PDA

View Full Version : we have a Pope ('po russki....')



Benedikt
28-01-2009, 15:16
the Metropolit for orthodox belivers is the same as the Pope in Rome for catholics...

KIRILL was elected new Metropolit of the Orthodox Church in Moscow.
quite a ceremony. And may he have a not to heavy cross to bear.

a question just for me out of curiosity:

The metropolit is the highest diety for orthodox belivers and sits in Moscow
The Pope is in Tome..
who is the 'highest' for jewish belivers and where is he?
And for Moslems?
And for Hindus?
And for Buddists?

wikipeda did not bring the desired results, these questions came up today when we were discussing in the kitchen with my Cooks the results of yesterdays election of Kirill.

( inbetween these extreme important questions:nut: we did a quick 100 breakfast and a few small banquets...:rolleyes:)

Wodin
28-01-2009, 16:24
Not sure about the Jews, but muslims, hindus and Buddhists do not have the concept of an earthly leader, kind of their god's rep on earth.

It's worth pointing out that the office of pope and metropolit started off, and are still to this day, mainly to satisfy the political needs of the religion.

RRM
28-01-2009, 17:39
the Metropolit for orthodox belivers is the same as the Pope in Rome for catholics...

KIRILL was elected new Metropolit of the Orthodox Church in Moscow.
quite a ceremony. And may he have a not to heavy cross to bear.

a question just for me out of curiosity:

The metropolit is the highest diety for orthodox belivers and sits in Moscow
The Pope is in Tome..
who is the 'highest' for jewish belivers and where is he?
And for Moslems?
And for Hindus?
And for Buddists?

wikipeda did not bring the desired results, these questions came up today when we were discussing in the kitchen with my Cooks the results of yesterdays election of Kirill.

( inbetween these extreme important questions:nut: we did a quick 100 breakfast and a few small banquets...:rolleyes:)

Dalai Lama for the Tibetan Buddhism in New Delhi as he is on exile, No particular leader for the Hindu's as each temple has their own priest, Chief Rabbi for the Jews but these are different for different countries. And for the Shia Muslems the Grand Ayatollah in Tehran,

DDT
28-01-2009, 21:13
The Roman Catholics, of which Russian Orthodox is but an offshoot after a falling out over a power struggle, much like the Sunni and Shiites are the result of a power struggle after Mohammed kicked the bucket, are the only religion to claim to have a "direct link to God" through an Earthly priest.

This idea, that the pope is "Gods man on Earth" is totally un-Christian, by the way, and is not only NOT supported by any of Jesus' teachings, it actually goes directly against his teachings, as Jesus claimed that humans were to develop their own personal and direct relationship with God.

rusmeister
29-01-2009, 06:22
Benedikt and DTT:
You have a few things slightly wrong there.
First of all, the Patriarch is NOT the same as a Catholic Pope. He is more equivalent to the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury. He does not have absolute authority - either over the Church worldwide, nor even his local Church (the Russian Church). Orthodoxy is based on collegialism, so no one man has ever been able to take out the entire Church. The closest to that in history is the Great Schism, when the Bishop of one Church (the Roman Church) broke from the other Churches, forming the Catholic Church as a separate entity.

Thus, the Orthodox Church is NOT "an offshoot" of Roman Catholicism, but more like the other way around (although the split had been centuries in the making).

Your understanding of what you mean by "having a direct link to God through an earthly priest", and that very expression, is alien to Orthodoxy. So we might agree that our "access to God" is not "controlled" by priests.

I'd also agree with this:

This idea, that the pope is "Gods man on Earth" is totally un-Christian, by the way, and is not only NOT supported by any of Jesus' teachings, it actually goes directly against his teachings
But this
Jesus claimed that humans were to develop their own personal and direct relationship with God. is dependent on your personal interpretation of what you read in Scripture. (Here we'd get into "what is Sola Scriptura?" and how any one person, who lives 20, 40 or 70 years, could possibly manage to correctly interpret everything on the basis of only their own wisdom and experience. It'd be something like insisting that you can correctly formulate the science of physics on your own based only on what you personally know.) Point is, the ultimate authority you refer to for interpretation is yourself, with your own limitations. I'd say that none of us are capable of doing that and getting it right, and it explains why there are thousands of "independent" churches and dozens of major denominations all contradicting each other. Doesn't look like the work of a Holy Spirit guiding people into all truth to me. (It's also why I converted to Orthodoxy) It's really different on the inside from the perspectives you guys have on the outside, and nothing like what you think.

It's not the facts. It's how they are interpreted.

is4fun
29-01-2009, 20:46
I am amazed on how many different interpretations there are regarding religious scripture. Really, it doesn’t matter If they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc Everyone has their own pitch, so to say. Why one is right and the other is not. The only sensible conclusion had been written by Sir Stephen Henry Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

rusmeister
29-01-2009, 21:17
I am amazed on how many different interpretations there are regarding religious scripture. Really, it doesn’t matter If they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc Everyone has their own pitch, so to say. Why one is right and the other is not. The only sensible conclusion had been written by Sir Stephen Henry Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
What ought to bake your noodle, is4fun, is that given your view, that Orthodoxy does NOT have those "different interpretations" that you no doubt do see in western Christianity.

It does not logically follow that just because there are many claimants to the throne that none of them can possibly be the true claimant. Indeed, it is more likely an indication that there really IS a throne and that therefore, one of the claimants really COULD be a rightful heir.

So no, I do not agree with the logic of that oft quoted atheist mantra.

ezik
29-01-2009, 21:22
I'm amazed how all this stuff is allowed to affect the lives of normal citizens.

The area around Christ The Saviour's Cathedral was shut off completely yesterday, resulting in lots of traffic jams and a lot of pollution. When ever something major happens (like the burial of a Patriarch) my who f***ing neighborhood (near Elokhovsky Cathedrral) is shut off by all sorts of security/police/army/OMON.

I wish that Church politics would be separated from State politics.

is4fun
29-01-2009, 21:48
What ought to bake your noodle, is4fun, is that given your view, that Orthodoxy does NOT have those "different interpretations" that you no doubt do see in western Christianity.

It does not logically follow that just because there are many claimants to the throne that none of them can possibly be the true claimant. Indeed, it is more likely an indication that there really IS a throne and that therefore, one of the claimants really COULD be a rightful heir.

So no, I do not agree with the logic of that oft quoted atheist mantra.

Speaking like a true crusader. So your ideology of Chistianity is the true claimant of the Throne? Perhaps I may be clearer with another quote I much admire: "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." — Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain

MickeyTong
29-01-2009, 22:34
It does not logically follow that just because there are many claimants to the throne that none of them can possibly be the true claimant. Indeed, it is more likely an indication that there really IS a throne and that therefore, one of the claimants really COULD be a rightful heir.

The oft-quoted deist mantra.

Wodin
29-01-2009, 22:45
.

It does not logically follow that just because there are many claimants to the throne that none of them can possibly be the true claimant. Indeed, it is more likely an indication that there really IS a throne and that therefore, one of the claimants really COULD be a rightful heir.



....or, given that most of the mainstream religions today came into being at most 3,000 years ago, johnnies come lately in terms of homo sapiens' time on earth, and that plenty of other religions existed before, it could also be a reflection of man's, particularly unsophisticated man's, inability to cope alone and needing to imagine something to look up to...much like some kids have imaginary friends.

rusmeister
30-01-2009, 04:59
Speaking like a true crusader. So your ideology of Chistianity is the true claimant of the Throne? Perhaps I may be clearer with another quote I much admire: "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." — Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain
The idea is clear. I simply refute it as ignorance. I turned IN to the Church because of what I learned.
Mark Twain didn't know anything about Orthodoxy. I probably would agree with some of his assessments against Protestant Christianity.

rusmeister
30-01-2009, 05:03
....or, given that most of the mainstream religions today came into being at most 3,000 years ago, johnnies come lately in terms of homo sapiens' time on earth, and that plenty of other religions existed before, it could also be a reflection of man's, particularly unsophisticated man's, inability to cope alone and needing to imagine something to look up to...much like some kids have imaginary friends.
Given that recorded history stretches back only five to seven thousand years, that's not saying a lot.

Speculation is easy and requires no knowledge.

Wodin
30-01-2009, 09:37
Given that recorded history stretches back only five to seven thousand years, that's not saying a lot.

Speculation is easy and requires no knowledge.

True enough.

Yet, isn't it a bit odd that religions developed seperately in different regions of the globe? Doesn't the fact that the three major monotheistic religions all orginated in a relatively small circle of the Middle East? Doesn't the fact that regions further east, places like what today are China and India came up with their own religions, which are not in any way related to the monotheistic ones, much earlier?

Doesn't this lack of homogenity indicate that the various organised religions are, in fact, more likely to be the result of mankinds' insecurity and the wish to be able to pass on responsibility to someone or something else, than being rooted in fact?

rusmeister
30-01-2009, 20:44
True enough.

Yet, isn't it a bit odd that religions developed seperately in different regions of the globe? Doesn't the fact that the three major monotheistic religions all orginated in a relatively small circle of the Middle East? Doesn't the fact that regions further east, places like what today are China and India came up with their own religions, which are not in any way related to the monotheistic ones, much earlier?

Doesn't this lack of homogenity indicate that the various organised religions are, in fact, more likely to be the result of mankinds' insecurity and the wish to be able to pass on responsibility to someone or something else, than being rooted in fact?
There is a hidden assumption there that they are, in fact, not rooted in fact. There is no logical connection between the presence of many religions and the idea that they cannot be true or represent truth.

If there are many counterfeit bills, is it not more likely an indication that there is a Real Original that they are counterfeiting rather than proof that there are no originals to counterfeit?

What is remarkable is that they all point, more or less to a moral compass of the same general shape. If they were really merely artificial inventions to please people, they would focus on pleasing people and benefiting the inventors. Yet that is not the case with any enduring religion. They by and large represent real efforts to discover truth, to really explain our nature; the conflict between our desires and a moral law that we feel bearing down on us from childhood, that some of us kill over time, but most of us feel throughout our lives - that we ought to behave a certain way, but in fact that we do not. It is how they are alike that is more remarkable than how they differ.

It is really a question of how much of the complete truth does a given faith or philosophy nail.

DDT
30-01-2009, 21:40
True enough.

Yet, isn't it a bit odd that religions developed seperately in different regions of the globe? Doesn't the fact that the three major monotheistic religions all orginated in a relatively small circle of the Middle East? Doesn't the fact that regions further east, places like what today are China and India came up with their own religions, which are not in any way related to the monotheistic ones, much earlier?

Doesn't this lack of homogenity indicate that the various organised religions are, in fact, more likely to be the result of mankinds' insecurity and the wish to be able to pass on responsibility to someone or something else, than being rooted in fact?
Your premise that there are three major monotheistic religions from the ME are false for a start. There is only one major religion that started there, and that is the religion of the Israelites of which Christianity is a sect. Islam, which was created some 2 to 3 thousand years later, in the 7th century AD, is not a religion at all but a cult of Mohammed. The cult was solely dictated and set up by Mohammed and based on his flawed knowledge of Judaism, Christianity and previous Pagan Arab superstitions, such as the worship of the Kabaah in Mecca.

The second is that there is no proof that religions from China and India predated Hebrew beliefs.

Wodin
30-01-2009, 21:53
There is a hidden assumption there that they are, in fact, not rooted in fact. There is no logical connection between the presence of many religions and the idea that they cannot be true or represent truth.

If there are many counterfeit bills, is it not more likely an indication that there is a Real Original that they are counterfeiting rather than proof that there are no originals to counterfeit?

What is remarkable is that they all point, more or less to a moral compass of the same general shape. If they were really merely artificial inventions to please people, they would focus on pleasing people and benefiting the inventors. Yet that is not the case with any enduring religion. They by and large represent real efforts to discover truth, to really explain our nature; the conflict between our desires and a moral law that we feel bearing down on us from childhood, that some of us kill over time, but most of us feel throughout our lives - that we ought to behave a certain way, but in fact that we do not. It is how they are alike that is more remarkable than how they differ.

It is really a question of how much of the complete truth does a given faith or philosophy nail.

In so far as it goes the only real point of convergence between the major religions of the world, including buddhism, hinduism and the so called pagan and pre-judeo religions, is that a person should live a quiet peaceful life and, if possible, not bash up or offend his neighbour. They also agree that there is a higher power, although there is no agreement on exactly how many higher powers there are. On all other points the religions diverge widely.

It strikes me that, if in fact any religion was in fact a reflection of the will of a higher being, that same higher being would have the werewithal to make sure that all religions would be somewhat more closely aligned than they are. Said higher being would also, presumably, have made sure that its message was made known to human kind from day 1, as opposed to something like 4,000 years after the start of recorded history...and many more thousands of years after the first homo sapiens opened his eyes and thought ... "blimey..where am i?"

I would put it to you that this point of convergence is no more and no less than a necessary mechanism for human beings to live together in relative peace, which, as I'm sure you would agree, became a vital necessity the first time Ugh and his pals decided to stop hunting mammoths, set up a village with the intention of growing corn and elected a head man.

I would also put it to you that the first such headman, realising that unless he could con his villagers to stop killing each other just for kicks, grasped this basic truth and sold it to his villagers as the words of the particular stone they used to worship at the time.

If true, then the only point of convergence between religions is not in fact the will of a or multiple dieties, but more a tool of social interaction. It also means that the things that religions do not converge over would be the add ons that subsequent headmen and shamans put in place to ensure a smoother and more orderly way of life.

Wodin
30-01-2009, 21:58
Your premise that there are three major monotheistic religions from the ME are false for a start. There is only one major religion that started there, and that is the religion of the Israelites of which Christianity is a sect. Islam, which was created some 2 to 3 thousand years later, in the 7th century AD, is not a religion at all but a cult of Mohammed. The cult was solely dictated and set up by Mohammed and based on his flawed knowledge of Judaism, Christianity and previous Pagan Arab superstitions, such as the worship of the Kabaah in Mecca.

The second is that there is no proof that religions from China and India predated Hebrew beliefs.

Well...whatever you choose to define chtristianity and islam as, whether as sects or cults, the fact remains that they originated in a relatively small area of the Middle East.

There is plenty of proof that many other forms of religious beliefs existed before Moses took a swim in the Nile as it happens. Ever been to egypt? As for religious beliefs in china....I'm afraid that theres plenty of documented evidence that predates.

DDT
30-01-2009, 22:25
Well...whatever you choose to define chtristianity and islam as, whether as sects or cults, the fact remains that they originated in a relatively small area of the Middle East.

There is plenty of proof that many other forms of religious beliefs existed before Moses took a swim in the Nile as it happens. Ever been to egypt? As for religious beliefs in china....I'm afraid that theres plenty of documented evidence that predates.
Ah yes Moses! But Moses did not represent the beginning of the Israelite religion. Not even close!
The belief in the God of Abraham, afterall predated Abraham and Abraham was only one generation removed from the Great Flood! The belief in the one God. The God of the Flood predates even the Babylonian and Egyptian cults. We know this because we know where those cults sprang from....a man named Nimrod, shortly after the Flood, who was eventually cut into pieces by those who still remembered the God of the Flood and thought Nimrod was profane.

Many of the pagan cults that sprang up from Egypt to Germany are nothing more than the superstitions surrounding the real life story of Nimrod.

Wodin
31-01-2009, 00:29
Ah yes Moses! But Moses did not represent the beginning of the Israelite religion. Not even close!
The belief in the God of Abraham, afterall predated Abraham and Abraham was only one generation removed from the Great Flood! The belief in the one God. The God of the Flood predates even the Babylonian and Egyptian cults. We know this because we know where those cults sprang from....a man named Nimrod, shortly after the Flood, who was eventually cut into pieces by those who still remembered the God of the Flood and thought Nimrod was profane.

Many of the pagan cults that sprang up from Egypt to Germany are nothing more than the superstitions surrounding the real life story of Nimrod.

errrm...according to the old testament, Moses, post dip in the nile, took a walk with the jews , climbed a mountain and came back down with 10 commandments...which, as I understand it, form the basis of the jewish religion.

DDT
31-01-2009, 01:49
errrm...according to the old testament, Moses, post dip in the nile, took a walk with the jews , climbed a mountain and came back down with 10 commandments...which, as I understand it, form the basis of the jewish religion.
Well, actually that is a mistake to confuse Jews with the Children of Israel. There were no people called "Jews" at the time of Moses. The One God, Yahweh, was known to the entire 12 tribes of Israel, not just the 2 and a bit tribes left that make up who we today call Jews, long, long before Moses came along. The One God revealed as Yahweh had to have been known even before the time of Abraham because Abraham was alive at the time of Noah's death. Now we're talking some 4,000 years ago here. That was the time of Abraham! That was the time that God said to Abraham, "I will make your seed a multitude of nations".
There really is no "Jewish Religion" There is a religion that the Jews "mostly" follow that their ancestors also followed. The religion has no name. It is simply just thought of as the recorded truth and was recited orally until it was written down in a historical fashion.

The Jews today got their name from the House of Judah, which consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and a few Levites, which was largely left intact after 10 of the original 12 other tribes that made up the Children of Israel were taken en mass into captivity by Assyria and used as a buffer zone between them and the Medes. Those 10 tribes made up the Northern Kingdom of Israel after they had a disagreement about, well taxes (Basically), after King Solomon died, so they elected themselves their own king. The North was referred to as The House of Israel and the south was referred to as The House of Judah. This is why in the Bible there are books named Kings I and Kings II. Each book follows the history of a different sub-kingdom.
About 150 years later the southern kingdom of Judah was finally taken captive themselves, this time by the Babylonians. During their time, roughly 70 years, in Babylonian captivity they acquired the name for the first time "the Jews" and also picked up some unorthodox religious habits from their captors. One of them was their superstition for not pronouncing and eventually even writing the name of God, Yahweh. But even so they have basically kept the knowledge of Yahweh alive since the time of the Great Flood.

One can find "Great Flood" traditions is about 40 primitive cultures around the world. All of them relate, a story similar to the Noah's ark story and some of them having the exact number of survivors, eight.

I think you will be hard pressed to find an earlier dating religion than the Judeo/Christian one since it is dated back to the Flood.

Korotky Gennady
31-01-2009, 02:14
wikipeda did not bring the desired results, these questions came up today when we were discussing in the kitchen with my Cooks the results of yesterdays election of Kirill.

( inbetween these extreme important questions:nut: we did a quick 100 breakfast and a few small banquets...:rolleyes:)Why is it so important for your cooks who is god's main boss here ?

rusmeister
31-01-2009, 09:02
In so far as it goes the only real point of convergence between the major religions of the world, including buddhism, hinduism and the so called pagan and pre-judeo religions, is that a person should live a quiet peaceful life and, if possible, not bash up or offend his neighbour. They also agree that there is a higher power, although there is no agreement on exactly how many higher powers there are. On all other points the religions diverge widely.

It strikes me that, if in fact any religion was in fact a reflection of the will of a higher being, that same higher being would have the werewithal to make sure that all religions would be somewhat more closely aligned than they are. Said higher being would also, presumably, have made sure that its message was made known to human kind from day 1, as opposed to something like 4,000 years after the start of recorded history...and many more thousands of years after the first homo sapiens opened his eyes and thought ... "blimey..where am i?"

I would put it to you that this point of convergence is no more and no less than a necessary mechanism for human beings to live together in relative peace, which, as I'm sure you would agree, became a vital necessity the first time Ugh and his pals decided to stop hunting mammoths, set up a village with the intention of growing corn and elected a head man.

I would also put it to you that the first such headman, realising that unless he could con his villagers to stop killing each other just for kicks, grasped this basic truth and sold it to his villagers as the words of the particular stone they used to worship at the time.

If true, then the only point of convergence between religions is not in fact the will of a or multiple dieties, but more a tool of social interaction. It also means that the things that religions do not converge over would be the add ons that subsequent headmen and shamans put in place to ensure a smoother and more orderly way of life.

Thanks, Wodin!
(Courtesy can be difficult to maintain at times, and is always appreciated! :) )
One of the great things that I have been learning from people like CS Lewis and GK Chesterton is to identify first assumptions - essentially unquestioned dogma from which a chain of reasoning starts. If an argument is beautifully crafted, and every point follows, but its first assumptions are shown to be fallacious, then the whole arguments collapses like a burst balloon. It is therefore imperative to identify those first assumptions. If debaters do not agree on them, then debate is essentially impossible - you only have people standing on dogmas. Regarding absolute truth, the question remains open as to who is right and who is wrong in their dogmas. (Note that I use the word in a much broader sense than commonly used as a pejorative for religious stands.)
For example:

It strikes me that, if in fact any religion was in fact a reflection of the will of a higher being, that same higher being would have the werewithal to make sure that all religions would be somewhat more closely aligned than they are. Said higher being would also, presumably, have made sure that its message was made known to human kind from day 1
This I agree with. It is in fact what Christianity claims - that God DID so create man and openly communicated with him. The Fall (caused by the choice of humans to sin and break that communion) ended that. Thus, it was, according to the Christian faith not God's "fault".

Your first statements on the convergence of religions seems to reduce the concept of moral law to unimportance. In all of the major world religions it is of paramount importance. Human behavior is the central interest, so I cannot accept your statements as expressed at all. Since those religions are the most plausible to the reasonable mind, they are the only ones worth considering. It is unreasonable to, at one moment, attack Christianity for what it does profess, and at the next moment to bring in blanket charges valid only in regards to parochial religions.

I put it to you that you can find humans living in total peace and seclusion and STILL struggling with these questions. Thus, the need for safety from others cannot be the prime motivating factor.

It is true that faith, in the end, is a choice, and it cannot be arrived at by reason. It starts where reason ends; the limitations of our reason - something that we must place dogmatic faith in, by the way.
However, reason and faith ARE compatible, as most of the world's greatest thinkers over history have found, and it is entirely possible for a person to reason logically and admit mysticism where his reasoning cannot go.

Moral law is precisely the remarkable phenomenon that contradicts the idea of divergence of religions. If you can show me, as Lewis argued, lands where people are praised for cowardice and betrayal, where everything the whole world acknowledged to be moral is turned on its head, perhaps you will convince me of moral divergence. If religions were really so diverse, in that sense, and artifical creations, you would find a near 360 degree circle of what is moral. But in fact you find a range that does not, so to speak, exceed 90 degrees; iow, that there IS a moral compass and moral "north", and it is entirely possible that at least one religion actually has an accurate compass. The one thing that certainly does NOT logically follow is that there are many, therefore none can be right. There claims should be examined according to their merits. You are unlikely to find defenders of ancient Indian religions as having logical defense and apologetics, but they certainly exist for the major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism) and I am especially familiar with Christian theological claims, so to effectively deny them, you must know what the best of them are. Many know, and easily defeat the worst arguments (straw men) but are unable to defeat the best. But most don't even know what those best arguments are, and still think that they have a solid rational case against the faiths that propound them.

is4fun
31-01-2009, 17:02
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

Anonymous

Korotky Gennady
31-01-2009, 19:01
One of the great things that I have been learning from people like CS Lewis and GK Chesterton...
Dear rusmeister !

Try to make a go to read somebody else except CS Lewis and GK Chersterton, please... :cheerleader:

Korotky Gennady
31-01-2009, 19:03
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

Anonymous Better give him some money !

rusmeister
01-02-2009, 05:05
Dear rusmeister !

Try to make a go to read somebody else except CS Lewis and GK Chersterton, please... :cheerleader:

Gena, what I'm interested in is finding people that are smarter than me and learning from them. If they repeat tired old arguments that were answered centuries ago, then I'm not interested. It's a question of who's right. Be careful of ad hominem attacks! (If I can't beat the arguments, I attack the man...") They weaken anything you say.