I'm interest in Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm curious if /lit/ can recommend books regarding its' hesychastic practices. I'm a former Roman Catholic(baptized, confirmed). Any tips regarding further investigation into the faith itself?

File: 20 KB, 250x344, christ-icon..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:36:26 2015 No.6789733 [Reply] [Original]

I'm interest in Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm curious if /lit/ can recommend books regarding its' hesychastic practices. I'm a former Roman Catholic(baptized, confirmed). Any tips regarding further investigation into the faith itself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:37:14 2015 No.6789740 >>6789733 Interested, even. I'm without an 'a', too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:37:15 2015 No.6789741 >>6789733 the god delusion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:38:55 2015 No.6789755 Start with the Greeks

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:41:42 2015 No.6789771 >>6789741 But anon, I read the God Delusion. It is as convincing as evangelical apologetics by Strobel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:45:56 2015 No.6789795 I'm not eastern orthodox myself I'm Catholic But I read "The Orthodox Church" Timothy Ware and found it quite good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 22:50:54 2015 No.6789821 >>6789795 Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:11:09 2015 No.6789947 >>6789733 what interests you about Eastern Orthodoxy? also, why did you abandon your old faith?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:13:39 2015 No.6789959 Is going from one of the oldest mainstream branches of Christianity to the other one really that much of a change?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:35:35 2015 No.6790095 The Ladder of Divine Ascent is a must read for anyone seeking to learn about Orthodoxy and especially about hesychasim.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:36:15 2015 No.6790098 Why did you leave the Catholic Church Anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:36:56 2015 No.6790104 >>6789959 There is a pretty significant difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism tbh and the higher ups of both seem to view each other as legit enemies. People have been killed over it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:38:25 2015 No.6790111 >>6790104 Typical religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:41:22 2015 No.6790124 File: 678 KB, 1273x1640, augustine of peppo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6790111 >mfw people believe this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:43:33 2015 No.6790142 >>6790111 >typical fallen humanity ftfy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:45:41 2015 No.6790152 >>6790124 >>6790142 So why hasn't God clarified and defended which is the One True Church yet?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:47:01 2015 No.6790158 File: 247 KB, 1127x914, Hitchens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6790152 pic related

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:47:54 2015 No.6790162 >>6790152 but he has it's the one in communion with Rome

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:51:16 2015 No.6790173 >>6790152 He has, its the Catholics who decided that a Roman Bishop should be given sovereignty over all Christians because they're unable to correctly interpret a small biblical passage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:54:00 2015 No.6790180 >>6790152 If you can't identify which church is true yourself, maybe you deserve to go to hell.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:54:38 2015 No.6790182

>>6790098
The papacy, mostly. I respect Francis, but I can not reconcile it with my beliefs, although I did, for quite a long time. I also find the lack of Latin Mass in my area unfortunate.
>>6789947
Their monastic tradition, and liturgy, mostly. I also find myself drawn to Orthodox views on the afterlife.

Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:57:24 2015 No.6790192

>>6790173
Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, 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?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:58:38 2015 No.6790197 http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/world/pope-ecuador-scandalous/ >Pope says families need a miracle, hints at 'scandalous' changes for the church There's still time to return to the one true church, Catholics

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 6 23:59:41 2015 No.6790200 >>6790152 there is no "one true church". The church is made up of all who truly believe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:01:13 2015 No.6790210 >>6790192 I wasn't aware the Pope was actually Peter. He looks good for a guy who's about two thousand years old.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:04:43 2015 No.6790225

>>6790192

Yeah bruh, I know what the justification is, its just obviously wrong.

Christ calls Simon "Peter (rock)" as part of a larger metaphor about the Christian community He is building on Earth. Peter is a "rock" in the sense that his acknowledgment of what God has revealed to him is exemplary as the type of behavior that will serve as a foundation for a Christian community "against which the gates of hades will not prevail".

Just as any building must begin with a rock, the metaphor of a Christian church must begin with the "rock" of turning away from flesh and blood and towards God. The Papacy is literally the opposite of this and is overflowing with materialism and worldliness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:04:48 2015 No.6790227 >>6790210 he certainly has Peter's authority

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:07:24 2015 No.6790235 >>6790225 you forgot about the keys of heaven given to him only and the binding and loosing he confers to him and on what authority do you claim your interpretation?

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:09:39 2015 No.6790241

>>6790227
Of course he does. A person has their own authority, obviously.

Unless you are suggesting the Pope and Peter are different people? In which case, there was a man who built the church long ago and died, and there's some guy in a funny hat surrounded by gold and money laundering.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:15:25 2015 No.6790253

>>6790235
>you forgot about the keys of heaven given to him only and the binding and loosing he confers to him

He confers it onto the Church collectively and not simply on one human being. It's a way of saying that anyone who is Peter (accepts Jesus as the Son and the Christ not because of any material proof but through divine revelation) will know how to behave in a morally correct way (binding and loosing is an ancient Jewish term for determining what is lawful).

Peter is certainly an important Apostle because he is specifically shown to be one of the first to acknowledge the Christ without any physical evidence, but he serves as an example and not as a designated worldly power.

I base this interpretation on the reasonable inference that Jesus, who is portrayed throughout the Bible as consistently subverting worldly power would not leave behind a legacy of massive worldly power concentrated in the hands of one man.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:16:22 2015 No.6790257

>>6790180
>If you can't identify which church is true yourself, maybe you deserve to go to hell.
Was this the same ultimatum you have the Maya, the Inca, every heathen people that had the fortune of meeting you? I thought your whole thing was converting people but apparently I should have a priori knowledge of which of the many, many schisms of Christianity are the really truly correct one. Oh well, I'll just burn forever because God gave me too many false options since he let all of your mutually exclusive churches thrive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:17:31 2015 No.6790262 >>6790192 So why doesn't the Pope just make homosexuality not a sin when he clearly has the power to do so and it clearly isn't?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:18:28 2015 No.6790265 >>6790257 It's the same ultimatum given to all humans. If anyone bothers to investigate honestly, they will come to the correct conclusion. If they choose to delude themselves, their eternal fate is in their own hands.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:20:43 2015 No.6790275 >>6790262 It's looking like he is getting ready to >>6790197

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:22:36 2015 No.6790283

>>6790253
>He confers it onto the Church collectively
I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

notice the pronoun you, it is commonly used to denote a single person

Peter denied Jesus three times tho

>(binding and loosing is an ancient Jewish term for determining what is lawful).
yeah no

>I base this interpretation on the reasonable inference that Jesus, who is portrayed throughout the Bible as consistently subverting worldly power would not leave behind a legacy of massive worldly power concentrated in the hands of one man.
ah, but the power Christ gives isnt worldly, it's a power of the City of God

also, i can quote church father's who support the mainstream interpretation of this text

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:24:11 2015 No.6790288 >>6790283 the church fathers' writings

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:26:29 2015 No.6790293

>>6790265
>It's the same ultimatum given to all humans.
And why the fuck didn't I hear about this until just now? I could've fucking died a couple years ago when I got deathly sick, I would've just burned forever! Who gives a silent ultimatum! Is God a corrupt CEO of a megacorp, a Soteriology Inc.?

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:34:36 2015 No.6790316

>>6790283

Regarding "binding and loosing" (from wikipedia):

>The poseks had, by virtue of their ordination, the power of deciding disputes relating to Jewish law.[1] Hence the difference between the two main schools of thought in early classical Judaism were summed up by the phrase the school of Shammai binds; the school of Hillel looses.[1]

I understand that this is a centuries long debate and we won't settle it here but why are you ignoring the innumerable instances of Jesus using parables, metaphors, and stone/rock/building language throughout the New Testament?

I'm going to assume that you know that "Peter" means "rock" and when Jesus names Simon "Peter" He says (in the sentence preceding the one you quoted) that he does so because Simon has acknowledged Jesus as the Christ because of Divine revelation. That is literally the only thing that makes Simon "special" and its in tune with what Jesus says throughout the Bible: that anyone who ignores flesh and blood and acknowledges him will be welcomed into the Kingdom.

This is where the building metaphor comes in. "Upon this rock I will build My church" means "upon this fundamental requirement for the entrance to my kingdom I will build my church".

Yes, Simon was special but to proclaim some kind of exceptionalism at the expense of others who accept Jesus as the Christ is very far from a Christian thing to do.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:44:53 2015 No.6790336

>>6790316
>Jesus using parables, metaphors...
yes, when preaching

> In usage, to bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority
>indisputable authority

>This is where the building metaphor comes in. "Upon this rock I will build My church" means "upon this fundamental requirement for the entrance to my kingdom I will build my church".

You are fundamental requirement, upon this fundamental requirement for the entrance to my kingdom I will build my church"

im sorry, but youre talking out of the other side of your mouth, bro

>Yes, Simon was special but to proclaim some kind of exceptionalism at the expense of others who accept Jesus as the Christ is very far from a Christian thing to do.
>Christ giving authority to the prince of the apostles is not a Christian thing to do
by definition, everything Christ does is a very Christian thing to do, m8

Also assuming that youre right (youre not) how do you hold everything that has been proclaimed since the apostolic age? Surely, if the Holy Spirit wasnt with them since those times, then everything they proclaimed is wrong.
Ecclesial Deism is a dead end, and puts you on par with Mormons and Muslims

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:47:39 2015 No.6790347 >>6790336 Your Pope's about to sanction gay marriage, will you still follow him after that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:48:55 2015 No.6790350 >>6790347 nice maymay, who told you that? Pastor Ahmed?

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:49:00 2015 No.6790351

>>6790336
>puts you on par with Mormons and Muslims
There is a famous church that holds their personal writings above God's scripture, yes. I'll give you a hint though, it's the one who thinks a human woman has authority over God because they like the idea of praying to a Mother Goddess, and wrote elaborate justifications for why it is okay to do so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:49:40 2015 No.6790354 >>6790350 >>6790197

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:53:22 2015 No.6790361

>>6790351
so no rebuttal then? just relying on maymays?
ok man, God bless you
lets see how you hold onto the Nicene Creed after rejecting the authority of the Church Fathers

>>6790354
where does it say anything of gays tho?
youre looking for beans in rice

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 00:58:18 2015 No.6790373

>>6790361
>where does it say anything of gays tho?

>Hinting that changes could be coming to the Catholic Church, Pope Francis asked a large crowd to pray for God to make miracles out of ideas that some believers might consider "impure" or even "threatening."

>In his homily, or sermon, the Pope referred to a highly anticipated meeting of bishops to be held in Rome this October. The Catholic leaders are expected to discuss changes to several controversial areas of church teaching, including divorce and homosexuality.

He could be talking about divorce (wouldn't make it any better) but the fact that its following the global gay revolution gives me suspicion he's talking about gay marriage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:00:34 2015 No.6790380 >>6790373 dude, he's just using hyperbole to make a bigger splash in the media

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:03:54 2015 No.6790389 >>6790380 Even if that's the case, you don't see anything wrong with the supposed leader of the Christian world, divinely ordained, using hyperbole for media attention?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:07:45 2015 No.6790400 >>6790347 >people actually think the pope will do this We'll meme'd

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:08:16 2015 No.6790401 >>6790389 why should it be wrong? it's his style, you may not like it personally, but that's a matter of preference.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:10:31 2015 No.6790410 >>6790401 Point is, him speaking in hyperboles for the sake of media attention implies that the Church needs media attention which implies that the Church needs something from this world when it should be the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:11:50 2015 No.6790415 >>6790410 it doesnt imply anything take of your hat for a second

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:13:40 2015 No.6790425

>>6790415

You may not think so but there are thousands of agnostics looking at your Pope and wondering why he would need to lie/exaggerate if Christianity is the one true religion. He's literally driving people away and I know this from personal experience.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 01:19:46 2015 No.6790440

>>6790425
ugh, he was giving a sermon, not a formal declaration
he doesnt need to, it's just his style

if you think people are being driven away, then make them come back.

There's no reason to abandon the Church. Nobody has found one, so they invent them (im looking at you, Photios and Michael)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 02:20:11 2015 No.6790661 >>6790104 This is absolute bullshit. The patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope are on very good terms, and if you had any clue what you were talking about you'd know that there are talks of mending the great schism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 02:21:26 2015 No.6790666 >>6790661 he's talking about the past right now the Patriarch doesnt have Constantinople, that's why he's not that aggresive

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 02:25:59 2015 No.6790682 >>6790241 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Catholic_Church

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 03:43:23 2015 No.6790843

>>6790661
>and if you had any clue what you were talking about you'd know that there are talks of mending the great schism.

There are very few things that would make me happier, I just don't think that the theological and historical differences are minor enough to be talked through without one side completely capitulating.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 04:56:53 2015 No.6790957 >>6789733 PALAMAS A L A M A S

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:38:21 2015 No.6791020

Return to the Church.

As John Meyendorff (translator of the Triads, and possibly the most influential Palamite of the 20th century) writes:
“The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world.” (Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology p.133)

This is so because the Divine is part of man's nature from the beginning of his existence:
“This concept of salvation {Palamite] is itself based upon an understanding of the human being which views the natural [this is Meyendorff’s own emphasis] state of man as composed of three elements: body, soul, and Holy Spirit….The Spirit is not seen here as a ‘supernatural’ grace – added to an otherwise ‘natural,’ created humanity – but as a function of humanity itself in its dynamic relationship to God, to itself, and to the world.” (Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, p.21).

The perversion of Christian thought which began with the denial of the Filioque is now complete. The Holy Spirit, in the words of the much acclaimed Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, has become the pantheistic “Soul of the World”. The believer’s vision is now turned inward through an asceticism and practice of prayer which seeks to release the Divine Light and “Energies” within. This is epitomized in Hesychasm – the centuries-old practice of prayer, approved by the Orthodox Church, and constituting the entire waking life of the monks of Mount Athos (and others). It consists in ascetical and psychosomatic practices (including breathing exercise and certain postures), the withdrawal from all sensory experience, the stilling of all interior sensation, imagination, and thoughts, and the constant repetition of the “Jesus Prayer.”

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:39:25 2015 No.6791025

>>6791020
The ultimate purpose is experiential – the achieving of the experience of Divine Light – the “Uncreated” Light which Eastern Orthodox theology claims to be the same light surrounding Jesus at the Transfiguration. The Transfiguration is, in fact, the most important Feast for Eastern Orthodox spirituality.
The Eastern Orthodox of course attribute this experience of “Divine Light” to Divine grace. But, as in so many things with Gnostic spirituality, the word “grace” does not mean the same thing as it does in Catholicism. Vladimir Lossky, who rivals Meyendorff for the title of the most important Eastern Orthodox author of the 20th century, writes the following about the Eastern understanding of grace:
“The Eastern tradition knows nothing of ‘pure nature’ to which grace is added as a supernatural gift. For it, there is no natural or ‘normal’ state, since grace is implied in the act of creation itself.” (Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 101)

“The notion of a state of grace of which the members of the Church can be deprived, as well as the distinction between venial and mortal sins, are foreign to Eastern tradition.” (Ibid., p.180).
In other words, grace, the Holy Spirit, and Deification are present in creation from the beginning, and access to salvation lies through that gnosis which is able to uncover it within. Just as the original temptation offered to Eve was that she could possess a knowledge independent of God, so the “Gnosis” of Eastern Orthodoxy is proposed as a birthright rather than a supernatural gift added to man’s nature from above.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:40:45 2015 No.6791026

>>6791025
It remains for us to understand the role of Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. The premier image of Christ in Eastern Iconography is the Pantocrator – Christ in Majesty. Christ is truly the God-Man Who accomplished our redemption and is triumphant. The Iconography of the Pantocrator is not intended to be just a representation, but a spiritual doorway through which we perceive not only the majesty of Christ, but also our own deification. It is a means to the contemplation of the divinity within ourselves and all of creation. It is a vehicle of Light which is intended to replicate the deifying experience of the Apostles Peter, James, and John at the Transfiguration on a “high mountain” (an image of the “mountain” of Gnosis).
Christ thus earned redemption for man, but this redemption is not to be attained through an imitation of Christ, but rather through the interior action of the Holy Spirit Who does not proceed from Christ. As Lossky writes:

“The cult of the humanity of Christ, is foreign to Eastern tradition….The way of the imitation of Christ is never practiced in the spiritual life of the Eastern Church.” (Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 243).

This statement should absolutely astound anyone of true Catholic sentiment. I have found no assessment which better illustrates the profound and impassable divide between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:41:45 2015 No.6791029

>>6791026
One last thing deserves mentioning. Eastern Orthodoxy is not a religion of children or simple souls. It is one of wizened old men with grey beards. Children cannot practice Hesychasm. And yet our Lord says to His disciples: “Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is no Bernadette of Lourdes or Lucia of Fatima in intimate colloquy with Our Lady, no Jacinta or Francisco, no Juan Diego being addressed by the Mother of God as “my littlest child”. There is no Catherine of Sienna in dialogue with God the Father, no Apparitions of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, no Catherine Laboure and the Miraculous Medal, no Francis receiving the Stigmata. There is little or no evidence of human or Divine personality, no lifting of mind and heart in love to God and receiving grace from above.

“The Way of the Imitation of Christ is never practiced in the Eastern Church.” St. Francis is, of course, considered the most profound example of this Imitation of Christ in the West. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical on Francis titled Studiorum Ducem, called him “the Second Christ”. In 2008 I attended, and gave lectures, at the week-long Trialogos Festival in Estonia, the theme of the conferences being the relationship between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. There, the Russian Orthodox representative gave a lecture in which he stated that the Eastern Churches considered Francis to be mentally ill. No single statement could better illustrate the irreconcilability of Catholicism with Eastern Orthodoxy.

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/51

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:42:53 2015 No.6791032

>>6790957
These Divine Energies, according to Palamism, must in no way be construed as constituting, or as being in any way identified with, the essence of God. In Gregory Palamas' own words:
"all these [the Divine Energies] exist not in Him, but around Him." (The Triads, p. 97 - all quotes from Palamas are taken from The Triads, translated by John Meyendorff, published by Paulist Press).
Further, the absolute non-identity of God's energies with his essence is succinctly stated in the following passage:

"But He Who is beyond every name is not identical with what He is named; for the essence and energy of God are not identical." (Ibid)
However, the distinction between Essence and Energies goes much further than non-identity. It is an infinite distinction:

"The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning; from which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them 'to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times', as the divine Maximus says." (The Triads, p. 96)

The following statements are therefore absolutely true in regard to the conclusions of Palamite theology: God is not to be identified with His Will; God is not to be identified with His Intellect; God is not to be identified with Love; God is not to be identified with Truth.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:44:59 2015 No.6791037

>>6791032
We would make a serious mistake, however, if we would conclude from all this that Palamism regards all these Names of the Divine, or the attribution of Intellect and Will to the Divine, as not real, or only some flawed function of our finite intellects in trying to apply understanding to the incomprehensible. According to Palamite theology the Names, economies, operations, and energies of God are not only real, but they are Divine and Eternal. They constitute every thing that is Divine, but is somehow compromised through dealing with anything in the universe that is outside of God's absolutely transcendent essence. They might be defined as "Divinity in any way involved with, or compromised by, creation." They are "the Divine outside of Transcendent God", while at the same time being "the Divine in the world." As we shall see, it is union with them, and not the Vision of the Essence of God, which constitutes Eastern Orthodoxy's view of the final destiny of man. Simply and succinctly stated, Eastern Orthodoxy denies the reality or possibility of the Beatific Vision.

The problem with such a theology, of course, is how to connect the absolutely transcendent God with the immanent Divine. According to Palamas, this transcendent God transcends the Divine Energies "to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times." It is as though we have two Gods. To the first – the totally transcendent, ineffable, unknowable Divine – Palamas gives the Name God. But to the second – the Eternal, Uncreated "God outside God" – He only applies the Name "Divine." How can we have two "Eternal Divines" without them being two Gods? His strange answer as to how this absolutely transcendent God can be connected to the energies runs as follows:

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:46:00 2015 No.6791042

>>6791037
"Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God [to say the least: we are certainly right to question how something which infinitely transcends something else, and then infinitely transcends it an infinite number of times, could be considered in any way identified with that which it transcends], even though He is entirely manifest in every energy, His essence being indivisible."

In other words, Palamism presents to us an infinitely transcendent and unknowable God somehow un-transcending Himself and His transcendence in order to be entirely manifest in every energy. Again, we have the right to pose a question: How can a God Who is an infinity of infinities above His "Energies", and is in no way to be identified with them, yet be "entirely manifest" in every one of them? It would thus appear that Palamism posits a God of Divine Self-contradiction as a logical and necessary consequence of the dualism which it has established in the Divine.

Divine and Human Freedom:

Eastern Orthodox rejection of the Divine Simplicity brings in its train a consequent inability to understand the nature of both Divine and human freedom.

Perry Robinson is a convert from Anglicanism to Eastern Orthodoxy. His attacks upon Divine Simplicity as being incompatible with any sort of freedom are a logical consequence of the Orthodox position. In regard to Divine freedom, his position is succinctly stated in his article "Anglicans in Exile:"

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:47:01 2015 No.6791044

>>6791042
"The argument is fairly simple. If God is absolutely simple, the act of will to create is identical to his essence. Since his essence is had by him necessarily, it follows by transivity that the act of will to create is necessary as well."
It certainly is true that God's essence "is had by him necessarily." St. Thomas writes:

"Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being [God] having of itself its own necessity." (I, Q.II, A.3).

But we must not confuse the necessity connected with "Who God is" with the necessity that operates in regard to creation.

All arguments which claim that Absolute Divine Simplicity requires identifying God's "will to create" with Divine necessity, fail to understand how necessity and freedom are One in God. And this, in turn, is rooted in the failure to understand that necessity and freedom do not function in God the same as they do in man.

In man, exterior determinacy operates. Man's nature is determined by God. His life is largely determined by forces outside of himself. And yet man possesses a free will to make choices, especially those between good and evil.
In God, however, necessity operates from within. As Thomas says in the above-quoted passage, God is the only being "having of itself its own necessity." It is very difficult for us to conceive of such a thing. From a human standpoint we are used to opposing freedom and necessity. But God has his necessity "of Himself." Therefore this necessity is freely willed and chosen by God. God's freedom and His will are therefore one in His Absolute Divine Simplicity.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:48:02 2015 No.6791047

>>6791044
If Divine necessity in regard to "Who God is" (His Divine Nature) in no way compromises this being a totally free Willing, then so much the more (in a manner of speaking) is there total freedom in God's exterior acts. St. Thomas writes:

"As the divine existence is necessary of itself, so is the divine will and divine knowledge; but the divine knowledge has a necessary relation to the thing known; not the divine will to the thing willed. The reason for this is that knowledge is of things as they exist in the knower; but the will is directed to things as they exist in themselves. Since then all other things have necessary existence inasmuch as they exist in God; but no absolute necessity so as to be necessary in themselves, in so far as they exist in themselves; it follows that God knows necessarily whatever He knows, but does not will necessarily what ever He wills." (I, Q. 19, A. 3).

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:49:03 2015 No.6791049

>>6791047
[...]

Grace And Deification:

Nowhere is the radical opposition between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy more clear than in their respective teachings concerning the knowability of God. It is the unanimous teaching of Eastern Orthodox writers that God is absolutely unknowable in His Essence, and that the State of Glory consists not in the Vision of God's Essence, but in union with the Divine Energies. Meyendorff writes:

"The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world." (Byzantine Theology, p. 133).

The Catholic position is diametrically opposed. St. Thomas writes:

"It is written: We shall see Him as He is (1 John, ii,2). I answer that, Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable….Hence, it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God." (I, Q.12, A.1).

This vision of the Essence of God is possible because there is true proportion (even though it be infinite) between the intellect of man and the Essence of God. This "proportion" extends to the possibility of the Vision of the Divine Essence. St. Thomas, in Summa Contra Gentiles, LIV, writes:

"There is indeed proportion between the created intellect and understanding God, a proportion not of measure, but of aptitude, such as of matter for form, or cause for effect. In this way there is no reason against there being in the creature a proportion to God, consisting in the aptitude of an intelligent being for an intelligible object, as well as of effect in respect of its cause."

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:50:04 2015 No.6791053

>>6791049
[...]

To Dissolve Christ:

The Real Effect of the Denial of the Filioque:

Denying a knowable Essence in God, it seems inevitable that Eastern Orthodox theology and philosophy would be corrosive to human nature. If such concepts as truth, love, goodness are not applicable to God's Essence, then it only makes sense that their eternal verity and applicability to the human condition should also be eroded. As the Essence of God must disappear behind an apophatic (negative) theology, so the being of man becomes engulfed in an eschatological anthropology which is the negation of all that we associate with being human. Vladimir Losskey writes:

"This is the perfecting of prayer, and is called spiritual prayer or contemplation….It is the 'spiritual silence' which is above prayer. It is that state which belongs to the kingdom of Heaven. 'As the saints in the world to come no longer pray, their minds having been engulfed in the Divine Spirit, but dwell in ecstasy in that excellent glory; so the mind, when it has been made worthy of perceiving the blessedness of the age to come, will forget itself and all that is here, and will no longer be moved by the thought of anything." (Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 208)

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:51:05 2015 No.6791056

>>6791053
Such a description of human fulfillment sounds more like the state of Nirvana, or the Vedantic state of self-realization, than it does union with a Personal God. Even more explicitly "Eastern" is the description of beatitude offered us by Dionysisus the Pseudo-Areopagite who, next to Gregory Palamas, is the most important writer in this Eastern Tradition:

“But these things are not to be disclosed to the uninitiated, by whom I mean those attached to the objects of human thought, and who believe there is no superessential Reality beyond, and who imagine that by their own understanding they know Him who has made Darkness His secret place. And if the principles of the divine Mysteries are beyond the understanding of these, what is to be said of others still more incapable thereof, who describe the transcendental First Cause of all by characteristics drawn from the lowest order of beings, while they deny that He is any way above the images which they fashion after various designs; whereas they should affirm that, while He possesses all the positive attributes of the universe (being the Universal Cause) yet, in a more strict sense, he does not possess them, since He transcends them all; wherefore there is no contradiction between the affirmations and the negations, inasmuch as He infinitely precedes all conceptions of deprivation, being beyond all positive and negative distinctions….He is super-essentially exalted above created things, and reveals Himself in His naked Truth to those alone who pass beyond all that is pure or impure, and ascend above the topmost altitudes of holy things, and who, leaving behind them all divine light and sound and heavenly utterances, plunge into the Darkness where truly dwells, as the Oracles declare, that ONE who is beyond all.” (Dionysisus the Areopagite, Mystical Theology).

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:52:29 2015 No.6791060

>>6791056
Such a view of God and the ultimate destiny of man destroys the foundations of all that we consider solid and of absolute value in this life. It undermines the very basis of all human thought. If God is beyond the law of contradiction, beyond all positive and negative distinctions, beyond purity , and if He dwells in a Darkness beyond all, then all of our beliefs and efforts on the way to this Divine Nihilism are deprived of ultimate legitimacy and meaning.
Considering this devaluation of all that is human which is integral to Eastern Orthodox spirituality, it is not at all surprising that Christ's humanity is also devalued. Vladimir Losskey writes:
"The cult of the humanity of Christ is foreign to Eastern tradition….The way of the imitation of Christ is never practiced in the spiritual life of the Eastern Church." (Ibid, p. 243).
Eastern Orthodoxy does not deny the importance of the humanity of Christ in the salvific sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. In other words, Christ's Humanity is integral to their view of the act of Redemption. It does, on the other hand, profoundly devalue the centrality of Christ's Sacred Humanity in the process of our sanctification and deification. This "bypassing" of Christ's Humanity is intimately related to the denial of the Filioque – the Catholic doctrine that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son (Latin: Filioque).

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:53:30 2015 No.6791061

>>6791060
In the Catholic view the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son in order to enable us to imitate Christ in His birth, life, passion, death, and resurrection. The Way of our humanity is the Way of Christ's Humanity, working out our salvation in imitation of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is thus in a spiritual sense truly "incarnate": sent by the God-Man Jesus Christ in order to form us into the likeness of the Man-God Jesus Christ. The Filioque is therefore absolutely integral to this incarnational work of the Holy Spirit.

It is otherwise with the Eastern Orthodox. Their denial of the Filioque enables the Holy Spirit to be "liberated" from this connection to the Sacred Humanity of Christ in order to that He might become what some Orthodox writers have been so bold as to call the "Soul of the World." The Holy Spirit, having been liberated from the necessity of working through the Humanity of Christ, thus becomes the source of those Divine Energies which are in creation from the beginning, and are the object and source of our Divine communication, sanctification, and deification.

Eastern Orthodox writers are therefore right in claiming that the rejection of the Filioque is the axis around which revolve all the significant differences between Eastern and Latin Rite theology and spirituality. Ultimately, while accepting the salvific fact of the Incarnation, it rejects or bypasses its meaning in regard to our salvation and deification. The Holy Spirit, sent by Christ in order to form us into His likeness, is deflected by Dionysian-Palamite theology into a type of Gnostic-Pantheistic Esotericism. And at the end of this road of ascending gnosis, we also find that our own humanity has also been bypassed.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 05:54:30 2015 No.6791063

>>6791061
There, in this Heaven of Orthodoxy, we find no personhood as we know it, no love, no thought, no truth, no purity, and no prayer, but only a Divine Darkness beyond all being, essence, and naming. In other words: the negation of all that we now consider human.

With a Heaven like this, Who needs a Hell?

We need also mention that this liberation of the Holy Spirit from the Incarnation also has immense effects upon Eastern Orthodox positions in reference to all sorts of other Catholic doctrines: rejection of purgatory; rejection of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption; rejection of Transubstantiation; rejection of the Catholic doctrine on Original Sin; rejection of the Papacy, rejection of the Church’s teaching on contraception and divorce. If the ultimate road to union with the Divine is rooted in negation of everything that we can possibly affirm, then ultimately truth itself becomes a victim, and all doctrine and dogma are swallowed up in that darkness which is the apophatic God of Eastern Orthodox theology.

Finally, we need also mention that there has always existed in Eastern Orthodoxy, as a sort of minority, a "counter-Palamite" theology which to various degrees distances itself from Palamism, and is much closer to Catholic theology. We can do no greater service to such persons than to simply invite them home.

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 06:28:42 2015 No.6791116 has anyone here read valdimir solvyov. i just heard about hime today. i've been scouring the internet for info on eastern orthodoxy since two days ago. he sounds interesting, and he influenced dostoevsky which is cool

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 06:40:36 2015 No.6791144 Fun fact: the orthodox hate the catholics so much, they chose 400 years of Ottoman occupation over uniting the churches. Check out the council of Ferrara-Florence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 06:42:30 2015 No.6791145 >>6791116 I've only heard about him from Berdiaev. Apparently he was responsible for the school that wanted wanted to synthetize Hegel with Eastern Orthodoxy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 06:51:20 2015 No.6791161 >>6789733 >>6789733 Evdokimov, Lossky.

>>	no caps guy !!6P/WhzicJTl Tue Jul 7 07:04:43 2015 No.6791175 File: 100 KB, 321x889, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >berdiaev a google search of his name led me to pic related

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:08:42 2015 No.6791183 >>6791144 Didn't the Ottomans give Orthodoxy more leniency than other religions because they were afraid they'd cry to the Pope for a Crusade?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:20:06 2015 No.6791207 >>6791144 Fun fact: the catholics tried to fight the Ottomans and failed miserably in 1444. Thanks for ruining the Byzantine empire in 1204, tho.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:28:36 2015 No.6791220 >>6790262 Because it actually is a sin

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:28:55 2015 No.6791221 I'm about to finish with the Bible. It's a great book. Jesus is such a nice guy. I hope nothing bad happens to him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:37:40 2015 No.6791240 >>6791144 >uniting the churches Funny way of saying 'submitting to the pope impostor'.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:38:25 2015 No.6791246

>>6791026
>“The cult of the humanity of Christ, is foreign to Eastern tradition….The way of the imitation of Christ is never practiced in the spiritual life of the Eastern Church.” (Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 243).

Absolutely haram

>>	no caps guy !!6P/WhzicJTl Tue Jul 7 07:45:19 2015 No.6791262 >>6791221 for some reason this post made me think of the borges short story 'the gospel according to st. mark'

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:50:45 2015 No.6791269 >>6791207 You're welcome, schismatist :^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:54:07 2015 No.6791278 >>6791220 >Because it actually is a sin Not if the Pope says otherwise, he has 'papal infallibility'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:55:06 2015 No.6791282 >>6791246 >Absolutely haram To be honest, I agree. But you also shouldn't take somebody like Lossky to be any kind of authority on Orthodoxy. He's just a guy who made some controversial statements at a controversial time in history.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:55:21 2015 No.6791283 >>6791278 Yeah, but he hasn't said that nor given indication that he will, and if he does then he's an Antipope.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 07:57:20 2015 No.6791288 >>6790262 BEING homosexual isn't a sin, sodomy is a sin. Don't understand why you faggots have such a hard time understanding this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:00:42 2015 No.6791294 >>6791282 That does seem like a natural consequence of denying that the Son plays a role in sending the Spirit upon someone, though, and isn't that half the cause of the schism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:01:59 2015 No.6791298 >>6791288 >BEING homosexual isn't a sin, sodomy is a sin. I'm a good Christian, but sometimes my wife slips me the dirty digit. Does that mean I'm worse than two flaming homosexuals who watch each other jerk off?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:02:18 2015 No.6791300 >>6791144 >Implying there are "churches" to be united The Church is one. The essence of the Church is that it is one. And that one Church is the Church of the East.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:02:28 2015 No.6791301 File: 19 KB, 412x360, 1429198895893.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6791026 >russians >especially modern russians Top kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:04:01 2015 No.6791307 >>6791298 You're a good goy. You're worse than them because you think there is something wrong with you and your wife or with those homosexuals.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:40:10 2015 No.6791407

>>6791294
>and isn't that half the cause of the schism?
No. The only cause of the schism (and the only point of contention between Roman Catholics and Orthodox) is papal infallibility.

The problem isn't filioque per se, it's the manner in which the popes instituted it willy-nilly bypassing all propriety.

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:44:23 2015 No.6791416

>>6791407
So your claim is that if they settled the matter of Papal infallibility, the two halves of the church would then have absolutely no differences whatsoever beyond a purely ritualistic level? You don't think there would be any dogmatic differences? And literally every source I've seen, including the several blocks of text in this thread, affirm the significance of the Filioque clause in the dispute and the practical differences in devotional practice and actual belief.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:47:02 2015 No.6791425 >>6791300 the one true church is the church of christ >>>/apostasy/

Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:47:29 2015 No.6791427

>>6791301
Lossky is not any sort of authority on religion in Russia. (Also, calling him a 'modern Russian' is retarded. He was a French guy of Russian ancestry and married a Jew.)

Religion in modern Russia is ascetics, ascetics and more ascetics, with very little navelgazing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:50:00 2015 No.6791431 >>6791416 No, that's not what I claim. I claim that if they settled the matter of Papal infallibility then the other (relatively minor) issues would be quickly resolved in the usual manner. (Some sort of council, probably.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:51:00 2015 No.6791434 >>6791431 Well, Papal infallibility isn't going anywhere. Sorry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 08:59:16 2015 No.6791450 >>6791434 Exactly. So, my point is that the differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox aren't dogmatic, they're organizational and canonic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 10:19:00 2015 No.6791646 >>6790293 This. If this is the plan for salvation drawn up by a omniscient, omnipotent being then it's pretty fucking appalling

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 10:21:14 2015 No.6791657 >The Bible isn't an infallible document guys >So let's nitpick over this one passage that Jesus probably never even said and was most likely included in the Bible for political reasons

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 10:22:28 2015 No.6791661 >>6791450 I wouldn't say they absolutely aren't dogmatic, as dogmatic differences exist, like the Filioque clause.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 10:27:47 2015 No.6791683 >>6790182 >I also find the lack of Latin Mass in my area unfortunate. bad feel man no fssp?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 10:49:11 2015 No.6791759 >>6791661 Orthodox churches have minor dogmatic differences between them, they're usually worked through OK.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 11:00:25 2015 No.6791791 >>6790293 >silent >literally came down to earth >literally founded an organisation with more than a billion members that tell you about this

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 11:01:51 2015 No.6791794 >>6789733 >converting from christianity to christianity oh wow

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 11:52:10 2015 No.6791969 For monastic proverbs and life advice read stuff by elder Paisios.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 12:03:33 2015 No.6791991 >>6790389 The spiritual leader of a billion people is supposed to garner attention, that's part of his job.

>>	no caps guy !!6P/WhzicJTl Tue Jul 7 12:12:50 2015 No.6792020 >>6791969 thank you for making a reccomendation in a thread about reccomendations

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 12:59:37 2015 No.6792145 >>6791991 That's funny, I thought his job consisted entirely of being a spiritual leader and not misleading millions of followers and potential followers about what the Church was really about by pandering to the media with hyperbole and buzz words.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 13:04:04 2015 No.6792160 >>6789733 Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Sienna.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 13:37:44 2015 No.6792312 File: 114 KB, 600x650, CFO20rcVEAALTJj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6789733 Only three people replied with recommendations, and I started a denominational feud on /lit/. Neat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 14:10:39 2015 No.6792453 >>6792145 it was a sermon, not the supreme declaration on the synod of the family

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 14:12:13 2015 No.6792459 >>6791407 >No. The only cause of the schism (and the only point of contention between Roman Catholics and Orthodox) is papal infallibility. that's an excuse for the schism It's all because some patriarchs were some pretty big douches

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 14:21:49 2015 No.6792504 Most, if not all, dogmatic differences could be worked through if there wasn't an insistence from the Catholics on monopolizing the entire power to decide on official dogma in the hands of one Pope.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 17:27:50 2015 No.6793440 >>6791207 >Thanks for ruining the Byzantine empire in 1204, tho. The Byzantines got rekt by a blind 97 year-old. They would've been ruined if they were attacked by a fly at that point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 17:32:56 2015 No.6793476 >>6791144 Then the EOs are smarter considering Muslims were better rulers than the Catholics and fostered freer, more diverse populations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 20:24:32 2015 No.6794420 >>6792459 Why were they douches?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 23:17:20 2015 No.6795226 >>6791044 Catholic scholastics have a similar cadence and verbosity to Marxist academic theorizing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 23:21:20 2015 No.6795235 >>6795226 I'm triggered

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 23:36:00 2015 No.6795288 >>6794420 look at what they did during the Iconoclastic heresy and look at Photios and Michael

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 23:38:27 2015 No.6795296 Daily reminder that Catholic Social Teaching is a scam and incompatible with the true principles of Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 23:40:00 2015 No.6795302 File: 78 KB, 405x412, 1373427231874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6791791 >literally came down to earth Proof?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 7 23:41:55 2015 No.6795308 take this shit to /x/ and stop polluting /lit/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 00:03:15 2015 No.6795397 >>6790180 This is an atheist, the second atheist angrily replied to the first atheist because he misunderstood the troll. This is hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 00:11:35 2015 No.6795426 >>6795302 proof that your not gay

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 01:10:58 2015 No.6795616 File: 53 KB, 303x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP. If you're still here read Sergei Bulgakov. He has an interesting teaching on divine wisdom and sophiology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 13:35:01 2015 No.6797730 >>6795616 Gotcha. Thank you for the recommendation. I'll be sure to look into him. >>6795308 Go on /x/. It is a bunch of sperglords trying to summon Succubi, they have no real religious discussion. I also asked for Book Recs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:38:17 2015 No.6799855 >>6790262 I'ts not up to him, there's a whole theological and sociological baggage with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 21:56:57 2015 No.6799939 File: 70 KB, 529x353, coptic icon.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6789733 >everyone interested in Chalcedonian schismatics and not Oriental Orthodoxy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:04:11 2015 No.6799976 >>6789733 Religion really is a meme.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:52:47 2015 No.6800182 >>6799976 Every religious thread on lit is filled with people having actual discussion. All the threads from Atheists are filled with people meming about Hitchens and spamming dank pepes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 8 22:54:59 2015 No.6800191 >>6800182 religious threads are also filled with atheist shitposters such as>>6799976

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature