Hey bros, I figure I’d ask this question here since I’ve spoken to some really intelligent Christians on here. I converted to Islam after being Catholic my whole life (over 20 years, got a private Christian education grades 1-12 and everything, studied the fathers, etc) about a year ago, but I’ve recently found out more about orthodoxy. I actually like and respect the tradition a lot, but like all of the other Christian denominations (though I’ve pretty much realized now that every denomination save orthodoxy is indefensible/generally moronic), I feel that it just simply doesn’t set up realistic regulations for its followers. I understand Paul’s whole thing about the law being a curse and all that, it isn’t that I don’t understand it, I just don’t see how it’s supposed to work in the real world. For example, in Islam, if a woman cheats on her husband and is caught by 4 witnesses that see penetration (despite the near impossibility of such a conviction sticking), she’ll be stoned to death. Likewise, if a wife’s rebellion against her husband is excessive, the man holds the right to discipline her (this is a complex subject that I think a lot misunderstand, but the point is that it works). Though I absolutely believe that the religion of the Israelites understood human nature very well (the OT has a myriad of redpilled verses about the basic functions of women, for example), I don’t think Christianity maintained this realism about human nature and particularly relationships. If a Christian man cheats on his wife or does something to destroy the life of another person, what’s his punishment? What happens to him? I understand that Orthodoxy holds that the law has now been spiritualized, so perhaps an answer lies in that. Can anyone clarify this all for me?
>I converted to Islam after being Catholic my whole life (over 20 years, got a private Christian education grades 1-12 and everything, studied the fathers, etc) about a year ago, but I’ve recently found out more about orthodoxy.
That's just called larping
>having a problem with the obvious holes in the mainstream Christian narrative is LARPing!
Lmao, checked tho
Name three.
The law thing I mentioned, the reliance on mysterianism to justify the Trinity, prophecies of Jesus that could be attributed to other people that don’t particularly match up with Jesus
>the reliance on mysterianism to justify the Trinity
Why do you consider God to be something that should be totally graspable by your mind? It is a key point of traditional Christian theology that we do not know the essence of God, and what we know about God is through his interactions with us, particularly through Revelation. Muslims appeal to mystery too when they say ‘Bila kayfa’ and trust what God (so they believe) has revealed in the Qur’an. Even with this said, St. John of Damascus in his ‘On the Orthodox Faith’ and in the works of the Cappadocian Fathers all give very in-depth treatments of the Trinity. Traditional Christians have understood that theology is impossible outside of spiritual practice and insight. It’s a supra-rational doctrine and a product of Revelation. Even then, we can conceptualize it to some extent.
>prophecies of Jesus that could be attributed to other people that don’t particularly match up with Jesus
This comes down to typological readings of the Bible. Many people in the Old Testament are prefigurations of Christ, and Christ says that the OT is all about him in Luke 24, and we trust what he says. Jesus absolutely fulfilled the prophecies, and the ones he appears not to have fulfilled will be fulfilled either in the future or the World to Come. Even the israelites realize that there is a Suffering Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph) and a King Messiah (Messiah ben David), and in the later tradition these were split into two people, rather than what Christians saw revealed in Christ, i.e. that they were a single person. If you’re talking about something like the restoration of Israel, Christ founded the Church, and gave us the Kingdom of God, which is by no means outside of our reach even right here and now. He has led us on a spiritual Exodus from the bondage of sin in Egypt from to the Promised Land, his Kingdom.
If you sincerely want to know Christ, pray and you will receive when the time is right
>Why do you consider God to be something that should be totally graspable by your mind
Exactly, nta but again according to your own logic, the trinity makes no fricking sense. Jesus was supposed to be human and God just like you. "Ye are Gods" "Those who believeth unto me will do greater things" etc. I dont feel like pulling out the verse chapter numbers, you can look those up if you want. They're right out of your Bible. The word "God" is more all-encompassing and obviously implies much more mystery than the obnoxious "trinity" pushed by the Catholic Orthodox Judeo-Masonic pieces of shit
>Catholic Orthodox Judeo-Masonic pieces of shit
>Masons, israelites, and Catholics all are united in pushing for an absolutely simple monad God that is either completely unexperiencable in the deistic side, or is identical to the world itself in the pantheistic side
nta, Orthodox Trinity has nothing in common with either of those two consequences of the pagan monad they all believe in. If you want to know more, look up that Anon's referenced sources
>Orthodox Trinity has nothing in common with either of those two consequences of the pagan monad they all believe in
Cope you moronic illiterate subhuman I'm not wading through your fake bullshit to tell you why you're moronic. I'm just here to tell you that you're moronic. The fact that you're on THE zimbabwean frog breeding forum and you don't know this basic shit is pretty concerning. You and all your Christcuck friends can frick right off. You people never seem to concern yourself with Krishna or Kali but everybody needs to bow down to Yahweh. How about have a nice day instead. Because a real God, you know being infinite and all, wouldn't get envious over stupid shit such as "idolatry" as if they were a fricking child
>You people never seem to concern yourself with Krishna or Kali but everybody needs to bow down to Yahweh
Kali and Krishna are idols that should be smashed, the Bible already addresses this.
>Because a real God, you know being infinite and all, wouldn't get envious over stupid shit such as "idolatry" as if they were a fricking child
God's law exists for our benefit, not his. He doesn't need us or our worship. We need him.
Given we depend on him, the worst thing God could do to a person is to leave them alone. But he doesn't for God is always with us. His hand is always outstretched. You just have to reach out and hold it.
>Krishna
>Worshipping the Lord of Illusions (ie, lies, blatantly a demon)
>Kali
>Metaphysically simping for the Ur tik tok witch thot
The reason why you don't eat plastic counterfeit rice is because it damages your insides and poisons you, because you're not designed to eat plastic. The reason why you don't worship false Gods is because conforming yourself to the image of demons destroys your soul.
>Jesus was supposed to be human and God just like you.
Jesus was God by nature. Human beings are not. The Word of God came down and assumed our human nature into himself, deifying it. We can become ‘gods’ by grace and through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus repeatedly says that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that he is one with the Father, and that he was pre-existent, and that he who abides in the Son is has the Son abide in him, and that if we love God and follow his commandments, the Father and the Son will come to abide within us, and that wherever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, he will be among them. This is not just a man.
You just don’t understand the Gospel. It’s about theosis. The Word became man so that we may become god. He, though he was rich, became poor, so that we may become rich through his poverty — straight from Paul. Man was created for communion with God, we fell into sin and alienation from God, so God the Son came down to fulfill the will of the Father, and to bring the lost sheep back. We are ‘gods’ potentially, because we can become baptized into the Body of Christ and become deified by grace, partaking in the divine nature, and being conformed to the image and likeness of God, in which we were created. Jesus Christ himself *is* the image of God the Father, so what does that make us?
Quads of truth.
Everybody on Earth is "larping" moron get used to it
So you think you know better than God? That’s the argument you’re making.
OP, for the love of God, please, before you screw yourself over even more, you have to realize that there is no perfect religious system or institution out there. Just settle down and practice your tradition (the one you were raised in), and remember that you can still learn and grow from readings and interacting with other traditions.
>perfect religious system
Show me you have never read the Sermon on the Mount without saying it
You approach religion just like a Talmudic israelite. The goal of the Gospel is imitation of God and partaking of the divine nature, meanwhile Muslims are debating over being voyeurs and watching women getting penetrated.
What does it even mean for something to be realistic, or good? You’re talking about something which you, fallen man, perceive as good, but Christians seek to uphold God’s law, not your law.
That’s kind of an odd argument when you consider the fact that you believe God gave man laws similar to the ones I mentioned in prior times (regardless of if they were abrogated or spiritualized). It’s clear that God understands things like patriarchy creating stability. Paul says the head of the woman is the man, it’s not about what I’m claiming is “good”, we both agree on these things.
But they’re God’s laws, transmitted to us directly by God. They are not the laws which you personally perceive as good, just, or realistic. To take issue with God’s law because you personally believe it’s unrealistic misses the point entirely.
One more time, it’s not ME that has a problem with them, I don’t. I think the Mosaic law’s restraints on things like promiscuity are good, that’s not the issue. I’m not judging one over the other, I just don’t understand how the “spiritualization of the law” (which I see as the only sensible version of this doctrine) can account for this kind of thing
> I don’t have a problem
> but my problem is I don’t understand…
Sounds like you do have a problem and you’ll have to admit that before you can have a conversation about it.
That’s fine, I don’t really care. If it helps you sleep at night, then sure. So now can you explain how the spiritualization of the law accounts for this? Because it clearly does for other statutes. For example, when Jesus says that it isn’t what goes into one’s mouth that defiles him but rather what comes out of it. This is (sensibly) understood as a spiritualization of the kashrut laws. So, unless you believe Christ legitimately fully abrogated laws about say, stoning adulterers, (which would obviously make you a heretic and put you at odds with the numerous verses that say the Law will last forever, and that Christ isn’t its end but rather it’s fulfillment), you have no leg to stand on
>converted
Lol.
>relativism and syncretism
Lol
>relativism and syncretism
No syncretism, or relativism, infact it is awareness of the Ineffable absolute, and all the esoteric traditions practice this, the best among them are traditions of light gnosis.
Read Rene Girard
Isn’t he the mimetics guy? What does he have to do with this?
You have to understand something tho, that Christianity (Orthodoxy) is a Kingdom, a Spiritual Kingdom, that materializes in the Church, the new Israel. Our conduct, our canon laws and so on, concern the Church you see. Now there were states that based their judicial system on the Church's laws, like the Roman Empire. Which gave the blueprints let's say to all present states' judicial systems. But that can be the case or not, doesn't matter for us, we follow our King, he's our Lord, and our Judge when the time comes. We live accordingly to that. So that is how it impacts 'the real world' as you said.
My 2 cents, hopefully, someone else will explain it better to you
THIS was the response I was looking for, which is why I wanted an orthodox Christian to ideally respond. I’m not sure if you know the YouTuber Jay Dyer (orthodox apologist), but he made a video about the spiritualization of certain laws in Leviticus, and at one point he said something similar to this. Is there any book on how the law is spiritualized though?
Can you link the video?
They get a little bit derailed at points, but the purpose of the stream is exactly related to my question
Yes I know Jay Dyer. No, I'm not well versed on this matter so can't point you to anything. Sorry
No worries at all man, thanks anyway
I'll add a bit more.
So the repercussions of sin such as adultery are in "Church" terms like I said, so it would mean a penitence of not being able to commune for X years. But this is up to the spiritual father. It's not something strict, obligatory.
And it's worth mentioning the beautiful passage about the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John:
>"Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
>And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
>And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
>They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
>Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
>This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
>So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
>And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
>And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
>When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
>She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
This is to say that forgiveness is greater than punishment. A key concept of the New Covenant. The woman has to repent and sin no more, this is the Christian way.
It's important to remember what Apostle Paul said: the Old Law was given by the angels, the New one by God himself. Hence the superiority.
Also we Christians separate what is to Caesar and what is to God. Like Christ said to Pilate: "My Kingdom is not of this world".
In Islam you don't have this concept, your religion is basically a universal judaism, meaning instead of just for one people, you want all the nations under this (politically and spiritually) rule and it has the same (legalistic) spirit. It follows the old law, rejects the divinity of Christ, and it wants worldly power, as the israelites wanted, hence they rejected Christ as the Messiah, because they were expecting a political leader. This why Islam exists do you get it? It's a trick. Understand this and become Orthodox.
Very interesting answer, but I should point out that forgiveness overriding punishment is probably the most important concept of Islam (see Tawbah). The primary struggle I have with Christianity is that, in Islam, I see a much more holistic version of the law. The shari'a has both Christian higher spiritual elements (this is emphasized constantly in the hadith literature) and legalistic Israelite elements. So to me, it seems Christianity is lacking half of that.
It is strange to me that hadith is so fundamental to Islamic spirituality and law when it began to be recorded only in the Abbasid period. For 200 years jurisprudence, such as it was before the golden age, was based on deriving knowledge and testing existing knowledge against the Quran. Key concepts such as the four witness criterion were codified in this period.
Then the Abbasids mount a revolution against the Umayyads, with success primarily due to the desire for increased opportunities to the middle class and political involvement; and within a span of 50 years, the search for hadith was mounted, with arbitrary standards of legitimacy.
Beyond that, some scholars even placed hadith above the Quran and insisted on Quranic interpretation secondary to the example of hadith. This process was only opposed by the Mu'tazila theologians who rightly pointed out that many collections involved equally-trustworthy but contradictory hadith; and that only the very rare thoroughly-attested mutawatir hadith could hold any greater knowledge than hearsay. Instead, the Ahl al-Hadith predominated.
The end result of this was that the rationalists withered away or were subjugated to the traditionalists, who indeed mingled heavily with the liberal pragmatists under state pressure. Between the rationalists and traditionalists was born the current semi-rationalist abomination which allows Islam to do whatever it wants and base it on the opinion of a licit jurist.
I fail to see how the resulting situation is either legalistic or spiritual. Legalism is a sham because the reasoning is grounded in unfalsifiable innumerable hadith, meanwhile spirituality is crippled because the mystic cannot refute the dogmatic semi-rationalist any more than the rationalist could.
>If a Christian man cheats on his wife or does something to destroy the life of another person, what’s his punishment?
Not a Christian but I assume that you'd follow established israeli practices. Now what are the israeli practices about this? No idea.
So this is really the crux of the issue. I don’t really care about the Protestant or Catholic opinions, but the Orthodox say that those same israeli laws have been “spiritualized”, and I want to know how they define spiritualization of a law like stoning for adulterers
The law was spiritualized because the mortal consequences of violating the law and the legal retribution were extended into the spiritual realm.
In other words, regardless of whether or not the community punished the adulterer, the adulterer would face spiritual consequences. This was not really the case in Classical Judaism which did not have a codified conception of the afterlife, and viewed the enforcement of the laws as a necessary means to worldly order and prosperity; and the wicked would also feel consequences in life, individually, as well as collectively for the failures of their society and predecessors.
Christianity added another dimension to this. The role of the community was not abrogated, instead the Roman legal system was Christianized to serve the role. Previously, the Roman and Hebrew systems worked in much the same way: maximum sentences were defined, and subject to the outcome of a legal process. In that sense, with Christianization, there was no reduction in standards or the understanding of the role of the law, or the seriousness of sin. The individual and the community would be spiritually subject to the consequences of sin.
The role of the community changed to accommodate this. The religious sphere of life adopted shunning, denial of communion, and excommunication as direct means to influence community members. In the legal sphere, executions were seen as licit but unfavorable except in the most extreme cases. Over time, extreme economic fines and mutilation/amputation were seen as preferable punishments, in order to repay the crime and to reflect the sin of the spirit in the flesh of the body.
Muslims stole a lot from the Byzantines, by the way, including the concept of veiling and secluding elite and middle class women in the home, which was also practiced in Russia to a lesser extent.
Orthodox societies persisted like this until the 19th century, even in Islamic societies under a separate legal apparatus. What changed was that the Muslim yoke was lifted by radical nationalist liberals, and Russia was first partially Westernized and then toppled by communists. This is why Orthodox societies are currently modernized.
But I would caution against seeing this as a fatal situation. Islam only polarized to the currently-emphasized legalism as a result of Western Christian empires, and they are more lenient than they seem, outside of sectarian contexts. And they are still succumbing to the pressures of modernity, if you look at birthrates, even with the adherence they possess. Meanwhile, Greece has mostly escaped the literal masonic dominance of their clergy, and the Russians escaped Communism.
I would say that the essence of Orthodox Christian organization of secular society has been illiberal constitutionalism. This certainly applies to the Romans, it applies to premodern Russia, it is burgeoning in contemporary Russia, the Serbs ended up practically breaking their Kingdom of Yugoslavia because they wouldn't liberalize it enough against the interests of the Church.
To be entirely fair, in modernity, and especially in the context of this discussion, Islam shares this characteristic. Iran is a pretty good example of principled Islamic rule. However, Islamic jurisprudence is not as concrete as Roman law and Islamic societies have been more subject to sectarianism and despotism.
One important difference is that unlike in Iran or in very many historical Islamic societies, Orthodoxy generally rejects the concept of religious figures having or sharing secular power, except on the most local level. Orthodoxy does maintain a soft form of church-state separation, because the ascetic principle must never be compromised through exposure to worldly motives. The Church and the State should be two fraternizing entities with overlap, but not one body. Even this has led to problems, the Roman Emperors were considered to be secular figures with some modicum of religious power, and this generally worked, but they also proceeded to launch a number of heresies on this basis.
This preference has only been explicitly violated a few times. In the Metropolis of MonteBlack, it happened because of the collapse of domestic rule and the failed imposition of foreign rule in a highly-divided tribal society with no other authority. To wit, that didn't work out too well and the Prince-Bishop became a secular Prince. In Russia, the (Enlightenment) Imperial ideology of Peter the Great subjugated the whole Church with it becoming basically a state department, leading to massive corruption and decay of Church standards, and eventually abetting the Communist takeover and placing the Church in a terrible terrible situation.
OP, I would therefore advise you not to pursue Orthodoxy if the concept of legitimate theocracy is appealing to you.
This was exactly the answer to my question, thank you. Really impressed by how much you know, but I would correct a few things.
>Islam stole from the Byzantines
The concept of purda (women staying in the home) was practiced in Arabia before the emergence of Islam. When Islam came, it actually was extended to even include poor women (women are not obliged to work like men, hence why in most Muslim countries the man will have multiple jobs). This goes for actually a fair amount of things in Arab society at that time, like the concept of blood money.
Also, in regards to your last point, why are there so many orthodox monarchists? I’ve known a few orthodox in my life, and the actual pious traditionalist ones tend to sway towards monarchy/anti democracy ideologies with one leader. As for me, I don’t really care, I just want the truth
Thank you for the correction on that; historians suspect the system at least intensified with time, on the grounds that women are present as active public figures during the Rashidun and recede past the Umayyad period. But I went looking and sure enough, the Quran contains verses that imply both veiling and seclusion.
However, now I will correct you and point out that many poor families could not afford to have the wife and daughters at home! In premodern and especially slaving economies, labor was worth even less and multiple jobs wouldn't bring enough income either. As such, even with charity measures and strong moral opinion, the poor families could not adhere to the seclusion of women.
>why are there so many orthodox monarchists?
There are a number of factors.
It's partially because in the Hellenistic world, royalty became a cherished Greek institution, in contrast to the oligarchical past. Great cities like Antioch and Alexandria became the centers of Greek culture, and the successor monarchies of Alexander lavishly funded art and philosophy, and cultivated the ideal of the philosopher king. (Poorly, I might add, with some exceptions). When the Roman Empire was split in two, the ideal of the divinely-appointed and somewhat divinely-inspired monarch was applied to the Eastern Emperors. This idea was entrenched with the rule of Emperors like Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian, along with many others who were competent and intellectual along the lines of the philosopher-king - some others who were among the worst heresiarchs ever, but now I digress.
Orthodox Christians and especially trad types will have a poor opinion of people, partially due to the sort of person that is common today, but Orthodoxy itself does not recoil from labeling all humanity as sinful and inherently fallen. As such, clearly, the undifferentiated mass of people can generally contribute fallen impulses; trusting them to steer society is a bad move. Pride is one of the worst sins, and democracy nurtures pride among others. That's if you take democracy seriously.
If you don't, on top of all that, it is an baseless illegitimate construct created to pacify the masses.
There is a lot of seethe over communism and how they face-planted after getting rid of the kings. Communism appeals to democracy, more proof of the idea that common people should be controlled. This is more popular in Russia, where the Emperors were never very impressive.
I have seen people claim that Eastern Rome was weakened by the civic republican values inherited from the Republic. You could become emperor if the people acclaimed you. Lacking a strong principle of succession, the Romans constantly squabbled for power, and foreigners took advantage, most famously during the Fourth Crusade. This argument might have some merit, but it's hard to tell where the meritocratic elements helped out.
I am not necessarily a monarchist, but an illiberal constitutionalist.
>If a Christian man cheats on his wife or does something to destroy the life of another person, what’s his punishment? What happens to him?
The wages of sin is death
Christianity never said people should never be punished. And it's not as simple as 'he apologised therefore he's forgiven'.
If you want to understand the spirit above the law in Christianity, then look at Western culture for the past thousand years. Look how much higher the philosophy of Schiller stands towards to strict forbiddals of the axiel age, Israelite or Greek (you find a thematic conjunction between the OT and Greek tragedy).
>in the Christian religion I find an intrinsic disposition to the Highest and the Noblest, and its various manifestations in life appear to me so vapid and repugnant simply because they have missed expression of that Highest.
>If one would lay hand on the characteristic mark of Christianity, distinguishing it from all mono-theistic religions, it lies in nothing less than the upheaval of Law, of Kant's' Imperative,' in whose place it sets free Inclination. In its own pure form it therefore is the presentation of a beautiful morality, or of the humanising of the Holy; and in this sense it is the only aesthetic religion.
Very interesting. Not too familiar with Schiller's philosophy but I like his poetry
>you find a thematic conjunction between the OT and Greek tragedy
Can you elaborate on this?
>Can you elaborate on this?
Only that God, the gods, religion and law seem to occupy a similar place among cultures in this age, which can be called the axiel. Which is testified to in their great artistic products, reflecting similar moral questions. Though I don't deny the enormous differences, I just always thought a dialogue between the Book of Job and Greek tragedy would be fruitful.
It's a very big question which would take a very deep investigation. I just think about it occasionally.
>typological readings of the Bible
Yeah, I'm aware of typology. I actually don't even have an issue with it as a valid exegetical method. Daniel says that he "observed prior occurrences to ascertain future events", which imo establishes it as completely valid. My problem is the fact that its limits are foggy and can even align with my narrative. For example, Matthew uses the verse "out of Egypt I call my son" to refer to Christ's exit from Egypt after he had fled there escaping persecution, and this is mirroring the Exodus. However, that initial verse is negative, and is condemning Israel for repeated disbelief.
Likewise, I could read Isaiah 29:12 ("The book will be given to the illiterate and he will be told to read, but he will say that he cannot") and perfectly match that up with the first revelation of the Prophet Muhammad, literally 1 to 1 (see Surah Alaq and related ahadith).
Then we also have to address Isaiah 42 (which, when cited in Matthew, seems very odd and out of place). The verse is typically understood to be messianic, with the type being Cyrus and the antitype being the Messiah (see rabbinical commentaries utilizing Pardes that say Cyrus is depicted on the Midrashic level but the Messiah on the esoteric one), but it doesn't make sense at all in light of Christ.
Cyrus was a gentile conqueror selected by God to free the israeli people (mirroring the Muslim defeat of Rome which persecuted israelites), controlled the East and West at his time (likewise, so did the Muslims), and was likely Zoroastrian, which some Muslims affirm used to have a much stronger monotheistic tendency than the kind of Manachaenism it now has. To make this even more interesting, Surah Kahf in the Qur'an which talks about the "two horned one" Dhul Qarnayn (see images of Cyrus where he has two horns on his head, symbolizing east and West) was revealed when a group of prominent learned rabbis came to the Prophet to see if he was a true bringer of revelation. They almost certainly asked him about Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn because they understood Isaiah 42 properly, and saw typological significance in it. This would of course also explain why they were living in Medina ("let the tents of Kedar rejoice").
This would be cool, good idea for a book or film. I've always felt Ecclesiastes could be compared to some early presocratic ideas about the world of flux.
>Likewise, I could read Isaiah 29:12 ("The book will be given to the illiterate and he will be told to read, but he will say that he cannot") and perfectly match that up with the first revelation of the Prophet Muhammad
Muhammad was not illiterate. He told the cave demon that he was not a qāriʾ, i.e. a reciter. This is what the root primarily means, to recite, to read, to vocalize. Qur’an means ‘recitation’ for this very reason. There also many ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari which mention Muhammad writing:
“The Prophet (ﷺ) wrote the (marriage contract) with `Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).”
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5158
“Ibn `Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet (ﷺ) became worse, he said, 'Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.' But `Umar said, 'The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us.' But the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet (ﷺ) said to them, 'Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me." Ibn `Abbas came out saying, "It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise”
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:114
Muhammad was also a merchant and well-travelled, having been to Syria and similar places. He was indisputably literate. The illiteracy claims are later Muslim copes.
>Then we also have to address Isaiah 42
Is a prophecy of Christ.
Jesus is the light to the world who made a New Covenant, opened the eyes of the blind, and preached to those imprisoned in Hades when he descended into it. The Spirit was upon him, and the Gentiles all followed Christ, just as it was prophecized in Isaiah, and in the Psalms, and in many prophetic books. Isaiah 9, 11, 49 and many other chapters make it clear that the Davidic Messiah is the one in question here. It has nothing to do with Muhammad.
> let the tents of Kedar rejoice
Christ is the light even to Kedar, even as to all Gentiles. I hope you know that for centuries there were Christians all over Arabia in Najran, Yemen, the Nabataean area, etc.
>Surat al Kahf
Is indisputably Alexander the Great, and is based off of Syriac Christian fanfiction (Alexander Romance) almost line-for-line. Coins with a horned Alexander even circulated in the region.
> For example, Matthew uses the verse "out of Egypt I call my son" to refer to Christ's exit from Egypt after he had fled there escaping persecution, and this is mirroring the Exodus. However, that initial verse is negative, and is condemning Israel for repeated disbelief.
Everyone knows that in context that God is talking about Israel and not the Messiah. Israel is often called God’s son in the Bible, such as in Exodus 4:22 when God says that Israel is his firstborn son, etc. Hosea 11:1 is a summation of the history of Israel and how God continously leads his people out of bondage and apostasy from their covenant. All of Hosea is about the relationship between God and Israel, and Israel’s apostasy, and God’s enduring and steadfast love for Israel, and his promises to restore them to a greater status than ever before. The Exodus itself under Moses was merely a foreshadowing of Christ leading his people from bondage to sin and death. Matthew is highlighting this, and how this is the summation of the history of Israel, about to fulfilled to its ultimate status, when God’s only-begotten Son returned from Egypt. And even we as Christians can by adoption become sons of God, and we are called out of the Egypt of sin back into the Kingdom.
You have correctly identified basically the fulcrum of forgiveness and how it operates in practice. It is not altogether possible or purely human nature because it transcends it entirely. In essence
>But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Humanity has two natures and these are the lowly, bodily, and the upper mental, the law, in a sense, is the relationship of the upper to the lower in a communal setting whereas the Gospel is the relationship of the upper to God:
>But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
with
>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
We see this in proverbs where they mix these fundamental forces up:
>A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
In essence, law leads us to transcendence in the Gospel because law is to the fall as the Gospel is to the resurrection. What you need to recognize is that to perfectly forgive, even adultery and murder, is to perfectly be children of God in essence. That being said, being practical and relying on the Law in weakness is acceptable but it is also a weakness.
You mentioned domestic things. Keep in mind, women and men are equally divinely worthwhile but:
>"Look, am I to make her a man? So that she may become a living spirit too, she's equal to you men, because every woman who makes herself manly will enter the kingdom of heaven."
>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Imagine heaven is real. Women and men haven fallen differently on Earth, so should you beat them? No. Children are fallen differently, so should you beat them? No. Why? Because it isn't acting perfectly. Keep in mind this is the sole moment when Christ openly modifies Moses's teaching:
>Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Additionally
>But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
I think this is where the Gospel of Thomas because necessary to fully spell this out:
cont.
>Jesus saw some little children nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing children can be compared to those who enter the kingdom."
>They said to him, "Then we'll enter the kingdom as little children?"
>Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and so make the male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image; then you'll enter [the kingdom]."
>male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female;
Christ distinguishes between FROM and AT the beginning and this is crucial.
>And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
TL;DR, Women in heaven will be the same as men so you should disregard whatever nonsense Islam says about women.
I can see the necessity for the law in the wake of the fall, but Islam doesn't even have this issue. Islam, by not positing a fall and simply saying man was created as "forgetful", avoids the necessity of that, but as I mentioned earlier makes the law a holistic thing. Christianity realizes the fallen nature/inclination towards evil, but it doesn't explain how this just disappears after faith in Christ. For example, you mentioned treating others as equals, emphasizing forgiveness, etc. There's nothing wrong with this on its face, in fact most Muslims would agree with you about it, however, these ideas had already been circulating in rabbinical circles for a long time, there wasn't really any issue with it because it was assumed that the law had this spiritual function anyway.
>Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so
But can't Orthodox priests get divorced? I've never understood this one from the Christian perspective, why would divorce be a bad thing if you're trying to eliminate gender anyway? Why does it matter?
>male and the female a single one so that the male won't be male nor the female female
I'm sure you picked up on this, but this causes a big problem for Christianity. When Christ rose, he was incarnate as man, as he will be when he returns. So, after he returns and establishes the Kingdom on earth, will he just be a man and everyone else will be androgynous? To me this is an odd kind of gnosticism, I don't see how it fits with the Genesis account, where God creates humanity as the binary man and woman.
I'm aware of classical foundationalism and all that, it's not that the essence of God should be knowable (Muslims don't believe we can know the essence of God either), but rather that it makes more sense that God would make himself independently knowable so as to ensure no one is treated unjustly (the harrowing of hell would be the Christian equivalent of this).
Also just want to point out, Bila Kayf isn't something all Muslims say, mostly just Atharis, but they believe in the predominance of revelation like you do anyway so it fits. I've read the fathers, I'm not making the typical moronic 1=3 argument here. At times even they appeal to mystery or use odd analogies.
> but rather that it makes more sense that God would make himself independently knowable so as to ensure no one is treated unjustly
This is all covered in the Epistle to the Romans. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20). Also, “[W]hen Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:14-16).
No one has an excuse. The law is written on our hearts, and God is revealed in nature, and in the direct Revelation from the Scriptures, which naturally is more comprehensive and in-depth than what we, as fallen men, can learn from the use of reason alone.
What you cite as a problem was not seen as a problem either by Paul, or by early saints / apologists such as Justin Martyr:
> But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
>(the harrowing of hell would be the Christian equivalent of this).
All men sat in darkness before Christ came and conquered death. This teaching has Old Testament roots and is much more than a cope to deal with this ‘problem’.
>I’ve read the fathers, I'm not making the typical moronic 1=3 argument here. At times even they appeal to mystery or use odd analogies.
Yes, because Christians understand that God is beyond our comprehension, and he has condescended to our level, and the Fathers have made various attempts to explain what Scripture is teaching, and how the Apostles have taught.
>trying to eliminate gender anyway
Males and females are theologically different on Earth vs. in heaven.
>Kingdom on earth
Kingdom of Heaven isn't ever going to be on Earth. Too small scale - Earth is one in 100 billion in one in 100 billion.
>To me this is an odd kind of gnosticism, I don't see how it fits with the Genesis account, where God creates humanity as the binary man and woman.
Alter's translation is best here:
>let it divide water from water
Heaven is more of a rejoining of water if you will.
>Christianity realizes the fallen nature/inclination towards evil, but it doesn't explain how this just disappears after faith in Christ.
Of course Christianity explains this.
Christ was the second Adam. Through baptism, we spiritually die (Romans 6:4) and then are "born again" in Christ, as children of God. We are justified - configured to Christ - and the Holy Spirit is poured into our hearts.
>"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!"'
With all due respect, it is clear that you never understood the faith you were born into. Thus it is perhaps not surprising you left it.
It remains the case that the Catholic Church was established by Christ. If you seek the truth, that is where you will find it.
>I feel that it just simply doesn’t set up realistic regulations for its followers.
As between Christianity and Islam, this is very much a secondary side issue.
The key issue is the status of Christ: Was He God incarnate, as per the Nicene Creed? Did He die on the Cross and then rise again?
These are, or should be, the big questions for you. If the Christian claims respecting Christ are true, then you must become a Christian, whether or not it has "realistic regulations for its followers."
Yes, Jesus was God incarnate. Yes, He died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
Yes, He established a Church, which we know today as the Catholic Church. Pic related.
Reclaim your Catholic heritage, anon.
>I converted to Islam after being Catholic my whole life
frickin kek. guenon posters really fricked some of you guys up huh? how are people this impressionable?
>I converted to Islam but now orthodoxy looks cool so I’m gonna switch to that too
I genuinely pity you.
The tl;dr on it, is that the core of Orthodoxy Christianity is a very, very exalted teaching, that requires a high spiritual level to actually fulfill.
In Christ, there is neither man or woman - that is, if the man or woman is a Saint, the incidentals of their gender matter far less than Christ who lives in them. At that point, there won't be much need, since the man will be loving the woman as Christ commanded, and the woman will be loyal to her husband as Christ commanded, and neither will be coombrains. This is because they have repented of the passions plaguing their human nature, and Christ fully lives in them.
However, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians are not even remotely close to this exalted ideal, and so you will need to treat the realities of fallen human life through standard fallen human law and punishment - but this level of isn't the domain of exalted Christian spirituality, it's practical, day-to-day concerns with fallen human people. For that, the state laws are applicable here, so you could look up what the state laws were for adultery in Orthodox Christian empires & nations (Byzantium, Russia, pre-schism England, etc).
I think what you're seeing in Islam, that you believe Christianity lacks, is that Islam collapses the spiritual together with the worldly, and so Islam is inherently a legal system designed for founding theocratic nations. Prior to the messianic times, Israel was providentially the nation & ethnic group that preserved faith in the true God through keeping a worldly law, and organizing themselves according to it - and Islam comes from the same sort of theocratic mentality.
Orthodox Christianity is designed by God to be preserved regardless of the outward political status of the faith, so that it could actually survive in the prophecied end times when the Church is fully persecuted, illegal, hunted by the Anti-Christ, and the mainstream Church (prostitute of babylon) will be compromised by servitude the Anti-Christ. A type of this was fulfilled in the Roman Catacomb period, and it has continually been fulfilled in the Arianism times, the Iconoclast times, and the recent (and still continuing!) Soviet Catacomb times. The times in which it was openly confessed by Orthodox Monarchs in Byzantium, England, Russia, etc were blessed - but those times are now over, and even though they are over, Orthodox Christianity still survives in the faithful remnant that has, by the miracle of God, remained faithful to the deposit of the original faith.
This is probably the biggest eschatological issue that won't be resolvable in Islam - since spiritual authority in Islam is intrinsically linked with worldly power, then it has no internal defense mechanism for being subverted by the Anti-Christ, who will be the genius perennialist-secular world leader par excellence who will be hailed as a based trad preserving all of the world's traditional religions.
*At that point, there won't be much need for corporeal punishment
So you converted to Islam because you wanted to spank your wife? Based I guess.
Why do none of you larpers think about the most important question, which is whether that particular God actually exists?
Do you know that you cant get out of islam, right? Any muslim can kill you or force you to convert back (or the two). Sorry, should have thought about it before converting
Oh, forget about it. You were just larping
I will never understand people who convert.
For me there are two options, either keep believing in whatever faith you were born into or just take the atheismpill
What if you are born to a irreligious family?