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.
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
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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
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 ;)
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:
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?
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By asking me to say orthodoxy is the ONLY means, I would be shunning any other apostolic church
There is no other apostolic church. There is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (Nicene Creed).
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).
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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
Don't regret posting a link to your show. It provoked some interesting (and some unnecessary) discussion and debate. But I think God had a good purpose for this thread all along. At the very least, you now have more material for your show. ;D
InChrist7, while I greatly respect your intelligence, I think your broad judgment and generalization of this thread as lifeless nonsense is unwarranted and inaccurate. What you consider lifeless nonsense, I consider spiritually beneficial even if I don't agree with the conclusions. Is there really a need to call one's opponent's comments and thoughts "awkwardly-written, pretentious and self-appointed pseudo-theology"? Such ad hominem remarks discredits any reality or truth one has claimed. Additionally, is it not hypocritical to say one person speaks with love and humility in their expression and encounter of Christ through TV media, while at the same time condemning those who express their expression and encounter of Christ through books, blogs, and internet forum discussion"?
I don't want to highjack this thread after Marina's excellent response. Take my criticism as you like. It was done out of love for you and everyone else reading.
Please keep in mind that it was your declaration that this show was an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" (something even Marina doesn't claim) that sparked the long discussion that ensued.
Marina,
Thanks for the response. And I agree with Remnkemi, you should have at least 10 episodes of material with this thread!
No one should feel insulted. My remark was intended to be read as a generalisation. It was not intended to apply to any particular individual nor to every contribution or statement made.
Solidman, I am actually OK with continueing this discussion with you. I calmed down a little. I think, although this may not be comfortable, that the best way to do this is in fact the quote-refute comment.
You spoke of me as liking Om Kalthoum. How did you know? :P. I do in fact like her. But I fail to see what this effect has on my view of Orthodox method. I am not even against poems of "the black culture." I actually have personally attended some poetry nights. I simply feel that their place is not in the church. The tone of the poem is reminiscent of the same black culture which produces rap music. Do you think that this is acceptable in church? I doubt it. I understand that the idea is to "become to the Jews a Jew" but I'm not too sure of the extent with which we should be doing this. Should we go so far as to enter the culture and embrace it with all its defects? I simply feel that, though the poem may not excite, it does not model after the idea of contemplation.
You spoke about different cultures adopting Orthodoxy. This is something that I am all for, because I am a Christian. So for example, we have the Ethiopian Orthodox which carry a culture with Orthodoxy. But again, the west has it's culture that can well be intertwined with true Orthodoxy. But would you also assert that death metal should be used in church (I'm not insinuating that you would, just an honest question.) If you would, then I think we have a problem because that is clearly opposed to the contemplation which our fathers teach. If you say no, I would like to ask what the distinction is between the two.
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.
I am not implying that the church's service is ecclesiastic in the sense of theology, or the "Divine Office of the Liturgy," but rather that even it's evangelism is deeply intermingled with its liturgical theology. Correct? For some time in my life, I visited an OCA parish that is dedicated to mission. Even though it served people who were literally off the streets, it served them in a relatable ORTHODOX way. It had "lived theology" classes. It had prayers, and hymn classes etc. So I am not opposed to a humble approach to service, nor an approach which takes into account the lowly (which we all are), but I am opposed to one which adopts a culture that is not Orthodox. Now, I must agree with InChrist7 and yourself on this one, and I do apologize, that I do not have a monopoly on Orthodoxy. But what I have been taught is a more "contemplative" Orthodoxy. I do not feel that a poem of this scheme can be considered Orthodox. I am an avid reader of poetry, and I study poetry as much as I study theology. So I do have a understanding of the way poems work. There are many forms of poetry which I am alright with. I feel like this kind of poem is a little out of it. This does not mean that I do not like the poems. In fact, take a listen to this poem. I love it. However, I do not feel like the movement of the scheme would be useful for a spiritual ascent. You may disagree. But I cannot accept that my only reason for not accepting this kind of culture being used in church is because I don't like it. I think it is the opposite. I know this culture all too well.
Please do not misunderstand me. I have often taken the strengths of other churches, appreciated, and adopted them. And this is for the same reason that you have. I am not opposed to the church making use of other cultures, and other methods, as long as they do not conflict with Orthodoxy. Where I think we differ is that apart from Dogma, I feel that "ethos" is important. Now I am sorry for using a greek term, but trust me, it is actually the best word I know for this. I feel like Orthodoxy is more to be lived. If the way we pray and evangelized is not conducive to this contemplative "mood" then we have a problem. Do you disagree on this point? Or is it that you feel like this culture does not contradict this mood?
My use of generally was not with regards to salvation. God does not "generally" have power over salvation. He IS salvation. So I agree with you there. I only meant that God "generally" can give salvation to anyone he wants. The reason I say generally is that, as you say, there is an exception. That exception is that his Word clearly says that he won't, and that his word will not pass away. So the only limitation on God granting salvation to all is His own. I do not "give him" this right (I used sloppy semantics earlier) but rather, I recognize it.
Looking forward to hearing your response to this one. Forgive me for attacking. I sincerely apologize. Maybe we can edify now.
Marina, thank's for your response. I wont write much. I simply want to quote something you said, because it makes something a little more evident:
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.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not my generalisation was warranted. As a generalisation, I believe it to be warranted. Being in the nature of a generalisaiton, however, there is, as I've just said to qawe, no need for any individual to think it was directed to them in particular or necessarily to every contribution or statement made.
I never sought to engage in a debate or argument or prove or persuade others of a particular position; I was simply expressing a personal position and wanted to offer Marina my own personal considerations. That is an entirely appropriate context for "ad hominem" remarks.
I did not condemn anyone's mode of expressing their faith. Books and various online tools have great but limited value. I read books and blogs (and encourage everyone to do so), and here I am on an internet discussion forum sharing my position on religious matters. I think you misread the relevant comment of mine which seems to have irked you.
Dear Marina, Thank you for the response. Do take our critiques as practical proof of love for our church and faith, as I'm sure you're also attempting to demonstrate with your show. I'm glad that you'll be taking some of the concerns seriously and I respect that you're a big enough person to do that.
Let us remember that Orthodoxy is something to be lived. It is the way we speak, eat(fasting), pray, and every other movement of the soul, mind and body. We must be humble, contrite and endowed always with a spirit of affinity for these beautiful virtues. Let us remember also that what we take on from the world in projecting to others may prove burdensome to those who are trying to distinguish between the arc(church) and the storm(world). We are called to be different in every way yet be at the level of everyone in order to bring all to the knowledge of Christ. That is the line on which we teeter and sometimes fall off of. All of us. I do hope as well that you recognize you're on an Orthodox Channel, whether the 'C' in CYC is for Christian or Coptic-it's an extension of the Orthodox Church to the English speaking world. So with that in mind, I hope we can find a balance and glorify Christ through His Orthodox Church which He instituted with His blood. Our faith has been bought at a great price-not only His blood, but the blood of the martyrs- men and women who sought to preserve it from any appealing compromise. Thank you once again, Marina. And don't take anyone's response as bullying. Such behavior has no place here. We merely speak out of conviction, love and zeal for our church that I pray (and know), as I'm sure you do as well, will remain unchanged.
It's not that I thought your comments were directed at me or any individual. it is broad generalizations that irk me. They often condemn an entire population simply because one belongs to that population and not because of any actual wrongful action or thought. Because of this I think all generalizations are unwarranted (with very few exceptions). But I agree that we must simply disagree.
I appreciate your clarification and I apologize if my comments may have offended you or anyone else.
And like I said on another thread, I hope you continue to contribute.
What was said about others on this post is beyond saddening. This 'orthodox' lifestyle that people are trying to fight for is all in vain if we don't have a common courtesy toward one another.
I am disappointed to see this from men with so much zeal and passion for our church. Before learning the intricacies of Orthodoxy, learn the most basic foundation of Christianity - to behave Christ-like.
Whilst I am not in the habit of backtracking, I have gone back and extensively modified my original post to avert anyone else taking any unintended offence.
Comments
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
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
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
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. 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. Go to the Kenyan Coptic Orthodox Church. I didn't find anything incorrect or offensive about GOD in this poem... correct me if I'm wrong. And why not? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". 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.
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.
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.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
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 ;)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 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.
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.
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:
Maybe someone else would like to comment on the video I posted. Stavro, would you be so kind as to weigh in again?[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]
RO
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.
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 :)
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.
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. "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.
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? 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. 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'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. 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. 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. 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. 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=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14150.msg162739#msg162739 date=1358298201]
There is no other apostolic church. There is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (Nicene Creed).
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.
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
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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Even though the odds man is out, I'd still like to hear what others think of this debate about culture vs. dogma.
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!
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?
Don't regret posting a link to your show. It provoked some interesting (and some unnecessary) discussion and debate. But I think God had a good purpose for this thread all along. At the very least, you now have more material for your show. ;D
InChrist7, while I greatly respect your intelligence, I think your broad judgment and generalization of this thread as lifeless nonsense is unwarranted and inaccurate. What you consider lifeless nonsense, I consider spiritually beneficial even if I don't agree with the conclusions. Is there really a need to call one's opponent's comments and thoughts "awkwardly-written, pretentious and self-appointed pseudo-theology"? Such ad hominem remarks discredits any reality or truth one has claimed. Additionally, is it not hypocritical to say one person speaks with love and humility in their expression and encounter of Christ through TV media, while at the same time condemning those who express their expression and encounter of Christ through books, blogs, and internet forum discussion"?
I don't want to highjack this thread after Marina's excellent response. Take my criticism as you like. It was done out of love for you and everyone else reading.
Please keep in mind that it was your declaration that this show was an "authentic Orthodox witness to Christ" (something even Marina doesn't claim) that sparked the long discussion that ensued.
Marina,
Thanks for the response. And I agree with Remnkemi, you should have at least 10 episodes of material with this thread!
No one should feel insulted. My remark was intended to be read as a generalisation. It was not intended to apply to any particular individual nor to every contribution or statement made.
God bless you.
You spoke of me as liking Om Kalthoum. How did you know? :P. I do in fact like her. But I fail to see what this effect has on my view of Orthodox method. I am not even against poems of "the black culture." I actually have personally attended some poetry nights. I simply feel that their place is not in the church. The tone of the poem is reminiscent of the same black culture which produces rap music. Do you think that this is acceptable in church? I doubt it. I understand that the idea is to "become to the Jews a Jew" but I'm not too sure of the extent with which we should be doing this. Should we go so far as to enter the culture and embrace it with all its defects? I simply feel that, though the poem may not excite, it does not model after the idea of contemplation.
You spoke about different cultures adopting Orthodoxy. This is something that I am all for, because I am a Christian. So for example, we have the Ethiopian Orthodox which carry a culture with Orthodoxy. But again, the west has it's culture that can well be intertwined with true Orthodoxy. But would you also assert that death metal should be used in church (I'm not insinuating that you would, just an honest question.) If you would, then I think we have a problem because that is clearly opposed to the contemplation which our fathers teach. If you say no, I would like to ask what the distinction is between the two. I am not implying that the church's service is ecclesiastic in the sense of theology, or the "Divine Office of the Liturgy," but rather that even it's evangelism is deeply intermingled with its liturgical theology. Correct? For some time in my life, I visited an OCA parish that is dedicated to mission. Even though it served people who were literally off the streets, it served them in a relatable ORTHODOX way. It had "lived theology" classes. It had prayers, and hymn classes etc. So I am not opposed to a humble approach to service, nor an approach which takes into account the lowly (which we all are), but I am opposed to one which adopts a culture that is not Orthodox. Now, I must agree with InChrist7 and yourself on this one, and I do apologize, that I do not have a monopoly on Orthodoxy. But what I have been taught is a more "contemplative" Orthodoxy. I do not feel that a poem of this scheme can be considered Orthodox. I am an avid reader of poetry, and I study poetry as much as I study theology. So I do have a understanding of the way poems work. There are many forms of poetry which I am alright with. I feel like this kind of poem is a little out of it. This does not mean that I do not like the poems. In fact, take a listen to this poem. I love it. However, I do not feel like the movement of the scheme would be useful for a spiritual ascent. You may disagree. But I cannot accept that my only reason for not accepting this kind of culture being used in church is because I don't like it. I think it is the opposite. I know this culture all too well.
Please do not misunderstand me. I have often taken the strengths of other churches, appreciated, and adopted them. And this is for the same reason that you have. I am not opposed to the church making use of other cultures, and other methods, as long as they do not conflict with Orthodoxy. Where I think we differ is that apart from Dogma, I feel that "ethos" is important. Now I am sorry for using a greek term, but trust me, it is actually the best word I know for this. I feel like Orthodoxy is more to be lived. If the way we pray and evangelized is not conducive to this contemplative "mood" then we have a problem. Do you disagree on this point? Or is it that you feel like this culture does not contradict this mood?
My use of generally was not with regards to salvation. God does not "generally" have power over salvation. He IS salvation. So I agree with you there. I only meant that God "generally" can give salvation to anyone he wants. The reason I say generally is that, as you say, there is an exception. That exception is that his Word clearly says that he won't, and that his word will not pass away. So the only limitation on God granting salvation to all is His own. I do not "give him" this right (I used sloppy semantics earlier) but rather, I recognize it.
Looking forward to hearing your response to this one. Forgive me for attacking. I sincerely apologize. Maybe we can edify now.
Marina, thank's for your response. I wont write much. I simply want to quote something you said, because it makes something a little more evident: RO
We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not my generalisation was warranted. As a generalisation, I believe it to be warranted. Being in the nature of a generalisaiton, however, there is, as I've just said to qawe, no need for any individual to think it was directed to them in particular or necessarily to every contribution or statement made.
I never sought to engage in a debate or argument or prove or persuade others of a particular position; I was simply expressing a personal position and wanted to offer Marina my own personal considerations. That is an entirely appropriate context for "ad hominem" remarks.
I did not condemn anyone's mode of expressing their faith. Books and various online tools have great but limited value. I read books and blogs (and encourage everyone to do so), and here I am on an internet discussion forum sharing my position on religious matters. I think you misread the relevant comment of mine which seems to have irked you.
God bless you.
Thank you for the response. Do take our critiques as practical proof of love for our church and faith, as I'm sure you're also attempting to demonstrate with your show. I'm glad that you'll be taking some of the concerns seriously and I respect that you're a big enough person to do that.
Let us remember that Orthodoxy is something to be lived. It is the way we speak, eat(fasting), pray, and every other movement of the soul, mind and body. We must be humble, contrite and endowed always with a spirit of affinity for these beautiful virtues.
Let us remember also that what we take on from the world in projecting to others may prove burdensome to those who are trying to distinguish between the arc(church) and the storm(world). We are called to be different in every way yet be at the level of everyone in order to bring all to the knowledge of Christ. That is the line on which we teeter and sometimes fall off of. All of us.
I do hope as well that you recognize you're on an Orthodox Channel, whether the 'C' in CYC is for Christian or Coptic-it's an extension of the Orthodox Church to the English speaking world. So with that in mind, I hope we can find a balance and glorify Christ through His Orthodox Church which He instituted with His blood. Our faith has been bought at a great price-not only His blood, but the blood of the martyrs- men and women who sought to preserve it from any appealing compromise.
Thank you once again, Marina. And don't take anyone's response as bullying. Such behavior has no place here. We merely speak out of conviction, love and zeal for our church that I pray (and know), as I'm sure you do as well, will remain unchanged.
It's not that I thought your comments were directed at me or any individual. it is broad generalizations that irk me. They often condemn an entire population simply because one belongs to that population and not because of any actual wrongful action or thought. Because of this I think all generalizations are unwarranted (with very few exceptions). But I agree that we must simply disagree.
I appreciate your clarification and I apologize if my comments may have offended you or anyone else.
And like I said on another thread, I hope you continue to contribute.
I am disappointed to see this from men with so much zeal and passion for our church. Before learning the intricacies of Orthodoxy, learn the most basic foundation of Christianity - to behave Christ-like.
God bless you all.