Give me your Orthodox reading list.

Give me your Orthodox reading list.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    What a disturbing image. Even Buddhists are not that cucked. This is the kind of spirituality that glorifies self-castration.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not a Christian but this sort of asceticism is really the only way to true happiness

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Only if you're a weak person

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          What do you mean?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            he means he doesn’t like the idea of not jerking his dick to cartoons drawn by men even hornier and lonelier than him or that giving in to every single desire can be bad for you. the very idea of self denial is so bizarre to some people that they instantly lash out at it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            People lash out at gays that say "My brand of XYZ is the ONLY way to be happy!" because that is homosexual behavior.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks self denial is unique to a single denomination of one specific religion

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice dubs. No idea what that greentext has to do with anything in the post you are replying to, I suggest reading it again.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The question is to what end is asceticism being undertaken. A Muslim fancies himself to be engaging in ascetic practices during Ramadan only to be rewarded with virgins in heaven. Also the "how" of asceticism will also differ across religions

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            and why is Orthodox asceticism being undertaken?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Theosis. To purify oneself from the many passions of his soul in order to fully be able to imitate Christ and partake in His Life. This is why St Athanasius says that God became man so that man might become god. We become through grace what God is by nature. This is only possible because of the Incarnation and Christ's taking on of human nature in His own Divine Person - He mediates the Divinity and humanity in His Person. Asceticism is what allows us to partake in the Divine Energies which deify us. This is a uniquely Eastern Orthodox understanding of why we must partake in asceticism. As St John the Baptist says
            >He must increase, but I must decrease

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Asceticism is what allows us to partake in the Divine Energies which deify us.
            it is amazing the degree to which Greek theology has been cut and paste into Christianity, it's as if the educated late Roman converts were cynical about the whole thing, like Tibetan sex wizards saying it's just buddhism bro

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's why they chose to submit to Rome instead.
            anyhow, anon probably explained it in a manner way too shallow.
            look into the debate between Palamas and Barlaam for the proper idea of "energies".
            what's your understanding now, and how does it connect to greek myth?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what's your understanding now, and how does it connect to greek myth
            Theurgy (or what you must call theosis to be the least heretical) and theological speculations about how god "works" come from neoplatonism, and the neoplatonists were more than happy to use Plato and Homer as allegorical illustrations of their doctrines, which they of course purported to be the esoteric and superior reading, and this conversation, while impacted by the repeated outlawing of paganism by the baptized empire, had deeper roots in the Greek-speaking east than the Latin west. The Christians did not invent askesis but took it the most seriously once they arrived; Plato's notion of life as preparation for death, the body as a tomb for the soul, even these have Aegypto-Pythagorean antecedent and the Platonic tradition looks to Egypt the way Tibet looks to India

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the body as a tomb for the soul
            You're forgetting that the Greeks mocked the idea of the bodily resurrection which was evident in St Paul's preaching in Acts. Furthermore, Orthodoxy rejects the gnostic notion of the material world as being evil. God created all things good as was declared in Genesis. When we say to reject the body we reject the evil passions within it and not the body per se. Indeed, it is through the body that we engage in good works. As the other anon said, read about St Gregory of Palamas' dispute with Barlaam. It's Barlaam who's operating off Hellenic presuppositions, especially concerning Absolute Divine Simplicity, not St Gregory.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            tombs don't get resurrected, the idea is for the body to be a worthy/holy dwelling place for the soul, like a temple or statue

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >statue
            now you're just wrong.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am simply providing the Greek position. Obviously Christianity decided that statues were not okay but sadfaced paintings of Jesus and Mary were because of some elaborate pilpul or other.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            ah, sorry, thought you were the same anon adding to the reply.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then I'm mistaken on my understanding of that concept, thanks for the correction. The rest of the post stands

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are aware that Christ literally defeated death and Christians aim to do so in turn. The Christian willingness to not only confront the morbidity of life of take it, co-opt that struggle, and wear it like a garment is essential and a selling point of both Christianity and Christian culture.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Castration is a sin actually

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Origen didn't think so

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Origen is a condemned heretic and the modern movements to rehabilitate him are moronic

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a sin that's been historically popular among Christians, especially in the Orthodox sphere, due to their life-denying philosophy. It was prevalent enough in early Christianity that it had to be explicitly banned at Nicaea.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy
        https://www.jstor.org/stable/1583869

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          And IMHO it's breddy obvious/logical that mutilating the body which God says is our temple to be kept healthy is sinful.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >life-denying philosophy
            God created all things good. That includes the body. If someone cuts off their penis then it's a mockery of God

            Christianity never fully digested gnosticism

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just because you can find some fringe historical examples of castration and extreme asceticism doesn’t make this the case

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            it is absolutely the case right down to everyone's favorite lgbtq monk from california

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >life-denying philosophy
          God created all things good. That includes the body. If someone cuts off their penis then it's a mockery of God

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God created all things good. That includes the body.
            You are posting in a thread about "Death to the world" that Orthodox Christianity supposedly promotes. See the pic in OP

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't engage in asceticism because the body is evil. You do it to fight the passions which possess body. You engage in good works with the body. If the body was evil then Lord would not have taken human nature upon Himself. Also, we believe in the bodily resurrection, not a mere reanimation of the soul.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't engage in asceticism because the body is evil. You do it to fight the passions which possess body.
            i wonder if Christians were this charitable towards the various heretical and pagan beliefs and customs suppressed over the years or is it only when on the defensive you're allowed to wiggle like this... i mean it isn't hard to justify mortification if you've already said the body is a vector for demonic position, if anything mortification and askesis might be less encouraged but to outright condemn them would seem to invite a holier than thou charismatic critique from your own ranks, which I am sure has, does, and will happen

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The gnostics were wrong, in part, because they declared creation to be evil. The pagans were wrong, in part, because they mocked the bodily resurrection.
            >i mean it isn't hard to justify mortification if you've already said the body is a vector for demonic position
            You haven't really engaged with what's being said. No Orthodox Christian will say the body is evil and is to be outright shunned for the reasons I already gave. The body is a vector for demonic possession to the extent that you use it to engage with the demonic. The relics of the saints prove that their sanctification was of body and soul. What was within them was reflected outwardly. The body and soul are not in tension - the ideal is that they ideally move as one given that they both belong to the hypostasis which possesses them.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >to the extent that you use it to engage with the demonic.
            so it's a matter of reducing the points of contact— take ideas you purportedly hold to their logical conclusion instead of attempting to save face with dogmatic utterances about hypostases, it's embarassing. And relic veneration is a totally ridiculous counter example—if dismembered dead body parts taken from monks and priests are the most holy then surely what you possess by birth is least!

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hypostases
            The point is that I'm body and soul in the hypostasis Anon - there is no dialectical tension
            >logical conclusion
            Which is?
            >if dismembered dead body parts taken from monks and priests are the most holy then surely what you possess by birth is least
            Because I have not sanctified myself not because my flesh was created evil. I suffer the consequences of the Fall which affect my body and soul. By partaking in the life of Christ this can be overcome

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >my living flesh isn't evil... it's fallen!
            >uuoohhh dead hand so exalted
            and ye shall know them by their fruits

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Waaaa the Christians were intolerant meanies!!!
            Sounds like a lot of ressentiment in this post.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            if you read the rest of my post you'd see the point i was trying to make with regard to how you create excuses for doctrinally problematic statements or practices so long as they come from fellow cultists, but naturally you are arguing in bad faith to begin with so this response is expected

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not the same guy dork. I am just pointing out how you are a Nietzschean last man who is fuming with anger against christian authorities, probably most of all your mommy and daddy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            i don't consider e-converts to Russian Orthodoxy authorities on anything

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oozing with impotent rage like your hero.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >impotent rage
            i'm fine thanks for asking
            you will be embarassed by your former self one day

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really think it's that much of a zinger to tell people who don't agree with you that they are just angry? I've seen five year-olds do a better job defending the cookie crumbs they have on their shirts.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its worked so far

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Skoptsy movement emerged in the 1760s from the flagellant sect of the Khlysty.
          >The Khlysts or Khlysty (Russian: Хлыcты, IPA: [xlɨˈstɨ], lit. "whips") were an underground Spiritual Christian sect which emerged in Russia in the 17th century.
          >Spiritual Christianity (Russian: дyхoвнoe хpиcтиaнcтвo) is the group of belief systems held by so-called folk Protestants (narodnye protestanty), including non-Eastern Orthodox indigenous faith tribes and new religious movements that emerged in the Russian Empire. Their origins are varied: some come from Protestant movements imported from Europe to Russia by missionaries, travelers and workers; others from disgust of the behavior (absenteeism, alcoholism, profiteering) of Orthodox priests, still others from the Bezpopovtsy Raskolniks. Those influences have mixed with folk traditions resulted in communities that are collectively called sektanty (sectarians). Such communities were typically documented by Russian Orthodox clergy with a label that described their heresy such as not fasting, meeting on Saturday (sabbatarians), rejecting the spirit (spirit wrestlers), body mutilation (castigators), self-flagellation, or suicide.[1]

          Tldr; they were heretical groups that originated with the heterodox to begin with. Nice "own", bro.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah makes sense, was an orthobro but after a bishop mocked me by mentioning bud light, as an obedient sheep would, I took the hint. Now i'm a schizosister like Origen. Sad I'm not welcome back until I stop crossdressing but i know it's because clergy are jealous of me. They had to go to seminary, go into debt, and be a shill just to have an excuse to sing in fine linens a few hours a week and practice pseudo-cannibalism. Read the Gospels, you don't need church to keep you in line, the early Christians didn't. It only exists as an institution that shills itself as the arbiter of truth because it made itself an intelligence wing to the Byzantines in the 4th century.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Repent.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't you realize orthodox-catholic is just babylonian religion 2.0? Methods of sorcery include inter-meshed prayers/rubrics, drafting icons with a particular 'signature', communion for clerics to partially cannibalize laity, exorcisms to humiliate, and positioning of relics, monasteries, and parishes. Some saints are virtually predetermined before death, incorruptibility is ensured with unknown preservation methods. If you read between the lines of the lives of saints you will pick up on this. Maybe the old church wasn't as bad with these things as now, and there is still honest parishes with good communities out there. But at the end of the day, just believe in Jesus, all that is secondary.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stop larping.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Beyond Good and Evil

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why are the faces so messed up in the painting? Is this AI generated?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Here is a list of books Joseph the Hesychast had his disciples read.

        It Clearly is. Even the chessboard and the position of the pieces are all messed up.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Napoleon died of aids in disgrace and despair on a shithole wasteland in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This is your model of an ideal life? I suppose so since Nietzsche also died in disgrace and despair after going full tard

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Aren't you not supposed to bear false witness or something like that? Or this only applies to fellow cultists?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      i want to wear a Napoleonic era French officer outfit and make my boyfriend frick me

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Christian quotes that prove Nietzsche's reading of Christianity

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just because Nietzsche thinks being carnal jerking off and stuffing your face with cakes all day is good because it’s “vital” doesn’t make it so. Nietzsche was a charlatan materialist who had no justification for anything he was saying because he didn’t even believe in truth. He thought the soul doesn’t exist and the human being is just a body — a bag of atoms. Meaning his thoughts are nothing but the movements of atoms. Meaning they are meaningless. Atheists are moronic

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheists will never understand that they don’t get to make truth claims

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheists will never understand that they don’t get to make truth claims

        ok capeshitter

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheists will never understand that they don’t get to make truth claims

        Elizabeth Anscombe, a Catholic, throughly debunked the idea that naturalism means we cannot be rational.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A woman deboonker

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >someone with a similar position to you disagrees with you therefore you’re wrong
          That’s a fallacy. It’s self evidently true that materialism destroys consciousness and rationality, who cares what this chick said. Didn’t she read St. Paul’s exhortation:
          >I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man.
          Either way, present an argument or don’t post. I presented an argument so it is your job to refute me. What you are doing now is equivalent to a man shouting
          >w-well this other dude could beat you up!
          As he’s getting socked in the face.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s self evidently true that materialism destroys consciousness and rationality
            Not really. Immaterialism could lead to the same sort of scepticism. Perhaps you are being deceived by a malevolent intelligence.

            Logical statements are self-validating. They are either sound or not. What would be different in a materialistic universe to make it impossible for someone to validate a logical statement?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because all logic could just be a deception based on your relative, material circumstances. All logic relies on the idea that some things are definitely true, which cannot be verified if everything is just spacedust

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matter is atoms in motion. A chair, a table, your brain — all of these are material objects. A material object or event is neither “sound” nor “unsound”, neither true nor false. When a firework explodes, it is neither a true explosion nor a false explosion. When the chemical explosion in your brain occurs that in the materialist framework is identical to your thought, this is neither true nor false, neither sound nor unsound. It is an event, a movement of atoms, physical things going from one place to another, a reconfiguration of parts, parts acting upon each other. None of these can produce a truth value or an experience.

            Even more significantly, a naturalist framework is necessarily nominalist, since Forms are immaterial and are instantiated by many material things. Thus an explosion in your brain that is identical to an irrational thought is not the same explosion in my brain that is identical to an irrational thought. Each of these is an individual event. So by what right are we calling both of these explosions irrational, and other explosions rational? Our brains are different, not only in properties but also are just two different things, and there is no Form of Brain that they both instantiate. Our thoughts are nothing but atoms moving in different locations in different configurations, and that’s it.

            And then you get to the fact that you can’t even define matter. All you know is mediated through consciousness. Even your idea of a brain as a material thing is something you have consciously discovered. Your view of the world is an imposed interpretation, imposed by the dictates of your consciousness. You use interpretive Forms in order to see the world; Forms like Contiguity, Similarity, Colour, Shape, Number, and all your scientific theories are based on this. So the very existence of a “material world” is something suspect.

            You seem to be acting under the assumption that an idealist framework is any more demonstrable than a materialist one. Anons, I agree it is quite correct that “at bottom” we cannot be certain (in an absolute sense) of anything. But this is simply the human condition. It is not the consequence of any particular belief system. Scepticism does not disappear simply because one believes in God — otherwise there would no Pascal, no Descartes, no Montaigne. Religion teaches us constantly to doubt “the wisdom of man”. I think this is very reasonable. Religion reminds us to be humble about our own capacity to understand the world. When men think they have finally understood everything, they generally turn out to be wrong, and with catastrophic results.

            Here is the thing: we begin by reasoning. We reason, in the beginning, because we observe that reasoning leads to positive outcomes. It helps us understand the world and clarify our thoughts. There is positive reinforcement. It is self-validating. Primitive man did not wait to find some ultimate justification for the application of his rational faculties before he began to reason. He simply did it. Even animals reason. They calculate, make inferences. We observe that reasoning works, so we do it.

            It is possible — in the sense that we cannot totally disprove the notion — that all of our reasoning is illusory. That all axioms are groundless, unjustifiable. But that will not stop us from using reason in our day to day lives. We simply have to. Just because we cannot prove, in an absolute sense, that reason is reasonable, does not stop us from experiencing the demonstrable utility of reason and the sensation of veracity that accompanies it.

            >Reason’s last step is to recognise that there is an infinite number of things which surpass it. It is simply feeble if it does not go as far as realising that.”
            Blaise Pascal, (Pensées)

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So in this very paragraph you admit that you rely on preconceptions and faith when you use reason. Again, there is no valid justification for why your truth claim is more correct than another unless you believe there is some sort of absolute standard of truth that exists beyond the human mind…aka God

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, in an absolute sense. But you can only escape this predicament if you can somehow irrefutably demonstrate that your absolute exists (and even if it does exist, there’s still no guarantee that any particular logical argument once looks at is absolutely valid and sound: God does not provide a special mark of validation to logical arguments that he approves of, that is identifiably different from the logical process and feeling of veracity available to any materialist or sceptic). If I refuse to “accept” something that appears to me to be true and reasonable and probable, I am simply being stubborn. I don’t have to be an idealist to know that. I can see it in myself. It may be that what appears true to me is in fact false, but the same problem exists for the Christian. The “justification” comes through our lived experience of reasoning leading to positive outcomes. It may all exist inside a bubble, outside of which it is not applicable. But as long as I am in the bubble, I shall continue to reason.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The claim isn’t that all arguments based on God are true. The claim is that only a theist can make a truth claim without being invalidated by their own premises

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But why should the fact that thoughts are the result of naturalistic processes make them invalid? For example, a man raises his hands before himself. “It appears to me that I have two hands.” This is a statement that is beyond reproach, in any universe. Note that he is not stating that he definitely has hands, only that he is perceiving that he does. The fact that his thought is the result of material processes changes nothing about its validity. It is self-validating. It requires nothing outside of itself to be valid. It requires no external authority to certify it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That statement is not beyond reproach though from an atheist perspective. How do you know you have two hands? All sight is mediated by your brain which you have no valid reason to believe is telling you the truth.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its also no longer even a truth claim

            The statement is beyond reproach even from the perspective of a radical sceptic (who denies all knowledge). Remember he is not saying “I definitely have hands and can be certain about it”. He is saying “It appears to me that I have hands”. It may not be a claim about external reality, but it is a valid and sound statement. It is a cognitive procedure that requires nothing beyond itself to be valid. It simply is. Even if the brain is radically unreliable, in what way could this particular thought and experience be invalid?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I guess you are right that it is valid, but its also not a truth claim. “It appears I have 2 hands” is a subjective statement about how someone interprets their experience. Thus, someone could say “it appears to me that you don’t have two hands” and neither person can be shown to be correct through physical means.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re right that that would be an intractable problem. But if people do share certain sense impressions, and agree on certain logical principles, and derive new information from the application of these principles to the sense data they can all mutually observe, and observe that these findings appear to be repeatedly validated by experience, then it seems like a more or less reliable way of producing approximately true knowledge about the observable world. They cannot be certain about it, in an absolute sense, but it is the best thing available to them. When they agree on certain principles of reasoning and on impressions, then they can also dispute among themselves with the goal of coming to conclusions that are mutually agreeable to them, and make progress in the production of new knowledge — say, in the field of mathematics, or chemistry, or whatever. They might not be able to justify absolutely, but that is not a problem so long as they accept that their knowledge is provisional. It becomes more of a problem when we have discussions in the realm of “pure reason” where there is no capacity for real world experiment. For instance, saying that everything is material and that there is no such thing as spirit is a metaphysical claim, and can’t really be proven

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This proves the original point. Someone like Nietzsche who rejects an objective source of truth (God) doesn’t then get to then tell everyone how to live. His ideas are nothing more than word games according to his own starting premise.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >His ideas are nothing more than word games according to his own starting premise.
            that applies to you too dummy since your starting premise doesn't exist anyway and is a product of nihilism

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You literally haven’t understood anything I said and its pretty sad. Try reading a book thats not an obscure bull-dyke English woman

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            how about new age fruits from san franscisco can you recommend me any of those?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would recommend some basic math proof books first so you can maybe grasp the idea that everything relies on claimed objective axioms to function. Then maybe try the Greeks.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do we know God is a correct axiom?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            For like the 10th time, thats not relevant. You can dispute that God and objective truth are valid axioms. If you do that, you also relinquish your ability to say anything else is true. This should be a pretty basic point to grasp if anyone ever actually examined the implications of their supposed worldviews.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you do that, you also relinquish your ability to say anything else is true.
            You're absolutely right, you are just too stupid to understand the implications of this. Nietzsche is indeed attacking God and "truth" in one swoop; it is for the same reason the Buddha denies brahmā, isvara, and atma. You are playing around with epiphenomena and calling them ultimate absolute truths when it is just you dragging everyone else down to your level and asserting you are correct for being there. And perhaps after centuries of bad breeding that is your place, but it need not be anyone else's. Christer apologists aren't sending their best. I'll bet you have a bone to pick with secular egalitarian culture too despite laying the groundwork for it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Stopped reading after “You are absolutely right.” Im sure your based sodomite was actually a Buddhist master lmao

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            but you aren't saying anything true by claiming to believe in the "true" anyway, merely being pretentious

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This conversation was never about me claiming anything to be true. I never said anything about Christianity or religion. You did because you needed something to lash out against and you obviously were made to go to church as a boy or something. Every post here you have basically agreed with my point.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >atheists defending Christianity to spite other atheists
            bizarre

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >JayDyergay and NeitzcheBuddhatroony bait each other in arguing with each other
            priceless

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            English please

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything relies on claimed objective axioms to function
            sure it's probable that turning the faucet counter-clockwise makes hot water come out but that's not objective, just useful to believe until your water heater isn't working

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzsche doesn’t tell people how to live. I think you should read people who disagree with you with an open mind instead of operating on prejudices. It might be instructive to read what Frederick Copleston (a Catholic priest and philosopher) wrote about Nietzsche. He always takes his subjects seriously and charitably

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I feel like you argued your point well up until here. after all that, why say something as silly as this?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That means you almost get it anon, but not quite. You might understand one day.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for having the patience to argue with that guy.

            You’re right that that would be an intractable problem. But if people do share certain sense impressions, and agree on certain logical principles, and derive new information from the application of these principles to the sense data they can all mutually observe, and observe that these findings appear to be repeatedly validated by experience, then it seems like a more or less reliable way of producing approximately true knowledge about the observable world. They cannot be certain about it, in an absolute sense, but it is the best thing available to them. When they agree on certain principles of reasoning and on impressions, then they can also dispute among themselves with the goal of coming to conclusions that are mutually agreeable to them, and make progress in the production of new knowledge — say, in the field of mathematics, or chemistry, or whatever. They might not be able to justify absolutely, but that is not a problem so long as they accept that their knowledge is provisional. It becomes more of a problem when we have discussions in the realm of “pure reason” where there is no capacity for real world experiment. For instance, saying that everything is material and that there is no such thing as spirit is a metaphysical claim, and can’t really be proven

            If we were arguing I'd have called you a dumbass kid and left it at that. You think like a teenager or a 20 year old.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You think like a teenager or a 20 year old
            He is one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you think like a child!
            you don't think at all

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its also no longer even a truth claim

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matter is atoms in motion. A chair, a table, your brain — all of these are material objects. A material object or event is neither “sound” nor “unsound”, neither true nor false. When a firework explodes, it is neither a true explosion nor a false explosion. When the chemical explosion in your brain occurs that in the materialist framework is identical to your thought, this is neither true nor false, neither sound nor unsound. It is an event, a movement of atoms, physical things going from one place to another, a reconfiguration of parts, parts acting upon each other. None of these can produce a truth value or an experience.

            Even more significantly, a naturalist framework is necessarily nominalist, since Forms are immaterial and are instantiated by many material things. Thus an explosion in your brain that is identical to an irrational thought is not the same explosion in my brain that is identical to an irrational thought. Each of these is an individual event. So by what right are we calling both of these explosions irrational, and other explosions rational? Our brains are different, not only in properties but also are just two different things, and there is no Form of Brain that they both instantiate. Our thoughts are nothing but atoms moving in different locations in different configurations, and that’s it.

            And then you get to the fact that you can’t even define matter. All you know is mediated through consciousness. Even your idea of a brain as a material thing is something you have consciously discovered. Your view of the world is an imposed interpretation, imposed by the dictates of your consciousness. You use interpretive Forms in order to see the world; Forms like Contiguity, Similarity, Colour, Shape, Number, and all your scientific theories are based on this. So the very existence of a “material world” is something suspect.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        seething churchite

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >churchite
          That’s a new one, did you just gloss over Nietszches comments about resentment so you could pretend to embody his worldview?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Atheism is protagorean sophistry plain and simple. The entire 'philosophy' is just one big fallacy.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      St Anthony the Great is the proper response to Nietzsche's Overman

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sayings of the Desert Fathers

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    St Maximos the Confessor
    >On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ
    St Isaac the Syrian
    >Ascetical Homilies
    St Gregory of Nyssa
    >Life of Moses
    St Porphyrios
    >Wounded by Love
    St Paisios
    >Spiritual Counsels (all volumes)
    St Justin Popovich
    >Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ
    St John of Kronstadt
    >My Life in Christ

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      based.

      adding the Philokalia and St. Athanasius works, starting with 'On The Incarnation'

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Should probably add Ladder of Divine Ascent as well

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, the Ladder (and also the Philokalia) are primarily monastic texts and someone without a spiritual father will easily fall into prelest/delusion which will be very destructive spiritually eg. wanting to emulate the monastic practices in them without discernment. If you do have a spiritual father then broach the question with them

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Surely there is some merit to reading more advanced theology on your own? I agree a spiritual father is ideal, but surely no one would fall into prelest from reading a monastic text.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, prelest remains a possibility. The other issue is that you may start attributing virtues to yourself that you do not possess - and I say that in the least offensive and judgemental way possible. Often times as well the way these texts tell you to develop a certain virtue is only possible in a monastic context. The issue is that we often lack the discernment as to how to apply such directions in our own lives because we fail to know our limitations and idiosyncrasies. Only a spiritual father who knows well and has a third person perspective of you will know how to adapt these to your living circumstances and spiritual state. “He who has himself as a spiritual guide is being lead by a fool” or words to that effect

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’d add that reading theology proper is likely different to reading monastic texts like that. No one will get deluded reading St John of Damascus’ “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” for example unless you lack reading comprehension.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            What if the person doesn't have a spiritual father? A few saints have said these books can act as a substitute for a spiritual father, provided the person prays, fast, and partakes in the sacraments on a regular basis. Also, there are very few good spiritual fathers left today, and you may have to travel far and wide to find one. The conditions one has to put up with to live a spiritual life are abyssmal, especially in America. The fact that there isn't even one American saint (and by American, I mean born in a typical WASP family) is disconcerting to say the least, and holding your breath until Fr. Seraphim Rose gets canonized ain't gonna cut it either. A typical American will likely have grievous sins which bar him from ordination or student loan debt to become a monk. It's extremely disheartening to tell someone who has a strong love for Christ and desire to be saved to not read these spiritual books when the above options are unavailable to him, especially when he lives among the nigh inescapable demonic forces of modernity.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's extremely disheartening to tell someone who has a strong love for Christ and desire to be saved to not read these spiritual books when the above options are unavailable to him, especially when he lives among the nigh inescapable demonic forces of modernity.
            May the Lord bless you anon, I said a prayer for you. It’s clear you love Christ. I haven’t mentioned that I’m in circumstances that prevent me from seeking a spiritual father at the moment and that these circumstances will be the case for the foreseeable future. This has lead to me reach out and correspond with priests with an internet presence for spiritual guidance for the time being. I highly recommend you do the same - people like Fr Spyridon Bailey, Fr Josiah Trenham or Abbot Tryphon would be worth reaching out to. Lay your concerns bare with them. If they don’t have a problem with you reading the Philokalia or The Ladder then ignore everything that I have said. I only say these things because this is what has been told to me and how I understand them. Another option is seeing if you can visit monasteries or again, contacting them. May He keep you and guide you, anon. I very much empathise with you, it’s a very spiritually barren age and it will get worse before it gets better

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you, anon. I cried when I read this post ;_; My baptismal name is Silouan. I'll try try to reach out to someone. Do you think Archimandrte Zacharias of St. John the Baptist Monastery in Essex has his contact info posted somewhere?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you could try reaching out to Patristic Nectar for that, as a last resort.
            why the specificity also?
            because of his study line up to St. Silouan?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because of his study line up to St. Silouan?
            Pretty much, particularly SS. Silouan and Sophrony's theology on the three stages of grace. I don't want to go into details why, but I do want to discuss with him how I can prepare myself and survive the withdrawal of grace.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how I can prepare myself and survive the withdrawal of grace.
            from my quick look at the idea of its withdrawal, by focusing on God, and following Him, through the example He gave Himself.
            with your heart, mind, and soul turned and focused on Him, walking in the path He set.

            it's a curious notion, those ideas on grace.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon but notions of grace also seem to differ from saint to saint. This is not say that they’re in opposition to each other but it’s often discussed in different terms

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            the problem is exactly that.
            if you're not well versed in theology to begin with, and not a very observant vigilant Christian in dealing with your desires, it's extremely easy to fall into pride for going through something so hard, or misunderstand the monastic aspects of it due to a lack of theological knowledge.

            half agreeing with the anon saying we shouldn't, but it's still good to have them on the back of the mind for when we're ready.

            i'd say the line to be crossed for its reading is being extremely well studied in theology and Scripture, and a true Christian already well aware of his temptations.
            they're tall works, and without this first step in wisdom, you'll trip if you try to get on them.
            even worse is the self-conceit of one thinking themselves wise enough for it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      great list. Vladimir Lossky’s Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is another great read

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no recs aside from

      >Give me your Orthodox reading list.
      Looking for one too. I'll post what I have

      # 1st century
      - Clement of Rome
      - Letter to Mathetes
      - Polycarp
      - Ignatius
      - Barnabas
      - Papias

      # 2nd century
      - Dionysius the Areopagite
      - Justin Martyr
      - Iraneus
      - Clement of Alexandria

      # 3th century
      - Hippolytus
      - Cyprian
      - Tertullian
      - Origen
      - Gregory the Wonderworker
      - Eusebius
      - Desert Fathers

      # 4th century
      - Athanasius
      - Gregory of Nazianzus
      - Gregory of Nyssa
      - Chrysostom
      - Jerome
      - Basil
      - Ambrosiaster
      - Augustine

      # 5th century
      - Cyril of Alexandria

      # 6th century
      - Boethius (not really orthodox but the schism was not really actualised)

      # 7th century
      - Maximus
      - Isaac of Syria
      - Climacus

      # 8th century
      - John of Damascus

      # 9th century
      - Photius

      # 10th century
      - Symeon the New Theologian

      # 13th century
      - Gregory Palamas

      # 14th century
      - Nicolas Cabasilas

      # 15th century
      - Philokalia

      # 18th century
      - Seraphim of Sarov

      # 19th century
      - Silouan

      # 20th century
      - Sophrony
      - Jaroslav Pelikan
      - Lossky
      - Meyendorff
      - Staniloae

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Disingenuous. Many people made recs and talked about books thy just didn't write out long lists like that. Personally, I already posted a link to Justin Marlers reading list on his site. I'll just copy paste it here then.

        The Arena, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

        Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Isaac the Syrian

        Beginning to Pray, Anthony Bloom

        Centuries on Love, St. Maximus the Confessor

        Discourses and sayings, St. Dorotheos of Gaza

        Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, St. John Damascene

        The Field, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov

        Fifty Spiritual Homilies, St. Macarius the Great

        The Forgotten Desert Mothers, (collection by Paulist Press)

        The Ladder of Divine Ascent, St. John Climacus

        Little Russian Philokalia, (several volumes and multiple authors)

        Orthodox Psychotherapy, Metropolitan Hierotheos

        Orthodox Spirituality, Dumitru Staniloae

        Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives, Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica

        Paradise of the Fathers (two volume set)

        Passions & the Virtues, St. Paisios of Mount Athos

        The Philokalia, (several volumes and many authors)

        Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer, Evagrius the Solitary

        Saying of the Desert Fathers, (collection by Cistercian Publications)

        The Spiritual Life, St. Theophan the Recluse

        The Spiritual Meadow, John Moschos

        Unseen Warfare, Lorenzo Scupoli, Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain & St. Theophan the Recluse

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Orthodox Psychotherapy, Metropolitan Hierotheos
          >Orthodox Spirituality, Dumitru Staniloae
          Some patrician gems in here

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most people dont even know this book exists.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've been meaning to get it. It is said that having it in your possession protects you from sudden death.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox LARPing totally discredited after Ukraine war

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Soulless bugmen throw around accusations of larp because they can't conceive of anyone taking life seriously

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        A person who takes christianity seriously would not trade childish insults like “soulless bugman”. I am not Christian but i respect earnest Christians — and Oyish browsers who are drawn to orthodoxy because of its exotic aesthetics are certainly not earnest. Ironically they are prey to the very things the Orthodox tradition is so wary about — illusion, sentimentality, etc.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's quite a step back from your initial totalising statement

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            At least the Russian Orthodox Church is totally compromised and the handmaiden of evil..

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even granting that, it's news to me that people becoming Orthodox are solely joining ROCOR or ROC jurisdictions

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re right, I made a flippant, silly, unwarranted comment

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            And I apologise for my initial brashness, forgive me. God bless.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You shouldn't have apologized in the later post. If you haven't grown up in eastern Europe/central Asia/Greece, you're not Orthodox, you're a reactionary westerner trying to find a new identity to wear.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no diaspora
            The church is local, not national btw.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no diaspora
            Correct.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            And there’s the rub. I’m no atheist but it’s clear your kind, regardless of proclaiming yourselves to be antiracist, use your ethnocentrism to keep westerners from experiencing Jesus Christ and his kingdom.
            >it’s only racist when westerners do it
            Sounds like the same dreck peddled by BLM and their israeli handlers whenever someone brings up black-on-white crime, and make the claim that their ilk cannot be racist because of some metaphysical gobbledyasiatic.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          An aside but it seems that a lot of Orthodox philosophy and theology is just anti-English considering the main proponent of sentimentalism was David Hume, a Scot. More reason for me not to bother with Orthodoxy despite being highly religious.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You have a point but at the same time the idea that Christians are compelled to be hyper-nice appears to be an incorrect modern notion. Jesus and the apostles all launch vicious insults at the Pharisees, and Paul has implied insults against pagans in his letters. I don't think they'd be the hyper-polite extremely nice and sweet types if they were around today.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Two wrong extremes, still.
            Christ showed infinite love to sinners who could still repent, and kindly rebuked any errors.
            he was stern with the Pharisees, who, seeing Him do miracles and everything, willingly refused to believe and even accused Him.

            the real problem with the tradlarper types is they have no proper belief; it's a mask to hide against and from which to spew hate. Even worse is how they end up wrongly portraying Christianity to unbelievers.

            the Orthodox often discuss these types of converts who are after anti-western ideas and only want to feel superior, and how they'd leave when told to drop the hate and pride.

            You're supposed to be compassionate and patient; you see Paul teaching amongst the greeks and disregarding any insults, not calling them bad names and hating them for being wrong.

            you should only be stern when you see that's what will drive someone to repent; like a parent that forbids something je sees is bad for the child.
            And never hate along the stern manner. remember your sins, how you were before you knew all you do. hate the sin, love the sinner.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh, and to be even clearer;
            this love is not one that allows itself to be overpowered by sin.
            lovingly try to get people away from errors, but if they stay in them unrepentant, they should absolutely be judged and condemned, as happened with all the heresiarchs and their heresies.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think this follows either. Jesus obviously knew the Pharisees would not repent.
            see [...]

            >What I'm saying is that I don't think it follows that insulting equates to not being a sincere Christian
            it does when you're doing it out of a sense of superiority and purely to attack another, thinking yourself better.
            as for preaching, along with love being a much better way of showing truth than insults and hate, all saints speak of humility; who are you to criticize another, as if you were not even more sinful than him?
            we are to show Christ, not further our pride.

            nobody deserves to be insulted.
            again with the parent and child metaphor; how could the parent expect the child to also love who he is and what he stands for if, instead of love, he shows hate?

            and let me clear it up even further.
            not freely insulting them and spewing hate, but a proper loving judgement, which attempts to make the heretic return to faith by his removal from the church.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus and Paul were both essentially debating their co-religionists—Jesus and the Pharisees clashed over interpretation of the same religion while Paul is writing to converts urging them not to lapse into the outside culture. There is a context there which is lacking here. The unconverted poster is seeing your behavior for what it is, the usual shitpost slur-hurling diatribes which have come to characterize this site. You could just as well be talking about Asuka vs Rei, American politics, or which video game studio is the worst, because the Christianity mentioned is only there in a Mad Libs kind of way.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            kindly stop responding to the obvious falseflagger strawman.

            as for that view, they didn't act hateful with unbelievers.
            see Christ with other people, and Paul everywhere, especially at the Areopagus.
            not even when he and Barnabas were confused with the idols of the people did they act violent or hateful.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >kindly stop responding to the obvious falseflagger strawman.
            Huh?
            Maybe you should go back and reread my initial post, there is no strawman in it and I even begin with "You have a point...". I'm bringing up a separate issue that's related. What exactly is the deal with the ultra-sensitivity of you and the other poster on this topic?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The unconverted poster is seeing your behavior for what it is
            The post you're responding to was my first post in the thread friend, chill. Honestly with that level of projection out the gate I don't think I'll waste the time engaging in conversation with you further.

            Two wrong extremes, still.
            Christ showed infinite love to sinners who could still repent, and kindly rebuked any errors.
            he was stern with the Pharisees, who, seeing Him do miracles and everything, willingly refused to believe and even accused Him.

            the real problem with the tradlarper types is they have no proper belief; it's a mask to hide against and from which to spew hate. Even worse is how they end up wrongly portraying Christianity to unbelievers.

            the Orthodox often discuss these types of converts who are after anti-western ideas and only want to feel superior, and how they'd leave when told to drop the hate and pride.

            You're supposed to be compassionate and patient; you see Paul teaching amongst the greeks and disregarding any insults, not calling them bad names and hating them for being wrong.

            you should only be stern when you see that's what will drive someone to repent; like a parent that forbids something je sees is bad for the child.
            And never hate along the stern manner. remember your sins, how you were before you knew all you do. hate the sin, love the sinner.

            >Two wrong extremes, still.
            Yes I'm not saying one should be a vicious insulter to random people in general, this would be a strawman of my post. What I'm saying is that I don't think it follows that insulting equates to not being a sincere Christian. If that was the logic, we'd have to say that Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles were therefore not sincere Christians, which is a ludicrous conclusion.
            >you should only be stern when you see that's what will drive someone to repent; like a parent that forbids something je sees is bad for the child.
            I don't think this follows either. Jesus obviously knew the Pharisees would not repent.
            Rest of your post I generally take no issue with.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >i'm very polite, i just believe you should be able to hurl hostile insults at people over matters of dogma and that's the epitome of being christlike
            It amazes me how little e-convert/tradlarper types understand how conversion works among non-extremist people... there is no mystique or sanctity to your conduct if you merely behave identically to everyone else while only differing on points of schizobabble. Jesus had a talent for sorcery so he could get away spouting unsubstantiated religious utterances. Others wishing to pursue religious philosophies engage in ascetic/ethic/ritual conduct that separates them from other, more ordinary people. I really can't tell many of you here apart from last decade's fedoras. It's the same behavior, but instead of being sanctimonious about disbelief it's being smug and snarky about believing. Perhaps you are just mad that your single mother never took you to church!

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Insane projection in this post. I'm not even Orthodox, I just enjoy studying religions. Nor did I ever suggest anything of what you describe in your ranting strawman of a post. Unironically seek help, you come off extremely schizo. Let alone the fact you're using insults yourself even in this post! Look in the mirror man, last reply from me to you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            calling someone an insane projecting schizo is probably one of the top ten most used insults here, so remind me again what is so special or necessary about *checks notes for this month's ideological costume* Orthodox Christianity if its advocates are just going to do the same prickly partisan anonymous cyber-sparring as everyone else here? I didn't need Christianity to license rude behavior before, what's the use for it now?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think this follows either. Jesus obviously knew the Pharisees would not repent.
            see

            oh, and to be even clearer;
            this love is not one that allows itself to be overpowered by sin.
            lovingly try to get people away from errors, but if they stay in them unrepentant, they should absolutely be judged and condemned, as happened with all the heresiarchs and their heresies.

            >What I'm saying is that I don't think it follows that insulting equates to not being a sincere Christian
            it does when you're doing it out of a sense of superiority and purely to attack another, thinking yourself better.
            as for preaching, along with love being a much better way of showing truth than insults and hate, all saints speak of humility; who are you to criticize another, as if you were not even more sinful than him?
            we are to show Christ, not further our pride.

            nobody deserves to be insulted.
            again with the parent and child metaphor; how could the parent expect the child to also love who he is and what he stands for if, instead of love, he shows hate?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            First thanks for the first sane reply, man this thread has some unstable types in it. Alright let's get into it.
            >it does when you're doing it out of a sense of superiority and purely to attack another, thinking yourself better.
            Yes I agree with this, but it should be noted the sin isn't then "insulting", but rather pride. In this case it happens to manifest through an insult.
            >we are to show Christ, not further our pride.
            This is kind of a problem because for Christ, there were times in which insults were called for. The same goes for the apostles as well. So if they're our models for a Christian life, it does follow that at certain times, insults are called for.
            Now Jesus does say that even if one is angry towards his brother, such that he insults him, he's in danger of hellfire. So harmonizing this with Jesus himself insulting the Pharisees (and its not just sternness, it is rather vicious at times) is not superficially obvious. I think there's multiple ways to approach this harmonization.
            Also yes, we agree that one should not be prideful, but there must be times in which one launches an insult in a non-prideful way (otherwise, we are saying that Jesus and the apostles are guilty of the sin of pride, which is nonsensical especially in Jesus's case).
            >nobody deserves to be insulted.
            I don't see how this possibly can be defensible from a Christian viewpoint. There are people that deserve hell, Paul also says that the state has the right to carry out deserved capital punishments. So people can deserve such fates as this, but not....mean words? Furthermore we're also then saying Jesus did wrong when he insulted the Pharisees, since they did not deserve it. Which again can't be the case.
            >again with the parent and child metaphor; how could the parent expect the child to also love who he is and what he stands for if, instead of love, he shows hate?
            Yes I think this relates to the question of harmonizing that I brought up above. Maybe we could explore this more specifically in the next set of posts. For the time being though I'll leave the response to you, maybe you still disagree with some of what I said above and would like to address that first.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            show the times when insults were called for and the reasons they were called for.
            quote verses also.

            >but not mean words
            insults in the context of preaching only drive unbelievers away from the faith, and misrepresents Christianity.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Eh, I'm not gonna bother going through and quoting verses to be honest. Too much effort for an internet discussion. I'll give some moments I remember and you can decide whether you want to continue talking or not.
            >Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites on many different occasions.
            >Jesus point out the spiritual failures of the Pharisees in many different ways (they are whitewashed tombs, they keep the outside of the dish pristine but ruin the inside, they are unrighteous, they are sons of the devil, etc.
            I mean this is pretty heavy stuff. I think it'd be hard to mentally gymnastic your way out of many of these being straight-up insults.
            Continuing on:
            >Peter picks up on calling the Pharisees hypocrites, so this behavior isn't just rated JO (Jesus Only) as many Christians like to claim at this point.
            >Paul also has implied insults against pagans "and if he continues in his behavior treat him as you would a heathen man. Do not even eat with him." for example. The clear implication is 'heathen men' are people such as you don't even speak with them or sit down for meals with them.
            >Worth noting Jesus also makes unfavorable comparisons to heathens as well, although its hard to say these are insults "And when you pray, do not babble on as the heathen do...." being one such example.
            Another juicy one is John the Baptist, who launches a straight-up insult at the Pharisees "ye brood of vipers!"
            >insults in the context of preaching only drive unbelievers away from the faith, and misrepresents Christianity.
            So then we're saying John the Baptist sinned while preaching, which is a nonsensical conclusion.
            Keep in mind I'm not talking about Oyish shitposts. The common thread is whenever Jesus, John the Baptist, or the Apostles "insulted", it was a real, truthful observation on the deficiencies of the target. It wasn't stuff like "you are a poopyhead".
            However, as the other poster is showing, in today's ultra-polite Western society even saying something that's at rue observation, such as "you are projecting" can be twisted and labelled as an insult. So then basically, what occurs is people twist Christian morals to say "if you're a Christian you can never criticize me at all, you can't point out my flaws". Which seems patently untrue, as Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles aptly demonstrate.
            Once again I agree with you that one should not insult "for the wrong reasons", these being pride, human anger, personal gain, etc.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus is calling out their errors, not insulting them per se. It's a rebuke.
            Paul shows no insult. It's just not being among or with them.
            John the Baptist again with a rebuke.

            I think we're using insult to mean different things.
            >real, truthful observation on the deficiencies of the target
            I wouldn't say such a thing is an insult, in the proper use of the noun.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus is calling out their errors, not insulting them per se. It's a rebuke.
            You're half-right. He is indeed calling out their errors, and remarking on real deficiences, but these are also insults.
            >You hypocrites!
            >You brood of vipers!
            >You are sons of the devil.
            Are all certainly insults. If you deny they are, then really I think its just a semantic game we're playing, and it doesn't change my point at all except for what labels we decide to append to things.
            >Paul shows no insult. It's just not being among or with them.
            I agree, there is no explicit insult. This is why I used the word "implied". The insult here is an "implied" one - Paul's statement, in other words, is consistent with the mentality that heathens (pagans) are a lower class of people that one should not associate with.
            >John the Baptist again with a rebuke.
            Again, I would say its both at once. An insult can be an empty insult, or it can also function as a rebuke or correction simultaneously. Something like "you are a shithead" is just an empty insult, in almost all contexts. "You are a hypocrite", on the other hand, is certainly an insult, but it also simultaneously a (potentially) true observation about the person. Just an uncomfortable one.
            >I think we're using insult to mean different things.
            >I wouldn't say such a thing is an insult, in the proper use of the noun.
            In that case I'd say its semantic, yeah.
            But this is curious then, because the first poster who got everyone riled up by saying "soulless bugmen", was deemed to be "insulting", even though this is moreso in the category of Jesus's insults than it is in the category of empty insults. What I mean is this: "soulless bugman" is a real attempt at observation on the ideology the other non-Christian poster presumably held. It wasn't just an empty assault "you are a homosexual", for example. When the latter is said, its only to hurt and for no other reason, the insulter usually isn't actually suggesting the person is gay.
            So then at this point a good question would be this. What to you is an insult?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah feel free to call people soulless bugmen, a chiefly internet-politics driven insult, as a tactic to promote Christianity; that comes across as very sincere and consistent with the Gospels if you use it as a synonym for goyim/heathen/hellene/pagan

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm guessing you're not the other poster since you're a lot more sarcastic and don't put any reasoning forward, but I'll give you a shot.
            Look at my post here:

            Thinking a bit more, here's a great way to concisely put my question at this point. You (presumably) weren't okay with that poster early on in the thread calling another poster a "soulless bugman". Would you be okay with him instead calling him a "son of the devil"?
            >No I wouldn't be okay with it.
            Interesting then, because this is one of the phrases Jesus himself uses, so we have to conclude that in at least some contexts, its appropriate. How can we determine when it is and isn't?
            >I would be okay with it.
            Alright. Then what, to you, is the difference?

            Perhaps at this point I should highlight two things, in order to ward off potential misunderstandings down the line:
            1. I'm neither condemning nor condoning the "soulless bugman" insult. I'm just interested in this question from a logical point of view, since I find this particular strain of Christian thinking to be not logically consistent with their own tradition (but "this" I don't mean yours necessarily, I mean the type of mentality I described in my first post).
            2. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm asking questions because I'm genuinely curious as to your stance.

            > I'm neither condemning nor condoning the "soulless bugman" insult. I'm just interested in this question from a logical point of view
            Here's the relevant piece.
            Do you understand that I'm really not concerned with what posters do, and am instead concerned with finding a logical basis for what behavior would and would not be permitted in a Christian context?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >finding a logical basis for what behavior would and would not be permitted in a Christian context
            churches used to be responsible for this, not laymen, but in any case I feel my position was clear enough here

            >i'm very polite, i just believe you should be able to hurl hostile insults at people over matters of dogma and that's the epitome of being christlike
            It amazes me how little e-convert/tradlarper types understand how conversion works among non-extremist people... there is no mystique or sanctity to your conduct if you merely behave identically to everyone else while only differing on points of schizobabble. Jesus had a talent for sorcery so he could get away spouting unsubstantiated religious utterances. Others wishing to pursue religious philosophies engage in ascetic/ethic/ritual conduct that separates them from other, more ordinary people. I really can't tell many of you here apart from last decade's fedoras. It's the same behavior, but instead of being sanctimonious about disbelief it's being smug and snarky about believing. Perhaps you are just mad that your single mother never took you to church!

            and here

            calling someone an insane projecting schizo is probably one of the top ten most used insults here, so remind me again what is so special or necessary about *checks notes for this month's ideological costume* Orthodox Christianity if its advocates are just going to do the same prickly partisan anonymous cyber-sparring as everyone else here? I didn't need Christianity to license rude behavior before, what's the use for it now?

            what i would be interested in knowing is whether you think this is a good game for Christianity to be playing, giving good license to internet playground insults in order to better attract the socially stunted / arrested development audience... think of it as a sort of malabar rites controversy of the contemporary era... Is being a shitposter a legitimate form of Christianity or will it undermine the lower-case catholic aspect of Christianity to allow these sorts of cultural practices?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Alright I'll bite since the other guy is replying, I'd appreciate some chill-out on this one though.
            >what i would be interested in knowing is whether you think this is a good game for Christianity to be playing
            To be brutally honest I don't personally care that much. I'm more interested in how Christianity should be practiced than I am in using what amounts to marketing techniques to convince people who aren't Christians to become Christians, which I strongly doubt Jesus would approve of in the first place.
            >Is being a shitposter a legitimate form of Christianity or will it undermine the lower-case catholic aspect of Christianity to allow these sorts of cultural practices?
            I don't think it is or isn't, rather its more like online discourse is just a part of life now. This is like asking if buying or selling in the marketplace is a "legitimate form of Christianity". Its a secular affair, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
            I really doubt that insults along the lines of "you are a homosexual" or "you are a Black person" can be permitted under a logical interpretation of Christianity however, if that's more what you're asking. But the modern Christian attitude of extreme hyper-sensitivity about "insults" that are of the type Jesus himself would have said doesn't seem very Christian at all, it more seems like a contemporary secular idea of politeness that has been given a Christian veil, and dressed up as though it had spiritual authority when in reality its a man-made idea.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Its a secular affair, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
            on the contrary, if Christianity becomes a as banal a question as coke vs pepsi nobody has any reason to prefer it if pressed. Consider how mainline protestantism has aped every secular norm to the point where it now shrinks every year versus the more "out there" or committed versions of Christianity. If the latest secular trend is to do x, whether that's extreme politeness or extreme impoliteness, if Christianity is merely copying it in an attempt to preserve its appeal, it will always be too late and always unclear to audiences what it is exactly that is being offered here that nobody else has.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think I've been misunderstood, I'm not suggesting that shitposting becomes "part of Christianity" anymore than buying and selling in the market becomes "part of Christianity", that's the whole point of my example. Those are secular affairs, therefore not religious affairs. They neither are nor aren't Christian expressions per se.
            >If the latest secular trend is to do x, whether that's extreme politeness or extreme impoliteness, if Christianity is merely copying it in an attempt to preserve its appeal, it will always be too late and always unclear to audiences what it is exactly that is being offered here that nobody else has.
            Yeah I agree, that's why I think Christianity should steer clear of what are, really, secular ideas of politeness and civility entirely, which should be "rendered to Caesar". I.e., I'm not calling you a hypocrite. Why am I not doing that? Is it because Jesus frowns every time I call someone a hypocrite? No, its because that would break civil discourse in our culture, and I'd prefer for the conversation to continue. To suddenly insult a person like that is rude, but that doesn't make it a "sin".
            Also this is just my personal mentality but I don't think one should have a marketing idea towards Christianity at all. A person should convert because they realize its the truth, not because the Christians are oh so nice or because Brad from the band is really cool. It seems like you might agree with this?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think one should have a marketing idea towards Christianity at all. A person should convert because they realize its the truth, not because the Christians are oh so nice or because Brad from the band is really cool. It seems like you might agree with this?
            For most people, religion is not an intellectual exercise, nor has it ever really been, and no religion can survive as a transmissable set of beliefs and practices if it is turned entirely inward... quite simply many things one might associate with Christianity would disappear were it to become a personal intellectual decision (made by the sort of people who would have become priests or monks hundreds of years ago) and not a social/communal organization dedicated to its shared mission. The actual physical churches would end up being sold to real estate developers, charitable causes would shutter, whatever religious art is still being made would grind to a halt, bibles would not be printed, the list goes on. The quest for truth, whatever that means, in the context of any religion, is always supported with some kind of community or soteriological importance. Otherwise it is, as you can readily observe in secular western philosophies, jumping from trend to trend without any obvious purpose to non-scholars.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, but the inward changes and is shown by the outward.
            i reckon that anon is attempting to say one shouldn't convert on appearance alone, without knowledge of anything (like tradlarpers often do).
            these kinds end up heretics to keep up their own headcanon of what "based Christianity" should be and how everyone else is wrong about it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >i reckon that anon is attempting to say one shouldn't convert on appearance alone, without knowledge of anything (like tradlarpers often do).
            >these kinds end up heretics to keep up their own headcanon of what "based Christianity" should be and how everyone else is wrong about it.
            Yeah that is closer to what I'm saying and I agree with this. I also think that if a person tries to compel other people to adhere to "real Christianity", they should really, really certain that they actually know what it is. That's why I'm criticizing this idea of "a real Christian would always be polite".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >their own headcanon of what "based Christianity" should be and how everyone else is wrong about it.
            right so somebody saying "it's legitimate to call people soulless bugmen and be Orthodox" is inviting the people who use the term soulless bugmen to label themselves as Orthodox while they are at it, it's a kind of entryism really and unchecked will result in Orthodoxy being associated with angry internet politics among people who are aware of it and not convinced by it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >right so somebody saying "it's legitimate to call people soulless bugmen and be Orthodox"
            Never once did I ever state this, this is a strawman. All I've done is ask for the logical basis of the condemnation, and I've yet to receive a solid answer. I'm wondering if you legitimately don't understand my points, or if you're being purposely disingenuous.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            it scandalizes people.
            you're blaming them for not seeing the rock, when they literally couldn't. stomping the toe they hit on the rock while stumbling.

            >i reckon that anon is attempting to say one shouldn't convert on appearance alone, without knowledge of anything (like tradlarpers often do).
            >these kinds end up heretics to keep up their own headcanon of what "based Christianity" should be and how everyone else is wrong about it.
            Yeah that is closer to what I'm saying and I agree with this. I also think that if a person tries to compel other people to adhere to "real Christianity", they should really, really certain that they actually know what it is. That's why I'm criticizing this idea of "a real Christian would always be polite".

            well, why shouldn't they?
            most of the sins and errors insulted are the things the same men have done or did.
            God does not hold it against them, so why should they do so against others?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it scandalizes people.
            >you're blaming them for not seeing the rock, when they literally couldn't. stomping the toe they hit on the rock while stumbling.
            I can't at all connect this to the post its responding to, doesn't seem to be a logical response to it at all.
            >well, why shouldn't they?
            Well, I can think of one very good reason. Because Jesus wasn't. And a Christian is supposed to imitate Jesus, rather than doing what some random Oyish poster or guy off the street believes "a real Christian would do".
            >God does not hold it against them, so why should they do so against others?
            You're aware that Christianity teaches that God sends people to Hell for their sins, right?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're aware that Christianity teaches that God sends people to Hell for their sins, right?
            yes, and i'm saying God forgave the men who are preaching, so who are they to act superior?
            it's the parable of the man who, freed from debt, threw his neighbour into prison for a debt to himself.

            also quoting the reply for the part after >he wasn't in

            >when they responded to him that they'd like to hear him again on the ideas he brought forward, he decided it was pointless and stopped engaging
            no? where does it say he did so?

            >can't think of a time where unbelief was insulted
            it's exactly what happens in places like here.

            as for things these men would say, refer to the last two lines: [...]
            not everyone is willingly choosing to refuse truth for personal gain.
            most are simply unknowledgeable.

            >he wasn't
            "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"
            was it impolite?
            see the difference between this treatment of pharisees and His executors.
            from those who refused truth willingly, to those who simply did not know.

            the problem is, in about every single case, you will be talking to someone of the latter case. you shouldn't take the former as justification to do the same things to the latter.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the logical basis of the condemnation
            There isn't really, the question as Inwould frame it is whether it is advantageous or not to politicize Christianity by declaring it hostile to a particular culture war enemy or not, and as drawing these sorts of battle lines will permanently alienate some potential converts while winning others it is a zero sum question. It is difficult to rely on the Bible for examples legitimating hostility to those who don't believe because there was no Christianity in the Bible, just a debate within Judaism about what to do now that the Romans had subjugated the Hasmonean state. So you probably could find quotes supporting extreme anti-evangelism and condemnation of the outside, but conversely there is an invitation to conversion that makes Christianity develop into a true breach with the parent religion in the first place. Meanwhile in our times there is a cultural assumption that Jesus taught love and forgiveness and that sort of thing, so a revisionist Christianity successful at reframing Jesus as an aggressive bile-spewing culture warrior at home on Oyish more than at church is bound to alienate what is left of non-Christian or lapsed Christian sympathy for Christianity and dry up that pool of converts. On the other hand and as also noted earlier, mainline protestants can't truly out-gay secular liberal culture so adopting those trappings has not reversed their decline and boosted their image among those people... would shitlord christposting fare the same as pride pastors on tiktok?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > the question as Inwould frame it is whether it is advantageous or not to politicize Christianity
            Yes and as I've indicated, I have no interest in this. I'm interested in what it means to practice Christianity authentically, not in what is "advantageous" for its marketing techniques. I'll leave that concern to others, God knows there's no shortage of Christians who are incredibly interested in exactly that question. In economics we'd call that a "saturated market".
            >so a revisionist Christianity successful at reframing Jesus as an aggressive bile-spewing culture warrior at home on Oyish
            Huge strawman here, not at all what I'm suggesting.

            >You're aware that Christianity teaches that God sends people to Hell for their sins, right?
            yes, and i'm saying God forgave the men who are preaching, so who are they to act superior?
            it's the parable of the man who, freed from debt, threw his neighbour into prison for a debt to himself.

            also quoting the reply for the part after >he wasn't in [...]

            >yes, and i'm saying God forgave the men who are preaching, so who are they to act superior?
            Again, we're veering into stuff I don't care to discuss. I'm not talking about "acting superior", and as I've already proven, insulting someone does not immediately equate to being prideful.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes and as I've indicated, I have no interest in this. I'm interested in what it means to practice Christianity authentically, not in what is "advantageous" for its marketing techniques.
            you'd have been a monk if you'd lived centuries earlier, but with Christianity degraded to an ideological decision that sort of thing seems like too much of a commitment

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm just a guy who's interested in what I'm interested in, and not interested in what I'm not interested in. Simple as that. I frankly find talking about Christianity like its an MLM business to be intensely boring, and I'll leave those discussions to others who are interested.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I agree with all of this, but the fact remains that the inner part of Christianity is its core. You aren't "Christian" if you just turn up for the social events. There has to be some recognition of the fact that the tradition is true, even if you otherwise aren't an intellectual type.
            The rest of your post seems to operate on the assumption that I'm suggesting that the social aspect of Christianity is mutually exclusive with the intellectual aspect. No, I am absolutely not suggesting that, let me clear that up.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Is being a shitposter a legitimate form of Christianity or will it undermine the lower-case catholic aspect of Christianity to allow these sorts of cultural practices?
            undermines proper lower case orthodoxy.

            were i an unbeliever, i'd feel nothing but contempt for someone who, while preaching love, hypocritically conversed with me like so.
            it'd be telling me about kisses while slapping me across the face.
            you'll rarely find someone "pharisaic" to whom the insults could be "justifiably" said.

            most if not all the people you talk to will be scandalized by the unnecessary use of them.
            Christianity is not molded to its context, that's exactly what breeds problems, and this striking difference to the secular exactly what shows its difference from it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you'll rarely find someone "pharisaic" to whom the insults could be "justifiably" said.
            Eh, to be honest I think they're everywhere, you'll never have a shortage of Pharisee types, its a constant archetype. From one point of view you could even say this is anyone who is actively preaching/teaching some philosophy of life, which is basically everyone these days. In ancient times being a "teacher" wasn't really firmly delineated from being a spiritual teacher, so it was bound up in notions of authority. If you're advocating for some philosophy or mindset then by default you're trying to claim you have some authority over others, from an ancient point of view.
            Now if you mean there's no point for a Christian to insult random joes who are just living life and getting by, then I agree. But no one is ever really tempted to insult those types in the first place unless you're a mean-spirited person. I have no issue with my 36 year old neighbor who comes home and drinks and plays PS4 every night, its never even once crossed my mind that he deserved an insult. A trickier case is someone who clearly thinks they have some authority on what life means and are spreading their ideas with some level of arrogance. That's at least closer to the "Pharisee", and in cases like that I don't think even the most nice-guy types would cling to the stance that its wrong to point out these types are hypocrites when they are.
            Think about examples like Jordan Peterson (not saying I feel strongly about him one way or another). In a way, we all sense that we're allowed to criticize him, because by setting himself up as a life-guru who has important ideas you should consider accepting and applying, he's opening himself to such criticism. But a hyper-sensitive type of person could say "oh no don't say he's a hypocrite, that's mean and bad" and in this context it would be inappropriate to try and limit criticism in such a way.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            i find it better, especially in the context of seeing someone going through a philosophy, to engage not them, but the idea.
            many, many, many of these are clinging to the idea out of a lack of knowledge about it.
            a clear insult only slaps them back into their shell, while engaging the idea helps convey Christianity and show the faults in whatever they hold to.
            these insults should only be reserved, if at all, to those who willingly refuse to listen after properly understanding Christianity.

            you wouldn't blame someone for stumbling in the dark; they couldn't see the stone, nor the proper path to follow.

            for a biblical example, Paul did not insult the greeks who mocked him in the Areopagus, for this exact same reason.
            there's no need to, and it'd merely scandalize them. i personally think any such things come from pride, when men like us are involved.

            Christ was talking to men who saw miracles and were bent on not believing because of their desire for power and influence as teachers.
            these kinds are not rare at all in society. people are more like the men at the Areopagus, who hold to their own ideas, unknowledgeable about proper truth.
            some may reject what you say out of ignorance, and it isn't something you should pridefully hold against them. others, however, will listen.
            if you started by insulting their unbelief, they would not hear a thing.

            who are we to compare ourselves to God incarnate and John the Baptist in judgement?
            and who are others, for us to so easily compare them to the Pharisees, who willingly rejected truth for personal gain?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I agree with you, which can probably be seen in that's how I'm conducting myself in this thread.
            >for a biblical example, Paul did not insult the greeks who mocked him in the Areopagus, for this exact same reason.
            True, and yet when debating with the Stoics, when they responded to him that they'd like to hear him again on the ideas he brought forward, he decided it was pointless and stopped engaging. Similarly, Jesus instructed his disciples to go from town to town and preach. If a town refused them, they were to walk on and understand that the town was now condemned.
            >if you started by insulting their unbelief, they would not hear a thing.
            I can't think of a time in which unbelief is outright insulted in the Gospel accounts. Insults like "hypocrisy" are not insults of a lack of a belief, they are insults that indicate that the person's will is not aligned with what they're teaching.
            I think there's a consistent attempt to shift the goalposts here. Clearly I'm not talking about prideful insults or these other types of insults. I'm talking about the types of things that Jesus, the apostles, John the Baptist, etc. would say. So can we keep the focus on that from this point forward instead of veering off into bringing stuff up that I'm not even defending or, to be honest, am not even interested in discussing?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >when they responded to him that they'd like to hear him again on the ideas he brought forward, he decided it was pointless and stopped engaging
            no? where does it say he did so?

            >can't think of a time where unbelief was insulted
            it's exactly what happens in places like here.

            as for things these men would say, refer to the last two lines:

            i find it better, especially in the context of seeing someone going through a philosophy, to engage not them, but the idea.
            many, many, many of these are clinging to the idea out of a lack of knowledge about it.
            a clear insult only slaps them back into their shell, while engaging the idea helps convey Christianity and show the faults in whatever they hold to.
            these insults should only be reserved, if at all, to those who willingly refuse to listen after properly understanding Christianity.

            you wouldn't blame someone for stumbling in the dark; they couldn't see the stone, nor the proper path to follow.

            for a biblical example, Paul did not insult the greeks who mocked him in the Areopagus, for this exact same reason.
            there's no need to, and it'd merely scandalize them. i personally think any such things come from pride, when men like us are involved.

            Christ was talking to men who saw miracles and were bent on not believing because of their desire for power and influence as teachers.
            these kinds are not rare at all in society. people are more like the men at the Areopagus, who hold to their own ideas, unknowledgeable about proper truth.
            some may reject what you say out of ignorance, and it isn't something you should pridefully hold against them. others, however, will listen.
            if you started by insulting their unbelief, they would not hear a thing.

            who are we to compare ourselves to God incarnate and John the Baptist in judgement?
            and who are others, for us to so easily compare them to the Pharisees, who willingly rejected truth for personal gain?

            not everyone is willingly choosing to refuse truth for personal gain.
            most are simply unknowledgeable.

            >he wasn't
            "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"
            was it impolite?
            see the difference between this treatment of pharisees and His executors.
            from those who refused truth willingly, to those who simply did not know.

            the problem is, in about every single case, you will be talking to someone of the latter case. you shouldn't take the former as justification to do the same things to the latter.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no? where does it say he did so?
            I was thinking of Acts 17
            >And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
            >So Paul departed from among them.
            There's two camps here, those that mocked, and those that were interested but simply indicated they'd like to hear Paul again. In response Paul leaves. The next chapter, 18, opens with him leaving Athens.
            >t's exactly what happens in places like here.
            It could be that it does, and I just don't remember it. Not in a challenging way, but can you think of a time when a lack of belief is straight up insulted? I can remember times when its lamented, but not insulted.
            >as for things these men would say, refer to the last two lines
            I mean you're basically saying "you should make sure your judgment is accurate". Which I agree with, but its also obvious and goes without saying. This isn't the same as saying you should say nothing at all. If you're not confident in your judgment, then yes, certainly say nothing. Or if its not your place to say something, also say nothing.
            >was it impolite?
            I mean isn't this cherrypicking....? Come on man. I'm clearly not saying that Jesus was always impolite, that doesn't even make sense to assert. But were there times he was? Absolutely yes. So therefore it makes no sense to say a Christian should always be polite. "Politeness" is a secular morality, not a religious one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            charity, love, empathy, and patience are not of secular morality, and should be of utmost importance when preaching.

            >acts 17
            it does not imply the meaning you're imparting to it.
            it says some were interested and others mocked him, and after finishing his preaching he left.
            it's more reasonable to assume those who wanted to hear him again are the converts discussed in the next verses, before he leaves.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >charity, love, empathy, and patience are not of secular morality, and should be of utmost importance when preaching.
            Alright...? I didn't say any of these things, I said "politeness".
            What is going on bro, the constant goalpost shifts you do in every post are making me wonder if its worth continuing the conversation with you. Can we stay on my points and not move them around?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            and what exactly is the difference?
            acting with all of those facets of love would have you come by as polite.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll answer the question two different ways, the first way positively, by explaining what I think the difference is, and the second via contradiction, by showing that the notion "Christians should always be impolite" is a logical contradiction. I've already shown this last one a couple times, but w/e.
            >First way
            Charity, love, empathy, and patience are religious virtues that describe our conduct towards ourselves and others. But none of these virtues entail "politness", sometimes justice and righteousness will call on you to point out evil, which is an explicit teaching of Jesus as well as Paul. Jesus himself also models what this looks like, and it takes the form of insulting the Pharisees.
            There's a popular Christian mentality that would like to downplay justice and righteousness today and act like being "loving" means being soft, and nice. All rather, well, modern virtues. This comes into contradiction with Christianity, both with Jesus's teachings and Paul's descriptions on the importance of Severity.
            >The second way, contradiction
            Simply put, if it really was true that as a Christian you're commanded to always be polite, (which it isn't, you will find no verse saying this) then Jesus, John the Baptist and the Apostles, at minimum, are all bad Christians. This is of course an utterly nonsensical conclusion and shows that our premises are wrong. In this case, the idea that a Christian should always be "polite" is in fact false.

            >I mean isn't this cherrypicking
            as is using the example of pharisees to men who are simply unkowledgeable.

            i literally explained the difference after mentioning that.

            >as is using the example of pharisees to men who are simply unkowledgeable.
            Rephrase this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            using the example of the willingly unbelieving pharisees, whose evil was to be called out, to "call out" the error of people who are doing it on accident, out of ignorance.

            i think we're caught up in semantics again.
            evil has to be called out, i'm merely against the idea of calling out and insulting a mistake which would be better corrected lovingly as if it were such unfixable evil.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >using the example of the willingly unbelieving pharisees, whose evil was to be called out
            The insults didn't focus on their lack of belief, but on their hypocrisy. If you're right that the essential element that rendered the insults necessary was their "unwillingness", then that would be the only aspect insulted. In fact this is far from the case, "hypocrite" is the most frequent insult directed towards the Pharisees, both by Jesus himself as well as the Apostles. So, clearly, "hypocrisy" is the evil being called out.
            >to "call out" the error of people who are doing it on accident, out of ignorance.
            I never said anything about this, this is yet another strawman. Also, even putting that aside, how do you know the state of people's hearts, to know who's an "unwilling, knowing unreprentant" and who's "simply ignorant?" You don't, that's not for you or I to know. So bringing it in to determinations of our behavior is pointless.
            >evil has to be called out, i'm merely against the idea of calling out and insulting a mistake which would be better corrected lovingly as if it were such unfixable evil.
            Yeah so all you're saying is that context matters and determines your response. I agree with that, but that's obvious.
            It seems maybe you think I'm saying one should be shooting insults off all the time, or something? Seems like both you and the other poster got instantly fixated on that idea and like a dog with a bone, I couldn't get it out of your mouths. Let me try once again and say no, I'm certainly not saying that. All I'm saying is this:
            1. There will be times in authentic Christian practice when you will be rude or impolite. How do I know this? Because Jesus himself experienced those times.
            2. When that situation arises and how you should handle yourself during it of course depends on context, like anything else under the sun.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm saying this as a rebuke to the use of such language in places like here.
            it often comes out before one knows who they're talking to, and in the wrong context.

            you didn't say anything about it, but i'm implying the error that stems from this overt justification of insults.

            >hypocrisy
            yes, in willingly not believing in Christ even after being preached to and witnessing miracles.
            hypocritical in saying they follow God, but refusing to follow Him.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you didn't say anything about it, but i'm implying the error that stems from this overt justification of insults.
            Fair enough then, agreed. I'm still curious if you can directly answer the question I posed here:

            Thinking a bit more, here's a great way to concisely put my question at this point. You (presumably) weren't okay with that poster early on in the thread calling another poster a "soulless bugman". Would you be okay with him instead calling him a "son of the devil"?
            >No I wouldn't be okay with it.
            Interesting then, because this is one of the phrases Jesus himself uses, so we have to conclude that in at least some contexts, its appropriate. How can we determine when it is and isn't?
            >I would be okay with it.
            Alright. Then what, to you, is the difference?

            Perhaps at this point I should highlight two things, in order to ward off potential misunderstandings down the line:
            1. I'm neither condemning nor condoning the "soulless bugman" insult. I'm just interested in this question from a logical point of view, since I find this particular strain of Christian thinking to be not logically consistent with their own tradition (but "this" I don't mean yours necessarily, I mean the type of mentality I described in my first post).
            2. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm asking questions because I'm genuinely curious as to your stance.

            >yes, in willingly not believing in Christ even after being preached to and witnessing miracles.
            >hypocritical in saying they follow God, but refusing to follow Him.
            This would then make any non-Christian, but religious, person a viable target for the insult "hypocrite" but, such a conclusion isn't consistent with the Gospel accounts or the rest of the NT. There were also some israelites in the Gospel accounts that Jesus spoke with and approved of when said israelites weren't aware he was the Christ.
            So its really not so simple as that. Jesus on several occasions talks specifically about the Pharisees to be hypocrites and no, it isn't simply that they don't believe in Jesus personally. A few examples off the top:
            >The Pharisees are hypocrites because they "place a great burden on man but don't lift a finger to help him carry it"
            >because they admit their fathers killed the Prophets, making them the sons of prophet-killers despite their claims that they wouldn't have done so themselves
            >because they do not obey their own teaching (simplest definition of hypocrite) at one point Jesus tells his disciples "obey what the Pharisees tell you, but do not do what they do" indicating that he found their lack of adherence to their own doctrine to be more of a problem than the doctrine itself.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >not as simple as that
            indeed. i was mistaken in trying to simplify the definition.

            as for the question, i know the context where such language is appropriate, but i cannot define it properly in words. all the ways of saying it leave space to be misinterpreted.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I appreciate your honesty and humility in the conversation. At this point seems like a good place to stop so thank you for talking this out with me.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I mean isn't this cherrypicking
            as is using the example of pharisees to men who are simply unkowledgeable.

            i literally explained the difference after mentioning that.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >striking difference to the secular exactly what shows its difference from it
            that was my much earlier point, compare for instance with the Buddhist monastic practice of shaving one's head and wearing only certain kinds of robes... this person is now culturally coded as an ascetic and holder of some gnosis, what kind of coding goes with calling people "soulless bugmen" while preaching Christianity?—that one is a maladjusted politics otaku perhaps, but hardly that one is a religious authority

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thinking a bit more, here's a great way to concisely put my question at this point. You (presumably) weren't okay with that poster early on in the thread calling another poster a "soulless bugman". Would you be okay with him instead calling him a "son of the devil"?
            >No I wouldn't be okay with it.
            Interesting then, because this is one of the phrases Jesus himself uses, so we have to conclude that in at least some contexts, its appropriate. How can we determine when it is and isn't?
            >I would be okay with it.
            Alright. Then what, to you, is the difference?

            Perhaps at this point I should highlight two things, in order to ward off potential misunderstandings down the line:
            1. I'm neither condemning nor condoning the "soulless bugman" insult. I'm just interested in this question from a logical point of view, since I find this particular strain of Christian thinking to be not logically consistent with their own tradition (but "this" I don't mean yours necessarily, I mean the type of mentality I described in my first post).
            2. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm asking questions because I'm genuinely curious as to your stance.

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you haven’t yet:
    Athanasius, On the Incarnation
    Basil, On the Holy Spirit
    Seraphim of Sarov, On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit
    Life of Moses is good, poster that mentioned it also mentioned some other classics.
    My church recommends Ware, the Orthodox Church as an overview/intro book. Also Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox but I liked Ware a little more.
    If you read epubs go to ccel.org, you won’t find everything there but you will find a bunch.
    Lord of Spirits podcast is fun, they have transcripts for a lot of episodes (I personally can’t sit through a podcast).
    For Divine Liturgy, my church recommends The Heavenly Banquet as a more rigorous book, Orthodox Worship as a lighter book.
    I am one of many ex episcopalians who goes to an Orthodox church now. I really like it. I have heard that some (Greek, Russian) can be harder to get into if you are not native Greek or Russian. Look around for one with lots of converts and kids, those are both good signs of a healthy church.
    Joy, blessings and all the best.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >DEATH TO THE WORLD
    >SATAN REIGNS THIS WORLD
    Do you really think you are the good guy?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous
  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seraphim Rose books are nice. I read his books shortly after i stumbled upon the "Death to the world" movement / group. Im a Serb, and we also have that movement / group here. God bless you, Brothers!

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't Rose think the world is like 5000 years old? How am I supposed to take someone like that seriously?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        By reading the book he wrote about it

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How am I supposed to take someone like that seriously?
        Because its the truth?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          No it’s not?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          No it’s not?

          Why do zoomers use a question mark when making a statement?

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >country nearly has no Orthodox churches
    Orthobros...

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Glad to see this thread is still up. How about Orthodox Christian Fiction? Pic related is all I really know exists other than Dostoevsky ofc. Is there even really enough to make a chart?a0rmo

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fr Spyridon's "Orthodoxy and the Kingdom of Satan" is a great read too. He's extremely redpilled

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        He is, but I was hoping for fiction specifically.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Apparently Dcn Nicholas Kotar, the director of choral programs at Holy Trinity Seminary, writes fiction: https://nicholaskotar.com/books-by-nicholas-kotar/. Haven't ready any of it though and I only gleaned this through a google search.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Struggle for Virtue: Asceticism in a Modern Secular Society by Archbishop Averky is of surprisingly high quality for a book that's meant for lay people.

          There was one anon shilling Laurus a while back. I'm not sure if he's still around and does though.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Struggle for Virtue: Asceticism in a Modern Secular Society by Archbishop Averky is of surprisingly high quality for a book that's meant for lay people.
            Thanks for the recommendation, will read. Also, given that no one has mentioned them yet, St John Chrysostom's homilies on John and Matthew are brilliant. Currently reading his ones on the latter. Full of very applicable advice for laypeople

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tolstoy's 'Father Sergius' is a nice one.
      a curiously orthodox work in the middle of his heretical "version" later championed.
      even he repented from it in the last days, apparently.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    bumping one of the best threads this board has had

    >verification not required

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Another book is "The Gurus, the Young Man and Elder Paisios". Really shows how saintly Elder Paisios was and the reality of the demonic

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Last year I found out that the zine Death to the World was co-founded by Justin Marler, one of the original members of the doom metal band “Sleep.” Check their music out sometime if you’ve never heard it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Here's a list on Justin Marler's website.

      https://www.unseenwarfare.net/reading-list

      Based Marler enjoyers.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        did he go into theology or just helped with the zine?

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Prologue from Ochrid:
    Lives of Saints, Hymns, Reflections and Homilies for Every Day of the Year

    https://archive.org/details/ThePrologueFromOhrid_BishopNikolaiVelimirovich/page/n1/mode/1up

    More about:
    https://orthodoxwiki.org/Prologue_from_Ohrid
    https://archive.vn/rgIAJ

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hate Christianity with all my heart soul.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      why?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Probably a israelite.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Given pic rel, I'll also recommend that everyone reads St John Chrysostom's "Adversus Judaeos" - a hundred or so pages of the israelites getting torn to shreds

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Saint John Chrysostom's Homilies Against the israelites:

            https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm
            https://archive.vn/HvBYO

            Audio version:

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    another bump, riding this kino thread to the limit

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    kino post coming through
    >https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/basil_litterature01.htm

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      start with the Greeks

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        (But only take what's valuable)
        start with Scripture, rather.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bump

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bomp

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      boomp

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >picrel
    so orthodogs acting like edgy teenagers isn't just a recent internet fad huh

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      this is actually outreach for the niche the founders came from;
      it's meant to call in the kind of people who'd read those zines.

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    That quote made me feel things.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      How so?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Like when you read something that is true and incisive and it hits you like a freight truck

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sayings of the Desert Fathers is filled with moments like that, you should definitely read it

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    fellatio thread! open wide and suck hard

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox? More like Orthodogs.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      gottem

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bamp

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's a list on Justin Marler's website.

    https://www.unseenwarfare.net/reading-list

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reached out to a local GOC and will be meeting Fr there this week for a chat.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      nice.
      convert from another denomination, revert to faith, or what?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Secular background, exploring faith this last year and a half. Went to a protestant church a couple times with friend. Didnt feel quite right
        The TBK pipeline is real. I love Christ and I feel the divine in him, in the Word, scripture...Feel nervous about going to a church community as I have doubts sometimes, and I find confrontation very uncomfortable / stressful. Regardless, I think it's a good thing to do.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          confrontation of what kind?
          i reckon the talk will be helpful; careful that if he cannot answer some question, you don't take that as an absolute of the faith.
          i myself am in a strange spot of having learned enough to not be a protestant anymore, but haven't yet pondered on a few key points.

          what kinds of doubts? about faith? those are normal, go about solving them.
          the real danger is in leaving the questions open and unanswered; study well, search for them, and you'll find what you need.

          would you enjoy a reading order and a few tips?

          to get ahead of the question:
          Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, John, Epistles, OT, Revelation.
          in the OT, push through the Pentateuch, it's all important. try to understand both the proper historical meaning and whatever it might be alluding to alongside that (e.g. the bronze snake being a prefiguration of Christ, as was Isaac's binding. Christ being the Paschal lamb of Passover and how His bones, in keeping with the law, were not broken; the blessing of Judah where Christ's title of being the 'lion of Judah' is shown, etc). do look into the cultural and historical meaning behind anything that sounds strange. this is one place people end up tangled on a lot. for the same reason, one of the favorites to be misinterpreted in attacks.

          never hold a doubt in your heart. look for answers everywhere you can, and discern what is true; don't hold to opinions on the matter of interpretation. try to get a few different sources to not end up fooled by an outlier.
          as for such sources, Biblehub is great for comparing translations (great for complex/hard to understand verses), seeing the original language, and commentaries.
          it's the go to for solving doubts.
          the 'One for Israel' channel is also great in both theological discussion, and especially the "answering rabbinical objections" series they have, which refutes usual criticism; curiously, it is the same verbatim questions, "arguments" and gotchas fedoras use. and at times might be questions that pop up into your head. it's great to watch.

          i used to nearly despair until i managed to answer a doubt i had when i first started studying. you get better at it with time and learning. and, as you can see, i've solved everything i've found and had come up by myself.

          as a nice teaser, here's a thread on explaining the Sermon on the Mount.
          shows how important historical and cultural knowledge is, and how easy misinterpreting a verse is without it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            sites with a great deal of theology and a chart
            >tertullian.org
            >www.newadvent.org/fathers/

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            and a second one.
            also suggest adding to the list the disputation between Palamas and Barlaam since you're going into the Orthodox.
            but all of these are for later.

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Give me your Orthodox reading list.
    Looking for one too. I'll post what I have

    # 1st century
    - Clement of Rome
    - Letter to Mathetes
    - Polycarp
    - Ignatius
    - Barnabas
    - Papias

    # 2nd century
    - Dionysius the Areopagite
    - Justin Martyr
    - Iraneus
    - Clement of Alexandria

    # 3th century
    - Hippolytus
    - Cyprian
    - Tertullian
    - Origen
    - Gregory the Wonderworker
    - Eusebius
    - Desert Fathers

    # 4th century
    - Athanasius
    - Gregory of Nazianzus
    - Gregory of Nyssa
    - Chrysostom
    - Jerome
    - Basil
    - Ambrosiaster
    - Augustine

    # 5th century
    - Cyril of Alexandria

    # 6th century
    - Boethius (not really orthodox but the schism was not really actualised)

    # 7th century
    - Maximus
    - Isaac of Syria
    - Climacus

    # 8th century
    - John of Damascus

    # 9th century
    - Photius

    # 10th century
    - Symeon the New Theologian

    # 13th century
    - Gregory Palamas

    # 14th century
    - Nicolas Cabasilas

    # 15th century
    - Philokalia

    # 18th century
    - Seraphim of Sarov

    # 19th century
    - Silouan

    # 20th century
    - Sophrony
    - Jaroslav Pelikan
    - Lossky
    - Meyendorff
    - Staniloae

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >recommending Palamas
      >putting his writings under 13th century even though he was born in 1296

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        did he write anything at four years of age or younger?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          1200s is the 13th century, that's the point. He should be under 1400s, which is the 15th century.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            1300s, 14th*

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who cares homosexual do you have something useful to add to the list or not?

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bump for recs

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The largest Orthodox denomination is an organ of the Russian state, dedicated to "earthly power" and "secular glory."

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Stop lying. First of all, "Orthodox denomination" doesn't exist. Secondly, the Russian state has no way to change any Orthodox dogmas the way the Pope does. Thirdly, the war was started by the state and forced the Russian clergy into submission, it wasn't started by the Church. You're dishonest and lying.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"Orthodox denomination"
          ah sorry I didn't use the right terminology for autocephaly, I assumed you and anyone else here was aware that the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest such division... do you always deploy pilpul this aggressively to defend poor-quality memes?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Whoever made that forgot Seventh Day Adventism. Might as well add Christian Science while you're at it, and Thelema, too. And psychoanalysis and hypnotism...etc.

  31. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I heard a rumor that Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston Monks) are working on their own translation of the Septuagint and the New Testament. Supposedly it might be out in five years tops and it's good.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hope they use KJV-style English in the translation

  32. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am too stupid, too ugly, too weak, too poor and too lazy to enjoy life and equally too much of a coward to accept it as it is. I will instead conjure a fable and "another world" to torture my "enemies" (everyone who gets to enjoy what i desire but am too weak to get) and crown myself as a king in an inverted fantasy.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Everything you desire will be dust

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The apple I ate yesterday is "dust" too now. Felt pretty good.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Real empathy is to understand and accept weakness as part of reality instead of conjuring up fables. Nothing belongs to you just because you are weak in any sense. I can go to bed without conjuring up metaphysical fantasies accepting myself and life as it is without pointing fingers and claiming that it is not fair or that it should be otherwise. God might be real, but these revenge fantasies need to be cut off. If you want to be an ascetic in order to glorify God that's fair, when you expand your asceticism into a demand to others that they should not want to enjoy things that are good and pleasing is a ridiculous fantasy of a sick mind.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cowards are the first to go to hell.

      Revelation 21:8

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is showing the underlying psychological mechanism beneath the OP but you are too stupid to get it.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You need to be 18 to post here.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          What you’re arguing is not particularly profound. Next you’ll tell us people believe in God because they’re scared of death.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe in God you moron, just not in the rigid, dogmatic, fantasy peddled by sick minds.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you understand the justice of God?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            To be perfectly just and perfectly merciful is not exactly comprehensible to a human mind.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you’re simultaneously making a claim about what God’s justice is not and saying being totally agnostic about the relationship between His mercy and justice is the correct position to hold

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But to be sure, I don't think God is any kind of calculator that counts the amount of times somebody was a bad boy and calculates the final score. Life is a creation of God too and worth celebrating I don't for a moment think that an avoidant, negative, passive, cowardly disposition towards this life is a healthy outlook, being dead before you die is not a good thing. Of course, that doesn't mean I want you to continually go to gay orgies as it usually gets interpreted. Life is a story tailor-made for each individual according to his individuality, i will not count how many times somebody did this or that, it's ridiculous. At the end, you should know what the story is about, that's pretty much it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree that a legalistic understanding of God’s justice is very stupid. However, it does not follow that we cannot say with confidence that there are things that eternally damn someone

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you misunderstand op's pic.

            death to the world means freedom; it's getting rid of the sinful desires.
            as has been often said, true freedom is only attained when you are free of sin, else you're a slave to your desires.

            this notion is the same, in that your aim should be to rid yourself of them.

            it is no cowardly disposition, nor a negative one; you're called to enjoy life, and all of its beauty.
            the only thing you remove, and the thing that also defaces and marrs this same beauty, is sin.

            All asceticism is forced. Nobody is born an ascetic. I don't have an eternal damnation fantasy for someone who sticked his dick in the wrong hole, doesn't mean i necessarily support gay orgies. I understand various events are part of growth in a person's life, that includes mistakes. I don't need a metaphysical revenge fantasy for every instance somebody was a bad boy.

            you do not understand sin.
            you are also using this strawman that God isn't a bureaucrat with a list, as if it were what we believe. it very obviously isn't.

            All asceticism is forced. Nobody is born an ascetic. I don't have an eternal damnation fantasy for someone who sticked his dick in the wrong hole, doesn't mean i necessarily support gay orgies. I understand various events are part of growth in a person's life, that includes mistakes. I don't need a metaphysical revenge fantasy for every instance somebody was a bad boy.

            neither do i, i want them to repent from their errors and be saved.

            >sticked

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good post. Sin is a sickness not a legal transgression.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think people believe in God for various reasons. Fear of death would be way down the list as a reason if I had to guess. I think among the reasons that trigger belief in God the most common is that belief in God allows the believer self-actualization and authority over his life whereas he might not be able to self-actualize and yield authority in his actual present situation. So the actualization is entirely taken into the realm of the metaphysical. Beyond that I think traumatic events and belief passed down through parents/environment are also high up on the list. Of course the reason why somebody believes in God doesn't make him any more or less real. You could believe in God because you're scared of death and he might still be very real. But yes, I think the main reason is because it allows humans to self-actualize when they do not have the conditions to do so in their own private life. It is an essence a radical transfer of power from "the world" to God and through God to self. That is why on the extreme end some people become either very avoidant or very negative towards anything "this worldly". In reality we all know this world is random, brutal, not "fair" yet sometimes also beautiful, good and loving. I accept the world as a vivid adventure with an opportunity for growth. In this world I will be betrayed, robbed, assaulted, scammed, threatened etc. Those are just some that happened to me. Have I hated people for it? Yes. But that's life. I am ugly and broke too. Don't take it so seriously. I am enjoying my story as it is rather than wishing I was dead before dying.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >he doesn't know there's men who rejected crowns for the faith
      >nor that every saint was literally plagued by and ran from the objects of such material "desires"

      Real empathy is to understand and accept weakness as part of reality instead of conjuring up fables. Nothing belongs to you just because you are weak in any sense. I can go to bed without conjuring up metaphysical fantasies accepting myself and life as it is without pointing fingers and claiming that it is not fair or that it should be otherwise. God might be real, but these revenge fantasies need to be cut off. If you want to be an ascetic in order to glorify God that's fair, when you expand your asceticism into a demand to others that they should not want to enjoy things that are good and pleasing is a ridiculous fantasy of a sick mind.

      there is no such forced asceticism.
      if you think promiscuity, hypergamy, sodomy, and other obvious sin is not wrong, the problem is you.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        All asceticism is forced. Nobody is born an ascetic. I don't have an eternal damnation fantasy for someone who sticked his dick in the wrong hole, doesn't mean i necessarily support gay orgies. I understand various events are part of growth in a person's life, that includes mistakes. I don't need a metaphysical revenge fantasy for every instance somebody was a bad boy.

  33. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  34. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you don’t meet Jesus in this life then you will not meet I’m in the afterlife either! Start living the monastic life! Repent. Cut your secular friends off. Deny your parents. Follow god and have good relationship with him and you will be in good hands!

  35. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        and that father was the Buddha!

  36. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  37. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  38. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid

  39. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  40. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick, I hope I'm not too late:

    Ortholarpers, can you clarify something about Palamism for me? Do the persons of the Trinity share Essences but not Energies, Energies but not Essences, or both Essences and Energies? If there's debate then tell me what the sides are, I'm interested in all viewpoints on this.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      All Persons of the Trinity possess the same singular Divine Essence. Given that will is a function of essence, all Persons possess the same Divine Will. Therefore, all Persons have the same Energies (or to put it in another way, activities). However, the way in which the Persons engage in such activities will be proper to the Person and will therefore differ. This is called their respective "hypostatic mode of willing." The best example is the Baptism of Christ. Jesus Christ, the Son, is immersed in the Jordan. The Holy Spirit rests on His head like a dove thereby anointing Him. The Father speaks saying "this is my beloved Son in Whom I am well-pleased." All Persons of the Godhead partook in the Baptism of Christ but in modes proper to their hypostasis. To summarise, all Persons have the same Divine Essence and the same Energies (activities). However, how these activities are undertaken are different. This is also why only the Word takes on the flesh despite all Persons of the Godhead participating in the Incarnation. Indeed, the Incarnation is also an Energy of God. Recommended reading on all of this (which also explain the precise relationship between hypostasis, will, energy and essence):
      >Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
      St John of Damascus
      >Not Three Gods
      St Gregory of Nyssa
      >On the Holy Spirit
      St Basil the Great

      As for debates, read about the debates between St Gregory Palamas and Barlaam. The latter was proponent of Absolute Divine Simplicity which predicates all Energies to the Divine Essence rather distinguishing between them. You'd also be interested in the debates at the third to sixth Ecumenical Councils as they dealt with questions of nature, person and will in the context of the Person of Jesus Christ. However the understandings of these concepts will also influence your Triadology.

  41. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a trojan horse for gnosticism. They always try to sneak it in under a different veneer, snakes that they are.

  42. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't this the guy who doesn't even go to the church?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's just modern Greece. Freemasons run the Church there anyway unless you are Old Calendar.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >No one can deny that Freemasonry and Communism dig their poisonous crooked nails into the flesh and minds of political leaders and high state officials, to say nothing of the clergy. Therefore, with such an ecclesiastical, state and social position, any one-sided attempt to heal and strengthen the state and the Church will end in failure if the national and political horizon is not first cleansed of the dark and disgusting cancers of Freemasonry and Communism.

          Metropolitan Chrysostomos in the year 1935

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are we doing based quotes now?
            >Europe knows nothing other than what israelites serve up as knowledge. It believes nothing other than what israelites order it to believe. It knows the value of nothing until israelites impose their own measure of values […] all modern ideas including democracy, and strikes, and socialism, and atheism, and religious tolerance, and pacifism, and global revolution, and capitalism, and communism are the inventions of israelites, or rather their father, the Devil.
            St Nikolaj Velimirovic

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Get ready, brothers. The false union with Rome is fast approaching.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The optimist in my says that they won't be able to pull this off, at least not in 2025. The majority of the faithful have not drifted away to such an extent

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Uhhhhh...Orthobros?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The optimist in my says that they won't be able to pull this off, at least not in 2025. The majority of the faithful have not drifted away to such an extent

            Calling it now: Greek church will go along with this, everyone else won't.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That'll get very messy. I personally know Orthodox Greeks who are pretty anti-ecumenist to say the least and I'm sure a decent portion of the laity is also like that

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The optimist in my says that they won't be able to pull this off, at least not in 2025. The majority of the faithful have not drifted away to such an extent

            Uhhhhh...Orthobros?

            [...]
            Calling it now: Greek church will go along with this, everyone else won't.

            Stop posting morons. That's from 2021, nothing is happening, you're all cretins.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Thats literally from 2 years ago!
            Its gonna be awesome to see all the ortholarpers on here just become catholic again when their leader tells them to.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That's just modern Greece. Freemasons run the Church
          Satanposting. Begone.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Meletios Metaxakis was a Freemason and the state church of Greece has been compromised ever since. This site has a lot of info on this stuff.

            https://orthodoxhistory.org/2023/03/23/patriarch-athenagoras-the-cia-and-the-state-department/

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            Stop posting morons. That's from 2021, nothing is happening, you're all cretins.

            Wrong.
            >This issue remains a sensitive subject in the Christian world. Catholics and Protestants follow the Gregorian calendar, and the Orthodox the Julian calendar. In 2025, the two calendars will coincide. “Let’s see if we can agree on that for the future,” Pope Francis added.
            >“Let’s see if we can agree on that for the future,” Pope Francis added.
            https://aleteia.org/2023/02/18/preparing-for-the-1700th-anniversary-of-the-first-council-of-nicaea/

            If you're not Old Calendar already you will be

  43. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    For His mercy endureth forever

  44. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's a good magazine.

    I just finished "the three ages of the interior life" by Garrigou. Definitive book on orthodox spirituality in my opinion. See also: http://www.traditionalcatholic.co/free-catholicbooks/

    I think one could become a saint with nothing more than the Gospels. The real key is everyday trying your upmost to increase in faith, hope, and love. Pray for these, to increase in these hour by hour, and you will get to heaven.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I should add, pray for for fear of the Lord. "Unite my heart to fear your name." Psalms 86:11. The Gospels, the Psalms, the Rosary, daily self consecration to the Immaculate Heart of the most blessed virgin Mary, mother of God, and loving acceptance of suffering for the salvation of souls and the glory of God. This is the way in my opinion.

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