/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23025008]

what does /lit/ think of filioque?

[Anonymous No.23025047]

Whatever it is you are arguing about, it surely ain't God almighty anymore by the time you saddle it with terms like filioque and homoousia.

[Anonymous No.23025056]

>>23025008
pope BAD

[Anonymous No.23025073]

>>23025008
I have never seen an Orthodox person properly explain why this matters to the average believer. It reminds me of Protestantism where the only people saved are those who have the proper reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous No.23025078]

>>23025047
i kneel, baptistbro...

[Anonymous No.23025089]

>>23025073
I could just as well say I have never seen a Catholic person properly explain why this matters to the average believer so it wasn't worth splitting the church over
>only people saved
this only matters if you have some 13th century catholic peasant view of salvation where you burn in hell for eternity for not subscribing to every papal decree

[Anonymous No.23025094]

>>23025073
I agree with you 100% and the whole debacle will never, ever make sense to me. It's the literal personification of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.
Call me a heretic, but the whole distinction is genuinely, absolutely, completely, useless. Can anyone name one single thing that changes because of the filioque? All of your god-ology theorizing and pondering about the nature of essences? Pointless bullshit. Literally all of it. Nothing changes at all. God is still in heaven, and you are still right here. No amount of knowing what God is or is not will save you, and it is all pointless if you don't do what you ought to do. I refuse to believe anyone actually sincerely cares about it.
But there's always an ulterior reason for labeling someone or a movement a heretic, because the heretic(s) are sowing division or creating a cult of personality around themselves. This is the problem with Orthodoxy. They don't care about the filioque. They absolutely do not. The Orthodox exist because they care about power and are upset that the man in Rome (who, much like the God-talk above, should not matter at all to the layperson) is calling the shots instead of their man in Constantinople (who again, no one ought to give a damn about). It's really kind of sad, when you think about it.

[Anonymous No.23025098]

>>23025073
They feel that it creates a distinction with the Father and the Son sharing a trait that the Spirit does not share, which I suppose muddies up the concept of the Trinity. Apparently they feel it leads to the heresy of Modalism as well.

[Anonymous No.23025102]

>>23025094
>The Orthodox exist because they care about power and are upset that the man in Rome (who, much like the God-talk above, should not matter at all to the layperson) is calling the shots instead of their man in Constantinople (who again, no one ought to give a damn about). It's really kind of sad, when you think about it.
That certainly has not been my experience with them.

[Anonymous No.23025108]

>>23025089
Ive never seen a Catholic concerned about this topic. Its an issue for 12th century monks and modern E-Christians watching youtube videos.

>>23025094
I don’t necessarily blame the orthodox, as Catholic political leaders certainly promoted this fake conflict as well for their own benefit. I just think its a goofy ass argument for modern Christians to concern themselves with as Satanist take over the world. I also agree that no one really sincerely cares about it lmao. Its such an autistic, intellectual one-upsmanship type of debate.

[Anonymous No.23025119]

>>23025108
>I don’t necessarily blame the orthodox
I shouldn't either, you're right. In the end it was all political posturing 800 years ago and 800 years later they still insist on keeping up the fight their umpteenth dead ancestors started.

[Anonymous No.23025122]

>>23025108
Catholics are only concerned about when they are getting their next cerveza

[Anonymous No.23025125]

>>23025122
You have never gone to mass LARPer

[Anonymous No.23025132]

>>23025122
>cerveza
For me? It's a nice crisp wine, with a side of prosciutto.

[Cult of Passion No.23025135]

>>23025047
>filioque
"Living" God, not in some alternate heaven realm. Evolution, "made in our image", as expressions of fundemental Physics fractaled up in scale

[Anonymous No.23025137]

>>23025132
Based Italanon

[Anonymous No.23025143]

>>23025008
put em together and what do you get?

[Anonymous No.23025151]

>>23025135
That's decent poetry and ghastly theology. Perhaps you are already a poet but this demonstrates a real knack for a kind of thinking most people cannot do, and I would advise you take up poetry if not already.

[Anonymous No.23025156]

>>23025143
Antisemites are literally schizos. Look at yourself. You see stars of David everywhere.

[Anonymous No.23025163]

>>23025143
gottem

[Cult of Passion No.23025168]

>>23025151
>poetry
No.
>ghastly theology
Strange interpretation of objective reality.

All relogion and spiritual is hypothetical to you, it is not to me, peasant.

[Anonymous No.23025176]

>>23025156
i'm jewish

[Anonymous No.23025178]

>>23025176
Trust us, we already know. The Christianity=Jewish narrative is entirely promoted by jews.

[Anonymous No.23025183]

>>23025178
jesus was jewish, we're taking him back

[Anonymous No.23025186]

>>23025176
Possibly your post was a wicked irony, but doubtful, since Jews would know better than to jest in an ironic manner that is easily interpreted plainly. You would not be the first self hating Jew I have met. And I have met self-hating blacks too. I don't hate any of you, I see you as victims.

[Anonymous No.23025192]

>>23025186
it was just a joke anon

i'm not a very good jew, we're supposed to be funny

[Anonymous No.23025252]

>>23025108
>Ive never seen a Catholic concerned about this topic. Its an issue for 12th century monks and modern E-Christians watching youtube videos.
they should be perfectly fine with renouncing it and rejoining the orthodox church then

[Anonymous No.23025259]

>>23025252
Unlike most e-LARPers tho, Catholics belong to a Church and have a familial lineage to the Church for centuries. There are more important things (to non-autists) than an irrelevant, semantic issue.

[Anonymous No.23025264]

>>23025108
>E-Christians
Holy friggin thanks for this term

[Anonymous No.23025269]

>>23025094
>The Orthodox exist because they care about power and are upset that the man in Rome (who, much like the God-talk above, should not matter at all to the layperson) is calling the shots instead of their man in Constantinople (who again, no one ought to give a damn about). It's really kind of sad, when you think about it.
this is a ridiculous strawman, no orthodox believer has ever said they want the patriarch of constantinople to hold the power the pope has in catholicism

[Anonymous No.23025284]

>>23025259
>Unlike most e-LARPers tho, Catholics belong to a Church and have a familial lineage to the Church for centuries. There are more important things (to non-autists) than an irrelevant, semantic issue.
I'm saying they shouldn't have any qualms with the papacy ending the schism and rejoining communion autist

[Anonymous No.23025287]

>>23025168
>All relogion and spiritual is hypothetical to you

Incorrect and stupid assumption. All of you neoChristians think you are 10 years ahead of everyone else whom you imagine to be stuck in material worldviews. The growth of the mind winds through religion for many of us, it does not stop there and it is not in any absolute way averse to returning.

Seeing the level of high octane esotericism in your post makes me suspect you will find reasons to jump ship to various esotericisms related to Christianity soon if not already. I don't disrespect any of this thinking of yours, it is very nice, I am just annoyed you are clinging to a literal and triumphalist idea of faith and wish you would broaden your appreciation of subtleties into an apprecuation and openness of subtleties outside your particular worldview.

Humanity has a fuck ton of good and interesting ideas in currency. Why spend one coin ad infinitum?

[Anonymous No.23025288]

>>23025284
What Catholics have a major problem with that tho? I’ve only ever seen autistic E-orthodox whining about this possibility.

[Anonymous No.23025304]

>>23025288
great, hopefully the vatican will proceed tomorrow to end the schism on orthodox terms since all objections are from the orthodox

[Anonymous No.23025313]

>>23025304
Maybe if the CIA gives the patriarch the OK, it can happen

[Cult of Passion No.23025403]

>>23025287
>10 years
10 millenia.
>I don't disrespect any of this
You did by not taking me seriously, youre unserious person and acting Im like you, while you LARP some higher order elf.

Youre not.

>Humanity has a fuck ton of good and interesting ideas
Physics, Genetics, Consciousness, Medicine, how to approach existence, I rewrote or altered a dozen fields.

They have almost zero ideas to me.

Youre holding onto the idea of "God/religion etc" and confusing it with your identity, defending the wrong to save face in front of yourself....the Pharisees did the same thing.

[Anonymous No.23025406]

>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/.

[Anonymous No.23025408]

>>23025406
This thread is about the ideas contained in a book.

[Anonymous No.23025427]

>>23025056
papes bod

[Cult of Passion No.23025451]

>>23025406
>poetry and ghastly theology
Fiction, world building and religion interpretation needs its own board.

/fic/ off with yer "obtuse prose" and "lived truth".

[Anonymous No.23025557]

>>23025008
Retarded

[Anonymous No.23025931]

>>23025108
>Its such an autistic, intellectual one-upsmanship type of debate.
Agreed. I can bring myself to accept it as "okay" since I think there should be an established canon of Christian theology, even just as a reference point and not even to be taken necessarily as fact. Theology is a dirty, autistic, and schizophrenic job, but someone's gotta do it.
That being said, I think no average Christian should be concerned with it at all, and I think it's actually harmful to propogate this stuff in current year. Even things like the Nicean Trinity, and all the 3 = 1 stuff. It just makes people confused and to any non-initiated person you just sound insane. It's only relevant insofar as saying "this is what the institution officially believes and this is how we got here." Anything further turns more people away than it invites.

[Anonymous No.23025937]

>>23025008
Orthodox is basically Islam.

[Anonymous No.23025957]

>>23025269
>patriarch
They're a bunch of Muslims.

[Anonymous No.23025969]

>>23025937
you mean catholics

[Anonymous No.23025988]

>>23025969
When you combine the father of the old testament with the rebellious Jesus you get a free man.

The fucking ruskies are a bunch of authoritarian assholes and that makes them closer to Asians and Muslims.

[Anonymous No.23026018]

>>23025008
>>23025073
>>23025094
It is an academic argument to be sure, but rejecting the Filioque makes the Spirit and the Son identical. This is because the persons of the Godhead are only distinct with respect to their relations of opposition. The father is only distinct from the son because he generates the son and the son does not generate him. Etc

In the “Orthodox” conception, the Son and the Holy Ghost become identical. That is because there is no relation of opposition separating them. Both are related to the father in terms of being spirated/generated, but both of them do not spirate or generate anything else.

In the true Western view, the Father is unique because he generates the son and Holy Spirit but is not generated. The son is unique because he generates the Holy Spirit but is generated. And the Holy Spirit is unique because it is generated but does not generate anything else.

The father is like sea which gives but does not receive. The son is like a river which receives and gives. The spirit is like a lake which only receives.

In the false Eastern conception, the son and spirit are the same person, because they are both lakes which receive but do not give. Thus there is no relation in the godhead separating them.

The Eastern “Orthdoox” will never accept this because their religion is born in pride and rebellion from the Pope

[Anonymous No.23026026]

>>23026018
>Orthodox
They're a bunch of morons.

[Anonymous No.23026064]

>>23025073
It's a wedge issue that was (and is) used to get to the real actual matter which is accepting the Papacy.

The other thing no one really seems to get is that the reason the eastern churches don't like the Papacy is politics. The Pope crowned the HRE as the successors to Rome, an act that deeply triggered the Byzantines which wanted to be the only TRUE and HONEST Rome.

[Anonymous No.23026079]

>>23025122
>>23025132
Louisiana Catholic here to rep bourbon whiskey.

[Anonymous No.23026412]

>>23025403
We are two independent thinkers resisting one another's independence. Most people on this board are completely stupid and we are used to imaging all posts as stupid, which is a fair expectation.

The couple times I bump into genuinely original thought I end up failing to connect. I would like to open myself to that possibility.

Would you share a passage of writing corresponding to your diagrams? I will read it sincerely. I apologize for assuming you were a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.23026429]

>>23025094
>It's the literal personification of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.
retard boomer alert. and the answer is just one btw, in case you were wondering. angels can occupy an indefinite amount of space, but once they've made their decision of where they want to be, their presence excludes other immaterial entities.
>why should I care?
because if you want to talk about God or even get to know God, you're going to need to answer questions about things that are not crudely physical.

[Anonymous No.23026433]

>>23026018
Begotten and spiration are two different forms of generation and in themselves would signify a difference in identity between the two progeny. To be begotten is a discrete process, and spiration is a continuous process.

[Anonymous No.23026457]

>>23026433
>continuous process
>applying time to God
Maybe Easternites don't understand this, but God is metaphysically necessary. That means there is no background contextuality or arena of being in which God lives. Rather, God is the source and foundation of Being itself. If God existed in time then there is a temporal context in which God lives, undergoing time, and thus God is not the source of Being but is within Being. I know your essence-energies bullshit attributes composition to God, which functionally denies that he is metaphysically necessary (for any composite thing must exist within a context of Being which allows for its parts to be related and cohere). But that is not a proper description of God.

[Anonymous No.23026568]

>>23026457
>can only think of continuous processes within the framework of time
ngmi, metaphysically-speaking
>hates essence-energies distinction
you can find the framework for it in Aristotle. have you never heard of entelechy?

[Anonymous No.23026584]

>>23026457
God, theology is truly a mental illness.What in the absolute fuck could "metaphysical necessity" possibly mean, coherently? Being of Reality conjuered up by Thoughts of Men? Have you found a Logic Lasso to bind the universe with?

You are a creature stuck in a box, there is no seeing or knowing beyond the box. Period. That is what being a creature means.

[Anonymous No.23026590]

>>23025988
Sorry to break it to you but Christianity is essntially a oriental religion. Anythimg western (Faustian) - is just projected onto it.

[Anonymous No.23026622]

I find it so hard to accept the trinity. It seems like nonsense and even unnecessary. Why is it important that the HS and Jesus ought to BE God? What difference does it make to theology? why can’t the Holy Spirit merely be the spirit of God the Father, and Jesus the son of God. Scriptural evidence for the trinity is piss poor, as well as Christ’s divinity outside of John, the Johanine comma isn’t exactly hard evidence. It’s a triad for sure but a Holy Trinity? Don’t think so

[Anonymous No.23026635]

>>23026457
>I know your essence-energies bullshit attributes composition to God, which functionally denies that he is metaphysically necessary (for any composite thing must exist within a context of Being which allows for its parts to be related and cohere)
Nonsensical word salad. And I've studied Aristotle and Hegel. You think you're doing ontology but you're not.

[Anonymous No.23026641]

>>23025073
If there is two ultimately distinct sources of the Spirit, there is two Gods who produce a third term.
Either there is one ultimate source (the Father) and the Son is just a second cause, or there is no monotheism.
Being monotheist in practice and believe in the One God is fundamentall for christians. This unity is preserved because there is only one source. The unity in essence is also fundamental to maintain monotheism and unity of essence is contradicted if one determine the two processions (like thomas aquinas says of the son proceeding by knowledge and the spirit by will or the way papists say the Father knows himself in the Son and the Spirit is the love between the two and preceeds from that, it determines different essences.
So both monotheism and the idea of identity of essence is essential ?
Why ? Because the trinity is the way God unity Himself to us, Jesus Christ in his personhood being not different than the second person of the trinity. All christians confess Christ being God I think, and most confess the trinity. What does it means ? That's the mystery christianity is based and centered on. The fact there is but only God undeterminated in his essence, but who adopted us through his Son, Christ, and who sends to orthodox christians who rightly understand this unity without confusion his Holy Spirit of adoption, who is perfectly God. So sends to saints his own being.

>tldr : An orthodox understanding of the Trinity is monotheism not polytheism and unity offered by God to humans through Christ, but not confusion, notably of who is the origin and who is not. Maintaining unity of essence and thus the hope of adoption, while maintaining the respective planes (who is God as source and as incarnated).

[Anonymous No.23026663]

>>23026018
> This is because the persons of the Godhead are only distinct with respect to their relations of opposition.
Are not the holy ghost and the son still distinct because one has a human and divine nature and the other is only divine? How can you say they are the same person then?

[Anonymous No.23026706]

>>23026584
Something is metaphysically necessary if it is impossible for the world not to have been otherwise. It is impossible to think of existence without God, because God is the fount and source of existence. It is impossible for the world to exist if God does not exist. Thus God is metaphysically necessary.
>>23026635
>Nonsensical word salad
Have you never heard of the concept of divine simplicity?

God is metaphysically simple. That means he is not composed of parts. He does not have justice, wisdom, mercy, will, love, etc. as separate parts of him, but we say that all of these qualities are united in one single comprehensive substance that is him. To the human mind they seem distinct, but in God they are comprehensively united in a simple substance, which is the divine essence.

Since God is metaphysically necessary (nothing could exist without him), it is impossible to think of God as existing "within" reality. Rather, God is the source of all reality, all reality proceeds from him.

Let us suppose God has parts that are really distinct. Then, in order for those parts to cohere and relate to the whole, there must already exist a "reality" in which such constitutive relations are made possible.

For example, consider a pen with a lid. The whole pen can be divided into parts: the lid and the base (and we could even go to the atomic level if we wished). But in order for the lid to relate to the base, there must be a spatial context in which the pen exists, such that its division is made possible.

But there is no "reality" outside of God in which God is. God is the source of all reality. Therefore God cannot be composed of parts: he must be metaphysically simple.

[Anonymous No.23026717]

>>23026706
Okay, to be fair, this is all reasonable. But how does this apply to the essence-energies distinction? It seems unrelated.

[Anonymous No.23026722]

>>23026717
They posit a real distinction in God between "essence" and "energies" -- thus God is composed of parts

[Anonymous No.23026731]

>>23025008
This picture makes no sence, the triangular representation of the trinity appeared in the west after the schizma of 1054. Before that the symbol for orthodox christianity is that of three radial circles (same center, thus same orientation, which manifestat the fact they have the same energy, the same will, the same essence, the same way of precession (the son from the Father, the Spirit, like the son, from the Father through the son. The other symbol is that of a line Father > Son > Spirit. The filioque simply breaks all logic when it refuse to say the Son is simply a secondary cause of the Spirit.

[Anonymous No.23026737]

>>23026731
so for exemple icon like this one

[Anonymous No.23026749]

>>23026722
What would be the parts, exactly? The essence is God's being, and the energies are God's doings? I don't get it. God's essence is his energies.

[Anonymous No.23026754]

>>23026749
If God’s essence is his energies I have no problem with the doctrine. I’m familiar with the doctrine from Jay Dyer’s videos where he states that God’s energies are really distinct from his essence.

[Anonymous No.23026772]

>>23026754
I was always under the impression that the Catholic problem with the essence-energies distinction was that they thought that it wasn't proper to describe God through his energies (and would rather describe him through his attributes). My solution would be to reaffirm that energies are an effect of the essence, and that the only reason that we need the energies is because grasping God in his full essence is impossible. Energies are more like "hints", in that sense.

But if what you're saying is the case, then I don't think I can buy into it either. But not because it would split God into parts, since I don't think that it's possible to do that. Energies would need to be either an effect of the essence or the essence itself, and it's impossible to split it any other way.

[Anonymous No.23026779]

>>23025008

Orthodox are manchildren. This is a non-issue to Catholics.

[Anonymous No.23026796]

>>23026457

Based

[Anonymous No.23026802]

>>23026457
>continuous process
Not all things that are continuous "exist in time." For example, consider the difference between a point and a line. A point is discrete, while a line is continuous. You can have a continuous process that exists eternally.

[Anonymous No.23026809]

>>23026772

It's really a non-issue. It's just wordplay. You can be Catholic and believe in Essence -energies, you just need to conceive of it properly.

Only some "versions" of essence energies would conflict, and those are a minority. Orthobros like to mean into the minority position because it separates them from Rome (which is their goal).

[Anonymous No.23026840]

Can you guys chime in here:

>>>/his/16229460

[Anonymous No.23026846]

>>23026706
God is not a subject of human reason, God is whatever the fuck God is, and it does not matter what we think about it, not one bit.

These scholastic arguments deriving statements about God are some of the dumbest human contrivances ever advanced.

[Anonymous No.23026859]

>>23026809
I agree. I think the filioque is a much graver issue than the essence-energies distinction. The filioque was devised independently, it arouse out of ephemeral concerns (i.e. combating Arianism, albeit with reckless theology), and it was never sorted out in an ecumenical council. And ultimately, it seems like if you're for it, then you're creating an untenable duality between the Father/Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet, if you're against it, then we're recapitulating a duality, except this time between the Father and the Son/Holy Spirit.

To be fair, I don't think either situation is ideal, because it threatens to upend the balance of the Holy Trinity. But at least with the Orthodox position, there is fruitful (if unexplored) ground for distinguishing the Son and the Holy Spirit (e.g. begotten vs. spirated, not the same thing). And it preserves the "monarchy" of the Father. So I view it as a lesser of two evils.

>>23026846
God is superior to humanity, true, and he works in mysterious ways, true. But if God's being qua being is wholly irrational, then it is impossible to worship him. NOT, because he would "be against our sensibilities" (again, we're speaking of God's being, not his plan of grace), but rather because it would be impossible to identify God as the being we should worship. How would you tell the difference between God and Satan if you couldn't identify God as God? These questions are important.

[Anonymous No.23026963]

I definitely find it sus that Palamas developed an entire theology - his tortured essence/energies "distinction" (which he variously argued was and was not an actual distinction) - to defend an alleged (prelest?) mystical phenomenon (the hesychast monks).

It is rather like Luther developing an entire theology out of his "Tower Experience" moment of mystic revelation -- even though his new theory of justification required him to effectively (if not in actual fact) dispose of the Epistle of James.

In both cases, the attempt to reconcile personal mystical experience with established doctrine resulted in novel theological interpretations. And in both cases the new theology created a major schism in the Church -- which certainly makes one wonder about the ultimate source of the mystical experience that underlay and drove the new theology. It was certainly not the spirit that Christ prayed for in John 17:20-23, but rather something quite the opposite:

>I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
>And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me;
>that they may be made perfect in one,
>that the world may believe that You have sent Me.

[Anonymous No.23026965]

Priests are a scourge upon humanity

[Anonymous No.23026971]

>>23026846
>Not a single counterargument.
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.23026998]

>>23026859
>God is superior to humanity, true, and he works in mysterious ways, true. But if God's being qua being is wholly irrational, then it is impossible to worship him. NOT, because he would "be against our sensibilities" (again, we're speaking of God's being, not his plan of grace), but rather because it would be impossible to identify God as the being we should worship. How would you tell the difference between God and Satan if you couldn't identify God as God? These questions are important.

This is basically the equivalent of saying "God is God. We know God is God for sure." How do you know where and when human reason diverges from God? God does not have to obey any of Mr. Aristotle's Rules. He made them. They might evaporate in the next moment.

[Anonymous No.23027017]

>>23025125
Mass is for LARPers.

>>23025143
>>23025156
David never used some six-pointed star seen in dozens of pagan religions or in the whore of Babylon itself. Prophecy and history already prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who is the whore of Babylon, it's the Roman Catholic Church, and the "Orthodox" church is a harlot daughter, and many "Protestant" churches are harlot daughters as well, still drinking the wine (false doctrine) of their whore mother. This thread is almost entirely a pissing contest between false churches that disregard God's Word to hold their traditions instead, much worse than the Pharisees, because the Pharisees never changed times and laws fulfilling Daniel 7:25. The Pharisees also didn't have the complete and finished Bible, they only had what was written before the Christ, but it's not like either Cathodox really care about what is written (unless it was written in the fan fiction of one of their church """fathers""").

>>23025183
You'll have to throw out those abominable Babylonian Talmuds and Zohars.

[Anonymous No.23027021]

>>23026965
B-but the priest said they were the experts and they would never lie to me because I trusted them!!1!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdlczbO5Csc

[Anonymous No.23027030]

>>23026998
Nobody is asking for God to obey Aristotle's rules. We're only asking God to lay a framework down so we may come to sufficiently know him enough to form the foundation of faith. If God did not do this, then he would not be God, because it would be impossible to live in a just universe where knowledge of God is thoroughly inaccessible.

[Anonymous No.23027038]

For anyone who's interested, this is a clear explanation and defense of the Catholic position on the filioque, which cites many EO Fathers, btw. Pic related.

https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf

[Anonymous No.23027051]

>>23027038
So, what makes the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit unique without playing the Holy Spirit in a subordinate role to the Son?

[Anonymous No.23027215]

>>23025008
Didn't the bible straight up say the Father send the son to the world and the son send the holy spirit to our hearts?

[Anonymous No.23027355]

>>23027030
Wrong. If God did not do this, he would be Evil, which he is. (He is also Good). Christians keep trying to quarantine the Evil of the Universe in a little cellar called Hell, with a henchman called Satan. This little con job created Theology.

[Anonymous No.23027366]

>>23027355
What exactly are you getting at?

[Anonymous No.23027384]

>>23027215

Shhh ignore that. Rome bad.

[Anonymous No.23027445]

>>23025008
It's literally a carpet-color issue

[Anonymous No.23027451]

>>23025143
Bippity bippity boo

[Anonymous No.23027461]

>>23027366
God is beyond Good and Evil and so is Reality and so are human actions. Being is a great sea of Good and Evil and Nothingness. This is the cosmos of mystical metaphysics like Kabbalah and Buddhism, and is probably also present within the Catholic and Orthodox tradtions. It is kept secret from the masses by the front door office, which is a worldly institution and corrupted entirely. It is kept at bay by Theology and Orthodoxy, because the Authorities fear what the masses will do if they come to know Good and Evil are illusory.

All who see it know it and wink wink wink at one another all down through history. Life is much more thrilling with YHWH, who might come down to burn your city or knock down your house with a gust of wind, or who might call on you to be a Prophet or King, and witness to Almighty Justice. It makes absolutely no fucking sense, but then again nothing about this life makes sense.

[Anonymous No.23027476]

>>23025047
It is by definition you absolute imbecile

[Anonymous No.23027478]

>>23027461
If that were true then society would collapse as soon as it believed it fully. What kind of weird God would believe that and then implement it?

[Anonymous No.23027494]

>>23027478
Whoever the God of this Universe is, the one thing I can say about him for sure, is that he is a Supreme Weirdo. Societies rise and fall, humans are mortal, there are no absolutes to cling to. John of Patmos was a human-- he did not know how the world would end. He guessed. Your religion is dying and so are you.

[Anonymous No.23027521]

>>23027494
What is my religion?

[Anonymous No.23027528]

>>23025073
The whole argument is on Wikipedia you weasel. You’ve never even gone looking. People like you are so dishonest. This isn’t even an argument. Just because you’ve not heard the argument about the filioque doesn’t mean it’s not valid. You slime ball bastard.

[Anonymous No.23027542]

>>23027521
Oh you smart devil you, you have me there. Damn. Well played. I assumed you are some kind of Catholic, but now realize I had no reason to pigeonhole you. Sorry my dude. Go ahead, I am listening, what is your religion?

[Anonymous No.23027544]

>>23027528
Wow. Very Christian of you anon.

[Anonymous No.23027551]

>>23027542
I don't have one. I just like philosophy and see theology as a fascinating subject and a testing ground. If it leads me to conversion one day, that's fine with me. If it doesn't, that's a shame.

[Anonymous No.23027576]

>>23027551
Okay anon that is dope as hell. I respect the heck out of that, it shows you have a broad worldview capable of accomadating opposite ideas. I apologize for pigeonholing you. Are you interested in mysticism at all or metaphysics? A lot of us prefer to think of religion in those terms as opposed to rational philosophy/theology. I think it makes a nice contrast to positive theology.

A lot of people buy into positive theology as though it were the actual universe and not a model, and this can create ridgid minds, but yours is not ridgid so I am talking to myself.

[Anonymous No.23028219]

bumperino

[Anonymous No.23028278]

>>23025073
Behind every dispute over matter of religion Is dispute between political factions, ethnic groups, culture, elites. Read about history of church, about councils, about popes and fights for power. It's not about dogma.

And orthodox didn't support filioque because it came from western fags, that should have been put on a spike.
> average believer
Irrelevant

[Anonymous No.23028350]

>>23028278
Wow, you sound incredibly unlikeable and autistic. Has a woman ever willingly talked to you for an extended period of time?

[Anonymous No.23028896]

>>23027021
Priests were essential in God's covenant with the Israelites before Jesus' time; why would they not be important in Jesus' covenant?

Uncle Cletus' Independent Baptist types get uncomfortable when this precedent is pointed out just like they do when you point out how their attacks on Catholic art kind of go to shit when you point out that the Bible goes to great lengths to describe how the Solomonic Temple was opulent.

[Anonymous No.23028924]

>>23028896
>the Aaronite priesthood is the type of the Catholic priesthood despite approximately 700 years separating contact between the two forms

[Anonymous No.23028938]

>>23028350
Never. I'm sperg and proud one.

[Anonymous No.23028962]

>>23028924
I'm not sure if this post is meant to be ironic or sarcastic, but the priesthood of Melchizedek - with his sacrifice of bread and wine - is the great biblical type for the Catholic priesthood.

[Anonymous No.23028974]

>>23028924
>despite approximately 700 years separating contact between the two forms
That just sounds like you appealing to a sense of quasi-apostolic succession Protestants already rejected.

Jesus directly instituted the sacraments. Jesus demanded that all nations be baptized as sacrament (Matthew 28:19), not just that all nations "believe" in their own private selves. To deny the sacraments is to covertly deny Jesus' commands.

[Anonymous No.23028989]

>>23028974
Name one person baptized by Jesus.

John is the founder of your Priesthood, plainly.

[Anonymous No.23028991]

>>23028962
shhh the sacraments don't matter because we needed to reject all authority because we were founded by a king who wanted to reject the Church's teaching because he needed a divorce because he needed a son and didn't know how babies were made

[Anonymous No.23029004]

>>23028989
>>23028989
>Name one person baptized by Jesus.
Jesus didn't need to do it. He told his apostles to do it.
>John is the founder of your Priesthood, plainly.
John is literally the successor to Elijah so that's not the own you think it is.

[Anonymous No.23029026]

>>23029004
Jesus says John IS Elijah. The whole fucking thing is confused, the New Testament is not an integrated or monolithic text. The reason we are having this non-debate is that you are reading tbe Bible through the lens of a 4th century orthodoxy rather than reading the Bible to find out what you think it means.

That 4th century consensus was not made by morons, there are a lot of clever devices and they did a fairly succesful job of smoothing over all the cracks.

Nobody on earth can derive a Nicaen creed from the New Testament without following the same damn bewildering path the Church fathers cleared in the first place. It's all just so obvious once you see it.

[Anonymous No.23029068]

>>23029026
>Jesus says John IS Elijah
Luke's nativity narrative says that John is acting in the "spirit and power" of Elijah (Luke 1:17). John says he himself is not Elijah (John 1:21). Jesus' statement of John as Elijah was meant to illustrate the fulfillment the prophecy of Malachi (Malachi 4:5, Malachi 4:6 literally being a reference to Jesus' Baptism).

And if you think the post-hoc compiled Bible (or, the KJV, which was compiled 1200 years after that) is trustworthy, but not the Church Fathers, why don't you accept the Book of Enoch as canonical? The Epistle of Jude cites it authoritatively.

[Anonymous No.23029089]

>>23029068
I am ex-Catholic and certainly have an active interest in Enoch and other Apocrypha as well as the non-canonical early Christian lit. I don't buy the 4th century consensus, I think they should have left the Gospels be, and I think Revelations is a horror curse on mankind, whose soul purpose is to prevent anyone from adding another book to the NT, precisely because they knew the NT was tacked onto the OT and didn't want a NNT. They got outmaneuvered by Muhammed lol.

[Anonymous No.23029129]

>>23029089
>I am ex-Catholic and certainly have an active interest in Enoch and other Apocrypha as well as the non-canonical early Christian lit.
Jude (1:14) explicitly quotes and depends upon it, so there's no reason to not accept it unless you are also willing to accept some sort of extra-biblical tradition.
>hey got outmaneuvered by Muhammed lol.
There was a bunch of other shit between Jesus and Muhammad that was trying way harder to ape the New Testament than anything in Islam does. The difference is that Islam was the first one to be geopolitically and militarily successful.

[Anonymous No.23029513]

>>23027576
No worries. I like metaphysics. It's the only philosophy worth doing at the end of the day, I think. Everything else "trickles down" from it.

[Anonymous No.23029520]

>>23029089
>I am ex-Catholic and certainly have an active interest in Enoch and other Apocrypha as well as the non-canonical early Christian lit. I don't buy the 4th century consensus, I think they should have left the Gospels be, and I think Revelations is a horror curse on mankind, whose soul purpose is to prevent anyone from adding another book to the NT, precisely because they knew the NT was tacked onto the OT and didn't want a NNT. They got outmaneuvered by Muhammed lol.
Say more anon about Revelations and such. Are you still a Christian, too?

[Anonymous No.23029546]

Is Hegelian Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy a thing?

[Anonymous No.23029637]

>>23029546
yes there are Eastern Orthodox Christians

[Anonymous No.23029672]

[Anonymous No.23029728]

Sooo uhh basically…
popes aren’t infallible
I KNOW I KNOW uugghhhh
It’s just that they aren’t infallible is all
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.23029732]

>>23028924
do you reject the apostolic notion that many aspects of the new covenant spiritually replace those of the old? for example; baptism being the new circumcision? the Melchizedekian priesthood replaced the Aaronic one while also carrying over many things.

[Anonymous No.23029901]

>>23026663
it's something called a double procession. the orthodox doesn't believe the holy spirit comes from both the father and son. the western church changed the creed without a proper vote and the schism was created.

[Anonymous No.23029911]

>>23029728
Most sane e-Ortho

[Anonymous No.23030191]

>>23029520
I am very non-Catholic now and VERY pissed off at the amount of snakey dishonesty that I can now plainly see running through their writings.

Revelations is dripping in blood. It literally has oceans of blood in it. The language is allegorical (not metaphorical) and inspired by Daniel. However it is read outside of any theological frame as a literal prophecy by billions over time. Such men are always reading the heavens for signs of the End, preparing for The Battle, and accusing figures of being Anti-Christs. At the present time, most of the west still entertains the idea that out present situation must be leading to the events of Revelations.

Now, until the end of mankind, there will always be men who are panicked of war, hungry for catastrophes, and giddy for blood. John of Patmos put a curse on us.

His intent was to bind Christianity. He wrote, I think, 2 or 300 years after Jesus. He did not know Jesus or God. It was perceived as the process of caninization went along, that the book was too open ended. There was confusion over "I am with you to the end of the age" and "when the son of man returns" and "go and make disciples." It seemed to end in ellipses and question marks. As the NT solidified, a consensus of theology solidified with it. Implicitly, they had a problem of a recently fused text, and many alternate heterodoxies still flourishing. They feared (consciously or not) their hard won cannonization process had to be defended for the ages against heterodox adjustment. John's Apocalypse was a marginal text that accomplished these things, and therefore grew in popularity. He is a mystery man, but he informs the popular consciousness of the fate of man more than any single writer. It is not surprising reality is moving in tandem with his prophecy-- it might be self-fulfilling.

[Anonymous No.23030220]

>>23029732
Yes, I think Typology only exists to refute Marcion. Same as the Trinity. Both are theological oddities applied for the same reason: there is a huge gulf between the Old and New Testaments. In fact they appear to take place in different universes. OT has no soul, no Heaven, no Satan (ha shatan is another character entirely) and no demons possessing common people left and right.

[Anonymous No.23030466]

>>23030191
>[John of Patmos] wrote, I think, 2 or 300 years after Jesus.
John of Patmos was exiled on Patmos during the Domitian persecution, you know in the early 90's.

[Anonymous No.23030553]

>>23030466
Yeah pick on my whole post written from memory with an incorrect date and ignore literally everything else I have said. That is constructive. I may have confused its date of entry into the NT, I am rusty.

[Anonymous No.23030557]

>>23030220
>OT has no soul, no Heaven
If there was no heaven then what happened to Enoch and Elijah? Also the idea is plainly stated in Maccabbees which Protestants threw out.
>no Satan
Literally the serpent in Eden, did you seriously think the "snake" was a literal talking garden snake?
>no demons possessing common people left and right.
In Tobit, which again, Protestants threw out.

[Anonymous No.23030567]

>>23030220
so you are a Marcionite?

[Anonymous No.23030580]

>>23030553
you wrote that to say that he never knew Jesus

[Anonymous No.23030584]

>>23030567
I appreciate his major critiques of what became orthodoxy and think they were dead on. I have not read a single word of his, and only know of him in secondary reference.

[Anonymous No.23030596]

>>23030584
Do you believe that the real religion of Christ was snuffed out then?

[Anonymous No.23030607]

>>23030580
My idea of Apocalypse as a defense of the NT is a 1.5 years old. At the time I was reading heavily on this subject. I have no academic credentials or audience so there is no point in attempting to research it for a fully fleshed out argument. I had already discovered PLENTY to realize the NT is a contradictory mess of texts competeing with one another for a final theology of Jesus (all the books lost, to Augustine, the most powerful arguer of the Trinity).

I have indeed made a very cluttery mess of an argument here. But I think you can recover its gist, which is not that John wrote after Jesus (although he did) but that the inclusion of the Apocalypse was motivated by a conscious or unconscious desire to displace future addenda, precisely because all these men knew, on some level, they were just adding an additional chapter to the Hebrew Bible to rework its material into a new theology.

It's more of a working hypothesis I found very interesting, and it is my own idea.

[Anonymous No.23030638]

>>23030596
No, I think Christ's religion and teachings are preserved fairly well in Mark and Gospel of Thomas. They are fairly cryptic and esoteric in form, but have an obvious moral idea, which frankly is beautiful and True. I think plenty of others within the Orthodox tradition recovered OG Jesus, such as St. Francis and John of the Cross.

I think OG Jesus did not consider himself YHWH at all and thought he was reforming Judaism by awakening it to its essence, rather than its outward regulations of behavior. That essence is love. It is true that all religions have the same meaning in mind, at heart. And each is worldly and has corrupted wings. Usually the loudest, most powerful religious people are completely full of shit and just enjoying earthly influence and power.

[Anonymous No.23030695]

>>23030638
Jesus in Mark is still fairly explicitly God when taken in context. People say he isn't God in the synoptics but he still explicitly overrode the Mosaic Law which a Jew would have known is something only God could do. Mark's usage of Isaiah in the context of John the Baptist also equates Jesus with God ("prepare the way of the Lord").

Also Jesus never "calls upon" Yahweh for his "powers" like the prophets always do whenever anything supernatural happened to them. He just has power and uses it of his own will like Yahweh does.

[Anonymous No.23030724]

>>23030695
There are entire libraries about this shit man. I don't care to argue with someone who has only ever read and comprehended the Bible through the Apologetic matrix of Chalcedonean Christianity and its relevant theology. There is no point, we will just talk right over. Read Crossan, James Robinson, Koester, Pagels if you want to know where scholarship is at nowadays. Jesus research is alive and well, if pointless and infinitely hair splitting. If you want smart, snakey con men to reify your existing beliefs try Raymond Brown and NT Wright (NT Wrong).

It really is infinite hair splitting and massive amounts of data, and without Greek we really don't get to actually participate, but any book by the above will probably open your mind considerably (except Brown and Wright. Interestingly Benedict read Brown, suggesting Benedict took an active interest in NT scholarship, and pondered the texts privately whilst pronouncing pure orthodoxy)

[Anonymous No.23030759]

>>23030724
>everyone who disagrees with me is a con man from the Apostolic Age to the modern day
If you want to reject this much Christianity, the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity but still want Jesus as a person your best path should just be Islam.

[Anonymous No.23030787]

>>23030759
Yeah fuck off I am done with you. Crawl back in your hugbox and continue to fear your own curiosity and your own mental observations that things don't always line up in the Bible. Father will give you a nice little prepackaged argument, that's what they pay him for, keeping the donors in. No donors no Church. God forbid. Tithe to save the world. Tithe today. Credit cards accepted! What does a church do? It perpetuates itself.The rest is just means. All these churches are little clubs of Jesus men and women who say to one another "We say THIS" and "We DO NOT say That." about all kinds of silliness, abortion, resurrection, judgement, heaven, hell, right, wrong, gender norms, sex norms, political choices, beverage choices,... all regulated for you, just $20 dollars a week (remember to sign up for your monthly contribution! www.jesus-saves.com!). And for it you get a girl, a self righteous attitude, a proud grandparent or four, and a life lived in a fantasy that slowly crumbles with age. Good deal. Go on. I might join you, sheesh, good deal.

[Anonymous No.23030806]

>>23030787
I was trying to have a good-faith discussion but you are just seething at this point lol

[Anonymous No.23030818]

>>23030806
Its not a good faith discussion if you reject my perspective on authors I am familiar with but you are not. That is absolute bullshit.

[Anonymous No.23030836]

>>23030818
>you reject my perspective on authors I am familiar with but you are not.
not him, but you have inadvertently does this to the church fathers by saying
>I don't care to argue with someone who has only ever read and comprehended the Bible through the Apologetic matrix of Chalcedonean Christianity and its relevant theology.
in your previous post.
what good faith is there if you won't contend with the arguments and perspectives of the church fathers?

[Anonymous No.23030838]

>>23030818
I've read both Crossan and Wright. I even agree with Crossan on some things (namely his perspective on Jesus not being as much of an apocalyptic figure as Bart Ehrman makes him out to be).

[Anonymous No.23030871]

>>23030836
see greentext portion of following reply
>>23030838
You did not ask me to give an account of my opinions, or challenge them with a coherent remark, and you instead opted to fold me into a caricature of a linear thinker. I am not interested in games or excuses.
>I am interested in knowing what the fuck this universe is and why I am here. At some point that meant investigating religion, then Christianity, and then converting. I am familiar with the orthodox view by virtue of that. Not long after converting I noticed all the biblical interpretations of sticky items like perpetual virginity, brothers of Jesus, the naked fugitive, the descent to Hell, Purgatory, were clearly stretches and bullshit. So I bought books outside the tradition to compare. I found the outside interpetation far better, so I left church, painfully cutting all ties, because I do not say shit I do not believe. In my opinion this is exactly the intellectually honest way to approach this: observe, ask questions, propose answers, repeat. You are accusing me of being a close minded moron. I do take offense.

[Anonymous No.23030941]

>>23025008
It feels like nerds arguing over comic books, and I wish there was a jock emperor to kick the shit out of both of them.

[Anonymous No.23031139]

>>23029068
I for one think the gospel of Barnabas is the only true gospel. Trust me akhi I'm telling the truth Ahmuhdillah.

[Anonymous No.23031144]

>>23030871
>perpetual virginity, brothers of Jesus
The same word used for "brother" of Jesus is used by Paul in Colossians to describe 500 Christians, so to accept the "Biblical only" interpretation you claim would also mean Mary had to have 500 kids. Furthermore the whole "brothers" thing was so common that even Lucian, a pagan who had contempt for Christians, pointed out that they all called each other "brothers." Lastly, Papias of Hierapolis said that James was the child of Mary of Clopas, not the Virgin Mary.

These are not "arguments" some cleric fed me; I looked into it myself after seeing the objections people had.

[Anonymous No.23031153]

>>23031144
(and I forgot to point out that before you dismiss Papias as "just another Church Father" or something, he literally knew and studied under the 12 Apostles)

[Anonymous No.23031767]

>>23025252
>e orthodox church then
the church where divorce is allowed? No i dont think so. Orthobros always ignore that one when its brought up because they realize theyre just the modern day Calvinists.

[Anonymous No.23031892]

>>23026590
>Anythimg western (Roman)
Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous No.23031896]

>>23026018
>The Eastern “Orthdoox” will never accept this because their religion is born in pride
Considering its always orthodox priests having fist fights in israel and athos over doctrine i 100% agree they are the most prideful of any christian group.

[Anonymous No.23031936]

>>23030220
>Yes, I think Typology only exists to refute Marcion
Eh what, m8. Typology is found in both the Gospels and Paul, long before Marcion.

[Anonymous No.23031959]

>>23030724
>Read Crossan, James Robinson, Koester, Pagels if you want to know where scholarship is at nowadays.
Ain't it hard when you discover that Crossan really wasn't where it's at after he's taken from you everything he could steal.

[Anonymous No.23031966]

>>23025143

[Anonymous No.23032168]

>>23026018
>The Eastern “Orthdoox” will never accept this because their religion is born in pride and rebellion from the Pope
Considering the fact that the Popes mismanaged their church so heavily that they caused the Protestant Reformation, this isn't such a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.23032426]

>>23032168
unilaterally changing the common nicene creed to add something theologically incorrect(as John 15:26-27 distinguishes) gives them every right to be upset about it and i'm glad they did.

[Anonymous No.23032442]

>>23025008
Is the holy spirit bloat?

[Anonymous No.23032455]

>>23025156
That's literally what the star of david is but keep being retarded i guess.

[Anonymous No.23032806]

>>23032426
>unilaterally changing the common nicene creed
False. The phrase "proceeds from the Father" wasn't even in the Nicene Creed of 325, which only states: "And in the Holy Spirit." No mention is made of the Spirit's procession.

https://christthesavioroca.org/files/2020-Resurrection-Classes/The-Nicene-Creed-of-325.pdf

[Anonymous No.23032824]

>>23025078
What about Jews, the old testament. All this stuff is from Aristotle and Plato.

[Anonymous No.23033565]

>>23032806
false what? they had ecumenical councils where they agreed upon changes to such matters. the addition of the filoque had no such council.

[Anonymous No.23033703]

>>23033565
There were councils tho, you just don’t like that the west dominated them compared to the earlier ones dominated by the East.

[Anonymous No.23034022]

>>23033565
>false what?
Your initial claim about the Nicene Creed.

>they had ecumenical councils where they agreed upon changes to such matters.
Constantinople I - which added "proceeds from the Father" to the Nicene Creed in order to address the Arian crisis in the East - began as a regional council and would have remained such but for the approval of its decrees by the bishop of Rome (excepting Canon III, as discussed here: https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf).).

The regional council of Toledo, which added the Filioque to address the Arian crisis in Spain, albeit for purposes of the Latin creed *only* and without seeking to impose such a change on the Greek language of Constantinople, was likewise declared to be orthodox by the bishop of Rome.

Moreover, as alluded to in >>23027038, and discussed in detail in the linked article, "there does exist throughout the writings of the Eastern fathers the profession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ‘through [or ‘by way of’] the Son’ – an expression equivalent to the Filioque."

[Anonymous No.23034233]

>>23033703
>>23034022

there was no ecumenical council for the addition of the filoque. that's my point. not only was there no ecumenical council, but it's theological vaguery to to suggest the spirit proceeds from the son and not THROUGH the son from the father. it creates a double procession conundrum and muddies the uniqueness of the trinity.

[Anonymous No.23034246]

"No one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare to compose another creed ... if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy, and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, let them be anathema" (Fourth Ecumenical Council, 451 AD)

[Anonymous No.23034247]

>>23034233
Genuine question, not trying to be a dick. But why does that matter to an everyday believer? Do you think someone who disagrees with the orthodox interpretation of the filioque, but is a perfect christian in other aspects, is in a state of sin?

[Anonymous No.23034251]

>>23034247
no, not at all. it's a matter of semantics between church authority figures. god is fair and just and measures your heart with the amount of light or knowledge you've been given.

[Anonymous No.23034300]

>>23034233
The Filioque is utterly patristic.

Thus, St. John of Damascus:
>Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are all one nature.

>Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one.
Source: https://orthochristian.com/43553.html

This captures, by image or analogy, the Roman position respecting the role of the Son as understood according to the Filioque.

Root-branch-fruit. I.e., the Spirit proceeds from the Father "through [or "by way of"] the Son."
The idea of the Son as "branch" is a perfect metaphor for the Roman position respecting the Filioque.

[Anonymous No.23034328]

>>23032168
The Orthodox equivalent to the Reformation would be the revolts of the Old Believers, but no one really knows or cares about that because Orthodox countries are all insular second-world shitholes.

[Anonymous No.23034330]

>>23034246
Right. That's Canon VII from the Council of Ephesus in reference to the Creed of Nicea, which makes no mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Note also that the Creed recited by the Fathers at Ephesus was the Creed of Nicea (*not* the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed with its procession of the Spirit language).

>So, if one wishes to be technical about it (as some Eastern Orthodox choose to do by using Canon VII of Ephesus to challenge the legitimacy of Filioque), then one must conclude that Canon VII of Ephesus renders the Constantinopolitan Creed itself illegitimate, since it also “added to” the Creed of Nicea.

[Anonymous No.23034351]

>>23034251
Based, I agree 100%. Carry on brother