About US

I would like to know what took you away from from Orthodoxy, so we could have a constructive discussion

There are many things that caused us to move away from Eastern Orthodoxy. These are not in any particular order. While some of our experiences differ amongst each other (from person to person), several themes consistently emerge:

Problem # 1. The lack of responsiveness of the EOC priests and the hierarchy. While most of the priests were willing to answer several questions, there were lines of questions and lines of reasoning that many of them expressed antagonism towards - along with a lack of answers. In other words, although initially suggesting that the answers were obtainable, the final answers can be summarized in the phrase that "Its all a mystery".

This is the tactic that Freemasons use. This is what they tell their own congregants. But what most Freemasons do not know is that their history is not lost in the mists of time. It's not a mystery. [ Note: this does not mean that there is no mystery in Faith. It only means that History - has far less Mystery, than what the Orthodox are often told]. History is only proclaimed to be ...a mystery - as an excuse not to look at the historic record.

(its not that the EOC is the same as Freemasonry, but it is rather that both of them deal with their lack of historical records in the same manner).

We found many examples of avoidance of questions (with solid historical answers) by EOC priests. While the priests may not have particularly appreciated the questions, this does not mean that local priests are the ones who were deliberately attempting to consciously deceive. However it does mean that - on several occasions, they were very uncomfortable not only that the questions were being asked, but that the only answers they either knew or could provide would be historically unsatisfactory and lacking historic foundations.

There is a very long time period between the last church council (the 6th) and today. There is also a long period of time between the so-called 7th church council and today.

It is not sufficient that those councils took place. What happened between those Church councils and the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Church in its present form today ? From a close examinations of the contents of those councils, the Eastern Orthodox Church of today contradicts - theologically - many of the pronouncements of these councils.

However - beyond this - the documentary record seems to stop at the 7th church council. What has happened since then ? How did questions not settled at those 7 church councils come to be addressed by our time ? What is the specific line of succession from metropolitan to metropolitan, in each of the top 4 (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople) or top 7 Patriarchates ? How do we know this ? How were the records kept ? Who authenticated those records ? What were the methods of preservation ? Did each of those patriarchates keep separate records ? What language did they write in ? At what point historically, did each of those patriarchates switch from Koine Greek to Latin ? What was the relationship between those patriarchates and their centralized administration through the Byzantine empire ?

What physical documentary evidence exists of each of those patriarchates and of their operations, between themselves and the central administrators of the Byzantine empire ? What was the impact of the Turkish and Moslem conquests on those patriarchates and their records and record-keeping ? How did the threat of hostility by Moslem forces alter and change the operations of the various Patriarchates in the 600s and after ?

Where are those answers, and where is the documented proof of each one of the answers ? They claim to be the oldest church. Where is the PROOF ?

They claim that they have unbroken lines of succession. Where is the Proof ?

They claim to be the legitimate inheritors of the original Patriarchates. We believe this to be impossible for a number of reasons. But if they maintain that this is the case, Where is the Proof ?

Obviously, the proof would be good. The point is not simply the absence of Good proof. The point is the absence of almost ANY proof.

We know many of these answers - but the point is that the local Orthodox priests did not, and most of their superiors also did not. Therefore the following choices seem possible:

B. They DO have the answers, and find the answers problematic since it contradicts their public claims.

C. They do not know HOW to find the answers, and they hope the questions will simply go away.

Problem # 2. Obstinacy (attitudinally) seems to run more like a chain of command up the EOC structure. This is something that many have remarked from all over. The priests seem somewhere between cold and uncaring, depending on which EOC branch one refers to, and arrogant, condescending and dismissive, not as a function of personality, but more as a function of their training.

The attitude was not only that they did not want to be questioned, but that anyone who was seeking answers ran the risk of being accused of having wrong motives, of being led astray, or of potentially leading others astray. This was true in the more ethnic branches of Orthodoxy, which euphemistically means that this attitude is rather pervasive.

Problem # 3. The historic record in the west seems to be much more accurate than what exists in the East. What people in the west are often led to believe is that the records in the patriarchates, are systematized, consistent, accurate and historical. Nothing could be further from the truth. The records of the Church of Greece are not nearly as old as people are led to believe, and the records of the church of russia (both ROC and ROCA) are themselves dependant on the Orthodox Church in Greece, and then on WESTERN SOURCES. That does not serve the claims of "inherent authenticity" very well. Americans often are often led to simply presume that the records in the east are accurate. Attempting to find source documentation about the Eastern Orthodox in those very partriarchates is practically an exercise in starvation.

The records simply are not there, if they ever were. And it is for THAT reason (since the hierarchy knows this) that they do not wish to talk about the historic record.

Therefore there are frequent "ALLUSIONS" to particular records or saints, or historic teachings, but the documentation that would support the "ancient" basis of the teachings advocated is greatly lacking.

It is true that Orthodoxy has its roots in the east. However, it is not true that their records are either good, complete, still extant, thorough, or well documented. The more we examined the documentary record, it was the Western churches that had far greater documentation, not only about their own authenticity, but about the Eastern Orthodox Church in particular.

A Church does not have to claim to be the actual descendant of the original churches, but if one is going to make the claim, one should be able to back this up. The EOC claims authority as it descends from the 4 oldest branches of Orthodoxy: The church in Alexandria, the Church in Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch and the Church at Constantinople.

A. The church at Alexandria contradicted the pronouncements, teachings and doctrines of the rest of the christian church in their own days and time. Therefore claiming descent from the Alexandrian church is actually claiming descent from a branch which was most of the time - a schismatic branch (because the Alexandrians had absorbed the false teachings of Origen).

B. The church at Constantinople: The Church at Constantinople did not exist before Constantine. If we are going to claim descent from a non-existent branch, this does not bode well for credibility. The historic jurisdiction for the Area in which Constantinople resides is Thrace.

[Some Eastern Orthodox still do not understand the point here: The Organization of the Church at Constantinople was an act taken by a Roman Emperor Three Hundred Years after Jesus Christ. The City of Constantinople did not even exist. Constantine - a pagan emperor (by the statement of his own bishop, Eusebius) - founded and established the city after 325 A.D. Obviously - If Constantine established a city...that did not exist for the first Three Hundred Years of Christianity, then HOW was it possible that the Patriarchate of Constantinople would be one of the "Oldest" ? The implications would be then that the Eastern Orthodox Church's Oldest Patriarchate...was developed Three Hundred years after Christianity had already been existing and flourishing.

That line of reasoning...supports the premise that the Eastern Orthodox Church and its Hierarchy actually was a "Johnny-come-lately" in Christianity. That is not a Support for the "Ancient Roots" of Eastern Orthodoxy. The Founding of the City of Constantinople therefore works Against the supposition that either 1) The Eastern Orthodox Church has True Historic Roots, or 2) that it descends from the actual Early Christians.

It Certainly did not descend from the "Early Christians" at Constantinople because until the City was founded by Constantine, it was D-I-R-T...there was nothing there.

The Geographic area within which the City of Constantinople exists - was the Roman Province of Thrace. That is what existed for Hundreds of Years BEFORE Constantinople and its Patriarchate.

IF Constantine truly wanted to establish Continuity between the Early Christians and his own new Project of Constantinople, he would have simply made the Old Bishop of Thrace to be the New Bishop of Constantinople.

Not only did Constantine NOT take this step. There is a good amount of evidence that He Defrocked and Banished the Bishop of Thrace. After Constantinople, All of the people in the Eastern Patriarchate do not yet exist.

This means that the city was so new, that there were No Eastern Orthodox already in place. There was no patriarchate. There was no bureaucracy, there were no secretaries, there was no money, there were no church buildings, there was nothing except empty lots and green vegetation...good for the environment...but bad for establishing an "early existence" argument about the Patriarchate at the NEW city of Constantinople.

Constantine never knew Chrysostom. Chrysostom lived almost 75 years later, and he was among the first Patriarchates of Constantinople. AND...Chrysostom did not come from Constantinople. What does this mean for a LACK of established history of the Christian Church at Constantinople ?? Chrysostom was himself an import.

None of this lends credence to a "line of succession" at Constantinople. But even if anyone believed this, we need to stop and take into account what happened during the life of Chrysostom and what this means for the "establishment" of Eastern Orthodoxy:

The Empress who lived during the time of Chrysostom Destroyed the succession - IF it would have been there to begin with (Hypothetically) - because The Empress took over the newly founded Patriarchate of Constantinople, Banished Chrysostom - and had him exiled. He was kicked out of his own church.

That ended the line of succession right there. It was not being agreed upon by the Church, but was rather being imposed from the OUTSIDE, by the Roman Imperial Family.

The Theology of Chrysostom ceased with Chrysostom. He died alone and forgotten, with the exception of the Imperial Roman Guards of the Eastern Imperial Roman Empire, that were still hounding him, by order of the Empress. He died hundreds of miles away from Constantinople. No knew even where he was except for the Empress.

Back to the specifics of That Patriarchate...upon exiling Chrysostom - who had been in his position FOR LESS THAN TEN YEARS (though he is celebrated AS IF he was in that Patriarchate All of his life) - the Empress then installed a Different Patriarch who was theologically OPPOSITE to Chrysostom.

Logically - what do you think this is going to do to the Theology upheld by that Patriarchate under Chrysostom ? Do you really think that anyone, especially during Imperial days, was about to venture a theological opinion that was the same as that of Chrysostom ?

But if the Replacement for Chrysostom was opposite theologically, then what are the implications for the NEW theology that the Eastern Orthodox Hierarchs...were told to develop and preach on ?

Those are only a few of the issues, dealing with the Narrow Issue of the Bishopric that actually existed BEFORE the founding of Constantinople, which was the Bishopric of THRACE. ]

Where is the body of historic commentary on the Bishopric of Thrace ? Where are the parchments and documents that would link the jurisdiction of Thrace to the newly created Jurisdiction of Constantinople ? All we have today are a large amount of supposition, and insistence that Constantinople is one of the oldest patriarchates. Shanghai or Damascus are some of the oldest cities on the planet, also. So what ? Just because someone claims to have had a church there, would this automatically constitute proof of descent from that original church - 2000 years ago ?

Where are the documents that link the patriarchate of Antioch to the Eastern Orthodox Church itself ?

The supposition is that if there was a patriarchate at Antioch, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate which existed in the year 1054 - as an example - MUST have been the descendant of the original Patriarchate at Antioch. WHY ?

We believe that if anything, the Patriarchate of Antioch (as related to the Eastern Orthodox Church of today) did not exist prior to 400 AD. But if it did, where is the proof ?

Where is the link between A). the first Christians at Antioch and B). the establishment of the Patriarchate ?

Where is the link between A) the Patriarchate at Antioch and B) the Eastern Half of Roman Emperor Constantine's Church, which got underway in the East around 400 A.D. when Chrysostom ran the Eastern half [for ONLY TEN YEARS] ???

Where is the line of succession of bishops (metropolitans) in that patriarchate at Antioch ? Where are the legal documents affirming its juridical status ?

Note: not its detractors, but its SUPPORTERS claim that the Patriarchate today in Antioch, descends from the original church founded by the Apostles in Antioch. Well the Bible does speak of the church in Antioch, but

where are the historic documents that would prove an actual link, between those first christians and the Eastern Orthodox Church ?

The fact is that the more one delves into the historic records of the EOC the more one finds not an ancient church, or a church founded by the Apostles, but instead a church founded LATE and by the Roman Empire

The Records that exist today of the Eastern Orthodox Church that we found are those of a medieval church.

Authoritative documents ONE THOUSAND YEARS after Christ is not our idea of "old" or "authentic".

Can anyone find a copy of the Menaion PRIOR to the 1200s ? How about the Philokalia ?

Yes, the Philocalia (portions of it) have been found (though it is Not what usually passes for the Philokalia these days). It is the Philocalia of Origen, who was banned ALONG WITH his Philocalia at the 5th Church Council. That does not argue for the authenticity of the present-day "current" so-called Philokalia. On the contrary, it implies that if the Philokalia is authentic, to whatever degree it would be, it is the result of the corruption of Origen (since he wrote several sections of it).

That does not trace the Eastern Orthodox Church back to the Apostles. It would rather trace a portion of its theological lineage back to Origen, who in fact was BANNED by those Church Councils.

(That - by the way - is an example of the "allusion". EOC Priests Allude [Make constant reference] to the church councils, but then on the other hand still - today - promote the reading of the works of Origen. That would not be a problem. But wait: the 5th Church Council excommunicates not simply Origen but those who read his material, his books.)

If the Church Councils ARE authoritative and we should obey them, then either many current Eastern Orthodox priest and laymen are excommunicated before God for having READ the writings of Origen (and also promoting his writings). But on the other hand, if we can disreguard what the Church Councils said - then there is no basis for believing that they truly are either a) genuinely authoritative or b) genuinely inspired, is there ?

To get back to the problems of the lack of historical records, it turns out that the churches in the West do surprisingly well, when it comes to being able to authenticate their history. There are many ancient documents, many legal treaties, many parchments, many royal decrees, many statements about lineages, many ceremonies written down, many ceremonies commented on by Royalty of other nations who were invited, many church-tax rolls, many decrees absolving the church of taxes, etc, The record in the west, is very plentiful.

After all, the Church in England has a documented historic line of succession down to the 500s (and actually before). And those records are far more established and well documented than any claim we have seen so far to ANY Bishopric or Patriarchate amongst the Eastern Orthodox.

The "patriarchates" that we have found that are ancient, are all branches of Eastern Orthodoxy that are often relegated to second-status place: These are:

Since the Church of Egypt was actually more of a heretical church filled with paganized system of corruption (through origen), (and which spread those false teachings in the 200s and 300s), ties to the Egyptian church is not an argument that helps the Orthodox establish their lines of succession. What it does is establish that the Eastern Orthodox official branches (run by the Roman Empire) actually absorbed the theology of the corrupt Alexandrian/Egyptian branch, and that this is one of the major factors that accounted for the corruption of many doctrines which were afterwards incorporated into the Eastern Orthodox and taught as if they were normal.

The point is that there were later two branches at Alexandria, the connection between the corrupted church and orthodoxy - where possible - is actually evidence of false teaching, rather than anything else.

C. The Canon of Scripture. Protestants at least know what the Canon of Scripture is. (We will discuss the problems with evangelicals and their lack of knowledge of Scripture in a different section). Protestants at least also know that 27 books are what comprise the New Testament and 39 books (22 if counted the Hebraic way) are what comprise the Old Testament. At least they know what it is. When we have discussed matters pointing to the Bible as a source of authority, we are often informed by those within the Eastern Orthodox that the Bible cannot be counted on...because its Canonicity has not been formally ruled on by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Is it too much to ask, that if a church or ecclesiastical body [Such as the Eastern Orthodox] would proclaim themselves to be the Actual Church of Christ, that they would be able to actually define what Gospel they are going to proclaim ? and that they be able to do this in writing ?

Orthodox today often claim that their own church never took a formal stand on the issue of a church canon (the books of the Old and New Testaments), and somehow manage to turn this into a virtue. Yet any other religious body, Shinto, Buddhist, Roman Catholic, would be expected to be able IN WRITING to define what they believe and to have a standard that they can be held to account for. It is inconsistent to both claim that God is leading the church, and at the same time, refuse to express - as a conclusion - the matter about which one would claim to be led by God.

If the EOC were truly the "true" church, they would have taken a stand on the Church Canon.

Did the Apostles become Confused and simply refuse to tell the first Christians which books were real and which ones were Fake ?

Doesn't the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to be descendants of the First Apostles ? Then WHY don't they have the information about the Church Canon, the books that belong in the New and Old Testament ? And if they have made these official pronouncements about the Canon, then WHY do we have Eastern Orthodox who contact US and then argue theological points from Apocryphal Books ???

What do they want others to believe ? Jesus died for the truth, but his Apostles forgot to tell the rest of the church which books of the Bible were the truth that Jesus was dying for ???

John was the last living Disciple of Jesus. He is ALSO the one to author the Last book of the Bible, the book

of Revelation. WHY then could the Apostle John NOT have simply communicated to those around him, the list of

After all, John had been a Church leader for decades. Surely he knew which books were authentic

So Why does the church claiming to be the Church of the First Christians somehow NOT know

When we have discussed this in the past with those who were Orthodox, they would point to Ancient church councils as an affirmation of the church canon. Then when we would point to the fact that certain books in the

Bible did NOT support the Eastern Orthodox theological position of today, - all of a sudden - it did not matter that the Early Church councils had taken a position on the Canon and the line of argumentation would change.

When held to account for the discrepancy between the standard historic 66 books of the Bible, and the doctrines derived and justified by the use of Apocryphal material, the Orthodox would then maintain that what

justifies their theological base (and basis) was not the church councils, but rather MANY factors and not simply the councils themselves. When asked at that point to demonstrate or document - by the use of

written documents or books the theological position of Eastern Orthodoxy on doctrinal matters, we have yet to be pointed to such sources, and none prior to the 1900s. [with the exception of 3 people who have contacted us, and none of them could point to the documents they cited as having been officially accepted by the Hierarchy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or any patriarch - in Two Thousand Years ! ]

But remember the claim, that the Orthodox was the Oldest church, with the most Authentic lines of teachings ?

Inevitably, someone gives us a weblink and thinks that because they can find one doctrinal position on an EOC official website that this constitutes proof. The only proof that this constitutes is that someone on the other end of that website posted that material at the particular website about Ten Minutes prior to its citation to us...as a reference.

In other words, it is just what some person at the website says, rather than an official HISTORIC and DOCUMENTED Pronouncement which would be the Official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (although something is better than nothing, and we do look at the links and documents that others provide, if it not related to CCEL)

What we are asking for (and have asked for) is an OFFICIAL pronouncement by the Eastern Orthodox Church on doctrinal issues, which is IN WRITING and DOCUMENTED and prior to the 1900, in a real-world actual Paper Source. It claims to be the oldest church.

Isn't that just a bit odd, the oldest church that can find no proof of its own ancient historic record ?????

We are not the serfs of yesteryear. We know how to read, and we actually want to read the documents for ourselves. But the Orthodox church can't even find them (or won't show them). Someone aught to inform the EOC hierarchy that the knowledge base has slightly increased in the last 500 years, and it is NOT sufficient for them to make claims and merely expect to be believed, without the historic proof.

Try then to get an answer to these issues, and watch what happens. The best we have been able to do is to cite particular instances of certain branches of orthodoxy who cite some (a small amount, by the way) historic

documents. That is fine, until we begin here to cite competing historic documents from separate patriarchates that stand in contradiction to Each Other. So that leaves us with the question:

Just which Eastern Orthodox branch is the one that Jesus is supposed to have "inspired" ???

THAT premise - of course, leads us to the issue of the various churches, meaning the various denominations (church of greece, church of egypt), etc, and their differing interpretations amongst each other of so many

things. And the contradictions between them are many. And those levels of contradictions apply to everything from the kind of church service to hold, to the various rituals in the church to have, to the various documents that differ on the eucharist, to the various issues of the holy spirit, and to the manner in which the Saints are to be reverenced or not, to how each branch handled its own relationship with its own secular authority in that particular jurisdiction, and all of those issues are not only present day divisions, they are older divisions.

What this means is that contrary to the impression that the Orthodox church tries to create, the fact is not that at the outset they were undivided, but rather that since their founding (400 AD), there have been CONSTANT divisions, constant fights, and constant mutual excommunications.

The point is we know these things, but it is not from the historic records that the Eastern Orthodox Hierarchy wishes to discuss. So when we compare the claims of being "united" and accepted as the one true church, this claims historically turns out to be one of the most flawed and incorrect.

And that is why one would want to know how to find the answer of just what truths and what theological principles one is supposed to arrive at by being Eastern Orthodox. What one jurisdiction (patriarchate) claims is authentic is what another jurisdiction claims is schismatic. That is not proof of any authentic lineage. It is rather proof of countless divisions, and of a lack of doctrinal standard.

Just considering which branches consider themselves Nestorians or which ones do not proves the point. The Official Eastern Orthodox church as founded by the Roman Emperors excommunicated Nestorius and his followers, at which point they supposedly stopped, because they were excommunicated and their influence died out. Then why do Nestorian churches exist to this day ? Why do those teachings control entire Patriarchates ? and Why are the Eastern Orthodox Churches fellowshiping with them today, when the Early Church excommunicated Nestorius and his followers ?

The patriarchs of these various branches are in fellowship and communication with each other - today. Yet each affirm the other is wrong. What this means is that by their own admission, they are fellowship with true schismatics.

They do not combat the nestorian church nor attempt to expose it. They do not demonstrate its falseness nor attempt to explain doctrinal standards that are significantly different.

We found years of information in the historic record about the Nestorian church that would bring a great deal of clarity to the history of that issue. Our question was: if We can find this information, then why has the Orthodox Hierarchy not found it in their power to convey the information to their own congregants ?

and keep in mind that the EOC in the USA is still the most informed. In most of the other branches around the world, people join, but the orthodox priests barely tolerate their own congregation. Historically they did not even teach their own congregations how to read the Bible. Of course not, since that would dilute the power of the priests and force them to be accountable.

It certainly was not the Eastern Orthodox who brought reading to the world and the lower classes. Until other Christians came around and actually did this, almost no one could read or write, except the church hieararchy and the powerful. The Orthodox Church is an instrument of tyranny, not of freedom, in almost every jurisdiction.

People talk about how the difficulties perpetrated in the EOC during communism. But many of its leading priests are STILL holdovers from the Communist days. Is that what people really want to claim their historic

The point is that the EOC claimed that communists held a knife to their throat and forced them to do bad things (like turn over lists of members). Then communism ends, but the EOC hierarchy still works with the former bad guys. Something there is terribly wrong.

But the point is that none of this is a mystery when we look at the history of the EOC BEFORE communism came. They did not teach freedom. They did not teach how Christ frees us from sin. They did not teach accountability of leadership. They did not teach people standing in their churches either how to read or how to lift themselves economically. Everywhere, they took advantage of the people, left them in squalor and misery, and only ensured that the priests would live in luxury, a habit that they still contine largely today in the EOC that is NOT within the USA.

Long before the EOC was co-opted slightly by communism, the Priests were busy repressing the people with the help of the Tsar.

The Tsars were only too happy to let the people live in misery. The Tsars have a long history of evil and wicked deeds, but that did not stop the EOC from recently canonizing them. In other words, the people that the EOC Hierarchy perceives as "saintly" are those who raped and harmed the people and kept them in permanent misery and slavery, and not merely for 70 communist years, but for HUNDREDS of Years prior to that.

And we are now supposed to be convinced that Jesus would have anything authentic to do with

Our list of challenges and difficulties is longer, but these issues are a place to start for those who have emailed us.

The Observer - The battle to remove rebel monks from a monastery on Mount Athos spilled outside the republic yesterday when thousands of Orthodox faithful took to the streets to protest at an unprecedented land-and-sea blockade of the sanctuary.

As riot police surrounded the Esphigmenou monastery for a fourth day, about 3,000 nuns, priests and other supporters converged on Ouranoupolis, the nearest town to the Holy Mount. 'Hands off our monastery!' they chanted as the television cameras rolled.

'Esphigmenou is the only monastery to represent true Orthodoxy,' one demonstrator, Orestes Dumantides, told The Observer. 'It is shameful that in 2003 the true guardians of our faith are being treated in this way.'

For years the monks have shrouded the historic settlement with a banner proclaiming 'Orthodoxy or Death'. Last week, after months of public wrangling with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the monks were ordered to leave the Mount - a favorite refuge of Prince Charles and the Duke of Edinburgh.

In the face of the priests' resistance, riot police were called in, with the blessing of the Patriarch, by the civilian commissioner.

Bartholomew, a progressive in his views, has worked hard to improve ties with the Vatican since becoming the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians in 1991.

But with support mounting, from Australia to America, the defiant priests show every sign of resisting the eviction order. Even efforts to dislodge them through sheer discomfort have not worked.

We invite your questions and comments, so please do not hesitate to contact us at

THERE IS NOT ONE CHRISTIAN NATION ON EARTH WHERE MUSLIMS ARE PERSECUTED.

Yet in most nations where the majority of the population are Muslims, there is systematic government persecution of Christians.

CI NON È UNA NAZIONE CRISTIANA SU TERRA DOVE I MUSULMANI PERSECUTED. Tuttavia nella maggior parte delle nazioni dove la maggior parte della popolazione è musulmani, ci è persecution sistematico di governo dei cristiani

ER IS NIET ÉÉN CHRISTELIJKE NATIE TER WERELD WAAR MOSLIMS WORDEN VERVOLGD. Maar toch in de meeste naties waar de meerderheid van de bevolking Moslims is, is er systematische overheidsvervolging van Christenen

ES GIBT NICHT EINE CHRISTLICHE NATION AUF MASSE, IN DER MOSLEMS VERFOLGT WERDEN. Dennoch in den meisten Nationen, in denen die Majorität der Bevölkerung Moslems sind, gibt es systematische Regierung Verfolgung der Christen.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

--Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--

Christian Conversions - According to the Bible - Can NEVER be forced.

Any Conversion to Christianity which would be "Forced" would NOT be recognized by God. It is in His True and KIND nature, that those who come to Him and choose to believe in Him, must come to Him OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Don't Let anyone tell you that Christians support Forced Conversions.

That is False. True Christianity is NEVER forced.

_______________________

Las conversiones cristianas - según la biblia - pueden NUNCA ser forzadas. Nadie que son un cristiano verdadero forzarían o compell cualquier persona a hacer un cristiano contra sus el propios . La razón de esto es ésa que toma la acción contra la voluntad o contra la intención alguien sea una acción del desacato al dios. Ninguna conversión al cristianismo que sería "forzado" no sería reconocida por God. Está en su verdad y la naturaleza BUENA, esa los que vengan a él y elijan creer en él, debe venir a él DE SU PROPIA VOLUNTAD LIBRE. El dios cristiano es bastante grande entender cómo responder a los que decidan que no desean conocerle o entender. El trabajo de cristianos es continuar comunicando el amor del dios a cada uno que esté dispuesto a oír hablar él. Muchos pueblan incluso hoy, no desean oír hablar el dios cristiano. Más específicamente, qué esa gente no desea está para que USTED oiga hablar la amabilidad del dios cristiano. Esa gente está asustada que si usted descubre sobre la amabilidad y la calidad y el amor del dios cristiano, eso que usted puede desear para descubrir más sobre él. Y esa gente está asustada que opondrían a su descubrir la verdad sobre el dios del cristianismo que ofrece vida eterna por siempre a las que pidan ella y decide al dios a que ella sirve creer en él y descubrir más del libro llamado el "nuevo testamento". Ése es el miedo verdadero de los que opongan a dios cristiano. No deje cualquier persona decirle que la ayuda de los cristianos forzara conversiones. Eso es falso. El cristianismo verdadero NUNCA es forzado.

Le conversioni cristiane - secondo la bibbia - possono MAI essere forzate. Nessuno che fossero un cristiano allineare forzerebbero o compell chiunque da diventare un cristiano contro il loro propri. Il motivo per questo è quello che agisce contro la volontà o contro l'intenzione di qualcuno sia un'azione di disrespect al dio. Alcuna conversione a christianity che sarebbe "forzato" non sarebbe riconosciuta da God. È nel suo allineare e la natura GENTILE, quella coloro che viene a lui e sceglie credere in lui, deve venire a lui della LORO PROPRIA VOLONTÀ LIBERA. Il dio cristiano è abbastanza grande capire come rispondere a coloro che decide che non desiderano conoscerle o capire. Il lavoro dei cristiani deve continuare a comunicare l'amore del dio a tutto che sia disposto a sentire parlare di esso. Molti popolano persino oggi, non desiderano sentire parlare del dio cristiano. Più specificamente, che cosa quella gente non desidera è affinchè senta parlare della bontà del dio cristiano. Quella gente è impaurita che se scoprite circa la bontà e la qualità e l'amore del dio cristiano, quello che potete desiderare per scoprirgli più circa. E quella gente è impaurita che il dio che servono sarebbe opposto a vostro scoprire la verità circa il dio di christianity che offre per sempre la vita Eterna a coloro che chiede esso e decide credere in lui e scoprire più dal libro denominato "il nuovo Testamento". Quello è il timore reale di coloro che oppone il dio cristiano. Non lasci chiunque dirvi che il supporto dei cristiani abbia forzato le conversioni. Quello è falso. Il christianity allineare non è MAI forzato

Οι χριστιανικές μετατροπές - σύμφωνα με τη Βίβλο - δεν μπορούν ΠΟΤΕ να αναγκαστούν. Κανένας που είναι αληθινός Χριστιανός θα ανάγκαζε ή compell καθένας για να γίνει Χριστιανός ενάντια δικοί τους. Ο λόγος για αυτό είναι ότι η λήψη μέτρων ενάντια στη θέληση ή ενάντια στην πρόθεση κάποιου θα ήταν μια δράση της ασέβειας στο Θεό. Οποιαδήποτε μετατροπή στο χριστιανισμό που "θα αναγκαζόταν" δεν θα αναγνωριζόταν από το Θεό. Είναι στην αληθινή και ΚΑΛΗ φύση του, ότι εκείνοι που έρχονται σε τον και επιλέγουν να πιστεψουν σε τον, πρέπει να έρθουν σε τον ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΥ ΤΟΥΣ. Ο χριστιανικός Θεός είναι αρκετά μεγάλος να καταλάβει πώς να αποκριθεί σε εκείνοι που αποφασίζουν ότι δεν θέλουν να τον ξέρουν ή να καταλάβουν. Η εργασία των Χριστιανών είναι να συνεχίσει να διαβιβάζει την αγάπη του Θεού σε τον καθέναν που είναι πρόθυμος να ακούσει για την. Πολλοί άνθρωποι ακόμα και σήμερα, δεν θέλουν να ακούσουν για το χριστιανικό Θεό. Πιό συγκεκριμένα, τι εκείνοι οι άνθρωποι δεν θέλουν είναι για ΣΑΣ να ακούσει για την ευγένεια του χριστιανικού GOd. Εκείνοι οι άνθρωποι είναι φοβισμένοι ότι εάν ανακαλύπτετε για την ευγένεια και την καλοσύνη και την αγάπη του χριστιανικού Θεού, ότι μπορείτε να θελήσετε να ανακαλύψετε περισσότερων για τον. Και εκείνοι οι άνθρωποι είναι φοβισμένοι ότι ο Θεός που εξυπηρετούν θα αντιτασσόταν στην ανακάλυψή σας της αλήθειας για το Θεό του χριστιανισμού που προσφέρει την αιώνια ζωή για πάντα σε εκείνοι που ζητούν την και αποφασίζουν να πιστεψουν σε τον και να ανακαλύψουν περισσότερων από το βιβλίο αποκαλούμενο "νέα διαθήκη". Αυτός είναι ο πραγματικός φόβος εκείνοι που αντιτάσσουν το χριστιανικό Θεό. Μην αφήστε καθενός να σας πει ότι οι Χριστιανοί υποστηρίζουν τις αναγκασμένες μετατροπές. Αυτός είναι ψεύτικος. Ο αληθινός χριστιανισμός δεν αναγκάζεται ΠΟΤΕ.

De christelijke Omzettingen - volgens de Bijbel - kunnen NOOIT worden gedwongen. Niemand wie een ware Christen is zou dwingen of compell zal iedereen om een Christen te worden tegen hun. De reden voor dit is dat het Voeren van Actie tegen de Wil of tegen de bedoeling van iemand een actie van disrespect aan God zou zijn. Om het even welke Omzetting in Christendom dat "zou gedwongen worden" zou NIET erkend worden door God. Het is in Zijn Ware en VRIENDELIJKE aard, dat zij die aan hem komen en om in hem verkiezen te geloven, aan hem VAN HUN EIGEN VRIJ moeten komen ZULLEN. De Christelijke God is Groot genoeg begrijpen hoe te aan zij te antwoorden die besluiten dat zij niet hem kennen of willen begrijpen. De Baan van Christenen moet blijven de Liefde van God aan iedereen meedelen wie bereid om over het is te horen. Vele mensen zelfs vandaag, willen niet over de Christelijke God horen. Specifieker, moet wat niet die mensen willen voor U over de Vriendelijkheid van Christelijke GOd horen. Die mensen zijn bang dat als u over de vriendelijkheid en de goedheid en de liefde van de Christelijke God te weten komt, dat u meer over hem kunt willen te weten komen. En die mensen zijn bang dat de God die zij dienen zich aan uw het te weten komen van de waarheid over de God van Christendom verzetten die voor altijd het Eeuwige Leven aan zij aanbiedt die om het vragen en om in hem beslissen te geloven en meer van het boek te weten te komen genoemd het "Nieuwe Testament". Dat is de echte Vrees voor zij die zich de Christelijke God verzetten. Laat iedereen niet u vertellen dat de Christenen Gedwongen Omzettingen steunen. Dat is Vals. Het ware Christendom wordt NOOIT gedwongen.

Christliche Umwandlungen - entsprechend der Bibel - können Zwangs NIE sein. Niemand, die ein zutreffender Christ ist, würden oder compell jedermann zwingen, zum ein Christ gegen ihre Selbst zu werden werden. Der Grund für dieses ist der, der Maßnahmen gegen den Willen ergreift, oder gegen die Absicht von jemand seien Sie eine Tätigkeit der Respektlosigkeit zum Gott. Keine Umwandlung zum Christentum, das "Zwangs" sein würde, würde NICHT von God erkannt. Sie ist in seinem zutreffenden und die FREUNDLICHE Natur, diese die, die zu ihm kommen und beschließen, an ihn zu glauben, muß zu ihm IHRES EIGENEN FREIEN WILLEN kommen. Der christliche Gott ist genug groß, zu verstehen, wie man auf die reagiert, die entscheiden, daß sie nicht ihn kennen oder verstehen möchten. Der Job der Christen soll fortfahren, die Liebe des Gottes zu jeder mitzuteilen, das bereit ist, über sie zu hören. Viele bevölkeren sogar heute, möchten nicht über den christlichen Gott hören. Spezifischer, was jene Leute nicht wünschen, ist, damit SIE über die Freundlichkeit des christlichen Gottes hören. Jene Leute haben daß, wenn Sie über die Freundlichkeit und die Güte und die Liebe des christlichen Gottes herausfinden, das Angst, das Sie mehr über ihn herausfinden wünschen können. Und jene Leute haben Angst, daß der Gott, den sie dienen, Ihrem die Wahrheit über den Gott des Christentums herausfinden entgegengesetzt würde, das ewiges Leben für immer denen anbietet, die um sie bitten und, an ihn zu glauben entscheidet und mehr vom Buch herauszufinden, das das "neue Testament" genannt wurde. Die ist die reale Furcht vor denen, die dem christlichen Gott entgegensetzen. Lassen Sie nicht niemand Ihnen erklären, daß Christunterstützung Umwandlungen zwang. Das ist falsch. Zutreffendes Christentum ist NIE Zwangs.

_______________________

キリスト教の転換は- 聖書に従って- 決して強制である場合もない。本当のクリスチャンである誰もまたは彼らの専有物に対してクリスチャンになるcompell だれでも強制しない。これの理由は意志に対して処置をとるそれであるまたは誰かの意思に対して神へ無礼の行為でであつて下さい。 "強制" であるキリスト教へのどの転換でもGod によって確認されない。それは彼の本当にあり、彼に来、彼を信じることを選ぶ人々その親切な性質は彼らの自身の自由意志の彼に来なければならない。理解するにはキリスト教の彼を知るか、または言うことがわかりたいと思わないことを神は決定する神に答える方法を十分に大きい。クリスチャンの仕事はそれについて聞いて喜んでの皆に神の愛を伝え続けるべきである。多数は、キリスト教の神について聞きたいと思わない今日民を住まわせる。それらの人々はほしいと思わない何がとりわけ、であるキリスト教の神の親切さについて聞くべきあなたのため。それらの人々はキリスト教の神の親切さについておよび長所および愛見つければ恐れていること、あなたが彼についての詳細を見つけたいと思う場合もあるそれ。そしてそれらの人々は役立つ神があなたのそれを頼む反対され、彼を信じ、"新約聖書" と呼ばれた本からの多くを見つけることにするそれらに永遠の生命を永久に提供するキリスト教の神についての真実を見つけることにこと恐れている。それはキリスト教の神に反対するそれの実質の恐れである。クリスチャンサポートが転換を強制するようにだれでも言わないために注意してはいけない。それは偽である。本当のキリスト教は強制決してでない。

The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief

Stand up for Human Rights. Help Support Freedom of Speech, Freedom of thought and Freedom of Conscience - for all.

Please Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe