/qa/ - Question & Answer

>Is there really any good reason to choose Orthodoxy over the one true church founded by Christ himself?
no, obviously

>Is there really any good reason to choose the one true church founded by Christ himself over catholicism?
yes, obviously

Not zoot but id reccomend venturing further down your spirital journey with God before you start caring about denominations, i say this because many people will larp orthodoxy/catholcism or whatever without even realising what theyre aligning themselves with
In the end were all followers of christ doe

>>3097
Yeah. What matters is do you really love God with all your heart? The theology follows with the Holy Spirit.

Not zoot either, but look into the theology. In my opinion it's the only truly other wordly faith. It alone holds the fullness of Christian teachings and is fully consistent. Everything else looks like a result of human meddling in comparison. The western denominations are legalistic similarly to judaism and islam but less so. Their approach is very human in nature, that's to say they try to square the faith with what we know here on earth and what we're used to.
>oh well we sinned and that put us in debt, just like crimes on earth, and then someone had to pay for that debt, like we do on earth, so Christ substituted himself in our place to pay our debt, like one would on earth
and then there's the purgatory
>well you aren't totally clean/accumulated more debt so you gotta pay for it yourself until you are clean
>but you can also pay for this with your worldly possessions!
Yeah, they profited from this with their indulgences, but that's not the only time they bent their doctrine. For example in crusades, where they said war can suddenly be good for your soul. This was obviously a political move to appeal to lords and aristocracy who engaged in wars (The Catholic church is and was a political player, even having it's own state).
And of course, at the end of this all, if you fail the checks and balances you're sent to hell where you're tortured as punishment.

This is what I mean when I say it sounds like work of human minds, and not a divine revelation. And it's night and day with Orthodox theology of Theosis. Theosis/Deification stands as so unique compared to every other faith there is, it's mystical and full and consistent with the rest of the faith. I feel inadequate explaining it and urge you to look into better sources than me, an internet passerby.
Still, I'll explain it to the best of my abilities. Orthodoxy makes a distinction between God's essence and God's energies. The essence is incomprehensible to us, we don't interact with this, but the energies of God can be felt by the created. These energies purify us if we expose ourselves to them, be it trough prayer, liturgy, repentance, doing good in God's name etc. By exposing ourselves to the energies of God we become more like God (thus deification). Think of a sword being put into a flame: The sword will become hot and glow, similarly to flame, but it will never become a flame, it will never copy it's essence. This deification is what we are here to do, to get deified by God's love, to prepare for the afterlife. It's about removing all the boundaries we put between ourselves and God by being of the world. Each sin isn't a crime, rather it is us pushing God away, and repentance is us breaking down these boundaries we erected. Good isn't himself bound by a construct of justice, like west would say, he doesn't withhold salvation from us, rather we ourselves reject it by sinning. Theosis is about receiving God's salvation, not earning it, not paying for it with someone else, but accepting what has been gifted to us.

Afterlife in Orthodoxy isn't as it is in western theologies. We don't make a physical distinction between heaven and hell, saying one group goes here, the other there. Rather, after the second coming earth will be renewed, as it was before the original sin. This is where the resurrected people will all live, all embraced by God's love. It will be heaven. However, this doesn't mean all will rejoice, those who didn't participate in Theosis won't be able to receive God's love, it will burn them. Those who didn't deify themselves on earth won't be able to rejoice in heaven, someone too wordly can't rejoice in an other wordly afterlife, as an addict couldn't rejoice in a rehab facility, no matter how luxurious it may be. In Orthodoxy, hell isn't a punishment imposed on you by anyone, it's your own personal failure to anticipate the coming age, an age for which you can't prepare for simply by doing x and not doing y, but by truly embracing God's love and letting it cleanse you of sin.

Again, I urge you look for an answer from an actual theologian or priest or a monk. But this is how I managed to articulate how I feel about the Orthodox faith and why I find it so compelling. There is of course the historical arguments about the rightful inheritor after the great schism, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to talk about that.

The most acceptable option is to become a Greek-Catholic (Uniat), and as a resident of an "orthodox" slavic country I consider that orthodogsy is no better than western Christianities like Protestantism or Catholicism.

P.s. any form of Christian faith is good but anyway orthodoxy for westerns in general and americans in particular would be too weird choice

>>3102
>ethnicity and nationality has any bearing at all on which religion you should convert to
blud…

>>3103
>Attributed to me words I never said or meant
???

>>3104
>orthodoxy for westerns in general and americans in particular would be too weird choice
How is that relevant to whether or not someone should consider Orthodoxy or convert to it? The only relevant factor is the authenticity of it's claims

>>3105
Okay, I just misunderstood your reply.

So, I meant that being orthodox outside the Ostropa (Eastern Europa) is very cringe and it won't be discussed ok (this is an obviousliest thing I ever know)

P.s. Christianity is religion of White man, not of the black-swarth-red-yellow chimphordes, therefore nationality (= ethnicity) is relevant to whether or not someone should consider [faith_name] or convert to it

>>3106
I don't think any of what you said follows.
God's objective truth isn't gatekept for one race or the other, Truth is objective. whether you're black, asian, arabic, slavic, germanic, mixed or whatever, Christ is God. He isn't some pagan hero dedicated to one tribe, he is the way the truth and the life, no one comes to Father except trough him.
And as such I don't see how converting to a religion is cringe just because it has the biggest hold on the slavic world. Your head is to stuck in the wordly to think about the other wordly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ky9eTKJnto

>>3107
>"God's objective truth isn't gatekept for one race or the other, Truth is objective. whether you're black, asian, arabic, slavic, germanic, mixed or whatever, Christ is God"
Do you know that they (non-white subhumans) aren't biologically people? They also aren't descendants of Adam lol, they are cursed by God (like Genesis 9), and for this reason they won't receive God's salvation

And I would end here, because I see no point in arguing further with globhomo believer, especially in eengleesch (yeah, i'm EFL, and?)

>>3101
as if orthodox mysticism wasnt inherited from previous eastern pagan cults, lol
it isnt any less "human" than what you call legalistic about catholicism

>>3108
>They also aren't descendants of Adam because I said so or something
>globohomo is when you claim the existence of objective truth or whatever
Also thanks for the quote of literally who from the 19th century only loosly related to your point, very persuasive
>>3109
Orthodoxy is mystic because we don't pretend that we are able to fully comprehend the divine. We preserve what we know and what has been revealed to us instead of trying to "figure out" something we can't
>muh paganism!
Like an atheist talking about Christianity, totally unsubstantiated. Papists keep coping

can the orthodoxy fag please stfu

>>3110
">They also aren't descendants of Adam because I said so or something"
Even Blumenbach knews that Adamites were white. And it's one of examples. As I already wrote, I’m tired of proving what is just obvious.

">globohomo is when you claim the existence of objective truth or whatever"
Hah, where?

"Also thanks for the quote of literally who from the 19th century only loosly related to your point, very persuasive"
>Meh my quotes are more correct than your quotes 'cause they just are ok?

I didn't expect any other result of this "dispute"

>>3111
>can you stop answering the question in the OP
keep seething, hide the thread if you dont like it
>>3112
>it's true because it's obvious and it's obvious because I said so
>even this other literally who knows im right!
…
>Hah, where?
reading comprehension worse than a nigger, for a second time
>Meh my quotes are more correct than your quotes 'cause they just are ok?
Church fathers > rando schismatic
Not much of a dispute, more so schooling

>>3102
Op and as I said I’m ethnically Eastern European. My name is equivalent to Ivan Ivanov in Russianness. Considering that plus how my grandpa has taken me to Orthodox churches before I wouldn’t consider it to be western larp to attend

>>3114
Not that I consider it bad that a westerner would convert to a faith that I’d consider to be true, it’s just that in my case I’m not

>>3113
>only Church Fathers are authorities
The Church Father Paul went to baptize Europe, not the trash of color. Why so?.. eh, just accept that the Canaanites (sons of Canaan and Cain like Kenites) have no right to be recognized as (pure) descendants of Adam. By the way, Israelites were white and european, and their God's chosenness was inherited by Europeans (for example, in the Old Testament was predicted that so-called Israel would live in the north-west of Levant, or Apostle Paul called the Romans the sons of Abraham). In the end, did our Lord Jesus, the main Person in our faith, teach the international marxist cuckoldism? Rhetorical question.

>>3114
It doesn't prove anything tho

>>3117
>tho instead of doe
Newdiety.. I knvvl..

>>3101
I dont know about you guys but im very conflicted on what "Hell" is, if im correct doesnt the bible claim hell as being the death of the soul? if there is no soul to exist how is any pain or lake of fire experienced?
if anyone could give second opinions thatd be nice

>>3118
>be me
>always use "doe"
>once use "tho"
>"haha newdeity"
My honest reaction

>>3118
both mean the same thing tho…

>>3119
As I said, look for someone who can explain it better than me. Soul does exist, humans are a soul and a body, death is the separation of the soul from the body, and after the second coming all the souls of the dead will be reunited with their bodies on the renewed earth. The hell for the damned will be the fiery love of God. For the righteous it warms them but the wicked it burns. There's also some complications with mistranslations attributing descriptions of hades to hell (place where the soul goes after death but before the second coming), again I'm not a theologian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v32B28r-fg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4fMNFc3qEA

>>3121
Even doe doe means doe and tho means though

>>3094
Orthodoxy has kept the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles(despite it being under all sorts of rulling regimes) and is the only valid church, while the Catholics have inovated on the teachings and have putten the Pope above Christ.

I would recommend for you to check orthodox theology and church history on your own free time. Here are some channels/sites that might be usefull:

https://www.youtube.com/@living_orthodox
https://www.youtube.com/@JayDyer/featured
https://www.youtube.com/@OrthodoxWisdom/videos
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbDsxw-e0m3k72OyeiVKsuAlsi80D0rpE
https://www.youtube.com/@OrthodoxKyle/playlists
https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/true-faith-blog-archive/3/
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page
https://orthochristian.com

>I'd probably be east catholic if the nearest church wasn't an hour away
eastern catholicism is a cope. at this point jut be an orthodox.

Anyways, I hope the links will be usefull to you.
God bless you.

>>3123
Even doe though means doe doe. Though means doe tho. Doebeit doe means doe though.

>>3125
Meds now

>>3126
Even doe doe means doe doebeit and therefore doe cannot be doe as in though doebeit

>>3128
You are right doe. This is doe doe while though is though doe. Doebeit doe and tho and though all mean though tho, doe is more doe than tho, maar tho is more thoughie than doe.
Maar is also but, maar in dutch doe.

>>3125
>while the Catholics have inovated on the teachings and have putten the Pope above Christ.
If you consider the Bible as only authority, then you are a protestant. Orthodoxy also, like catholicism, has a very clear hierarchy. And so-called "Eastern Catholicism" provide itself is the best evidence that the Pope (I mean the Popes which were until the 21st century) is better than, for example, Muscovian Patriarch, isn't it, Zoot?

>>3122
Makes sense, sometimes i worry i wouldnt enjoy heaven nor hell, eternity a long time surely it could get boring

>>3132
>using eastern catholics to refute orthodoxy even doe they refute catholocism
>>3133
Precisely. You ever hear some heathen say how they would be bored in heaven or how they would hate it in heaven? That's exactly the case, they indeed would hate it, they bathe in sin on earth and indulge in hate and pleasures and are suddenly transported to a world with nothing but heavenly hymns and worship.

>>3136
Lmao re-read my reply, I said that Orthodox patriarchs aren't as desirable to Catholics as the Pope is to Orthodox

>>3137
And unless you said that to refute the Orthodox position I don't see the relevance of that claim

>>3136
both choices are eternal, do you know how long eternity is? even though its eternity with God its a bit scary

>>3138
My point is that they aren't Catholics, who accept Orthodox doctrine, but Orthodoxies, who accept the supremacy of the Pope. Also only Eastern Christians large-scale came under the jurisdiction of the Pope, not other way round

>>3211
Well that just refutes papacy
If you can have Orthodox theology, Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox rules, reject the filioque, venerate saints vatican rejects, but still be in communion with the pope just by in some way accepting his primacy, then the catholic primacy and theology is just a joke.
Rome practically conceded to the Orthodox position for the sake of a "union". Or I guess it would be more fitting to say they reached the limit of what they could impose, seeing as the formation of the eastern rite was pretty forceful
>The Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596—under which all but two Ukrainian Orthodox bishops accepted, at the demand of their Polish Catholic king, the primacy of the pope—in a substantial way signaled the effective advent of Eastern rite churches. Other smaller groups had united with Rome in previous centuries, but the Ukrainians who were united with Rome at this time were the largest branch of Eastern Catholics to move in that direction. The Union of Uzhhorod (Uzhgorod) in 1646 brought many Ruthenians (or Rusyns) into the Roman Catholic Church when 63 Ruthenian Orthodox priests, who represented Ruthenians living under Catholic rule, accepted the authority of Rome while being allowed to maintain their liturgical language (Old Church Slavonic) and customs.

>>3211
>Also only Eastern Christians large-scale came under the jurisdiction of the Pope, not other way round
Shame on us for not being oppressive and forcibly converting, eh.
You think the Orthodox were just aching to submit to the pope? Orthodox Christian Romanians were persecuted by the Austrian Roman Catholics in the 18th century, the Hasburg ruler ordered destruction of all Romanian Orthodox churches and monasteries. Only sabata de Sus Monastery survived and it still has damage from the cannon fire. Not to mention the priests, monks and laymen that were killed. That's how the Romanian Eastern Catholic Church got converts, the Romanians got threatened with violence and even death if they didn't convert to Catholicism, so the Eastern Catholic Church became a compromise between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The same thing happened with the Ukranians, and to the Serbs during WW2 under the ustashe.
So hey, jokes on us for not being violent savages!

>>3213
>Orthodoxies are better than Catholics because they recognize the Bible as their authority, not the Pope
>Yeah, they recognize the supremacy of the Pope over themselves, and? They are still Orthodoxies!
Only I could say is that post probably have been written by pidorashka, judging by it logic mistakes.

>>3217
Obsessed hohol

>>3214
Read about "Vunijackaja Carkva", silly westoid. You're literally quoting moskalian propaganda lmao

>>3218
Wrong

>>3220
sry,
*obsessed potatorus

>>3228
My honest reaction