Sub you show a lack of understanding when it comes to the development of Christianity. Christianity is not monolithic, but it is not subject bound to the whims of the people of the day. No thats not the case. Again you can only come up with the treatment of certain Chrsitains against certain other groups and act as if they are all the same, as if they are both totally legitimate within the Christian context. That the slave owners in america and treatement of the natives was proper, despite the abolitionists against slavery and even the great patristic reference against slavery. There is that inherent idea within Chrsitaintiy that man is created in the image and likeness of God, thus he has fundamental dignity man, and she does as well woman. So when we place another under our subjection what does that tell us about ourselves if we believe that God has made every man? Some Justified it by saying that Black people werent really people but the witness of those Christians in ethiopia and St Moses the black clearly goes against such an understanding. you are right to say that Christians have done bad things, but you are wrong to say that they were directly a result of Christianity and not directly a result of humanity, the leftovers of that old pagan culture. I don't think the west or the east has ever had a perfect Christian society, not one of them, not even Constantinople where my Patriarch resides and rules over the church. But we do not in Christianity reject Peter because of Judas, rather we accept the truth and leave the evil.
Now fundametnally I will say this about Christianity, the reformation has wounded what was Christianity. Thus when i say the protestants are Christian, I fully mean it, but I cannot say they have a perfect faith, only but a partial faith. This would go well against an argument trying to refute protestantism. That is how fundamentally different they are from those before them. The fathers and the saints before them did not believe in their doctrines, SOla scriptura, Sola Fide, sola this and that, they did not. They had ecclesiology, they had Christology, they had Tradition and they had scripture. All of which the four most ancient churches to this day still accept. You would find scarcely a difference between the churches of Alexandria (coptic that is) and the Church of greece (Orthodox Catholic that is) except in only one regard and even today that regard may be closed within my life time God willing.
So if you want to argue what Christianity is, and if you want to say I don't have true Christianity simply because Others dissagree with me, you better suppose a true Christianity, because I have my reasons for accepting Orthodoxy over all of these other innovations and the like. But I don't think you have a comprehensive reason to dismiss orthodoxy, only vague irregulaties between the non communicant churches.
And I will just comment on some of those attrocities. Do you realise that it was the Orthodox in the fourth crusade whom were butchered by the latins? Icons stolen and relics desacrated? The Patriarch being replaced with a Latin Patriarch? Yet I still regaurd the crusades as necessary and I cannot find it in me to condemn the motivation for the crusades. To Protect Christians coming to the Holyland and to reclaim what was once Christian Land. Again The crusaders made evil, such as the fourth crusade, but we and even the Latin Catholics today recognise those evils together and the Pope has reutnred those icons and relics. So your missing the larger picture, insisting on little incidents within the widerscope.
Philokalia
As for slavery, The concept and practice existed long before the Bible and within many cultures around the world, However, While one cannot place the blame for slavery on Christianity one could easyily argue the case that it was greatly responsible for the practice lingering as long as it did. Slavery Existed during the time of Jesus, Yet he makes not attempt to put an end to the practice, The Bible even goes as far as to reinforce it. How could Jesus be so tolerant to such a practice, The trading, Selling and owning of other human beings?
As for the Crusades, They had as much morallity underlining them as Game of Thrones. It had very little to do with keeping Christian pilgrims safe, They were always free to come and go from Jerusalem under Muslim control, In fact very little of the internal religious based politics in Jerusalem changed during the transition between Muslim to Christian rulers. The site was so sacred to all the Monotheist faiths that in order to keep long term peace they rarely restricted people from comming and going as they pleased and where tasked with protecting all. The first crusaders who breached the walls of Jerusalem in 1099 didn't seem too concerned between the distinction between Saracen, Christian and Jew, They slaughter all. They were more concerned about looting, Raping and pillaging everything of value. That included vast desecration of sacred structure and artifacts of all 3 faiths. Not sure what their logic was, They were promised absolutism so maybe they figured God would forgive all.
Log in to comment