Small Orthodox corner

[Lord Thesaurian]

It's not "attacking Russians" to point out that, by their own admission, a clear majority of Russian "Orthodox":

- think of their religious identity as primarily a matter of national culture or family tradition, NOT personal faith
- don't consider religion very important
- don't attend church
- don't pray
- don't read Scripture
- don't consider premarital sex and abortion to be morally wrong

Most Russian "Orthodox" agree with my description of their religious identity as primarily cultural. The onus is on you to prove that most Russian "Orthodox" are lying about their irreligiosity and that they're actually devout Christians in secret.

My point isn't to attack Russians for their unbelief, it's to dispel the narrative of some kind of holy war between "Christian Russia" and its godless liberal democratic enemies, a narrative which is being pushed by the Kremlin and its apologists for purely political purposes, specifically to lend a spiritual gloss to the Russian nationalist-authoritarian project and to turn disaffected Western Christians against liberal democracy. As an actual Christian, I don't appreciate Christianity being used in this way and I'll speak out against it.

That’s cool and all but religiosity in Russia as measured by the question “how important is religion in your daily life” sits squarely between the UK and Germany, so I’m not sure where the specific hostility comes from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import...ion_by_country

As far as posers go, it doesn’t get much more blasphemous than this trash:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obviously 70% religiosity didn’t prevent a huge chunk of people - the majority of American Christians - deciding this guy was Jesus or the pope or something when all they had to do to see he definitely wasn’t some anointed holy warrior was crack open a Bible:

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Clearly, the attraction to petty strongmen as an antidote to leftist degeneracy has little to do with how religious one is.

[alhoon]

Alhoon, just make inquiries about the people who are behind the schismatic church of the UOC and to whom Bartholomew actually gave aftokephaly. These people have nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Kirill cares only about the fate of the Orthodox flock in Ukraine. He generally tried not to interfere in the internal affairs of the UOC, until neo-Nazi bandits began to seize churches and expel people from there. As I understand from your story about a man who was expelled from a church in Poland, you are an opponent of such actions. I'll tell you more, a good half of these neo-Nazis helping the UOC are not even Orthodox, but belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Ask yourself a question: What connects them? Look at the problem from different angles and you will see the essence.

I am aware that the neonazis that want Ukraine to cut its ties to Russia want the church of the area to break its ties to Russia.
What I disagree is that Bartholomew would support those kinds of crimes as we have seen in Ukraine. The violence we saw in Ukraine was saddening and splintering of the flock along national lines is a bad precedent. But I don't think Bartholomew was OK with the scenes of violence that have been described.

[Cookiegod]

I am aware that the neonazis that want Ukraine to cut its ties to Russia want the church of the area to break its ties to Russia.

Well let's hope this acknowledgement of a very basic fact referred to by you very recently as "prejudice and pure paranoia" will last longer this time before the inevitable return to reality denial or trivialisation no matter the evidence, as seen before.

What I disagree is that Bartholomew would support those kinds of crimes as we have seen in Ukraine. The violence we saw in Ukraine was saddening and splintering of the flock along national lines is a bad precedent. But I don't think Bartholomew was OK with the scenes of violence that have been described.

>It was already pointed out to you that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church did not ask for his involvement, and that the Ukrainian never accepted his hostile take-over, but wannabe pope proceeded nevertheless. And yet you still maintain that he somehow had positive intentions, without adding anything to back that claim up or refute those contradicting facts.
>It was already pointed out to you that persecution started prior to his involvement and that his involvement could have no other possible logical outcome than to legitimise the persecution, leading it to increase in every aspect.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Once again I ask you to put in words my misquote of the Scriptures, not a reference but my exact words.

[basics]

Cyclops,

Jesus said, " Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that cometh from the mouth of God..." Where is that word? That word is in the Bible as recorded and written by men of God whose experiences with God influenced them to do so. Sixtysix books all pointing to Jesus Christ in type and shadow for the first thirtynine and twentyseven for actual personal relationships to Him. The key to understanding it in its fullness lies with God Himself for until He opens the eyes of an unbeliever what the Bible contains is no more than the dead letter of Scripture as we find all throughout the journeys of Israel wherein even the religious leaders were blind to what they had written before them. So, what we have is a conglomeration of religions claiming the name of Jesus without the Spirituality that leads to its truth as Peter points out when it comes to interpreting the message within.

[Cookiegod]

Cookiegod,

Once again I ask you to put in words my misquote of the Scriptures, not a reference but my exact words.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post16033625

[Prodromos]

@Cookiegod

We can continue this back-and-forth if you'd like but I think this discussion has run its course. I've made my point and I'm content to let you have the last word, especially since you already have two or three other people you're replying to.

That’s cool and all but religiosity in Russia as measured by the question “how important is religion in your daily life” sits squarely between the UK and Germany, so I’m not sure where the specific hostility comes from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import...ion_by_country

I don't have any specific hostility toward Russians, I'm just pointing out the fact that nost Russians (including most Russian "Orthodox") aren't believing Christians, by their own admission. The point of this isn't to attack anyone, it's to refute the narrative of a "Holy Russia" besieged by godless enemies. This narrative is breathlessly promoted by the Kremlin and its apologists as part of an influence campaign aimed at Western Christians.

It's also false that I'm singling out Russia for criticism. Like I said before, if someone were to claim America or France or Germany is a holy Christian nation -- especially if this was in support of an anti-Christian political objective like persecuting dissidents or invading and dismembering neighboring countries -- I'd be the first to speak up and show them wrong.

[Cookiegod]

We can continue this back-and-forth if you'd like but I think this discussion has run its course. I've made my point and I'm content to let you have the last word, especially since you already have two or three other people you're replying to.

What discussion? You accusing me of something and then repeatedly ignoring the very straightforward request to quote me on where I have stated such?

[Cyclops]

Let's be very clear: No it's not.

We have on the one side people still making claims such as this one:
I.e. alhoon with his equivalence strongly implied that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church asked for or at least consented to being seized. If it had, the violence and persecution by the government would not have been necessary. But it's still ongoing, and started even before the Istanbul wannabe pope did his move.....

Its very sad when a (usually) non-nationalist faith is hijacked by nationalist elements, and politics is never good in a church context. I hope your family becomes safer.

If someone is trying to steal church property or arrogate control of resources and the right to dictate points of discipline it is literally about who is in charge. Likewise who controls the narrative is about authority.

There's lots of forms of church government but in this case I feel as though I am in favour of the traditions and local assembly of believers. That's obviously irrelevant as I'm not a Ukrainian citizen or a believer and my ancestors have never been near the place. Once again I hope the situation improves for you and yours.

[Alexander78]

Like I said before, if someone were to claim America or France or Germany is a holy Christian nation -- especially if this was in support of an anti-Christian political objective like persecuting dissidents or invading and dismembering neighboring countries -- I'd be the first to speak up and show them wrong.

Will you provide us with evidence or will you continue to feed us empty chatter?

I could answer you every word you say, about the invasion of countries and the dismemberment of these countries and about anti-Christian politics, but I deliberately do not do this, because it can hurt many people here and turn the discussion into a dirty political showdown.

PS You certainly show blatant disrespect, Prodromus. You put the word Orthodox in quotation marks when you talk about Russians. I have not encountered on this site such a cave attitude to another religion or nation so far. Stop it, you're starting to look primitive.

[basics]

Cookiegod,

Quote, " Let me be absolutely clear:
1) I do not say that Jesus' words are to be dismissed.
2) What Jesus is actually saying, is that one is to be sceptical towards false preachers.
3) You admit now that this is what he said. What you said before was a whole different thing altogether.
4) He's clearly not rejecting all religious hierarchy, which was your unambiguous claim before.
5) Nor is he saying that you should call no one father. I proved that to you without any possibility for you to deny this by pointing you to Luke 11.
If this had been the actual point he'd been making, then that same quote would be there as well.
6) Tell me if the following reasoning is sound: "Jesus says this, and I make it sound like something completely different. Are you saying that we should dismiss him because if you disagree with me you're disagreeing with Jesus."
No? It's certainly not reasonable from my perspective. And yet that's the ultimate reasoning behind your rhetorical question right here: " unquote.

In response to my quote, " Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
Cookiegod,

The chapter has Jesus talking to His disciples and followers about the hypocrisy of the men who were leading the Jews at that time. They thought much of themselves and He was exposing this. In verse 9 of chapter 23 He says, " And call no man your father upon the earth; for One is your Father, which is in heaven." Are these words to be ignored, torn out of the chapter because you don't agree with them? Oh you may protect this thread but where are you on the other threads when it comes to protecting the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Are these words to be ignored, torn out of the chapter because you don't agree with them? " unquote.

Where then are the lies in what I said ? This quote comes from Verse by verse ministry, " Jesus was speaking literally in Matthew 23:1-10, but the meaning of His words are different than your interpretation. Here is the scripture in context:

Matt. 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
Matt. 23:2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
Matt. 23:3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
Matt. 23:4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.
Matt. 23:5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
Matt. 23:6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Matt. 23:7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.
Matt. 23:8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
Matt. 23:9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Matt. 23:10 “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
Matt. 23:11 “But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
Matt. 23:12 “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
Notice that the context for these instructions was Jesus speaking about the religious leaders and teachers of Israel. Jesus says the scribes and Pharisees seated themselves in the chair of Moses, meaning they had assumed the position of authority within Israel including the right to judge whether others observed the law correctly. Since they had this authority, Jesus commanded the people to obey them, just as scripture tells us to obey those appointed over us (see Romans 13).

However, Jesus goes on to describe how these same men were hypocrites in their behavior. They demanded that others obey the law of Moses scrupulously while they themselves gave little regard to it. Their hearts were selfish and egotistical. They ruled the people not out of a love for God or for justice but merely to gain honor and attention for themselves. Notice in vs.5-7 Jesus says these men sought the praises of the people and respectful greetings in public settings.

Though such behavior was common practice for the learned religious leaders of Jesus day, Jesus wanted His disciples to set a different example. Instead of seeking public recognition and competing for personal honor, the disciples of Jesus were to exhibit humility before men. Jesus says in v.12 that those who humble themselves in service to God will be exalted by God in the Kingdom.

To illustrate His point, Jesus cites three examples of religious hypocrisy common in His day in vs.9-10. As part of their efforts to secure honor among the people, the scribes and Pharisees demanded to be called Rabbi (meaning teacher), leader (meaning ruler), and father (meaning spiritual father). These titles suggested that these men were the sources of spiritual wisdom, spiritual authority and spiritual blessing among the people of Israel.

Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with these titles in everyday situations. We are certainly permitted to address our earth father as “father," our 3rd grade math teacher as “teacher,” and our president or prime minister as “leader” etc. On the other hand, Jesus was saying that we may not use these titles in a religious context, because someone greater already possess these titles, spiritually speaking.

Notice that each of these titles corresponds to a member of the Godhead. According to Scripture, the Father is our spiritual father, the Son is our leader, and the Spirit is our teacher, as scripture affirms:

Eph. 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Eph. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Since each of these titles already belongs to a member of the Godhead, we ought not take them for ourselves nor confer them upon another in a spiritual context. Therefore, the proper interpretation of this passage understands that these terms are prohibited in a religious context. For example, Christians may not address a Catholic priest as “father” nor a Protestant pastor as a spiritual “leader” nor even a Sunday School instructor as our spiritual teacher. Instead, we acknowledge the Godhead alone in these things.

On the other hand, using these terms in a nonreligious context is still proper. For example, addressing your earthly parents as “mother” or “father” is entirely appropriate. Even Jesus used the term “mother" in His instructions to John on the cross:

John 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
John 19:27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.
We encourage you not to imagine “creative” uses for the instructions of this scripture, especially when you leave the context of scripture behind. If you should decide to refrain from addressing someone as mother, doctor or even sir, you not only misinterpret scripture, but you also diminish your witness for Christ. Failing to honor your parents (by addressing them properly) or failing to show proper respect for other authorities is both sinful and likely to offend others, thereby reducing your opportunities to witness for Christ.

[Cookiegod]

basics, so now we're back to where you admit that he was specifically talking about scribes and pharisees who did not practice what they preach. So far so good.

Except one problem: By saying that this was a major point in itself and not part of a larger sermon (as clearly indicated, but we skip that now), Luke according to you made a big mistake by not including it. So... You do realise you just called Luke and thereby the bible wrong, right?

[Cyclops]

basics, so now we're back to where you admit that he was specifically talking about scribes and pharisees who did not practice what they preach. So far so good.

Except one problem: By saying that this was a major point in itself and not part of a larger sermon (as clearly indicated, but we skip that now), Luke according to you made a big mistake by not including it. So... You do realise you just called Luke and thereby the bible wrong, right?

I call it "Scriptura Selecta".

I think The Bible shows many ways to God and confirms the experience of God by the many believers (including those IIT), but surely God surpasseth all understanding. Not everyone gets their burning bush or their three strangers (or their desired hot wife, plus her sister [sighs in Jacob]) so making rules for the rest of us based on what happened to other people who encountered God is a bit futile surely? And arrogant?

I think "Sola Scriptura" amounts to worshipping the door rather than walking through it, as Papism is worshipping the guy who set up a turnstile outside the door and is charging entry.

[Alexander78]

so making rules for the rest of us based on what happened to other people who encountered God is a bit futile surely? And arrogant?

But personally, I don't see Cookie making rules for anyone, especially so that he was arrogant somewhere, if that's what you're talking about. The Bible sets some rules for believers, but what does Cookie have to do with it? He didn't write the Bible. Bible can be interpreted in different ways, sometimes very wrongly. Which is what he's talking about. He explains his position, but does not impose it.

[Cyclops]

But personally, I don't see Cookie making rules for anyone, especially so that he was arrogant somewhere, if that's what you're talking about. The Bible sets some rules for believers, but what does Cookie have to do with it? He didn't write the Bible. Bible can be interpreted in different ways, sometimes very wrongly. Which is what he's talking about. He explains his position, but does not impose it.

Indeed, and while I am not well informed enough to understand his position entirely, I am grateful for his explanations. He's set me straight of a few things before. Its why I'm here, to air my ignorance and have it shot up.

I don't think a church is a building or a bank account. Its bad when those things get stolen but that's a criminal and political matter.

[Prodromos]

Will you provide us with evidence or will you continue to feed us empty chatter?

You can see me criticize American, French and German irreligiosity in the very post you quoted, where I emphatically reject any labeling of them as Christian nations.

PS You certainly show blatant disrespect, Prodromus. You put the word Orthodox in quotation marks when you talk about Russians. I have not encountered on this site such a cave attitude to another religion or nation so far.

Is it any more disrespectful than your contempt for Ukrainian nationhood at a time when Ukraine is being systematically invaded and dismembered by Russia, or your boasting about the holiness of the Russian "Orthodox" Church in contrast to the alleged "schismatics", "heretics" and "neo-Nazi scum" in Ukraine and the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

------

Alhoon, with all due respect, but you are now falling into heresy yourself, claiming that schismatics of the UOC can be considered autocephaly. For the Ukrainian Church, the mother is the [Russian Orthodox Church]. No one has the right to give independence to the schismatic Filaret bypassing the decision of the ROC. This is the point and I consider further discussion of this issue to be extremely inappropriate and demonstrating not so much support for the schismatics as dislike of the ROC.

This is absolutely not about good or bad looks. This is about a once honourable and venered institution having debased itself to a point where it cannot be redeemed or even be called Christian at all, as long as Turkish and US control as well as Barts greed continue. [...] Plenty of parishes that used to be under Constantinople did the right thing and left. I would too if my church had pulled such an act. I do not think a man capable of doing that is a Christian at all.

Administrative divisions were changed multiple times thereafter, but usually on the basis of bipartisan consensus, as dictated by church canon law. To go against these makes anyone a heretic. Including the man pretending to be a Christian and larping as Leo IX.

It's a sad thing to see someone be so proud and open about his nationalist and hateful agenda. It's sadder still to see you abuse religion as a vehicle for your hatred. It's even sadder still to see you harp on and on about a tsardom which no longer exists and which is the sole reason both your country, and your Romanian Orthodox Church exist. Gratefulness is not in your repertoire. [...] You don't get to decide what is and isn't canonical, the canon law of the orthodox churches do, and given that even the most basic principles of the church mean nothing to you, you should think long and hard as to how you can still consider yourself an orthodox Christian.

Notice how Alexander and Cookiegod spent several pages denouncing critics of Russia's foreign policy as schismatics, heretics and false believers who promote a political agenda under the guise of religion, but now that I've made the same claim about their own church (with evidence to back it up), they're acting offended and accusing me of being 'judgemental' and a 'Pharisee' for daring to make such a claim about anyone.

For those who don't know, the Russian political elite doesn't accept Ukrainians as a separate nation. They don't think of Ukraine as a real state so much as a rebellious Russian province. That's why Alexander here can't help but contemptuously refer to it as "the state called Ukraine", and why Russians (most of whom don't even believe in Russian "Orthodoxy", by their own admission) are going nuts over the idea of an independent Ukrainian church. It's all about delegitimizing Ukrainian nationhood and paving the way for "reunification" with Russia, if necessary by force. The whole thing is Russian supremacism dressed up as a canonical dispute.

https://www.donbass-insider.com/2020...k-the-donbass/

In an interview given to “Actualnye Commentarii” (Current Comments), Vladislav Surkov, Vladimir Putin’s former adviser on Ukraine and the Donbass, commented on his resignation, the state of relations between Russia and its neighbour, and the situation in the conflict zone.

To the journalist’s question about what he thinks of Ukraine, its prospects, and its future relations with Russia, Vladislav Surkov answers that in reality Ukraine does not exist as a nation.

---“There is no Ukraine. There is Ukrainity. That is, a particular mental disorder. Surprisingly driven to the extreme passion for ethnography. Such a bloody local history. Chaos instead of state. The Borsch, Bandera, the bandura [a kind of guitar – Editor’s note]. But there is no nation. There is a brochure “Independent Ukraine”, but no Ukraine.---

...

Surkov then addressed the thorny issue of relations between Ukraine and Russia, stressing that they have always been complicated throughout the common history of the two countries, and that the only method that has proved its worth is that of forced brotherhood.

---“Relations with Ukraine have never been easy, even when Ukraine was part of Russia. Ukraine has always been a troublesome issue for the imperial and Soviet bureaucracy... Forcing by force to brotherhood is the only method that has historically proved effective in the Ukrainian direction. I do not think that some other method will be invented”, he said.---

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/0...inian-history/

Surkov is not the first Russian official to make such a claim. The notion that Ukraine is not a country in its own right, but a historical part of Russia, appears to be deeply ingrained in the minds of many in the Russian leadership. Already long before the Ukraine crisis, at an April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that “Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.” Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians “are one and the same people”, and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference. Similarly, Russia’s then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told a perplexed apparatchik in April 2016 that there has been “no state” in Ukraine, neither before nor after the 2014 crisis.

And here's how Ukrainians themselves feel about whether they're part of the Russian nation:

https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/more-...ic-ukrainians/

An overwhelming 92 percent of citizens of Ukraine consider themselves ethnic Ukrainians, according to a recent survey by the Razumkov Center. Six percent of the respondents consider themselves ethnic Russians, and 1.5 percent cite other ethnic groups. This is the highest recorded percentage of Ukrainian self-identification since Ukraine regained independence.

According to the 2001 census, 78.8 percent of citizens called themselves Ukrainian; in 2015 (according to the Razumkov Center) it was 86 percent; and today it is 92 percent.

[basics]

basics, so now we're back to where you admit that he was specifically talking about scribes and pharisees who did not practice what they preach. So far so good.

Except one problem: By saying that this was a major point in itself and not part of a larger sermon (as clearly indicated, but we skip that now), Luke according to you made a big mistake by not including it. So... You do realise you just called Luke and thereby the bible wrong, right?

Cookiegod,

The thing is that priests are not Spiritual fathers anymore than nuns are Spiritual mothers as has been laid out for you. A born again Christian has but One Spiritual Father, Redeemer and Teacher them being Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so has no need to look anywhere other than the word of God for any guidance or inspiration. Indeed the books of Exodus 20:3-5, Isiah 42:8, Mathew 4:10 and Luke 4:8 all warn about idols of any sort that the orthodox seem to ignore as well as the calling of priests fathers and nuns mothers, why is that? As the words of Jesus encompass all time He therefore talks of any religious leader within His church that not only fail to practise what they preach but also fail to abide by His words as recorded in Scripture. The problem is that they don't even preach what is in the Bible so why would they even practise it?

[Cookiegod]

Is it any more disrespectful than your contempt for Ukrainian nationhood at a time when Ukraine is being systematically invaded and dismembered by Russia, or your boasting about the holiness of the Russian "Orthodox" Church in contrast to the alleged "schismatics", "heretics" and "neo-Nazi scum" in Ukraine and the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Alhoon, with all due respect, but you are now falling into heresy yourself, claiming that schismatics of the UOC can be considered autocephaly. For the Ukrainian Church, the mother is the [Russian Orthodox Church]. No one has the right to give independence to the schismatic Filaret bypassing the decision of the ROC. This is the point and I consider further discussion of this issue to be extremely inappropriate and demonstrating not so much support for the schismatics as dislike of the ROC.

This is absolutely not about good or bad looks. This is about a once honourable and venered institution having debased itself to a point where it cannot be redeemed or even be called Christian at all, as long as Turkish and US control as well as Barts greed continue. [...] Plenty of parishes that used to be under Constantinople did the right thing and left. I would too if my church had pulled such an act. I do not think a man capable of doing that is a Christian at all.

Administrative divisions were changed multiple times thereafter, but usually on the basis of bipartisan consensus, as dictated by church canon law. To go against these makes anyone a heretic. Including the man pretending to be a Christian and larping as Leo IX.

It's a sad thing to see someone be so proud and open about his nationalist and hateful agenda. It's sadder still to see you abuse religion as a vehicle for your hatred. It's even sadder still to see you harp on and on about a tsardom which no longer exists and which is the sole reason both your country, and your Romanian Orthodox Church exist. Gratefulness is not in your repertoire. [...] You don't get to decide what is and isn't canonical, the canon law of the orthodox churches do, and given that even the most basic principles of the church mean nothing to you, you should think long and hard as to how you can still consider yourself an orthodox Christian.

Notice how Alexander and Cookiegod spent several pages denouncing critics of Russia's foreign policy as schismatics, heretics and false believers who promote a political agenda under the guise of religion, but now that I've made the same claim about their own church (with evidence to back it up), they're acting offended and accusing me of being 'judgemental' and a 'Pharisee' for daring to make such a claim about anyone.

Notice how you reframe pointing with video and photographic evidence to literal neonazi scum taking over churches by force as "disrespectful" to an "ecumenical patriarchate".

Notice how none of the quotes presented by you, especially in the context the statements were made, represent what you claim it to be. I'll go ahead and repeat myself:

But the beauty of it all is that you're doing all this for a strawman:

It's you -- and other Russian "Orthodox" in this thread, and your church leaders offline -- who are on a breathless political propaganda campaign to portray Russia as a holy Christian nation under siege by the godless forces of liberal democracy. You're the ones who boast of your superior religiosity in contrast to the degenerate West. I'm merely prying up the floorboards and exposing the lies and hypocrisy beneath it all.

Surely if any of us had said any of the sort you'd be able to find any quote to support your accusation, right?
Except you can't, because none of us here did. If you can, go ahead and show me where I said what you accuse me of. But you have been asked this before, and, true to the nature of this thread, you went ahead and ignored this question.

Like the guys coming before you you're building and hacking away at a strawman to defend literal religious prosecution by literal neonazis, the critique of which to you is "disrespectful". Don't talk about "Russia apologists" or a log in front of my eyes ever again. Next time you accuse me of something, do make sure you have something to back it up.

[basics]

So, I take it that there is some kind of civil war going on in the Orthodox community over who really is the big boss. Tut, tut, plenty of hatred there. And here was me thinking that there is only One Big Boss as the Bible tells us so could that be the reason that Jesus said there are two paths, one narrow that few get on and the other so wide that most take? There is only one way to Heaven and that is by being born again of the Spirit of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. It's all of God.

[alhoon]

So, I take it that there is some kind of civil war going on in the Orthodox community over who really is the big boss.

No human being is the "big boss" in Orthodox religion. The Patriarchs are not bosses. Christ is the head of the Church.