BEGOME ORTHODOX

[Anonymous No.12824955]

Are there any arguments for relativism? Literally every relativistic ontology, epistemology or ethics just falls into contradiction. Orthodox is the only answer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMChGyvJ3WM

[Anonymous No.12825030]

the subjectivism you base your belief on is just another form of liberal relativism.

[Anonymous No.12825111]

>>12825030
But I don't base it off subjectivism I base it off eternal metaphysical objective logic that underlies all creation and GOD

[Anonymous No.12825120]

>>12825111
read deleuze

[Anonymous No.12825300]

>>12825120
>process philospher pleb who makes the basic bitch fallacy of relativism by saying everything changes while the fact that everything changes doesn't change

[Anonymous No.12825319]

>>12825300
read him

[Anonymous No.12825323]

>>12824955
I really like Orthodoxy, just have a hard time with coming to terms with their opinion the gay (of which I have) which sucks. :(

[Anonymous No.12825437]

>>12825323
God can cure you of the gay.

[Anonymous No.12825438]

>>12825323
Christian doctrine isn't necessarily against the gay, it's just against premarital relationships based on lust, with whichever gender they may be.

[Anonymous No.12825444]

>>12825438
oh i understand that, just, i have to come to terms with celibacy

also the current christian congregation im in is great, so i'll wait for a bit when i move

[Anonymous No.12825487]

>>12825438
>Christian doctrine isn't necessarily against the gay
Sodomite begone. Christian doctrine is absolutely against the gay.
> it's just against premarital relationships based on lust
Wrong, it's against all sex which is outside of the sacrament of marriage. Whether the relationship is based on lust or not doesn't change the fact that pre-marital sex is sin

[Anonymous No.12825630]

>>12825300
>stealing the arguments used by non-dualists to shill for dualism

[Anonymous No.12826236]

Church fathers teach being in communion with the bishop of rome. How will greeks reply?

[Anonymous No.12826967]

>>12825444
That's El Greco, not Van Dyck

[Anonymous No.12827081]

>>12826236
They won’t have a response. Their popes are their secular dictators and presidents.

[Anonymous No.12827417]

>>12826236
>Church fathers teach being in communion with the bishop of rome

Nice try cathoshit. Take your schizophrenia someplace else

[Anonymous No.12827646]

>>12825323
So according to yourself, you've seen the Truth of Orthodoxy but what is keeping you from eternal life is that you no longer will be allowed to smear someone else's feces on your penis?

It's getting more and more difficult believing homosexuals are functioning human beings

[Anonymous No.12827714]

>>12825630
what are you on the fallacy of relativism is clear to any non-relativist

[Anonymous No.12827989]

>>12824955
>falls into contradiction.

Relativism as in mutually Ontic polar opposites, yes. Relativism as in polar opposites of the same Monad, which are Monads themselves, no. The latter being Dialectical and actually relevant to Orthodox Theology in its Platonism.

[Anonymous No.12827999]

>>12827646
People don't like orthodoxy because they think they it's true. You need to be a brainlet to think that. They just like the aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.12828251]

Gregory of Palamas completed German Idealism (platonism)

[Anonymous No.12828284]

>>12825630
Manacheansim is a heresy on the basis of dualism. Stop lying dude

[Anonymous No.12828287]

>>12827989
>>falls into contradiction.
Hurt

[Anonymous No.12828292]

>>12828251
please explain

[Anonymous No.12828311]

>>12824955
noam Chomsky distinguishes 2 forms of moral relativism,

1 that stemming from a base objective framework, ie biology for humans, we can all have relative morals up to the extent that our framework allows. meaning we cant go past a certain point

2. he says infinite relativism is silly because we ourselves are not infinite nor outside of constraints so its foolish to think that our ideas are fully relativistic since we ourselves are being constrained.

from this he derives that there must be some sort of range of correct morals that can still fall under the idea of relativism I think.

heres a link if you are even still interested. I probably fucked up somewhere trying to explain it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE

[Anonymous No.12828316]

>>12827989
I wish I understood any of these words. where do I start if I am not in college but want to get more into the world of philosophy and literature. something that will get me to get a base idea of what all this means quick

[Anonymous No.12828962]

>>12827989
Orthodoxy has nothing rooted in Platonism you mong

[OP No.12829922]

>>12827989
Wait are you pro-orthodox or not you're just spurting desperate big brain word salad

[Anonymous No.12829954]

If I'm Catholic is that okay

[Anonymous No.12829963]

>>12829954
It’s actvally better, “Orthodox” is a misnomer.

[Anonymous No.12830159]

>>12824955
Based

[Anonymous No.12830166]

>>12828962
>he thinks Paul wasn’t writing explicitly in dialogue with the Platonists

[Anonymous No.12830181]

>>12824955
it's easy to not have contradictions when every answer to every question is "it's a mystery of God"

[Anonymous No.12830192]

Yes, that's why we still slaughter people when they disbelief in Yahweh.

Oh wait we don't. It's almost like knowledge and morals are relative and change over time or something

[Anonymous No.12830251]

>>12828284
A duality between God and creation also means dualism, it has more than one meaning outside of the Christian theological concept

[Anonymous No.12830329]

>>12830166
Paul was writing either to Jews or Greek speaking gentiles.

[Anonymous No.12830432]

>>12825111
>objective
>logic
Where? All I see are opinions. Your choice to believe is just as subjective and unjustified as my choice not to.
I have the discretion not to bother religious people, but you seem really serious about all that conversion business.

[Anonymous No.12831182]

>>12827417
Are you retarded?
>But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies AD 189
>With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source"
St. Cyprian, Epistle to Cornelius AD 252
>In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church"
St. Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists AD 367

There are countless other examples that mention Petrine primacy, but these are some examples that explicitly mention Rome.
Just more proof that internet ortholarpers don't actually read the Church Fathers. You faggots watch a couple Jay Dyer videos and decide to become Eastern Orthodox.

[Anonymous No.12831289]

>>12830251
Except that God is present in creation in His Energies. We are panenthiests, my dude

[Anonymous No.12831292]

>>12827646
No, that's a bit of a stupid take, and you know that. I have to come to terms with my sexuality and if expressing that truly is sinful or not, which is truly unclear once you take a look for more than two seconds.

>>12831182
The Church Fathers aren't Scripture, just to remind you of that. Prooftexting them like you have is akin to a Baptist preacherman spewing prooftexts as if they are self-explenatory. You look like you just looked up '20 Prooftexts from the Church Fathers in Support of Catholicism' - I suggest you actually read the Irenaeus, his ecclesiology is more primus inter pares if anything, maybe closer to 'all bishops are equal'.

[Anonymous No.12831320]

>>12831182
>CANON 6 OF NICAEA 1
>Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

>since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also

Rome has jurisdiction over Rome alone. When the bishop of Rome is Orthodox, he has the honour of primacy, not supremacy. Picking and choosing individual sentences without context from the Church fathers is not a legitimate way of arguing for papism.

[Anonymous No.12831504]

>>12831292
>Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
Also from Against Heresies. Didn't really see anything else about equal bishops.
>>12831320
That is talking about metropolitan/archbishops. We have those too. Of course the Bishop of Alexandria is going to have jurisdiction in his region, just like how the Bishop of, for example, the Diocese of Atlanta, would have jurisdiction over the Atlanta region. Doesn't mean he's equal to the Bishop of Rome.
It does not say that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over Alexandria or Antioch. It says they may RETAIN their privileges of jurisdiction. And "since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome" is not dividing the authority between the Bishop of Rome and other bishops. Its stating that the Bishop of Alexandria may continue having jurisdiction in those regions as the Bishop of Rome has been giving him the authority to do so.

[Anonymous No.12831522]

>>12827646
I didn't expect to see you so soon Parkus.

Warmest regards, an old friend.

[Anonymous No.12831524]

>>12830432
>>12825111
God deliver us from these Discord trannies.

[Anonymous No.12831556]

>>12831504
>That is talking about metropolitan/archbishops. We have those too. Of course the Bishop of Alexandria is going to have jurisdiction in his region, just like how the Bishop of, for example, the Diocese of Atlanta, would have jurisdiction over the Atlanta region. Doesn't mean he's equal to the Bishop of Rome.
No it is talking about patriarchs, not metropolitans/archbishops. The idea of Pentarchy is already established at this point
>It does not say that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over Alexandria or Antioch. It says they may RETAIN their privileges of jurisdiction. And "since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome" is not dividing the authority between the Bishop of Rome and other bishops. Its stating that the Bishop of Alexandria may continue having jurisdiction in those regions as the Bishop of Rome has been giving him the authority to do so.
Pure sophistry. The council was determining where certain bishops have jurisdiction. They would have made mention of the Bishop of Rome having universal jurisdiction if he had, but they don't. All they say regarding the pope is that the churches retain their privileges over their provinces. Antioch over Antioch, Alexandria over Alexandra, Rome over Rome

[Anonymous No.12831591]

>>12831524
Inshallah

[Anonymous No.12832294]

>>12831292
Its actually a really fucking sensible take if you know the slightest bit about the christian conception of love

[Anonymous No.12832308]

>>12832294
whatever, god bless - i hope you some day get out from the cage-stage shithole you find yourself in/

[Anonymous No.12832334]

>>12824955
nah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT8NaQszsRo

[Anonymous No.12833338]

>>12829963
Dumb, orthodox literally means the right way to worship the god

[Anonymous No.12833415]

>>12825487
and why would you have premarital sex for literally any reason than lust?

[Anonymous No.12833427]

>>12828316
Plotinus

[Anonymous No.12833522]

>>12830432
>>12825319
>>12825630
>>12830432
>>12827989
>>12828311
>>12830181
>>12832334
> 'muh everything is fire, everything changes aside from my shitty arguments!'
> 'muh read Deleuze who developed a whole metaphysical system with literally no foundation or actual base rendering it all useless!'
> 'muh more relativism fallacies'
> 'muh read Dawkins I can do what I can want'
> 'muh spaghetti monster!'
> 'muh word salad to try and escape the obvious nonsense of my views'
> 'muh christcuck'
Yeah yeah this is just sad lads. Embrace CHRIST, you all know Orthodox is the only way. Here's some basic questions I want answered:

1. There are eternal metaphysical laws (logic, truth, etc) that underlie all existence and that you presuppose. How do you explain them without God?

2. Where do you derive free will from? There is no scientific evidence.

3. If you reject we even have Free Will, how are you making arguments?

A few for the process philosopher Deleuze fags:

1. If everything always changes, why doesn't the fact that everything always changes change?

2. How do you answer Zeno's paradoxes?

3. How can you have any conception of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.12833524]

bump

[Anonymous No.12833670]

>>12832334
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFeArXy-S8&t=7368s

[Anonymous No.12833720]

>>12831522
how do u know it's parkus... btw he is SO fucking annoying in the discord >>12827646
holyyy fuck just shuttttt tup about orthodoxy duddeeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.12833729]

buump

[Anonymous No.12833772]

>>12831182
St Irenaeus first of all is showing rhetorical flair when he calls Rome the "most ancient Church", Antioch after all is the oldest patriarchate.
Secondly Irenaeus came to disagree with Rome concerning the date of the celebration of the resurrection:
“Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows... Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm))
Thirdly the translation that I am using for "Against Heresies" doesn't say "must agree" but says "should agree", and judging by Irenaeus' disagreement with Pope Victor, that seems more logical. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm))

[Anonymous No.12834337]

>>12833522
1. Well, the key move to suppose God is to assume a causal chain. The world isn't eternal, so it had to be caused by something. That something is probably God.

However, the world could also itself be eternal. The existence of the world itself IS what is existence is, and will just remain that way. What caused it? Well, it doesn't need a causal chain of explanation. Causality implies time, and the whole world could just include more stuff that is outside of time. A feature of that stuff is the capacity to create a space of time.

2/3. Free will doesn't have to exist in the strict sense, but in a much looser sense. Consider: we have a set of urges, desires, ability to construct linguistic sentences. We also tie those together, quite often. But when I ask - where did I get the desire to shitpost on /lit/ today, I can't quite answer you. How these words that I'm typing right now came into my head, I couldn't tell you. I know I didn't "will them into existence" because I try to will perfect arguments, but usually just a mess comes out. Physically speaking, It seems that I can give a command to move my arm or whatever, this is true. But that itself is tied to the desire to write this post, just like my seemingly voluntary action to get up and go get groceries is tied to the desire to eat (but not reducible to it, for example how do i pick whether I want cheese or meat to eat)

To be clear on this point: no "free" action is without an an unconscious urge or desire guiding it every step of the way.


processfag questions:

1. the assumption that this is a "fact", is itself linking an "unchangedness" towards change. It's similar to asking, "if time is always moving, how come time itself is fixed?" Change itself isn't some"thing" or some "fact" that exists. It's a word that refers to the "movingness" of what seems to be a stable object. Consider: you have a cup in front of you. The tiny microparticles which make up the cup are constantly shifting around, even though it seems that the cup is stable.

2. Zeno's paradoxes perform a mathematical operation to try and describe reality. They neatly divide up time and stop it, although time keeps going. There's an important difference between divisibility in mathematics and divisibility in space/time.

3. Knowledge is something that is always transforming. For instance, you yourself, know way more about orthodoxy than you did as a ten year old. The new things you learned changed the way you viewed the old things, even if all the truths themselves were somehow eternal. In other words, knowledge is human-based and changing no matter what it is actually trying to refer to

[Anonymous No.12834750]

Begome Orthodox :DDDD

[Anonymous No.12834807]

>>12833522
calefactory.org

wake up

[Anonymous No.12835255]

>>12831292
> Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni cælorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in cælis : et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in cælis. Tunc præcepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Jesus Christus.
the strongest case against orthodoxy is from the gospels

[Anonymous No.12835264]

>>12831556
How do you know if it's talking about patriarchs?