Dave-W said:

First off - having looked at the wiki article - is that it is a misnomer.
"Anarchy" and "anarchism"mean the LACK of any kind of civil structure, government, and law. If you try to set up a biblical theocracy, you do NOT have anarchy. Anarchy is lawlessness, something repeatedly condemned in the bible. Not having leadership "sheep without a shepherd" was considered a CURSE.

As Iconoclast has said, we are instructed by both Paul and Peter to obey the civil authorities. And the Caesar at that time was Nero, an insane despot (not unlike Kim Jong Un) who loved to pick on christians.

Beyond that, we are never instructed to set up our own theocratic government system. The only one biblically sanctioned was ancient Israel under the Judges. Not even the monarchy under David was what God wanted.

So NO, I do not believe such a system would be remotely biblical.

Click to expand...

We must not confuse "anarchy" and "anarchism". The first is a state of lawlessness; the second is a political theory, some versions of which are not in conflict with Christianity.

No, I don't think you are especially cynical. The relationship between the clergy and the people is a veritable minefield. A complex web of relationships and piles of expectations, both reasonable and unreasonable. Like any family, you need respect and an allowance for a little bit of wiggle room, and that passes both ways. Clergy especially need to be authentic, that is, they need to believe, and their belief needs to find expression in their life with the community of faith and in the wider community. And we all fail in this, and we are all called to have the grace to get up and keep trying.

In a large city, the problem parishioner may well be able to find their place in another community of faith. In rural and less populated areas, you may well be the only choice people have, so it is fitting to try and fit in a bit, without losing authenticity.

I am sure there is a potential PHD these on this stuff.

bèlla said:

I posted 3 updates recently on the economy thread concerning Amazon (reducing 600k positions from the warehouse, drivers, etc.); UPS (reduced management and staff by 45k this year); Walmart (announced a 3 year hiring freeze). All of the changes are on account of Ai. Below is an article from 2019 regarding wearable use in the warehouse. You’re training your replacement unknowingly.

Wearables in the warehouse bring privacy concerns to the forefront

From smart watches and glasses to biometric clothing, wearables offer great potential in the supply chain as they enable workers to access information, identify tasks and make their jobs easier and safer.

The benefits make it no surprise that 70% of facilities will adopt wearables in the next five years to help employees increase efficiency, reduce errors and improve performance, according to a recent report by MHI.

But as many of these devices track movement, location and even biometric data, there’s a growing discussion about privacy and how employers should manage and use the information they collect.

“For example, the quantity of steps taken by an employee wearing the wearable device can be monitored and tallied for a task being performed, and this information can be used to determine how the movement of the employee throughout the facility can be modified to improve performance,” stated Walmart’s patent application.

~bella

Click to expand...

That was 6 years ago, when wearables were the new hotness. I’d be interested to know where things stand now; I suspect they’ve gone the way of VR and AR in that they still have some limited utility but were way overblown because techbros like hype.

The real endgame is just robots with sufficient dexterity that they can pick objects with odd shapes.

Tigran1245 said:

The fact that he became a priest, founded a monastery and began to lead it is already contrary to Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely true. Murderers are generally inelliglbe for the priesthood, with the only slight exception I’m aware of being St. Moses the Black, who is heavily venerated in your fellow Oriental Orthodox in the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox as well as by the Eastern Orthodox, but his crimes were before he was baptized, and what is more he was the leader of a monastery of repentant men, and thus received oikonomia from the Church of Alexandria, and he and his monks were famously martyred by robbers.

Amo2 said:

The main problem in all of the above, is that professed Christinas should become not only so divided, but actually mean spirited and violent toward each other.

Click to expand...

The only people engaging in violence towards Christians in the fourth century towards Christians were Pagans and Arians - neither of whom were professed Christians. Arians are not Christians, because they deny the Incarnation and deity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, and they persecuted us, not vice versa.

Indeed the amount of violence waged against Christians by Arians was extreme, including the sacking of Rome by the Visigoths and later the conquest of Italy by the Ostrogoths in the late sixth century.

Contrary to what your church asserts, there was no Christian on Christian violence. No violence between Christians happened on a large scale until the heretic Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople in the early fifth century and began persecuting Christians for using the word “Theotokos” in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary, for which he was deposed, but not met with violence, at the Council of Ephesus, in 433 AD.

If Rete's story is true he should have a good civil case, what he alleges happened is a violation of his rights

Strong in Him said:

Jesus never said, "before I come again, all believers will move to the Holy Land." He never said, "in end times, Gentiles will make their home there."

Click to expand...

The truth of our destiny as Christians, as Overcomers for God, as true Israelites, is to be Gods peoples, in the Holy Land - His witnesses and His Light to the nations.
This is Prophesied many times and is the logical finale to Gods plan for mortal mankind.

Strong in Him said:

not to take the words of the prophets that were written to others and declare that they are being fulfilled in our day

Click to expand...

Matthew 24:32 ...when the fig tree buds breaks into leaf...... is a fulfilled Prophecy ; by the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.
Matthew 24:33 ....by that sign, you will know the end is near.

Note: that verse 32 does not say the fig bears fruit. Paralleled by Matthew 21:19. The Jews never promote the Gospel. Matthew 21:43

Strong in Him said:

The world is still here.

Click to expand...

The modern world as we know it, will not continue forever. There are many signs of change coming, but what is Prophesied is beyond the comprehension of most.

I do appreciate your genuine attempts to correct a Christian brother. But I remain unmoved by opinion and long held Church doctrines, beliefs which are a contradiction of scripture.
For example: in Hebrews 8:11 it says that Christians will no longer need to teach one another in the New Covenant. If people think we are in the N.C. why is there so much variety of beliefs and Denominations?

rusmeister said:

I guess I’m sort of Serbian, whether I want to be or not. What I would be interested in are the changing parts of the surfaces. I dream of an app with which you could type in or punch in the necessary information for your church and get the correct changing parts of the service at all points. as long as they’re doing the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, I’m good, but as soon as they go to something local, especially in modern Serbian rather than old church, Slavonic, I’m lost.

Click to expand...

There’s an app being developed (see the Ponomar Project), and additionally I’m starting a project to write a library to make the development of more such apps easier - basically what we need is something where we can select our specific jurisdiction and various parameters within that and get the services according to the specific Typikon we are using (since many jurisdictions use more than one; there are for example in the OCA various typikons in use by the Russian parishes, the American parishes, the Albanian parishes, the Romanian parishes, the Bulgarian parishes and monasteries some with divergent rules, like New Skete, and in ROCOR they have for instance the Western Rite Vicarate and the Old Rite parishes such as The Church of the Nativity.

In this thread I will be focusing primarily on the variable parts of the services, especially those members might not otherwise encounter because they’re in parts of the Typikon usually abbreviated.

By the way @gurneyhalleck1 is a Serbian Orthodox convert if I recall.

Paidiske said:

Of course it is.

Click to expand...

It’s not, because the women of the Orthodox Church want the status quo ante. Has it occurred to you that (a) there exist plenty of denominations where our liturgy is availble with female celebrants and (b) that many women prefer male celebrants? As long as the majority of Orthodox women want the status quo, it can’t possibly be regarded as demeaning to women.

Otherwise you’re basically saying that Orthodox women don’t have the right to self-determination. They are definitely powerful enough within the church, and have enough allies among the episcopate who have spoken of the ordination of women, like Metropolitan Kallistos ware, that if the majority wanted it, as was the case in your denomination, they would have it.

You’re also denying, as I have pointed out before, the holy ministry of the Presbytera, since just as you have Kings and Queens, married clergy come in pairs - Presbyters and Presbyteras, and the Presbytera is as vital a force in the parish as her husband, being the spiritual mother to the parish in the same way her husband is the spiritual father.

Conversely, a monastic priest is called a Hieromonk.

Have you spoken with any Orthodox women on the forum about their preferences regarding the priesthood? Because you know, we have a subforum of The Ancient Way called St. Basil’s Hall where anyone can ask any question of our members, and another, St. Justin Martyr’s Hall, where you can criticize our doctrine and debate it as aggressively as you want (as far as I’m aware, the Eastern Orthodox are the only denomination that provides a place on our congregational forum for people to debate us)

Always in His Presence said:

Was this a riot or protest?

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

That's a "mostly peaceful " protest according to reporters

Valletta said:

George Will pretends to be a conservative. I'm a conservative, and I can't remember the last time I agreed with a George Will column.

Click to expand...

“Right-wing” != “conservative”.

Shane R said:

That's more what this congregation looks like. They don't care too much what I wear since they haven't had a pastor wear anything but a clerical suit in years. We have an understanding that I can't celebrate the Holy Communion there but that's only the 1st Sunday of the month.

Click to expand...

splendid!

It’s nice to see a few parishes where the ethos of competition for liturgical beauty survives, especially in those denominations that used to be among those churches that in the 1950s had equally resplendent services, like the Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Methodists, but is now mostly limited to Anglicanism, Lutheranism and a few other traditional churches.

stevevw said:

Yet heres the hypocracy. We have no evidence for the traditional methods. We have no simple wheel, no bore stick and no copper tubes or saws.

Click to expand...

And you wonder why people question your intellectual capacity and/or honesty by now claiming there is no evidence of traditional methods.

Exhibit A: A copper saw fragment from the 3rd dynasty by which stage the ancient Egyptians were supposedly using the equivalent of electric powered circular saws.

Exhibit B: The remnants of a copper tube drill and corundum abrasive in a drilled piece of limestone from the 18th dynasty.
Even though it is from the 18th dynasty, the Egyptians from this period used pounders and bronze chisels to produce much larger and more detailed granite obelisks than their Old Kingdom counterparts possessing the equivalent of electric powered circular saws, angle grinders etc.
(Please cease and desist with the idiotic theory the 18th dynasty obelisks are forgeries and were produced in the Old Kingdom).


Exhibit C: The plaster cast of Khufu's 4th dynasty granite sarcophagus as described in post@1008 which you conveniently ignored.
Let me repeat if the striations were produced by a circular saw the pattern would be circular and the kerf or groove width constant.
Instead there are straight parallel grooves and a variable kerf indicating a saw with abrasives were used where the variable kerf was caused by crushing of the abrasive probably sand against the granite during the sawing process.

Was this a riot or protest?

Login to view embedded media

The drug smugglers and narco terrorists really do want to kill Americans. I'm thankful to the Lord Jesus Christ that this shipment of illegal drugs was found and stopped at the border.

fhansen said:

ἑλκύω means essentially the same as draw or drag in English. It doesn’t inform one about how much force is used, much less that the force is irresistible. That’s to add meaning to the word, to insert theological bias into the definition, a bias that the early Koine Greek-speaking Christians apparently didn’t have going by what we know of their theology. The word is also used to mean “attract” or “appeal” to.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an example where the sense is "attract" or "appeal" without causative movement?

Semantic range does not erase semantic core. ἑλκύω consistently denotes an action that causes movement by the agent upon the object, never a mere invitation. Even in poetic contexts like Song 1:4 LXX, the movement is effectual: love's compulsion, not love's suggestion. John's own metaphorical uses (6:44; 12:32) retain this causative sense: an exertion of divine agency that results in actual movement.

At minimum, ἑλκύω in John 6:44 describes a decisive change of condition, from inability to ability. It does not describe an attempt to enable that might fail. It describes decisive movement. The governing verb is δύναται, not ἐλθεῖν; so to say the "drawing" is merely a non-compelling appeal is to claim that the Father's act of granting ability itself can fail. That creates a far greater theological problem than the one you imagine you're avoiding with a softened "appeal" interpretation.

If you hold that the drawing only confers ability but not faith itself, then the issue must be settled grammatically, not lexically. The argument for effectual calling (irresistible grace) rests on syntax, not the semantic range of ἑλκύω. The grammar of the text unites the one drawn with the one raised on the last day; it provides no category for a "drawn yet unraised" person. That is the crux. The grammar leaves no room for separating the enabled from the saved. You have not yet engaged my argument for this.

Further, your claim that ἑλκύω "doesn't inform one about how much force is used" mistakes precision for absence of meaning. The term does not quantify how hard the action is, but it does define who acts and that the movement decisively occurs. The lexical and contextual pattern is unidirectional causation, not mutual persuasion.

To summarize:

• ἑλκύω = effectual movement caused by the agent.
• "Appeal" = proposal awaiting response.

Those two concepts are not even lexical neighbors.

fhansen said:

No one argues this point, or shouldn’t, at least, as this is classic Christianity.

Click to expand...

I didn't make the statement as a controversial claim, but as an observation. So we agree, then, that apart from the Father's drawing, no man can come. But the text also tells us what happens when the Father does draw: that person comes and is raised up on the last day. That's the part of my argument you didn't engage.

fhansen said:

Purely speculative.

Click to expand...

There's nothing speculative about allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. The author of Hebrews himself contrasts those who "taste" with those who "share in Christ" (Heb. 3:14); Peter's proverb concludes that the dog "returns to its vomit," showing the unchanged nature of the animal. Neither text depicts a regenerate man losing life. They depict an unregenerate man reverting to form. If you believe these describe true believers losing salvation, it's your burden to argue that from the text, not mine to disprove your assertion.

Your last two paragraphs shift to sanctification and assurance. Let's focus on the argument I made from John 6:44 first. I assume you haven't conceded it, so I'm interested in your engagement with the points I raised.

I didn’t say there was a South African genocide.

You mean all this fuss is over 59 people? Because of their race

(staff edit)
Brother, I am going to have to continue explaining Heb. 4. Your commentary only covers what suits your belief and in your own words rather that how the verses are actually written. So in my previous post I established the audience and context which clearly shows that the writer of Hebrews is referring to those with faith.

“For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.””
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

This quote from Genesis 2:2 highlights that God's rest signifies the completion of His creative work. The Sabbath day rest was established as a type or shadow of this greater spiritual rest.

However, verse 5 connects the Old Testament example of the Israelites who did not enter the Promised Land with the future promise of God's rest. The condition for entering this rest is not a physical journey, but "faith in His promises, through His Son".
The inability to enter is due to a lack of faith, not a lack of the promise itself.

“Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Two subsets of people are listed here, those who have not entered yet which are non believers and those who had the good news preached to them but rejected it, Jews.

“He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.””
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭7‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

So here, instead of the previous seventh Day, God sets a new day and that is “today”. σήμερον translates as “this day”. This is a quote from Ps. 95:7-8 where David was pleading for Israel to have faith and not harden their hearts. So it is no longer about A day, one day a week, but about any day of the week. We should have faith every day and worship Him every day.

“For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

If Joshua’s rest would have been enough refers to going into the promised land. Joshua’s rest was not enough so then God himself would not have spoken by David of a better and heavenly rest promised to believers in the gospel. Remember that Joshua already had the Ten Commandments so the rest, even of the sabbath, was not enough.

“Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭9‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Since this is the rest that the Jews could not enter by faith, and since in the previous verse another day was chosen, and since verse 7 also confirms that another day was chosen, today, then this refers to the OT sabbath as a shadow of what is now Jesus’s rest. Also those that enter Jesus rest, by faith, has also rested of their works since works are the result of faith not the condition for faith. Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath and as such is our rest.

So I still need you to post a post crucifixion verse that requires the Christian to keep the 4th commandment.

Bradskii said:

Or a truck carrying drugs crossing the border. Or a house in Seattle from which dealers operate. Yeah, we know you think it's OK to summarily execute them.

That's your position. Thanks for explaining it.

Click to expand...

Sure bro. Let God sort them out.

Oompa Loompa said:

Yes. No different than a a drone blowing up a guy trying to plant an IED in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Or a truck carrying drugs crossing the border. Or a house in Seattle from which dealers operate. Yeah, we know you think it's OK to summarily execute them.

That's your position. Thanks for explaining it.

Dikaioumenoi said:

That directly contradicts what verse 37 says: "All that the Father gives me will come to me." The giving precedes the coming.


That's exactly what it says, almost verbatim...

What do you understand "coming" to mean?


Can you please interact with post #35? Particularly the middle and latter portions on John 6:44, 45.

Click to expand...

What about John 12:32? According to what Jesus said here, the way a person is drawn to Him changed after His crucifixion.

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.””
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

o_mlly said:

Who knows exactly what reasoning, if any, this poster adheres to. I suspect his positions are not rational but emotional.

Click to expand...

You say this. And then...

o_mlly said:

Rationally, we know that we never choose what we think is bad for us -- we always choose the apparent good.

Click to expand...

Exactly. As you said - not what we think is bad, but what we think is good.

o_mlly said:

For some "feelers", the "apparent good" is equivalent to the "real" good. These "feelers" adhere to the Jeffery Dahmer School of Morality -- if it feels good, do it.

Click to expand...

If you think something is good, then don't you adhere to it? I don't mean if it just feels good, because lots of things you and I might like to do we would consider things we shouldn't do.

Don't confuse 'Hey, this feels good' to 'This is the correct thing to do'. It's a straw man. You use it a lot.

o_mlly said:

Dahmer’s actions defied societal laws and violated fundamental moral principles. But to Dahmer, his acts were "good" because the acts made him "feel" good.

Click to expand...

Case in point. Just because it makes you feel good doesn't therefore make it good.

o_mlly said:

One cannot argue with how another "feels".

Click to expand...

No. If you feel something is right then I can't argue 'No, you don't'. But I can argue that your reasons for thinking it right are wrong.

So if you think that hunting animals for fun is acceptable then I can't argue that you don't. You really do think it's OK. But I think it's wrong. So we can argue about the reasons we each came to our decisions.

I thought this was pretty obvious to everyone. Apparently not...