Did Constantine get perma-banned? Link to the Orthodoxy FAQ, please.
>>721070
I can only hope he got permabanned
>>721075
so he did get permabanned?
>>721070
Hmmmm, this is most curious. Maybe he took a break. Couldn't handle the bantz.
>>721104
Well, yeah, a permanent break. Ever since it came out he's a mtf trannie, he's been laying low.
>>721118
Ah.
He may be dead.
>>721131
Yay! He's not dead!
>>721131
He was a genuine shitposter. He would go to threads unrelated to Christianity and turn it into a an arguement about mai God. You couldn't even discuss Nietzsche half the time without him popping up and explaining how Jesus was Ubermench.
>>721149
> You couldn't even discuss Nietzsche half the time without him popping up and explaining how Jesus was Ubermench.
But that's accurate. Nietzsche felt that Jesus was ubermensch. And most of Nietzsche's critique of Christianity doesn't apply to Eastern Orthodoxy (ie anti-modern Christianity) nor does it apply to Aristotelian teleology.
>>721171
Constantine, why have you violated the injunction against making yourself a eunuch?
>>721118
>ever since it came out he's a mtf trannie
Explain, please.
>>721070
>The Year of Our Lord 2016
>Permanent Bans or Any bans at all
Shiggidydoo
>>721171
A lot of Nietzsche's criticism is aimed at Paul, who the EO regard as an important figure. He beleives the New Testament is a falsified document, with Jesus's friends at best completely failing to understand his message and at worst deliberately working to destroy their master's legacy. He also attacks a lot of key issues such as the crucifixion, Nietzsche's interpretation Jesus was a criminal who deserved his death. The Pharisee were the good guys who were protecting their community. I could go on but there is no branch of Christianity that is not jeopardized by his criticism.
And no, nowhere did Nietzche think Jesus was Ubermench. He called him an "idiot" in the Dostovesky sense of the word, as in Jesus knew no res sentiment because he didn't know anything at all. In one of the pages of the anti-Christ Nietzsche even says if Jesus had lived a few years longer and gotten some more life experience he would have taken back all his teachings. It's very clear Nietzsche had only a limited praise for Jesus.
Whether you think he is right or wrong, it's clear that Orthodoxy doesn't get a free pass. Nietzsche doesn't even make much of a distinction between Lutherianism and Catholicism despite acknowledging a deal of difference between them, because the ideology he attacks is present in all forms of Christianity equally.
It's well known that Nietzsche read Dostoevsky, the very things Constantine accuses Nietzsche of being ignorant is information he would have certainly possessed.
Constantine is an apologist in the most disgusting sense. He tunnel visions points out he doesn't like and is willing to deliberately lie in order to make his religion look more impressive. This doesn't just make for a bad discussion but it makes people walk away with false information.
>>721171
Nietzsche was pretty critical of Aristotle as well. Even when he doesn't address him directly his critic of metaphysics in general hits pretty hard.
Aristotle stills falls into the same set by Plato of real/apparent world.
>>721264
He isn't the worst. It seems that every denomination has extremely loud and poorly informed retards speaking up for them. Each thread involving religion would always end up with the same two Protestants bashing Catholics, one trip trying to argue against them, Constatine being an idiot, and the general IQ of everyone on /his/ dropping by a few digits.
>>721296
Don't forget that autistic Jewish guy running around giving Hebrew grammatical lessons whether you want it or not.
>>721302
Oh ya. That guy. They're all on different fucking cycles too, so the threads they devolve into a clusterfuck get bumped constantly.
Who are your favorite /his/trionic personalities?
>Wolfshiem
>Constantine
>OuterLimits
>Orthodox Jew who shags hookers
>That one guy who really hates the vikings
>That guy who posts that one screenshot from biblicalstudies.org in every thread without any fucking commentary or explanation
>All the anons who let these people spout their bullshit with impunity
>>721362
>Wolfshiem
based desu
>>721362
There are two Orthodox guys (that I know of), grammardude I mentioned upthread, and the one with the trip, ChaimDelzinger I think.
Which one is the one who fucks the hookers?
>>721264
I guarantee you that Nietzsche thinks differently of Jesus right this very moment.
>>721302
it's unreal. "No, I said nrinnniiinnrii, NOT nnrinirnnirin!"
>>721283
Not at all.
Read your Heidegger.
>>721264
Hey Kaufmann.
> because the ideology he attacks is present in all forms of Christianity equally.
It's really not. Nietzsche worshipped Dostoevsky and there's not a whole lot in Eastern Orthodoxy that would be a big target of both Nietzsche and Heidegger's critique of morality/metaphysics.
It's clear you haven't read much beyond parroting a few echo-chamber Nietzschean interpretations.
>>721605
>Nietzsche worshipped Dostoevsky
He said he learned something from Dostoevsky and respected him but it's pretty clear that Nietzche considers himself above him. He goes as far as to say the people that have been called the wisest men of all are not very wise compared to himself.
I still don't see how you can say Orthodoxy dodges his critism when Nietzsche attacks the very basics heart of the religion. "The worm of sin" in Orthodoxy. It's metaphysics still dependent on utter nonsense since as 'essence' and 'trasnciendence'. It still considered the New Testament a holy book when Nietzsche says the wisdom is in the Old Testament like the warrior culture.
What Christian apologeists do is try to twist things so that Nietzche agree's with a few key issues, ignore the rest of his critism.
I can do that myself. Nietzsche is only talking about Catholicism and Orthodoxy but not Protestantism bro. Nietzsche criticized those degenerate for their death fetish with martyrdom, saying that the Saints did not for faith but because of a longing for death. Well guess what bro Protestantism also realizes all that crap about saints is stupid too. Nietzsche was against socialism and that's clearly a Catholic issue (see Pope Francis), but Protestants are pro capitalists because of mai work ethic. Nietzsche criticized Christian egalitarianism and praised caste systems. Well under Calvinism we do have a caste system. God predestines the noble-Ubermench elite to be 'predestined' to be awesome, while others are predestined to be lower on the caste such as Papist scum.
And don't forget Nietzche's father was a Protestant priest and he respected him. The false church of Catholicism and Orthodoxy which corrupted Jesus's teachings, none of Nietzche's issues apply to my specific denomination of the region
You see Nietzsche just didn't understand Protestantism. Check my Protestant FAQ for more details. And remember to convert to MY religion.
>>721823
Nietzsche seems like an angry dude.
>>721070
She dropped her trip after that jewish man kept on derailing her threads talking about how much he wanted to marry her.
Honestly im kind of glad that shes not a big thing here because of her habbits of simply reposting threads and making other threads all about Orthodoxy.
Used to fluster me a lot until she revealed that the Orthodox Church being true was the axiom of all her beleifs and the criteraia she used of measuring truth.
Got kind of weird when she went about claiming that Hindus and Buddhists took the idea of mantras and chanting from Christians and the Masonic conspiracy to destroy the Orthodox Church.
>>721362
That guy who idolizes Rhodesia and triggers autists
>>721302
Yeah but he only seems to do that when people like Constantine go about justifying their denominations by using Hebrew grammar and words.
>>722112
>she
>>721149
>see a thread about philosophy
>OP seems to be complaining about some ever present "nihilism" that is eroding western culture
Oh it's just constantine, I get it.
>>721247
He claimed to be a she. Might be a real she or maybe people know more - I've usually just insulted that guy/girl for being a trip fag - and sometimes he/she gave wrong orthodox information - also had a ecumenistic - heretic perspective and bragged about his activities, his feasting, his faith etc.
>>721283
Why do everyone kisses Nietzsche ass like he is the only human to have had realizing something useful and worth mentioning over anyone else - I feel like you people just waste your time pretending to be cool.
>>721823
>Nietzsche criticized those degenerate for their death fetish with martyrdom, saying that the Saints did not for faith but because of a longing for death
Why would I care what his opinion is tho?
Most of you NEETs have better opinions, better articulated that just end up in a thread ignored by society and sometimes lost even from archives.
Stop kissing Nietzsche ass.
>>722208
What incorrect information on Orthodoxy did she give?
Where was the heresy in her ecumenisticism?
>>722208
>He claimed to be a she.
Nah
>>721070
I would convert if he got.
>>721823
>Check my Protestant FAQ for more details. And remember to convert to MY religion.
Legit thanks for the laugh, 10/10.
>>721362
You forgot 零/ryhkzd or whatever his name was.
>>722254
Isn't he pretty batshit insane too?
He was saying the other day that Buddha and Jesus was the same guy.
Here is the FAQ, OP: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Here is also an Orthodox Bible study site if you're interested: http://orthodoxbiblestudy.info/
In answer to your question, no, I was not banned. I removed my trip (and it is not being reinstated except to indicate the authenticity of this post) because posters became more interested in me than in Orthodox Christianity, at which point the trip was counterproductive. I am not on 4chan to talk about me or for spark interest in myself, 4chan is not facebook. If someone says something about me, know that it could very well be a lie.
t. Constantine
>>722268
So, do you at least have tits?
>>722276
Zero relevance, zero pertinence, the question serves no purpose. Study me less, Bible more, adios.
>>722268
You are encouraging it right now.
Might as well embrace your fan club
>>721070
A calvanist uses his trip from time to time
>>722279
No, it's very relevant actually, it is the dealbreaker, I don't mind sucking your dick either if you don't have tits.
>>722268
*tips a cut off dick*
>>722268
>uses tripcode
>"it's not about me"
Well, hopefully you learned something. And now we wait until you inevitable backpedal on this to suit your ego.
>>722268
The Orthodox Church decides truth by the way of agreement of all bishops. They say they can't do it right now because they need the Bishop of Rome, who, since the Great Schism, is a "heretic". However, even during the accepted councils, there were schismatic sects, which somehow wasn't a problem. This is illogical, and therefore Orthodoxy is false. Even setting the above aside, the most convincing evidence of Christianity (such as Lanciano) is all in the Catholic Church.
>>722308
>The Orthodox Church decides truth by the way of agreement of all bishops.
No. Truth does not emanate from the authority of bishops in the Orthodox Church. Truth is determined by a consensus of Church Fathers and a continuous line of propagation. If our bishops get together to decide something, it isn't just le Holy Spirit speaketh through us. They look over a ton of writings to find out what is the Orthodox stance.
> They say they can't do it right now because they need the Bishop of Rome
No, we don't. The truth does not need the Bishop of Rome's approval to be true. You are misinformed.
>>722308
Pic related is posted by Constantine and literally describes her approach to theology, give that for her Jesus is linked to the Orthodox Church your post is pointless
>>722319
>Truth is determined
More properly, I should says *attested*. The Church Fathers do not determine truth, they simply attest it.
>>722321
Arguing with Constantine while most often pointless will never cease to be funny.
>>722321
Isn't Christ Truth by definition?
>>722321
This is an existential position, not a theological one. There is a considerable difference. It is like saying if justice is outside the truth, I'd still stand with justice.
>>722326
Yes. But see Dostoevsky's account of the atheist in hell, in The Brothers Karamazov.
>>722326
>Isn't Christ Truth by definition?
Christ has no set definitions, hence all the various heresies and fracturing within Christianity
>>722361
Nah man, I'm pretty sure that by the axioms of the Undivided and Unbroken Orthodox Church(founded by Jesus himself) that Jesus Christ has a set definition.
t. Not-Orthodox-Kool-Aid-Drinking-Unbiased-Woman
>>722319
What about the ecumenical councils? Don't you need them?
>>722368
You forgot the mandatory reference or instruction to read Dostoevsky if you want to get it.
>>722369
The Council of Jerusalem was held without any Bishop of Rome.
>>722383
>what is Peter
>>722409
If Peter started propagating heresies and saying he was Caesar of the world, the Council would have taken place without him.
>>722319
>Truth is determined by a consensus of Church Fathers and a continuous line of propagation.
The Church Fathers dont agree with each other on a lot of things. Also, what counts as a Church Father? Why isnt Arius a Church Father? You cant say "because they were wrong" without begging the question
>>722416
>a consensus has to be unanimous
>>722412
thank God he cant, since Christ's promised him he wouldnt.
>>722422
Which is why the Bishop of Rome is not his legitimate successor.
>>722418
it has to in order to have any meaning. How is 6 out of 10 agreement a legitimate opinion?
>>722424
>the bishop of Rome is a heretic because he isnt Peter's successor because he is a heretic
?
>>722430
>it has to in order to have any meaning. How is 6 out of 10 agreement a legitimate opinion?
Because magic
>>722396
>What do you mean by that?
literally what the words mean.
>>722430
We know which view is the legitimate one by it having a continuous line. Let us say, for example, that a Church Father said ordaining women was correct, and people who said you couldn't were heretics: well, if this were the true position, then there would be a Church of Christians teaching this continually since Christ's time. Since there is not, it's not the true position. The true position has to have a continuous line back to Christ, and has been supported a continuous institution, presuming Christ would not let His Church disappear from the face of the earth (since any Church teaching heresy would not be His Church).
>>722444
I think we at least know Christ is God and the man who existed historically.
>>722446
And the church making every effort to eliminate heretical sects had nothing to do with this?
I am sorry but that suggests social evolution rather than divine intervention to me
>>721362
>>721430
>>721461
So called mr based guy did not knew what Nicene Creed was one summer ago, while constantly spamming Cathloic General threads for a year.
There is no sin in being a Catholic and lacking knowledge about Nicene era history. But If you are going to be a tripfag who constantly tries to label himself as someone who has authority you should do your homework.
But as all tripfags he's an attention whore, just beware.
>>722454
If you're an atheist then it's all gibberish anyway, so I don't see your point
>>722464
If its true it doesn't matter what I believe because logic will support it.
>>722464
not him but attack the argument and not the man you faggotling.
>>722470
If you accept that the Church is the Body of Christ, then for it to disappear would be saying Christ was defeated, and lying when he said Hades would not prevail against His Church
>>722446
>We know which view is the legitimate one by it having a continuous line.
how are the Church Fathers' opinion a continuous line unless you already hold them to be orthodox in their teaching? Why isnt Nestorius a Church Father, or Arius?
>>722453
>I think we at least know Christ is God and the man who existed historically.
We actually cannot, at best we can say things liket "Christ plays a central role in Christian belief" but cant go much further than that.
Over a billion people hold and have held that Christ was a prohept or the son of God but not God. Let alone issues of what it actually means to be God made flesh.
This is the issue that occours when you say things like Christ is truth by definition to those who dont have your axioms based on that being true
>>722475
That is true, but there was also a massive effort by the early church to bring everyone in line, that was the whole reason they called so many councils. even then which group you joined with seemed to have more to do with what region you were from than anything else. Many even doubt whether the church was truly united even at the beginning.
>>722456
>So called mr based guy did not knew what Nicene Creed
Proof?
>>722464
I'm sorry Constantine, are you perhaps advancing some kind of presuppositional Apologetics?
>>722475
Or that what we believed was the church was not actually the church and that our understanding was flawed
>>722475
>If you accept that the Church is the Body of Christ
why do you suppose a physical Church? Why not a "spiritual" Church like the one the protestants talk about, whose memebership is decided by the Holy Spirit?
>>722497
She might not have been, but there was still always an Orthodox teaching in Her. Dogma was codified because it had to be, not because it was improvised. IT was always taught, but it had to be put into legalistic code in order to address heretics within the Church. Once they were confirmed heretics, then they could either repent (most of them did) or schism.
>>722506
Because a "body" means something both physical and spiritual, as opposed to just flesh or spirit. Communion is a physical act. If the physical were not important, God would not have come down in physical form.
>>722510
>but it had to be put into legalistic code in order to address heretics within the Church.
why isnt the Church the one in heresy? Who becomes a heretic and who becomes orthodox?
>>722510
>She might not have been, but there was still always an Orthodox teaching in Her. Dogma was codified because it had to be, not because it was improvised. IT was always taught, but it had to be put into legalistic code in order to address heretics within the Church. Once they were confirmed heretics, then they could either repent (most of them did) or schism.
That isn't impossible but it is highly improbable
>>722510
>Because a "body" means something both physical and spiritual
why not a spiritual body made of spiritual matter?
>>721362
>feeding the tripfags with attention
You are part of the problem
>>722525
Saying "spiritual matter" is like saying "material spirits". I don't know what you mean to say.
>>722551
that isnt an answer, since there were several institutions and there are several institutions today that you consider heretical and can trace their origins to a "continuous line" (whatever that means). Again, who counts as heretical and who doesnt?
>>722554
I mean, why werent the Gnostics right?
>>722560
These institutions did not contentiously exist from ancient times, no, because they cannot trace their teachings back to ancient times. The Lutherans, for example, cannot show a continuous line of a Church teaching according to Luther's theology all the way back to Christ. If they could, then they could argue that Church is the true Church (although the argument doesn't stop there). But since they cannot even muster that Church of a continuous teaching, they cannot even start to make an argument. They can only argue that Christ's Body was heretical for a long time and they restored it, but Christ's Body cannot be heretical, or else it would not be His Body--otherwise you could argue that Muslims, for instance, were Christ's Body.
>>722567
Gnosticsts do not think Jesus is the Christ, so I don't even see how they are even a contended for Christian propriety. You have to AT LEAST affirm Jesus is the Hebrew Christ (Greek translation of Messiah)--even Muslims affirm that. Otherwise you have zero business using the title "Christian" to describe yourself.
>>722570
>because they cannot trace their teachings back to ancient times.
of course they can, they can argue that their teaching was labelled as "heretical" by the "evil Church" in ancient times
Besides, there are several other Churches besides Protestants, such as the Old Believers, the Assyrian Church, or according to you the Catholic Church.
>otherwise you could argue that Muslims, for instance, were Christ's Body.
why wouldnt you?
>You have to AT LEAST affirm Jesus is the Hebrew Christ
according to your own branch of Christianity, but why would affirming Jesus be counted as "Christian"? There are messianic Jews and muslims who affirm Christ and arent Christians
You might say the Nicene creed is what defines Christians, but why is the Nicene creed orthodox, instead of some other Arian creed?
>>722596
>of course they can, they can argue that their teaching was labelled as "heretical" by the "evil Church" in ancient times
But they have to show these teachings *contentiously* existed, that is, that they were taught in a continuous line all the way from ancient times to their present day. Then they might point to the institution teaching them, and say, "There is the Church!"
>
Besides, there are several other Churches besides Protestants, such as the Old Believers, the Assyrian Church, or according to you the Catholic Church.
And these Churches have an awful lot more to stand on. They are wrong, but you actually have to show they are wrong in such-and-such ways, rather than just saying they're illegitimate to begin with because they were not continuously existing.
>why wouldnt you?
They would deny it, for one thing.
>There are messianic Jews and muslims who affirm Christ and arent Christians
Affirming that Jesus is Christ is not enough by itself, but if you can't even meet that requirement, then there is zero point in even discussing if you're a valid Christian. You might call yourself a "Jesusist" or something like that, I suppose.
>>722608
>that they were taught in a continuous line all the way from ancient times to their present day
That's what they claim though, and they provide arguments for their claims, often drawn from some Fathers (Calvin, for example)
>They are wrong, but you actually have to show they are wrong in such-and-such ways
and that's the point. You cannot point out that theyre wrong because they disagree with you, because you cant establish that your teaching is orthodox in the first place.
>They would deny it, for one thing.
Why would they? They hold Jesus to be a prophet after all, and they can take "body" in a figurative sense
>You might call yourself a "Jesusist" or something like that, I suppose.
Why wouldnt "Jesusism" be orthodox teaching?
>>722621
>That's what they claim though, and they provide arguments for their claims, often drawn from some Fathers (Calvin, for example)
They never supplied the institution they said was the Body of Christ, though. They simply said it existed spiritually within an heretical organization, which makes as much sense as saying the Christian Church can exist within a pagan religion (which the Catholic Church would be, if they were truly engaging in idolatry and polytheism as Protestants suggest).
> You cannot point out that theyre wrong because they disagree with you, because you cant establish that your teaching is orthodox in the first place.
I certainly can, I showed in the Orthodox FAQ
>Why would they?
Why don't you ask them?
>Why wouldnt "Jesusism" be orthodox teaching?
Orthodox is an adjective. There's orthodox chemistry, orthodox grammar, etc. The adjective is used mostly in religious threads here as applied to Christianity.
>>722636
>They simply said it existed spiritually within an heretical organization
And how is that any different from the majority of Arian bishops in early Christianity
>I certainly can, I showed in the Orthodox FAQ
of course not, a Catholic can just say your wrong because you didnt catch up on the Councils, and you could say the same to the Orientals. Moreover, you cant give a criteria of what counts as a ecumenical council other than it is one that expresses "orthodox teaching" which is just to beg the question. Maybe Catholics can give an answer and maybe Orientals can give it too, but it might not be satisfactory to someone looking for "orthodox faith"
>Why don't you ask them?
I would, but I dont know any muslims personally
>Orthodox is an adjective.
I know what orthodox means, it also has the connotation of being the teaching that is "true"
>>722668
>And how is that any different from the majority of Arian bishops in early Christianity
Arianism was not *dogma* (except among the Ebionites).
>of course not, a Catholic can just say your wrong because you didnt catch up on the Councils, and you could say the same to the Orientals
Nope. The Orientals didn't need to catch up, because Councils are not adding anything, they are just codifying what was always there. Their teachings are wholly Orthodox, and we recognize their baptism as they recognize our (which neither of us does with any other Christians). Our misunderstanding stemmed from what we understood the word "nature" to mean (we meant to mean essence, or ousia, they meant it to mean existence, or hypostasis). Councils are in response to heresy. Since they did not experience certain heresies (iconoclasm, for instance), they did not need the councils.
>I know what orthodox means, it also has the connotation of being the teaching that is "true"
If you're going to try to broaden things like this, there are infinite beliefs to address, it's impossible to work with every single one. You have to at least narrow it down. If you're saying, "How come Gnosticism isn't not Orthodox?" You might as well start bringing in Aztec religion, Kemeticism, and so on. You can ask, "Why are Gnostics wrong?" but at least phrase it like that.
>>721362
No True Scotus, who pops in without a trip a lot.
The most based tripfag is THAT AUTIST WHO TYPES IN CAPS ALL OF THE FUCKING TIME.
Did we ever find out more about him?
Constantine, is there anything that you feel, deep down in your heart, that you disagree with the Church on but that you only support because it's the Church's position? Like preventing women from being priests or gay marriage or something like that? If there are, how do you convince yourself that you're wrong and it's not the Church that's wrong when you feel like you know logically that it can't be that way?
Or do you genuinely believe everything the Church preaches without ever feeling this kind of contradiction?
>>722812
>mehmet my son
>yuo are saved now
>yu must choose wisdom and have fruits
>will you pick CURRENT YEAR
>or Body of Christ?
>>722957
>The Orthodox counsel of bishops is my Shepard I shall not want.
>>722112
>Used to fluster me a lot until she revealed that the Orthodox Church being true was the axiom of all her beleifs and the criteraia she used of measuring truth.
Also why he/she was utterly intolerable. I remember the thread about the beginnings of the universe, multiple anons well-versed in physics presented concepts and asked questions clearly way outside the scope of Constantine's knowledge on the subject. He/she did nothing but repeat his/her one position over and over in response or simply ignore the other posters. If you want to argue from a scientific perspective that God exists, then you have to submit to the rules of science. You can't start with a conclusion before an observation, that's simply not science. He/she did the same thing with history. If you're not even willing to entertain the possibility that your position might be wrong, why have a discussion?
>>723081
You mean this?
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/637821/#637821
Feel free to point out what was not addressed.
Also, I never claimed to be proving God "scientifically", which would require a testable hypothesis. My argument for him was based on mostly on logic.
>>723081
Christians dont come here to have discussions, they come here to convert people, following the example of /pol/ when they decided becoming Christian was the best way to stick it to "decedent" western society.
Its a pity since I like to discuss the theology of various religions and the current historiography on them, but some of these people just repeat the same tired points over and over, rather than trying to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas.
Nor does every other thread on this board need to be about religion.
>>723094
You know, trying to use /pol/ to invalidate Christianity is just as stupid as trying to use reddit to invalidate atheism
>>721247
Anti-orthodox disinfo designed to distract from the discussion because Constantine was BTFOing everyone
>>723095
I am just stating where it comes from. starting on pol does not invalidate them anymore than starting on Reddit would
>>723100
It doesn't. A lot of Christians here actually got it from /lit/, and the reason it started there is a reaction against the idea that the quality of literature and beauty is totally relative and the idea that science should replace philosophy (don't forget that before /his/, /lit/ was where all philosophy posts went). Atheism was being seen as intellectually and aesthetically destitute, a cancer to humanities.
>>723090
Hypercubes. Go.
>>723106
Well I know for almost a year pol had Catholic generals every day. After they got mad at the pope Orthodox became more popular.
But where it came from isn't very important, what is important is that it clogging this board with clutter. to many threads about the same thing.
>Atheism was being seen as intellectually and aesthetically destitute, a cancer to humanities.
I could never fully embrace the humanities as a Christian because I always had to hold back, saying well this is what research says but it must be mistaken somehow...
>>722279
so you do not only have tits
but you also
have a cock
Why weren't there ecumenical councils since The Schism? What's holding them back?
>>723113
Christianity is works with the humanities like coffee and cream. It sews them all together.
>>723119
You may like to soften the impact with some cream or sweetener But I'll take the powerful tastes and deep aromas of the pure product
>>723118
Ecumenical Councils are about countering heresies, that's all. That's the only point to them. We had the Fifth Council of Constantinople, which is generally taken as an Ecumenical Council, and that was only because someone derp had theology training with Catholics and tried to propagate his heresies, so we had to have a whole council to address them, and then he went back to the Roman Catholic Church.
We don't just have Ecumenical Councils for their own sake.
>>723121
What. Please explain to me how things like art, literature and philosophy "soften the product".
>>723123
> Please explain to me how things like art, literature and philosophy
They don't, In my poor attempt at humor I was referring to Christianity.
>>722326
In circular, theological terms, yes.
>>723094
>tfw I actually wanted to have discussions
>>722501
WTF I hate Constantine now.
>>723338
She sort of has a point. If you're an atheist then it wouldn't matter which sect won, you could still say they are invalid. You have to at least agree there is a "correct" sect before you can get into this sort of discussion.
>>723367
I can't believe she's a presuppositionalist. That disgusting form of hackpologetics!
>>723396
She's obviously not, since she made a big thread about the existence of God without reference to Christianity.
>>723406
Thank God. I would never want to speak to her again if she's a peesuppositionalist
>>721362
i like Wolfshiem
that Pracetom guy combines two terrible personal qualities in that he is both arrogant and stupid
Constantine is ok but too much of an EO shill/Byzantiboo imo
OuterLimits is something of a fedora but generally pretty good
the GOAT people on /his/ are my fellow Sulla fans, true patricians with discernment and excellent taste
>>721070
People started waifufagging constantine. One guy asked her to marry him. After she left, another decided to wear the name like Buffalo Bill.
>>723408
Here's the thread in question: https://desustorage.org/his/thread/637821/#637821
Reported this thread for breaking /his/ rule #1.
>>723099
>Anti-orthodox disinfo designed to distract from the discussion because Constantine was BTFOing everyone
Only those who accepted some form of apostolic Christianity as the basis of truth. When she was making her whole Eastern Religion appropriated mantras meditation from Christians she just ignored it when a Hindu pointed out that it had existed in the Vedas.
See that picture in >>722321 the Orthodox Church being the truth is a existentialist decision she has made.
>>721823
Orthodoxy's conception of Heaven and Hell is not opposed to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence.
He hated Prostestantism (muh daddy issues) and he hated antisemitism (muh Wagner don't respect me!"
>>723406
>>723408
You miss the point for her it doesn't matter, if she can use that to convince some anons to read her guide and become orthodox then its all good if her points are disproved it does not matter. She has stated before that Christ being the truth is the axiom of her beleifs, truth outside of Christ (as described by the Orthodox) has no value.
If you used logic (as she sought to do in that thread) to proove there was no God or a God different to that of the Orthodox then she would simply discard that conclusion an hold to her beleifs regardless.
If you dont know this in advance she seems rather frustrating and decietful.
>>723471
This is from the FAQ
Q8: Concerning Hesychasm and other Christian practices and theology being derived from Asia.
A8: Actually, “mantra” and “japa” (mantra meditation) just meant a regular prayer in Eastern religions until a while after Christians started using constant repetitions. The earliest Buddhist canon, which is the Pali canon, dates from 29 BC and make no mention of mantra meditation. Christian meditation dates back to the OT (Genesis 24:63). Joshua 1:8 says to keep the Law constantly on your lips, to meditate on it day and night. The word translated as “meditate” here, means to mutter or growl quietly. Paul says to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) The earliest extensive written instructions on Christian mantra meditation, were authored by Saint John Cassian, in 420 AD, at the behest of Bishop Castor of Apt. The earliest account of Buddha as we think of him now was written by Buddhaghosa, and dates from around the same time Saint John Cassian was writing (earlier accounts of Buddha are closer to something out of Homer). The Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa’s extensive meditation manual, makes no mention of mantras; here meditation is focusing on something (or focusing on precisely nothing), but none of the instruction says anything about use of mantras in meditation. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, from the 4th Century AD, mention mantras, but here they have nothing to do with mediation, they’re invocations used to gain power over things, probably the identical sense to what they were for Brahmin priests. As for Hinduism, their most famous mantra, the Hare Krishna, was not used for constant repetition or meditation until 16th Century AD, when it was popularized by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
>>723504
You are intentionally warping her entire point with that, which is whether or not Christianity could withstand Nietzsche's eternal recurrence thought experiment.
>>723536
But where is the sauce(s)?
This seems far fetched as fug.
>>723536
She just copy pasted that into a thread and then pretty much left it.
Mantra chanting (particalry with the famous "Om") is directly discussed within the Vedas which predated the bible by almost half a century. However this point is ignored for expedience and decides to instead focus on the age of the Hare Krishna mantra instead.
>>723567
How is saying a chant the same thing as what she is talking about, which is saying a chant over and over and over in meditation or soundlessly throughout the day? It takes no genius to know Christianity didn't invent chanting, but we're talking about rather unique uses here.
>>723578
>How is saying a chant the same thing as what she is talking about, which is saying a chant over and over and over in meditation or soundlessly throughout the day?
He claimed that mantra mediation (which is what you label as "saying a chant over and over and over in meditation or soundlessly throughout the day?) originated with Christianity despite the fact we have evidence of it being in use before Christianity by over 1000 years and by the old testament figures by close to 500.
>>723597
How is evidence of a chant or a prayer, evidence it was used in that way?
>>723583
Are you sure? my posts havent mentioned Neitzsche at all.
See >>723597,
Mantras were used more than just as a "regular prayer" even you took even the slightest effort to look at the claims she made critically you would see they dont stand on any solid foundation.
Even the Japas she talks off predate the bible.
>>722495
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the father but by me.
Jesus
>>722506
Because then they are not in charge of heaven.
>>723612
She doesn't say the japas and mantras didn't exist, she just says that their use as something perpetual or over and over in concentrated meditation, came much later.
>>723604
Because we have ancient commentaries and books on ritual that discuss it being used that way. Like the Shatapatha Brahmana, combined with what appears to be a continuous transmission and use of the practice.
>>723625
Yeah which she provides no evidence beyond assertion and which goes against written accounts of how those mantras were used and japa was practiced.
>>723626
>Like the Shatapatha Brahmana,
"When called upon by the Adhvaryu to recite the morning-prayer, the Hotrt first makes an oblation of ghee on the Agnidhra fire, with the mantra, 'Protect me from the spell of the mouth, from every imprecation, Haill' and then two oblations on the Ahavaniya with appropriate mantras."
?
>>723597
Jesus actually discouraged meaningless repetition of prayers. You know, in case anyone cares how God weighs in on the matter.
>>723634
Mainly because I see an extremely lax standard applied to the claim Christianity got all sorts of things from Hinduism and Buddhism, so I figure taking the other side isn't so bad.
>>723641
Bible says to pray perpetually.
>>723641
Nobody takes as valid, your biased interpretation of Scripture on the matter.
>>723641
>“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7 KJV)
Basically the context is clear that this means repetitions with the expectation of reward not repeating a line of prayer over and over again.
>>723638
>"When called upon by the Adhvaryu to recite the morning-prayer, the Hotrt first makes an oblation of ghee on the Agnidhra fire, with the mantra, 'Protect me from the spell of the mouth, from every imprecation, Haill' and then two oblations on the Ahavaniya with appropriate mantras."
Its a book of ritual and practice not a book of japa and mantra meditation. In the same way that the bible discusses mediation in more ways that that the bible discusses prayer and practice in more ways than it just does with Joshua.
hence they also have verses like
>6. He then throws down the other stalk in front of the chanters, silently, for those chanters represent the hymn of praise (stotra), Pragâpati (the sacrifice),--he (Pragâpati) draws to himself everything here, and takes possession of everything here: it is to him that that stalk is offered, and thus he does not draw the Adhvaryu to himself, and take possession of him. And when they mutter 2,--for the chanters mutter now
>>723642
>Mainly because I see an extremely lax standard applied to the claim Christianity got all sorts of things from Hinduism and Buddhism, so I figure taking the other side isn't so bad.
Its the opposite everyone shitcans buddhism as dude spirituality lol and as a death cult and Hinduism is just flat out ignored at best or mocked based on peoples dislike of Indians.
>>723681
As a side not do you not find it odd that Constantine just ignores any charges against this or requests to provide proof?
>>723681
>hence they also have verses like
I don't see how that is talking about continuous prayer throughout the day or saying a mantra in solidarity stillness over and over and over.
>>723707
I don't know, don't really care since I haven't seen anyone who says Christianity got such-and-such from Buddhism ever provide a shred of proof.
>>723714
>I don't know, don't really care since I haven't seen anyone who says Christianity got such-and-such from Buddhism ever provide a shred of proof.
So you go off and do just that but in reverse? Why become the problem?
>>723729
Constantine at least mentions written works, so I feel inclined to support that direction. I would like to see a lot more of that desu
>>723733
The only ones she uses beyond name dropping are
the Bible, Philolika and Dostoevsky's works.
Name dropping alone is close to pointless and for someone as well read as her deceitful.
>>723733
>Constantine at least mentions written works, so I feel inclined to support that direction. I would like to see a lot more of that desu
Then why not be the change you wish to see instead of perpetuating everything that is wrong with /his/? the lesser of two evils is still evil.
>>723745
Name dropping titles is at least a step beyond memeing. How am I supposed to fault her for taking a mere step beyond beyond memeing when her opponents can't even take that step?
>>723749
Because I don't feel like reading a bunch of Christian and Hindu texts. But if someone is arguing something and can cite stuff< will support them. Just dropping titles is a very poor citation, but it is a step above memes, and so it is what I side with unless the other side can take it beyond memes, and then the other side can escalated in return, and back and forth until the debate actually reaches 88 miles per hour.
>>723733
Constantine references are questionable. She cant cite any secular scholars who support this
>>724440
But I've read a lot of secular sources that really suck when it comes to primary sources on this sort of thing.
>>723655
The context of that is that you clearly shouldn't pray in repetitions. Your logic is that the reason he is saying why is in the next part. The next part is clearly explaining the thought process behind the heathens, it's the start of a new concept.
The original concept of not praying in repetition was an absolute command.
Think about this sentence
"You should not murder. Thieves murderer expecting to acquire money" Is it saying that you should not murder in the context of acquiring money and it's ok to murder in other situations? Or is it saying you should not murder, and the reason some people murder is money.
>>724857
Have you ever read any scholarly book on Biblical exegesis or taken any classes on it? Or, have you at least been tutored or helped by someone who's been through seminary?
>>724459
We're they peer reviewed sources?
>>724865
If you'd like to provide a scholar as giving a counter example please do so.
I'd be suspicious of any scholar that is heavily Catholic or Orthodox leaning since they would not want to point out any mistakes in their denominations interpretation.
>>724884
Whereas Protestants would, right?
>>724884
This is the Greek word translated as "vain repetition".
http://biblehub.com/greek/945.htm
>>724907
A Protestant scholar would be less biase in this case sense the nature of prayer is not something with a very strong cannon in that denomation. Although you always judge a scholar in a case by case situation, I'd entertain a scholar of any denomination given good credentials.
Look are you going to provide any sort of counter example or just do character attacks?
>>722287
This.
>>724925
>A Protestant scholar would be less biased
Not at all. Protestants scholars have to completely disregard the first 1,500 years of Bible scholarship because it isn't Protestant.
>>724941
There's also agnostic and atheist scholars and probably some other weird stuff.
Look man do you have ANY counter arguments at all? I've told you I'm willing to consider any scholar if their credentials are good and now you are saying that someone should be automatically dismissed as a scholar if they are not a member of your faith.
Come on man just put down an actual counter example instead of trying to disqualify people based on them not holding the same belief as you.
>>724857
This falls apart completely when we actually look at the Greek >>724921
It supports what I just said and not yours.
>b. to repeat the same things over and over, to use many and idle words, to babble, prate; so Matthew 6:7, where it is explained by ἐν τῇ πολυλογία, (Vulg.multumloqui; (A. V. to use vain repetitions))
From the meaning we see it as being worthless and foolish. So this doesn't mean that repetitions in prayer are wrong, just those that are foolish and done with the expectation of rewards.
Protestants, not even once.
>>724925
>Look are you going to provide any sort of counter example
This is John Chrysostom's commentary (from his Homilies on Gospel of Matthew): "Here, by the name of vain repetition: as when we ask of God things unsuitable, kingdoms, and glory, and to get the better of enemies, and abundance of wealth, and in general what does not at all concern us."
Here is
>>724941
The ironic thing is that the effort to study Early Christianity and the Church Fathers without any agenda was the effort of Protestants usually those who are Anglican it seems.
Schaff himself is a High Church Reformed and is ecumenical. Bishop Lightfoot is Anglican.
A lot of Patristic scholars believe it or not are Protestant though there are Orthodox and Catholic scholars as well.
>>724976
Anglicans, apart from American branches (the Episcopal Church was recently excommunicated by the Church of England over having gay marriage, or at least as close to excommunication as the Anglican communion has, which is taking away their power of representation and voting in the communion), are the least Protestant of Protestants, and a lot of them don't even consider themselves Protestant. Some of them, like John Milbank, are extremely anti-Protestant, which comes from the conservative branch of the Anglican tradition (see the definition of "Tory" in Johnson's Dictionary).
>>724988
True, except for the low church Anglicans though they still have "traditional service" which is like a revised Novus Ordo and with prayers for the queen, Archbishop of Canterbury and shit.
John Milbank is probably High Church if he's gonna be Anti Protestant.
