with GOD. You mentioned that can begin while on Earth, but the point isn't for it to be on earth and that's it. The end goal here is eternal life. And the One who determines who receives that end goal is the Judge Himself. The rule of measure will not be orthodoxy; it will be when the Bridegroom tells us to enter.

    Remnkemi said:
    Secondly, I want to point out that beginning or ending with the Trinity, is not simply a lifeless name calling excerise. It is a way of life. As I mentioned already, St Cyril and St Athanasius interpreted all scripture as a manifestation of the Trinity. All our theology is a manifestation of God. God, by Orthodox definition, can only be defined as "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit". All other definitions of God are inadequate. All theology, philosophy and manner of thinking that does not portray the Trinity is not life. I agree that we should not hold people in contempt if they do not specifically mention the Trinity, but at the same time, we must forget or dilute our Orthodox identity.


    I agree, but did you mention the Holy Trinity to me before posting this? Of course, I would never believe that you are not acting in the love of Christ when you post it, so this point is moot.
  • [quote author=Stavro]

    Orthodoxy is not a tool. Orthodoxy is Christianity. It is the ONLY way to God. There is no other way through which one can know God. [/quote]

    Tell that to the thief on the cross when you meet him :)

    Stavro said:
    We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it.


    We cannot agree to that. What you just described above is nothing short of heresy, suggesting there is another way outside of Orthodoxy and the Apostolic Faith that would lead to salvation. There is none.

    Andrew and "Orthodoxy" were correct all along. It is really sad that "Orthodoxy" had to delete his valuable posts because of abuse and intimidation.


    What qualifies you to decide with such definiteness what will lead to salvation?
  • I would also like to add that the orthodoxy is dogmatic. So there is to be little change in what it is. It is traditional, so modern situations don't change it, but we veiw those situations in accordance with the dogma.
  • [quote author=solidman link=topic=14150.msg162722#msg162722 date=1358291809]
    [quote author=Stavro]

    Orthodoxy is not a tool. Orthodoxy is Christianity. It is the ONLY way to God. There is no other way through which one can know God. [/quote]

    Tell that to the thief on the cross when you meet him :)

    Stavro said:
    We all would agree that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a path to salvation. It is an "approach", as Theophilus1 put it.


    We cannot agree to that. What you just described above is nothing short of heresy, suggesting there is another way outside of Orthodoxy and the Apostolic Faith that would lead to salvation. There is none.

    Andrew and "Orthodoxy" were correct all along. It is really sad that "Orthodoxy" had to delete his valuable posts because of abuse and intimidation.


    What qualifies you to decide with such definiteness what will lead to salvation?
    [/quote]

      Salvation is through the sacrements of the church.  Christ formed the church by choosing Apostles to perform His work.
  • I think we are missing a component regarding Orthodox ethos. Orthodoxy is not in what is said, spoken or decided in councils, but is maintained through a life which follows these writings/laws and the spirit that comes with them. Without further delay, I would lie to begin to ask questions about the show.

    This video gives me a little trouble. Begin watching from 3:24. Please listen to the whole thing. I cannot agree that this is merely counter-culture, since I have been engaged in a plethora of Orthodox jurisdictions, and have never seen a poem like this. I can only say that it absolutely does not agree with an Orthodox ethos.  Orthodox poetry, and music stands above this. I don't know how to say this any other way, but this kind of poetry does not seem like the soothing poetry which is abundant in our fathers. Rather, it seems like what "black culture" dictates.  Can we stand to pray with such a method of speech? Can we then speak about God in such a way?  We are not on the streets of Brooklyn. A service to God must be ecclesiological, and not reductionist. I feel that such a method of speech is reductionist.

    This poem is only the product of the first video I clicked on. I have much to say, but I will restrict it to a topic of discussion of ethos.

    Marshal Macluhan said it best, "The medium is the message." Therefor, we must ask ourselves. What medium are we using? After this, we can easily declare what message we deliver.  Orthodoxy breeds a spirit of calmness. It was this calmness in which our desert fathers sought out their salvation, and it is this calmness which the Gospel paints a picture of as abounding in Christ.

    Tell that to the thief on the cross when you meet him


    Wow. I did not know that such unthinking answers existed. The thief on the cross was Orthodox insofar as he had resources. He confessed the faith, evangelized in suffering, and took communion in the suffering of Christ. So I have no idea what you are trying to imply. If I tell you that you need the Eucharist for salvation (a fact attested to thoroughly in our Orthodox fathers, and scripture) would you then ask me to speak to the right hand thief? Yes, the right hand thief was Orthodox. He was tight by Christ himself. A direct lineage.

    What qualifies you to decide with such definiteness what will lead to salvation?

    The same which qualifies the fathers who rejected Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism and every other "ism" out there! If it contradicts scripture in light of the fathers, it does not lead to salvation. Whether or not such people will be saved is generally in the hands of God, but from what we know, (according to the revelation of God in scripture and tradition), only Orthodox faith and Orthopraxis lead to salvation.

    RO
  • And another thing:

    Stavro's comment was that Orthodoxy is Christianity. We know that only Christianity is salvific! We also know that there is no such thing as "incorrect" Christianity. Any belief that is "incorrect" cannot be considered Christian, and as such cannot be considered salvific.

    Salvation is through Christ, through the Church. Outside Orthodoxy is not the church. Have you forgotten Noah's ark, and what happened to those outside it?

    You do not want to play this game. The odds are against you, and it weakens any possibility of a point which you can make.

    RO
  • [quote author=Theophilus 1 link=topic=14150.msg162706#msg162706 date=1358276868]

    So, the one source is the Tradition of the Church Fathers. The five sources of Orthodoxy that are derived from this one source of the Church Fathers are the following:

    1)  Holy Scripture - Bible
    2)  The Divine Liturgy
    3)  The Patristic Writings
    4)  The Church Councils & their Canons
    5)  Art: Icons, hymns & architecture

    [/quote]


    Btw, I hate to take credit for the above (quote). I learned it from a priest.


    Marina, I would love to hear what you think of what is being said here. Sometimes this forum can be very philosophical & not at all practical. As some one who knows the daily reality of preparing a show & talking to people from all walks of life you can help us to be more practical.

    In Christ
    Theophilus
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162725#msg162725 date=1358292570]I don't know how to say this any other way, but this kind of poetry does not seem like the soothing poetry which is abundant in our fathers.[/quote]

    The poem was actually pretty calm... so much so that it almost put me to sleep (no offense to CYC, Marina, or Marina Productions, Inc.). Poetry, like any other art, is an expression. Unless there are things dogmatically incorrect with it, you and I can't condemn it simply because we don't enjoy it.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Rather, it seems like what "black culture" dictates.


    Do you really wanna go there? I don't have to remind you that the original video that sparked this debate also included a young black woman... Don't open this up. Open your mind instead.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Can we stand to pray with such a method of speech?


    Go to the Kenyan Coptic Orthodox Church.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Can we then speak about God in such a way?


    I didn't find anything incorrect or offensive about GOD in this poem... correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    We are not on the streets of Brooklyn.


    And why not?

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    A service to God must be ecclesiological, and not reductionist. I feel that such a method of speech is reductionist.


    Do you really think that our intellectual faith will trump real service? Christ did both. So should we. Maybe even in the streets of Brooklyn.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Marshal Macluhan said it best, "The medium is the message." Therefor, we must ask ourselves. What medium are we using? After this, we can easily declare what message we deliver.  Orthodoxy breeds a spirit of calmness. It was this calmness in which our desert fathers sought out their salvation, and it is this calmness which the Gospel paints a picture of as abounding in Christ.


    When we express ourselves using modern media, we are doing like the church fathers did: we are baptizing the people and baptizing the culture. I'm sure you already know this, but Ep Ouro is actually an ancient egyptian hymn. That's right, it's pagan. We changed the words, of course, but that's an easy example of baptizing the culture.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Yes, the right hand thief was Orthodox. He was tight by Christ himself. A direct lineage.


    Bingo. He had a relationship with Christ. Which is what I'm saying Orthodoxy is all about. I'm not suggesting that we do not perform all the sacraments, I'm just saying that we aren't the ones who decide who goes where on Judgement Day. I don't know why you guys are so upset about that.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    The same which qualifies the fathers who rejected Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism and every other "ism" out there!


    What about fanaticism? This kind of mentality ... this self-proclaimed authority is very dangerous. While I join you in taking pride in how much our faith has been preserved, not to mention the copious amounts of heavenly wisdom and spiritual knowledge that I am sure I won't find elsewhere, I can not and will not say that gives me authority to condemn anything I find less valuable in my eyes. I won't play GOD's role.

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    If it contradicts scripture in light of the fathers, it does not lead to salvation.


    While I agree with you, I will still point out that we have yet to find anything in this show that contradicts scripture. We have yet to find anything in this show that contradicts orthodoxy! Perhaps you're uncomfortable with the medium. The best you can say, then, is that it's not your style. But right now, it seems that you're elevating "your style" to equal "orthodoxy".

    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Whether or not such people will be saved is generally in the hands of God,


    How dare we say this. "Generally" in the hands of GOD? Do we think that we can just say something like that and GOD will be bound to our words? We are wrong here; we should never say what GOD can and cannot do.


    ReturnOrthodoxy said:
    Whether or not such people will be saved is generally in the hands of God, but from what we know, (according to the revelation of God in scripture and tradition), only Orthodox faith and Orthopraxis lead to salvation.


    From what we know, orthodoxy works. That's it. It would be illogical to say the converse is true.

    Let me demonstrate how this works (I don't mean to offend you, it just took me a while to grasp the concept myself). We know that orthodoxy is true. That is like saying I know that the apple in my hand is red. I can say with 100% certainty that my apple is red (I am 100% certain that orthodoxy is true). I can say that if you tell me about an apple that is not red, it cannot be my apple (any faith that is not true will not be orthodoxy, because orthodoxy is true).

    I cannot logically say that all red fruits are apples; that is, I cannot say that the only red fruit is an apple (I cannot say that all true faiths are orthodox christianity; I cannot say that orthodox christianity is the only true faith). Of course, if I were to say this, you would show me a strawberry. That does not make my apple any less red, it just means I cannot say I have the only red fruit to ever exist.
  • [quote author=solidman link=topic=14150.msg162728#msg162728 date=1358294448]
    I cannot logically say that all red fruits are apples; that is, I cannot say that the only red fruit is an apple (I cannot say that all true faiths are orthodox christianity; I cannot say that orthodox christianity is the only true faith). Of course, if I were to say this, you would show me a strawberry. That does not make my apple any less red, it just means I cannot say I have the only red fruit to ever exist.
    [/quote]

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162726#msg162726 date=1358292781]
    And another thing:

    Stavro's comment was that Orthodoxy is Christianity. We know that only Christianity is salvific! We also know that there is no such thing as "incorrect" Christianity. Any belief that is "incorrect" cannot be considered Christian, and as such cannot be considered salvific.

    Salvation is through Christ, through the Church. Outside Orthodoxy is not the church. Have you forgotten Noah's ark, and what happened to those outside it?

    You do not want to play this game. The odds are against you, and it weakens any possibility of a point which you can make.

    RO
    [/quote]

    Stavro's comment was that Orthodox Christianity is the ONLY way to heaven. While Stavro said so in his passion for Christ and the Church, what he did was proclaim a law. I'm sure Stavro didn't mean this, but he was stating that the only people who will enter heaven are orthodox christians. Last time I checked, the only Person who had authority to say who will and who will not enter heaven was GOD.

    Noah's ark was a metaphor, but I like it. Who decided what enters the ark, the animals or Noah? Guess which one you are in this metaphor. Don't be offended... I'm one, too :P

    And while you may enjoy this "game", I would recommend you stop playing the odds against me. You may not see it, but you are proving my point. ... but that's also the point ;)
  • [quote author=qawe link=topic=14150.msg162729#msg162729 date=1358295213]

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    [/quote]


    I mean to say that I cannot tell you orthodoxy is the ONLY way to heaven.



    But let me help you by rephrasing :)


    I know that I'm not GOD
  • I'm not saying the same thing as Stavro here: that only Orthodox will be saved.
    I'm saying that Orthodoxy is definitely the only sure means of salvation.
    You contradicted this by saying that it may not be the only true faith.  It is the only true faith, but that does not mean that those outside cannot be saved. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

    Do you agree with the underlined statement? If not, I see no point in continuing this discussion. If yes, you should retract your previous statement which I bolded and enlarged, which contradicts it.

    Sorry that was a bit blunt, I'm trying to get to the point (excuse the pun).
    God bless.
  • I can see Marina is signed in now, so to stop her thread from being derailed (I think we should all contribute ideas to show, to improve it, since we are the ones criticising it). I've started this thread to continue our discussion:

    http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,14160.0.html

    Maybe we can all post there if we wish to go on a tangent from Marina's topic.
  • The poem was actually pretty calm... so much so that it almost put me to sleep (no offense to CYC, Marina, or Marina Productions, Inc.). Poetry, like any other art, is an expression. Unless there are things dogmatically incorrect with it, you and I can't condemn it simply because we don't enjoy it.

    Well, you sure can lie to yourself. It's fine though, because I think other know the reality. When you weigh illusion and delusion vs. reality, I'll be more open to a real discussion.

    Do you really wanna go there? I don't have to remind you that the original video that sparked this debate also included a young black woman... Don't open this up. Open your mind instead.

    Yes, I want to go there lol. I am not against black people, much like I am not against Indian people. But I will not bring hinu practice into the church. Seeing as you are not open minded to the reality of my argument (a fact made clear in your initial post) you resort to seeing me as some sort of racist, rather than actually analyzing what I meant. No, "black culture" with all of its twisting and turning of phrases do not have a place in the church.

    Go to the Kenyan Coptic Orthodox Church.

    Again, I am not against black people. I love the Ethiopian Orthodox. They are black. So get over this. As for the Kenyan Coptic Orthodox church, don't open that can of worms. It doesn't end well.

    And why not?

    Is that a serious question? It drastically insults my intelligence if it is. Because we are performing an ecclesastic service! Even mission to the streets of Brooklyn cannot take on the identity of the streets of Brooklyn. That is why not. Yes we should preach in Brooklyn, but no we should not act like we lived in the ghettos our whole life. Yes, I should preach to strippers. So now I must go have plural sex? Again, I am not concerned with you arguments much. They are self-evidently unable to hold water.

    Bingo. He had a relationship with Christ. Which is what I'm saying Orthodoxy is all about. I'm not suggesting that we do not perform all the sacraments, I'm just saying that we aren't the ones who decide who goes where on Judgement Day. I don't know why you guys are so upset about that.

    We are not upset, and I even made concession for this fact that it is ultimatley up to God. Had you read my response instead of skim through it point out faults (which you have not yet been able to do) you would have realized that. What I am saying is we are told according to the Bible what must be done for salvation.  Orthodoxy has these. Other "denominations" do not. Put two and two together, and add the reservation that I made, and you have the exact point I had in my previous post.

    What about fanaticism? This kind of mentality ... this self-proclaimed authority is very dangerous. While I join you in taking pride in how much our faith has been preserved, not to mention the copious amounts of heavenly wisdom and spiritual knowledge that I am sure I won't find elsewhere, I can not and will not say that gives me authority to condemn anything I find less valuable in my eyes. I won't play GOD's role

    I don't proclaim authority. I claim the authority of the saints who declared Orthodox doctrines. I claim the authority of the church in denouncing other heretic forms of worship. They have the authority. I simply cite it. And we don't play God's role. I just let him dictate through the scriptures and the Fathers, and I don't get in his way. Meaning when he declares divine truths, and others reject them, I reject those other forms.

    The best you can say, then, is that it's not your style.

    No. the fathers dictate a style. Why don't you go take a look at the writings of Clement on Orthodox worship. Read Evagrius on Orthodox worship. Isaac the Syrian. Ephraim the Syrian. All style? Like the protestants, we write everything off as mere opinion and style. Sorry. I am Orthodox, and I don't do that.

    How dare we say this. "Generally" in the hands of GOD? Do we think that we can just say something like that and GOD will be bound to our words? We are wrong here; we should never say what GOD can and cannot do.

    Did I not say that it is in the hands of God? How on God's green earth did I restrict him. I gave him power to contradict himself!!!! That is the opposite of restricting Him!!! And no, I cannot bind God by his words. He binds himself. Was it not him who said, "My word shall never pass away!" I do not restrict God. I obey his commands, AND acknowledge his power to do whatever he wants. I am whole-heartedly confused how you gathered that I restrict God. It is nothing more than your preconceived notion of my as an extremist. Again, a cop-out.

    Now let me go ahead and break this argument down for you. You seem to not get it.

    Stavro's argument:

    1) Orthodoxy is proper Christianity
    2) There is no improper Christianity.
    Leads to
    3) Orthodoxy = Christianity (exclusively)
    4) Christianityis the only way to salvation
    Leads to
    5) Orthodoxy is the only way to salvation.

    You have one of two options. Either show which premise above is false, or show how the conslusion does not logically draw and follow from the premises. I don't care for your attacks otherwise.

    The odds are indeed against you. Since you have done the following:

    • [li]Taken the Bible our of context (the whole right hand thief business)[/li]
      [li]Misunderstood that I limit God[/li]
      [li]Misunderstand me as a racist[/li]
      [li]Misunderstand the Orthodox vision of worship and teaching. Don't tell me Benny Hinn has his own "style."[/li]


    Maybe someone else would like to comment on the video I posted. Stavro, would you be so kind as to weigh in again?

    RO
  • [quote author=qawe link=topic=14150.msg162732#msg162732 date=1358295840]
    I'm not saying the same thing as Stavro here: that only Orthodox will be saved.
    I'm saying that Orthodoxy is definitely the only sure means of salvation.
    You contradicted this by saying that it may not be the only true faith.  It is the only true faith, but that does not mean that those outside cannot be saved. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

    Do you agree with the underlined statement? If not, I see no point in continuing this discussion. If yes, you should retract your previous statement which I bolded and enlarged, which contradicts it.

    Sorry that was a bit blunt, I'm trying to get to the point (excuse the pun).
    God bless.
    [/quote]

    Pardon me, qawe, but I didn't see you say anything about this before this post :P Interesting distinction between the orthodox people and orthodox faith.

    I agree insomuch as to say that orthodox christianity is a sure means to salvation. But I cannot turn and say that the other apostolic churches (ahem... the catholics) are not a sure means to salvation. By asking me to say orthodoxy is the ONLY means, I would be shunning any other apostolic church, which I have neither the understanding nor the authority to do.

    And I don't mind you getting to the point :)
  • By asking me to say orthodoxy is the ONLY means, I would be shunning any other apostolic church

    Suppose we take the "denominational" factor out of Orthodoxy. Operate under that assumption now.
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]

    Well, you sure can lie to yourself. It's fine though, because I think other know the reality. When you weigh illusion and delusion vs. reality, I'll be more open to a real discussion.[/quote]

    Everyone can see the video for themselves and see that the speaker is reciting a poem in a calm tone of voice. I realize that you're "old school" and don't like anything but om kalthoum, but honestly... om kalthoum's songs are louder than this poem.

    But I like your attempt at bullying others into siding with you to make your point, instead of relying on the point itself.

    Yes, I want to go there lol. I am not against black people, much like I am not against Indian people. But I will not bring hinu practice into the church. Seeing as you are not open minded to the reality of my argument (a fact made clear in your initial post) you resort to seeing me as some sort of racist, rather than actually analyzing what I meant.


    "Black culture" poetry is not the same as hinduism. Hinduism is a spiritual philosophy (like a religion). This poem isn't. Get it together, man.

    By the way, I never called you a racist. I was implying that you are fearful of anything "different". I hope you're not the type that questions when non-Egyptians enter the church. It's amusing when it comes from what the Jews would call a Gentile.

    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy]No, "black culture" with all of its twisting and turning of phrases do not have a place in the church. [/quote]

    Haha ... not sure if you're joking or not, but I wonder: are you also opposed to Ep Ouro being recited in the church since it IS a pagan tune?

    Again, I am not against black people. I love the Ethiopian Orthodox. They are black. So get over this. As for the Kenyan Coptic Orthodox church, don't open that can of worms. It doesn't end well.


    This isn't about black people. Stop being so sensitive. It's about different cultures adopting orthodoxy. A different medium for the same message. The Kenyans use drums and loud singing to sing Psalm 150 during the distribution of the mysteries.

    Is that a serious question? It drastically insults my intelligence if it is. Because we are performing an ecclesastic service! Even mission to the streets of Brooklyn cannot take on the identity of the streets of Brooklyn. That is why not. Yes we should preach in Brooklyn, but no we should not act like we lived in the ghettos our whole life. Yes, I should preach to strippers. So now I must go have plural sex? Again, I am not concerned with you arguments much. They are self-evidently unable to hold water.


    I don't need to insult your intelligence.

    If our church was ONLY concerned with performing ecclesiastic service, than so be it. But it's not. We are called to serve everyone, not just the high and mighty, or the intellectuals.

    And I agree we should not take on the identity of others, but when you preach to other cultures (in this case, we are preaching to our children, who are beginning to identify with a blend of cultures), we must speak their language. When St. Paul went to the Romans, he spoke to them about gods, and then he revealed the one true GOD. When Christ spoke to the Samaritan woman, He spoke to her about water--something she could relate to. He didn't get into theology with her; she wouldn't be reached that way.

    Stop being afraid of reaching beyond our little bubble. If you know your message, the new people/environment/media won't tarnish it.

    I don't proclaim authority. I claim the authority of the saints who declared Orthodox doctrines. I claim the authority of the church in denouncing other heretic forms of worship. They have the authority. I simply cite it. And we don't play God's role. I just let him dictate through the scriptures and the Fathers, and I don't get in his way. Meaning when he declares divine truths, and others reject them, I reject those other forms.


    I'm glad you "let" GOD dictate to you what He wants. Good thing you didn't get in His way... we might not have enjoyed salvation! Thank you, RO.

    No. the fathers dictate a style. Why don't you go take a look at the writings of Clement on Orthodox worship. Read Evagrius on Orthodox worship. Isaac the Syrian. Ephraim the Syrian. All style? Like the protestants, we write everything off as mere opinion and style. Sorry. I am Orthodox, and I don't do that.


    One cannot claim to be orthodox until one understands it. All you have demonstrated so far is that you cannot understand the difference between the dogma/tradition and the culture. That's where your fear of new culture stems from.

    Sure you can try to bully me by lumping me in with the Protestants (gasp!). But, unlike you, I am not afraid of recognizing the strengths of the Protestant church (churches?). They certainly know how to use media for the good of the faith (despite the fact that many of their beliefs are ... incomplete). For example, they printed the first Bibles and started that trend for us.

    The reason I'm not afraid of recognizing the strengths of other churches is because I know my own church well enough to recognize what is dogma/tradition and what is not. Poetry is not dogma nor tradition. It is culture.

    Have you even ever seen other orthodox cultures and what they do in the name of their culture? I suggest you look up what other ORTHODOX churches do as part of their culture and learn the difference between culture and dogma. You'd be surprised at the things they do, yet you so vehemently defend culture as though it is part of our orthodox dogma. It's not.

    Did I not say that it is in the hands of God? How on God's green earth did I restrict him. I gave him power to contradict himself!!!! That is the opposite of restricting Him!!! And no, I cannot bind God by his words. He binds himself. Was it not him who said, "My word shall never pass away!" I do not restrict God. I obey his commands, AND acknowledge his power to do whatever he wants. I am whole-heartedly confused how you gathered that I restrict God. It is nothing more than your preconceived notion of my as an extremist. Again, a cop-out.


    I'm glad you gave GOD power to contradict Himself. I wonder what would have happened if you didn't.

    By the way, to say that someone "generally" has something implies that there are exceptions. So when you said that salvation is "generally" in the hands of GOD, you implied that there are exceptions to that power. Don't do that.

    Now let me go ahead and break this argument down for you. You seem to not get it.

    Stavro's argument:

    1) Orthodoxy is proper Christianity
    2) There is no improper Christianity.
    Leads to
    3) Orthodoxy = Christianity (exclusively)
    4) Christianityis the only way to salvation
    Leads to
    5) Orthodoxy is the only way to salvation.

    You have one of two options. Either show which premise above is false, or show how the conslusion does not logically draw and follow from the premises. I don't care for your attacks otherwise.


    I have already given you multiple examples of logic and pointed out logical fallacies, and it has become clear to me that you haven't studied logic before. I do not want to continue wasting my time explaining to you things on the basis of logic when you are left to respond with only your passion and knowledge.

    But for what it's worth, number 2 defeats the purpose of number 1, and the jump from number 3 to number 4 is an illogical assumption which renders number 5 unproven. Logically, that is.

    The odds are indeed against you. Since you have done the following:

    • [li]Taken the Bible our of context (the whole right hand thief business)[/li]
      [li]Misunderstood that I limit God[/li]
      [li]Misunderstand me as a racist[/li]
      [li]Misunderstand the Orthodox vision of worship and teaching. Don't tell me Benny Hinn has his own "style."[/li]


    I don't have time to answer lists like this. If you read my post for what it says instead of reading it for what you can say in response, you'd notice that I didn't take the Bible--or you--out of context. If anything, I merely put you into context by saying that you are not alone on the path to salvation, whether you like it or not.

    I hope you don't take offense to any of this and that you still see it as merely a game.
  • [quote author=qawe link=topic=14150.msg162741#msg162741 date=1358298734]
    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162739#msg162739 date=1358298201]
    By asking me to say orthodoxy is the ONLY means, I would be shunning any other apostolic church

    [/quote]

    There is no other apostolic church.  There is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (Nicene Creed).
    [/quote]

    The Catholic Church follows the Nicean creed, and they are not considered orthodox.


    BUT, for the sake of this discussion, let's accept that there is no one else going to heaven but the purely orthodox.

    That doesn't change anything because we have yet to prove whether a tv show is "orthodox" or not based on the posts above (many of which haven't been responded to).

    This point is moot, gentlemen.
  • LOL.

    Solidman,

    I think I have seen more supported opinion in The Watchtower Tract Society lol. It's fine. Anyone reading this has seen my opinion, and has seen that your attacks are either baseless, unorthodox, or are merely not directed at anything I actually said.

    Marina, I think that you should be a little more careful with the following:

    The ethos of the preaching, the moral values that are spoken (feminsim etc.). I think the best way to do this is to run your material by an educated priest. Father John Ramzy from your church is an educated priest.

    RO - out
  • Hello Everyone,

    Thank you all for taking the time to critique the Marina Show. While I appreciate all of your comments (especially those from Orthodoxy, Return Orthodoxy, and Andrew), and would not like to create controversy, I would like to clarify and speak to some contested issues.

    I strongly encourage you to exercise your modes of reasonableness before reading my reply.

    1. Orthodoxy and the Marina Show

    While I appreciate all of your sentiments, and your attempts to define and demarcate the boundaries of orthodoxy and then use them to express both the inadequacies and transgressions of the television show, I would like to draw your attention to CYC. The name of the Channel is NOT Coptic Youth Channel, it is Christian Youth Channel. The Marina Show does not make representations of being an orthodox enterprise, albeit being hosted by a person who is Coptic Orthodox. Therefore using “orthodoxy”, or your subjective definitions thereof, as the normative criteria for which to evaluate the show, seeks to measure it against a gradient it does not purport to meet. I posted this show to seek topic recommendations from my brothers and sisters in Christ.

    2. Individual Relationships with Christ

    The Marina Show is a portrayal of me – my friendships, my experiences with Christ, and my own spirituality. Let us not judge one’s personal relationship with Christ, my brethren. I attempt to bring women to Christ first – I am not here to usurp dogmatic notions, or create “candy-coated poison” to feed to our youth. My experience with Christ is as it is portrayed on the Marina Show. Someone’s experience should not be measured nor critiqued by the criterion you have proposed.

    3. Feminism

    I was deeply insulted by your comments about feminism – some of which were made by persons who did not watch that episode.
    1. Being a Feminist – You have invalid, and arbitrary conceptions of feminism. Feminism is built on the precept that “women and men are equal” and then, just like Christianity, branches off into different sects and forms of radicalization. To suggest that I should have asked my “feminist” Guest about her views on abortion before bringing her on my show is preposterous, especially because she is a Coptic woman who is one of my closest friends.
    2. Feminism & The Church – The purpose of the show was to reconcile our feminist views with the church – this was an attempt to allay the fears of many women who feel dissociated from the church, and from Christianity, because of passages and dogmas, which seem to discriminate against women on their face. The show, if you take the time to watch it, actually attempts to reveal the beauty of the verse, “Wives submit to your husbands” by exploring the parallel obligations of men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and also died for her.

    4. Poetry and Expression

    To be honest, I felt “cyber-bullied” when an episode of my show – one in which I was performing a poetic piece—was posted and mocked, without my having introduced it.  Brothers, I ask you to exercise your Christian discretion before choosing to highlight the ideals of “orthodoxy” while alienating someone’s artistic expressions.

    The purpose of this poem was to bring young women to Christ – to show them how much God adores their beauty and desires their heart. Because the reality is, young women, whom I counsel at church, are struggling with ideas of self-worth and falling prey to the lusts of this world. This is my attempt to explain God’s ineffable love.  My brothers, God’s love cannot, and should not , only be expressed by orthodox persons through “prescribed” orthodox hymnology or contemplations. God’s love surpasses these confines.

    4. Protestantism

    I will not deny another’s experience of Christ if that person is not Orthodox. I will not prevent that person from sharing her joy, peace, and treasure with myself or with my viewers because she is not Orthodox. What I will do, is not make false representations about the orthodoxy of that person, nor propagate her method as the only way to find Christ, but rather ascribe to the minds of open-minded and educated viewers, who are able to recognize spiritual union.

    Final Comments

    I have been deeply troubled by the alienating comments that have been posted. I regret posting this video – I was not attempting to showcase an “orthodox” form of media, but rather an individual expression of God’s love –hence the name, the Marina Show. That being said, I apologize if my antics have offended any of you in any way. I expect that my post will be followed by a plethora of detailed counter-arguments, to which I will not respond. You are all entitled to your views, and I am sorry if I have offended any of them.

    I will take all of your recommendations under advisement. Pray for me.
  • [quote author=solidman link=topic=14150.msg162720#msg162720 date=1358290904]
    A device is a tool... I think we're getting caught up in semantics here. I did not mean to belittle the grace of all that our orthodox faith has preserved for us. I merely meant to clarify that orthodoxy, in and of itself, is NOT salvation. [/quote]
    Semantics maybe the only way to get us out of this circular debate. Semantics, by definition, is the branch of linguistics and logic that deals with meaning. With proper meanings and definition, we should be able to arrive at a meaningful and profitable conclusion.

    Salvation by definition is the "preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss". When we speak of salvation, we speak of something that delivers us from harm or ruin. In this context, the ruin is sin and eternal damnation. The device or tool is the means of deliverance but in our context, the means is also the end (as I explained in my last message). So Orthodoxy is both the deliverance and the salvation.

    What I think you're challenging is whether Orthodoxy is the exclusive means and exclusive salvation from eternal ruin. Exclusive ownership of the salvation is a different issue than the description of the problem, deliverance, means, solution and salvation of the problem are. I will address this later.

    Yes, Christ taught us that some sacraments are necessary to enter heaven. Do you think He made an exception for Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament?

    No. I don't think God made any exceptions. When a question or problem rises, the Orthodox search scripture, sacraments and patristic for an apology (the Greek meaning "defense", not the English meaning of "expression of remorse").  I would have to do a bit of research to validate my theory. But preliminarily, I think Moses was "baptized" by water and fire literally and physically by crossing the Red Sea and being transformed by God's fire that appeared when Moses received the Ten Commandments. He also died in the hope of the promise of the Resurrection of the dead and the Promise of the eternal inheritance, even though he himself didn't enter the Promise land while he was alive. By all means, he was baptized - he died to sin and unrighteousness and resurrected with Christ. All the other prophets died in the hope of the life after death, having prophesied the Coming of Christ. Some even saw the resurrection of the dead, like Ezekiel. Some saw the Theotokos. Some saw Christ's second coming. Some were anointed and sealed with the Holy Spirit as kings. These are all types and prototypes of baptism. In all cases, there was a declaration of faith and a physical act that was divinely transforming. This all reflects St Paul's message in Hebrews 11 and 12. In 1 Peter 4:6, we are told the gospel was preached to the dead...so that they may live according to God in the spirit. Again, this is a type of baptism.

    Don't misunderstand. I am not saying any declaration of faith accompanied by a hope in the resurrection is a baptism. (That would define me as a Baptist Protestant). I am saying all challenges and questions, including "baptism" of those who died before Christ's life on earth, can be answered by the scripture, sacraments and patristics through a living example and not lifeless rhetoric.

    What about all the other examples people can think of where the necessary sacraments were unavailable to believers? The thief on the cross? The point is, we are not the Judge, and He will decide who enters and who does not.

    No we are not the Judge. But the True Judge Himself declare the requirements and fundamental foundations of salvation and then passed this authority and information (called the Gospel) through His disciples. We inherited this authority and information. Any sacrament that is not available to believers is an incredibly low occurrence. My preliminary answer is "why bother looking for infinitely negligible exceptions instead of declaring the standard passed down to us - which is Orthodoxy. If I was pressed to answer this question, I would say I don't believe the sacraments are really unavailable to believers. Any believer can receive the sacrament at any time under the right conditions of faith. The odds of a believer not finding a the means to baptism is greater than getting hit by lighting a thousand miles away from a lighting storm. (or something equivalent). I hope you get the idea.

    The end goal here is eternal life.

    What I was trying to say is the end goal is already here. Eternal life starts with the sacraments and continues eternally after the devil, sin and death are forever destroyed.

    And the One who determines who receives that end goal is the Judge Himself. The rule of measure will not be orthodoxy; it will be when the Bridegroom tells us to enter.

    But the bridegroom already invited everyone. Every single human from the beginning of the world to the end of this age was invited through various circumstances because the Judge is Good who has infinite love for mankind. Doesn't our liturgical language say, "You do not desire the death of a sinner but rather that he returns and lives". If God did not invite every human to eternal salvation and desire them to come to Him, He would not be the Good God. The Judge attached conditions (like death and suffering), gave grace and a salvation that is both the means and the end.


    I agree, but did you mention the Holy Trinity to me before posting this? Of course, I would never believe that you are not acting in the love of Christ when you post it, so this point is moot.

    As I said we should not hold in contempt anyone who doesn't begin with the name of the Trinity. However the point, which is not moot, is Orthodoxy is a way of life, explaining and viewing everything beginning with and focusing on the Trinity.
  • ReturnOrthodox said:
    ...


    The graceful backdown. Classic. And it would've been done well if you hadn't made this about yourself.

    Even though the odds man is out, I'd still like to hear what others think of this debate about culture vs. dogma.
  • Dear Marina,

    That your simple introduction and a link to an episode of your show have managed to provoke so much contention is, by perfectly Orthodox standards, a pretty good testimony to the fact you are on the right track and doing the right thing. So please do not be discouraged, but rather encouraged!

    It is clear from your show that you speak with love and humility which stem from a genuine encounter with the living Christ in the Church, and it is perhaps this advantage of true and sincere experience that qualifies you more than anything else to host an Orthodox Christian show witnessing to Christ.

    God bless you, and please keep up the good work!
  • Solidman, this forum has become just a battle of wits where we quote each other's responses, prove that we can respond  astutely and move on. I'm uneasy with this. Lets be honest and vulnerable for one moment about the essence of the concerns raised here.
    Are you willing to at least concede that having a person who isn't Orthodox (doesn't believe in Eucharist, baptism, etc) on an Orthodox channel (which believes in Eucharist, baptism, etc) imparting spiritual advice, shows a contradiction? Wouldn't it provide a certain legitimacy to her brand of Christianity, worship and set of ideals to the many (Orthodox) youth who are watching?

    Wouldn't it be fair for an Orthodox youth to hear her say "When I was saved" take this sentiment and believe whatever is attached to it. This is something only protestants say. I mean, would the youth be at fault? After all, he saw it on an Orthodox channel. Wouldn't it also be fair for that youth to believe he can cultivate a spiritual life which doesn't necessarily have to be dependent on the sacraments since we've established that she isn't Orthodox and she's having a great life without the church and the sacraments?

    The point is, we aren't judging anyone, nor are we saying one is going to heaven or the other to hell. What is being said is that a 'Way' is sure to lead to heaven(if followed faithfully), and the rest (other Christianities) are left to God's mercy. But since we aren't sure how God's mercy will operate and how he sees things, it isn't up to us to bring in what is foreign and juxtapose it on what is already known.

    You can at least concede that the possibilities I alluded to can happen. Would they not? I'm not trying to outwit you but it seems there's a fundamental element of spiritual discernment that has been lost here.
    Would you agree?


Memorial for HH Pope Shenouda

Share |