Jump to content

Homosexuality, what is it about?

Оцени ову тему


Препоручена порука

Управо сада, Лапис Лазули рече

Sta mislite o ovoj teoriji? 

 

Пре пар дана бих реаговао строго конзервативно и оштро би осудио, а сада сам у фазону скроз либералног схватања. Свако има своју слободу, нека раде сви шта хоће, сви ћемо одговарати за своја дела.

Као што Писмо каже: ...али знај да ће те за све то Бог извести на суд. (Књига Проповедникова 11:9) 

  • Свиђа ми се 1
Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима
пре 19 минута, Neša_ рече

Koliko sam uspeo da razumem, ovaj sa blagonaklonošću i simpatijama gleda na bolesnu nastranost kod ljudi. Verovatno je i on nastran.

Totalna degradacija.

Уопште ниси одгледао видео, признај  :ani_biggrin:

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима
пре 12 минута, Neša_ рече

Totalna degradacija.

И дегенерација..

Кад смо код тога, где нам је Аурорче - @Аурор? Нема га дуго.

Млађа на блоку, чика Гризли по Америкама, Даре јури сојке, једино још Васа самурај баци понеки коментар о социјалистима, феминисткињама и осталим дегенерацијама.. некако ме хвата носталгија. 

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима

No, ovo je rekord foruma, ako se ne varam to budu cijela dva a možda i tri mjeseca bez LGBT tema! Čudo! Kako smo to samo izdržali tako dugo! :D 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hKAUDLY0pA

 

  • Волим 1
Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима

Mislim da ih ne možeš naterati da ih privuče suprotan pol, tako da na njima ostaje volja.

U knjizi stvaranja Bog daje čoveku slobodnu volju.

Onda se spominje Sodoma i Gomora, beše uništeni zbog homoseksualizma, alkoholizma, prostitucije i svega ostalog što ne valja.

Zatim se u knjizi apostola Pavla ponovo spominje da homoseksualnost nije odobreno od strane Boga niti će ikada biti odobreno.

Neka svako radi ono što mislim da treba da radi, a Gospod će nam svima suditi. Gospod je jasno dao do znanja čoveku šta misli o homoseksualnosti tako što je uništio Sodomu i Gomoru.

Moje lično mišljenje je da osim toga što homoseksualnost uništava čovečanstvo, opšte je poznato da se tako dobijaju kojekave boleštine, ne mogu da imaju svoju decu (najlepši dar od Boga), potpuno neprirodno i ne znam da li ste primetili, ali u takvim parovima, uvek se obojica ponašaju kao žene ili se jedna ponaša kao muškarac a druga kao žena.

Verujem da ste čuli da su neki ljudi optuženi za sodomiju iliti "polne radnje na neprirodan način". 

I homoseksulaci koji misle da će završiti u Raj i da je u Raju homoseksualizam dopušten u carstvo Božije, grdno se varaju. Naše je da im objasnimo zbog čega to nije dobro i zašto ih Gospod kao takve neće prihvatiti u svoje carstvo, osim ako se ne pokaju. Svaki čovek ako se ne pokaje pred poslednji izdisaj, neće završiti kod Boga.

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима

No, sad ozbiljno, to s tim je kao u muzici, imate tamo jasan standard i prosjek i potom "varijacije" (ili devijacije ko voli više takav izraz) u svim smjerovima i na sve strane, desno, lijevo, gore i dole. Tu je beskonačno mnogo najnevjerovatnijih mogucnosti. Kad su pitali J. S. Bacha od kuda ima takvo umijece sviranja orgulja, rekao je, pa to je vrlo jednostavno, treba samo udariti pravu tipku u pravo vrijeme. Ili što bi rekli gitaristi i violinisti, ima milion načina kako gitara ili violina može biti raštimovana ali na samo jedan način je dobro naštimana. Na srecu onaj koji to ne umije ili nema dobro naštimanu gitaru ili violinu, ne mora nas terorisati svojim sviranjem gitare ili violine ali može svoje (ne)talente usmjeriti u drugom smjeru (na ritam i bubnjeve recimo). A Bog ce nas pitati ne za ono što nismo imali ni umjeli vec glavno za ono što smo mogli i znali a nismo kako treba iskoristiti htjeli.

1. :bu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU_n9UB1fSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsnFHpiqTxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0S4jAdTNcc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZIgX9W5zNk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpd-fKbtN5M

2. :((

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWG8f13qQkc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWsxRlRzcPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkf1oaD0XjM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKNG43BOEE

3. 7896634

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSsCZ-UtCJQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2_V9vZJdn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlWXIQ0RiNI

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима
пре 14 часа, WiseMan рече

Mislim da ih ne možeš naterati da ih privuče suprotan pol, tako da na njima ostaje volja.

U knjizi stvaranja Bog daje čoveku slobodnu volju.

Onda se spominje Sodoma i Gomora, beše uništeni zbog homoseksualizma, alkoholizma, prostitucije i svega ostalog što ne valja.

Pa ne baš... uništeni su zbog toga što su bili toliko grešni da u Sodomu nije bilo ni 10 pravednika... šta su sve grešili se ne nigde u toj priči ne pominje eksplicitno.

Ima taj deo u kojem rulja hoće da siluje dva anđela, pa im jedini pravednik u Sodomu ponudi svoje ćerke, ali je naknadno tumačenje te priče, po kojem je poenta u zabrani homoseksualnosti, prilično bizarno (po mom mišljenju)... jer pravednik Lot im nudi svoje ćerke da ne diraju one ljude, koji su ušli pod njegov krov... te je sasvim jasno da nije poenta njihovog greha u homoseksualnosti, nego u tome što su povredili obaveze gostoprimstva, odnosno, toga da ne naudiš gositima ništa... u smislu, eto čak mi razdevičite ćerke, ali goste ne sme niko da pipne, jer je gostoprimstvo svetinja (što je u tim vremenima kada nisu postojali policija, moteli i hoteli bio preduslov za putovanje i samim tim za normalno funkcionisanje jednog društva).

Čak i rekcija rulje ukazuje na to:

А они му рекоше: ходи амо. Па онда рекоше: овај је сам дошао амо да живи као дошљак, па још хоће да нам суди; сад ћемо теби учинити горе него њима. Па навалише јако на човјека, на Лота, и стадоше истављати врата.

Kao i prethodni deo u kojem Lot insistira da ovi anđeli (koje on vidi kao obične putnike) ne spavaju na ulici, nego da ih on ugosti, da prenoće kod njega i da sutra nastave svojim putem.

 

Цитат

Moje lično mišljenje je da osim toga što homoseksualnost uništava čovečanstvo, opšte je poznato da se tako dobijaju kojekave boleštine, ne mogu da imaju svoju decu (najlepši dar od Boga), potpuno neprirodno i ne znam da li ste primetili, ali u takvim parovima, uvek se obojica ponašaju kao žene ili se jedna ponaša kao muškarac a druga kao žena.

Ni ti nisi pogledao klip?  :)

 

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима
  • 1 month later...
On 07/12/2017 at 21:43, Lady Godiva рече

И дегенерација..

Кад смо код тога, где нам је Аурорче - @Аурор? Нема га дуго.

Млађа на блоку, чика Гризли по Америкама, Даре јури сојке, једино још Васа самурај баци понеки коментар о социјалистима, феминисткињама и осталим дегенерацијама.. некако ме хвата носталгија. 

Tis moja seka! :) 

E, ne verujem da će me biti (skoro), delom imam obaveza preko glave, a delom sam i ljut na ovo mesto. Možda na leto malo, ali je pitanje... Nadam se da je sve dobro ovako.

 

xoxo, Dare

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима
пре 3 минута, Аурор рече

Tis moja seka! :) 

E, ne verujem da će me biti (skoro), delom imam obaveza preko glave, a delom sam i ljut na ovo mesto. Možda na leto malo, ali je pitanje... Nadam se da je sve dobro ovako.

 

xoxo, Dare

Учи школе и буди добар.

Љуби те твоја сека. :)

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима
пре 23 минута, Lady Godiva рече

Учи школе и буди добар.

Љуби те твоја сека. :)

I da branite forum od degeneracije u mom odsustvu ;)

 

Jer ko me ljubi, drži moje zapovesti.

Jovan, gl. 14.

Линк до поруке
Подели на овим сајтовима

Придружите се разговору

Можете одговорити сада, а касније да се региструјете на Поуке.орг Ако имате налог, пријавите се сада да бисте објавили на свом налогу.

Guest
Имаш нешто да додаш? Одговори на ову тему

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Чланови који сада читају   0 чланова

    Нема регистрованих чланова који гледају ову страницу

  • Сличан садржај

    • Од Лапис Лазули,
      Mozda nekome bude korisno od ovih u Kani a i ostalima. 
       
    • Од Поуке.орг инфо,
      History – Here is your entire Google search history. Ads – Here is what Google thinks what your interests are and shows you ads based on these interests. Location History – Here are the places where you used Google to do anything. Takeout – Export every information Google knows about you. Dashboard – An activity page that tells you about all the Google services you are using. YouTube search history – YouTube saves all of your searches too. Permissions – You can see here what permissions you gave to the extensions and sites you use.
      http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/8zKyU6/:Ev32!tV8:Y.5T9zn2/oneminlist.com/7-links-that-will-tell-you-what-google-knows-about-you
    • Од Iulianus,
      (About G. V. Martini - G. V. Martini works as a senior product manager for a software company and is a subdeacon in the Orthodox Church. He and his family attends St. Innocent Antiochian Orthodox Church in Everson, Washington)
       
      October 10, 2017 · G. V. Martini
      Editor’s Note: This article is part of an October 2017 series of posts on the Reformation and Protestantism written by O&H authors and guest writers marking the 500th anniversary of the nailing of Martin Luther’s 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Articles are written by Orthodox Christians and discuss not just the Reformation as a historical event but also the spiritual heritage that descended from it.
      December, 1524. A French wool carder named Jean Leclerc inconspicuously removes a bull of Pope Clement VII from the doors of the cathedral in Meaux. The bull promised indulgences, but Leclerc would not have it. In its place, he offered a rendering of Clement as the Antichrist.
      He was soon found out, sentenced to a brutal and public lashing after a short trial in Paris. And in March of 1525 he received his punishment, being thereafter exiled from his home. But this did not deter Leclerc from future trouble making.
      In the town of Metz, he continued his trade as a wool carder. For a while, he kept his contrary views to himself. But eventually, Jean found an opportunity to make a statement. He decided that on the occasion of the next holy procession to a shrine, he would make a definitive stand. The night before the procession was scheduled to take place, Leclerc took all of the icons and relics at the shrine and destroyed them.
      The next day, worshipers were obviously in shock. Leclerc was discovered and arrested for his actions, being immediately sentenced to death. On July 22, 1525, tortured alive for all to see, he reportedly spoke in a calm voice: “Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.”
      Leclerc is but one example of the radicalization of Protestant Christians in sixteenth century France.
      Perhaps most well-known are the Huguenots and the bloody Protestant-Catholic wars that persisted to a climactic St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572. And while torturing people to death for their religious beliefs is not something any of us would either condone or accept, the high stakes during this period of history make it clear there were passionate, and deeply held beliefs on either side.
      But where did this anger come from? Why were common folk in France and other parts of Europe so suddenly angry at the very sight of images and relics?
      Calvin and the French Influence
      While he was forced to leave France by 1534, humanist and student of the law John Calvin published his first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536, dedicating it to the king of France. And in 1539, the first Synod of Paris officially sought to organize the Protestant Church in France as a “Calvinist” one. Absent or not, Calvin and his theology were at the heart of the Protestant movement both in France and elsewhere in the sixteenth century.
      Throughout his magnum opus, Calvin writes on a number of theological topics. Divided into four books, the eleventh chapter of his first volume deals specifically with the issue of sacred images or icons. Being so influential over Christianity in France, his words carried substantial weight. And while Calvin would later condemn the violent and public acts of iconoclasm (much like Luther), this did not prevent him from holding a pointedly negative view regarding their use both within the Christian church and in the private devotions of Christians.
      As Orthodox Christians, we obviously hold icons to be holy and important objects. They are “windows into heaven,” as some have put it, and are a real way for us to be connected in the great communion of the Saints. They bridge the apparent divide between heaven and earth; between the heavenly eternity and the mutable present.
      And so, on this monumental anniversary of the Reformation, I thought it might be prudent to examine what Calvin himself had to say about icons and then consider what we as Orthodox Christians believe. Public execution and torturing those who disagree with us is not the answer—as I’m sure we can all agree—but if these matters were so serious in the sixteenth century, they are no less serious today. Theology is important, and something as seemingly innocent as the images of Saints deserves a serious examination—and a serious response—when charges of idolatry or heresy are made.
      All Images Are Idols?
      Calvin first argues from the standpoint that we are forbidden by scripture to make any depiction or pictorial representation of God (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.11.1).
      Following the instructions given to Moses, we should not make “… an idol nor a likeness of anything, whatever is in the heaven above and whatever is in the earth below and whatever is in the waters under the earth.” And before these objects we must not “bow down” or “worship” (Exodus 20:4–5). This seems relatively straightforward, until one considers the implication and the actual intended message.
      As Orthodox Christians, we wholeheartedly agree that the invisible God, who is immaterial and uncircumscribable, cannot be depicted. Even if we wanted to, we could not accurately or faithfully represent God the Father. But who we have in the Incarnation is the “express image” (Heb. 1:3) of God the Father, the “icon of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). In Jesus Christ we see God, and in his Incarnation, God reveals himself to us. While the Father and Spirit are both formless and invisible (1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27; 1 John 4:20), the Person of the Son is revealed to us in the God-Man Jesus Christ: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (John 1:18).
      And so as Calvin laments a straw-man of false idols made from stone and silver (1.1.1), the Orthodox Christian need only reply that we are receiving and venerating the image of God he himself has given to us. If making an image of Jesus Christ is “superstitious” or “falsehood,” the first violation belongs to God himself. Calvin goes on to reinforce his argument by citing the example of Moses hiding in the rock (1.11.2), yet this is obviously a pre-Incarnational example of the immaterial God being hidden from our eyes. In Christ, we need no longer turn away, for God has given us a face to behold.
      Images and Statues Contrary to Scripture
      Following on his previous point, Calvin suggests that the very idea of images or forms depicting the invisible God is contrary to scripture. How dare anyone “confer God’s honor upon idols” (1.11.4)? For Calvin, scripture clearly associates superstitions with being the “works of men’s hands,” and not from God.
      However, every example Calvin provides from the old covenant is an example of God’s people worshiping other gods or demons, not the one, true God.
      As Orthodox Christians, we must also guard against superstition, and ensure that our veneration of icons and relics is pointed towards the one, true God. We must remember that our hope is in him and not any material thing. But to reject something good and holy just because it has potential for abuse would be, as Martin Luther himself once argued, to abolish the sky, food, and everyone we hold dear.
      Images Make Bad Teachers
      Next, Calvin reflects on the words of Pope Gregory the Great, who once wrote to Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles regarding an act of iconoclasm.
      Apparently, Christians in Marseilles were worshiping images and so the local clergy had them destroyed and removed from their churches. But Gregory rebukes Serenus and his fraternity for this act, explaining that of course they should not be worshiped (“adored”)—which is due to God alone—but are to remain in the churches so those “ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books” (Letter 105).
      But to Calvin, images are not useful for instruction at all, especially when compared with books. Whatever can be learned from images is “futile” and “false” (1.11.5), an opinion he holds to be in line with the Prophets themselves. To this point Calvin returns in several more instances throughout the chapter (e.g. 1.11.7, 1.11.12). But is this really the case?
      It seems possible Calvin was especially insistent on this point because a good portion of the Roman statuary and images of Saints in his day were influenced by a more Renaissance style (1.11.7). He notes that even some of these images were inappropriate for church, due to how they were dressed or positioned. Leaving that bit aside, how should Orthodox Christians respond to this historical (and scriptural) example?
      Orthodox Christians do not approve the adoration or “worship” of icons, which should only be offered to the Holy Trinity. We do not worship icons as idols but rather pay them respect, as we might kiss the precious photograph of a loved one, or as an American citizen might salute the American flag. We are not worshiping the paper of a photograph or the fabric of a flag, but are rather paying respect and affection (“service” or δουλεία) to their prototype.
      We affirm the words of St. Gregory the Great that any abuse or superstitions related to icons and relics should be condemned. In fact, the Church did this very thing during the deliberations of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The letter to Serenus is not an opposing, patristic voice to the proper use of icons. St. Gregory stands firmly in the same tradition as Orthodox Christians to this day.
      Gregory’s belief—contra Calvin—that icons could not only instruct the illiterate, but also lead men of all ages and educations to a proper contemplation of and encounter with the Divine, was a belief shared by many fathers of the Church. St. John of Damascus once wrote that “we are led by perceptible icons to the contemplation of the divine and spiritual” (PG 94:1261a). St. Gregory of Nyssa remarked that he could not see an icon of Abraham with Isaac “without tears” (PG 46:572). And finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council reflects on Nyssa’s tears: “If to such a Doctor the picture was helpful and drew forth tears, how much more in the case of the ignorant and simple will it bring compunction and benefit?” (NPNF2 Vol. 14, p. 539).
      Images Reflect a Later Corruption of the Church
      Calvin also suggests that icons and statues were an abuse not found in the early Church.
      He claims that “for about five hundred years, during which religion was still flourishing, and a purer doctrine thriving, Christian churches were commonly empty of images” (1.11.13). And while he does not expand on this point to a great extent, the insinuation is commonly held by enough authorities throughout the Reformation that it warrants a brief response.
      By archaeology alone, we know today that images and pictorial representation were inextricably linked with the worship and piety of the earliest Christians.
      The catacombs of Italy, for example, make this plain for anyone to see. The relics of martyrs were routinely placed beneath Eucharistic altars, with images of Mary, Saints, and Christ with his disciples on the walls and ceilings around those partaking of the most holy of Christian mysteries. And in Syria, we have the amazing house church of Dura Europos, a place with iconography in the Baptistry and place of worship (not to mention a nearby Jewish synagogue with much of the same).
      There is also very little to suggest in the writings of the Church fathers that iconography, the veneration of icons and relics, or their placement in churches was any sort of later “corruption” or invention. Instead, we see a continual strain of support and respect for their proper usage, and the ultimate vindication of iconodules in the eighth century’s Second Council of Nicaea.
      “Childish” Arguments of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
      Calvin next turns his attention to the Second Council of Nicaea, held near the great city of Constantinople in the year 787. He laments that “a wicked Proserpine named Irene” was responsible for the Council dictating that images in church “should be worshiped” (1.11.14).
      Much like the Franks before him, Calvin is utterly impaired in his evaluation of this Ecumenical Council due to a poorly (mis-)translated Latin edition. He in fact references the text of Charlemagne in this very section. Instead of an orthodox nuance between veneration and adoration (or “worship”), he sees an assembly of bishops and priests arguing for the worship of icons as if they were God himself. Unfortunately, most of Calvin’s evaluation of this event is based on the misleading fiction of the Carolingians, who had political—not theological—reasons for wishing to overturn and ignore the conclusions of this Council.
      That said, it is worth pointing out that the Ecumenical Council does not promote the worship of images as God, and goes to great lengths to promote their proper and orthodox use. All scriptural arguments made in their deliberations (e.g. from Gen. 28:18, 47:10,31; Ps. 44:13; 98:5,9 LXX; Heb. 11:21) are ignored by Calvin, being merely dismissed outright as treating Scripture “childishly” and “foully” (1.11.15).
      And so really, since Calvin fails to present any substantial or meaningful argument outside of a false translation of the Council and ignoring the actual arguments made therein—including from scripture—there is not much more to be said on our part. I do find it ironic that a man so passionate about all theology being based upon the scriptures is so quick to avoid an interaction with them and the holy fathers of this Council.
      Misquoting and Misrepresenting Augustine
      The final area we’ll cover is Calvin’s citations of Augustine as a supporter of his aniconic position.
      Here again Calvin assumes that the earlier, more pure Christians would’ve obviously rejected images as impious and idolatrous. They certainly saw in images “no usefulness” (1.11.13). He then cites Augustine as an agreeable authority. Calvin writes:
      However, if these letters of Augustine are read in context, it becomes immediately clear that the Bishop of Hippo has in mind the false idols of other religions. For example:
      In other words, idols and the veneration of false gods or “demons” are of course to be rejected, because these other religions are parroting the true worship and liturgy of Christianity. They are using our forms for the worship of a false deity. And for Augustine, the offerings and prayers of our Christian liturgy—including images—are “true religion,” when done according to the traditions of the Church (and when offered to the one, true God).
      Later, Augustine emphasizes:
      Far from “the work of men’s hands,” Augustine speaks of “divine authority” in contrast to “human presumption.”
      Calvin’s appeals to Augustine on the subject of icons and relics is much like his appeal to the minutes of the Second Council of Nicaea: they are appeals based on both fiction and misrepresentation.
      Concluding Thoughts
      So what can Orthodox Christians take away from all of this?
      First, it must be noted that there is much we hold in common with our Reformation brothers and sisters. Not everything that took place during the Reformation, and especially during the Magisterial Reformation, was in vain or without justification. The Western church of that era was certainly one in need of reform and correction, and we must remember that figures such as Martin Luther were not necessarily setting out to create a new church in their own image, but rather reform the church from within. In some cases, the latter meant appeals to the worship, theology, and practices of the “Greek Christians,” as with both Luther and the later Tübingen theologians.
      Second, it may be possible that some of Calvin’s arguments or positions on the issue of images and relics was excessively influenced by both bad translations and the abuses of the Western church in his day. For the former, we may give him the benefit of the doubt to some degree—though this is more difficult in the case of his use of Augustine’s letters. For the latter, we likely agree to a certain extent on the impropriety of superstition and misuse when it comes to both images and relics. However, Eastern Christians are not entirely without blame in terms of abuses, as (for instance) the Patriarchate of Constantinople was known to (in the eighteenth century) offer indulgences—though this was isolated and not a widespread or accepted practice elsewhere in the Church.
      Finally, we must also stand firm in our own beliefs related to iconography, as this is not some optional or secondary aspect of our beliefs as Orthodox Christians. This was made plain both during the first wave of Byzantine iconoclasm at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and in the ninth century by authorities such as Theodore the Studite. For example, the Studite writes: “If anyone should say that, when the image of Christ is displayed, it is sufficient neither to honor nor to dishonor it, thus refusing it the honor of relative veneration, he is a heretic.” As Orthodox Christians, it is not enough to take a fence-sitting stance on this issue, as we believe the very doctrine of the Incarnation is at stake. And so on this we depart, willfully, from our Reformed friends (and from the counter-arguments of the Carolingian Libri Carolini).
      It is also worth noting that the defense of icons and their proper veneration was not entirely a Byzantine affair. No, the Church was rather united on this point, even outside the confines of the Second Council of Nicaea or the ninth century in Constantinople. For a more Western or Roman Catholic perspective, one need only reference the Councils of Rome in 727 and 731, the Council of Gentilly in 767, and the Council of the Lateran in 769.
      In the veneration of icons, Orthodox Christians see an importance that transcends even our best or most elaborate written arguments. In the Incarnation, God has made himself known to us. He could be seen, felt, and heard. And through his friends, our Saints and Fathers, we see what it means to act, live, and love like Christ. We are provided examples of how to mold our own lives to be patterned after him. We pay honor to them, because they have imaged Christ to us. We follow in their footsteps because they have sought to follow in the footsteps of our God and Savior.
      And so we chant on every Sunday of Orthodoxy a refrain that has deep meaning and significance for every Orthodox Christian—a staunch reminder that the veneration of icons is no mere secondary concern or the imaginations of human presumption:
       
       
    • Од АлександраВ,
      http://bitecharge.com/play/behindback
      The Rebel
      You can be described as a rebel or misfit, with a bit of curiosity and eccentricity. You are turned on by adventurous and non-mainstream activities and the things you do can sometimes make people jealous. Everyone knows that your experiences and the memories you've had are rare and one-of-a-kind!
×
×
  • Креирај ново...