Orthodox- do you find the argument about Orthodoxy and conservatism to be true?

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

You're familiar that it is part of service, but because you've seen a church that doesn't use it must not be general practice?

A lack of generality is proved by any exception. I don't speak beyond my experience and present practices that may or may not happen as though they are used in general (or not used in general). As to the typical manner of reception, I think we've been through that before, but if you like we can discuss that again. In any case, the Hapgood text is interesting, because I think any Catholic would accept it. I've listened for it, but have yet to witness it.

I'm not sure what you have against Orthodoxy. I know that you want to see union, yet you put down our faith at every opportunity on the slimmest of evidence, accusing everyone else of being the obstacle.[/quote] I have a deep devotion to and affection for Orthodoxy, and don't believe I have ever said a thing against the Orthodox faith.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

A lack of generality is proved by any exception.

How do you figure? If there were no exceptions, it wouldn't be a generality anymore. It would be an absolute.

[Nine_Two]

I'm still not seeing specifics on the exception.

Anyway, I don't expect I will. This is a rather unenlightening course of discussion, as most of our discussions are. Dzheremi was correct on the last page, and I'm sorry I didn't take his advice. I was hoping there would be something to your accusations.

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

A lack of generality is proved by any exception.

In the context in which it is used, generality means something which is true most of the time or affects most of those whom are involved, not all. Another way to say it would be something which is prevalent or widespread. The only thing a lack of generality means in the context in which it was used is something which affects equal to or less than half of those involved.

[Tobias2]

I wasn't aware of Dreher's "secret" blog. It's pretty negaitive and I don't know how much credibility it has.

It sounds like he is somewhat dis-illusioned now with Orthodoxy as he became with Catholicism earlier.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him convert back to evangelicalism. It happens a lot.

I think he was looking for a unity of practice and (political?) belief that is not there in either Catholicism or, it seems. Orthodoxy.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

How do you figure? If there were no exceptions, it wouldn't be a generality anymore. It would be an absolute.

I am not at all sure why on earth you want to pursue this odd tangent, but:

A quick google of "true in general" got me here:

Question 35199: Show that AB = BA is not true in general for matrix multiplication, by offering a counterexample with matrices A and B of the same size.

A counter example proves that the proposition is not true in general, even though it is often true - eg for square matrices such that A=B.

Typical is a good word for the most common manner of some action, general has a different meaning - differentiating the universal from the particular - that makes it not a good choice. I thought my meaning was clear from the context and the related posts discussing "typical".

Perhaps only clergy would be in a position to know what practice is typical for the reception of converts. As I mentioned, having read Hapgood, I wondered whether it was used in full, in particular with the various renunciations. I know of a person received by the Serbs who did it, but have not heard it in the OCA parish I frequent.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Tobias2

I wasn't aware of Dreher's "secter" blog. It's pretty negaitive and I don't know how much credibility it has.

It ssounds like he is soemwhat dis-illusioned now with Orthodoxy as he became with Catholicism earlier.

I don't think so, I think he has a view of Orthodoxy that is shaped by a great but narrow experience at the Cathedral in Dallas. Aside from all of the side-tracking on this thread, I think the key point to that gets lost in Dreher's perspective is that in America the EOC, like the CC, is much more than the recent, high-profile converts, whatever their socio-political orientation - even while it is equally important to understand that, for the most part, it is also post-immigrant and post-ethnic. All members, new and old, conservative and liberal, red and blue, are important members of the body. Any characterizations of the body that leave out various elements give a false picture, and worse appears dismissive of other members.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

A counter example proves that the proposition is not true in general, even though it is often true - eg for square matrices such that A=B.

The term 'in general' has a different meaning in formal proofs than it does in common speech, just as the use of the construction 'if X then Y' in speech can mean in logic either a material conditional or a biconditional. What you are engaging in is the logical fallacy known as equivocation.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

I am not at all sure why on earth you want to pursue this odd tangent, but:

A quick google of "true in general" got me here:


A counter example proves that the proposition is not true in general, even though it is often true - eg for square matrices such that A=B.

Typical is a good word for the most common manner of some action, general has a different meaning - differentiating the universal from the particular - that makes it not a good choice. I thought my meaning was clear from the context and the related posts discussing "typical".

I don't know anything about your logical proof example. I just know what words mean, and that you seem to grasping at straws, again (as I wrote in the post that is now deleted by the mod of this subforum) in an effort to recast what Orthodox Christians (the people to whom this thread is addressed) have asserted in this thread about their own church and practices as being somehow deceptive. They're not, of course.

Perhaps only clergy would be in a position to know what practice is typical for the reception of converts. As I mentioned, having read Hapgood, I wondered whether it was used in full, in particular with the various renunciations. I know of a person received by the Serbs who did it, but have not heard it in the OCA parish I frequent.

I cannot speak for any particular parish, but my own (Coptic Orthodox) baptism involved renunciations, and the baptismal texts I've read from other churches (Armenian, Malankara Syriac, and Greek Orthodox) all have them as well. I would say, then, that they are probably a standard part of Orthodox baptisms, and whichever individual person may not have heard of them or experienced them is just that: an individual, whose experience does not change the baptismal texts at all.

[FabiusMaximus]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Looking back till recently, Orthodoxy in the US was largely cited in the northeastern/great lakes and was Democratic - very strongly among the Slavs. I am less certain about the political leanings of the Greeks or Syrian Orthodox, but they certainly were strongly Democratic in my hometown in PA. As in the CC, these affiliations are less strong then they were years ago, for pretty much the same reasons, but I suspect that the voting patterns in those areas still substantially favor Democrats. The recent converts to EOCs seem to have a more conservative and Republican bent; the churches are growing most in the south and west, and deep midwest.

Well hang on here. Political parties and ideologies are complex around the world and in the United States. The fact that Orthodox immigrant groups trended Democratic does not make them politically liberal. And in many cases, the choice wasn't related to religious ideals. The political parties used to be a lot more decentralized than they are now. Being a Democrat in New York City was not the same as being a Democrat in Alabama or Texas.

There was no coherent ideological platform for each party, and, more importantly, there was no divide on moral issues until fairly recently. The Democratic Party seventy years ago, for instance, would have never supported the sexual revolution or gay marriage. So even if a Catholic, for instance, voted Democratic, it wasn't necessarily an assent to what the modern Democratic Party asserts. The opposite is also true.

While today for instance the Republican Party is known as being the party for Evangelical Christians, that hasn't always been true either. William Jennings Bryan was a prominent Democratic political who ran for the presidency in the 1890s as a staunch Evangelical.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by FabiusMaximus

Well hang on here. Political parties and ideologies are complex around the world and in the United States. The fact that Orthodox immigrant groups trended Democratic does not make them politically liberal. And in many cases, the choice wasn't related to religious ideals. The political parties used to be a lot more decentralized than they are now. Being a Democrat in New York City was not the same as being a Democrat in Alabama or Texas.

There was no coherent ideological platform for each party, and, more importantly, there was no divide on moral issues until fairly recently. The Democratic Party seventy years ago, for instance, would have never supported the sexual revolution or gay marriage. So even if a Catholic, for instance, voted Democratic, it wasn't necessarily an assent to what the modern Democratic Party asserts. The opposite is also true.

While today for instance the Republican Party is known as being the party for Evangelical Christians, that hasn't always been true either. William Jennings Bryan was a prominent Democratic political who ran for the presidency in the 1890s as a staunch Evangelical.

Quite true.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by jwinch2

In the context in which it is used, generality means something which is true most of the time or affects most of those whom are involved, not all. Another way to say it would be something which is prevalent or widespread. The only thing a lack of generality means in the context in which it was used is something which affects equal to or less than half of those involved.

Yes and no. The context was the impact of an influx of evangelical converts. Part of the response was the practice of renunciation of heresy. What force could the remark possibly have, in context, if were it said 51% of the converts make this renunciation or even 80% etc. How would that prevent the questioned impact? That it is why I took it as a statement of generality in the logical sense. At the same time, in conversation, I don't think anyone would quibble over some extraordinary, outlier case. But, as I said, this renunciation of Hapgood just hasn't be done even in the parish that I frequent. Not a one-off, but the regular practice. So I think that my objection to the remark is a valid one.

More to the point, the remark was another example, among many here, of information on Eastern Christianity that is not quite right and oddly oblique. The real story of the impact of mass influx of evangelicals on the Antiochian church is a very interesting one, with real lessons. A combination of wedding banquet and workers in the vineyard, and more. But I don't think that that story had much of anything to do with the manner of reception of the converts - notwithstanding the problems of the reception of clergy - at least, or lingering, unrepudiated heresy, It did have a lot to do the collision between actual Orthodox ecclesiology and romantic notions of about practices in the early church. It had a lot to do with a courageous hierarch who took a risk and shepherded a church through a difficult but exciting time. But I suppose, "what baggage?" is somehow a better response.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by FabiusMaximus

Well hang on here. Political parties and ideologies are complex around the world and in the United States. The fact that Orthodox immigrant groups trended Democratic does not make them politically liberal. And in many cases, the choice wasn't related to religious ideals. The political parties used to be a lot more decentralized than they are now. Being a Democrat in New York City was not the same as being a Democrat in Alabama or Texas.

There was no coherent ideological platform for each party, and, more importantly, there was no divide on moral issues until fairly recently. The Democratic Party seventy years ago, for instance, would have never supported the sexual revolution or gay marriage. So even if a Catholic, for instance, voted Democratic, it wasn't necessarily an assent to what the modern Democratic Party asserts. The opposite is also true.

While today for instance the Republican Party is known as being the party for Evangelical Christians, that hasn't always been true either. William Jennings Bryan was a prominent Democratic political who ran for the presidency in the 1890s as a staunch Evangelical.

That is a good point - the labels are clumsy, and party affiliations - and party platforms - have certainly changed over time. Nevertheless there is a continuing effect from the early affiliations and from the local environment that distinguishes the average socio-political views of people in the EOC in ways that are similar to the CC. This may have been measured in the EOC in one of the studies of Alexei D. Krindatch. I will try to look when I get enough time.