Total posts: 8,050
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Believe what you want, but I know you have adopted the position of a fool who has no valid pretense of being reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You want something created to call Uncreated.
If It was possible to say specifically what The Ultimate Reality is, that concept would be a created thing. It wouldn't be it.
Rather, we use a word that acts as an image of The Uncreated. When The Truth takes flesh, it becomes that Word we are using. The Truth. If we do not acknowledge in the hypostasis of this created word we are using that it acts as a witness to The Uncreated, it becomes impossible to talk about God. When God becomes incarnate, that is, takes on the flesh of creation, it has to take the form of an image. The image itself being created, but an image of The Uncreated.
If you deny the incarnation, that is, that the created Word we are using is an imagr of The Uncreated Word, you could simply dismiss every word as a created thing, ignoring The Uncreated that the word acts as a witness to. It makes language itself an arbitrary thing, because rather than seeing an image as a depiction of a prototype, you are mistaking the image for the prototype itself.
Unless you acknowledge that The Word became flesh, you don't have The Truth in you. You are coming from the position of anti-Christ. Thatbis, nihilism. It is self defeating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You don't know what to look for because you are superstitious concerning God.
You don't know what we believe at all. All you can see are some of the materials we use to facilitate teaching our doctrine. Even these baffle you, because you don't know how we use them.
But this is beside the point. To say God exists is not the same thing as being a Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is nothing odd about it. The creed acknowledges the church an object of belief. If you don't believe in the church, you are not a Christian.
Tradesecret claims to believe in the church, but his understanding of what the church is has no resemblence to how the historical church has understood itself from the start.
Tradesecret claims to believe in the church, but his understanding of what the church is has no resemblence to how the historical church has understood itself from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We say God's essence is unknowable.
And we are content with that.
Anything else from our perspective is delusional and simply the result of men's imangination and/or creativity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The stubborm refusal to accept the reality of what a word means is exactly the kind of thing a nihilist would do to justify themselves.
Atheists like to confuse the fact that they are nihilists. I don't debate nihilists. The heretics debate nihilists.
My approach is less confusing, and lays bare what the real issue is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because you will never be able to understand anythimg else if you don't.
It is stupid to arbitrarily redefine the meanings of words in an area of study simply because you would prefer the words mean something else.
Y
Created:
Posted in:
The ancient heresy of "Gnosticism", or "know it all dipshittism" in modern English refuses to acknowledge that The Word is God. When we use The Word as a medium in creation to refer to The Uncreated, we are acknowledging the incarnation. Because the so called gnostic denies the incarnation, the gap between the Uncreated and created cannot be bridged. The consequence of this is that God cannot in any meaningful way be discussed. That God is not with us, God's grace is nowhere in creation, and there is no salvation. This pernicious heresy naturally finds its ultimate conclusion in nihilism. After all, it trivializes God. It is the spirit of anti-Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not for a second do I buy into your pretense that you are being reasonable. After all, I tell you what "God" means in the context of my faith, and you reject it.
My entire faith is built on this foundation. My spiritual discipline is centered on it. Everything comes from this. It is not an arbitrary thing. I am not an idolater. When I love God, I am not loving something cultural or created. I am loving The Truth. Loving The Truth brings about a different effect than simply loving any created thing.
Because your worldview is invalidated by accepting the orthodox God, you refuse to truly address my God. In addition, your worldview is refuted by the simple reality that none of the gods you reject are my God. There is no argument that stands against my God. If it was the case that an argument could stand against my God, God wouldn't be what God Is.
But it could also be the case that you do reject my God, in which case you are a nihilist, and are simply being arbitrary. After all, someone who doesn't believe in ultimate reality cannot with sincerity and any real conviction appeal to truth or reality. Rather, any and all reasoning only serves to make one's own ego their god.
If my God doesn't exist, reason itself is invalidated. That is why I will never find your sophistry convincing. Neither will I take your inability to accept what I am telling you as evidence of deficient reasoning on my part, but the natural consequence of your own free will choice to rebel against The Truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is not a subject matter you are educated enough in to have an opinion.
I know what I believe, and I can tell you what I believe, and what these beliefs mean. As long as you think you know, you will be confounded.
My religion is Truth worship. You are confused by the outward manifestation of my religion. You don't understand my faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"In reference to the “World Council of Churches” and theological dialogues in general with various Protestant confessions, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Reformed, and so on..... The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has been humiliated and trivialized by participating in the “World Council of Churches,” and the Church’s status reduced and abased to being but a portion, a part, of a many-member assembly of heresies and schisms. This “arithmetic reduction” has made Her practically non-existent in terms of voting and thus has eliminated the possibility of having Her having a decisive voice at the various assemblies. Even more, it has emboldened liberal Protestants to introduce and discuss issues which negate the very Gospel and the Tradition of the Church, and even Christianity itself. Such issues include the ordination of women, the marriage of homosexuals and participation in various animistic pagan expressions of faith and worship.
This apostasy of the Protestants from Christian faith and life proves incontestably that the supposed witness to the Orthodox faith through our participation in theological dialogues is a myth and fantasy. The reaction to this apostasy of the Protestants was such that many Orthodox churches made definitive and irrevocable decisions to withdrawal from the “World Council of Churches” and from theological dialogues. The first church to take this step was the Mother of Churches, the ancient and venerable Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and was followed in turn by the Church of Georgia and the Church of Bulgaria, and other Orthodox churches were poised to withdrawal as well. The Holy Synod of the Church of Serbia decided in June of 1997 to withdraw from the “World Council of Churches;”
....We pray for the heterodox, that they may return to the Church; we do not however, pray with the heterodox."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
From the 2004 conference "Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations, Disenchantment"
"Ecumenism began within the bosom of Protestantism at the beginning of the 20th century as an effort to regain unity for a protestant world divided into innumerable groupings and off-shoots. Ecumenism has no relation whatsoever to the ecumenicity and catholicity of the Church, which is fully preserved, both geographically and ecclesiologically, in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, i.e. the Orthodox Church, which continues to believe that which has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all.” The existence of heresies negates neither the unity nor the ecumenicity nor the catholicity of the Church. The Church continues to be one and universal. Heresies and schisms such as the “catholic” and protestant “churches” of the West as well as the anti-Chalcedonian churches of the East are not the legitimate and authentic local churches of those lands; these churches recover unity and catholicity, they constitute true churches, when they are reincorporated into the faith and life of the Orthodox Catholic Church, which is not simply the true Church, but the only Church. Consequently, from its beginnings until today, the so-called “World Council of Churches”, as the vehicle of Protestant Ecumenism, is in a true ecclesiological sense a “World Council of heresies and schisms.”
Papalism departed from the unity and catholicity of the Church at the beginning of the second millennium with the schism of 1054 and the adoption of heresies such as the “filioque” and “papal primacy.” The then orthodox Church of Rome, which had shown forth many saints, martyrs and confessors, was drawn into heresy and delusion. Cut off from the one and true Church, the local Church of Rome, as a captive of scholasticism and the worldly aspirations of the popes, not only failed to keep western Christianity unified, but became the source of new heresies and schisms, such as the protestant Reformation of the 16th century in its varied forms, Anglicanism and Old Catholicism. It falsified the theanthropic character of the Church, changing it into a human institution with total control over the faithful, and led to the de-Christianization and un-churching of Europe. The speakers and attendees of the conference accepted the most suitable definition of Ecumenism left to us by the venerable Elder Fr. Justin Popovich: “Ecumenism is the common name for pseudo-christianities and all pseudo-churches of Western Europe. Within it is found the heart all of the European humanisms, with Papism at its head. And all of these pseudo-christianities, all of these pseudo-churches are nothing but one heresy after another. Their common name, according to the Gospel, is pan-heresy.”
The attempts at union between Rome and Constantinople over a period of five centuries, from the schism to the fall in 1453 of Constantinople to the Turks, along with their corresponding theological dialogues, failed because they were not accompanied by true repentance, a readiness to renounce delusion and return to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Dispensations and compromises in matters of faith for the accomplishment of unity were always refuted by the ever-vigilant and watchful conscience of the flock of the faithful. In spite of obvious worldly agendas and political manipulation, these attempts never ended in the dogmatic minimalism, syncretistic leveling and worldly talk of love, as have the ecumenical dialogues of the 20th century. The apostolic and patristic principle that “there is no room for compromise in matters of faith” prevailed.
That which could not be accomplished for centuries by Papism, has been attempted, since the beginning of the 20th century, with Protestant Ecumenism; and Papist Ecumenism in its turn, has supported these efforts since the Second Vatican Council (1963-65). Both Papism and Protestantism are continuously losing their prestige and authority in America, Europe and throughout the world. Through ecumenism, they are attempting to cover themselves, to conceal their alienation and departure from the one, true Church of Christ, to fortify the greatest ecclesiological heresy ever; namely, that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not exist, that it has ceased to be, that all of the christian confessions retain aspects of the Church, such that their faithful need not fret nor bother to seek out the true Church and their salvation."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't believe for a second you understand orthodoxy as your prior statements have made that clear.
But make no mistake, there is One Church, and to accept heretical churches as being a part of that One Church only serves to pollute The Church.
The type of ecumenism you are professing here is considered heretical by us. Not simply my opinion, but the teaching of the church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is no presumptuous thing to believe in the existence of ultimate reality, rather nothing else is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
As I said, not interested in elaborating, as she isn't relevent anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Sorry tradesecret, the truth of the matter is that you belong to a heretical church. Even if your churches act as some stepping stone to Orthodoxy for some, it doesn't change the fact that you are not with us. Your understanding of what The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not match with what the church fathers teach.
You don't really understand orthodoxy, but if you want to talk about an issue at a time, I could clarify what it is we actually teach for you.
For starters, there are not denominations within orthodoxy. Every church is properly catholic.
Created:
Posted in:
Endnotes
*Catholic does not mean Roman Catholic, but denotes both wholeness (literally, “according to the whole”—fullness of the apostolic faith) and secondarily, universality (i.e., St. Vincent’s canon—'what is believed always, everywhere, and by all”). The Orthodox Church is often called The Holy Catholic Orthodox Church.
1. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (KJV, emphasis mine).
2. For the Orthodox,
Christianity is precisely the Church, in the fullness of her life and ‘existence.’ One may even ask, should a systematic exposition of the Christian Faith not start precisely with at least a preliminary ‘essay’ on the Church, because it is in the Church that the ‘deposit of Faith’ has been kept until now through all the ages of her historical existence, and it is by the authority of the Church that all Christian doctrines and beliefs have been, and still are, handed down and commended from generation to generation,and are again received precisely in obedience to the Church and in loyalty to her continuous and identical Tradition. Protestant theologians usually preface their systems with a treatise on the Word of God, i.e. on Scripture, and it seems to be a very logical move for them. “Catholics” sometimes follow the same plan, only, they would of course add “Tradition” to “Scripture.” In actual fact, it is nothing but a “treatise on the Church” in disguise, offered as an indispensable “Prolegomenon” to the theological system as such. (Richard Haugh, ed., The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 14, Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972-79, p. 10).
See also the superb little book by Archbishop and Holy New Martyr Ilarion (Troitsky), Christianity or the Church? (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1985).
3. The Orthodox always regarded the unchanging persistance of the Orthodox Church in Sacred Tradition as her boast. On the contrary, the heterodox—with exceptions, especially in recent times—regarded this persistance as a sign of decline, as a sign of deficiency in her inner life. In particular, the Protestants hurled the reproof that the Orthodox Church is “dead” and likened her to a “petrified mummy.” This demonstrates the ignorance which the heterodox customarily have about the true essence of Christianity, and shows to what degree they confuse the revealed faith with the different worldly systems, with the different human contrivances and creations. Since in the crafts and the sciences there is a continuous development and perfection, they think the same thing ought to happen in the Christian religion, that here too there should be a continuous revision, change, and replacement of the old by the new—in a word, “modernization.” Looking at Christianity rationalistically, they misunderstand its revelatory character and demote it to the level of the systems which the mind of man has formed on the basis of reason and observations of the five senses.” Constantine Cavarnos, Orthodox Tradition and Modernism (Etna, CA: The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1992), 15.
Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the Orthodox view of Tradition or the development of dogma. A recommended starting point is Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos and Archimandrite [now Bishop] Auxentios, Scripture and Tradition (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1994). See also Florovsky’s Collected Works, Vol. 1, Bible, Church, Tradition, and Bishop KALLISTOS Ware’s The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1994 (1990)), Ch. 10 “Holy Tradition: The Source of the Orthodox Faith.”
4. The Commonitory: For Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Ch. II-III, emphases mine. All Patristic citations are henceforth taken from A Select Library of the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st and 2nd series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994 [1886]). These collections are readily available from a number of sources, including the Internet. Because of this, I will cite only the Chapter and verse for each passage, and not the page number.
5. Against All Heresies, Book III, 2:2, 3:1, 3:3, emphases mine.
6. As Innocent (Clark) Carlton shows, “The Greek text of the Creed makes this clear. ‘We believe (pisteuomen)’ is followed by ‘in (eis)’ four times: eis hena theon, eis hena kyrion, eis to pneuma to Hagion, and eis mian ... Ekklesian. The remaining articles of the Creed are clearly distinguished from the above by the introduction of new verbs: Homologoumen (We confess) and Prosdokomen (We look for). The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Salisbury, MA: Regina Press, 1997), 202. Carlton is a convert to Orthodoxy from the Southern Baptist tradition.
7. Oddly enough, this Reformation “pillar” is found nowhere in Holy Scripture. For a thorough critique of this Protestant doctrine see Fr. John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformed Theology (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1996). Not surprisingly, none of the Creeds prior to the Reformation make any statements about the “infallibility” of Scripture, or necessary belief therein.
8. On this thesis, see Bouyer, Louis, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961) and Mascall, E. L., The Recovery of Unity: A Theological Approach (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958), esp. Ch. 4.
Created:
Posted in:
In this same vein, and echoing 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Irenaeus wrote:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth...
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about....
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. [5]
In short, accusations of “begging the question” will fall on deaf ears. The Church—as it has been historically expressed and understood in the Nicene Creed—is an object of faith. In this sense, belief in the Church is no different than belief in God. The Church as an infallible “pillar and ground of the Truth” cannot be proven empirically. We are simply to believe in it. [6] Thus, my appeal to those men who have been hailed throughout the centuries by countless Christians as Doctors and Teachers of the Faith par excellence ultimately stems from my belief, or faith in, an indefectible Church—a Church that has an authoritative Mind and Tradition which has been formed and preserved by the activity of the Holy Spirit. My platform is in principle no different than a Protestant’s belief in an “infallible Bible” interpreted through the unbiblical lens of “sola Scriptura.” [7]
At the outset, then, I wish to challenge Protestants to “Question Authority,” as the popular slogan goes. That is, I want them to see that their views do not rest on what the Church has always believed and confessed, but rather upon their own modern post-enlightenment understanding of things. This modern mindset is an inheritance from the well-intentioned Reformers who—in their attempt to bring the Church back to true Christianity, “pure and undefiled”—unfortunately became unwitting victims of the collapsing framework of late-medieval scholastic nominalism.[8] Shackled in a corrupt mindset that is alien to the Fathers of the Church, they developed a litany of doctrines that are nowhere to be found in the “Mind of the Church.”
Created:
Posted in:
Is there any common ground for discussion? It is difficult to say.
Another way of stating my position is that I unapologetically presuppose that the Church is indeed “the pillar and ground of the Truth,” that the Mind of the Church (the consensus fidelium) has something authoritative to say to us today, that what She says is clearly discernible, and that Her Tradition is timeless and unchanging.
Now, by “unchanging” we Orthodox do not mean “static” or “institutionalized,” as those misinformed about the Church’s understanding of Tradition often think. What is meant is that there can be no doctrinal changes to the Apostolic deposit. Only new expressions of the “faith once delivered to the saints,” expressions typically formulated in response to attacks on the Church’s beliefs, are even considered, let alone adopted.[3] St. Vincent of Lérins, in his masterful fifth century treatise entitled The Commonitory, perfectly expresses the platform from which I make my presentation:
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation. [4]
Created:
Posted in:
The Church is Visible and One
A Critique of Protestant Ecclesiology
by Patrick Barnes
This article is approx. 40 pages and still in an early form; but it is quite readable. I welcome any and all feedback. For those who wish only to read the Introduction I have included this below. Download the essay in PDF format.
Introduction
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:6
And I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church ... The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic* Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XVIII
Protestant Christians around the world are steadily becoming more aware of the reality of the Church. This century has especially seen a tremendous reawakening to this aspect of Christianity. “What is the Church?” is often the question that drives Protestants to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Many Protestants who begin reading the the writings of the early Church—especially works like Tertullian’s Prescription Against the Heretics, St. Cyprian’s Unity of the Catholic Church, or St. Irenaeus’s Against the Heresies—, or who begin to ponder the implications of 1 Timothy 3:15, [1] soon begin to realize that the concept of unity with the One Visible Church is central to Christianity. All other doctrinal issues and disagreements are downstream of the issue of the Church, for She is the “pillar and ground of the Truth.” Find the Church and one finds the fullness of Truth. [2]
The question of the Church was certainly the catalyst in my own journey, especially after reading the Ignatius Press edition of Thomas Howard’s delightful book Evangelical Is Not Enough. In the Postscript he reflects upon the steps that took him from Canterbury to Rome by saying that it was “the same old story which one finds in Newman, Knox, Chesterton, and all others who have made this move. The question, What is the Church? becomes, finally, intractable; and one finds oneself unable to offer any compelling reasons why the phrase ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,’ which we all say in the Creed, is to be understood in any way other than the way in which it was understood for 1500 years.” If Howard introduced the question to me, the hammer that drove home the nails came, ironically, from yet another encounter with a Roman Catholic book. To this day Yves Congar’s monumental Tradition and Traditions remains one of the most important books I have ever read besides the Bible; for it thoroughly convinced me that the Bible, Tradition, and the Church are one majestic tapestry woven and preserved by the Holy Spirit. When I finally became aware of the reality of this undivided, historical and visible Church I knew I could no longer remain separate from Her. I was not in the Church, and I needed to be.
Most of what will I will say below assumes that the concept of an ancient consensus fidelium carries some weight with the reader. For those who are of the opinion that the God-enlightened Fathers of the Church are not important, or who are under the sway of liberal scholars who champion theological relativism, there is probably not much common ground for discussion. One Protestant I have corresponded with, a doctoral candidate studying under Thomas Oden at Drew University, is probably representative of many when he said:
“As for the ‘proper interpretation’ of Nicea being, by definition, that interpretation which the Church has given it: First, that assertion so clearly begs the question that it leaves one suspecting whether there is any room left for dialogue at all. But second, and more importantly, I would contend with your assumption about the nature of Tradition. The Creed is itself an aspect of Tradition and, as such, leaves room for a spectrum of interpretations. For you to demand that there is only one possible interpretation of the Creed is certainly counter to the way [in] which that same Tradition has interacted with itself. The whole methodology of the Councils permits a breadth of freedom within certain conceptual parameters. We are not all required to affirm the same interpretation of the Creed, just the same Creed.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Thank you! I do the best raps. I have the best words, the best verses, and it's a beautiful thing. I did a really fantastic job. Some would say the best ever actually if you look at the numbers. Just look at the votes. And there would be more votes for me if the site's moderators weren't in the pockets of rationalmadman but that's okay. Everyone knows I did a wonderful, wonderful job. And we're gonna win. And we're gonna win big.
If you are doing a Trump impression here, it is spot on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I don't like the things that come out of her mouth. I also don't think she has an even temperment.
It really doesn't have to do with her sex.
Though in all truth, when I think about it, there are certain cultures that probably would look down on a head of state who was female. From a foreign policy perspective, it might be a slight penalty to have a female leader.
Doesn't make it right, but if that is how it is, that's just the way it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It is a very liberal city. I think like 80% voted for Biden. Actually, Austin is not your typical liberal city. The politics here aren't even to the left so much as they are insane.
But it still is the capital of Texas. People come from the surrounding areas which are more conservative.
Alex Jones DOES live here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I watched a documentary about her and it explored why so many people find her "unlikable." It really does seem to boil down to sexism. The biggest reason people's opinion of her took a turn was because she stood by Bill's side after he cheated on her. All of the other reasons don't seem to hold water. What's yours?
Oh no, sexism has nothing to do with it. Not for me. Her standing by Bill doesn't bother me at all, in fact, it could even be seen as admirable.
I don't think it is really that important to get into though, because she isn't even really relevent anymore. I don't like her though.
Then again, I don't really like most politicians.
Nevermind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@Vader
There are totally Trump protestors in downtoqn Austin right now. They got the infowars crew there.
Created:
Posted in:
It baffles me how people can get so emotional about politics.
Did anybody actually vote for Biden, or did they just vote for byeDon?
Biden is like a walking cliche of what a career political prostitute looks like. Sure, hate Trump, whatever. But really, the last two elections had terrible democrat candidates. Obama was a good candidate, he had charisma and an aroma of being presidential. Real classy. Hilary Clinton? Really unlikable. In fact, I realozed I didn't like her when she ran against Obama. Biden? He used to have some charisma, but he's loaing his sharpness with age.
Oh well, he's going to be president I guess. I really do wish him the best. I hope he does a good job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am more certain of God's existence than I am that the sun will rise in the morning. I am more certain of God's existence than even the existence of myself.
In fact, the only thing I am 100% sure of is that God exists.
I know God exists. You don't know my God, because you can't accept my God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You of course say this because you know everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
If God is The Ultimate Reality, which he is, then making peace with the way things are is making peace with God.
If it is a reality that there is suffering and evil in the world, it is maladaptive to point at reality and say, "I'd rather it be this way!", and then judge reality for not conforming to your sense of aesthetics or biases. Truthfully, it is even prefering delusion to reality.
In the end, we are judged by The Truth. Any judgement we make toward The Truth is nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why is God the Ultimate Reality?
Because that is what we mean by the word.
But what is truly eternal? What gives existence to all things? What is everywhere present? What gives power to all things? What contains all that can be known? What is singular with no opposite, equal, or comparison? All of this is only fulfilled in The Ultimate Reality. The only thing God could be is The Ultimate Reality.
I'm not misinterpreting a definition. My understanding has a consistancy with everything. Your understanding comes from bad education.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think anyone expected Trump to go down with dignity.
But did anyone expect a senile political prostitute to become president?
I think at some point, Biden is going to be a huge embarassment himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What would prove to you that The Ultimate Reality is God?
What you consider to be proof will reveal your superstitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
My understanding is in line with ancient theology.
Your understanding is a modern development, and has its origin in philosophies that were reactions against the vapidities of heterodox Christianity.
Your understanding of God is not orthodox.
The funny thing is, if what I am saying is true, and it is, the behavior you are displaying is consistent with your professed worldview. Being an atheist, that makes you a nihilist. Being a nihilist, your reasoning has nothing to do with a love of The Truth(which you reject) rather a love of yourself and your own arbitrary will of how things should be.
My understanding is in line with theology. Yours isn't. That being the case, you don't know what you are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
This is the problem. You are an atheist. Your conception of God is foundationally superstitious.
When I say The Ultimate Reality, I am talking about reality as it truly is. The absolute truth. There is no doubt concerning this God.
The problem with your reasoning, which is also the same problem that weaker edge has with his reasoning, is that you both take God as a logical conclusion.
God is not a conclusion that logic leads to, rather knowledge of God comes through revelation.
Certainly, you could use reason to demonstrate that there is ultimate reality, but the fact of the matter is you shouldn't need reason.
The existence of God is a given. There is no intelligent debate concerning this subject. All atheist arguments are contingent on making God something other than what He is, namely The Truth.
IF you make God something other than The Truth, you aren't really talking about God.
And the problem with weaker edge in particular is that he doesn't want me to demonstrate the existence of ultimate reality. Rather he wants to argue over the meanings of words.
The obvious truth of the matter is that if an atheist accepted The Ultimate Reality as being God, the stupidity of their worldview would become glaringly obvious. That being the case, they need to prop up a strawman god and make pretense of reason.
No atheist has an orthodox understanding of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Ultimate Reality is God.
What is it?
It Is What It Is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your response is entirely consistent with what could be expected of a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you do not believe there is ultimate reality, that is a profession of nihilism.
Everything else for you after that is wrestling with the absurd. Fabricating meaning in a situation of meaninglessness. Placing your faith in vain imaginings.
What can I say?
It is pretentious for a nihilist to make any claims of validity. Your very worldview negates validity.
Created:
Posted in:
Whoever takes office, what can I do but pray for them? I hope for the best. Truthfully though, very cynical about politics. Whatever happens, somewhat pessimistic. Hope it is better than what itnlooks like to me.
Created:
Posted in:
That all said, an investigation would hopefully put all doubt to rest.
Wouldn't hurt.
There is enough time left before the winner is supposed to start their term to investigate this thoroughly I'd think.
If there is such widescale fraud going on though, we really need to rethink how we go about doing elections. It's not acceptable to have this stuff going on if it is the case that it is going on.
Created:
Posted in:
Then the third, who had spoken about women and the truth and whose name was Zerubbabel, began to speak: "Men, is not the king great, and men many, and wine strong? Who then rules them, or who is their master? Is it not women? Women gave birth to the king and to all the people who rule over sea and land. They came to exist from women, and women reared those who plant the vineyards from which wine comes. Women also make men's clothing and bring glory to men. Indeed, men could not exist without women.
"Moreover, if men are gathering gold, silver, or anything beautiful, but see one woman who looks good in form and beauty, they drop everything and gape at her, and with mouths wide open they stare at her. They all choose her rather than gold, silver, or any beautiful thing. Yes, a man will even forsake his own father who reared him and his own country so as to cleave to his own wife. He will live out his life and not even remember father, mother, or country. From all this, you should realize that women rule over you!
"Do you not work hard and grow weary with toil, then bring it and give it all to women? Furthermore, am an will put on his sword and go forth to rob, steal, and sail the seas and rivers. HE will stalk a lion and walk in darkness, and when he steals, whatever he takes and pillages he will bring back to his beloved. For a man dearly loves his own wife more than his father or mother. Yes, many men have lost all sense and even become slaves because of their wives. Many have perished, stumbled, or sinned because of their wives.
"Do you not believe me now? Is king not great in his authority? Are not all the countries moved with fear to touch him? Yet I saw him with Apame, the king's concubine and the daughter of the admirable Bartacus. She sat at the king's right hand, removed the crown from the king's head, and put it on her own. She also struck the king with her left hand. At this, the king gaped at her with his mouth wide open. When she smiled at him he laughed, and when he exasperated her, he flattered her that she might be reconciled with him. O men, in what way are women not strong, since they do such things?"
Then the king and the nobles looked at one another, and Zerubbabel began to speak about the truth: "Men, are not women strong? The earth is great, heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course, for it revolves around the heaven in a circle and returns to its place in one day. Is not He great who made all things? For His truth is greater and stronger than all things. All the earth summons the truth, and heaven blesses it; for all his works shake with fear and tremble, and there is nothing unjust with Him. But wine is unjust, the king is unjust, women are unjust, all the children of the men and their works are unjust, and all such things are unjust; for there is no truth in them. So they will perish in their injustice.
But the truth abides and is strong forever. The truth lives and rules unto ages of ages. There is no partiality or prejudice with the truth, but it does righteous things, distinct from all wrongdoings and evil. All are please with its deeds, and there is nothing unjust in its judgement. For strength, dominion, authority, and majesty belong to it unto all ages, and blessed is the God of truth."
So he stopped speaking, and all the people then cried aloud and said, "Great is the truth, for it is the strongest!" Then the king said to him, "Ask what you will, and let it be more than what is written; for we will give it to you, insamuch as you were found to be the wisest. You will also sit next to me and be called my kinsmen."
Then Zerubbabel said to the king, "Remember your vow you swore on the day you received your kingdom to rebuild Jerusalem and to send back all the vessels taken from Jerusalem, the ones Cyrus removed when he vowed to destroy Babylon and vowed to send them back there? You also vowed to rebuild the temple which the Edomites set on fire when Judea was laid waste by the Chaldeans. Now this is what I consider worthy of you, O lord our king, and what I ask of you, for it befits your greatness. Therefore I beg of you that you keep the vow you vowed to the king of heaven from your own mouth."
Created:
Posted in:
Now King Darius put on a great banquet for all his subjects, for his entire household, and for all the nobles of Media and Persia. He also invited all the satraps, commanders, and governors under him throughout the one hundred and twenty seven provinces extending from India to Ethiopia. They ate and drank, and when they were satisfied they returned home. As for King Darius, he returned to his bed chamber and slept, but awoke.
Then the three young men who were attending the king as bodyguards said one to the other, "Let each of us speak one strong saying, and whichever saying of ours seems to be the strongest, King Darius will give him great gifts and a feast in his honor. He will be dressed in purple, drink from gold cups, ad sleep in a gold bed. He will have a chariot with a gold-studded bridle, a turban of fine linen, and a gold necklace around his neck. Because of his wisdom he will sit second to Darius and will be addressed as kinsman of Darius."
So each one then wrote down his saying, sealed it, and placed it under the pillow of King Darius. THey said, "When the king awakens, they will give the writings to him ad the one whose saying the king and the three nobles of Persia may judge the wisest, the victory shall be given to him, as it is written."
The first one wrote, "Wine is the strongest." The second wrote, "The king is the strongest." The third wrote, "Women are the strongest, but above all things the truth conquers."
So when the king was awakened, he took the writings the gave to him, and he read them. Then he sent forth and invited all the nobles of Persia and Media and the Satraps, commanders, governors, and highest officials. e took his place in the seat of judgement, and the writings were read in their presence. He said, "Call the young men, and they will clarify their sayings." so they were summoned and came in. They said to them, "Interpret for us the sayings you wrote."
So the first, who spoke about the strength of wine, began and said thus: "Men, how is wine the strongest? It leads astray the mind of all who drink it. It makes a single mind of both the king and the orphan, of the servant and the freeman, and of the poor man and the rich man. It turns every mind to feasting and gladness, and it does not remember any pain or any debt. Wine makes all hearts rich, does not remember a king or satrap, and makes everyone talk in big money terms. When men drink, they do not remember to act as a friend to friends, and after a short while they draw swords. But when they become sober, they do not remember what they did. O me, is not wine the strongest because it forces us to do such things?" SO he spoke in this way and then became silent.
Then the second, who talked about the strength of the king, began to speak: "O men, has not man prevailed on land and sea, becoming the master of them and everything in them? But the king is strong and rules over these, for he is their master; whatever he commands them they obey. If he commands one to make war on the other, they do it. If he sends them out against enemies, they go and subdue mountains, walls, and towers. They kill and are killed, but the word of the king is not transgressed. If they conquer, they bring everything to the king- whatever they forage or anything else. But those who do not serve as soldiers nor wage war, but cultivate the land, they too bring to the king whatever they sow and harvest. They also compel one another to pay taxes to the king. Although he is only one man, yet if he says to kill, they kill, if he says to spare, they spare. If he says to smite, they smite; if he says to destroy, they destroy; if he says to build, they build; If he says to cut dow, they cut down; If he says to plant, they plant. So all his people and his army listen to him. In addition to these things, he reclines- he eats, he drinks, he rests- while they keep watch around him. Nobody can leave to do his own business, nor they disobey him. O me, in what is the king not strong, since he is so carefully obeyed?" Then he kept silent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I will present you the following account from scripture that in no ambiguous way identifies God as The Truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You don't have any points. You are simply being incredulous.
You have no argument.
Created:
Posted in:
It's simple
The Ultimate Reality is God.
There is no argument that stands against this God, rather those who make the attempt are exposed as fools.
Created:
Posted in:
This is the big mistake heterodox Christians make. They debate with nihilists. I don't debate with nihilists, because it is much easier to expose the stupidity of their position by getting to the root of it
Heterodox Christians trying to prop God up with reason is what created atheism to begin with. God is not contingent on reason, rather, there is no reason without God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have no argument. You are the one arguing semantics, not me. I am asserting what a word means. You are debating the meaning of the word, not me.
I am merely standing in solidarity with what is the fact of the matter, not being tricked into engaging in a stupid debate.
I don't need to present any other evidence than I have, because if you don't accept the evidence that I already have, no evidence will convince you. Your position is not a reasonable one, but an arbitrary one. You are simply making pretense of reason.
Created:
Posted in:
Everything about my faith is given movement through the knowledge that God is The Truth.
How else could it be meaningful to love God with all of one's heart, soul, mind, and strength? To love The Truth as God brings correction and growth. To love anything else as God makes one delusional.
Created: