I think Im over my Eastern Orthodox phase. >Phew, that was stressful

I think I’m over my Eastern Orthodox phase.
>Phew, that was stressful

Why are so many zoomers being pulled into LARPing as Russians? What are the historical forces at work?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's hecking based and trad and cool icons

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Exoticism.
    /thread

    • 5 months ago
      Dirk

      seconded

      • 5 months ago
        Chud Anon

        >christopops are ok when I hoard them

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      American protestantism is completely cucked and zionist. Most catholics are hardly better. It makes sense that people that are faithful but tired of failings of their priesthood/sect would look to a third option. Unfortunately can't say their is a big difference in the orthodox sect that I can see. It's mostly a social club for different ethnic groups

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's all cuckstianity

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I think I’m over my Eastern Orthodox phase.
    It is hilarious how protestant homosexuals like you are seething over nothing.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nothing
      You mean idolatry?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The video is even more cringe

        seething, rent-free, globohomo, nobody cares, people are still going to convert to orthodox christianity and there's NOTHING you can do about it. I mean you can always have a nice day and this will definitely stop the process of westerners converting to orthodox christanity, trust me 😉

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >american "converts" to any religion
          I feel bad for real believers

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gotta go somewhere

            [...]
            [...]
            seething, rent-free, globohomo, nobody cares, people are still going to convert to orthodox christianity and there's NOTHING you can do about it. I mean you can always have a nice day and this will definitely stop the process of westerners converting to orthodox christanity, trust me 😉

            Log off

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It might not be "globohomo' but instead more of a globocuckoldry

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Calling your 20 twitter mutuals larping as orthodox a "process of westerners converting to orthodox christianity" is pretty pathetic. Seriously go outside.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >except through the ever-virgin

        you mean through me? i'm honoured

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's the universal archetype of the divine feminine. The secular version of this archetype is the desire for a mommy gf.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          God is the divine feminine—Wisdom / Sophia. Mary is a creature.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        a satanic agenda is at work pushing Mary into a status she doesn't belong, even in biblical scripture. only by the Son does a man ever know God

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        When will you protestants understand the difference between veneration and worship?

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Teenage contrarianism

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The most damning thing about the Western converts is basically none of them would be Eastern-Orthodox if it meant retaining Western aesthetics. No one would go to one of their churches if it adhered to eastern theology while also retaining Western vestments, architecture, and Latin. They just want to import Russian and Greek culture into the West, there is nothing else to it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aesthetics represent the word of theology

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Orthodox church beautiful therefore theology right

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If Prots could do dignified simplicity, that'd be fine with me. They should aspire to the beauty of an anchorite's cell in the deset.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The intricate and the simple both have their place. God is great because He is perfectly simple, and His Creation is great because it is so immense.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Both buildings in that image are equally simple, the one on the left just had a bit more thought put into it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even though simplicity has its own form of beauty, why should God’s house be awe inspiring? His creations are awe inspiring so why shouldn’t His temples

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            tl;dr

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Funny how it's the protestant who makes Orthodoxy all about aesthetics because that's what catches their eyes. They are implicitly saying our tradition is beautiful and they envy it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            More like that's all that exists in their eyes

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prostitutes are pretty as well, that doesn't make them wholesome

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            on the contrary, they're disgusting to look at

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wish me luck as I go on an arduous journey to read this protie meme

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Orthodox “aesthetics” are literally just pre-Christian Roman architecture and art styles what the frick are you smoking?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What are YOU smoking? Roman Catholic architecture and art is all inspired by pagan era Rome.
          Orthodox architecture and art is from the post-Constantine Christian Roman Empire aka Byzantine Empire.
          For example Christians made the shift from the Temple architecture to the Basilica architecture. However, under renaissance influence Catholics revived pagan Roman architecture. Icons are Christian Roman art while Catholic statues are a revival of pagan Roman and Greek style statues.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Byzantine architecture is an evolution of pagan Roman architecture, just as icons stylistically evolved from the painting style of the late empire.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Basilica was a secular structure. It was intentionally chosen for Christian architecture

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt any of them could place Greece on a map let alone recognize its culture, it's just the same fricking Cold War fifth column useful idiocy spread deliberately by ex-soviet apparatchiks. Ortholarpers are the same exact morons who got tricked into believing Trump is a Russian agent

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Attachment to European aesthetics is literally the only thing keeping me away from Orthodoxy.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't matter that much.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's an western rite though.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is why I'm trying to get ordained in the western rite

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You do realise there is an entire western rite, right?

        ?si=rGWjWmZOlkDZOsbl

        American Orthodoxy should focus entirely on the Western Rite to weed out muh Russia 5th columnists

        The worst ortholarp converts are the one who hate Western Rite because it's "untrad"

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You do realise there is an entire western rite, right?

      ?si=rGWjWmZOlkDZOsbl

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        ROCOR does it really bad with a bastard fusion thing
        Antioch does it well. Western Rite is really what needs to be pushed and requested more to weed out LARPers

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        ROCOR does it really bad with a bastard fusion thing
        Antioch does it well. Western Rite is really what needs to be pushed and requested more to weed out LARPers

        “Western rite” orthodoxy is fake as frick and nothing like actual western rite Christianity

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Examples?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          5th Columnist "Russia is le based, I hate the west" detected
          Reminder Western Rite has been approved by the Moscow Synod several times and even a Russian Patriarch and Saint wrote a liturgy for it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought it was mostly tradcaths who decided the pope was too liberal and preferred orthodoxy to becoming a sede

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aren't the Eastern Orthodox all Greek Rite? That seems to be the defining distinction between their churches and the Coptic Orthodox / Coptic Catholics in Egypt, as well as the Syriac Orthodox / Syriac Catholic people in the Levant. Slavs and Romanians follow the Greek rite too.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What? A lot of converts are pushing Western rite

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    BECAUSE IT’S BASED

    • 5 months ago
      Dirk

      >WOAH

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        How does this not fly in the face of the Song of Songs?

        • 5 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          You actually think a LARPing zoomer has read the scriptures?

          >Why are so many zoomers being pulled into LARPing as Russians? What are the historical forces at work?
          Orthodoxy is the truth

          This is true, however there is nothing orthodox about Palamism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      large population of hispanic youth raised "christian" and desperate for white seeming identity online

      its always some bug looking fricker, like look at that dude and tell me god made him look like a bug for a good reason

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The video is even more cringe

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          the physiognomy on this guy... what is his genetic make up

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This is who is calling you a heretic and a schismatic on Oyish

    • 5 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      The sad thing is guys that get sucked into the palamite cult will buy all those books and autistically quote them as though they are the be all and end all of Christian theology, but the will turn around and blaspheme the sacred scriptures with *pic related*
      I’ve even seen palamite “priests” post that online.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the historical forces at work?
    The Catholic Church never missing an opportunity to shit the bed and embarrass itself would probably be a big one.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    A desire to reject modern social decay and destruction of globohomosexual ideas and return to some tradition anchored in more than "le science says trans rights rock".

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      But why not be a trad cath at that point? Why does it have to be an eastern religion people have 0 connection to rather than a native western one?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        why does he have to change denomination? why not just find a measured and good parish? move out of the city (in general, not just because of this)

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Exoticism / second-worldist opposition to America & NATO.
    Also official teaching is vague and hard to come by (at least in English) so you can rest easy believing whatever you want. Example: the strangely large amount of transvestite "Russian Orthodox" social media influencers.
    Also hecking epic beards and vestaments and no liberal boomer pope to make you actually investigate and be sure of your own faith.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wikipaedisation an Videogamization of humanities.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because you can pretend you are a wizard in a cool way

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are so many zoomers being pulled into LARPing as Russians? What are the historical forces at work?
    Orthodoxy is the truth

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You have to understand it’s part of a broader Holy Land original form of Christianity. Nothing “””Eastern””” about it. The Byzantines did their best to keep it and spruce it up as possible
    “Palamism” is not a doctrine, it’s merely a descriptor of a process. The Desert Fathers laid down the backbone of Christian Spirituality

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      But alas let’s see who is using childish and idolatrous forms of media while spreading hard biological racism, when they don’t trust the wiles of grownup men trying to connect to God?

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    American Orthodoxy should focus entirely on the Western Rite to weed out muh Russia 5th columnists

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just become Anglican at this point

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't agree with Anglican theology

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          On what point?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The acceptance of female clergy, the tolerance of Calvinism, the rejection of the Qunitisext canons, the use of unleavened bread, those are the first few things that come to mind. Anglicanism is pretty close and almost joined Orthodox communion though, so it's not the worst besides how crazy liberal it got in the past 70 years.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no one ever explains this but what is wrong with Calvinism?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Comes from a misinterpretation of St Augustine's teachings and requires a gold medal in mental gymnastics to argue for yet still fails when verses like Revelation 22:12 and Revelation 22:18-19 are brought up.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Revelation 22:12 doesn't dismantle Calvinism, faith is the prerequisite to works James 2:14-26 Ephesians 2:8-10 Hebrews 11:6.
            How does revelation 22:18-19 not apply to the veneration of icons, which is its own set of mental gymnastics to wriggle out of idolatry, and praying to and worshipping Mary? John 14:6 Matthew 6:9-13

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >faith is the prerequisite to works James 2:14-26 Ephesians 2:8-10 Hebrews 11:6
            The main crux of Calvinism is that all believer receive the same irresistible grace, which results in faith that is shown in works.
            "That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the twofold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, “Shew to me thy faith,” &c. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable estate, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known." -Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (pp. 314–315)

            However, if God is to judge man each according to his works (Revelation 22:12), then how exactly does faith alone save? If this outward display of faith, not some factor which contributes to salvation, then now you are left with two positions that are at odds with one another: Faith alone saves and God judges man according to his works. If a person is already justified in his faith, for what need are works that God judges us for them?

            >How does revelation 22:18-19 not apply to the veneration of icons, which is its own set of mental gymnastics to wriggle out of idolatry,
            Veneration of icons is not the worship of the icon. If you cannot distinguish veneration from worship then you clearly aren't knowledgeable Christian theology and you ignore known historical texts like 2 Maccabees. Maybe actually read the arguments made for the use of icons instead of just parroting your pastor.
            https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/johndam-icons.asp
            https://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2266.htm

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However, if God is to judge man each according to his works (Revelation 22:12), then how exactly does faith alone save? If this outward display of faith, not some factor which contributes to salvation, then now you are left with two positions that are at odds with one another: Faith alone saves and God judges man according to his works. If a person is already justified in his faith, for what need are works that God judges us for them?
            For the reward that they will receive in heaven did you forget that there is hierarchy there?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >did you forget that there is hierarchy there?
            Which, again, is redundant when God ordains every good work which the believer does. If grace is irresistible, then why exactly is God rewarding man differently based on the things He ordained man to do? If God loves the elect and sent His only Son, then how is it exactly loving to reward the elect differently when He is the only one who can control which deed each of the elect do? Why does God play not only favorites with the whole of humanity, but among the elect as well?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's his right to do so.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Calvin is proof westerners are terrible people who were just mad that the Pope had all the power, not that there was a Pope in the first place.
            All Westerners just want to be the Pope themselves instead of genuinely building their Churches as the Apostles intended.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You know, you aren't wrong. Just look at how many absurd cults spawned in America or the various denominations

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Faith alone saves and God judges man according to his works. If a person is already justified in his faith, for what need are works that God judges us for them?
            You reference Calvin's writing without mentioning the passage the quote is writing about, James 2:21-23, were you planning on addressing these verses?
            Regardless, I don't understand how you think that being justified by faith and God judging according to works are somehow add odds one another. Hebrews 11:6, How is it possible to please God with works if there is no faith? God even uses the works of evil to do good Genesis 50:20. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith does not grant you salvation either James 2:18. The woman with the issue of blood in Luke 8:43-48 was saved due to her faith that by touching Christ she would be healed, was it her works of touching Christ robe that saved her? Many people in the crowd also touched Jesus v45, some of which may have been sick too, what made the woman's contact with the robe different was her believing that Christ had power to heal her.
            >2 Maccabees
            You already know the reasons for not including 2 Maccabees in the Bible, apocryphal books are second authority.
            >https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/johndam-icons.asp
            All the examples given here by which parallels are drawn with the making of icons were done with direct instruction from God. I struggle to see any examples of Jesus or even the apostles instructing disciples to make icons, however there is a clear and consistent command throughout the Bible not to make graven images Habakkuk 2:19.
            You may say teachings were passed down orally as put in your second link, however why would the Apostles leave out an issue from their divinely inspired letters that could easily be understood as going against both old and new testament teachings. Jesus warns the pharisees about traditions coming before the commandments Matthew 15:1–9.
            >parroting your pastor
            there's no need to be facetious

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You reference Calvin's writing without mentioning the passage the quote is writing about, James 2:21-23, were you planning on addressing these verses?
            As I spelled out in the argument beforehand, if Calvin defines works as the outward display of faith, analogous to a rich man buying a wealthy plot of land. This would be fine if not for the fact God judges us for our works and rewards us according to those works. This makes no sense in a system where God ordains all those who will hold faith and will do good works. Now, the typical Reformed cope is that while God ordains who receives grace, the man is the still the one doing the works. However, the issue with this claim is that it flies in the face in what St. Augustine specifically says about the human's will and God's grace:
            >" "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Philippians 2:12-13 Why, then, must it be with fear and trembling, and not rather with security, since God is working; except it be because there so quickly steals over our human soul, by reason of our will (without which we can do nothing well), the inclination to esteem simply as our own accomplishment whatever good we do" - On Nature and Grace, ch 31
            >"Now, when he [Pelagius] said, "And He shall bring it to pass", he evidently had none other in mind but those who say, We ourselves bring it to pass; that is to say, we ourselves justify our own selves. In this matter, no doubt, we do ourselves, too, work; but we are fellow-workers with Him who does the work, because His mercy anticipates us. He anticipates us, however, that we may be healed; but then He will also follow us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified. -On Nature and Grace, ch 35

            Also, I never once argued works alone pleased God. Don't be dishonest.

            cont.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >apocryphal books are second authority.
            2 Maccabees is important because it was written directly after the Maccabean revolt, giving us reliable view into the Second Temple period and to show what exactly the Israelites did. I never even once brought up its authority as scripture (even though the Church Fathers are quite unanimous in its use as scripture), but even if I did this would not at all weaken my argument. 2 Maccabees is a reliable source on the practices being used by Israelites in the centuries leading up to the coming of Christ. I was quoting it in response to his issue with intercessory prayers.
            >All the examples given here by which parallels are drawn with the making of icons were done with direct instruction from God.
            You seem to think God somehow changes His mind on the ways in which we worship His glory or the means by which we give praise to the saints. The reason why the OT is so focused on the issue of graven imagery and idols is because the Israelites were surrounded by pagan nations who constantly worshipped idols. As such, even many Israelite kings succumbed to the worship of idols, most infamously being Solomon. You draw the conclusion that icons are somehow idols because we bow down to them and kiss them, when the same is clearly done to those blessed by God (1 Chronicles 29:20 | 1 Chronicles 21:16 | Daniel 2:46 | Romans 16:16 | 2 Samuel 15:5 | 1 Thessalonians 5:26). Likewise, people bowed down to Christ despite His human nature being only visible. Did the people bowing down to Christ somehow worship an idol because they bowed down to the flesh which they saw before themselves? No, it’s ridiculous and gnostic to even claim such a thing. Likewise, icons do not obstruct the means of which we worship God and they offer us a window to heaven to pay homage to the saints who have reposed.

            cont

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >however why would the Apostles leave out an issue from their divinely inspired letters that could easily be understood as going against both old and new testament teachings
            It’s almost like the Apostles appointed bishops to oversee the matters of the Church and to preserve their teachings. The purpose of the Church is to be the pillar and ground of truth. If there is a conflict within the faith, the bishops, who preserved and likewise passed down the teachings of the Apostles, are in the authority to hold a synod which resolve the matter and who’s decision is the will of God.
            >B-but what about local synods who denounced icons!
            An ecumenical council is defined by the meeting of the bishops of whole Church. Meaning it is universally agreed upon. The reason why false council like the Council of Hiera are not recognized as ecumenical, is because it was not the whole of the Church participating.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            works aka fruits are a consequence of grace. otherwise works are fake and vain

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Double Predestination, total depravity, election, and irresistible grace are completely foreign to Christians who did not grow up in Calvinism

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no yeast in your bread, you're gonna burn in hell!
            Lmao you frickers are so entertaining

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody said that, Orthodox don't believe they hold monopoly on salvation. But Christ is Risen, so His Flesh must be Risen

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can think of no scriptural basis for this practice. I don't think it's necessarily bad, but it shouldn't be an imperative.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like you would just be Catholic if not for the whole leavened bread thing. I didn't know Orthos used doughy bread for their Eucharist. I've never seen that even in Eastern Catholicism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I grew up Catholic so no. They also reject the Quintisext canons

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The thing is, what lead to the great schism started pretty early on. Many Orthdox will say it began with the influence of the Carolingians. Trying to root out heresy in the Western tradition and crafting a "purely Orthodox" Western rite is a very difficult process. Even simple things like the use of statuary can be controversial

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The thing is, the Liturgy of St. Gregory is the most conservative and well preserved liturgy and predates the Carolingians. It also is a great filter against people who only care about being 5th column anti-westerners and shows which people are converting for theology not aesthetics.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know much about it, but does it contain the Filioque clause?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, it does in Latin but when it translated to Greek it did not. Granted, Pope Gregory the Great died some 30 years before people were getting mad about this stuff at all

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    you're a fad chasing moron

    >Why
    because they're fad chasing morons
    fake theologist homosexuals are the edgy atheist, IE fricking stupid

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even Russians don't believe in that stuff, man.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spengler was right. Orthodoxy is back baby.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is nothing more pathetic then an imageboard user then becoming an esoteric/foreign/tradcath Christian or larpagan. It's basically just the right wing version of a leftist deciding to troonout or label themselves non-binary for the attention and to look special. If you want to jerk off mentally about how much better you are then "DUH NORMALgayS" then at least be honest about it, using an ideology or religion you don't care or even know anything about is just fricking embarrassing.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      God loves you

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Become a Hussite, Waldensian, or Lollard, instead. Any one of those ideologies predate Martin Luther and John Calvin.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are so many zoomers being pulled into LARPing as Russians? What are the historical forces at work?
    The right is disgusted with modern society but has no strong basis for an alternative. Desperate, they look to extreme and foreign ideologies, not not too strange and not too foreign, in an attempt to recapture the vitality of an imagined past. These type of movements last for a while, and then they crash into reality, much like the Trad Cath scene of ten years ago crashed when people realized the larpers were completely out of step with the people who headed their religion. Eventually something similar will happen with the Ortholarp and they will move on to the next thing that fills the empty void where they used to have a sense of meaning.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Larping as Russians, Larping as Germans, Larping as "trad", Larping as the opposite sex. Generation LARP.

      >Why are so many zoomers being pulled into LARPing as Russians?
      Well as westernoid zoomers they feel deracinated and have the need to connect with something that has roots. Unfortunately it’s easier to LARP as some other culture then it is to actually work to revive your own.
      As to why they select Russian Palamism,
      1) A clear In and Out group (it can’t be like Taoism that doesn’t really care about other religions, It need to actively encourage the idea it’s followers are better than everyone else so the LARPer can shit on other people).
      2) It needs to be niche, atheism got too mainstream, Catholicism is too large, Oriental Orthodox is too Brown so Palamism/EO it is.
      3) It needs to be large enough that it can organise and have some form of initiation (repent and believe the Gospel is boring)
      4) It has to have lots of docrtines and dogmas that are completely removed from reality for the LARPer to play with. They need to be very meaty and “nuanced”, but also easily condensed into pity GOTCHAs so you can DEBUNK other people.
      5) It need to have a “theory of everything”, a point in history or event where is can blame all the problems of the world and pretend if it didn’t happen then everything would be perfect.
      LARPagan - Conversion of Europe
      “Trad” Caths - Protestant Reformation
      Palamites/OrthoLARPers - Great Schism / the Filioque, usually seen in the Byzaboos and Russia = 3rd Rome crowd.
      I suppose Oriental Orthodox would say Chalcedon but I haven’t really encountered any OO LARPers yet.
      The theory of everything allows the LARPer to blame everything wrong in the world on other people so the LARPers doesn’t need to acknowledge the failings of his community or himself.

      The term larp is super overplayed now. It makes sense that so many of you guys use it in spite for those that follow something greater than themselves, because of the hateful and insular nature of Oyish, but it’s sad that the spite is so prominent everywhere. I think that there are certainly some people who larp as Christians because it’s “muh based muh trad”, but there are plenty of young people becoming Christian because the gospel actually resonates with them. Too often on the right, people find excuses to be misanthropic, but the heart of Christianity is a deep love for your neighbor and even enemy. I think the larping issue comes from a lack of courage and autistic fear of interaction with others. Those who are reading this who like the idea of Christianity and are larping, get outside, go to church, join groups. If you’re in college, there will be plenty of good Christian groups and opportunities to meet many nice people. I’m catholic, and it’s so nice to see how many young people are also trying to keep the faith and grow in virtue. All you need to do to escape the larp is to go and make your faith a reality. Trust me bros, Christ enlightens and will take you out of misanthropy, and into virtue. God bless.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It makes sense that so many of you guys use it in spite for those that follow something greater than themselves
        We weren’t begrudging people for that.
        The fact you are intentionally reducing and ignoring our analysis of zoomers (a already degenerates generation) converting for aesthetic and self-centre reasons, shows that you aren’t actually interested in engaging in honest discussion as would just prefer to morally grandstand.
        >but there are plenty of young people becoming Christian because the gospel actually resonates with them
        And when that happens it’s awesome. Unfortunately I know many palamite zoomers IRL who are completely unaware of the gospel.
        >but the heart of Christianity is a deep love for your neighbor and even enemy.
        100% and I do, I find it very distressing that self disproved Christians can become to warped by Palamism that they lose sight of the gospel (if they ever knew about it to begin with). Unfortunately sometime my anger at the Palamite system doing this to people does spill over into anger at the people which is wrong.
        >I’m catholic
        Me too

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but there are plenty of young people becoming Christian because the gospel actually resonates with them.
        Yes, that is why they "larp" it, which I don't mean in the literal sense, but that the idea of the religion has become more important than the reality in many respects. Just as the Catholicism that the trad caths talk about is often unrecognizable to someone who goes to the average Catholic mass every week. The ideas of "Catholicism", buried in books that no one reads anymore, have resonated with them, has inspired and animated them. The narrative of the Church militant is or was more important to them then the reality of vernacular masses and Papal instructions that pro choice politicians should keep taking communion. Those are just inconvenient facts that must be a passing fad, since they go against the narrative.
        Now I don't think looking for meaning is necessarily a bad thing, but if you do it in a way that ignores reality it can have some pretty negative effects on both you and the people around you. And that is the problem, alot of these trads haven't found a way to do that while also accepting they live in a liberal society, where most people don't share their faith. They haven't found a way to live with that so they spend their time ranting about degeneracy online.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I applaud you pointing out the problem but you also said something I disagree with. "We should accept we live in a liberal society"
          Why?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because if you speak English you probably do, and that protects you to some extent. There are those on the far left who would have your religious views, openly expressed, declared hate crimes. You may think as a religion it would be good to move western society away from aspects of that, but for the individual believer, embarking on that crusade could destroy their ability to fit into said society, isolating them in an unhealthy way. It may be possible to express your faith in other ways that will not make you a pariah, and you may want to point people in that direction first.
            Of course I am not a believer, so I would rather move society in a direction where that is more accepted, not less. And that is probably where we will disagree.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thinking sola scriptura is bullshit, but also finding the Catholic Church problematic.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Larping as Russians, Larping as Germans, Larping as "trad", Larping as the opposite sex. Generation LARP.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've been interested in EO but I have a lot of reservations. Do you have any arguments against it? I agree the converts are shit

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      you should go to an Orthodox church for divine liturgy before reaching any conclusions about the faith

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think he should also watch videos on basic Orthodox theology.

    • 5 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      Yes there are numerous reasons to reject Palamism. You essentially need to presuppose it’s correct in order to actually maintain faith in it because it’s not supported by scripture or the historical record (despite the lies they often push).
      Their theology is a system that you either take as a whole or not at all. So if you become a palamite you will need to tell your baptist grandmother she is going to hell for not worshipping funkopops. If you can do that then your 1 step closer to Palamism, if not you will never be a real “”orthodox””.
      They will claim “go to divine litergy” and they will give you a ton their own sauce. I hope this will at least provide you with cause to consider the objections to their claims.

      I hope you will choose Christianity over Palamism.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Their theology is a system that you either take as a whole or not at all.
        Isn't that just religions in general? Even then, there's stuff like theo legumenon which are basicall optional teachings that aren't dogma but not deemed wrong, so what are you on about.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Isn't that just religions in general?
          Nope. For example most Methodists churches aren’t going to require you to affirm total sanctification, and the Catholic Church doesn’t require people to affirm ADS. However you are automatically excommunicated from the Palamite church if you question EED.
          >so what are you on about.
          See the previous post but actually read it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism
            >In the 1914 motu proprio Doctoris Angelici, Pope Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Thomas's major theses.
            The 7th ecumenical council is affirmed by the catholics, right?
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
            >The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms, and the patriarch sent a full account of the proceedings of the council to Pope Hadrian I, who had it translated (Pope Anastasius III later replaced the translation with a better one). The papacy did not, however, formally confirm the decrees of the council till 880. In the West, the Frankish clergy initially rejected the Council at a synod in 794, and Charlemagne, then King of the Franks, supported the composition of the Libri Carolini in response, which repudiated the teachings of both the Council and the iconoclasts. A copy of the Libri was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments.[7] The Libri would thereafter remain unpublished until the Reformation, and the Council is accepted as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church.
            The only ones who didn't follow it were the franks, who were excising power on the papacy even though he charlegmane was a king, not a bishop. He was also the one who advocated for the filioque to be inserted, along with having the theological mindset of Vatican 1, which was condemned at the 8th ecumenical council 879/880, which was approved by papal delegates and only no longer recognised after 200 years, which includes multiple succesors of John VIII.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople_(Eastern_Orthodox)
            >The council was held in the presence of papal legates, who approved of the proceedings. Nichols, Aidan (1992). Rome And The Eastern Churches. Edinburgh, Scotland: Liturgical Press.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Thomas's major theses.
            Understanding =/= agreeing with.
            Please don’t waste my time with fake arguments.
            >The 7th ecumenical council is affirmed by the catholics, right?
            Unfortunately. I think it was a gross overrreaction to the Council of Hieria and the Council of Frankfurt was a lot more level headed.

            >The papal legates voiced their approval of the restoration of the veneration of icons in no uncertain terms
            And yet not a single western bishop was even invited. Neither were the Assyrians or the Copts.
            >The only ones who didn't follow it were the franks
            And it was fricking based.
            Also it wasn’t just the Frank, that’s a gross distortion of history, it was also the Germans, and the Frisians, and the Helvetics, and the Lombards, and basically everyone else in the Holy
            Roman Empire.
            >He was also the one who advocated for the filioque to be inserted
            Yet another great thing to come out of the Franks. What a holy and blessed people.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Understanding =/= agreeing with.
            >Please don’t waste my time with fake arguments.
            If I don't understand a religion without understanding that philosophy, I might as well be disagreeing with it. He also says this.
            >The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
            >A copy of the Libri Carolini was sent to Pope Hadrian, who responded with a refutation of the Frankish arguments Hussey 1986, pp. 49–50.
            The pope agreed with it though, so it was mostly them who didn't want to.
            >Also it wasn’t just the Frank, that’s a gross distortion of history, it was also the Germans, and the Frisians, and the Helvetics, and the Lombards, and basically everyone else in the Holy
            Roman Empire.
            So? If it was dogmatised and the pope agreed to it, then they weren't following the pope.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >which was condemned at the 8th ecumenical council 879/880
            That wasn’t an ecumenical council and Palamites are in no position to talk about consilliar infallibility as they reject the Council of Ferra Flourence had all the characteristic traits of an Ecumenical Council and was the most representative, as far as its attendance is concerned, in the entire history of Christianity. Delegates from all the churches, including the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were present, not to mention the Byzantine Emperor.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, there were tons of forgeries, many people left during the proceedings, and was only really signed long term by constantinopole clergy, which St Mark of Ephesus didn't.
            https://alexandros0828.substack.com/
            >It was during the debate on the filioque addition to the Creed that the first forgery from the Latin side showed up.Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 148, Christian Kappes, A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), p.177, and A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 154
            >This time, however, it greatly backfired, as it was immediately recognized for what it was by the Greeks. Cardinal Cesarini brought forward an allegedly ancient codex of the acts of the seventh ecumenical council, but with the filioque added to the creed. When the Greeks investigated the passage they discovered that the “ancient” codex was Latin, causing them to break out in laughter, and Pletho, out of all people, pointed out that:
            >If the testimonies of your copy and your historian were just, or at least had been known long ago to the Church of Rome, then no doubt your Thomas Aquinas and divines preceding would not have made use of so many other arguments to prove the validity of the addition. Instead of this, they might have simply referred to the addition made to the creed by the seventh ecumenical council. But your divines are silent about this. Syropolus, Memoirs 6.31 (V. Laurent, Les Memoires, 330-32) (Eng. trans: Ivan Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971, 72)
            CONT.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Shortly thereafter Andrew of Rhodes attempted to present St. Maximus the Confessors Letter to Marinus. He had, however, deliberately mistranslated the letter, to deny that Maximus rejected the Son as cause of the Spirit. As the Greek interpreter, Nicholas Secundinus, said to Andrew at the Council:
            >Father, you did not interpret well the statement in which the saint says that the Romans acknowledge one source of the Spirit. For Saint Maximus does not say this, but rather that they do not make the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit. Then he goes on, “For they acknowledge one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the Father.”Acta graeca, 132, (Eng. trans.: A. Edward Siecienski, The Use of Maximus the Confessors Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, p. 132).
            >And, as scholar Edward Siecienski notes about this incident:
            >As with the authenticity issue, it is likely that this episode only deepened the Byzantines suspicions that the Latins were willfully trying to deceive them through manipulation of the patristic witnesses. The fact that Andrew was a native Greek-speaker and thus could not be acquitted by virtue of his ignorance of the language gave credence to this charge.A. Edward Siecienski, The Use of Maximus the Confessors Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, p. 132

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Using his faulty translation, Andrew tried to argue the Letter to Marinus was evidence that Rome had altered the Creed already in the 7th century, apparently unaware that it hadn't been altered by the pope until as late as the 11th century. Not only that, but the papacy had actually opposed adding the filioque to the Creed for at least two centuries, (Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII being the strongest examples).A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 99: “...Leo was clear that "we do not presume in our reading or teaching to add anything to the creed by insertion" since that was forbidden by the councils. Leo was content to leave the work of the counciliar fathers untouched, since, "they acted upon divine Illumination rather than by human wisdom. . . and far be it from me to count myself their equal." and on p. 104: “Pope John VIII, for his part, gave his qualified assent to the acts [of the Photian Council of 879, which explicitly condemned the filioque addition, and affirmed the 381 creed as the sole legitimate one] chiefly because, like Leo III before him, he resented Aachen's growing influence on ecclesiastical policy, which he believed was his alone to decide.”
            Later when the Greeks proposed the Letter to Marinus as a means of reunion, the rest of the Latin contingent not wanting to yield or compromise, were forced to publicly deny Andrews use and interpretation of Maximus letter.According to Syropoulus, Memoirs 6.36 (V. Laurent, Les Memoires 336), the Latins said: “We chided the Bishop of Rhodes on this account, that contrary to our will he has produced it. We do not admit it, because it is not found to be complete.”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So far the use of forgeries had not convinced the Greeks of the Latin position, quite the contrary. In fact, during the debates about the popes right to add to the Creed, even some Latins where impressed by St. Mark of Ephesus arguments, According to Syropolus (Memoirs, VI, 32, p.322), St. Mark of Ephesus gained the respect of many Latin monks and lay officials when he cited Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), which forbade any additions (besides those from Constantinople (381) to the Nicene Creed, along with other other canonical witnesses for the prohibition, while Andrew of Rhodes argument that the filioque wasn't an addition but rather a “clarification”, only resulted in further aggravating the Greeks, since it was based on Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione instead of conciliar decrees or patristic witness. A. Edward Siecienski, The Use of Maximus the Confessors Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, p. 135: “Even the pro-unionist Isidore of Kiev claimed that these syllogisms and reliance upon pagan philosophers had only deepened the schism and made theological dialogue more difficult…One Byzantine delegate, frustrated by the tenor of the debate exclaimed,” Why Aristotle, Aristotle? Aristotle is no good. . . What is good? St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Chrysostom — not Aristotle, Aristotle!”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well then, one might ask, what did finally convince the majority of the Greeks to accept the legitimacy of adding to the creed? The answer to that is the next forgery in line, the “Letter to Athanasius” of the Pseudo-Liberius. This apocryphal letter claimed that the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) had prohibited any addition to the Creed. Cardinal Cesarini argued that because the popes after Nicea added to the Creed, they were also justified in more additions. As Roman Catholic Priest and Scholar, Fr. Christiaan Kappes says: Alas, it was this (ps.-Liberius Letter) that proved to be the turning point in the debate with the Greeks… The Greeks knew of no such text and were utterly demoralized by its supposed authenticity. As it turned out, the text was a fake. Christian Kappes, A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), p.210
            >And further: Though there was no way to produce critical editions at the time, these conflicts served to entrench Mark in his theological interpretation of the Filioque and ultimately led to a general suspicion of all the Latin patristic authorities unavailable in Greek. These factors at least help us mitigate some moral responsibility for Marks increasingly negative attitude toward the Latins at the council. In fact, the second leading orator (Bessarion) was only won over to the Latin side through the citation of a spurious text attributed to the authority of a fourth-century pope (ps.-Liberius).Christian Kappes, A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), p.176. One can also read about this incident in Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 168.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            “He [Bessarion] outlines to his correspondent some of Cesarinis arguments, of which, and this the most curious circumstance, the one that made the deepest impression on him and utterly broke his confidence in the Greek position was one that, as we know now but as neither Bessarion or Cesarini knew then, is founded on an apocryphal document. It was the assertion by Cesarini that the Council of Nicea had condemned any addition to the Creed in words practically identical with those of the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus—an assertion that he supposed by the "Letter to Athanasius" of the Pseudo-Liberius…. Bessarion says that he was not the only one of the Greeks who was confounded by Cesarinis proofs. The whole body of them was…”
            This time the use of a forgery, definitely did convince the Greeks of a Latin position, and thus push them closer towards being pro-union in general. But wait, there’s more… After some opposition from St. Mark of Ephesus they eventually went on to debate the theology behind the filioque instead, and its here that yet another issue with authenticity came up. The Latin representative Cardinal John Montenero and St. Mark initially argued about the logic of the Latin position, the latter claiming it was illogical. At this point in the debate even future pro-unionist Bessarion was in agreement that the Latin position was confused, but before the debate could be concluded Cardinal Cesarini simply ended the session.A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 156 and p.281: “It should be noted that although the intellectual weakness of the Greek delegation has often been emphasized, especially in the face of the Latin syllogisms…Eugenicus believed that up to this point the Byzantines had ably defended the logic of their posistion. That it was Montenero who demanded a return to the patristic witness may, in fact, testify that the Latins were of the same opinion.”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In the next session, although in favor of continuing the previous debate, St. Mark reluctantly agreed (as Montenero wanted) to instead examine the third book of St. Basil’s Adversus Eunomium, and it was here that significant textual variations were discovered.
            >…modern patristic scholarship has proved Eugenicus substantially correct as to his reading of the text, but wrong as to the reason. Although both versions were in circulation, even before the schism, the Greek texts appears to have been Basil’s own work, the addition in the Latin text apparently being an excerpt of Eunomius added later. A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 281
            >Following the endless argument between Montenero and St. Mark on the authentic version of the text, Roman Catholic scholar and priest Fr. Christiaan Kappes admits that:
            >...Montenero made a monumental philosophical error. He read Basil to claim that there is a proper difference in the “dignity (dignitas/axioma)” of persons reflected in the order of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Eugenicus pointed out the novelty of this doctrine, naturally expecting Montenero to recant his interpretation…because otherwise [he] would have to embrace a subordinationist absurdity… Montenero, a professional debater, didn’t lose a beat and immediately went to the unthinkable: he began to argue that “Basil” held for an intrinsic distinction of the dignity of the persons in the Trinity…" Christian Kappes, A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439), p.179-180
            >Let that sink in, the Latin debater against St. Mark of Ephesus became an “unabashed subodinationist!”Ibid. p.179
            >This is no insignificant occurrence. The Pope himself was seated in the same room nodding along, and it is Montenero’s heretical theology that the final union decree is intended to support.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Montenero produced some quotations from the Fathers which he thought agreed with his view, but St. Mark and the rest of the Greeks remained unconvinced. Things began to change, however, when Montenero stated that the Latin belief affirmed one cause and not two causes, even going so far as to anathematize anyone who asserted two principles or two causes. This apparently made a deep impression on the Greeks, more than the six sessions of debate that preceded it.A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 159
            >The Emperor, Bessarion of Nicea, Isidore of Kiev and some other Greek prelates thought Montenero’s statement alone was enough to enact union, indicating their inadequate knowledge of Orthodox theology. As St. Gregory Palamas nearly a century earlier pointed out:
            >But you (he says addressing the Latins), why do you say there are two origins for the divinity? For, what does it matter if you do not plainly say this but if it is deduced from what you are saying? Such things are the depths of Satan… as long as they say that He is from the Son or from both, but not only from the Father, there cannot possibly be one origin of the divinity of the one Spirit. St. Gregory Palamas Apodictic Treatises On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Uncut Mountain Press. My point is also recognized by Mario Pilavakis in Markos Eugenikos’s First Antirrhetic Against Manuel Calecas’s On Essence and Energy, p.44
            It is thus not surprising that St. Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea were not much impressed by Montenero’s statement.

  24. 5 months ago
    Nega-Dirk

    >Why are so many zoomers being pulled into LARPing as Russians?
    Well as westernoid zoomers they feel deracinated and have the need to connect with something that has roots. Unfortunately it’s easier to LARP as some other culture then it is to actually work to revive your own.
    As to why they select Russian Palamism,
    1) A clear In and Out group (it can’t be like Taoism that doesn’t really care about other religions, It need to actively encourage the idea it’s followers are better than everyone else so the LARPer can shit on other people).
    2) It needs to be niche, atheism got too mainstream, Catholicism is too large, Oriental Orthodox is too Brown so Palamism/EO it is.
    3) It needs to be large enough that it can organise and have some form of initiation (repent and believe the Gospel is boring)
    4) It has to have lots of docrtines and dogmas that are completely removed from reality for the LARPer to play with. They need to be very meaty and “nuanced”, but also easily condensed into pity GOTCHAs so you can DEBUNK other people.
    5) It need to have a “theory of everything”, a point in history or event where is can blame all the problems of the world and pretend if it didn’t happen then everything would be perfect.
    LARPagan - Conversion of Europe
    “Trad” Caths - Protestant Reformation
    Palamites/OrthoLARPers - Great Schism / the Filioque, usually seen in the Byzaboos and Russia = 3rd Rome crowd.
    I suppose Oriental Orthodox would say Chalcedon but I haven’t really encountered any OO LARPers yet.
    The theory of everything allows the LARPer to blame everything wrong in the world on other people so the LARPers doesn’t need to acknowledge the failings of his community or himself.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I haven’t really encountered any OO LARPers yet.
      Orthodox don't proselytize as is and OO only exists literally in the weirdest most bumfrick places historically. You could join ROCOR, you could join OCA, but if you went to some Ethiopian priest who could barely speak English as the only white person, most eloquently English-speaking person ever coming into his congregation and said "I want to become Oriental Orthodox" he'd just wonder what the frick. Maybe if you hated Chalcedon that much you could become Armenian, but same problem, they will just think you have no business there as a non-Armenian.

      And I say that as someone who literally belongs to and volunteers with an Eastern Catholic mission for a sui iurus Church that isn't my own ethnicity.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I thought OOs are super welcoming because their struggles with Islam humbled them.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I doubt they'd turn you away but they'd be kind of weirded out by such sudden unprovoked interest from a white guy.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          They invited the Muslim armies in and prayed for the discussion of the Byzantine Empire for them lol

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I had an orthodox fase but it was more because I was so disapointed and dlisgusted with the state of the Chatolic Church and chatolics in general, so I ended up trying to find a second route.
    But after sometime and divine intervention I returned to my old faith. I still think orthodoxy is cool and have some wise knowleadge and if you grew up in there I recommend you to stay there

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kremlin money.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The guy quite literally doesn't like either israelites or muslims, he just makes content against the latter because he knows them better since before the current events, he makes it clear in his comments that he doesn't like either.

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Where are all this online orthos you guys see, i get online tradcaths but i rarely see online orthos

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >denomination has the wisdom and humility to admit understanding everything God means and does is impossible
    >for some reason this makes Prots seethe
    It really must take a truly incredible amount of arrogance to be a Protestant.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Protestantism as a whole is basically "frick all that, I know better"- the religion. Arrogance, quite possibly the most un-Christian attribute there is, is the very cornerstone of their entire theology.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Arrogance, quite possibly the most un-Christian attribute there is
        Zero self-awareness post

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Unironically what are you even trying to say here

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most well-reasoned people don't go through "phases" of religions.

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