Radicalization

When people hear the word radical they almost immediately think of a muslim, as if only muslims can become radicalized. The fact of the matter is anyone of any faith, or those without it, can become radicalized. Yes, certainly muslims can be radicalized, but so too can Christians. We can look back to Torquemada and his inquisition, was he not radical? We can look to the protestant reformation in which protestants killed people, burned churches, disrupted services and even defacated in baptismal fonts. There are also more recent examples we can cite such as the Robert Lewis Dear, the planned parenthood shooter in Colorado, was he not radical? Jim Jones is also an example of radicalization, his radicalization, which consisted of a mix between Marxism and religion, resulted in him leading 918 people to drink cyanide laced kool-aid.

One would think that the problem is nothing other than religion, but that is not true. You can cite many dictators who were radical but were atheist. One example is of Benito Mussolini, a proud and staunch atheist and fascist who committed unspeakable atrocities in African nations, namely Ethiopia. There are also scientists who became somewhat radical in the sense that they used science to justify racism. Thomas Huxley was a proponent of this idea that the white man was superior to the black man saying, "It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man."  While Huxley never went out and massacred anyone, these types of ideas led to radicalization of other people who did go out and massacre people, ideas like his essentially led to radicalization. This scientific racism had led to the massacre of the aboriginal people of Austrailia, it led to the African slave trade, or at the very least its justification. People were even put into human zoos for the white public to stand in awe of their supposedly lesser ancestor. Ota Benga is a fine example of this as he was captured and put into a human zoo. 

Radicalization can occur with anything, and it does occur when we allow ourselves to become too zealous in whatever it is that we believe, wether it be religion or some scientific or political ideology. We must remain grounded in reason in whatever it is we believe as not being moderate in anything can lead to one becoming radical and carrying out horrible atrocities. So please remember, radicalization is not something that is a product of islam, it is a product of the human being allowing themselves to become unhinged, not grounding themselves. Allowing themselves to become filled with emotion which turns into fervor. When this happens reason is thrown out the window and we begin justifiying horrible things to meet an end. 

Conversation, Former Orthodox Convert and a Cradle Orthodox

A will represent the cradle orthodox and B will represent the former convert


A: So where have you been? I have not seen you at church in a long time.

B: Oh I am no longer part of that church my friend, I am done.

A: Wow I am shocked, you were really strong, what happened?

B: What happened? You people are so hell bent on destroying your own church and I don't want to be on a sinking ship, but to be accurate I did not leave the church, the church left me.

A: I am not sure what you mean.

B: You are protestantizing the church and I have warned you all for 8 years about the dangers of this but none of you would listen to me.

A: Protestantizing?

B: Bringing in protestant songs and theology into the church and essentially equating protestantism to Orthodoxy.

A: Well the songs we sing are all theologically accurate so I think you are being a bit overzealous.

B: Would you sing theologically accurate islamic songs, or mormon songs? How about theologically accurate nestorian or arian songs?

A: As long as they are theologically accurate yes.

B: Thats the problem, you just don't get it.

A: Get what, its just praising God.

B: No these are worship songs and we do not worship in a protestant manner. Besides that you are equating the two, protestantism and Orthodoxy and that essentially tells everyone, especially the youth, that there is no difference. So the people see it fine to listen to protestant sermons, which are arguably much better in terms of appealing to the emotions making people think they have been touched in some way. And it tells the kids there is no difference, so they grow up thinking there is no real difference. If there is no real difference and one can get the same result in protestantism as Orthodoxy all while doing far less, then why not? Why fast 210 days out of the year if you can get the same result in protestantism without it? Why do these long services full of lots of standing and kneeling if we can dance around and sing and have fun and get the same result doing so?

A: So this is your main complaint?

B: Yes, and the fact that I am completely marginalized in the church. Given no platform with which to speak but am merely wrote off as some overzealous crazy. Half the time people do not even listen, let alone consider that there might be just a slight chance I am right. Just wrote off.

A: Have you really tried?

B: Well, I have wrote over 11 books on the subject. I have individually talked with people, and every one of them just write me off, doesn't even give my argument and credence whatsoever. I even had a bishop approve my books, and one of them he wrote an introduction to, none of that mattered.

A: But have you spoke about this in church?

B: The only time I did, hardly anyone was there. In fact the only people that showed up were the people that already agreed.

A: So none of the people you wanted to speak to bothered to show up.

B: Exactly. And this is the sort of treatment I get continually. Like I said, I am done, I am not going to be on a sinking ship full of people that think I am crazy for pointing out that its sinking.

A: But I mean you are focusing on differences, don't focus on those. We are all Christian.

B: Because there are fundamental differences that would completely redefine the word Christian.

A: Like?

B: Orthodoxy says you need baptism, Eucharist, the priesthood, and confession to name a few in order to attain salvation. Protestantism rejects these ideas and says that it is by faith alone that we are saved. This is a fundamentally different doctrine that graphically demonstrates that both cannot be correct at the same time. Essentially both beliefs cannot be Christian at the same time since they are diametrically opposed to one another.

A: Are they that opposed?

B: Yes. One rejects the Eucharist as salvific in any way while one says you absolutely need it for salvation. How can those both be Christian doctrines? They are opposed to one another, they cannot both be right at the same time as being different from one another. It makes no sense. Therefore one is Christian and one is not.

A: But thats just one difference.

B: One of many. The whole idea of authority in protestantism is opposed to that of Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy the clergy is essential and is authoritative, called out by God to serve the people in the church. Protestantism rejects this and instead says that the sole authority is the Bible. Which is a euphemism for the only authority I accept is my own. It places all authority with the individual, which is why there are some 40,000 denominations within protestantism, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet all differ from one another. So again both protestantism in all its thousands of denominations cannot be right at the same time as Orthodoxy, so its either one or the other thousands.

A: I sort of see your point, but I mean protestantism is still Christian so we have to respect it.

B: No we do not have to respect it and no it is not Christian.

A: If its not Christian then what is it?

B: Satanism.

A: Protestants do not worship Satan.

B: I never said that they did.

A: But you said that protestantism is Satanism.

B: Satanism is not worshipping the devil, it is worshipping yourself. Placing yourself above or equal to God.

A: And how exactly do they do this?

B: Well, what is the center of worship in the Orthodox Liturgical worship?

A: The Eucharist.

B: Right, so Christ.

A: Yes exactly.

B: What is the center of worship in the vast majority of protestant denominations?

A: Christ I would assume.

B: But how, there is no Eucharist so how is there Christ to center their "service" around?

A: Its in spirit.

B: So how do you know Christ is there?

A: I guess you feel it.

B: So its about what the individual feels then?

A: Yes I guess so.

B: So the individual is at the center of worship. The music focuses around the individual and the sermon focuses around the individual. The sermon is meant to have a sort of forer effect, speaking to all people and therefore places them at the center of the sermon. That is satanic in that the individual goes to this church to put themselves in place of Christ, where the Eucharist should be, and goes to hear a sermon which speaks to them as opposed to about Christ.

A: I don't know that kinda seems like you are stretching it.

B: Not really, even Anton LaVey loved protestantism as he seen it for being satanic as well.

A: Who is Anton LaVey?

B: The founder of the Church of Satan. So its not just me but the late leader of the Satanic Church agrees as well.

A: I think you are quite overzealous and a bit crazy too (laughing).

B: I think you have your answer as to why I am no longer Coptic, you may not accept it but its true and mark my words, things are going to get worse for the Coptic Church.

A: How so?

B: Well youth are already leaving the church in droves, which is why the leadership did a survey to try and find out why. People protestantizing the church will create a schism, or just more people leaving. It will drive the Eastern Orthodox schism even further as they are against protestantism and protestantizing. And in 50 years, if protestantizing continues, the church will not be recognizable. It will still be there but totally unrecognizable. Now, leave me alone I have no interest in discussing anything with a Copt any longer. I did for eight years and I drove myself mad.

A: I think you are being too legalistic, you have to remember we are all part of the body of Christ.

B: No actually we are not. We are told in scripture that God is not the author of confusion, yet protestantism is comprised of nearly 40,000 differing denominations all based on one book. That is total confusion. To ascribe that to God in any way is to say that God tells everyone different things, that He is some sort of trickster telling people conflicting things.

A: I don't think you understand.

B: You are right, I do not understand you or any other Egyptian who cannot grasp these simple concepts. Its odd, you people seem to think this is the only era in which the church is not under attack. You are totally complacent and that is a real danger. But whatever, it doesn't matter, I don't matter, and my non-Egyptian opinion doesn't matter and never has.

A: What is that supposed to mean, are you saying that Copts are racist?

B: I think many in the church are ethnocentric yes, especially the clergy. So when we speak up about something we are ostracized.

A: Thats not true in the slightest. Maybe in your experience but not as a whole.

B: I personally know several converts who have left the church because of these very things. Not only converts but I know many youth who have left the church. Some have left for the Eastern Orthodox and some have just completely turned their backs on Orthodoxy all together.

A: Sounds like a personal problem, not one brought on by anything else.

B: It is frustrating talking to a people who already think they know everything. Instead of seriously considering anything I am saying people just dismiss it entirely. Most people do not even bother hearing my argument.

A: Again, personal problem.

B: Not really, people do not hear my argument and do not offer an alternative argument that could prove anything I said to be wrong. Its more of "I am smarter you should not disagree with me" attitude. I have had it. I drove myself mad trying to speak to people.

A: Maybe its the way you speak to people. I mean you are not very nice.

B: So should I whip people into submission or publicly insult them?

A: That is ridiculous, nobody should do that.

B: Christ did that. What I am doing is far nicer.

A: But the way you talk to people is not very nice.

B: Thats right because I am generally speaking to a bunch of pharaohs who think that I should kiss their feet and praise them when I talk. I call it how I see it. If you are doing something wrong don't whine like a baby when I point it out. And certainly don't whine that somebody has the audacity to speak to you as an equal.

A: I think we are done with this conversation.

B: Well thank God! Good luck destroying the church your majesty.

The Evolutionary Advantage of God

                  Dostoevsky famously said "Without God everything is permitted." This I believe is true and has been proven so. This is not to say that all atheists are amoral people, it is to say that everything is permitted, meaning there is nothing to stop someone from doing something immoral. This, in my opinion, is a complex problem for atheists. Its not how or why people are moral and just without God but why be moral or just without God? There is no reason to be good if you are a self serving person who rejects God. With God there is a sense of justice and moral purpose that is lacking in the atheist model. Why be a good person if there is no justification for it? If I want to make millions and I have to hurt people along the way, what is stopping me from doing so in a world without God?

                   I suggest that if God is not in fact real, as I believe He is, then faith is an evolutionary advantage developed some time with our conciousness and self awareness to keep us in check morally. We see what happens, say, in Soviet Russia when the leadership is not only atheistic but against all forms of religion, a blood bath ensued. Why? Because as Dostoevsky says "Without God everything is permitted." There was nothing stopping Stalin from massacring people because to him there was nothing wrong in doing so. He was in a sense his own god, making his own rules and own morality and therefore everything he did was permitted. There are numerous examples that highlight this fact, which makes abandoning God a very scary prospect.

                  If this is true then at some point we will evolve beyond religion, right? I supposed it is all entirely possible that we somehow evolve to a point in which we will not need religion or God, but the problem is not what will make us be moral it is why be moral? We all know what is right and wrong wether or not we believe in God, so why be moral if there is no God? I suppose there is a scientific answer for this as to how we could evolve to that point but right now I think it is safe to say it is good to believe in God, both spiritually and scientifically. I say we wait and see if we actually do evolve past this point. If evolution is true then we will. We will evolve beyond this and still be dedicated to being moral and just, despite the absence of God.

                 I assert that we will not evolve beyond this point because I believe we are created as spiritual beings and therefore we will inevitably be spiritual for the rest of our existence. I suppose there will be many people who say we are evolving, but being an atheist does not mean you are evolving to this state, it means you are an atheist. An evolution would be a collective change from one state to the next. But I assume that many will try and use the rise of atheism as justification for an alleged evolution of the human from religious to irreligious.

              

Infinite and the finite

A conversation between two about a finite being understanding an infinite being


A: It is absolutely absurd for anyone to hold any sort of belief in any God, especially the Judeo-Christian version.

B: Why? What is so absurd about it?

A: The concept of God is so far fetched. How can a finite being even begin to understand an infinite being? It is impossible, so to even assert you know him or believe him is absurd, it is an impossibility.

B: You are a mathematician correct?

A: Yes.

B: So do me a favor, count to the number one for me.

A: Is this some kind of joke? One!

B: No no, I mean count all the numbers.

A: I am not quite understanding what you are asking of me.

B: Between zero and one there exist numbers right?

A: Yes.

B: About how many numbers exist between zero and one?

A: Its impossible to say, probably an endless amount of numbers.

B: An infinite amount of numbers would you say?

A: Yea that would be fair.

B: So why don't you count them when counting to one?

A: Because you would never get to one.

B: So does the number one even exist?

A: Well yes of course, you kind of have to set aside the absurdity of infinity in order to get past all of that.

B: But how can you grasp counting to any number if there exists an infinite amount of numbers in between? It may be absurd to count them but it certainly is also absurd to skip them.

A: What is your point?

B: My point is that despite the absurdity of the infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, you still can grasp and believe in the number one. Likewise, with God I realize that he is infinite and I am merely a finite being but I still am able to know Him and believe in Him, despite the absurdity of the infinite.

A: You believe because it is absurd?

B: I believe it despite the absurdity.

The Council of Chalcedon from an Oriental Perspective

I am by no means a great theologian, or well schooled in Christology. I am however very history minded and therefore this will be from a historical point of view. One thing that really rubs me the wrong way is when in discussion with an Eastern Orthodox Christian about this schism, the EO tends to tell the OO what they believe according to their understanding and then they attack it. This of course is not every EO that I have encountered but quite a number of them do this. Its perplexing to me that someone would not first ask the other what it is they believe, what is their perspective, and how they understand what took place.

The EO tend to point to Dioscorus as a heretic, adhering to a monophysite Christology simply because Dioscorus was trying to rehabilitate Eutyches who was in error. The fact is that even at the council Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. This idea comes from later interpretation of Dioscorous' actions and not any decision by the council of Chalcedon. Dioscorus later did condemn Eutyches who persisted in his error of a monophysite Christology, which apparently is overlooked. But what about the Oriental Orthodox perspective which is almost entirely ignored by the Eastern Orthodox?

From our perspective we were very suspicious of Leo. Why? Well, like Dioscorus making the Eastern suspicious by supporting, and attempting to rehabilitate Eutyches, Leo supported Theodoret, a known Nestorian heretic. When Dioscoros read Leo's Tome he most likely thought it was suspicious in its wording, which is probably why he refused to read it. Not only that, Nestorious himself said that Leos Tome was a "vindication of the truth." So we had enough reason to be suspicious of Leo and his intentions to reject what was taking place at Chalcedon and the Antiochene formula. Of course in hindsight we know that Leo was not a heretic and that while he was friends with Theodoret he was attempting, like Dioscorus, to rehabilitate Theodoret, even rebuking his Nestorian Christology in letters to him.

You will find most, if not all, Oriental Orthodox accept both EO and OO formulas, namely because St Cyril himself affirmed that both formulas are Orthodox, even though he preferred the OO formula to the EO formula. The formula itself is pretty much a non-issue yet I find so many EO are obsessively focused on this, again telling us what it is we believe and then attacking it. Without ever actually asking what we believe, or if we even accept both formulas. We are not monophysite, never have been and never will be. We have adhered to St Cyrils formula of "One nature united out of two" which was accepted at the 3rd council. How exactly could that be Orthodox in one council and then heretical in the following council?

At any rate, we accept both formulas.

The End of Coptic Orthodoxy

                  It is with great sadness that I write this as I have a deep love for the Coptic Orthodox Church. However, the truth is the truth and it must be said as what benefit is the truth if it remain hidden. As many of you know I am a covert to the faith of about 8 years. Recently there has been some turmoil within our diocese, which consists of only one church. Through this I have gotten a glimpse of the state of the church and in this it became clear to me why the church is struggling, why it is bleeding youth, and why it has difficulty evangelizing without compromising its theology and practice. If the church continues the path it is on, it will not be recognizable 50 years from now. It may have a few remnants of Orthodoxy but for the most part people of today will not be able to know a Coptic Orthodox Church from a western protestant church.

               We see many churches employing western methods and westernized protestant songs into their service. We see many preachers now taking the protestant style sermon that has a lot of emotion but little depth. We see priests abusing their position and other clergy protecting them as opposed to disciplining or outright defrocking them. We have a leadership that is detached from the people, that see themselves as lording over the people rather than serving them. Coming to a clergymans rescue despite the fact that he has brutalized congregation after congregation. We see these things happening and the leadership is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. The protestantization of the church is a huge issue, one that is being all but ignored by the leadership of the church. By simply singing these protestant songs we are equating them to Orthodoxy, by doing that we are validating the source. Is protestantism equal to Orthodoxy? Hardly. We have to remember that this is a different religion entirely and it teaches against everything we deem necessary for salvation. I am sorry to be so brutally honest but if you deny the body and blood of Christ then you are denying Him. How can you deny Him and yet consider yourself to be Christian? But, if we tell our youth, and the rest of the people that are protestantizing, that this is acceptable then what is stopping them from leaving? If protestantism is truly the same then why fast 210 days out of the year when you can fast 0 days and get the same result? This is the danger that we are facing the the leadership is too weak and ineffectual to do anything about it.

               The other problem is the backward minded clergy. Now granted there are numerous good clergy who do a fantastic job but there are also numerous backward minded priests who seem more concerned with their own authority than they do serving the people in their congregation. This leads to friction and strife amongst the people as the priest acts as a dictator rather than a shepherd and beats his sheep into compliance rather than love them and guide them with a steady hand. These priests seem only to care about their authority and abuse the priesthood for their own personal gain. I honestly cannot decide if some of these clergy are dictators or tyrants, either way its not good. The other issue with clergy, which is directly related to their tyrannical mindset is the fact that they are unbelievably difficult to get a hold of. One bishop in particular I called, emailed, and texted over 300 times. Not once was an email, text, or phone call returned. In fact I had to drive over four hours to ambush him at a monastery just to talk to him about the issues in our diocese. The evidence was presented to him and he assured us that he would take care of the situation, only to completely reverse his decision the very next day. This seems common place amongst Coptic Clergy, tell somebody one thing and then do another. I have seen this over and over as if its a cultural tradition to lie to someones face.


             Unless the leadership grows a spine and takes action the Coptic Orthodox Church is utterly doomed. Its slow progression towards oblivion seems inevitable, barring another miracle in the form of a saint the likes of St Pope Kyrillos 6th. Unfortunately I do not see this happening and the churches decline into oblivion inevitable. The leadership even acknowledges there is a problem, putting out a survey asking the entire church why people are leaving the church. It is such a big issue that the leadership actually did something, so it must be big if they actually acted. God willing the church will see the light and come out of the ignorance imprisoning it.

Amen.