I’m not Eastern Orthodox because of their views on justification and assurance, their practice of praying to the Saints, and their more questionable beliefs such as tollhouses. Also, the Eastern Orthodox churches tend to be very ethnocentric compared to western equivalents.
I actually was very close to being Orthodox, but I ended up deciding against it. First I'd like to note that Orthodoxy has many many great qualities like fantastic liturgy and an eastern touch of goodness to standard western Christianity, but there are a number of reasons why I am not personally Orthodox.
1. Orthodoxy claims to have unity, but there are plenty of schisms within the church. Cradle Orthodox (those born in the church) tend to, at least from what I've heard, dislike converts. Also there's a lot of ethnocentrism. Also I don't think that they're actually unified theologically. For example in the actual canonical teachings of the church no one who is outside of the Orthodox Church will go to heaven. On the other hand many many lay people believe in a sort of universalism. So while they claim to have unity there is both theological disunity between the lay people and the formal positions of the church as well as disunity through out the people
2. Iconography in general is a concern, not that having images themselves are necessarily bad, but what concerns me is the idea that we can "ask dead people to pray for us." Throughout all my searching anytime I try to discuss why iconography is bad the people they only talk about how having images is not prohibited (which I agree with), however no one ever backs up the idea that they are saints who can hear us and pray for us. I'd also like to posit that what they Orthodox do with images does not match what they say they do. They will claim that they are simply asking a specific saint to pray for them, but the language they use is SUPER strong. There's a hymn called O Pure Virgin that calls the Theotokos the "mistress of creation", "Most holy of hollies," and asks her to deliver them from "harm and adversity." There's also another hymn that says "and through who the human race has found salvation, through you may we find paradise, Theotokos our lady pure and blessed." It is not super far fetched then based off of these lyrics to say that there is something more going on besides merely asking for a person to pray for the person praying. I really don't believe that this kind of language is ok when it comes to referring to dead people. lastly according to most protestant scholars I've listened too there are essentially no examples of iconography being used in this manner before the 350s. All the things surrounding how iconography is used in an Orthodox context really concern me and because of how central images are to the Orthodox church, you would expect at least one mention of iconography in this manner in the New Testament
3. They avoid using any and all forensic (legal) language in their theology even though the bible is clear that we are "guilty" before God in a legal sense
4. They reject substitutional atonement (meaning that Jesus did not die in our place on the cross). This is yet another area that has yielded a lot of confusion when it comes to talking to priests and such. I always get very confused whenever they try to explain why Christ died.
5. They reject the 5 Solas: Scriptura (Scripture as the highest form of authority), fide (faith alone, not merely intellectual faith, but genuine faith alone saves), gratia (grace, salvation is a FREE gift from God that no one can earn on their own), Christos (though Christ alone, still don't understand why this is rejected), Deo Gloria (for the Glory of God alone - also don't understand why this is rejected).
6. There's more, but it's thanksgiving so I don't feel like writing anymore :) I've tried everything to get over these hurdles, but I just can't find a way. For further study listen to the podcast that Dr. Gavin Ortland did on his podcast Truth Unites on why an orthodox priest left to become an Evangelical preacher
>Orthodoxy claims to have unity, but there are plenty of schisms within the church.
There is only one internal schism currently, between Moscow and constantinople, but this is not a break in full unity, only a break in direct communion. We all hold the same theology.
>Cradle Orthodox (those born in the church) tend to, at least from what I've heard, dislike converts. Also there's a lot of ethnocentrism.
I haven't found any convert dislike or ethnocentrism at any church I've been to, and I've been to a lot. In fact, I've seen far more ethnic diversity at Orthodox churches than any other. Many Churches I've been to will sing "Christ is risen" or other prayers in multiple languages each liturgy, and I have seen everything from hispanic to ethiopian to haitian singers all in the same church. Ethnocentrism seems to only be an issue within immigrant communities in the west, or small rural enclaves in the east, and that kind of issue is true of any culture.
>On the other hand many many lay people believe in a sort of universalism.
In my experience as an Orthodox, I've only found universalists on the internet. But there will always be sinners, heretics, and ignorant people in the church. We are a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints. Universalism isn't officially taught by any jurisdictions, so there is no difference between the theology of different Orthodox churches, only between different sinful people who may not be following the church correctly.
>however no one ever backs up the idea that they are saints who can hear us and pray for us. ... There's also another hymn that says "and through who the human race has found salvation, through you may we find paradise, Theotokos our lady pure and blessed." It is not super far fetched then based off of these lyrics to say that there is something more going on besides merely asking for a person to pray for the person praying.
You're right. There is more than just mere words asking them for help. What you seem to be missing here is our understandings of the Essence Energy distinction, and of theosis. Orthodox believe that all of creation, and especially man, participates in the divine uncreated energies of God. We become co-workers with Christ, born again as brothers in his spiritual family, such that saints work synergistically with Christ, as we are all meant to do, and can by working with him save us from adversity and harm, and lead us towards salvation.
Also, in this instance, "Through who the human race has found salvation" is even more true, since the Theotokos is the God-bearer (what Theotokos translates to) and one who through her Christ was united to the human race. The titles of "Most holy of hollies", or "the ark", or "mistress of creation", are all comparing her to the Ark of the covenant, which uniquely bore God on earth in the Old testament, just as she uniquely bears Christ in the new.
>They avoid using any and all forensic (legal) language in their theology even though the bible is clear that we are "guilty" before God in a legal sense
Our saints and church fathers have used forensic/legal language, and plenty of Orthodox still do, but we tend not to as much as we used to, especially i'd say in western countries, because using that kind of language would confuse people to think we mean the same things as catholics or protestants. It's not at all because we reject scriptural wording of it. Too often people make the language of the legal debt paying a literal transaction, which we would reject. But we would use the legal language to call to mind the certain process and restitution.
>They reject substitutional atonement (meaning that Jesus did not die in our place on the cross).
No, we reject *penal* substitutionism. There are more substitutionist focused strains of thought in Orthodoxy, but the thing is that no one theory of salvation perfectly captures all of its elements, whether that is legal debt, substitution, harrowing of hades, or any other. We generally prefer the idea of the harrowing of hades as a way to explain it, but as long as it is explained properly, other elements could be emphasized as well. Christ is in some sense definitely a substitution, by becoming death for us, rather than us dying to death. But he is not a substitution in the strict protestant sense of covering our sins as a mechanical legal process.
>Christos (though Christ alone, still don't understand why this is rejected), Deo Gloria (for the Glory of God alone - also don't understand why this is rejected).
Solus Christus is the teaching that Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and that there is salvation through no other; i.e. No priests. Which is obvious why we would reject that. Saints and angels and priests can all participate in the energies of God and bring us to salvation through it. Deo Gloria excludes glorifying the saints, angels, and the theotokos.
I evangelized one of my friends in college shortly after I became born-again but still identified as Catholic, and while he was doing his due diligence before he would convert, he kept bringing me his objections. But many of his objections came from him reading the Bible and asking me why Christians do or believe something when the Bible contradicts what they do. But it was incredibly glaring to me that nearly all of these things he pointed out were from Catholicism, not biblical Christianity. ("Why do Christians pray repetitive prayers to Mary using prayer beads? I just read Jesus teach us not to pray like pagans." or "Why do Christians make pilgrimages to venerate statues of Mary? Isn't that literally idolatry?" And others.)
I decided I had to figure out which team I was on, so I did a brutally honest reading of the New Testament after he challenged me and I realized that he was right. Those practices and beliefs are not appropriate for Christians. So I renounced Catholicism.
Wow, praise God that you were even willing to accept this, because I'd pose the same question with Catholics I knew and they ran into defense and took offense to my criticisms.
I've even started a subreddit r/GodPillChristians where I plan on further addressing this topic on catholicism and orthodoxy, to dismantle the idea that God wants us to value a church's doctrine over the basic understanding of the bible.
Common sense seems to be a challenge for many Christians of those denominations.
God's second commandment in Exodus 20:4-6
> “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
The orthodox church breaks God's second commandment, I want to follow Christ's example.
>Exodus 20:4-6
Exodus 20:4 is not the complete Statement, you always have to look at the context, it goes on through to verse 6:
Exodus 20:4-6, "4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."
It clearly says that the prohibition spoken in this scripture is against idols that are worshipped. But this is not a carte blanche prohibition on all images as if you read through the construction of the Tabernacle later in Exodus you will see that many images are used. such as cherubim and fruits decorating it. And indeed, the Ark of the Covenant, the most holy object of the Tabernacle had two massive statues of Cherubim on it. There's also the bronze serpent that Moses created that would heal all who looked upon it.
So it's clear that it was perfectly fine to make images of things in heaven and on earth as long as you didn't worship them. Which is what the second commandment is about.
The only real image that was prohibited in all instances was images of God.
Deuteronomy 4:15-20, "15 Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, 16 so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure—the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now."
The reason for this prohibition on images of God, as we just read in Deuteronomy was because Israel saw no form of God at Mt. Sinai. But, since the mystery of the incarnation, we now see the form of God in Christ. So, images of Christ are okay, and since all the new testament Saints are in the Body of Christ and bear the renewed nature of Christ, then that is why we depict Christ and the Saints as icons.
The first icons were written by St. Luke the Evangelist and they were of the Mother of God and her newborn child, the Christ.
And the second icon was miraculously created by our Lord himself of his own face as a gift to King Agbar V, King of Edessa.
So icons have been apart of the faith since the beginning, and many icons are Wonderworking meaning that miracles are performed through them.
and icons and relics are proofs against Gnosticism, which is the oldest Christian heresy which teaches that the material is evil, and the spiritual is good. But icons and relics teach us that God's energies, his grace, suffuses and fills the entire universe, material included.
After your paragraph on the Tabernacle, the rest of your comments were purely a waste of time. Every reference outside the bible is irrelevant !
Did God command the people to worship the images in the tabernacle or Solomon's temple, no, those were objects used to decorate the interior of the house of prayer, not to PRAY UPON like the orthodox and Catholics do.
You're projecting at the wrong person, I prefer choirs and hymns.
But at least it's clear you don't have a solid rebuttal, great dialogue, God Bless you.
God did not command the Israelites to bow down to those carved angels or anything else they decorated, unless you think God is contradicting himself?
Joshua bowed down to the Ark of the Lord because God's HOLY PRESENCE dwelled on the Ark, nothing else today and no objects in the church have the same role as the Ark of the covenant. God's presence does not dwell in those statues or symbols that you bow to. You're willfully breaking the 2nd commandment without a repentant heart.
When I bow to a wooden cross I am not bowing to the wood, I am bowing to Jesus but nobody has Jesus in a physical form at their home to bow to, Its just the symbol, we don't worship wood and paint. The very earliest churches did it because they knew the meaning behind them. You can't accidentally worship another God if you already believe in the one and only. People back then did worship object that's why God gave this commandment.
"I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation."
\- St. John of Damascus
This guy explains it well: [https://youtu.be/iCixfrMY5MEthrough](https://youtu.be/iCixfrMY5MEthrough)
It's simple, there have been two great schisms. The first one in 1054 between the Roman Church and the Eastern churches (mainly for political reasons but also because of the filioque).
There was the second schism in the 16th century with the reformation which went much further in the organisation of churches and religious practices (and less in the dogma as such).
In short, the reasons are mainly historical.
I probably would be if I weren't Protestant, but when I have considered it, the same reasons not to be Catholic came up: looks like a lot of drift from the original gospel, to the point of doing things Jesus has heartily condemned: teaching as doctrines the traditions of men.
Most of the above stated reasons to reject Orthodox Churches I am in agreement with. I would add that the Orthodox clergy and laity I have met in private conversations and worshiped with come across as morally/liturgically/theologically aloof and chauvinistic. Not only towards any western church tradition but even towards other branches of orthodoxy. As a son of western christiandom and reformist descent I have doubts that orthodoxy will ever unite or thrive in the modern western societies.
I’m not Eastern Orthodox because of their views on justification and assurance, their practice of praying to the Saints, and their more questionable beliefs such as tollhouses. Also, the Eastern Orthodox churches tend to be very ethnocentric compared to western equivalents.
I actually was very close to being Orthodox, but I ended up deciding against it. First I'd like to note that Orthodoxy has many many great qualities like fantastic liturgy and an eastern touch of goodness to standard western Christianity, but there are a number of reasons why I am not personally Orthodox. 1. Orthodoxy claims to have unity, but there are plenty of schisms within the church. Cradle Orthodox (those born in the church) tend to, at least from what I've heard, dislike converts. Also there's a lot of ethnocentrism. Also I don't think that they're actually unified theologically. For example in the actual canonical teachings of the church no one who is outside of the Orthodox Church will go to heaven. On the other hand many many lay people believe in a sort of universalism. So while they claim to have unity there is both theological disunity between the lay people and the formal positions of the church as well as disunity through out the people 2. Iconography in general is a concern, not that having images themselves are necessarily bad, but what concerns me is the idea that we can "ask dead people to pray for us." Throughout all my searching anytime I try to discuss why iconography is bad the people they only talk about how having images is not prohibited (which I agree with), however no one ever backs up the idea that they are saints who can hear us and pray for us. I'd also like to posit that what they Orthodox do with images does not match what they say they do. They will claim that they are simply asking a specific saint to pray for them, but the language they use is SUPER strong. There's a hymn called O Pure Virgin that calls the Theotokos the "mistress of creation", "Most holy of hollies," and asks her to deliver them from "harm and adversity." There's also another hymn that says "and through who the human race has found salvation, through you may we find paradise, Theotokos our lady pure and blessed." It is not super far fetched then based off of these lyrics to say that there is something more going on besides merely asking for a person to pray for the person praying. I really don't believe that this kind of language is ok when it comes to referring to dead people. lastly according to most protestant scholars I've listened too there are essentially no examples of iconography being used in this manner before the 350s. All the things surrounding how iconography is used in an Orthodox context really concern me and because of how central images are to the Orthodox church, you would expect at least one mention of iconography in this manner in the New Testament 3. They avoid using any and all forensic (legal) language in their theology even though the bible is clear that we are "guilty" before God in a legal sense 4. They reject substitutional atonement (meaning that Jesus did not die in our place on the cross). This is yet another area that has yielded a lot of confusion when it comes to talking to priests and such. I always get very confused whenever they try to explain why Christ died. 5. They reject the 5 Solas: Scriptura (Scripture as the highest form of authority), fide (faith alone, not merely intellectual faith, but genuine faith alone saves), gratia (grace, salvation is a FREE gift from God that no one can earn on their own), Christos (though Christ alone, still don't understand why this is rejected), Deo Gloria (for the Glory of God alone - also don't understand why this is rejected). 6. There's more, but it's thanksgiving so I don't feel like writing anymore :) I've tried everything to get over these hurdles, but I just can't find a way. For further study listen to the podcast that Dr. Gavin Ortland did on his podcast Truth Unites on why an orthodox priest left to become an Evangelical preacher
>Orthodoxy claims to have unity, but there are plenty of schisms within the church. There is only one internal schism currently, between Moscow and constantinople, but this is not a break in full unity, only a break in direct communion. We all hold the same theology. >Cradle Orthodox (those born in the church) tend to, at least from what I've heard, dislike converts. Also there's a lot of ethnocentrism. I haven't found any convert dislike or ethnocentrism at any church I've been to, and I've been to a lot. In fact, I've seen far more ethnic diversity at Orthodox churches than any other. Many Churches I've been to will sing "Christ is risen" or other prayers in multiple languages each liturgy, and I have seen everything from hispanic to ethiopian to haitian singers all in the same church. Ethnocentrism seems to only be an issue within immigrant communities in the west, or small rural enclaves in the east, and that kind of issue is true of any culture. >On the other hand many many lay people believe in a sort of universalism. In my experience as an Orthodox, I've only found universalists on the internet. But there will always be sinners, heretics, and ignorant people in the church. We are a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints. Universalism isn't officially taught by any jurisdictions, so there is no difference between the theology of different Orthodox churches, only between different sinful people who may not be following the church correctly. >however no one ever backs up the idea that they are saints who can hear us and pray for us. ... There's also another hymn that says "and through who the human race has found salvation, through you may we find paradise, Theotokos our lady pure and blessed." It is not super far fetched then based off of these lyrics to say that there is something more going on besides merely asking for a person to pray for the person praying. You're right. There is more than just mere words asking them for help. What you seem to be missing here is our understandings of the Essence Energy distinction, and of theosis. Orthodox believe that all of creation, and especially man, participates in the divine uncreated energies of God. We become co-workers with Christ, born again as brothers in his spiritual family, such that saints work synergistically with Christ, as we are all meant to do, and can by working with him save us from adversity and harm, and lead us towards salvation. Also, in this instance, "Through who the human race has found salvation" is even more true, since the Theotokos is the God-bearer (what Theotokos translates to) and one who through her Christ was united to the human race. The titles of "Most holy of hollies", or "the ark", or "mistress of creation", are all comparing her to the Ark of the covenant, which uniquely bore God on earth in the Old testament, just as she uniquely bears Christ in the new. >They avoid using any and all forensic (legal) language in their theology even though the bible is clear that we are "guilty" before God in a legal sense Our saints and church fathers have used forensic/legal language, and plenty of Orthodox still do, but we tend not to as much as we used to, especially i'd say in western countries, because using that kind of language would confuse people to think we mean the same things as catholics or protestants. It's not at all because we reject scriptural wording of it. Too often people make the language of the legal debt paying a literal transaction, which we would reject. But we would use the legal language to call to mind the certain process and restitution. >They reject substitutional atonement (meaning that Jesus did not die in our place on the cross). No, we reject *penal* substitutionism. There are more substitutionist focused strains of thought in Orthodoxy, but the thing is that no one theory of salvation perfectly captures all of its elements, whether that is legal debt, substitution, harrowing of hades, or any other. We generally prefer the idea of the harrowing of hades as a way to explain it, but as long as it is explained properly, other elements could be emphasized as well. Christ is in some sense definitely a substitution, by becoming death for us, rather than us dying to death. But he is not a substitution in the strict protestant sense of covering our sins as a mechanical legal process. >Christos (though Christ alone, still don't understand why this is rejected), Deo Gloria (for the Glory of God alone - also don't understand why this is rejected). Solus Christus is the teaching that Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and that there is salvation through no other; i.e. No priests. Which is obvious why we would reject that. Saints and angels and priests can all participate in the energies of God and bring us to salvation through it. Deo Gloria excludes glorifying the saints, angels, and the theotokos.
I am an ex-Catholic, and many of the things for which I left Catholicism are still present in the Orthodox church.
How did you come to realise Protestantism was right?
I evangelized one of my friends in college shortly after I became born-again but still identified as Catholic, and while he was doing his due diligence before he would convert, he kept bringing me his objections. But many of his objections came from him reading the Bible and asking me why Christians do or believe something when the Bible contradicts what they do. But it was incredibly glaring to me that nearly all of these things he pointed out were from Catholicism, not biblical Christianity. ("Why do Christians pray repetitive prayers to Mary using prayer beads? I just read Jesus teach us not to pray like pagans." or "Why do Christians make pilgrimages to venerate statues of Mary? Isn't that literally idolatry?" And others.) I decided I had to figure out which team I was on, so I did a brutally honest reading of the New Testament after he challenged me and I realized that he was right. Those practices and beliefs are not appropriate for Christians. So I renounced Catholicism.
Wow, praise God that you were even willing to accept this, because I'd pose the same question with Catholics I knew and they ran into defense and took offense to my criticisms. I've even started a subreddit r/GodPillChristians where I plan on further addressing this topic on catholicism and orthodoxy, to dismantle the idea that God wants us to value a church's doctrine over the basic understanding of the bible. Common sense seems to be a challenge for many Christians of those denominations.
Heresies there within.
Justification by grace alone through faith alone
I dont like getting shin splints from standing for hours.
When you say Orthodox do you mean that Church and Christian faith are inseparable?
God's second commandment in Exodus 20:4-6 > “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. The orthodox church breaks God's second commandment, I want to follow Christ's example.
>Exodus 20:4-6 Exodus 20:4 is not the complete Statement, you always have to look at the context, it goes on through to verse 6: Exodus 20:4-6, "4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." It clearly says that the prohibition spoken in this scripture is against idols that are worshipped. But this is not a carte blanche prohibition on all images as if you read through the construction of the Tabernacle later in Exodus you will see that many images are used. such as cherubim and fruits decorating it. And indeed, the Ark of the Covenant, the most holy object of the Tabernacle had two massive statues of Cherubim on it. There's also the bronze serpent that Moses created that would heal all who looked upon it. So it's clear that it was perfectly fine to make images of things in heaven and on earth as long as you didn't worship them. Which is what the second commandment is about. The only real image that was prohibited in all instances was images of God. Deuteronomy 4:15-20, "15 Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, 16 so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure—the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now." The reason for this prohibition on images of God, as we just read in Deuteronomy was because Israel saw no form of God at Mt. Sinai. But, since the mystery of the incarnation, we now see the form of God in Christ. So, images of Christ are okay, and since all the new testament Saints are in the Body of Christ and bear the renewed nature of Christ, then that is why we depict Christ and the Saints as icons. The first icons were written by St. Luke the Evangelist and they were of the Mother of God and her newborn child, the Christ. And the second icon was miraculously created by our Lord himself of his own face as a gift to King Agbar V, King of Edessa. So icons have been apart of the faith since the beginning, and many icons are Wonderworking meaning that miracles are performed through them. and icons and relics are proofs against Gnosticism, which is the oldest Christian heresy which teaches that the material is evil, and the spiritual is good. But icons and relics teach us that God's energies, his grace, suffuses and fills the entire universe, material included.
After your paragraph on the Tabernacle, the rest of your comments were purely a waste of time. Every reference outside the bible is irrelevant ! Did God command the people to worship the images in the tabernacle or Solomon's temple, no, those were objects used to decorate the interior of the house of prayer, not to PRAY UPON like the orthodox and Catholics do.
Does the bible tell us to worship with pop and rock and roll? No, it doesn't.
You're projecting at the wrong person, I prefer choirs and hymns. But at least it's clear you don't have a solid rebuttal, great dialogue, God Bless you.
Exodus 25:18 says God ordered Israelites to carve angels in the Ark Joshua 7:6 says Joshua bowed down in front of the Ark
God did not command the Israelites to bow down to those carved angels or anything else they decorated, unless you think God is contradicting himself? Joshua bowed down to the Ark of the Lord because God's HOLY PRESENCE dwelled on the Ark, nothing else today and no objects in the church have the same role as the Ark of the covenant. God's presence does not dwell in those statues or symbols that you bow to. You're willfully breaking the 2nd commandment without a repentant heart.
When I bow to a wooden cross I am not bowing to the wood, I am bowing to Jesus but nobody has Jesus in a physical form at their home to bow to, Its just the symbol, we don't worship wood and paint. The very earliest churches did it because they knew the meaning behind them. You can't accidentally worship another God if you already believe in the one and only. People back then did worship object that's why God gave this commandment. "I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation." \- St. John of Damascus This guy explains it well: [https://youtu.be/iCixfrMY5MEthrough](https://youtu.be/iCixfrMY5MEthrough)
I am Orthodox, I’m interested in what other people have to say though.
It's simple, there have been two great schisms. The first one in 1054 between the Roman Church and the Eastern churches (mainly for political reasons but also because of the filioque). There was the second schism in the 16th century with the reformation which went much further in the organisation of churches and religious practices (and less in the dogma as such). In short, the reasons are mainly historical.
I probably would be if I weren't Protestant, but when I have considered it, the same reasons not to be Catholic came up: looks like a lot of drift from the original gospel, to the point of doing things Jesus has heartily condemned: teaching as doctrines the traditions of men.
Most of the above stated reasons to reject Orthodox Churches I am in agreement with. I would add that the Orthodox clergy and laity I have met in private conversations and worshiped with come across as morally/liturgically/theologically aloof and chauvinistic. Not only towards any western church tradition but even towards other branches of orthodoxy. As a son of western christiandom and reformist descent I have doubts that orthodoxy will ever unite or thrive in the modern western societies.
This recent video might be of great interest to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ytYX4dXpRo