As an Orthodox Christian, I don't understand why Westerners idealize the pagan Roman Empire over the Christian Roman Empire (Byzantium).

As an Orthodox Christian, I don't understand why Westerners idealize the pagan Roman Empire over the Christian Roman Empire (Byzantium).

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >As an Orthodox Christian

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. I am an Anglo convert. So what

      • 8 months ago
        Dirk

        lol

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        there are no orthodoxgays outside of eastern europe, definitely no angloid

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The convert scene is pretty big. In the Anglosphere at least

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      lol

      the fact it makes so many people seethe is another vindication of orthodoxy

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        People are laughing at you the same way they laugh at troonys

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          oh you admit you're getting laughed at for being a troony

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ortholarper is also illiterate

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah we know you can't read

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >TradCath goes to a Latin mass they can't even understand
            >calls us larper
            The fact that Orthodox is not Western weeds out those "muh Western civilization" LARPers which are pretty numerous in the TradCath scene

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a Catholic. I don't think that certain people believing in Jesus will cause them to stop being moronic. It goes deeper than that.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    centuries of suppression of Eastern Roman Empire but Enlightenment autists and Papists

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah Roman Catholics also seem to get a lot of inspiration from pagan Rome. Even their statues are in pagan Roman style

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      the fact it makes so many people seethe is another vindication of orthodoxy

      Most Western Christians like the Christian Roman Emperors.
      The reason western agnostics and atheists like the pagan emperors is the empire was at is economic and military height under them.
      It’s actually a pretty simple answer. You are just coming at it from an autistic and bias direction so you can’t see the simple and obvious answer.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        but none of that is true its just you whining

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous
  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    What inventions did the Byzantine Empire create aside from Greek fire?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Westerners only caring about material innovation
      Eastern Empire was one of spiritual authority. While the West was busy making Physical and Spiritual innovations, distancing from patristic tradition

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >muh divine empire
        Fricking useless post. By your logic India is awesome because it created Buddhism

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The difference is that Christianity is a true religion

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Eastern Empire was one of spiritual authority.
        HAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBAA
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHABA
        The Greekoid Duchy of Byzantium was a caseropapist state. The spiritual was virtually at all time subject to the temporal authority.
        >the West was busy making Physical and Spiritual innovations
        Based, no wonder the west won and the former Byzantine lands are Muslim.

        >distancing from patristic tradition
        The caeseropapists constantly altered “patristic tradition”, one minute icons are allowed, next the need to be destroyed. Yes the west saying ‘and the son is fine’ 200 years later ‘nope now it’s a problem’, ‘nope we I’ll go back into communion with them’, ‘nope it’s a problem again’.
        Byzantium even innovated the believe that God has a form (a belief shared by Mormons)
        Maybe don’t stand on the corpses of the church fathers while claiming your loyal to patristic tradition.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Caesaropapism is not inherently bad. It worked well under a western setting. The problem is with the civilization as a whole, not submitting to a man in a funny hat.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Caesaropapism
            It's an anti-orthodox meme. Same with "Palamism".

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Caesaropapism is not inherently bad.
            Yes it is, it subordinates the spiritual to the temporal. Any attempt to say otherwise is a cope.

            >Caesaropapism
            It's an anti-orthodox meme. Same with "Palamism".

            What is up with all this pure cope. It would be healthier spirtitually if you could admit the mistrake of the past, also yes you are palamites. Your entire theology is rooted in the innovations of Palamas, to the point you cant be EO without accepting him.

            no argument, just seething

            >no argument
            Cope, you are just saying that because you made a baseless claim and I called you out as moronic and provided example of where you have innovated and even deviated from patristic tradition.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes it is, it subordinates the spiritual to the temporal. Any attempt to say otherwise is a cope.
            The spiritual does not exist in some gnostic separation from the temporal. And governments have traditionally been viewed as deriving their authority from God.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The spiritual does not exist in some gnostic separation from the temporal.
            DIdn't say that, please stop strawmanning me
            >And governments have traditionally been viewed as deriving their authority from God.
            Never said that wasn't the case, again please stop strawmanning me and actually argue against my point.
            The church has always drawn a distinction between the temporal and the spiritual authorities, hence the 2 keys. The temporal should no dominate the spiritual, it should dont dictate the affairs of the spiritual. The palamites have repeatedly fallen into that issue, from Byzantium, to the Tsardom of Russia to the Soviets and other eastern bloc nations

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a Catholic. Again, my issue is with the civilization, not the religion.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >my issue is with the civilization, not the religion.
            Okay but my issue with the civilization its its relationship to the religion. So maybe we are wasting our time and will never agree. If so nice to talk with you anyway.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Religion is inseparable from civilization. Orthodoxy derives from an inferior civilization and Byzantine civilization (as seen in countries like Russia) is pathetic compared to western civilization.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of you join a religion for it's material success then you are by definition a larper

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one is doing that
            But if it makes you seethe its wholey based

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not what I'm arguing.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is true, same with anyone who joins a religion for political reasons. Sadly many such cases of the latter, basically all the Palamites I know who converted to EO did so for political reasons, not a single 1 for actual theolgical reason. The theology and lens of history was formed ad-hoc and highly selectively after conversion to justify their church and politics.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            but isn't that a good thing

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is that a good thing? Its making your faith subservient to your politics. You aren't searching after God, you are searching after a system that will pat you on the back. Its like some0one joining the metropolitan church so they can be gay and call themselves christian.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is any of that bad though

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it subordinates your faith in Christ to politics, which is bad for your soul.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I joined for theological reasons
            Granted, I first started inquiring into Orthodoxy before the whole Ortho-bro phenomenon began and honestly have some contempt for many of the other converts I meet.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I should clarify that by Orthobro I don’t mean people who simply hold traditional views, but the very annoying guys who follow Dyer or who obsess over orthdodox memes
            I do hope they stop their silliness eventually.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Cope, you are just saying that because you made a baseless claim and I called you out as moronic and provided example of where you have innovated and even deviated from patristic tradition.
            >cope
            >cope
            >cope
            >cope
            >cope

            no argument?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >cope
            still no counter-argument?

            *checks Jay Dyer live streams*
            yep Roman Catholicism already refutred

            >*checks debate bro live streams*
            >um well ACKTCHUALLY my favourite e-celeb told me he beat you in a debate therefore you are wrong.
            Reddit is down the hall and to the left

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then Latins are Thomist.
            The difference being Saint Gregory Palamas simply clarified what was already taught in the fathers. Energy -Essense distinction simply makes sense

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then Latins are Thomist.
            ooooof you almost had us, your logic would actually 100% follow IF Thomis was actually required to be part of the Catholic Church, but it isn't. Even in latin rite it isnt required. Its shilled a lot, but its not required. See Palamite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Assyrian Catholics etc.

            >The difference being Saint Gregory Palamas simply clarified what was already taught in the fathers. Energy -Essense distinction simply makes sense
            I can actually prove that not true if you would agree to listen.

            HE CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

            I can't be stopped dirk

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Trying to force the Simpsons meme
            Cringe trying to do a child level semantic misunderstanding

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Amazing how much seethe a simple question causes. If I knew it would buck break you guys so hard I would have started posting it years ago.

            If you are this anon (

            Then Latins are Thomist.
            The difference being Saint Gregory Palamas simply clarified what was already taught in the fathers. Energy -Essense distinction simply makes sense

            ) yes or no, do you want me to show you how you are wrong about palamas or live in ignorance?
            If you aren't that ano.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just throw the question back at him. My God orthodox are moronic.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've done that.
            But they just say it's the magisterium or something

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            This might be useful.
            Rome does not have unity of faith. They sacrificed that long ago in favor of an empty jurisdictional unity to avoid schism. I don’t know much about the orthodox but they have a better invisible unity compared to Rome.
            https://x.com/potamopotos/status/1710369206662021287?s=20

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            This might be useful.
            Rome does not have unity of faith. They sacrificed that long ago in favor of an empty jurisdictional unity to avoid schism. I don’t know much about the orthodox but they have a better invisible unity compared to Rome.
            https://x.com/potamopotos/status/1710369206662021287?s=20

            >just throw it back at him.
            You can try, I will happily answer the question. Unlike Palamites I won’t have a mental breakdown if someone asks me “which Catholic Church?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It will still be equally incoherent.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean conflating Palamites with “orthodox” Christian is pretty incoherent to being with. And they fact they get so ass-blasted by a simple question while it’s water off a ducks back for Catholics speaks volumes.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            As always a smug LARPodox makes an obviously false claim, I offer to show him why he is wrong (

            >Then Latins are Thomist.
            ooooof you almost had us, your logic would actually 100% follow IF Thomis was actually required to be part of the Catholic Church, but it isn't. Even in latin rite it isnt required. Its shilled a lot, but its not required. See Palamite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Assyrian Catholics etc.

            >The difference being Saint Gregory Palamas simply clarified what was already taught in the fathers. Energy -Essense distinction simply makes sense
            I can actually prove that not true if you would agree to listen.

            [...]
            I can't be stopped dirk

            ) and he runs away.
            Sadly many such cases. Either that or they give some dumbass response like “your being too logical”.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          no argument, just seething

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >As an Orthodox Christian
    Old Believer Bespopovtsy Orthodox?
    Oriental Orthodox?
    Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
    Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
    Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
    Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
    Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
    Or “True” Orthodox?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Old Calenderists
      >"we fast on different days. frick you"
      why

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
      >Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?

      he doesn't know its the same church
      ahahaha

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah. Many ignorant people think the Orthdox Church is in full schism divided into two new churches (like in the Great Schism). It's more like a temporary political fracture which has happened many times in church history (yes even in the Latin Church)

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the church is invisible, congratz you are now a protestant.
        NEXT!

        The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church with approximately 220 million baptised members. It include the fourteen autocephalous churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Greece, Poland, Romania, Albania, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia

        That "church" is at the very least 2 churches. Have you considered not using a dishonest map of the church, this is more accurate the notable mistake is the ecumenical patriarch is in communion with OCA but doesn't recognize it as auto.

        Yeah. Many ignorant people think the Orthdox Church is in full schism divided into two new churches (like in the Great Schism). It's more like a temporary political fracture which has happened many times in church history (yes even in the Latin Church)

        >Many ignorant people think the Orthdox Church is in full schism
        It is, by defintion. I even included a definition of a schism in the bottom right. You are welcome.
        >It's more like a temporary political fracture which has happened many times in church history (yes even in the Latin Church)
        That is what we call a cope, people would have said the same in 325 and 1056

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>the church is invisible, congratz you are now a protestant.
          >NEXT!
          not at all what was said

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          already refuted

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church with approximately 220 million baptised members. It include the fourteen autocephalous churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Greece, Poland, Romania, Albania, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia

    • 8 months ago
      Dirk

      HE CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I’m an Assyrian orthodox ama

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ethiopian Tawahedo Orthodox

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is a disgrace that Oyish is not split into Oyish and /rel/.
    At least according to https://4stats.io/ , Oyish has similar daily average posts per day as /gif/ , and they're wasted on such inane garbage as religion/anti-religion "debates".
    Even if splitting off /rel/ would take half the traffic, it would still be above Oyish.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Should philosophy be grouped in with Oyish or /rel/

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not completely sure on this one.
        Philosophy as a driving force of peoples in the past, the way philosophies evolved over time, background of their creation, impact on events - definitely Oyish .
        But something like
        >Hegel vs Kirkegaard, who's right?
        probably is not Oyish, probably is more /hum/ than /rel/, but 70% sure it would devolve into yet another religious discussion with little connection to actual philosophy or history and customary shit flinging. Kirkegaard especially tends to have threads derailed.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I never once seen a single Kierkegaard thread on Oyish

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think I've seen one

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      religion is humanities,
      atheistcucks seething over this doesn't change that fact

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Preaching of theism / atheism / anti-theism is still preaching, and as such doesn't belong to Oyish, but /rel/ (and in its absence, /trash/).
        Preaching is not humanities, you don't even try to discuss, you either try to convert or win le epic internet fight. By your definition, creating a thread to convinceOyish of finnish saunas' superiority over turkish hammams is "humanities".

        The sole fact that your brain is incapable of exiting the false dichotomy of "us vs them" is just a cherry on top. In your limited worldview, if someone doesn't applaud your preaching, that one just must be from the adversary tribe. Hilarious that you'd automatically assume someone tired of your shit to be atheist.
        I assure you most anons here aren't atheists, they might even be your denomination, and still be royally fed up with you.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you decide to convert from a superior civilization (the West) to an inferior one. You're no different than whites who convert to Islam.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The innovationist civilization that created feminism and troony shit
      No thanks. I'm too conservative for that. Of you are conservative and think Western civilization is great then you have cognitive dissonance

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Byzantines, like the Muslims, castrated little boys and turned them into troony eunuchs. Their church endorsed this.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          guess you never heard of catholic choir boys

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The phenomenon of the castrati happened for a much shorter period of time and on a much smaller scale. Also refer to the Orthodox marvel "In Defense of Eunuchs."

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            so?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are coping.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            well at least you admit you're coping

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah the same cognitive dissonance that causes kids like Kyle in bumfrick Wisconsin to support the Taliban to own the libs

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    daily reminder every alternative position to Orthodoxy has already been refuted by Jay Dyer

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Palamism is correct because I presuppose it to be correct.
      *Instantly ignored*

      Also Gay Cryer literally agreed that "uncreated energies can begin to exist" which is arianism.
      The UTTER STATE of Eastern LARPodoxy

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        *checks Jay Dyer live streams*
        yep Roman Catholicism already refutred

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    No arguments as to how Byzantium is superior to or even on-par with the pagan Roman Empire outside of "le based orthotrad eastern despotism"
    The Roman Empire established the West's laws, languages, and architectural and intellectual traditions. What does post-fall of Rome Byzantium have to compete with that?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Orthoshill is scared of my historical question

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The answer is much simpler: the Pagan Roman Empire was in western Europe considerably longer than the Christian Roman Empire and by the time the Eastern Roman Empire was something that could genuinely be called its own thing that iteration of the Roman Empire had long stopped being literal ancestors of people who now inhabit western Europe/its diaspora.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *