by rusmeister » June 7th, 2009, 4:03 am
Tuke, I'm taking a little trouble here because you have always been a considerate poster in spite of our disagreements. I'd like to make sure I've done the best I can to be understood.
It should not surprise you that any faith teaches that it has the most correct version of truth and that others are in error. Being sad and shocked about it makes no sense. It looks like you want me to say that the version of faith that you accept is just as valid as mine.
The terms orthodox and heterodox are valid terms - we will just disagree on what exactly is orthodox (small 'o'). But it's not an insult. Obviously there must be right ways and wrong ways to worship God. It must, logically, be possible to worship God in a way that is not correct or right or the way he would like us to. However, terms like "Orthodoxer" sound on a level with terms like "bapsy" or "methoder" or "catholickian" and therefore appears derogatory. You can tell me I'm wrong (heterodox) - fine. But you shouldn't 'concoct terms of your own', which is basically insult. If Christians disagree and even say or suggest that others are (gasp!) wrong about something, this is not insult. It is our society today that teaches that the mortal sin is to say that someone is right and someone is wrong, but Christ had no problem saying when worshipers of God went wrong. However, we should do the best we can to observe the law of charity (love) in doing so. Sometimes I fail in that, and I hope you will forgive me where I truly have. But it is my position that merely saying that non-Orthodox (big 'o') faiths are not orthodox (small 'o') is not such a failure, but rather its fulfillment.
No, I do not remember the name of your church. Feel free to tell me. (Perhaps you told me a few thousand posts ago - I'm sorry that I don't remember.) But it's enough, for purposes of this discussion, to know that it is not an Orthodox church. Heterodox means literally "That which is not orthodox". Therefore I will see any teachings which come from it to be heterodox - some of which will coincide with Orthodox teaching, and some of which do not.
Your idea that I ought to mention the name of Jesus much more often - or if you insist, that I do refer to the Church more often - springs from the prime difference between most people on this site. A majority are believers - and are seeking Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life, or (at least) claim to have found Him. So far we are in agreement - well and good. But where we are in agreement there is much less to say. But since, in our quest for the Truth the prime difference really is in our worship and doctrine, it is inevitable that in order to talk about those things at all, we must refer to the authority by which we do so, and this is going to lead me to talk about the Church, which teaches what Jesus taught. The conclusion you have drawn from that is wholly wrong - at the very least talking as if it were important shows grave misunderstanding.
I'll continue further discussions if the tone changes to reflect, if not charity, at least civility. A vigorous and manly defense does not require anger or peevishness. It would require a defense of the root difference - what I called the fatal weakness - of relying on your own intellect and knowledge to correctly understand Scripture. But only as long as we don't get personal.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength