[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 26 KB, 306x445, 1608547580998.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.18851798 [Reply] [Original]

The book that destroyed atheism...

>> No.18851805
File: 66 KB, 850x725, 1628366967342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18851798
Christ fags btfo by crazy frog.
>Pic related is what I think of your god.

>> No.18852083

>>18851798
its only really good if you already believe in christianity, its interesting how he reconciles pagan philosophy and heretics like origen though

>> No.18852171
File: 875 KB, 3128x1632, 1619266151630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852083
>only really good if you already believe in christianity
That's unfortunate, I've had my mind opened to the religious worldview recently, but my trouble with many of them is how contingent they are. I understand now the existence of God and the soul, what the virtues are and how to cultivate them, etc. I do not understand how it is that one Nazarene sage has a monopoly on such truths and practices. I have a hard time that one could write a continuation of Aristotle's metaphysics or de anima that necessarily leads to "through Christ alone".

>> No.18852201
File: 54 KB, 500x500, 1629031364330.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852171
Well I'm assuming you're OP, since you posted Maximus the Confessor it should make a lot of sense actually. Jesus in his theology/philosophy is the Logos that penetrates the entire universe. You're looking at Jesus as almost an arian would, he wasn't a *mere* human being, while he is also a human being he is also the Logos that existed before time, the principle of Virtue, Knowledge, everything. That said I'm not a Christian anymore because I think every Church is garbage and the gates of hell have prevailed against all of them.

>> No.18852222
File: 685 KB, 809x1280, Bullinger-vol1-front__38130.1602281198.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18851798
The book that destroyed Roman Catholicism...

>> No.18852237

>>18852222
its not a feat to refute papism, however its even easier to refute protestantism because it is papism on steroids, where every "believer" is a pope figure

>> No.18852267

>>18851798
> read patristic literature and become enlightened
> read the bible and become an atheist again
Happens every time. I think it's because the best church fathers are actually closer to Athens than to Israel.
>>18852201
>the gates of hell have prevailed against all of them
Depends on what you mean by the church. I'd argue that it was only a matter of time before the gates of hell would preveil "the earthly church" , whereas the Christ's church (the Christ whose kingdom isn't of this world) is still alive and well and you can see glimpses of it.

>> No.18852270
File: 168 KB, 787x1024, 1619080502124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852201
I am not OP, in fact I never even read the book. I had it on a wishlist for a while, but >>18852083 dissuaded me a bit. Might still read it though.
>he wasn't a *mere* human being, while he is also a human being he is also the Logos that existed before time
I can get behind this, but my problem is that this cannot lead to the "Christ alone" dogma, because Logos is necessarily without time, place, etc. and thus above Jesus qua human. One would have to admit that Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Plotinus, Shankara, Ibn-Arabi, and many other teachers of the Timeless (including many Christian saints--John of the Cross and Meister Eckhart come to mind) provide valid doctrines as well, especially for those credited with miracles. I could see how one could read "only through me" as "only through the Logos" and thus include a broader umbrella, but every Christian I have spoken to so far has insisted that this is a heretical interpretation, and that *only* Jesus is Logos.

>> No.18852296

>>18852270
>Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Plotinus, Shankara, Ibn-Arabi, and many other teachers of the Timeless (including many Christian saints--John of the Cross and Meister Eckhart come to mind) provide valid doctrines as well
Do you deliberately read only those "thinkers" who are being promoted by the NWO? Dial down on this monism thingy.

>> No.18852305
File: 1.14 MB, 971x720, 1593486646900.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852237
>where every "believer" is a pope figure

>> No.18852329
File: 214 KB, 832x624, 29008757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852296
>NWO
It is illegal to live like these men in most Western countries (can't be homeless, can't live in a hut that's "not up to code", etc.) and their doctrines are left out in favor of secular humanism in Western schools, but sure yeah globohomo elites totally wants you to read those guys and follow their examples.

>> No.18852351
File: 129 KB, 673x598, 1547735621813.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852270
The arrogance in this post is astounding, I'll try to help your pea brain anyway.

>because Logos is necessarily without time
Yes, the second person of the Godhead, the Logos is timeless. Christs' hypostasis is Divine, but the natures which it enhypostatizes are both divine and human. He enhypostatizes human nature after the incarnation, and now the Logos is both human and divine by nature, but NOT by hypostasis, he is still the eternal Logos.

>One would have to admit that Lao Tzu, the Buddha, blah blah blah useless shit
Just read fucking Maximus the Confessor, unironically your stupidity makes me want to go back into Orthodox Christianity.

>I could see how one could read "only through me" as "only through the Logos"
Yes you have a correct interpretation, and the "Christians" you're talking to are prots or catholic retards.

>>18852305
>broader umbrella
I'm not sure what you mean here, broader umbrella of what? What you need to realize is that the Logos is a hypostasis.

>> No.18852396
File: 962 KB, 171x172, 1590341998543.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852351
>blah blah blah useless shit
I am convinced at this point that Christians are physically incapable of arguing in good faith.

>> No.18852397

>>18852351
>makes me want to go back into Orthodox Christianity
Why did you leave it?

>> No.18852410

>>18852396
Maybe if you looked closely, you might have noticed that most people in this thread (and the person you are responding to) are either ex-Christians or not Christians to begin with.

>> No.18852418

>>18852396
>make a rookie mistake
>get called out
>reeee instead of accepting you may have been wrong
Narcissism. Granted the poster was behaving asshole-like, but then this is 4chan, not a Bible study group.

>> No.18852426

>>18852396
I literally said in my post earlier that I'm not a Christian anymore, Jesus Christ I am likewise never engaging with you new age pajeet worshipers ever again.

>>18852397
I think that since the doctrine of baptism is neccesary for salvation, specifically by the Orthodox church, it creates a lot of issues for me where it becomes a game of RNG when you're born. If youre born in China, England, Spain, America, you'll have a much lower chance for salvation (through no fault of their own) than a Russian who was simply "born into it". The Church and Salvation are so intervowen with ethnicity which is sonething most non-Orthos have absolutely no control over. This isn't specifically a dunk on Orthos, I'm just using them because if Christianity is true, that's the real denomination and not some Papist or Prot retardness.

>>18852305
>prots still believe in the filioque
fucking hyperpapists

>> No.18852446

>>18852396
I have literally never even once seen a good post that uses the terms 'good faith' or 'bad faith' seriously. Every single time it's some idiot like this using them as an excuse for why he's not going to reply to the argument itself

>> No.18852473

>>18852446
new age faggots are incompetent, they have absolutely no knowledge at all, he can't reply to anything I said

>> No.18852480

>>18852426
>>prots still believe in the filioque
>fucking hyperpapists
I mean they're pagan faggots for still using those made up creeds. If it ain't in the Bible it's fake and gay pagan shit.

>> No.18852535

>>18851798
is it good?

>> No.18852557

>>18852201
>the gates of hell have prevailed against all of them.
This is literally exactly what Jesus said would never happen. You think you are more intelligent than Jesus? Your actual reason for leaving must be something more coherent, because this makes no sense.

>> No.18852561

>>18852557
i explained it in the second reply here >>18852426

>> No.18852579

>>18852561
>>18852426
>I think that since the doctrine of baptism is neccesary for salvation, specifically by the Orthodox church, it creates a lot of issues for me where it becomes a game of RNG when you're born
How are you unaware of the doctrine of invincible ignorance? I'm starting to think you were not Christian in the first place.
Also,
>Orthos, I'm just using them because if Christianity is true, that's the real denomination and not some Papist or Prot retardness.
There is a solid case to be made that the Catholic church, and those sui iuris churches in communion with it, is the true church. See the debate between Erick Ybarra and Jay Dyer, for example. It's not as simple as branding the issue as "papist" - even St. Irenaeus said that " [...] 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".

>> No.18852596

>>18852579
>doctrine of invincible ignorance
extremely new, modern, anti-patristical doctrine
>I'm starting to think you were not Christian in the first place.
yeah and neither were Augustine, Jerome, etc. then, who taught the damnation of unbaptized infants

>> No.18852598

>>18852579
>How are you unaware of the doctrine of invincible ignorance

>>18852426
>fucking hyperpapists
>>18852426
>This isn't specifically a dunk on Orthos, I'm just using them because if Christianity is true, that's the real denomination and not some Papist or Prot retardness.

The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have been Pope Pius IX in the allocution Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and the encyclicals Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863). That doctrine is younger than the United States by like 60 years.
Prots denied that like 500 years ago already, and Orthos, as far as I know, never used it at all, only a folk-ish Prayer to St. Varus

>> No.18852605

>>18852579
>How are you unaware of the doctrine of invincible ignorance?
Looks like some Popes were unaware of it too:
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Salvation_Outside.html

>> No.18852612

>>18852598
>only a folk-ish Prayer to St. Varus
yep that tradition is especially strong in Russia to pray for the non Orthodox Christians, but it really never addressed my original problem with salvation almost becoming RNG tier

>> No.18852641

>>18852596
>extremely new, modern, anti-patristical doctrine
You are showing your ignorance, no offence. The actual term itself is not found very early, but the concept of the salvation of those without knowledge of the Gospel is spoken of incredibly early, including by St. Paul in Romans 2:6-16. Further, obviously the harrowing of Hell raised up multitudes of unbaptized righteous men into heaven, who had never heard the gospel, so in principle, salvation of a righteous man in spite of ignorance of the law is obviously good.
>yeah and neither were Augustine, Jerome, etc. then, who taught the damnation of unbaptized infants
The private opinions of saints, even church fathers, is not infallible teaching. There is no salvation outside the church, and on this we both agree, but that God may communicate His grace to righteous and blameless souls outside of the visible bounds of His church, on His whim, is not only plausible, but proven through history.
>The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have been Pope Pius IX
Again, the doctrine was only given a firm name there, but it was already present in the Scriptures, as I showed above (material sufficiency).
>>18852605
>Looks like some Popes were unaware of it too:
There is no salvation outside of the church. That does not mean that God may not communicate His grace to righteous and blameless souls outside of the visible bounds of the church. Do you really believe that a North Korean, who lives under an anti-Christ who has illegalized the Gospel, who will /never/ get a chance to hear the Gospel, but acts blamelessly throughout their life, will be doomed to eternal fire? I affirm wholeheartedly that our loving and just God will not condemn an innocent soul to eternal damnation for an act they had no control over. We are not Calvinists, or Muhammedans.

>> No.18852743

>>18852612
I am not a Christian scholar, but it kinda seems that the Alexandrian school was more, eh, Athens-inclined as you said earlier, less literalism where a very specific ritual from a very specific lineage is absolutely crucial to your personal Salvation, and your pagan ancestors post-Resurrection are absolutely fucked by hellish torture you can at best stave off or lesson by very rigorous prayer.
What happened with evangelized the denizens of Hell by Christ himself, like, would He actually want random people to eternally suffer for receiving papist baptism or none at all?
Supposedly one can be "spiritually Christian" as a virtuous pagan, e.g. not sacrificing people, not raping boys, not boiling dogs alive etc. transcending the fucked up parts of your culture - as according to my hearsay and third hand sources on early Church Fathers, especially those philosophers or philosophically inclined - but then it would make the earthly Church superfluous with its Sacraments, especially the Baptism and the Communion that are absolute must according to the Tradition.

Wat do. My conscience says making people suffer eternally for things they have no idea of and can't learn about is fucked up and straight Evil, yet I can't just abandon Christianity (it is not like I found anything better yet, the New Age is a joke especially), which says God is Good and Love and Virtue etc. yet made a world where like ~98% percent of humanity are destined to spiritual torture for things they have no control over etc...

>> No.18852755

>>18852641
>The private opinions of saints, even church fathers, is not infallible teaching.
>But an ex cathedra opinion of a bishop is
You see the problem with papism there

>> No.18852767

>>18852201
Why is every church garbage in your opinion anon? Sure there is deep groupthink but the communities are invaluable for individuals and can sometimes really support communities. What kind of communities would you prefer?

>> No.18852782

literary speaking, things like that one (or guenon's books, or le oriental wisdom "teachings") they really are not different from dan brown's garbage. this religious aestheticism is just low quality literature for superficial individuals who just can't grasp what's good in poetry or prose.

>> No.18852785

>>18852782
Christianity btfo

>> No.18852790
File: 36 KB, 400x385, 1323579066942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>>/x/

>> No.18852805

>>18852641
I don't want to be mean and it's kind of cliche but just trust me, I've read more on Catholicism and Orthodoxy than you ever have, I am just not going to take any Catholic stuff seriously at all. It's all nonsense as far as I'm concerned, I'm sorry (not trying to be arrogant).

>>18852743
>and your pagan ancestors post-Resurrection are absolutely fucked by hellish torture you can at best stave off or lesson by very rigorous prayer.
yeah and keep in mind it's not just post-Resurrection pagans, but also the ancestors who are in the wrong denomination of Christianity which many were already born into. Just think of it today, Protestants, Catholics, Orientals, they're all false denomination with no salvation.
>What happened with evangelized the denizens of Hell by Christ himself, like, would He actually want random people to eternally suffer for receiving papist baptism or none at all?
I don't know but you'd have to argue it was not Christ's fault that they received papist baptism, you'd have to construe some weird arguments that I won't even get into
>Supposedly one can be "spiritually Christian" as a virtuous pagan, e.g. not sacrificing people, not raping boys, not boiling dogs alive etc. transcending the fucked up parts of your culture - as according to my hearsay and third hand sources on early Church Fathers, especially those philosophers or philosophically inclined - but then it would make the earthly Church superfluous with its Sacraments, especially the Baptism and the Communion that are absolute must according to the Tradition.
bingo

>Wat do
I couldn't stand the coping and just left the religion entirely, I still respect it because there's a lot of love in the theology but I could never join it, especially in real life when you will really feel the tensions when you come in as an "outsider". You'll look at the Russian guy with his entire family in Church, and think about your own parents who might even be dead and never got the chance to join it, through no fault of their own, because the religion is very exotic and ethno-centric (in the sense that you get it because you're born into it).

>My conscience says making people suffer eternally for things they have no idea of and can't learn about is fucked up and straight Evil, yet I can't just abandon Christianity (it is not like I found anything better yet, the New Age is a joke especially)
I was into stoicism before I entered christianity so it's what I'm back at. It's really a wonderful philosophy and has a lot of overlap with christianity, the Logos doctrine was already explicated in Stoicism before Christianity. It's a lot less systemic and has much less classical writing though, but I really don't care that much anymore, we have what we need and I am much more focused on praxis nowadays than just mindlessly reading.

>> No.18852810

>>18852790
>made-up Hell
What if it is not made up, but very much real. I unironically believe I got snatched up by demons into somewhere hellish while asleep, for like several second, yet almost 10 years later I still shudder. And similar episodes in my worst nightmares, I can't tell if it was being besieged by malicious entities conjuring up torturous bullshit or actually being somewhere there for a bit.

>> No.18852812

>>18852790
gnostics are so butthurt they even need to false flag. you retards do indeed belong in /x/.

>> No.18852813
File: 574 KB, 1920x1280, 1920px-Anastasis_at_Chora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852755
It would, of course, seem strange to you that the Holy Spirit has guided the true church into an understanding different than yours, but it only makes sense. To the Gnostics, it would have seemed ridiculous that the Holy Trinity was the Truth as codified by the successors of the apostles; similarly, to the schismatic churches of Russia and Greece, it of course seems ridiculous that an ecumenical council of the true church could be convened to dogmatically define points of contention in the church. The truth is that Orthodoxy has separated from the true church, of which St. Irenaeus says "all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world". This is why the national schismatic churches promulgate such false doctrines as permitting three divorces but arbitrarily forbidding the fourth, allowing contraceptives. It would be a small matter to simply allow the Holy Spirit to determine the true answer of these questions at an ecumenical council - and yet, the "Orthodox" can do no such thing, and have not been able to for over 1000 years. They have been left behind.


"[...] the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” - St. Cyprian of Carthage, one of the most highly venerated Eastern Orthodox saints

>>18852805
>just trust me, I've read more on Catholicism and Orthodoxy than you ever have, I am just not going to take any Catholic stuff seriously at all. It's all nonsense as far as I'm concerned, I'm sorry

You are saying that you are not trying to be arrogant, but you automatically assume you have read more on Catholicism and Orthodoxy than I have, without even knowing who I am. There are scholars who have read more on both than you have, and they remain Catholic. If you don't have an argument to support your position, and are just saying "dude just trust me bro", don't bother wasting space in the thread.

>> No.18852819

The funniest part about Christians are the multi-paragraph long schizo posts they make that nobody reads. Seriously you guys think anyone car

>> No.18852825

>>18852805
>Protestants, Catholics, Orientals, they're all false denomination with no salvation.
Literally no evidence for this proposition.
>you'd have to argue it was not Christ's fault that they received papist baptism
The schismatic churches can't even agree on whether or not you have to rebaptize people who were baptized into the Catholic church. Again, this incoherent series of teachings among the supposedly-unified "orthodox" further proves that they do not possess the fullness of the truth - if they did, how could they possibly disagree on so great a matter as this?

>> No.18852827

>>18852782
sp much this. the templars and atlantis are funny at least.

>> No.18852829

>>18852813
>without even knowing who I am
no I based it on the fact on what you wrote, it's really basic bitch shit that I've heard a million times and has been refuted countless times. I simply have absolutely no intention or interest engaging with catholic thought ever again, I think you should respect that instead of making up assumptions about me

>>18852825
if you're the catholic guy please stop replying to me, you have no idea what you're talking about

>>18852819
not a christian but the wall of texts gnostics and new agers post are way worse, even their classical texts are horrible, I skimmed through the nag hammadi and it's awful

>> No.18852835

>>18852829
>has been refuted countless times
Yeah, this sounds like an easy way to say "i have no argument". If it's so easy to refute the points, then you should be able to do so easily, instead of running away from a debate after making so many baseless claims. This is the typical pride of the orthodox-adjacent, and demonstrates that you are acting pridefully. Multitudes of men more intelligent and well-studied than you have come to a different conclusion, and just saying "your argument has been refuted" shows your lack of intellectual depth.
>I think you should respect that instead of making up assumptions about me
If you apostatized from the faith of Jesus Christ because of some brainlet take on salvation, maybe you should just stop spouting your schismatic garbage, instead of making inflammatory posts on Christianity and then running away when anybody challenges you on your baseless claims?

>> No.18852863

>>18852835
>Yeah, this sounds like an easy way to say "i have no argument". If it's so easy to refute the points, then you should be able to do so easily, instead of running away from a debate after making so many baseless claims.
Because I am not interested in arguing how false of a religion papism is.

>maybe you should just stop spouting your schismatic garbage
Yeah funny how everything I'm saying was traditional Catholic thinking from Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas but since every new pedophile Bishop in Rome can change dogma on a whim it's just schismatic.

>instead of making inflammatory posts on Christianity and then running away
My original post was defending Maximus' teaching from this New Age faggot, but Papists don't really care for Maximus anyway

>> No.18852898

>>18852805
>I couldn't stand the coping and just left the religion entirely, I still respect it because there's a lot of love in the theology but I could never join it, especially in real life when you will really feel the tensions when you come in as an "outsider". You'll look at the Russian guy with his entire family in Church, and think about your own parents who might even be dead and never got the chance to join it, through no fault of their own, because the religion is very exotic and ethno-centric (in the sense that you get it because you're born into it).
Speaking of Russia, for the last generations extremely few people got "born" into it due to Commies purging Christianity worse than Diocletian and Galerius. I think most are still neophytes of the last 30 years.
We were conquered only during WW2, so the family got to baptize their children in secret, but still the unrelenting anti-Christian propaganda led to many people . While just across the border in 1939, the area was literally "Church-free", not a single church or cleric remaining, so the newborns probably had not a single idea what Christianity even is, except for Soviet caricatures in literally Christ-hating clubs.
Then what.
And then like half my family were papists, even though some converted to Orthodoxy in the last decades. What about them. What if the papists are true, since they do seems to get miracles too? I've no idea.
One would need a spiritual father to guide you, but then you have KGB stooges in every second church and intra-church crackdowns on "charismatic cultists" if some monk elder is deemed heretical and/or building a personal cult while his spiritual children testify they're having a Zosima-tier spiritual guide almost capable of miracle work?

When the stake is your unending spiritual torture and you get one chance at evading it you get ultra-neurotic real fast. I wonder if it was the same for literate Christians and Pagans during the III-VI centuries, when there was still literacy and civilization before the Justinian Plague and Moslem raiding. There must have been some way of solving this beyond "just believe bro its all absurd fuck the world".

>I was into stoicism before I entered christianity so it's what I'm back at.
I remember the guys, though dimly. Epicurianis, Stoicism, Buddhism, Shaivism and other degeneracy through Evola, Hermetism etc. - quite a walk, still in doubt in my Christian-izing stage.
There must be some truth to Christianity since it persevered even through the Soviet Union, but some contradictions just unravel my mind.

Really like to request /lit for it. Double so if Church Fathers, triple so if actually relevant.

>> No.18852925

>>18852863
>Because I am not interested in arguing how false of a religion papism is.
And yet interested enough to seethe about how the one true church is false on the internet. If you don't want to get into a debate with a Catholic, why post inflammatory posts on Catholicism?
>yeah funny how everything I'm saying was traditional Catholic thinking from Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas
Like I said, Romans 2 is the basis for the material sufficiency of this doctrine, and you haven't put forth any argument against it.
>from this New Age faggot, but Papists don't really care for Maximus anyway
It's pretty funny how you are calling adherents to other ideologies "faggots", when you literally reject Jesus Christ and spurned His grace, all because you were confused with the doctrines of a schismatic church. Can there be anything more cringe than being an anti-Christ?

>> No.18852943

>>18852813
>t would, of course, seem strange to you that the Holy Spirit has guided the true church into an understanding different than yours, but it only makes sense
It does not. "We are right, because We say we are right" is not an argument, it is a loyalty pledge. Since I am not a Papist, your loyalty pledge is unheard. Literally the same is said by the Orthodox, that Papists are schismatics who receive Satan's gifts in exchange for open worldly power.
>an ecumenical council of the true church
>ecumenical
>just ignore 2/3 the Christendom bro, it is that easy
Need I remind you of the time there were THREE popes SIMULTANEOSLY. Ecumenical my ass, the Papist were in schism with themselves for forty years, and then you have the whole of Protestant-dome in schism with Rome; forget about the Eastern Roman bishops.

>> No.18852961

>>18852898
in regards to Russia you're completely correct, church attendance is extremely low even today, I just tend to use that country as an example because a lot of ortho converts become manic russophiles, but I could've just as well said "Greece" or just "parts of Eastern Europe"

>One would need a spiritual father to guide you
this argument never appealed to me because as you say there are plenty of heretical and shady monks and clerics

>There must be some truth to Christianity since it persevered even through the Soviet Union
the ortho religion, theology and foundation are very strong so I'm not surprised that it did at all, I was quite zealous myself when I was Ortho, it's hard not to be. I'm sure many types of these people existed throughout Russia at that time

>>18852925
>And yet interested enough to seethe about how the one true church is false on the internet.
You shouldn't worry about it, chief, because the one true church wouldn't be your pedo cabaal.

>Like I said, Romans 2 is the basis for the material sufficiency of this doctrine, and you haven't put forth any argument against it.
I quite frankly do not care for your Plegian interpretation of the passage


>It's pretty funny how you are calling adherents to other ideologies "faggots"
>"how can you respect one ideology more than another?? you as a non believer SHOULD view Christianity which gave us so many good things in this world the same as nonsense New Age degeneracy!"

>> No.18852966

>>18852835
>Yeah, this sounds like an easy way to say "i have no argument"
>It would, of course, seem strange to you that the Holy Spirit has guided the true church into an understanding different than yours
Your argument is "it seems strange to you that I am obviously right". The Holy Spirit would JUST abandon 2/3 or Christendom because the Popes are too engaged in Pornocracy or Western Schism or Second Western Schism or Sedevacantism to report how they appointed themselves to be always right because they themselves say so.

Judge by the fruits.

>> No.18853252

>>18852943
>"We are right, because We say we are right" is not an argument, it is a loyalty pledge
My argument is that, through the ancient practice of ecumenical councils, the one true church has always been able to reach conclusions about matters of faith - and it is the Orthodox that can no longer practice this, seeing as they not only disagree on which councils are valid, but are literally unable to convene a council in the absence of an emperor or Pope.
>just ignore 2/3 the Christendom bro, it is that easy
The Eastern Catholic churches were present and represented, as well as the bishops of the true church.
>Need I remind you of the time there were THREE popes SIMULTANEOSLY
That there were two anti-Popes at one time in history does not invalidate any of the claims of the Catholic church.
>the Papist were in schism with themselves for forty years
I really hope you aren't seriously thinking this is an argument, when the entire Orthodox church is in schism with itself over petty nationalist political issues. It's a binary option, in Christendom - there are schismatics, and there is the one true church.

>the one true church wouldn't be your pedo cabaal.
Source: your inflated ego and pseudo-enlightenment. Can you show me one powerful institution on the planet that does not have some some of scandal associated with it? Does agents of Satan attempting to infiltrate a church mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it?
>I quite frankly do not care for your Plegian interpretation of the passage
Again, you have not provided any argument against it, you just pridefully insist that you are right, without defending your position. It's honestly quite embarassing.

>you as a non believer SHOULD view Christianity which gave us so many good things in this world the same as nonsense New Age degeneracy!"
Why does it even matter? You're all on the same team - you reject Jesus Christ and His divinity, are in full knowledge of your apostasy, have no claim to invincible ignorance, and thus are on the side of the anti-Christs. If you do not repent before your death, you will spend eternity with the rest of them. Please think harder on this issue, just because the schismatic Orthodox have an incorrect view of salvation, and can't even agree on rebaptism, doesn't mean Jesus Christ is not Lord. This is your eternal soul, and if you reject Him, you will be left in the state most ontologically distant from Him - Hell.

>>18852966
>The Holy Spirit would JUST abandon 2/3
What are you talking about? The "2/3" you are talking about are literal schismatics, they chose to abandon the church. It was not the Holy Spirit's doing, He does not will sin.
>Judge by the fruits.
Considering the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet, and has saved (and continues to save) the most amount of souls throughout history, my judgment leads me to believe they are the true church of Jesus Christ (among a multitude of other reasons).

>> No.18853476

>>18853252
>My argument is that, through the ancient practice of ecumenical councils, the one true church has always been able to reach conclusions about matters of faith
The Fourth Council of Constantinople was held in 879–880. It confirmed the reinstatement of Photius I as patriarch of Constantinople. 383 bishops present, condemns Filioque like any other additions to the Nicene creed. Accepted as ecumenical by the Orthodox church.
The OTHER Fourth Council of Constantinople accusing Photius has whooping 12 bishops present, and 102 in the end (as opposed to 383). Convened by Pope Hadrian II, so a-OK ecumenical for the Papists, even though outnumbered 1 to 2 (hence the 2/3) at the most, or basically a robber council of 12 bishops at start.
NOW WHAT? Would you kindly take out the tree trunk out of your eye? You can't have "ecumenical" councils when you have three Ecumenical Catholic Churches simultaneously, and that is not counting the three hundred million Popes of Protestantism.

>> No.18853506

>>18853252
>>18853476
You know what, don't even reply, I ain't allowing a Jesuit around me. He will just twist and lie and then happily indulge himself with an indulgence.

>> No.18853694
File: 789 KB, 1871x1428, 1628122735121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18853476
>condemns Filioque like any other additions to the Nicene creed
But you are aware that the Nicene Creed of 325 was added and subtracted to at Constantinople 381, correct? By the logic of the Eastern Orthodox, the changes of 381 should also have been retroactively considered illegitimate and condemned by canon 7 of Ephesus, and yet the reformed creed of 381 was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon. If you take the totality of the issue into perspective, the same authority at Ephesus which issued canons that sought to lock away forever all reforms, can itself reform those canons, because that authority is what locked the creed to begin with.

>> No.18853779

Daaamn, these Catholic vs Orthodox debates seem to be all over the Internet nowadays.
I think Jay Dyer is the one to blame for this.

>> No.18853846
File: 122 KB, 540x427, 1584501543950 - Copy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Filioque is simply false and a misunderstanding of true Christology.

>> No.18853863

>>18852426
>becomes a game of RNG when you're born
You're saying as if it isn't perfectly in God's providence where you are born and if the presence of His Church is strong nearby.
I personally was born in an Orthodox country but was an atheist until I was 22. Your place of birth is irrelevant if you truly want truth and to be saved.

>> No.18853890
File: 258 KB, 642x704, western rite wojack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

What makes the Roman Catholic Church irrefutably false in my view is its tunnel-vision attitude to Christology and theology. It's like they think only their limited Latin branch of theology is true, when a proper understanding of most Church Fathers refutes their theology completely. It's like they don't even care anymore but just triple down on their view of ecclesiology and pretend that these contrary views can somehow be reconciled.

>> No.18853923

>>18853846
>Filioque is simply false and a misunderstanding of true Christology
"Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’” He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive." (John 7:38-39)
"Then he showed me the river of living water, sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God [!!!] and of the Lamb [!!!]" (Revelation 22:1)

>>18853890
Why are you ignoring the fact that 23 sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches continue to hold onto all of their traditions and theological positions that do not contradict a dogmatic teaching of the church, while still being in communion with Rome? It's a mistake to imagine the totality of Catholicism as only represented in the Latin church. You should check out Fr. Dcn. Anthony Dragani's website east2west.org, he does a good job at elucidating the nuances of this common error.

>> No.18853940

>still being in communion with Rome
This is a false criteria of catholicity. If say the entirety of the Russian Church becomes uniate tommorow, they will still not have unity of faith even if they are in communion with Rome.

>> No.18853947

>>18853923
>"Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’” He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive." (John 7:38-39)
>"Then he showed me the river of living water, sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God [!!!] and of the Lamb [!!!]" (Revelation 22:1)
Where does this say that the Holy Spirit has His hypostasis from the hypostasis of the Son?

>> No.18853948

>>18853863
tell that to the aborted infants all over the world, or the chinese farmer

>> No.18853955

Doesn't Roman Catholicism believe that I as a Russian in the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate still have the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacraments? Doesn't it basically make the Latin church unnecessary then?

>> No.18853964

>>18853948
How does abortion or being Chinese exclude God's providence over you? This seems like a very weird statement to make in response to my post.

>> No.18853988
File: 209 KB, 786x1113, 298728AD-9B95-4A7B-93C2-88658680A639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Good afternoon posters.

>> No.18853992

>>18853964
I'm pointing out the arrogance in your original post. "If you truly want truth and to be saved" says the guy who lives in a fucking Orthodox country.

>> No.18853994
File: 696 KB, 1500x2006, Gregor_Palamas_by_North_Greece_anonym_(15th_c.,_Pushkin_museum).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18853955
>Doesn't it basically make the Latin church unnecessary then?
Yes. St. Gregory Palamas is a saint in their church (via the Eastern Catholic uniates) even when he died outside of communion with Rome and taught doctrines contrary to their church. You can be saved even if you go against Rome so it is completely unnecessary.

>> No.18854034
File: 185 KB, 650x340, St. Phillip and Black Christian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18853992
I did not live in this country for most of my life actually, but God's providence somehow returned me back and I got converted after being atheist. Even if I didn't move I still could have converted if I truly seeked out God. He is more powerful than mere worldy barriers. If you truly want God, He will send missionaries to you (or send you to them) and make it possible for you to join His church in some way.

>Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”

>The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

>> No.18854042

One would think that if God truly did visit our world, he would have been clearer about who he truly was and what kind of a church he would want to establish.
I'm not trying to be a cringe fedora-tipping atheist or something but all these debates about councils, papacy, etc. do look like a waste of time and make one truly sceptical about Christianity.

>> No.18854061
File: 1.76 MB, 1949x1320, 1628686059917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18853940
It is an ancient and well-attested position that the marker of orthodoxy and catholicity is whether one is in communion with the church of Rome: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Catholic Church 4), "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" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3), just to quote two major fathers.

>>18853947
It obviously shows the material sufficiency in scripture behind the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Besides that, why not take up your issue with the filioque with St. Cyril of Alexandria, a highly venerated Eastern saint, who affirmed and taught it in his writings?

>>18853955
>I as a Russian [...] still have the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacraments?
Yes.
>Doesn't it basically make the Latin church unnecessary then?
Do you not want to heal the wound in the mystical body of Christ? It is only right and just that we should put much effort into healing the great schism between our forefathers, for the good of all mankind.

>>18853994
>You can be saved even if you go against Rome so it is completely unnecessary.
Just like there are Eastern Orthodox saints who teach the filioque, necessity of communion with Rome as a marker of orthodoxy, and the supra-metropolitical jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

>>18854042
To be fair, it was extremely clear and obvious until the great schism. The only live options at this point are Catholicism and the national churches of "Eastern Orthodoxy", which are in schism with one another.

>> No.18854070

I am not sure why anyone would think that Orthos or Catholics have a better chance at salvation than anyone else.

Acts 2:38. Churches make everything so complicated.

>> No.18854076

>>18852426
read what the catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about baptism, and about foreigners who have never heard the gospel but would have desired baptism if they knew what it was

>> No.18854088

>>18854061
>who affirmed and taught it in his writings
Source?

>> No.18854105
File: 95 KB, 680x494, b4oue0ctptetg3jk7hxccbhrwg3jk7hxccbhu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854061
>The only live options at this point are Catholicism

>> No.18854125

>>18854061
>Yes.
Okay, so if I want to be saved it is sufficient for me (and anyone else) to join my Church and practice what it teaches? What incentive is there then to join Rome then when there is a very good argument to be made that its interpretation of Eastern fathers is false and misguided?

>> No.18854142

>>18854070
>complicated.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

>> No.18854147

>>18854042
It is incredibly simple. People choose to complicate things.

>> No.18854173

>>18854070
Because some churches, especially in the Protestant tradition, will teach that it is okay to deny the Holy Trinity, commit sodomy, never go to confession (directly contrary to John 20:23), not partake in the Eucharist because it is "just a symbol" and not necessary for eternal life (directly contrary to John 6:54). This reasoning also extends to why I bother trying to evangelize Eastern Orthodox, because many of them practice divorce and remarriage (directly contrary to Matthew 19:9), etc. If the church's doctrines are not flawless, one may commit a horrible sin which they believe is permitted, and suffer greatly for it.

>>18854088
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it”

"“[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son”

Both of these are from "Treasury of the Holy Trinity", thesis 34.

>>18854125
>Okay, so if I want to be saved it is sufficient for me (and anyone else) to join my Church
If they are coming from heathenry, yes.
>and practice what it teaches?
No, this is the problem, as I also said above. Your church has false teachings on numerous topics, and because of this departure from Catholicity, one can potentially engage in sinful activities (contraception, divorce and remarriage, etc.). I, of course, dare not speak for God, but in my mind, practices like these stain the soul with sin and may lead to one eternal damnation if they recognize within their heart of hearts that they are not truly right and just. Why would you risk it, or risk that a friend you lead into the church risks it, when there is a much surer path to salvation - the fullness of the truth, in the one true Church of Jesus Christ?
>there is a very good argument to be made that its interpretation of Eastern fathers is false and misguided?
Again, you wouldn't need to join the Latin church, you could join an Eastern Catholic tradition which most likely adheres 99%, if not 100%, to your interpretation of the Eastern fathers, while still being in communion with Rome.

>> No.18854184
File: 45 KB, 600x600, 51EOQ2bs5gL._AC_UL600_SR600,600_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852270
There are Christian perennialists like James Cutsinger and Philip Sherrard who do believe that the historical Jesus is not the only incarnation of the Logos and that other authentic traditions have salvific power. Most Christians fail to make this connection and think it heretical because Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light." This may be true, but the "I am" is the eternal Logos which preceded the historical Jesus. Christ says as much in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am." The best introduction to the perennial worldview is Frithjof Schuon's "The Transcendental Unity of Religions."

>> No.18854193

>>18854142
>Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The narrow gate is following Jesus and his teachings the wide gate is following the legalistic rules of Israel and organized institutions.

This verse is not suggesting one become Ortho or Catholic.

>> No.18854196

>>18854184
>perennialists
>Christian
Don't make false claims, please. These people deny the creeds and beliefs of Christianity, and are not Christians, but heretics. There is literally no evidence to suppose that anybody else in history is an incarnation of the Logos, besides Jesus Christ.

>> No.18854199

>>18854173
>likely adheres 99%, if not 100%, to your interpretation of the Eastern fathers
But what if I want the truth, not mere adherence to some tradition with formal communion with Rome? It seems very strange to me that you can keep contrary tradition/teaching and still be in communion with Rome, and that this somehow constitutes the true church. Didn't Christ pray for us to have unity, and didn't Paul ask us to believe the same things? How is it true communion in the same mystical body when we have differing beliefs on such important subjects? It seems to me very much like Roman unity is purely political.

>I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

>> No.18854204

>>18854193
>following Jesus and his teachings
How does one do this? Where are His teachings to be found?

>>18854184
>authentic traditions have salvific powe
Demons do not have salvific power. It is clear that the gods of pagans are demons, even if these people have had some truths about the Logos in their worldviews.

>> No.18854210

>>18854076
Orthodox people don’t even read the Bible. Orthodox churches grant divorces all the time. I don’t know Catholic Churches that do.

>> No.18854222

>>18854173
>"“[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son”
This speaks about the energetic procession of the spirit in relation to how the Holy Spirit acts. That His acts flow from the Father, through the Son. This is the classical Eastern Orthodox understanding of the connection between the Son and the Spirit. St. Cyril doesn't speak of hypostatic origin, which is the Latin claim, that the Holy Spirit has his very hypostasis (subsistence, personal being) from the Son.

>> No.18854232

>>18853890
Catholicism has passed through three stages to deal with its schism - first the Lateran council broke the tradition of married priests (hence the forever Catholic Pedo), further alienating itself from the East, the Trentine council remade Catholicism into Anti-Protestantism and eventually gave Jesuits, and the Vatican 1 made papal infallibility official. Then behold, the Vatican 2.
None of them were ecumenical, hence they can't do anything to other churches but to maybe conquer them with force.

Eastern Orthodox didn't change anything, and they did not have any more Ecumenical councils. Because to be Ecumenical, one has to have representatives from the Ecumene, all the faithful bishops, especially the five Patriarchs - Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Since the Old Rome is in open schism and heresy since 1054, there were no more Ecumenical councils, since you can't have them without Rome and Rome is autistic. And there won't be for a long time.
Also the Ecumenical council must be called by the East Roman emperor, and you know, 1453 and 1917.
Seeing the Prots and the pozzed Catholicism, one sees why such checks were added in the first place.

>> No.18854234

>>18854210
>I don’t know Catholic Churches that do.
Don't they have a weird legalistic view where it's an annulment and wasn't actually a marriage to begin with?

>> No.18854239

>>18854204
The New Testament. Some Bibles are red letter edition meaning the words that Jesus spoke are in red ink.

>> No.18854251

>>18854234
Yes. Catholics get divorced all the time but they just call it something else. Catholics are essentially Talmudic Jews.

>> No.18854252

>>18854199
>But what if I want the truth, not mere adherence to some tradition with formal communion with Rome?
You are misunderstanding what I said. Eastern Catholics are basically just Eastern Orthodox who believe in the papacy. Whatever interpretation your church has on the Eastern fathers, I would bet that the nearest Byzantine Catholic parish would agree with.
>It seems very strange to me that you can keep contrary tradition/teaching and still be in communion with Rome
Read Orientalium ecclesiarium. There is no contradictory teaching, because the Eastern Catholics must assent to the dogmatic teachings of the Church, but they maintain their parallel theological traditions in every way which does not contradict the dogmatic proclamations of the church.
>Didn't Christ pray for us to have unity, and didn't Paul ask us to believe the same things
We do believe the same core tenets of the faith, and just express our beliefs in some different ways, based upon the writings of different saints. There has always been differences in the rites and teachings of the churches, even pre-schism. We are united in the fullness of truth, and mutually benefit from one another's development.
>How is it true communion in the same mystical body when we have differing beliefs on such important subjects?
We do not have differing beliefs on any beliefs which are dogmatically taught. It is true communion because the Eastern Catholics are the first brave ones of the East to begin to heal the schism, and because they assent to the teachings and authority of the successor of Peter.
>>18854222
Cool, so would you agree with St. Cyril of Alexandria when he says that the Holy Spirit "actually proceeds from the Father and Son"?

>> No.18854277

>>18852171
>but my trouble with many of them is how contingent they are
I agree with that sentiment, I've been reading some christian philosophy by Rudolf Steiner recently, and while I've found them interesting, it still all depends on accepting what is stated in the gospel on faith.

>> No.18854311

>>18854252
>would you agree with St. Cyril of Alexandria
I would agree with Him, but it is your side who would have to disagree if you still hold to the dogma of hypostatic double procession of the Holy Spirit, since St. Cyril does not teach it.

>> No.18854328
File: 66 KB, 960x540, 112914_popea_960x540.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Why do I need to be in communion with a guy who prays with muslims in mosques to be saved? This act would have been considered apostasy in even Vatican I times. Where does Christ teach about doing this?

I'm not even trying to be facetious, I'm interested in how it is ontologically a necessity to follow this person in matters of faith to be saved when he teaches that we worship the same God as muslims and Christ-killing Jews.

>> No.18854386

>>18854204
>It is clear that the gods of pagans are demons
Aaan people who have no idea of Christ due to remoteness and/or local culture or venerate Christ in the wrong way (Moslems) all go to hell. Also the unbaptized infants. Splendid.

>> No.18854391

>>18854232
>Eastern Orthodox didn't change anything
How about the Toll Houses and hesychasm? I understand that these things aren't dogmas but they do look like later additions.

>> No.18854396

>>18854311
Great, thanks for the intellectual honesty. It's refreshing to hear an Eastern Orthodox admit that the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and Son.
>>18854328
The patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople, along with the Pope, were also praying with Muslims and Pagans at Assisi '86.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foi-c2ElW6o
The truth is, the salvific fullness of the apostolic Christian faith is found in its traditions and Holy Spirit-guided teachings, and if we place our whole trust in men, even leaders in faith, we will be disappointed. We must only trust Jesus, and the golden flame of tradition left to us by our forefathers. Even still, the deposit of faith is what remains untainted and incorruptible, and salvation is found only in the sacraments and deposit of faith of the apostolic Churches (even if I believe that some doctrines of the Russian and Greek Orthodox are sinful, like contraceptives, which is a reason why I believe Catholicism contains the fullness of the truth).

>>18854386
>people who have no idea of Christ due to remoteness and/or local culture or venerate Christ in the wrong way (Moslems) all go to hell. Also the unbaptized infants
Wrong. If one is invincibly ignorant and follows the natural law, they may not be damned, because of God's grace.
>>18854391
They are. Doctrinal development is only bad in the EO's eyes when Catholics do it.

>> No.18854437
File: 413 KB, 600x600, 0f23baead1fd9155f6f312ba5e9e26ed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854396
>If one is invincibly ignorant and follows the natural law, they may not be damned, because of God's grace.
Then erasing Christianity without a trace would necessary make everyone invincibly ignorant thus automatically saved.
Just like it was before Christ, right? People did not believe in Christ because Jesus was not yet born even, so Hell was, like, empty, nobody to preach to. They were ignorant of Jesus hence invincible, right.

I don't even touch the case where durka-durka Mahmood is ignorant of Christianity because he can't read and his mullah said that Christians are heretical Moslems, dies and gets in Paradise, except he gets to know of the Trinity and that over a billion Moslems are heretics at best and Satan-worshippers at worst. Which is fine for Mahmood, but makes the Church and the Cross unnecessary for salvation.
It actually makes harder to be saved if you know about Jesus and the Church, because then you can sin and fail, but before that your ignorance is bliss! Picrel, the absurdity.

>> No.18854440

>>18854396
>the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from the Father and Son.
What does this mean though? Do we just need to accept some combination of words to have true doctrine or does their meaning actually matter?

>> No.18854480

>>18854437
>Then erasing Christianity without a trace would necessary make everyone invincibly ignorant
Yes.
>thus automatically saved.
This is where you get it wrong. Many people who were invincibly ignorant are not saved, because they transgress against their conscience (the natural law). Read Romans 2.
>They were ignorant of Jesus hence invincible, right.
Invincibly ignorant =/= destined for salvation.

>Which is fine for Mahmood, but makes the Church and the Cross unnecessary for salvation.
Except for when an invincibly ignorant Muhammedan performs Mut'ah like Muhammad taught him, and defiles a virgin in a disgusting act of prostitution. This is what I mean when I say going against the natural law. Plus, nobody was in heaven until Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross, so the "unnecessary for salvation" thing is incoherent.
>Picrel, the absurdity.
Picrel is misguided because it assumes that 1) invincible ignorance means you will be saved, and 2) that native Americans had a communal doctrine which perfectly followed the natural law. This is obviously false - for example, the south American Indians practiced human sacrifice, and so even though they were invincibly ignorant, those who willingly partook of those abominable acts would most likely not have been saved. This is why we are called to preach, even if it destroys invincible ignorance - because "the soul of any man can fall into bondage" to sin, and only the divine morality of Jesus Christ provides the perfect framework for avoidance of sin, a full understanding of what actually is sinful, and a pathway to theosis/divinization.

>> No.18854496

>>18854396
>patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople
Those aren't patriarchs. They're diocesan bishops.

>> No.18854505

>>18854437
Yep, christian universalism is the only logical way out here.
>what's the point of missionary work then?
To preach the truth out of love
>what about murders, pedos, Hitler, etc. Will they go to heaven too?
Yes. But they will be purified by the burning love of God.

>> No.18854516

>>18854480
>invincibly ignorant
>saved by natural law
Doesn't this deny the necessity of baptism for salvation?

>>18854505
>christian universalism
Christ himself denies this view.
>Yes
What about an atheist mass murderer who hates Christ and prefers hell to communion with God? Will God also neglect his free will and force salvation upon him?

>> No.18854559

>>18854516
Where does he deny? Not OP but interested in answer

>> No.18854569

>>18854496
The Patriarchs of many orthodox churches were present, including Moscow.
https://youtu.be/T2XUHA3cwd4?t=6052
>>18854516
>Doesn't this deny the necessity of baptism for salvation?
Was the good thief on the cross saved? Invincible ignorance excuses from acts of omission (such as failure to be baptized) as well as acts of commission. If one is invincibly ignorant of the requirement of baptism but would seek baptism if one knew it was required then the lack of baptism will not be held against one. This is expressly taught by the Church (CCC 1260). Thus, in these extraordinary cases, one would thus be recognized as having baptism of desire, at least implicitly, much as the thief on the cross was saved, despite (as far as we know) Christ not telling him he was supposed to be baptized.

>> No.18854575

>>18852790
>...but literally killing them is fine.

>> No.18854578

>>18854440
God is the source of everything.
God had one nature, but three persons.
Causally there can be only one uncaused cause. That is God the Father.
God the Father is the source for other two persons, God the Son begotten by the Father and God the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father.
All of this is atemporal, as it precedes Creation.
So the Father is the hypostasis or person that is the source.

But filioque makes the Son as another origin for the Holy Ghost. This makes two origins, not one.

>> No.18854597

>>18854559
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:14)

"One day the beggar died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. And the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham from afar, with Lazarus by his side.
So he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. For I am in agony in this fire.’
But Abraham answered, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things. But now he is comforted here, while you are in agony. And besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that even those who wish cannot cross from here to you, nor can anyone cross from there to us.’
‘Then I beg you, father,’ he said, ‘send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also end up in this place of torment.’
But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let your brothers listen to them.’ (Luke 16:22-29)

"Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’
Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’
And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46)

>> No.18854602
File: 99 KB, 1000x1500, thatallshallbesaved.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854516
>Christ himself denies this view
Depends on the interpretation.
>What about an atheist mass murderer who hates Christ and prefers hell to communion with God? Will God also neglect his free will and force salvation upon him?
Yes. You can never fully reject God anyway. He is the prime mover, he is present everywhere, even in the depths of an ocean in a belly of a fish.
This imaginary atheist is ignorant of love and compassion. He will be taught and purified by God's love.
There is no point in eternal punishment. Especially the one without correction.

>> No.18854628
File: 328 KB, 729x1213, maximus main.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>*refutes universalism*
Your response?

>>18854602
>David Bentley Hart
Lol

>> No.18854650

>>18854569
>Was the good thief on the cross saved?
Yes, and he was also baptized by the water which came out when Christ's body was pierced.

>> No.18854657

>>18854602
Then why did God Himself call the punishment eternal. Several times.

>> No.18854663
File: 12 KB, 605x259, 1628128431602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854650
>Yes, and he was also baptized by the water which came out when Christ's body was pierced.

>> No.18854668

>>18854569
>Patriarchs
There is a difference between a patriarch and a bishop. Even patriarchs do not have the kind of authority the Pope proclaims to have. So the Roman cope of "you guys did it too" does not work.

>> No.18854689

>>18854628
Hey, I remember Hart, he was translated here. The "Orthodox theologian" from Britain, a convert, who dismisses Orthodox theology as bullshit if it does not align with apokatastasis. Also a Nestorian sympathizer ffs.

>> No.18854696

>>18854663
So the Sacraments are not necessary for Salvation, making the Church superfluous.

>> No.18854705
File: 89 KB, 600x528, Saint_Cyril_of_Jerusalem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854663
>If any man receive not Baptism, he has not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can you drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with Mark 10:38? And the Martyrs confess, by being made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men 1 Corinthians 4:9; and you will soon confess:— but it is not yet the time for you to hear of this

- St Cyrill of Jerusalem.

>> No.18854714

>>18854668
>So the Roman cope of "you guys did it too" does not work.
What kind of cope are you talking about? I posted that video in response to >>18854328's statement:
>"Why do I need to be in communion with a guy who prays with muslims in mosques to be saved?"
Because the answer is that, no matter which apostolic Church you join, they all hold the opinion that you will have to be in communion with at least 1 person who prays with Muslims, to be saved. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about. None of us can escape this problem.

>>18854696
>So the Sacraments are not necessary for Salvation, making the Church superfluous.
If you are invincibly ignorant, you would need an implicit baptism of desire. If you are vincibly ignorant (probably ~90%+ of Earth's population), the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

>> No.18854720
File: 39 KB, 300x300, St Gregory of Nyssa3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854628
Okay. How about picrelated?
>>18854650
He did. But also, when he was humiliated by Roman thugs he said “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
>>18854689
>dismisses Orthodox theology as bullshit
At least half of it probably is. Especially the one which is about toll houses and eternal punishment.

>> No.18854726

>>18854705
I believe that baptism is necessary for salvation in the vast majority of normal circumstances. The fact remains that, in extraordinary circumstances, such as the good thief on the cross, and invincibly ignorant virtuous men, there can be an implicit baptism of desire. If this was not true, we could not say that the good thief was saved, and thus would be making Jesus a liar.

>> No.18854730

>>18854714
>they all hold the opinion that you will have to be in communion with at least 1 person who prays with Muslims
No? You do not have to be in communion with an Orthodox bishop who unrepentantly prays with Muslims to be saved.

>> No.18854737

>>18854730
So you are obviously vincibly ignorant, but are neither Orthodox, nor Catholic? Are you a Protestant? If so, which denomination? Because I can confidently say that many of the ~30,000+ protestant denomination hold heretical beliefs that would jeopardize salvation.

>> No.18854739

>>18854726
>virtuous men
No man is truly virtuous without Christ. This is Talmudic and makes Christ unnecessary. As if you can somehow gain heaven by following laws.

>> No.18854744

>chantards LARPing as christians

who started this meme?

>> No.18854750

>>18854739
>No man is truly virtuous without Christ
Literally read Romans 2. Virtuous in this case means "having followed the natural law carved into their heart to the best of their ability".
>This is Talmudic and makes Christ unnecessary
Absolute nonsense. Without Christ, nobody would have ever gotten to heaven, and the sacraments of His church are still necessary in 99% of cases.
>As if you can somehow gain heaven by following laws.
Again, read Romans 2.

>> No.18854777

>>18854720
>How about picrelated?
If you're truly interested in this topic, I recommend this video and article:
https://youtu.be/kpMOJkQ-0j4
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/08/08/questioning-gregory-of-nyssas-universalism-the-great-catechism/


>I am going to argue is that what Gregory is describing in the Great Catechism is salvation for Christians and the purgation for those Christians who were insufficiently repentant and/or unbaptized.
>As we shall see, the catechism itself literally teaches eternal damnation. To this, universalists such as Dr. David Bentley Hart have given poor responses, arguing that the “eternal damnation” passages were winks and nods to the ignorant masses but not serious theological assertions.

Tldr - St. Gregory of Nyssa is being misinterpreted by people pushing universalist agenda.

>> No.18854782

>>18854720
>At least half of it probably is.
Blasphemous modernist garbage. It's laughable that you think this view is true when it was never held by anyone for most of the church's history.

>> No.18854790

>>18854730
>No? You do not have to be in communion with an Orthodox bishop who unrepentantly prays with Muslims to be saved.
I know papist bishops have done this many times, but Ortho bishops really? Source?

>> No.18854793

>>18854720
Forcible salvation makes God a rapist and free will a joke. If God just forces everyone to be saved regardless of faith and good deeds, why even believe and not go full degenerate.
Also why the Original Sin and the Crucifixion if everyone will be forcibly saved regardless of their will or actions. It all unravels making no sense.

>> No.18854798

>>18854790
See the video in >>18854569

>> No.18854802

>>18854750
>having followed the natural law carved into their heart to the best of their ability
How does this save you? Is salvation in your view unironically reduced to just doing certain works?

>>18854790
The bishop currently in charge of the uncanonical Ukrainian church has, there is a video above where they pray in Assisi.

>> No.18854804

>>18854750
>Virtuous in this case means "having followed the natural law carved into their heart to the best of their ability".
>His church are still necessary in 99, 99999999999% of cases.

>> No.18854807

>>18854720
>At least half of it probably is.
Lol
And let me guess, it is precisely the half that most agrees with specifically modern liberal sentiments?

>> No.18854824

>>18854210
>muh divorce
read the first gospel bud

>> No.18854853

>>18854802
Philaretos in Kiev prayed with Moslems?! Wtf. Does

>> No.18854854

>>18854034
>If you truly want God, He will send missionaries to you
And this is supposed to be turned into a general rule and proved by one verse? Not even mentioning that these missionaries are usually foreigners, do not make completely convincing arguments, and experience no success (Orthodox are 5% of the global population, evidently either people do not want God- untrue- or there is a different truth)

>> No.18854857

>>18854720
>toll houses
This is such a great pleb filter. There is nobody who denies toll houses but doesn't also fall into some other heresy.

>> No.18854868

>>18854853
I don't know his reasoning, but I've heard that there was a false sentiment in the 80s-90s that working with other denominations can help defeat atheistic USSR propaganda.

>> No.18854882

>>18854854
>Orthodox are 5% of the global population
And there are more Muslims than Christians. Which is clearly a false religion and nothing but another Christological heresy.
>either people do not want God- untrue
Is this really so hard to believe in the modern world especially?

>> No.18854883

>>18854720
It is like calling oneself an American patriot then calling half the Constitution bullshit.

>> No.18854895

>>18854854
>untrue
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

>> No.18854899

>>18854882
>And there are more Muslims than Christians.
So what? One of the grand prophecies was that the Messiah would convert all of the gentiles, not just parts of Eastern Europe. The point is you're not making a very good argument because one of the basis of the truth of Christianity is it's prophetic vision of a mass conversion.

>Is this really so hard to believe in the modern world especially?
People not converting to Orthodoxy started way before modernity.

>> No.18854904

>>18854802
>How does this save you?
We know that all of the deceased Hebrews who lived holy and repentant lives were saved in the harrowing of Hell, and having the law of Moses, we know that many of them lived righteously in God's way. The gentiles, having not received any law of their own, were judged instead by their adherence to the natural law which is carved on their heart, and indeed on the heart of all men (Romans 2) - and thus, we can say that the harrowing of Hell proves that righteous non-Christians attained salvation due to Christ's saving work and conquering of Satan. The same applies today, to those extremely rare cases where one has invincible ignorant (ignorance of the Christian message that they could not dispel with due dilligence, like a rural Indian girl, with no internet or library, who has never encountered a Christian missionary or heard of the Gospel, and dies at the age of 12 after having tried her best to always follow her conscience and never do something evil. We can say that this person might have been saved, by God extending His grace to them.
>Is salvation in your view unironically reduced to just doing certain works?
No, although certain "works" like physical water baptism are required for salvation in the vast majority of cases (ie. every case in which invincible ignorance does not apply).

>>18854804
We don't know what percentage of humans fall into the category of invincibly ignorant, but yeah, especially in the modern age, I would guess that a supermajority of humans are not invincibly ignorant.

>>18854853
Yup. Also the orthodox patriarch of Moscow, then-archbishop Methodius of Thyateira representing the Patriarchate of Constantinople, of Moscow, Finland and Czechoslovakia, Patriarchate of Bulgaria, Patriarchate of Romania, Patriarchate of Georgia, and Patriarchate of Kiev. The idea that only the Catholic leadership does interfaith prayer is a completely slanderous and false accusation. No matter which Orthodox church you are in, you are in communion with somebody who unrepentantly prayed with Muslims and Pagans.

>> No.18854912

>>18854899
>would convert all of the gentiles
This did happen, look at the Roman Empire. Shame a lot of them fell away from the truth afterwards. And this falling away in entirely in line with Christian eschatology.

>> No.18854920

>>18854882
How to discern truth from heresy without direct guidance from saints that may turn out demonic self-delusion or reading theology for 50 years to later learn of having read bullshit? By the fruits? Aside from pedophile rapists in the Vatican, the KGB assets in Moscow or Cia in Constantinople and the sheer craziness of Prots, you may also find forged miracles.
Then what.

>> No.18854929

>>18854912
yeah the conversion of the Roman Empire was indeed one of the most miraculous things to have happened, however it really barely lasted (insofar as the western part totally split, like the Brits and North euros only got to be Orthos for like 200 years lol) and throughout almost all of it's history the dominant faiths were heretical shit like Arianism, so I really don't buy your argument. Even then the Roman Empire was just located in the Mediterranean, now if the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Chinese Empire all had converted I would be far more impressed

>> No.18854966

>>18854904
>orthodox patriarch of Moscow
>Assisi 1986
>Patriarch Pimen I of Moscow was the 14th Patriarch of Moscow and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church from 1970 to 1990.
I don't see him in that video.

>> No.18854978

>>18854929
>now if the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Chinese Empire all had converted I would be far more impressed
Impressiveness isn't a criterion of truth. Christ promised to bring gentiles into the fold and He did, almost every gentile nation now has the opportunity to convert. That some empires chose not to convert doesn't mean Christianity is false.

>> No.18854983
File: 84 KB, 793x466, 2211.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18854793
>Forcible salvation makes God a rapist and free will a joke
But we are born into a fallen world, with fallen bodies and environments making us susceptible to certain sins. Besides, universal salvation doesn't have to be forcible; it could easily be a pruning or education of the person through or without Hell.

>why even believe and not go full degenerate.
People who do not believe or are too weak will, but those who love God will follow Him even if they aren't on a tightrope above Hell.

>Also why the Original Sin and the Crucifixion if everyone will be forcibly saved regardless of their will or actions
It doesn't "make no sense," I don't see your point here. Besides, your inability to find a sense in it doesn't mean that those things are rendered meaningless.

>> No.18854992

>>18854895
>>18854882
If they did not want God, there would be no shortage of atheists. As for living virtuously, that's could be more a matter of weakness and competing passion than a lack of desire for God.

>> No.18854996

>>18854983
>it could easily be a pruning or education of the person through or without Hell.
What if my own will is in direct opposition to Christ? Does Christ force this will to allign with His? (which is necessary for a positive experience of the eschaton)

>> No.18855001
File: 2.22 MB, 820x4720, zoro_mardan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852743
>My conscience says making people suffer eternally for things they have no idea of and can't learn about is fucked up and straight Evil, yet I can't just abandon Christianity (it is not like I found anything better yet, the New Age is a joke especially), which says God is Good and Love and Virtue etc. yet made a world where like ~98% percent of humanity are destined to spiritual torture for things they have no control over etc...

>> No.18855002

>>18854929
Persia was full of Nestorians for a long time, especially since Zoroastrians did not have conversion, and there were Christians in India through sea trade with Rome and Thomas, and Nestorians in Central Asia, Mongolia and China.
But it seems Persian Christians mostly switched to Islam, while China forbade foreign religions and extinguished Nestorians by century X.

>> No.18855006

>>18854992
> there would be no shortage of atheists
Idolatry and various forms of intellectualist gnosticism are also a form of lacking desire for the True God, who is only found in Christ's revelation.

>> No.18855034

>>18855002
>Persia was full of Nestorians for a long time
They were a sizeable minority and not the majority.
>especially since Zoroastrians did not have conversion,
Yes, they did. They attempted to convert Armenians and the Chinese.

>> No.18855036

>>18854983
You did not answer the question. Will God rape the will of everyone by forcing them into specific states thus rendering free will false?
If yes, then you preach determinism with extra useless steps that make any choice meaningless and the whole of earthly life superfluos.

>> No.18855051

>>18854966
https://youtu.be/T2XUHA3cwd4?t=6090
If that is not him, then it was a representative of the patriarch. Either way, the point stands - every apostolic Church has the issue of being in communion with people who perform prayers with heretics and pagans. None of the bishops or patriarchs were deposed, nothing happened to anybody. Literally nobody is safe from ecumenism.

>> No.18855054

>>18854857
>great pleb filter
More like church manipulation technique. It makes your salvation more dependent on prayers of clergy than on Christ's sacrifice.
If you can't see how a doctrine like this can be used by corrupted priests, you are truly brainwashed.

>> No.18855065

>>18855006
No, it's a sign that their desire for the true God has been wrongly given to a surrogate "god" that cannot exalt them.

>>18854996
Then you are shown the horror of being without God, and you learn the error of your way. But you can still be saved from that point. I mean, we don't say that our free will is being violated when we see a beautiful woman, and desire to have her. But somehow seeing the horror of Hell or the beauty of Heaven, and then desiring to be in Heaven, is an evil and violating thing. There is no "forcing," only an appeal to and a resurgence our innate desire to be with the true God, a de-hardening of the heart, a chiseling away of all of the accretions of passion, skepticism, and errant passion.

>> No.18855072

>>18855001
Substantial Evil has so so so much fucked up implications and conclusions it is not worth discussing even. Equal to gnosticism or even worse.

>> No.18855084

>>18855036
>by forcing them into specific states
I didn't answer the question? No wonder, you completely misunderstood me; there is no "forcing."

>thus rendering free will false
The ability to will to be with God or without God still exists, it's just that all will desire to be with God.

>>18855054
Curiously, they believe that prayers can wash away your sins, and not an internal change in the mind. But an imperfect thing cannot enter Heaven, and the prayer of another does not change one's internal, imperfect state; so it seems as if God forcibly changes the sinner and makes Him worthy of Heaven without the sinner's reciprocity

>> No.18855087

>>18854895
If one didn't believe in the stories written in the ancient Jewish book and didn't have enough faith in the institution which has discredited itself multiple times (especially CC) - he deserves eternal punishment.
Makes perfect sense.
How can you call a god like this love is beyond me.

>> No.18855088

>>18855072
Gnosticism has more than just substantial evil, it argues the material world is largely tinged with substantial evil, which I don't agree with.
Substantial evil exists. It is obvious through intentions and various qualitative states.

>> No.18855094

>>18855054
How so. The toll houses is an approximation of demons trying to prevent you from salvation by assaulting from several angles that you have to fortify by good deeds, "paying the toll". It is an allegory.

>> No.18855095

>>18855088
>Substantial evil exists. It is obvious through intentions and various qualitative states.
None of those provide any epistemological reason to accept substantial evil over evil as a privation of substantive goodness.

>> No.18855105

>>18855095
Are you the Thomist I argued with before?
I have to defend my premises I shared before in order to convince you.

>> No.18855114

>>18854978
I'm obviously not speaking about a secular notion of impressive, you sperg. I'm talking about the prophecy of the conversion of gentiles being convincing if all those other empires converted as well.
>Persia was full of Nestorians for a long time
Not proper Christians.

>> No.18855118

>>18855088
All substance is made by God.
If Evil Substance is, God is Evil as He would be the source of Evil .
Full stop.

You might as well worship Azathoth or Cthulhu willingly as this Origin of Substantial Evil gets to do Evil to you.
Substantial Evil is absolutely terrifying and absurd to think of.

>> No.18855138

>>18855105
Feel free to restate your argument, but again, recall my last criticism regarding your argument (which did end up improving) - even if you defend it, it is not obvious to me how the last premise leads to evil being substantive per se. Open to hearing it, though, although this might not be the best thread.

>> No.18855143

>>18855084
If you pray for somebody in the tolls and do good deeds in his or her name, you testify to his or her goodness, else you would not care. That is the theory. 40 days of special remembrance cost like 4 dollars, one has to really not give a fuck to refuse giving 4 bucks to your priest. The guy needs to eat ffs

>> No.18855145

>>18855118
Orthodox Mazdaysna was a mitigated dualism.
However, Zurvanism was a fatalistic nondualism or monism. Zurvan is like Azathoth or Mana-yood-Sushai, yes.

>> No.18855146

>>18855094
Only your deeds are measured and, in the account of Theodora's toll house passage, even an ascetic saint's good deeds aren't enough to pass through even the first toll houses (there are twenty). Only the prayers of St. Basil saved her. Therefore, you are dependent on the church for salvation (eucharist, baptism, mysteries) before AND after death. So that anon's point still stands; you can't save yourself, and neither can God; you need the church, which is God's stand-in or whatever

>> No.18855170

>>18855145
No one gives a fuck about your pajeet shit. Get out of this thread already, faggot.

>> No.18855188

>>18855170
I have an axe to grind with the Semites, so I'm not getting out of this thread now.

>> No.18855206

>>18855170
I don't give a shit about your Semitic bullshit, but out of respect, I was being courteous. If you desire war, then I can bring you one. Jews and Arabs are hucksters who plagiarized everyone around them, from the Greeks to the Persians. They never had any direct connection with God whatsoever.
The philosophical arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and others are interesting, but none of that proves Jewsus was special whatsoever. The arguments taken from the Greeks are interesting though.

>> No.18855231

>>18855188
>>18855206
How many times do we have to tell you pajeet, cow dung worshipers, that most people here including myself are ex Christians and not even believers? Again, make your own thread where you can talk about the metaphysics of cow dung.

>> No.18855242

>>18855231
I'm not Hindu or Indian, but you are acting like a moron by dismissing their literary and philosophical traditions. Have you even read any of the Buddhist or Hindu sutras? They can have philosophical complexity.

Also, I do see a lot of parallels between the Mahayana idea of Buddha nature and Thomist idea of evil being privation of goodness.

>> No.18855258

>>18855145
Can you even imagine an omnipotent source of everything making you specifically to inflict Evil onto you? Specifically pre-made, pre-planned and pre-served to be an object of misery and suffering for misery and suffering sake, the substantial Evil ?

That it also the whole trouble with Hell, but Christians at least have bells and whistles and workarounds, since Evil is a byproduct of freedom under folly, not the end goal, reason and source of substances participating in this primordial quality of goodness.

>> No.18855272

>>18855146
Here you either call it a hyperbole or call it a bullshit.

>> No.18855281

>>18855258
Not an issue in ditheism.

Monotheism logically entails something fatalistic like Zurvanism though.

>> No.18855286

>>18855051
>Literally nobody is safe from ecumenism.
You don't have to follow these bishops, but you have to follow the Pope. This is the difference.

>> No.18855295

>>18855146
>God
>the church
False dichotomy. God's salvation works inside and through the Church, which is Christ's mystical body.

>> No.18855335

>>18855054
>can be used by corrupted priests
Anything can be used by corrupted priests. This is not an argument for the falsehood of a doctrine.

>> No.18855341

>>18855143
>you testify to his or her goodness, else you would not care
Evidently untrue; you're not testifying to his or her goodness, but to your love of that person. All people have some measure of good in them, but clearly not enough to enter Heaven. If the goodness you are testifying to was so little that it landed them in Hell, I don't see your point.

>>18855295
>it is Christ's mystical body
He is married to His own mystical body? Of course it may be a false dichotomy according to the church itself, as I said- it identifies itself with God, it is His stand-in.

>> No.18855345

>>18855281
>ditheism
is there anyting more cringe than this?
even hindu idolatry seems less cringe.

>Monotheism logically entails something fatalistic
how is Christ fatalistic?

>> No.18855349

>>18855281
>ditheism
Contradictory. There can be only one uncaused cause. If that cause creates substantial Evil, it is Evil, simple as. Azathoth worship.
One cannot be both A and not-A. Evil as privation means everything is essentially Good, but in different degrees and in different stages of being imperfect.

Evil as privation means a soup is good, but you are under folly if you eat it with a knife instead of a spoon. Evil as a substance means the soup's nature is to inflict pain, suffering and humiliation by just existing.

>> No.18855373

>>18855341
>He is married to His own mystical body?
The Church as Christ's bride is symbolic. It being His body is however mystically true.
> it identifies itself with God
How? The Church does not worship itself. We don't worship anything but the Holy Trinity. There being no salvation outside the Church does not make into a stand-in, since only God saves (even when prayers of saints are involved, it is only God who has any power) with the method of salvation being the Church.

>> No.18855385

>>18855345
>is there anyting more cringe than this?
>even hindu idolatry seems less cringe.
Hindu metaphysics, on average, tend to lean towards nondualism or monism.
>how is Christ fatalistic?
I consider Jews irrelevant and never had a real relationship to God. I reject Jewsus for that reason. Jews were an irrelevant peoples and their myths only became relevant through advanced subterfuge and geopolitical reasons. I am discussing philosophy and am not interested in historical matters.
>>18855349
>There can be only one uncaused cause.
Why not two?
>If that cause creates substantial Evil, it is Evil, simple as.
Ahriman created substantial evil, and therefore, he is substantially evil. Ahura Mazda was not responsible for the creation of Ahriman the way the Abrahamic God is.
>Evil as privation means a soup is good, but you are under folly if you eat it with a knife instead of a spoon. Evil as a substance means the soup's nature is to inflict pain, suffering and humiliation by just existing.
You can put radioactive waste into the soup, which would be substantially evil in my example.

>> No.18855386

>>18855341
>He is married to His own mystical body?
yeah, he's also his own father and made out of bread

>> No.18855388

>>18855385
>I consider Jews irrelevant and never had a real relationship to God. I reject Jewsus for that reason. Jews were an irrelevant peoples and their myths only became relevant through advanced subterfuge and geopolitical reasons. I am discussing philosophy and am not interested in historical matters.
Okay, but how does this make Christianity fatalistic? You said all monotheism logically leads to fatalism.

>> No.18855392
File: 30 KB, 400x400, 1558373205912.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18855386
>yeah, he's also his own father and made out of bread

>> No.18855404

>>18855388
Why would God give commandments if there is no determinate line distinguishing good from evil actions or intentions? Much of Abrahamism is an amalgamation of a lot of different beliefs from disparate traditions, so it does not come together coherently.
If God is responsible for evil, even if it is described as a "privation of the Good", then he is either neutral/indifferent or evil himself. I consider it more honest to describe God as indifferent if he's responsible for both good and evil.
This is not an issue in ditheism because the Good God is not responsible for the creation of the evil God.

>> No.18855451

>>18855373
>even when prayers of saints are involved, it is only God who has any power
Of course, but it is only through the vehicle of saintly prayer that one is saved, not through the vehicle of one's own efforts or faith, which are evidently insufficient.

It quite literally is a stand-in; it renders the personal struggle superfluous; all that matters is saintly prayer for your person and God listening to that saint and violating the free will of the sinner and taking them out of Hell as the desire of the saint dictates.

>> No.18855458

>>18855286
So you're okay with being in full communion with who you perceive to be unrepentant heretics who pray with pagans and Muhammedans? You're okay with being a member of a church whose leadership attends these events?

And, as a Catholic, I only have to follow the bishop of Rome when he makes statements that agree with the deposit of faith, and besides that, special proclamations like ex cathedra declarations are incredibly few and far between - and I also believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the ecumenical councils.

>>18855385
>Why not two?
I already explained this to you. If uncaused cause A is pure actuality, there cannot be an uncaused cause B equal to A (eg. also pure actuality), because for them to be distinct beings would imply one, or both, has a potentiality (namely, that they could be the other one, but is not). Please do more reading on what is implied by there being a first mover.
>Ahriman created substantial evil, and therefore, he is substantially evil
You're begging the question. You haven't provided any evidence that evil has substance.
>>18855404
>Why would God give commandments if there is no determinate line distinguishing good from evil actions or intentions?
The commandments prohibit things which take ones soul further away from goodness, which is God.
>If God is responsible for evil, even if it is described as a "privation of the Good", then he is either neutral/indifferent or evil himself.
This is incoherent. If evil does not exist (does not have a substantial being), it cannot be "created".
>I consider it more honest to describe God as indifferent if he's responsible for both good and evil.
Again, evil has no substantial being. Just look at the definitions for words like "bad", it is so obvious that you will figure it out very quickly.

If the cosmology has a "good God" and an "evil God", then the "evil God" is not actually God, it is just a lesser being (because God is pure actuality, the first cause, by definition, and there can only be one). If the "evil God" is then just a lesser entity which does "less-good" works, then you've resulted in literally the same cosmology as the Bible (a first cause, pure actuality per se creator, and a infinitesimally-lesser entity who is responsible for performing various "less-good" acts, or acts in a way to corrupt humanity such that it brings that capacity for "less-good" actions into being).

>> No.18855474

>>18855458
>actuality
You look at the nature of antagonism at play, the nature of tension. Empedocles did a good job arguing how attraction/Love and repulsion/Hate both have actuality. There were two uncreated causes in the beginning, and the reason there is no potentiality with being the other is due to how they repel one another.
>You haven't provided any evidence that evil has substance.
Before I defend each of these premises, do they flow well into one another? I went ahead and added more premises:
1. Symbols are not monomial.
2. Metaphors are monomial.
3. Metaphors breakdown when abstractions are applied onto it.
4. Meta-emotions exist.
5. All meta-emotions are substantive.
6. Meta-emotions can define or permeate a metaphor, giving it a mood.
7. Positive intentions involve embodying and basing itself on positive metaphors.
8. Negative intentions involve embodying and basing itself on negative metaphors.
9. Both positive and negative intentions have a substantive line distinguishing them.
10. Ditheism is true.

>> No.18855499

>>18855385
>Why not two
Because there is one One by definition, and from the One comes Being, a unique self-causing quality.
So is the One good or evil?

The radioactive waste has to be made on purpose and put into "wrong" place in the soup bowl instead of a reactor. It is not substantial suffering, a thing we can imagine no better than a triangle with two angles.

>> No.18855519

>>18855499
>Because there is one One by definition, and from the One comes Being, a unique self-causing quality.
That's not an argument.
>So is the One good or evil?
There can be two Ones. I gave my argument here: >>18855474
>The radioactive waste has to be made on purpose and put into "wrong" place in the soup bowl instead of a reactor.
Radioactive waste is substantive. When put into the wrong place and devoured by a human, it has substantial negative effects.
>It is not substantial suffering
I mean, various qualitative states of the mind are substantive and physical degradation is substantive. Suffering can be substantive.

>> No.18855520

>>18855474
>Empedocles did a good job arguing how attraction/Love and repulsion/Hate both have actuality.
If you have an argument to posit, don't just reference some other philosopher, actually make the argument so we can analyze it.
>There were two uncreated causes in the beginning
This is literally impossible, you understand, right? The nature of pure actuality necessitates that there be /no potentiality or privation/ in the first cause. It is literally impossible for there to be two.
>>18855474
I don't see how you're going to be able to prove propositions 8 and 9 where you introduce "negative intentions" without us finishing the argument for whether evil is substantive or not - because that will be the very basis of my contention, is whether or not "negativity" exists per se. Keep in mind, again, that the entire point of the argument ([...] provided any evidence that evil has substance), is not even the conclusion of your argument. I think you should really rethink your approach to defending this proposition, and just do some deep thinking on exactly how to refute the Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments for the non-existence of evil.

>> No.18855523
File: 124 KB, 1000x797, stack5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18851798
based

>> No.18855556

>>18855520
Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments for the non-existence of evil sound similar to Mahayana arguments for Buddha nature. That is, Buddha nature can never be said to completely vanish, and even a sentient being who engages in vice still has Buddha nature. It's just that there is a privation of Buddha nature. Not really hard to conceptually understand.
>It is literally impossible for there to be two.
The focus on pure actuality and potentiality need to be clarified more. My approach is to find a determinate line dividing good from evil and then apply a kind of cosmological argument to argue for two independent, conflicting principles. There can be two if you show there are two conflicting principles in tension that never unite.

>> No.18855567

>>18855520
>>18855556
>two conflicting principles in tension that never unite.
Rather than blur or unite, one side of the pole wards or banishes the other side.*

>> No.18855691

>>18855556
"Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect: 'I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14). His attributes or His operations are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence.

In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus.

According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change."

Taken altogether, realize that the argument from motion necessitates that being with pure actuality as its essence, at the beginning of the chain of actualization - it is logically incoherent to suggest that there could be two.

>> No.18855838

>>18855691
If your one changeless God was all perfect, the apogee of goodness, and pure actuality, then this world would have been one of pure stillness within bliss rather than alternating degrees or ascending hierarchy of so-called goodness. In order to defend the absolute perfection of God, you must introduce its opposite of absolute depravity. This is the only way to explain the "passage from potency to act" in your example, given your God has omnipotence.
As it appears, this world is one of constant change, so what happened? There was something "else" that caused the "passage from potency to act", hence Ahriman. The world will move back to God's pure actuality with the defeat of Ahriman.
>it is logically incoherent to suggest that there could be two.
It is the only way to explain why there is motion in the first place rather than abiding in pure changeless perfection of God.
Empedocles argued initially the world was like a celestial sphere that held all four elements in harmony or love until the strife/hatred broke it asunder. This is analogous to how the Bundahishn describes Ohrmazd as initially being an orb of light until pierced by Ahriman's darkness.

>> No.18855856

>>18855838
>given your God has omnipotence.
I meant to imply that the idea of God's omnipotence becomes contradictory in this regard.

>> No.18855898

>>18855838
>then this world would have been one of pure stillness within bliss rather than alternating degrees or ascending hierarchy of so-called goodness
What is your evidence to support your claim about how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being of infinite greatness would act, seeing as you are a being who has been alive for less than 100 years, with an intelligence level infinitely lower than Him?
>As it appears, this world is one of constant change, so what happened?
God created a temporal and spatial universe, because He knows it to be better than to not have created it.
>The world will move back to God's pure actuality with the defeat of Ahriman.
God's pure actuality has never changed, by definition. There is also still no evidence that evil exists as a substantial principle, never mind proving the existence of Ahriman.
>It is the only way to explain why there is motion in the first place rather than abiding in pure changeless perfection of God.
You can also explain it through the much more simple "God knows that it was good to create a temporal and changing universe with creatures, and so He created it".
>Empedocles argued initially the world was like a celestial sphere that held all four elements in harmony or love until the strife/hatred broke it asunder
This is not an argument, it is just a baseless story, pure conjecture with no philosophical backing. Further, there is still no evidence that "hatred" exists as a substantive principle.

>> No.18855984

>>18855898
>>18855898
>God created a temporal and spatial universe, because He knows it to be better than to not have created it.
This doesn't follow based on what you said. Why would a changeless god of pure actuality create an inferior "less good" world based on motion. He could could have easily made a changeless, still world of bliss that aligns with his nature. In fact, Zoroastrians argue the world was initially like a changeless infinitely good world until being pierced by Ahriman.
>God's pure actuality has never changed, by definition
But following what you said, there is a duality of this world of change and the changeless absolute perfection of God. How did such a duality emerge? How did the passage of passage from potency to I act originate?
>What is your evidence to support your claim about how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being of infinite greatness would act, seeing as you are a being who has been alive for less than 100 years, with an intelligence level infinitely lower than Him?
I see parallels between your Christian description of God but a contradiction in causal reasoning. Zoroastrianism description of why there is an lesser good world makes more sense.
>"God knows that it was good to create a temporal and changing universe with creatures, and so He created it"
This doesn't follow from your argument. If god is pure actuality, complete perfect still bliss, then He would not deliberately create an imperfect world since that is a mark of being less good to Himself. If god created the world in his own image then why is not changeless and in pure Bliss?

>> No.18855990

>>18855898
>>18855984
My message can be summarized as "if god created the world in his own image then why is it not changeless and of the apogee of good or bliss?"
You can't have both a perfect and wholly good God with omnipotence.

>> No.18855997

>>18855451
>it is only through the vehicle of saintly prayer that one is saved,
How is this bad or false?
>all that matters
No. It's not sufficient, but necessary.
>violating the free will of the sinner
???

>> No.18856012

>>18855451
>desire of the saint
Desires of the saints are the same as the will of God since they have a divinized human will like Jesus Christ. Your will as a saint is completely in line with the divine will.

>> No.18856022

>>18855691
>His attributes or His operations are really identical with His essence
Is the divine operation of creating Adam identical to the divine essence?

>> No.18856059

>>18855984
>Why would a changeless god of pure actuality create an inferior "less good" world based on motion.
Because it was better for this temporal universe to exist, than to not exist. One could say, for example, that the universe was created so that, through the divine plan of complexification, intelligent life forms could develop, who would be able to choose, of their own free-will, to rejoice with God for all eternity of how great it is to exist, how glorious He is, how much we love Him and each other, etc.
>He could could have easily made a changeless, still world of bliss that aligns with his nature.
We could say that a temporal and material existence was necessary to create biological life, which was the initial justification for creating the universe.
>How did such a duality emerge? How did the passage of passage from potency to I act originate?
God created a temporal material universe ontologically dependent on Him, but not a part of Him.
>Zoroastrianism description of why there is an lesser good world makes more sense.
I disagree, because the addition of an ontologically impossible "second first cause" is philosophically ridiculous, as well as being a needless complexification with (as of yet) no philosophical/logical justification (ie. it is more improbable using both reason, and tools like Occam's Razor).
>If god is pure actuality, complete perfect still bliss, then He would not deliberately create an imperfect world since that is a mark of being less good to Himself.
Again, what is your evidence to support your claim about how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being of infinite greatness would act, seeing as you are a being who has been alive for less than 100 years, with an intelligence level infinitely lower than Him?
>If god created the world in his own image
We do not claim that God "created the world in his own image".
>then why is not changeless and in pure Bliss?
One reason why the universe would be temporal and material could be to give rise to biological life.

>> No.18856096

>>18856059
>intelligent life forms could develop
>Christian who still believes in evolution
cringe & pozzed

>> No.18856141

>>18852810
>I had a bad dream which means hell is real
It sounds like you have a disturbed mind which struggles to distinguish fantasy and fiction from reality. Seek help.

>> No.18856176
File: 1.51 MB, 2500x1685, 1621275631027.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18856022
>essence of God: being per se, goodness per se, truth per se, beauty per se
>creation of Adam: allowing a creature to partake in being (through giving life, and allowing humanity to give life), allowing a creature to partake in goodness (through giving abundantly through His grace, allowing humanity to choose goodness through free-will), allowing a creature to partake in truth (through giving a rational mind, and allowing humanity to come to truth by the rational mind interacting with Logos), allowing the creature to partake in beauty (through giving humanity a beautiful form, and allowing humanity to be capable of creating beauty)

>>18856096
I haven't come across a good argument as to why I should reject theistic evolution in favour of some other position.

>> No.18856177

>>18856059
>Again, what is your evidence to support your claim about how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being of infinite greatness would act
Ok, first off, you're doing that too with your long explanation for the need of evolution to recognize his Greatness. You're already justifying your conception of God's rationale. I could say the same thing about how do you expect to understand God?
Second off, there was one apostle who argued the point of salvation is to become God again. I forgot that apostle's name, but it is relevant.
Third off, I agree with you God is most likely changeless and absolute good and perfection. I do not agree he is absolutely omnipotent, however, because it does not make sense for an absolutely perfect, changeless, good god to produce a world of lesser good. You are paradoxically justifying His rationale while dismissing my argument while you do the same thing as what you criticize me for. A lesser good world does not wholly align with a infinitely good god.
It makes sense that the reason there is motion is that there is a kind of conflict where God's spirit, Spenta Mainyu, is moving the world towards perfection by struggling to banish Ahriman's spirit, Angra Mainyu, which manifest as states of mind and intentions. This would explain why there can be "lesser good or bad intentions"; it's not that it originates from one god but rather one primordial conflict. I would agree there is one primordial conflict.
Ahriman also cannot subsist by himself, so Ohrmazd is stronger.

>> No.18856237

>>18856177
>long explanation for the need of evolution to recognize his Greatness.
I'm just providing some counterpoint as to why your argument of the world existing necessitates God not be omnipotent. The fact that I provided even one argument makes your proposition untenable (eg. that there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world).
>I could say the same thing about how do you expect to understand God?
Via negativa, and rational arguments therefrom.
>Second off, there was one apostle who argued the point of salvation is to become God again.
You misunderstand the doctrine of theosis/divinization. It is not to become big-G God, but to perfect human nature in the image of Jesus Christ, and partake in the beatific vision. We never become ontologically equal or indistinct to big-G God.
>I do not agree he is absolutely omnipotent, however, because it does not make sense for an absolutely perfect, changeless, good god to produce a world of lesser good
I provided one reason (eg. the necessity of a changing universe to create a new form of life, namely biological). You have not refuted why this could not be the case, so your position becomes untenable (eg. that there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world). Further, that God is pure actuality (from the argument from motion, which you still have not refuted) necessitates that He is omnipotent - because to not be able to perform some logically possible action is a privation in power.
>A lesser good world does not wholly align with a infinitely good god.
I've provided an argument for why this could be the case. Here is another - that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and so therefore things could not conceivably have been ordered to be better than they are (eg. things are maximally good). I present it as follows:
1) God has the idea of infinitely many universes.
2) God has reason to choose one thing or another.
3) God is good.
4) Therefore, the universe that God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds.
>the reason there is motion is that there is a kind of conflict where God's spirit, Spenta Mainyu, is moving the world towards perfection by struggling to banish Ahriman's spirit, Angra Mainyu
This is just your preferred story, but you have still not provided any sort of philosophical reason why this should be the case, or why I should believe it.
>This would explain why there can be [...] bad intentions"
I don't believe there is such a thing as "bad intentions".

>> No.18856258

>>18856176
>good argument
Evolution presupposes death before the fall of Adam, which did not exist.

>> No.18856264

>>18856176
How is the operation of creating Adam identical to the divine essence?

>> No.18856271
File: 1022 KB, 2218x1724, P1030142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18852222
Checked.
The shelf that destroyed popery.

>> No.18856282

>>18856258
When scripture refers to death coming into the world, like in Romans 5, it is only speaking of human death. Before the fall of Adam, plants and animals still died. Thus, theistic evolution is completely compatible with the ancient faith.

>>18856264
It is an action exemplifying God's infinite being, goodness, truth, and beauty.

>>18856271
>the shelf that destroyed popery
Notice how there are no works of the ancient Christian fathers, or works of early Church history. "To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant".

>> No.18856302

>>18856264
To be fair, though, I am fairly sure that you can also accept the essence-energies distinction and remain in Catholic orthodoxy, like many in Eastern Catholicism. I may come to amend my views on this topic, especially seeing if the distinction can be reconciled with Thomism, but for now, I must admit Palamism and the arguments for/against it are not my strong points.

>> No.18856326

>>18856237
>We never become ontologically equal or indistinct to big-G God
There was one apostle who disagreed with you. I can find his name if interested, but it might take awhile. I also verified it by reading the passages where he mentioned it.
>I'm just providing some counterpoint as to why your argument of the world existing necessitates God not be omnipotent. The fact that I provided even one argument makes your proposition untenable (eg. that there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world).
This is not an argument. I've raised many counterpoints against the omnipotence of God also.
It doesn't make sense for an infinitely good god to produce a lesser good world. It is logically necessitated for an infinitely good god to produce a world that is infinitely good since no lesser qualities can come from him.
>via negative, and rational arguments
That's just side stepping my point.
>This is just your preferred story, but you have still not provided any sort of philosophical reason why this should be the case, or why I should believe it.
Here's my argument based on what you're saying:
1. There is an infinitely good and changeless god of pure actuality.
2. This temporal and spatial world, which involved a passage from potency to act, is less good than god. It is not changeless or infinitely good like God.
3. It is logically necessitated for an infinitely good god to produce a world that is infinitely good since no lesser qualities can come from him.
4. God, as pure actuality and infinite goodness, created a world that is not wholly of his nature.
5. God is either a) not all good and b) not omnipotent and, thus, some other interaction triggered the motion.

The best of all worlds would just be god, which everyone would be indistinct from as the apostle argued. In fact, that apostle and my own religion agree on that point. This, the question becomes, why did creation become distinct from God? I would argue some forms of artwork reach god more than this world in fact.

>> No.18856340

>>18856282
>"To worship history is to cease being Protestant".
Fixed

>> No.18856341

>>18855523
>popular patristics
i love that series

>> No.18856361

>>18856326
>There was one apostle who disagreed with you.
No, there wasn't, unless by "apostle" you mean some random Christian writer.
>This is not an argument.
It is a counter-argument to your proposition that "there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world". I provided a reason, so you must re-qualify or re-state your position, disprove my counterpoint, or else that initial argument is now invalid.
>It is logically necessitated for an infinitely good god to produce a world that is infinitely good since no lesser qualities can come from him.
It is not logically necessitated that God behave how you think He ought to behave, that is just your personal opinion. This is the best of all possible worlds.
>That's just side stepping my point.
That is the answer to your question, using Thomas' model of apophatic theology mixed with Aristotelian reason.
>3. It is logically necessitated for an infinitely good god to produce a world that is infinitely good since no lesser qualities can come from him.
This is what we are discussing. I provided an argument against it, namely that God had a logically valid reason for creating a temporal and changing universe, which is why it exists.
>The best of all worlds would just be god
God is not a world.
>which everyone would be indistinct from as the apostle argued.
Again, I'm not sure who you mean by "apostle", but it was not a Christian apostle. It may have been some heretical Christian writer, but not an apostle.
>This, the question becomes, why did creation become distinct from God?
Because God does not change, and if the creation were a "part" of Him, it would necessitate that changes occur to Him, and that there be privations (eg. at one point there was no universe in Him, only the potential for a universe to be, and later there was).

>> No.18856375

>>18856340
I'm sorry, but it's just an untenable position to be a Protestant. You admit yourself that you are not the true and ancient hierarchical church of Jesus Christ present in the early centuries, which believed things like the real presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, veneration of icons, communion of saints, etc. - so why anyone would take you seriously, I do not understand. Especially as your denomination is only one among tens of thousands. Have you ever just read the contents of an early Church council, and realized how different your man-made tradition is from the pure faith of the early Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit?

>> No.18856444

>>18856361
>No, there wasn't, unless by "apostle" you mean some random Christian writer.
I was referring to St. Athanasius. I was referring to (54) and the surrounding statements in On the Incarnation. He also claimed God created the world in his own image.
>I provided a reason, so you must re-qualify or re-state your position, disprove my counterpoint, or else that initial argument is now invalid.
So God, who is changeless and infinitely good, produced a world with the "intention" of people to worship him. This world is dependent on him, but not a part of either based on what you say. Therefore, one has to rely on blind faith in order to conclude on your definition of God. Before you mention Jesus, I do not consider that satisfactory evidence given we only have dubious historical records with interpolations and out-of-context readings.
He bestowed free will to the point where people can develop their own rational ideologies that are divorced from what is "true" at least from your perspective.
Therefore, there are actual ideologies not aligned with him, or lies, so in a sense, God created a lesser good world. Your explanation was too deterministic in that you assume the complexification of life merely occurs to culminate in his worship. Where is the evidence? Life can culminate with entirely different traditions.
Let's say, hypothetically speaking, an avian species were to speciate to the point of having advanced civilization. Do you truly believe the development of their mystical or religion traditions would lead them to conclude in similar sentiments as you?
>Because God does not change
Then why create a world of change that involves a privation of his goodness? Your evolutionary explanation begged the question. It just boiled down to telling me how I couldn't possible understand as you paradoxically speculated why.
We are getting nowhere here.

>> No.18856486

>>18856282
>action exemplifying God's infinite being
So it is only exemplifying God's essence, but not identical to it?

>>18856282
>animals still died
Death is not natural to the world. God did not create death. Nothing is supposed to die by its nature. Only the fall of man, who was the high-priest and the steward over creation introduced such notions into reality.

>>18856302
>remain in Catholic orthodoxy
This is only due to "catholic orthodoxy" being so vague of a term nowadays that pretty much anything goes.
>distinction can be reconciled with Thomism
It can't be, since Thomism defines the hypostases of the Holy Trinity as relations which are identical to the divine essence, which we see as modalism and as absolutely unacceptable.

>> No.18856505
File: 7 KB, 177x250, Schaff_P.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18856375
>You admit yourself that you are not the true and ancient hierarchical church of Jesus Christ
You say that about us.
>n the early centuries, which believed things like the real presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, veneration of icons, communion of saints, etc.
Moses was gone for five minutes before the Israelites started worshiping a golden calf.
> so why anyone would take you seriously, I do not understand.
That much lauded massive Ante-Nicene, Nicene, Post-Nicene Fathers set you all love so much was translated by a Protestant.
Protestants revived Patristics.
>Especially as your denomination is only one among tens of thousands.
Tens of thousands of denominations that all agree the Roman Church is not the One True Church™. Tens of thousands of denominations that will witness against it at the last day.
>Have you ever just read the contents of an early Church council
We've seen how some of them have erred or contradicted earlier councils.
>pure faith of the early Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit?
Proof?

>> No.18856526

>>18856444
>I was referring to (54) and the surrounding statements in On the Incarnation.
Got it. Like I said before, you are making an (understandable) mistake because of your lack of understanding the doctrine of theosis/divinization. We do not believe that we can become ontologically equal to God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
>So God, who is changeless and infinitely good, produced a world with the "intention" of people to worship him
I simply gave a single reason to refute your assertion that "there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world".
>Therefore, one has to rely on blind faith in order to conclude on your definition of God.
So far, we have been mostly talking about the unmoved mover/first cause of pure actuality. This is known through reason, not faith.
>Before you mention Jesus, I do not consider that satisfactory evidence given we only have dubious historical records with interpolations and out-of-context readings.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and the witness of the firsthand eyewitnesses in the face of torture and execution provides an inescapable conclusion that they, collectively, came to be 100% convinced that Jesus had rose physically bodily from the dead, appeared to them, ate with them, taught them, and then ascended into heaven in their sight.
>He bestowed free will to the point where people can develop their own rational ideologies that are divorced from what is "true" at least from your perspective.
He bestowed perfect free-will, that we might be able to do everything in our power, more-good or less-good, to our benefit or detriment.
>so in a sense, God created a lesser good world.
You have not refuted the argument that this is the best of all possible worlds.
>Your explanation was too deterministic in that you assume the complexification of life merely occurs to culminate in his worship.
I only brought that example reason up to disprove your position that " "there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world".
>Do you truly believe the development of their mystical or religion traditions would lead them to conclude in similar sentiments as you?
If it was revealed and confirmed to them like it was to us, then yes. If not, then potentially not, but potentially yes.
>Then why create a world of change that involves a privation of his goodness?
There is much love and pleasure and joy in the universe. It is very good that it exists. Sin is bad, but that is the result of our free will.

>> No.18856549

>>18856505
>You say that about us.
Do you believe your church has apostolic succession?
>Moses was gone for five minutes before the Israelites started worshiping a golden calf.
Because Moses was gone. We have somebody much greater than Moses leading us, the Holy Spirit.
>Protestants revived Patristics.
In the ancient traditions, Patristics never died.
>Tens of thousands of denominations that all agree the Roman Church is not the One True Church™
Of course schismatics would not believe the ancient apostolic church is the true church, if they did, they wouldn't be schismatic.
>Tens of thousands of denominations that will witness against it at the last day.
The only reason you know about the last day is because the orthodox Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome 382 compiled your canon of the New Testament for the first time.
>We've seen how some of them have erred or contradicted earlier councils.
Do you believe in the Nicene creed? Did they just get lucky, perhaps?
>Proof?
Did the apostles pass down the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands? Did the successors of the apostles pass down the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands? When did the practice of the laying on of hands stop? If not, who continues to practice the tradition in an unbroken line of apostolic succession to this day?

>> No.18856556
File: 80 KB, 584x584, beginning-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>why did God (who is unchanging and One) create a world in His image which is changing and has multiplicity
This is because God in a certain sense also has an inherent multiplicty, though not splitting Him in any way. God's (the Father's) essence is purely simple and indescribable, but He eternally begets His Son and spirates His Spirit, who are distinct from Him, but of this same nature and power. These are revealed relations we know about as human creatures, without knowing God's essence. This lays out a pattern of triadic multiplicity we can see in creation. Also Christ is seen as the Logos, which contains in it all the logoi (you could think of them as Platonic forms) for all things in creation, which allows for multiplicity in creation since it is all created through the Logos and ultimately patterned on His reality.
>why is there possibility for falling away from God or creating different false traditions
Because of the fall. Our mind and very nature got corrupt, not just our body, so now we can indulge in intellectual fantasies while missing the truth. Only option is repentance.

>> No.18856575

>>18856282
>animals still died
Proofs?

>> No.18856584

>>18856549
>Do you believe your church has apostolic succession?
Yes, through the laying on of hands. And all you can say to that is you don't recognize us as having it which is nothing but a massive cope from your side.
>Because Moses was gone. We have somebody much greater than Moses leading us, the Holy Spirit.
If your church was lead by the Holy Spirit your doctrines wouldn't contradict the written word of God. You have false prophets. You could unmask them easily enough by comparing what they say with Scripture.
>The only reason you know about the last day is because the orthodox Catholic bishops at the Council of Rome 382 compiled your canon of the New Testament for the first time.
We don't use our NT because a council or synod decreed it to be Scripture. We use it because these books have shown themselves to be the word of God.
>Do you believe in the Nicene creed?
Yes because it can be proven from Scripture.

>> No.18856589

>>18856505
>Moses was gone for five minutes before the Israelites started worshiping a golden calf.
but the trinity that was made up as a compromise 300 years after the fact is 100% true

>> No.18856635

>>18856526
>We do not believe that we can become ontologically equal to God.
Reading what you just quoted to me it sounds like one is absorbed into God's nature. I mean, we are "sharers of the divinity" and you quote "make men gods". It also fits into St. Athanasius saying "man is made in God's image".
>I simply gave a single reason to refute your assertion that "there is no reason why an all-powerful God would create this temporal world".
I did not find your reason convincing.
>This is known through reason, not faith.
As you've previously said, Aristotle believed more in a set of unmoved movers, not one. I lean more towards the middle in that I think there is one but another weaker, malicious one that preys on it.
>I disagree wholeheartedly, and the witness of the firsthand eyewitnesses...
I am not convinced based on what I've read and studied. I do not want to derail this thread further, but a lot of those "testimonies", such as Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus, are taken out of context. Moreover, the Gospels have hints of tampering or interpolations.
The only thing that would make me believe is if I woke up and saw the spirit of Jesus making everything clear to me. That has not happened.
>perfect free-will, that we might be able to do everything in our power, more-good or less-good, to our benefit or detriment.
"Good" is a very loaded term in your philosophy whereas in my case it involves a more simple process of mapping intentions to action, and the ontological relationship of intentions to god or his adversary.
>You have not refuted the argument that this is the best of all possible worlds.
It all depends on how world is defined in the first place. Can artistic creations or dreams be considered their own world? I am too tired to continue with anymore rigor.
>If it was revealed and confirmed to them like it was to us, then yes.
I feel nothing was truly confirmed to us. I do not trust the records of Semites.
>There is much love and pleasure and joy in the universe.
There is much hatred and pain and torment in the universe too, and unfortunately, it frequently wins on a local scale. I do not believe it will win on a grander scale though.
>It is very good that it exists.
It all depends on how one's life played out until the end. I cannot determine whether life was worth living until the end.
>Sin is bad, but that is the result of our free will.
The choice to sin comes stems from free will, but I disagree that impurities and sin, themselves, were created by God. Therefore, I don't agree sin is the result of free will.
I am too tired to continue this. Have a good day.

>> No.18856639

>>18856575
Skeletons of prehistoric animals.
>>18856584
>Yes, through the laying on of hands.
So which episcopal see does your parish hail from, and which denomination are you?
>If your church was lead by the Holy Spirit your doctrines wouldn't contradict the written word of God.
They do not, you just misunderstand them (because of your lack of depth in history).
>We don't use our NT because a council or synod decreed it to be Scripture.
This is obviously a huge cope, you use the exact same canon as was first declared at the Council of Rome 382. You just have to say that it isn't because the original true church derived the canon, to maintain your claim that the early Christians in this period were heretics.

>> No.18856660

>>18856639
>Skeletons of prehistoric animals.
How does this show they died before the fall?

>> No.18856663
File: 98 KB, 1280x720, the contemporary intellectual equivalent of the church fathers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18851798

>Muh Mystery, Just go with it man!

Every. Fucking. Time. Theologians are literally no better than a flim-flam man like Gary Spivey.

>> No.18856667

>>18856639
>maintain your claim that the early Christians in this period were heretics.
Do protestants actually believe this? So the whole church was apostate for about 1000 years?

>> No.18856682

>>18856635
>Reading what you just quoted to me it sounds like one is absorbed into God's nature
I highly suggest reading into the doctrines further. They are very rich and beautiful, but no, we do not become ontologically equal to God.
>I did not find your reason convincing.
That still does not make your original assertion correct. You need to requalify your statement.
>Aristotle believed more in a set of unmoved movers, not one. I lean more towards the middle in that I think there is one but another weaker, malicious one that preys on it.
Considering you have not refuted the Thomistic argument from motion showing one first cause, I will consider this more intuitively-preferred-story on your end, rather than a rational position.
>a lot of those "testimonies", such as Tacitus, Jospehus, and Tallus,
I did not reference any of them.
>Moreover, the Gospels have hints of tampering or interpolations.
That still does not refute the point about the apostles coming to be 100% convinced that Jesus had rose physically bodily from the dead, appeared to them, ate with them, taught them, and then ascended into heaven in their sight.
>The only thing that would make me believe is if I woke up and saw the spirit of Jesus making everything clear to me. That has not happened.
If the only thing that would make you believe is the creator of the universe coming at your whim like a jester whom you can command and demand signs from, you will be waiting quite a long time.
>I am too tired to continue this. Have a good day.
I have failed to see much development in your arguments here since last time, but I do appreciate your willingness to dialogue. Have a good night.

>>18856660
We have animal skeletons that are dated to millions of years before the first proto-hominid skeleton. Unless you believe Adam and Eve were rodents, the evidence seems conclusive that animal death occurred before humanity.
>>18856667
They would have to maintain it to be intellectually consistent, unless they are a non-denominational flavour of Protestantism that picks and chooses doctrines from the early councils fathers that they agree with. You simply can't escape things like baptismal regeneration and veneration of icons in the early church.

>> No.18856683

>>18856639
We don't believe they were heretics. Just because they interpreted some ancillary doctrines differently doesn't make them heretics. Unlike you and yours we aren't ready to excommunicate everyone that cannot pronounce our shibboleth.

>> No.18856689

>>18856683
Do you believe the Christians at the second council of Nicaea professed a heretical belief when they restored the usage and veneration of icons for liturgy and prayer?

>> No.18856713

>>18856682
Do you believe that animals were not created before humans, thus making Genesis a liberalized narrative?

>> No.18856722

>>18856689
Do you believe the Council of Elvira erred when they declared "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration."?

>> No.18856792

>>18856713
Interesting that you choose to not answer the question. Are you perhaps worried that professing your true belief, namely that the seventh ecumenical council was a gathering of heretics, might make your claim to be the same ancient church of old a bit spurious? You don't have to be ashamed, most everybody already knows you are not the ancient church. Just be honest.

With regards to your point, though, we believe that a legitimately convened synod or council can come to canons, which can by that same authority later be modified, if required. For example, the reformation of the Nicene creed of 325 at Constantinople should technically have been retroactively considered illegitimate and condemned by canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, and yet the reformed creed of 381 was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon. The same authority at Ephesus which issued canons that sought to lock away forever all reforms, can itself reform those canons, because that authority is what issued the canons to begin with.

>> No.18856830

>>18856792
>Interesting that you choose to not answer the question.
I got tired of your pilpul. And I'll say again, a difference on an ancillary doctrine does not a heretic make. Opinionum varietas et opinantium unitas non sunt ασυστατα.

>With regards to your point, though, we believe that a legitimately convened synod or council can come to canons, which can by that same authority later be modified, if required. For example, the reformation of the Nicene creed of 325 at Constantinople should technically have been retroactively considered illegitimate and condemned by canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, and yet the reformed creed of 381 was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon. The same authority at Ephesus which issued canons that sought to lock away forever all reforms, can itself reform those canons, because that authority is what issued the canons to begin with.
That is a cope and a half.
So your church can change it's doctrines. Lol. So much for muh 2000 years of unchanging tradition straight from the mouth of St Peter.

>> No.18856837

>>18856792

It's always adorable to observe putatively religious people having these retard fights amongst themselves, as if they mean anything.

>> No.18856838

>>18856792
Was the Holy Spirit wrong at the Council of Elvira? Lul.

>> No.18856859
File: 68 KB, 473x809, 1585288424088.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Church councils are infallible except for this specific one. They got it wrong.

>> No.18856876

>>18856713
Genesis 1 is clear that animals came before man, and Genesis 2:19 does not dogmatically state that God created the animals then and there with Adam, but only that the Lord formed the animals out of the ground.

>>18856830
>I got tired of your pilpul
I just asked you a plain question. That you were too ashamed to answer it like a man is clear to anybody reading.
>That is a cope and a half.
Coming from the person who actually deluded themself into thinking their church independently came up with the New Testament canon independent of any Catholic council, although the earliest mention of that canon is the Council of Rome 382? At least our positions are internally consistent.
>So much for muh 2000 years of unchanging tradition straight from the mouth of St Peter.
The deposit of the faith is based upon growing consensus in the teachings of the fathers, and dogmatic proclamations at councils. That the very early church had some confusion on some minor theological points is, I find, very much in line of what one would expect.

>>18856838
>>18856859
A synod can err whereas the canons of an ecumenical council are infallible. The Synod of Elvira was a local gathering of Spanish bishops. There were literally only 19 bishops there. It is not even in the same category as an ecumenical council, like Nicaea 2.

>> No.18856881
File: 94 KB, 805x614, brainlet protestant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18856859
>The conclusion that were arrived at church council are accurate even tho they aren't trustworthy, nobody held those idea for the hundreds of years prior and that one cannot arrive at those conclusion from scripture alone except if they come with the idea already in mind

>> No.18856887

>>18856012
I wasn't making an argument by referring to their will
>>18855997
>How is this bad or false?
It is bad because it negates the power of one's own actions.
>violating the free will of the sinner
If you decided to go against God in this life, God will violate that free will by lessening your pain or moving you to Heaven because of a saint's prayer (without you having first changed your mind on God or grown to accept Him).

>> No.18856889

>>18856876
>A synod can err whereas the canons of an ecumenical council are infallible.
Because your church says so?

>There were literally only 19 bishops there.
Bishops who, according to Roman Catholic dogma, received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, came together and decreed something which was wrong?

>> No.18856904

>>18856889
>Because your church says so?
When you are the true church of Jesus Christ, your made at ecumenical councils carry a lot more meaning than Joe Mama's New Reformed Baptisto-Methodist Church of the Oneness Pentecostals.
>Bishops who, according to Roman Catholic dogma, received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, came together and decreed something which was wrong?
Do you think my position is that people who have received the laying on of the hands can never make a mistake? The Holy Spirit guides the church in its infallible proclamations (eg. ecumenical councils, ex cathedra declarations), and will never lead us into heresy. You should show a little respect, considering that your entire canon of the New Testament comes from the Holy Spirit working through the true church at the Council of Rome 382, presided over Pope Damascus.

>> No.18856915

>>18856889
>Because your church says so?
When you are the true church of Jesus Christ, protected and led by the Holy Spirit, the infallible decisions made at ecumenical councils carry a lot more meaning than Joe Mama's New Reformed Baptisto-Methodist Church of the Oneness Pentecostals.
>Bishops who, according to Roman Catholic dogma, received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, came together and decreed something which was wrong?
Do you think my position is that people who have received the laying on of the hands can never make a mistake? The Holy Spirit guides the church in its infallible proclamations (eg. ecumenical councils, ex cathedra declarations), and will never lead us into heresy. You should show a little respect, considering that your entire canon of the New Testament comes from the Holy Spirit working through the true church at the Council of Rome 382, presided over Pope Damascus.

>> No.18856931
File: 8 KB, 277x271, e8e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18856904
>When you are the true church of Jesus Christ
Church of the Assumption of Our Blessed Virgin Lady of the Annunciation of the Immaculate Conception of the Sacred Immaculate Heart of the Rosary Nativity Church really sounds like Christ's church.
>The Holy Spirit guides the church in its infallible proclamations (eg. ecumenical councils, ex cathedra declarations)
Proofs?

>> No.18856940

>>18856915
You ignored the question.
You haven't proven why a synod is fallible and a ecumenical council is not. And it's not just because you say so.

>> No.18856957

>>18856931
>really sounds like Christ's church.
The name of the church is the one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. Your parody is mocking the name of a parish church, not the actual name of the church of Christ itself. That the true church is called "Catholic" is evident even from the very beginning, as seen in St. Ignatius of Antioch's epistles.
>Proofs?
"I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you. Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is Mine and disclose it to you."
>>18856940
Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth (John 16). The church comes together in an official ecumenical council, with all the bishops of the world (or as many as possible), and comes to a decision. Logically, if the first proposition is true, it follows that the Holy Spirit will have protected the church, and guided it into all truth, meaning that the decisions (canons) of an ecumenical council are infallible. The church later came together at Vatican II, in an officially convened ecumenical council with all the bishops of the world, and came up with a firm definition on which objects of the church are infallible. Synods are not on that list, but ecumenical councils are. Because the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, we know that that proclamation is infallible. Thus, synods are not infallible, but ecumenical councils are. If you want to say that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the church into all truth, you need to provide evidence.

>> No.18856985

>>18856957
>That the true church is called "Catholic" is evident even from the very beginning
The true church is called Catholic. But you are not the Catholic church, you are the Roman Catholic church. A schismatic church that apostatized at the Council of Trent.
>(or as many as possible)
It's subjective then what is an ecumenical council or local council lmao.

>> No.18857064

>>18856985
>But you are not the Catholic church, you are the Roman Catholic church
The 23 sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches which are in communion with, but not a member of, the Latin church, would like to speak with you.
>It's subjective then what is an ecumenical council or local council lmao.
If you don't know what an ecumenical council is, you're not ready to have this debate.

>> No.18857430

>>18855519
>That's not an argument.
>There can be two Ones
Plato would slam you here and then, and he would be right. One is one be definition, anything that is not one is not the One, not the principle of all-encompassing unity.
You just upscale the real One above anything that is numerous, so neither Hormazd nor Ahriman become the One source of everything. But thus Zurvan then becomes the source of substantial Evil, hence himself Evil. Azathoth, uncaring to our suffering (so how is he the source of Good, Love, Care and Compassion?).
Substantial Evil is some Anti-Being, that makes Being suffer by just interacting with it, something Lovecraftian that despoils and breaks you by just anti-being in your perception or even outside of it via causal links.

Look, even anti-matter is not anti- and annihilationism does not turn something into nothing (nihil) - these are absurd labels the physicists will be shamed for by philosophers for many centuries to come. Negative charge is still charge, and this negative matter is still matter, and when they "flat out" they turn into energy that is One too, since there is no anti-energy or no-energy, just gradations of it.
Same as everything having a source in One and partaking of quality of unity in Being is by necessity of the same substance, just a multitude of variations actualized from this One potential, in different degrees approaching or escaping the One the Good - while never fully One (that is only God) and while never fully not-One (annihilationism is absurd, if something could became nothing - it can only reach the absolute degree of remoteness, while still containing this infinitesimal amount of Being-Good-One).

Were Zoroastrianism to be coherent, it would become the world religion and philosophy, not Greek spin-offs of Christianity and Islam. The MAJOR difference is that the Hellenic One is above personhood and transcends our notion of person; you can't have personal relation with the One by definition since One is self-contained.
Christian God is not just personal, but has 3 (three) persons you can have personal relations to, and a personal relation to the Son is absolutely necessary for salvation (you relate to the Father and the Holy Ghost the same). But then we have this whole discussion of hellish particulars.
Allah is a person too, and you absolutely must have a personal relation of submission to Allah (Islam, as Submission), but Allah being the source of evil and lie reverts the whole thing back to Zurvanism, due to extreme predestination. Same as Calvinist Heresy turns God into Cthulhu who supposedly willingly and premeditatedly conceived of people destined for eternal suffering before they were even actualized in Creation.

>> No.18857533

>>18857064
>Bro, 80% of the patriarchs do not attend my councils and call me a heretic
>I obviously represent 100% of the Christendom

>> No.18858096

>>18852267
>and you can see glimpses of it
where?

>> No.18858242

>>18858096
Whatever anyone says, miracles still regularly happen in all Christian churches (even in protestant ones).
Also, Hollywood still pushes gnostic / kabbalah propaganda in most of it's movies.
So, there is probably something to Christianity if the world wants to destroy and perverse it so badly.

>> No.18858251

>>18858242
Speaking of kabbalah, what do the posters here think of Pico and his Christian Hermetic Kabbalah merge? Heretical cringefest or legit?

>> No.18858264

>>18858251
>Christian
>Hermetic Kabbalah
Pick one and only one.

>> No.18858283

>>18858251
>Heretical cringefest or legit?
>denies Christ's bodily incarnation, death and resurrection
Well, what do you think?

>> No.18858866

>>18857430
>Same as Calvinist Heresy turns God into Cthulhu who supposedly willingly and premeditatedly conceived of people destined for eternal suffering before they were even actualized in Creation
But God has foreknowledge, therefore all that takes place was devised beforehand by God, no? If He foreknew, and did not like the outcome, He would have devised a different outcome.

>> No.18858903

>>18857430
Well, the fact is, Zoroastrians never really settled on this question. I've recorded at least 6-7 different answers to it.

There is an argument that Ohrmazd is One and Ahriman was born in a moment of doubt, which is closer to Christianity.

>> No.18858930

>>18857430
>so how is he the source of Good, Love, Care and Compassion
because no of those thing is fundamental to reality, just opinions, judgments that we made about how things relate to us, our lack of knowledge and non-narcissistic understanding of reality

>Look, even anti-matter is not anti- and annihilationism does not turn something into nothing
you really don't know what you are speaking nor what those terms mean you are just trying to force a very superficial and limited understanding of modern physics into an outdated philosophical model, trying to rationalize and validate a superstition you got emotionally attached to

>> No.18858992

>>18858930
Why are you buying into our conversation? You don't understand our full discussion either.

>> No.18859007

>>18858992
>buying
butting*

>> No.18859604

>>18858866
The dogma is that God made SOME people destined to Heaven - like Mary the Mother of God - for His providential needs; but nobody was ever made predestined to Hell. That would mean that some people are utterly incapable to be saved and there is no way for them to want it or attain it, you were just fucked before the Universe was even created, and that would be extremely tyrannical and inhuman, making God an Azathoth. Since God is the Good, and God is Love, this can't be - if people get into hell, it is because of their own free will as accepted by God.
>But God has foreknowledge, therefore all that takes place was devised beforehand by God, no?
No, since your actions are not hardwired. If there is no free will, Christianity is no more. God transcends space-time yet ever present in the Creation (imma not well read into Palamism, but there is that part of God's energies everywhere and everywhen), so as an approximation would see-know all your lifepath on fastest forward.
The idea is that God does not force nor pre-determine your choices, so all your choices are made inside Creation and your choices predetermine your ultimate fate - God's predestination is not binding. Your choices were not made before Creation, only your possibility for them, though your person and soul seemingly were premediated.

Small wonder Dutch Calvinists behaved like ISIS and kissed literal Turks on their lips, while the Ottoman sultans saw them as the most Islamic-like foreigners. Islam has this tyrannical Allah too (not all sects though, but the dominant ash'ari sunnis are). To think, my East European country at one time was choke full of Calvinist cringe.
Basically, God never damns anyone by His pre-meditated will, else He is not worthy of our worship. Allah seemingly does, since your opinions are predetermined like everything else in the world and Sunni Islam is a deterministic hellscape where you are saved just by Allah's fiat with no merit to your work and faith pre-determined by Allah anyway - or so it seems from out here.
Since God must always be worthy of worship as the source of everything worthy, when God seems bad then we must be understanding His actions or ideas wrong, so we would think where we are wrong at understanding him and never stop at "lol bro trust me just believe" lest one falls in made-up lies or worse yet starts worshiping Azathoth. Since this is why we have access to Logos, why even give rational though to humans in God's perfect most effective plan if we were just to be ever prostrating meatsacks.

>>18858903
That is reassuring. As you can see, Christianity has its own share of philosophical conundrums. Just kindly do hate Semites less for their just being Semites, since Persians took much of their old culture from Akkadians-to-Babilonians anyway.
So while "Ahriman-Evil being a mistake/doubt of Ohrmazd-Good" has its own share of problems, at least this Ohrmazd would not violate the principle of Unity, one can start with that.

>> No.18859673

>>18858930
>just opinions, judgments that we made about how things relate to us
Opinion discarded 2500 years ago, start with the Greeks.
Specifically "the Protagoras" on the blight of false knowledge of relativism (but do read Alcibiades I before that).
>you really don't know what you are speaking nor what those terms mean
I can see when the words are used wrong if the qualities of so named objects do not cohere with their names. Anti-matter would meaning something like opposed-to-matter or against-matter, which is as good as a biangular triangle - used to demonstrate to Zoroastrophile anon that some most basic things and qualities are necessarily singular in essence, without doubles.

If you think me being heretical of the true teachings of scientism in the meantime, get Taliban'd.

>> No.18859975

>>18859604
>Persians took much of their old culture from Akkadians-to-Babilonians anyway.
Not true. Zoroastrianism came from Central Asia which is not near the Levant. The Old Avestan of the Gathas has more in common with Sanskrit than it does with any Semitic language.
Please read the Gathas, preferably multiple translations.
I do respect European Christianity more because of the intelligent use of Greek philosophy. I admit, the debates about Thomism make me think more critically.

>> No.18860016

>>18859604
Also, have you ever read any St. John of the Cross? He was a very good mystic. I do agree with you that Catholicism is generally more enriching than Protestantism largely because of its history of saints.

>> No.18860071

>>18859975
There is more to Persian culture than religion and language, since most of their political and military tech came from Mesopotamia they overtook as Parthians, with their origins back in Sumer and Elam. These were taken into Islam too, especially after the Muslim Persian led Abbasid revolt who benefited Muslim Persians first, and their ironic allies in Syria and Egypt.

I do have to say that modern Islam of the Salafi brand is extremely disappointing, and the Shia Islamic state of Iran is weird however much it LARPs as a Platonic Politeia and especially so with its French links.
But then again, modern Christianity is also very disappointing. In my homecountry the Orthodox clergy bends backwards before an avowed and open Soviet atheist and tyrant so much it infuriates me to just thinking about it, with bishops thinking "maybe we should decry torture and tyranny by Soviets who literally genocided 99% of local clerics mere 80 years ago" demoted and replaced or expelled to Russia, while the decrying Catholics can always point to a literal Jesuit in Rome out-progging the progs. It is a shitfest everywhere you look.
I wonder if the late Roman Ecumene was the same, so many cults to choose from yet all impotent and losing converts to a Judaism sect, its philosophy hollow to the imperial ruling class and eventually discarded and forbidden.
I still have a second hand info of a miraculous event to an acquaintance of an acquaintance, something is at work like >>18858242 writes

>> No.18860143

>>18860016
I heard of Teresa of Avila and John de la Cruz, half the country is Catholic as of 500 years or so. The main idea of the Dark Night of the Soul is known here, and I think would be generally accepted by the Orthodox even; but I am not read on the matter, so can't comment except for general "we heard of them, prolly someone even read them in Catholic libraries here".
I don't think Catholicism to be all bullshit just because of the political shenanigans, since their (Neo)-Thomistic philosophy seems cool and conversion stories like Edith Stein legit. But the political shenanigans must be called out, even if at times it was Rome that was Orthodox while Constantinople was ears deep in heresy.

>> No.18860297

>>18860071
I see. What is your home country? Are you in Czechoslovakia? Some of the most intelligent people I've met irl have been Czech for some odd reason.

>> No.18860699

>>18860297
Belarus, way to the east, but the religious history just as fucked up with Orthodox, Calvinist, Jesuit, Uniate and Imperial Orthodoxy Boogaloo, and lest we forget the pagans in the west.
It got hard to just flow into a tradition after Communism and WW2 demolished everything it deemed immodern, so there is that.

>> No.18860744

>>18860699
Hmm, well, you could try to become a Catholic priest and proselytize in your home country. You do have a lucid manner of communicating.
I recommend Mark Samuels' A Pilgrim Stranger, which is about a Catholic fighting against the forces of modernity. It may serve to inspire you. Remember, not to fall into despair.
Even if we don't agree 100%, I do think you have a noble endeavor in opposing modernity and helping people cultivate Love via Christ. It is much, much better than both communism and neoliberalism.
Eastern Europe doesn't seem as pozzed as Western Europe, so I don't think hope is entirely vanished.

>> No.18860839

>>18860071
>they overtook as Parthians
As the Medians* obv, Parthians would be ~400 years later. Though interesting they started as rebels against Seleucides that just lightly peppered Persia with Macedonians, but were philhellenes in addition to starting an Iranian revival.
Sadly there are no revivals around here, just philosodomia.

>> No.18860859

>>18851798
Who

>> No.18860864

>>18852557
>You think you are more intelligent than Jesus?
>12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
I mean...

>> No.18860910

>>18860864
In the Jewish scriptures the people of Israel are sometimes represented as figs on a fig tree (Hosea 9:10, Jeremiah 24), or a fig tree that bears no fruit (Jeremiah 8:13), and in Micah 4:4 the age of the messiah is pictured as one in which each man would sit under his fig tree without fear; the cursing of the fig tree in Mark and Matthew and the parallel story in Luke are thus symbolically directed against the Jews, who did not accept Jesus as king.

Mark uses the cursing of the barren fig tree to bracket and comment on his story of the Jewish temple: Jesus and his disciples are on their way to Jerusalem when Jesus curses a fig tree because it bears no fruit; in Jerusalem he drives the money-changers from the temple; and the next morning the disciples find that the fig tree has withered and died, with the implied message that the temple is cursed and will wither because, like the fig tree, it failed to produce the fruit of righteousness.[8] The episode concludes with a discourse on the power of prayer, leading some scholars to interpret this, rather than the eschatological aspect, as its primary motif,[9] but at verse 28 Mark has Jesus again use the image of the fig tree to make plain that Jerusalem will fall and the Jewish nation be brought to an end before their generation passes away

>> No.18861019

>>18860910
This still makes no sense
>Mark uses the cursing of the barren fig tree to bracket and comment on his story of the Jewish temple: Jesus and his disciples are on their way to Jerusalem when Jesus curses a fig tree because it bears no fruit;
--->it was not the season for figs
Why curse something created by the Father (Genesis 1, 11-12) just because it was acting "according to their kinds" ?

>> No.18861060

>>18859604
Mate, I don't really understand how you answered my question; if I create a child knowing that it will suffer in the future, I am responsible for its suffering and its destination of death. So it is with God, and in even greater magnitude, as He creates man knowing that man will eventually deny Him and He knows who will go to Hell. It's not determinism, it's more of a compatibilism; the issue is still that God looked at a creation in which His children are eternally estranged from Him and said "this is good." He did not devise a universalistic plan for all creation because that's somehow less savory than eternal Hell for the majority of men and a good chunk of angels- Satan is victorious, in other words. He has taken most of God's creation with Him, leaving Him with few. If that sounds fine to you, how about only one person goes to Heaven? Perhaps no one will be found worthy, save for the Virgin Mary, because she was cleansed of sin (if I recall correctly).

>> No.18861066

>>18861019
So we would discuss parallels with Jews and Israel 1990 years later. Literally because of that, the apostles were there to remember and write that down.
You are dealing with God incarnate there, with full omniscience in his Divine nature.

>> No.18861152

>>18861060
I don't think I understand myself, that is why I was writing my mental notes on the go trying to click. The difference is supposedly slim but crucial and I am not a theologian to snipe it.

You are right since even if no sinner is predestined to stay that way (opposed to Calvin or what passes for him), some will be damned by their own actions and end up in Hell regardless. Exoteric Christianity says you have one chance, there is no way to repent or restart after death, and God Himself called the fire eternal.
Universal salvation would fix it, but is branded as heresy contrary to the Bible. Even Moslems get tormented in Hell temporarily, and Catholics invented Purgatory as a band-aid.

So far I see no clear cut solution, hence imma nobody on an imageboard, instead of a preacher.

>> No.18861183

>>18861019
>Why curse something created by the Father (Genesis 1, 11-12) just because it was acting "according to their kinds" ?

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

>> No.18861226

>>18861152
Even "eternity" is a problem: (pic related)

>>18854983

>> No.18861423

>>18856141
>Only what doctor godlberg says is real is actually real
seek help

>> No.18861684

>>18861423
>don't trust jew doctor, trust jew book!
Really?

>> No.18862356

>>18852805
cradle-Orthodox can be worse human beings that also propagate heresies, meanwhile a serious convert can shine brighter than anyone alive in his generation... it doesn't matter if you don't get recognition from other Orthodox in the preset, we can learn from the stories of the desert Fathers that God is always aware of everyone's merit/good works and you're scaled properly in the economy of eternity.

>> No.18862890

>>18856141
Mate, I live in a post-Communist hellholle. People here were tortured for decades in literal carceral asylums for not BELIEVING in Communist for fucks sake, tortured with meds designed specifically to "pacify" not-communists by turning them into drooling vegetables or "agitate" them with sulphur injections into muscles that would cause uncontrollable contractions alike to an epileptic seizure in addition to the burning pain.
LITERAL CARCERAL ASYLUMS FOR NONBELIEVERS for 30 years. People here fear and hate psychiatrists so much you can't even imagine, only absolutely uncontrollable psychos are willingly given up to them, even though since 1990's they are now "OK and western-like".

Not even under the threat of death will I step into a psycho-ward willingle, psychiatrists should be genocided and their books burned.

>> No.18863238

>>18852171
You are correct, reject christcucks

>> No.18863585

>>18856282
>To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant
Lol Newman literally said that nonsense when he was an Anglican. And when he became Catholic he had to invent his "development of doctrine" thesis to justify all the ahistorical innovations of Catholicism.

>> No.18864539

Why do the saints hate sex so much? Do they have any actual arguments against loving your spouse and having sex with her? There's nowhere else to ask this

>> No.18864684

>>18864539
There is no problem with having sex with your spouse within marriage. This is a common misconception. The only matter of import is that you always keep open the procreative end, eg. not using contraceptives or birth control.

>> No.18864761

>>18864684
Just read:

>>18862811

Like, are there any good arguments against sex even outside of marriage? Any actual arguments, not just begging the question or appeals to nature?

>> No.18864789
File: 42 KB, 1157x331, Post-Communist Hellhole on lit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18862890
Ty. This kind of testimony, which I'd otherwise never hear, is one of the great things about 4chan (perhaps the only great thing).

It's not set in stone, but there's a reasonable chance the US will end up with such practices, if current trends continue.

>> No.18864806

>>18852237
1 Peter 2:5-9
New International Version
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”[b]

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”[c]

8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”[d]

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

>> No.18864819

>>18864539
>Why do the saints hate sex so much?
It's gross lol ewwww

>> No.18864920
File: 457 KB, 487x600, 1628164442699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18864761
I have read the Confessions of Augustine. He says nothing about sex with one's wife being a bad thing. You are confusing sex within marriage, which is both elicit and encourages, and sex outside of marriage, which is sinful.
>Like, are there any good arguments against sex even outside of marriage? Any actual arguments, not just begging the question or appeals to nature?
Promiscuous sex in men and women is strongly correlated with a highly increased chance of initiating divorce according to various studies, which shows that the act itself seems to impair some sort of pair-bonding mechanism. Further, there is the obvious downside of potentially contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Further, there is the obvious potential for unwanted pregnancies, which in many cases leads to abortion, which is the willful murdering of an innocent human being - not something to be desires, and something which I think is obviously considered morally wrong by anybody who believes in an objective morality. Finally, there is some compelling evidence to suggest sexual activity, especially at a young age, is correlated with self-reported rates of depression. According to a study primarily funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), findings suggested that:
"A full quarter (25.3 percent) of teenage girls who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 7.7 percent of teenage girls who are not sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, sexually active girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed than are girls who are not sexually active.

Some 8.3 percent of teenage boys who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 3.4 percent of teenage boys who are not sexually active are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, boys who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to be depressed as are those who are not sexually active."

In conclusion, like almost every single other biblical commandment regarding morals, it appears that it is not just an arbitrary law, but rather something which was put in place for our own protection and well-being. This is not the kind of polemic you will often find among proponents of biblical morality (especially among Protestants), but it can be truly said that God put these commandments in place for our well-being, like a loving father who forbids his child from eating sugar before bed. We may not understand it at the time, thinking him tyrannical, but in the end, it is for our own good.

>> No.18864936
File: 457 KB, 487x600, 1628164442699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18864761
I have read the Confessions of Augustine, it is an amazing work.
He says nothing about sex with one's wife being a bad thing. You are confusing sex within marriage, which is both licit and encouraged, with sex outside of marriage, which is sinful.
>Like, are there any good arguments against sex even outside of marriage? Any actual arguments, not just begging the question or appeals to nature?
Promiscuous sex in men and women is strongly correlated with a highly increased chance of initiating divorce according to various studies, which shows that the act of sex with more than one partner seems to impair some sort of pair-bonding mechanism. There is the obvious downside of potentially contracting sexually transmitted diseases, even with protection. Further, there is the obvious potential for unwanted pregnancies, which in many cases leads to abortion - the willful and conscious murdering of an innocent human being. This is not something to be desired, and something which I think would logically be considered morally wrong by anybody who believes in an objective morality. Finally, there is some compelling evidence to suggest sexual activity, especially at a young age, is correlated with self-reported rates of depression. According to a study primarily funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), findings suggested that:
"A full quarter (25.3 percent) of teenage girls who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 7.7 percent of teenage girls who are not sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, sexually active girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed than are girls who are not sexually active.

Some 8.3 percent of teenage boys who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 3.4 percent of teenage boys who are not sexually active are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, boys who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to be depressed as are those who are not sexually active."

In conclusion, like almost every single other biblical commandment regarding morals, it appears that it is not just an arbitrary law, but rather something which was put in place for our own protection and well-being. This is not the kind of polemic you will often find among proponents of biblical morality (especially among Protestants), but it can be truly said that God put these commandments in place for our well-being, like a loving father who forbids his child from eating sugar before bed. We may not understand it at the time, thinking him tyrannical, but in the end, it is for our own good.

>> No.18864977

>>18864761
Its degenerate. I'm playing it safe, I'm eunuch for Christ and all. Posting my from cell in the desert.

I came here to 4chang because my only friends are my cats, and I don't know what sex is, nor do I want to. Sounds gross. Keep your pants on perverts.

>> No.18865008

>>18864539
How is someone else's sex life, especially that of a Saint, any of our business?

>> No.18865394
File: 221 KB, 929x1280, 1622861994346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18864936


These are just arguments against promiscuous sex, not against sex outside of marriage. And for instance, the depression-related studies do not necessarily show a causal relation between sex and depression; it could be that their environment predisposes them both towards depression and towards sex (either as peer pressure or as an escape).

>which shows that the act of sex with more than one partner seems to impair some sort of pair-bonding mechanism
Perhaps it's more of a psychological change than a biological change, unless that's what you meant by it. Once again, that stands only if you are promiscuous. Can I have the link to this study?

>obvious downside of potentially contracting sexually transmitted diseases, even with protection
Surely a cure can be found, or a preventive measure (aside from the obvious- screening for STDs or staying away from such people who are promiscuous as a lifestyle). But to have sex with a virgin woman before marriage will likely not pose such a danger.
Also
>25% of sexually active girls are depressed
>8.3% of sexually active boys are depressed
Aside from girls suffering from mood disorders at higher rates than boys, it's quite possible that a great many of their troubles are also caused by heartbreak, cheating, relational troubles, and the like (which usually plague monogamous relationships, and which especially plague those who scatter their dedication).

I agree with abortion being wrong, but I'm sure contraceptives (that do not prevent implantation, but rather conception) can be used.


And I'm making these arguments as a current KHHV, likely eternal KHHV. I don't support sex outside of marriage, I'm more against the idea that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" and marriage is just a compromise to prevent fornication, not a beautiful thing, a ladder to God in itself. It's this alien, gnosticoid and cold-blooded view I despise, not what is moderate and natural.

>> No.18865528

>>18865394
>These are just arguments against promiscuous sex, not against sex outside of marriage
No, they are arguments with sex being had with more than 1 partner (your spouse), and any sex premaritally (eg. the study by the NICHD, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies).
>the depression-related studies do not necessarily show a causal relation between sex and depression; it could be that their environment predisposes them both towards depression and towards sex (either as peer pressure or as an escape).
That would not explain their peers who are not sexually active having over 2-3 times lower rate self-reporting depression.
>Perhaps it's more of a psychological change than a biological change, unless that's what you meant by it
I would argue the two are likely inextricably linked. Psychological stress characterized by increased cortisol manifests as bodily inflammation, for example.
>Once again, that stands only if you are promiscuous.
The study showed increased rates of divorce even among all of those with more than one premarital sex partner. You can find even more studies online regarding this topic with a simple search, but my post will be blocked should I attempt to link them all. This article performs a good and unbiased analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth data that was collected from 2002-2013.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
>Surely a cure can be found, or a preventive measure (aside from the obvious- screening for STDs or staying away from such people who are promiscuous as a lifestyle)
Good luck with finding a preventative measure for herpes simplex 1&2, of which over ~90% of the general population has one or the other.
>But to have sex with a virgin woman before marriage will likely not pose such a danger.
If you choose to have sex with a virgin woman before marriage, this involves taking the chance that you will not marry her. You should be aware that by doing so, you are 1) permanently increasing the likelihood that both you and her will have a much higher likelihood for initiating divorces in your future marriages, and 2) increasing both your and her odds for having an unsuccessful marriage, if you do decide to get married. Compare the divorce rates for 0 premarital sex partners (eg. virgin bride), and 1 premarital sex partner (eg. even including you). The rate of divorce goes up, substantially.
>it's quite possible that a great many of their troubles are also caused by heartbreak, cheating, relational troubles, and the like
Pure conjecture. The data suggests that being sexually active at all leads to a much higher depression rate, even in body. Twice as high is nothing to scoff at, and to hand-wave that data away by some random hypothesis with no data supporting it shows that you might be looking to affirm your position based upon emotions and what you want to be true, rather than what the data shows.

>> No.18865552
File: 110 KB, 924x1244, 1602710418774.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18865394
>I'm more against the idea that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" and marriage is just a compromise to prevent fornication, not a beautiful thing, a ladder to God in itself.
This is misrepresenting the orthodox and Catholic view on marriage. St. Paul's words are only to indicate that it is very good, and indeed superior, to dedicate one's life to becoming a saint who is worried solely about the work of the Lord, if one can bear that cross. To explain his position further, St. Paul says in the same epistle:
"I want you to be free from concern. The unmarried man is concerned about the work of the Lord, how he can please the Lord. But the married man is concerned about the affairs of this world, how he can please his wife, and his interests are divided.". I think we can both agree that this is definitely true.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

""The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."
The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."

God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh.""

>> No.18865659

>>18865528
>Pure conjecture. The data suggests that being sexually active at all leads to a much higher depression rate, even in body. Twice as high is nothing to scoff at, and to hand-wave that data away by some random hypothesis with no data supporting it shows that you might be looking to affirm your position based upon emotions and what you want to be true, rather than what the data shows.
The data doesn't suggest anything unless you show me the paper. Your causal hypothesis is equally as unfounded unless they demonstrate the causal, biological mechanism whereby sexual activity leads to depression.

>herpes simplex 1&2, of which over ~90% of the general population has one or the other.
Source?

>That would not explain their peers who are not sexually active having over 2-3 times lower rate self-reporting depression.
It would for precisely the reasons I listed later; less heartbreak, possibly higher self-esteem (about one's body or genitalia), and the possible presence of the drugged-up, inconsiderate, and crude culture that is typically concomitant with promiscuity.

As for unsuccessful marriages being caused by "deflowering" a virgin, I'll look into that more deeply.

>>18865552
It is not evident that I misrepresented it; St. Paul's words do not give the indication that it is good to marry, only that it is a lesser evil. How are we to not compromise with this world when we do precisely that by worrying primarily about our wives rather than God? Shouldn't celibacy and hesychasm be promoted here, rather than worldly union, no matter how fine of a "model" it is held to be by men?