Why does the media hate the Orthodox Church?

>a modernized Catholic Church.
>modernized
great

How about we all hold hands, fuck each other in the ass, and worship trees.

youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk

youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo

The Catholic Church literally doesn't care at all what your dogma is so long as you accept the Pope as your leader.

Noice. Orthodoxy looks better every day.

IIRC the pope is just the CEO of the vatican. Maybe they didn't teach me right. Fuck Francis as far as I'm concerne.

I hate all churches.

Churches are comfy mang. You can just stop in for a while as long as the doors are open and do nothing but enjoy some piece and quiet time to yourself.

>Noice. Orthodoxy looks better every day.

Orthodox hymn: youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs

Catholic liturgical hymn: youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o

>IIRC the pope is just the CEO of the vatican.

>"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

The world tends to feel that way

>Why does the media hate the Orthodox Church?

Because the largest Orthodox group is tied to supporting the Russian State and other Orthodox groups tend to have more sympathy towards them.

Its really just that simple, or would you prefer an explanation involving Satan and the antichrist?

...

Because the Orthodox church is the last uncucked true church of Christ.
Greek was the language of the original christians.

lol they don't even mention the catechism these days

But that's still CEO of the Church I think. The Church is an institution of man unto itself, and the pope heads it up. It's just humans forming an organization to try to administrate (ministers) the teachings of Jesus Christ.

please stop posting cute Christian trap.

I just want to violate his 2d butthole in the straightest way possible.

And Sunni Muslims tend to be more supportive of Saudi Arabia, I don't see them attacking them.

The Pope alone can define dogma, and he cannot be contradicted in this. He has absolute power. Councils aren't required, but if a council gathers, it only means something if the Pope says, "Yeah, you're right." The Pope has total and unlimited power over the Church regarding all things, from dogma to customs

>And Sunni Muslims tend to be more supportive of Saudi Arabia, I don't see them attacking them.

The Saudis are literally the reason the petro dollar exists and the US economy doesn't have hyperinflation.

If Catholicism was the main religion in Russia or even Putins personal religion it would attack it just as much.

Right, but that's still the Church, and the Church is an institution of man. Only God is the ultimate authority.

Maybe I don't understand what they mean exactly, but that's how I see it and the Church doesn't seem very interested in teaching otherwise.

>lol they don't even mention the catechism these days
The Pope sure does

If you and I were to have a personal discussion about the pope and you were to mention the catechism, then you would be the first person I've ever talked to who wanted to talk about the pope and happened to mention the catechism.

If you're part of the clergy or something, then think that one over.

>the Church is an institution of man
It's literally Christ's Body and administrated by the Holy Spirit

>his
why?

If that's true, then that's another thing the Catholic Church doesn't spend much effort teaching.

So for the time being I see it as man trying to do their best to follow the word of the Lord.

The Pope's only reference ever used for backing up his positions is the Catechism

Well that is the Orthodox teaching. The Church is Christ's literal body (as those who are members are mystically and physically a part of Christ through Communion), and the Spirit of Truth was sent by Christ to ensure heresy would never rule the Church. The Church is also the spiritual school established by Christ, and the clergy are the teachers. The Bible is the core textbook, and the Church Fathers are other great textbooks written by top tier teachers

>this is what Protestants and badly-catechized Catholics actually believe

No, that's a fact. Catholics believe the Pope can unilaterally dictate dogma, but that councils have zero power unless the Pope personally approves their conclusions.

Is that why he issued an encyclical to do with global warming?

We hold communion to be a sacrament (it's the one part of mass outsiders have to be cautioned to not participate in) but the rest of all that is at best implied in my experience, not explicitly taught. Probably we have a different way of saying something about the same, but it's been lost.

>Is that why he issued an encyclical to do with global warming?
I would wager 9-5 he cites the Catechism in ot

I can and have argued in a court of law. What Francis says there, in my opinion, is carefully constructed to be technically backstoppable. But in the bigger picture it's a bullshit agenda that I reject.

I reject it both as a scientist and a confirmed catholic.

>What Francis says there, in my opinion, is carefully constructed to be technically backstoppable
Whether it were or not, I'm 100% confident the RCC could backstop it. Whether a statement is "ex cathedra" isn't decided by the Pope, and all declarations of something being such are mostly provisional, later, and never official. That's how they get around Pope Honorius being anathematized.

In the temporal world we can only expect that we'll have to modify our best guess as time goes on. For my own reasons, I made a choice to stick with the RCC, and it's going to take a little bit more than one iffy pope among a line of many to cause me to jump to a different sect.

But I do think it is really neat to have alternatives present themselves. Except for getting stuck in a car with a Mormon, I've never really had a chance to talk about the differences with other Christian sects. So I think it's highly informative and useful.

>I can and have argued in a court of law.
RCC is so legalistic and lawyer-friendly it borders on Phariseeism

>our best guess
Just stick with what Christ taught,that's what the Orthodox do. Then we don't have to guess.

kek

lel too true

It seems to be at a weird crossroads between trying to not be so much like the Pharisees and trying to maintain its original intent.

That orthodox hymn is so fucking comfy

>Just stick with what Christ taught
Damn right, man. Even before I had faith, I always thought to myself, "wow, that dude is so right about everything."

So why would you need to guess about anything?

It's almost always sung at my parish after the conclusion of the Liturgy, when we're getting the antidoron and then walking out slowly

>tfw venerating and kissing icons to them singing this as you leave
>eating the antidoron and hearing it even outside the Church
Best feels

I'm not omniscient.

Because Pope Francis is turning Catholicism into a shell of it's former self that accepts whatever degeneracy the left wants to throw at it, it's becoming Christianity in name only
God forbid a religion that's over two fucking millennia old tries to stick to it's traditions

Then you follow Orthodox procedure and say it is a mystery, you don't formulate a guess

heh, can't lie to myself. In the end I can't lie to God anyway.

>eating the antidoron
>venerating and kissing icons

I don't know what these are, I grew up Lutheran and strayed from religion when I was young and have just recently started to appreciate christian values. nuclear family, community, all the comfy things

For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Our communion is leavened, the bread is almost always baked by the parishioners. At the end of the service, the leftover bread (which has been blessed) that wasn't used for communion, is distributed by the priest. It's called the antidoron (even non-baptized can have some).

Icons are paintings of people like Christ and the Theotokos. They are done in flat, ancient style. Venerating them means to make the sign of the cross before them and kiss the hand on them (for instance, I kiss the hand of the Virgin Mary in an icon of her, and the feet of the baby Jesus she's holding). Some people also bow.

Veneration is described in Exodus 18:7

Implying that Protestantism is a single hive mind full of liberal fairies.

Come to my church we'll change your mind

The modernists do not things not modernist.

Well there are non-liberals, but they are generally Creationist Museum types

Orthodox seem to be the only good part of christianity even though I know very little of christianity's state.

The pope practically masturbating the feet of migrants is disgusting; not for they are migrants but for they are muslims, sworn enemies of all christians.

The Orthodox Church released this statement this year
>Such an important aspect of modern life like mass migration is not left unattended. Unlike the Catholic approach that unduly favors migrants, particularly in Europe, the Orthodox notices the negative nature of the process, as well as the fact that it leads to confrontation of different identities and value systems. In addition, the Orthodox Church propose to look at the roots of this phenomenon. The reason for the migration is the liberal, hedonistic ideology bleeding the peoples of Europe and the interests of the capitalist elite, who need a cheap and disenfranchised workforce:

>Attempts by indigenous people of the rich countries to stop the migration flow are futile, because they come in conflict with the greed of their own elites who are interested in the low-wage workforce.

I don't know, eating is pretty pre-modernist.

...

Ah yes, good ol' Luther

>Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business.

>But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.

>Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly

>I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.

>Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.

>Catholicsisters
>Theocracy

The RCC fell for Satan's Third Temptation long ago

wots the third temptation?

>Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_moon_allegory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Yeah.

I think it should do more to educate its own members so that we would be more fit to help spread the word.

>Catholics are cucked, Protestants are crazy and Orthodoxy is a state puppet
Why there is no red pilled denomination?

>Orthodoxy is a state puppet
Source? I know the media likes to push this meme, but there is no basis for it as far as I can see. Yes, the Church supports the Russian government, but that's largely because the Russian state is shilling Christian values and the Church like crazy

Can somebody tell me what is the point of a pope who says "who am i to judge". Is the pope not supposed to judge based on god's teachings or am i gettong thia wrong?

I have no source or claim to that effect, but I think the important thing to recognize is the split between the Eastern half and the Western half of the Roman Empire. One of the distinguishing factors of the Western half was split in power between religion on and state, whereas in the East it they continued largely to be be construed as being the same thing.

That was a long time ago, and things have changed, but the split off in the West lead to a different kind of political and religious philosophy.

Actually, the split was largely over the WEST thinking they were the same thing

Same thing as what?

Obviously the West changed away from how it used to be.

Orthodox plagaeizer ilsam

Islam is better than cuckodox

You all know nothing about Russian Orthodox church. Yes, there are many really devoted and idealistic people here at the lower ranks, but all the top brass consist exclusively of government functionaries, who never let anyone else into it and worship only a golden calf. So Church is indeed a puppet of the state.

That's right

Orthosoxy is shit like all christians

I'm saying the West made the Emperor the ultimate religious authority, by making the Pope an authority higher than councils, and making him also emperor. The Emperor in the East only had the authority to pick the imperial Patriarch (who would be ordained by other bishops, and did not have any power beyond a regular bishop except in ceremony), and to call Ecumenical Councils (as Constantine did); the Emperor did not have dogmatic, authority though. Emperors often tried to enforce their own dogmas with laws against the Church, but it eventually lead to them being anathematized.

>, but all the top brass consist exclusively of government functionaries,
Source, Soros?

The Arabic-Latin translation movements in the Middle Ages, which paralleled that from Greek into Latin, led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world. The impact of Arabic philosophers such as al-Fārābī, Avicenna and Averroes on Western philosophy was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, but also extended to logic and ethics.

Among the influential Arabic theories are: the logical distinction between first and second intentions; the intension and remission of elementary forms; the soul's faculty of estimation and its object, the intentions; the conjunction between human intellect and separate active intellect; the unicity of the material intellect (Averroism); naturalistic theories of miracles and prophecy; the eternity of the world and the concept of eternal creation; the active intellect as giver of forms; the first cause as necessary existent; the emanation of intelligences from the first cause; the distinction between essence and existence; the theory of primary concepts; the concept of human happiness as resulting from perfect conjunction of the human intellect with the active intellect.

Just a reminder the christianity is the most redpilled religion out there, and is extremely hateful of "jews"

The Arabic-Latin translation movements in the Middle Ages, which paralleled that from Greek into Latin, led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines in the medieval Latin world. The impact of Arabic philosophers such as al-Fārābī, Avicenna and Averroes on Western philosophy was particularly strong in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, but also extended to logic and ethics.

Among the influential Arabic theories are: the logical distinction between first and second intentions; the intension and remission of elementary forms; the soul's faculty of estimation and its object, the intentions; the conjunction between human intellect and separate active intellect; the unicity of the material intellect (Averroism); naturalistic theories of miracles and prophecy; the eternity of the world and the concept of eternal creation; the active intellect as giver of forms; the first cause as necessary existent; the emanation of intelligences from the first cause; the distinction between essence and existence; the theory of primary concepts; the concept of human happiness as resulting from perfect conjunction of the human intellect with the active intellect.

Arabic Philosophy was known in the Latin West through translations, and, to a small degree, through personal contacts between Christians and Muslims, as in the case of Frederick II Hohenstaufen, who was directly acquainted with a number of Muslim scholars. A small number of Christian scholars, such as Ramón Martí and Ramón Llull, knew Arabic themselves and drew on Arabic sources when composing Latin works. Translations, however, were far more influential. The first Arabic-Latin translations to transport philosophical material into Latin Europe were the translations of texts on medicine and natural philosophy produced towards the end of the eleventh century in Italy, most of them by the translator Constantine the African, who, in contrast to later translators, tried to disguise the Arabic origin of his texts (Burnett 2006, 22–24). In Spain, in the first half of the twelfth century, several important astrological texts were translated, such as Albumasar's Great Introduction to Astrology, which incorporated much material of the Aristotelian tradition (Lemay 1962).

The translations of philosophical texts proper, such as by al-Kindī, by the anonymous author of the Liber de causis, by al-Fārābī, Isaac Israeli, al-Ghazālī and Avicenna, but also of Greek works transmitted in Arabic, assumed full pace in Toledo in the second half of the twelfth century, where two very prolific translators worked: Dominicus Gundisalvi and Gerard of Cremona. It is likely that al-Fārābī's treatise Enumeration of the Sciences, translated twice, by Gundisalvi and Gerard, served as a model for a coherent translation program. An indication of this is that later Toledan translators such as Alfred of Shareshill, Michael Scot and Hermannus Alemannus filled in gaps in al-Fārābī's list of disciplines which the earlier translators had not covered (Burnett 2001). The translation movement was also influenced by the philosophical preferences of Jewish scholars. Gundisalvi worked together with the Jewish scholar Avendauth when translating Avicenna's De anima, which Avendauth had recommended for translation, and Gundisalvi's other translations may also go back to such recommendations. The impressive Spanish translation movement was motivated and fostered by several factors: the personal interest of individual translators; the demand for scientific texts by the French schools; the availability of Arabic manuscripts in cities newly conquered by the Christians; the patronage of the archbishop of Toledo; and by clerical interests in promoting Latin scientific culture in an Arabic-speaking Christian environment (Hasse 2006, 79–84).

The next important phase of the transmission were the translations made in Sicily and southern Italy by several translators associated with the Hohenstaufen or the papal court, the most productive of which were the Averroes translators Michael Scot and William of Luna (Hasse 2010). It was only about thirty years after Averroes' death in 1198 that Latin Averroes translations became available in the newly developing universities (Gauthier 1982b). In 1255, the statutes of the Parisian arts faculty declared all known works of Aristotle mandatory reading for the students – a very influential move, which much contributed to the rise of Averroes' commentaries as the principal secondary literature of Latin university culture.

They don't teach this kind of thing in church or school, but if I remember correctly the Holy Roman Empre (i.e Western split of the Roman Empire) was set up such that the aristocracy could maybe sometimes settle itself out to the point of electing a King, but then that King had to be coronated by the Pope in order to be fully legit, and that turned out to be a difficult thing to do. The aristocracy and the clergy continued to vie for power and ownership.

There was no Emperor until the Pope agreed to it, and even that only lasted a lifetime. It even lead to schisms. I'm not saying the West pulled it off better than the East, but I think it was a useful innovation to set the stage for decentralization of power and to keep matters of state and matters of faith separate -- this is also what lead in some ways to people jumping ship to America so that they could practice their own religions.

You'll probably find this in keeping with my disposition of fuck this pope. I think organized religion has a very good role in the world, but ultimately it is not a mediator between a person and the Father.

>every orthodox Christian is a Russian Orthodox

After about 1300, Arabic-Latin translation activities ceased almost entirely, to resume again after 1480. The Renaissance translations were mostly produced by Italian Jews from Hebrew versions of Arabic texts, an exception being Andrea Alpago's Avicenna translations from Arabic, which were produced in Damascus (Tamani 1992; Burnett 1999). The social context of these translations was the vibrant philosophical culture of Italian universities and especially of Padua, and the patronage of Italian scholars belonging to the Italian nobility, who had been educated in these universities (Hasse 2006). The impact of these Renaissance translations, which is weaker than that of the medieval translations, remains largely unexplored. It has aleady been shown that the new translations influenced the logical and zoological discussions of the sixteenth century (Perfetti 2000, 106-109; Perfetti 2004, XVII-XVIII; Burnett 2013). In the second half of the sixteenth century, interest in Arabic philosophy and sciences declined, and with it the Arabic-(Hebrew-)Latin translation movement. At the same time, the new academic study of Arabic culture developed, which was motivated primarily by historical and philological, but not by philosophical interests. From the seventeenth century onwards, translations into vernacular languages gradually replaced Latin translations from Arabic (Bobzin 1992).

The corpus of Arabic philosophical texts translated into Latin was substantial: A recent publication lists 131 textual items (Burnett 2005; see Kischlat 2000, 53–54, 196–198 for manuscript distribution; on Avicenna translations see Bertolacci 2011). The introduction of Arabic philosophy into Latin Europe led to the transformation of almost all philosophical disciplines. The influence is particularly dominant in natural philosophy, psychology and metaphysics, but is also felt in logic and ethics. The Arabic impact is particularly strong in the thirteenth century, but some Arabic traditions, such as Averroes' intellect theory, reach the high point of their influence in Latin Europe as late as around 1500 (The influence of Jewish philosophers writing in Arabic, such as Ibn Gabirol and Maimonides, is not covered in this article).

The Ukranian Church petitioned Constantinople to be separate from the Russian Church and threatened schism if they don't allow. While Russia threatened schism inversely. All I have to say is that the Orthobros are looking to be just as fractious as a Protestant denomination.

Arabic divisions of the sciences influenced the Latin West mainly through Dominicus Gundisalvi’ treatise Division of Philosophy (De divisione philosophiae). In this text, Gundisalvi reuses much material from his own abbreviating translation of al-Fārābī's Enumeration of the Sciences (Ihsâ’ al-'ulûm), of which a second, more literal translation was produced by Gerard of Cremona. But it was Gundisalvi's own Arabicized treatise which was the main channel of al-Fārābī's influence. The mostly anonymous introductory literature for artes students of the thirteenth century draws amply on Gundisalvi's treatise, sometimes referring to Gundisalvi as “Alpharabius” (Lafleur 1988, 341n). The translator Michael Scot also writes his own Division of philosophy, in which he adopts substantial material from Gundisalvi, but arranges it according to his own scheme (Burnett 1997).

All I have to say is Orthoxucos are the worst

>t. Ex Syriac Orthodox now Muslim

Gundisalvi adopts central principles for the division of the sciences from Avicenna: that the principal criterion of division between the sciences is their subject matter; that a science cannot demonstrate the existence of its own subject matter; and that there are two kinds of subordination of a science: either as a part (pars) of another science, when it studies a part of its subject matter, or as a species (species) of another science, when it studies the subject matter in a specific respect (Hugonnard-Roche 1984; Fidora/Werner 2007, 24-35).

Because orthodoxy is exclusively eastern european, and all the news you hear about is from the west.
I.E. Catholic europe and protestant America.

Al-Fārābī's influence is particularly obvious in the enumeration of the seven parts of grammar, the eight parts of natural science (covering the spectrum of Aristotle's libri naturales), and the seven parts of mathematics: arithmetic, music, geometry, optics, astrology, astronomy, the science of weights, the science of technical devices (ingenia) (see the tables in Bouyges 1923, 65–69). As to the discipline of logic, Gundisalvi explicitly embraces al-Fārābī's division into eight parts, following the tradition which makes Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetic parts of logic. The Farabian division of logic into eight parts reappears, for example, in Roger Bacon (Maierù 1987) and in Arnoul de Provence’s Division of the Sciences (ca. 1250); Arnoul remarks that neither Aristotle nor common usage includes Rhetoric and Poetic among the parts of logic (Lafleur 1988, 342). Gundisalvi further distinguishes with al-Fārābī between five kinds of syllogistic reasoning, of which demonstration is the highest. Al-Fārābī's emphasis on demonstration as the pivotal means for the acquisition of certain knowledge is an important innovation of Arabic philosophy, which reached the Latin West via Gundisalvi (Fidora 2007).

Fuck orthodox they claim prayer is purest sacrifice but offer bread and wine to God

BLASPHEMOUS

The influence of al-Fārābī's Enumeration of the Sciences extends also to specific areas such as music (Farmer 1934, 31–34). In general, al-Fārābī's and Gundisalvi's works were instrumental in disseminating a systematic division of the sciences which integrated the full range of Aristotle's works and a broad spectrum of sciences, many of which were new to the Latin West (Burnett 2011).

>of which demonstration is the highest
no h8 m8

The Ukrainian PARLIAMENT petitioned that, not the Ukrainian Church

difference is WE ARE LITERALLY THAT

The influence of al-Fārābī's Enumeration of the Sciences extends also to specific areas such as music (Farmer 1934, 31–34). In general, al-Fārābī's and Gundisalvi's works were instrumental in disseminating a systematic division of the sciences which integrated the full range of Aristotle's works and a broad spectrum of sciences, many of which were new to the Latin West (Burnett 2011).

Do you even understand how Orthodoxy works m8?

The Arabic influence in logic is thinner than in other disciplines (apart from ethics), because only a few works of Arabic logic were translated into Latin. The most influential translations were the Isagoge part of Avicenna's summa The Healing (ash-Shifâ’) and al-Ghazālī’s Intentions of the Philosophers, the first part of which is a reworking of Avicennian logic. Ramón Llull produced an Arabic compendium of al-Ghazālī's text, which he himself translated into Latin (Lohr 1965). To these sources one may add al-Fārābī's Enumeration of the Sciences, which transmitted much material on logical disciplines. Hermannus Alemannus's translation of Averroes' commentary on the Poetics was important because it remained the only source on Aristotelian poetics available in the Middle Ages and had a rich manuscript transmission (for its influence on Petrarch's negative judgement about Arabic poetry see Burnett 1997). Other translated texts remained largely uninfluential, such as William of Luna’s translations of five commentaries by Averroes on Aristotle’s logical works, or the Averroes translations made from Hebrew in the Renaissance. In sum, this means that the Latin West was not aware of the more innovative parts of Arabic logic, such as in syllogistics and modal logic (Street 2005).

We MUSLIMS do because you STOLE FROM US

THEOSIS IS ORIGINALLY IN ISLAM

Several particular doctrines of Arabic logic, however, were very influential. Among them was Avicenna's theory of the subject matter of logic, with its related doctrine of first and second intentions. Avicenna's basic claim is that logic deals with second-order concepts. This is discussed in the logic part of The Healing, but spelled out in technical vocabulary in the metaphysics part (Metaphysics I,2): “The subject matter of logic is the secondary intelligible concepts (al-ma'anî al-ma'qûla al-thâniyya, intentiones intellectae secundo), which depend on the primary intelligible concepts with respect to the manner by which one arrives through them at the unknown from the known”. In this sentence, “concept” (ma'nâ) is rendered in Latin with the term intentio.

A brief note on this term is at place: In Arabic-Latin translation literature, intentio is very often used to render ma´nâ, with the consequence that the term intentio took on a similarly broad semantic range as its Arabic counterpart. In the writings of Avicenna, ma'nâ may mean “concept”, but also “meaning” of a word, or something “intelligible” by the intellect, or “perceptible” by estimation but not by the external senses (on estimation see section 5.1). In Averroes' epistemology, the term ma'nâ has a specific meaning as the object of memory and a broader meaning as the abstracted content of sensory, imaginative or intelligible forms (Black 1996, 166).

>faith predating Mudshits somehow stole from them and stole the organisation method.

>Liturgical musical selections from the St. Louis Jesuits

Opinion discarded. After all, while I do enjoy Orthodox Liturgical hymns, the Catholic church, and the entire West, at it's height, is vastly superior to anything the Orthodox church has done (saving for perhaps Rachmaninoff).
m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLoqoYP_8M-okGxSQjv_rC-dR7mxDGoFpR&v=q2cJ1UnQSts
m.youtube.com/watch?v=5LCAdXR8GU8
m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlLmI3m1DnU

THEOSIS WAS FORST MADE BY MUHAMMAD PEACE BE UPON HIM

NOT CHEISTIAN DOGS

Mosque is most superior

No bread or wine given to God

Just pure prayer.

You spelled Piss wrong.

A brief note on this term is at place: In Arabic-Latin translation literature, intentio is very often used to render ma´nâ, with the consequence that the term intentio took on a similarly broad semantic range as its Arabic counterpart. In the writings of Avicenna, ma'nâ may mean “concept”, but also “meaning” of a word, or something “intelligible” by the intellect, or “perceptible” by estimation but not by the external senses (on estimation see section 5.1). In Averroes' epistemology, the term ma'nâ has a specific meaning as the object of memory and a broader meaning as the abstracted content of sensory, imaginative or intelligible forms (Black 1996, 166).

>this is the only retort gypsy can give

>says former colony after sperging out in all caps

In Avicenna's theory of logic, second intentions are defined as the properties of concepts which these concepts acquire when used in attaining knowledge, for example: being a subject or being a predicate, being a premise or being a syllogism. Avicenna thus confirms that logic has a proper subject matter, and hence becomes a full-fledged part of philosophy, and not only a tool for the philosophical disciplines (Sabra 1980, 752–753). Avicenna's definition of logic appears already in Dominicus Gundisalvi (De divisione philosophiae 150). Further Latin writers to adopt Avicenna's thesis that the subject matter of logic is second intentions are Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, followed by many subsequent authors such as Pseudo-Robert Kilwardby, Radulphus Brito, Hervaeus Natalis, Peter Aureoli, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham (Knudsen 1982; Maierù 1987; Perler 1994).

Orthosox priests drive in sports cars in Ramona

They are like gypsies

It was a matter of dispute how first and second intentions differ, what they refer to and what their ontological status is, a dispute bordering on epistemology and the philosophy of mind. Important participants in this discussion are Roger Bacon, who defines intentions as intelligible species, that is, mental likenesses of things, and Hervaeus Natalis and Peter Aureoli, who (apart from disagreeing on many issues) both hold that intentions are neither identical with extramental things nor with qualities of the intellect; they have their own “intentional being” (esse intentionale), which is the result of a cognitive act (Perler 1994). This position was criticized both by nominalists and realists: the nominalist William of Ockham objected against the reification of intentions and held that intentions are always natural signs in the mind; second intentions are natural signs which signify other natural signs (Summa logicae I.12); the realist author Walter Burley rejects the idea of a special being of intentions and argues that second intentions are part of extramental reality (Knudsen 1982). Logic as the science of second intentions continued to be a philosophical topic well into the sixteenth century, especially among Thomists and Scotist authors.

>orthosox

FUG THEY'RE DRIVIGN GARS :DDDD

Natural philosophy is the field with the greatest number of Arabic-Latin translations. In this discipline, Arabic philosophers had been particularly active, and Latin philosophers were particularly interested. Arabic natural philosophy reached the Latin West earlier than the other philosophical disciplines. The medical and astrological translations of the late eleventh and early twelfth century transported much philosophical material of the Graeco-Arabic tradition to the Latin world. Under the influence of these Arabic sources, Latin authors of the twelfth century explained natural phenomena by recourse to the four elements, the four qualities, the four humours, the three spiritus (natural, spiritual, animal) and their organs, the localization of the soul’s faculties in different cavities of the brain, the distinction between the sublunar and the heavenly universe, the circular movement of the heavenly spheres, and by using Aristotelian concepts such as matter and form, action and passion, cause and effect. While many Latin writers of the twelfth century continued to understand nature in terms of the Latin Christian tradition, others, in the context of the so-called “school of Chartres”, such as William of Conches, Adelard of Bath, Hermann of Carinthia and Bernardus Silvestris, drew amply on the new medical and astrological sources, often combining them with the doctrines of Plato's Timaeus (Burnett 1982, introduction; cf. also Lemay 1962). Sometimes they did this by openly dividing their presentation into a section according to the church fathers and a section according to the philosophers and natural scientists (physici), which integrated material from the Latin and Arabic philosophical traditions (e.g. the treatises Philosophia by William of Conches and De natura corporis et animae by William of St.-Thierry).

Someone is mad he is a poor fag.

And did you mean Romania?

SPORTS CARS

AND THEU PLAGARIZE ISMAL

You again? I remember when you tried to argue Christian liturgy was derived from Islamic Jammah by way of Qorban. You're silly. It says in the Qur'an to judge the revelation of Muhammad by what is contained in the Injeel; they don't match. And don't mention tahreef, if the gospel is so distorted that it is not authoritative, then why would Allah expect us to judge by it?

Allah didn't and you corrupted it

Poor gypsy steal

Next he'll say Orthodox icons come from Islam, and the Trinity comes from Islam

Stupid mud-gook learn to read.

Islam built the modern world
Not cucktian

Poor gypsy have to steal

Natural philosophy is the field with the greatest number of Arabic-Latin translations. In this discipline, Arabic philosophers had been particularly active, and Latin philosophers were particularly interested. Arabic natural philosophy reached the Latin West earlier than the other philosophical disciplines. The medical and astrological translations of the late eleventh and early twelfth century transported much philosophical material of the Graeco-Arabic tradition to the Latin world. Under the influence of these Arabic sources, Latin authors of the twelfth century explained natural phenomena by recourse to the four elements, the four qualities, the four humours, the three spiritus (natural, spiritual, animal) and their organs, the localization of the soul’s faculties in different cavities of the brain, the distinction between the sublunar and the heavenly universe, the circular movement of the heavenly spheres, and by using Aristotelian concepts such as matter and form, action and passion, cause and effect. While many Latin writers of the twelfth century continued to understand nature in terms of the Latin Christian tradition, others, in the context of the so-called “school of Chartres”, such as William of Conches, Adelard of Bath, Hermann of Carinthia and Bernardus Silvestris, drew amply on the new medical and astrological sources, often combining them with the doctrines of Plato's Timaeus (Burnett 1982, introduction; cf. also Lemay 1962). Sometimes they did this by openly dividing their presentation into a section according to the church fathers and a section according to the philosophers and natural scientists (physici), which integrated material from the Latin and Arabic philosophical traditions (e.g. the treatises Philosophia by William of Conches and De natura corporis et animae by William of St.-Thierry).

Ok akhi, whatever you say. And why are you mentioning Muslim philosophers like it attests to the truth of Islam? Aristotle and Aflatun did momentous tristes in philosophy long before Muhammad prophesied, but does it mean their religious views were correct?

You mean Christian Empires had to bring the modern world to you.

Where did Islam put MH370?

The influence of Arabic in natural philosophy in the later Middle Ages, that is, after the translations of Avicenna and Averroes, is particularly strong in psychology (section 5 below). But other disciplines, such as physics, cosmology or zoology, are also influenced by Arabic sources, in particular by Averroes' commentaries. Several theses from Averroes' long commentaries on Physics and De caelo influenced the history of medieval Latin physics and cosmology: the explanation of projectile motion (e.g. of a thrown stone) as the successive motion of the medium; the thesis that motion and time differ in reality, but only with respect to the numbering soul; and the theory that the heavenly sphere is in a place only accidentally, insofar as it moves around the earth at its center (Maier 1951; Wood 2010; Trifogli 2000; Trifogli 2010).

Poor jungle Hajis can't read.

In your asshole dumbass

Arab natural philosophy got rekt by Ghazali

WE DESTROY THE ORTHODOX BYZANTIME

Ghazali is muslim

So if I join Islam, I can get more up my ass?

Yes

Byzantium is not dead. It's just sleeping.

And we perfected Aristotle and the GREEKS

Well fuck me. I thought it was all about women virgins.

Where do I sign up?

>Why does the media hate the Orthodox Church?
The Catholic church can be controlled if a heretical pope is put into power.

Protestant churches can be controlled as long as they're discouraged from reading their Bibles and/or given (((UPDATED TRANSLATIONS))).

What can you even do about the Orthodox Church though? Seems like they're remaining pretty based.

indeed

It is Islam noe

>following a camel jockey pedofile who literally believes the sun sets in a murky puddle of water and worships a fucking rock
I'm good desu

Go to your local mosque and donate to my patreon

That is a metaphor and poetic

Last I checked Byantines did not instal self destruct buttons on their soliders.

We used your own children against you

Which patreon? I really want to get cornholed bad.

Can it be expidited?

Persians translated Greek philosophical texts into Arabic.

>worshipping a rock is poetic
>fucking a 6 year old is metaphorical
K

One issue on which Avicenna and Averroes disagreed was the “form of bodiliness” (sûra jismiyya, forma corporeitatis), which, Avicenna argued, is the common form of prime matter that underlies all individual bodily forms, whereas Averroes denied that the “form of corporeality” is a form in the category of substance; it is only an accident, to be identified with indeterminate three-dimensionality (Hyman 1965). Thomas Aquinas rejected the idea that prior to the intellective soul there exists a substantial form in matter (Summa theol. Ia q. 76 a. 4, a. 6). The Avicennian concept was adopted by others, such as Henry of Ghent and Duns Scotus, and thus served the theory of the plurality of substantial forms. That prime matter has its own actuality became a principle identifying the Franciscan party in the doctrinal struggles with the Dominicans. The discussion of the concept of forma corporeitatis continued well into the sixteenth century (Des Chene 2000, 81–93).

Three prominent topics of natural philosophy are here singled out for closer treatment: the eternity of the world, the persistence of elements in a compound and spontaneous generation.

See Maldraw

And you lost.

These threads with this malaysian guy are the best

They are muslims

>What can you even do about the Orthodox Church though?
The Bolsheviks tried to control us

>USSR creates "Living Church" with new rules, imprisons or kills clergy that refuses to cooperate
>WWII happens
>Stalin needs morale boost
>realizes Russians know the "Living Church" is phony
>is forced to release clergy and turn parishes back over
>clergy who cooperated with the "Living Church" must do penance of Apostates
>Patriarch of Russian Church say the Church is now totally loyal to Stalin
>all the other Russian bishops excommunicate him for it
>Stalin can't do anything because he still needs the Church, so let's them
>eventually new Patriarch is elected
It's pretty hard to get to us, because our bishops are selected from monks. The most you can get to is our priests. Some bishops might occasionally be gotten to, but never more than a couple

We destroyed Byzantium

youtube.com/watch?v=YpJJQDm_lBM

The Greek theory of the eternity of the world was a challenge to the Christian world view, a challenge increased by the fact that the theory was supported by Arabic sources: by Avicenna, who combined it with a metaphysical concept of God as the “necessary being”, which is the eternal efficient cause of the existence of the heavenly and sublunar world (see section 6.4 on the first cause), and by Averroes, who combined it with a conception of God as the prime mover, whose existence is proved in natural philosophy. In Giles of Rome’ Errors of the Philosophers, Avicenna and Averroes are accused of many “errors”, but the eternity of the world figures most prominently. Averroes, in particular, is attacked for opposing “even more vehemently than did the Philosopher (Aristotle) those who held that the world had had a beginning” (Giles of Rome 1944, 15). The eternity of the world and related theses were condemned as heretical in 1270 and 1277 by the Parisian bishop Étienne Tempier (art. 87, 90, 99, 184) (Piché 1999).

when will this meme end?

all ghazali did was refute the belief of avicenna and al-kinda who had philosophies which posited God having "necessary" attributes. Beyond the wajib-ul-wujud concept, which they did not originate, they went too far in their philosophy and thrawted God's omnipotence. Other than that, it regards to supernatural phenomenon (ie Moses' staff turning to a snake), all he said is that all things are ultimately God's doing, essentially saying "while fire causes smoke 99% of the time, it is ultimately Allah who causes the process of combustion. Thus it is not at all contradictory for smoke to arise spontaneously, if God willed it". He did NOT say "lol science sucks, let's fuck some sheep instead".

Greco-Roman culture still exists, Orthodoxy still exists, Europe still exists.
You lost

Turkey a secular republic run by dönmeh Jews and the Hagia Sofia a secular museum.

Yet up until the 90's you were Russia or US' bitch.

That is nullshit

See ISLAMIX GOLDEN AGE

>malaysia destroyed byzantium

>"while fire causes smoke 99% of the time, it is ultimately Allah who causes the process of combustion
No, he said fire never causes smoke, it just tends to correlate with it. Each is independently caused by God

We won

We destroyed Orthodoxy and Byzantium

Now without us they are all shitholes

They are muslim

And you were ours

I am an Arab expat and former member of the Syriac Orthocuck

>all orthodox countries are shitholes
>Malaysia is a literal where country
I know you guys are delusional, but I didn't know there were brown chinks who thought they destroyed Byzantium

In the thirteenth century and beyond, the issue was widely discussed by the scholastics, who arrived at a variety of positions, but unanimously held that the world was created in time by God, which means that they never fully shared Avicenna's or Averroes’ position. Many arguments of the scholastic discussion were drawn from Arabic authorities, in particular from Averroes' long commentaries on De caelo and Physics and from Avicenna's Metaphysics. First traces of Arabic influence can be found in Philip the Chancellor’s Summa de bono (dating 1225–8). Thomas of York, for instance, takes over Averroes' exposition of the four principal views on the issue (Comm. magnum De caelo I.102; Dales 1990, 81). Passages drawn from Arabic texts were not only employed to defend, but also to attack the eternity thesis. One particularly often quoted argument comes from al-Ghazālī's Intentions of the Philosophers: If the world was eternal, an infinite number of (immortal) souls would now exist, which is impossible (Dales 1990, 44, 256). Another very influential source of the Latin debate was Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed (II.13–28); Maimonides argued that both eternity and non-eternity are possible philosophically.

Malaysia is a powerhouse in its region

Thomas Aquinas' Commentary on the Sentences (II, d.1 q.1 a.5) is a good example of the impact of Arabic sources. Among the arguments cited from Averroes in favour of eternity are that there is always another moment in time before a moment in time; that only motion can be the cause of a change from rest to motion; that if the world had a beginning, a vacuum would precede the world (Comm. magnum De caelo III.29, Comm. magnum Phys. VIII.8,9,11,15). Avicenna is cited by Thomas as holding that God's will is unchangeable and never starts anew (an argument advanced also by Averroes), and that it is impossible that God precedes the world in duration, because this implies that time existed before the world and before movement (Metaphysics IX.1). These arguments clearly influenced Thomas' conclusion that the eternity thesis is the most probable in philosophical terms. However, just like creation, eternity escapes full demonstration. From the standpoint of faith, the eternity of the world is false and heretical. In his treatise On the Eternity of the World, Thomas Aquinas, in contrast to most of his contemporaries, defends the possibility of an eternal creation, thus approaching the position of Avicenna and other Neoplatonic thinkers.

Maybe there was a islamic golden age , but it sure was not muhhamad who caused it

>Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

>Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Dirty fucking apostate. Enjoy hell

Positions on the eternity of the world by some masters of arts were in some cases very provocative. In the eyes of Siger of Brabant, the natural philosopher cannot but conclude that the world is eternally created, whereas the metaphysician concedes that God's will is inscrutable and that hence there is no certainty about eternity or non-eternity (De aeternitate mundi; Quaest. in tertium De anima q.2). For Boethius of Dacia, the natural philosopher has to infer the eternity of movement from the principles of natural philosophy, but the metaphysician, even though he can demonstrate the existence of a first cause, is unable to demonstrate whether the world is coeternal with the first cause or non-eternal, given the inscrutability of God's will (De aeternitate mundi). Both authors share the conviction that the natural philosopher is forced to conclude that the world is eternal, thus provoking theological opposition. The arguments for this conclusion were largely furnished by Arabic sources.

He was being poetic dumbass

>destroyed Orthodoxy
>destroyed Byzantium
Please explain

Butthurt Syrian Orthocuck

I converted my whole parish to
Islam

>Islam built the modern world
Wow, we're reaching levels of autism that were previously thought impossible.

What does Aquinas have to do with Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is stuff like the Ladder of Divine Ascent

Fall of constantinocuck is historical

>What can you even do about the Orthodox Church though? Seems like they're remaining pretty based.

Just ask Peter the Great

>Monasteries lost territory and were more closely regulated, resulting in a reduction in the number of monks and nuns in Russia from roughly 25,000 in 1734 to around 14,000 in 1738.

>The Church — particularly monasteries — lost landed wealth gradually during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but under Empress Catherine II ("Catherine the Great", ruled 1762–1796) monastic lands were effectively nationalised, with some one million peasants on monastery land becoming state serfs practically overnight. A new ecclesiastic educational system was begun under Peter the Great and expanded to the point that by the end of the century there was a seminary in each eparchy (diocese). However, the curriculum for the clergy heavily emphasised Latin language and subjects, closer to the curriculum of Jesuit academies in Poland, focusing lightly on the Greek language and the Eastern Church Fathers, and lighter still on the Russian and Slavonic church languages. This resulted in more monks and priests being formally educated than before, but receiving poor training in preparation for a ministry to a Russian-speaking population steeped in the traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy. Catherine even made sure that the salaries of all ranks of the clergy were paid by the state instead of the Church, resulting in the clergy effectively becoming employees of the state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_reform_of_Peter_the_Great

Isn't lying a grave sin in Islam?

How can illiterate caravan traders know how to be poetic

Which is stolen from islam

Yes he is so poetic that he does not have one single fact right , some prophet of god

>Peter I, known as "Peter the Great" (ruled 1682–1725), ushered in an era in which the church government was fundamentally transformed: instead of being governed by a patriarch or metropolitan, the government of the church came under the control of a committee known as the Most Holy Governing Synod, which was composed both of bishops and lay bureaucrats appointed by the Emperor.

>Tsar Peter inflicted numerous reforms on his country that were designed to create and pay for a new government and a military and naval system that would enable Russia to trade with, compete with, and, as necessary defend Russia's European interests by force of arms. The ruthlessness with which he implemented his governmental and tax collection reforms, and the forced buildup of his new capital city, St. Petersburg, augured poorly for the independence of the church.
Archbishop Theophan Prokopovich, Peter's ally in his reform of the Russian Orthodox Church.

>When Patriarch Adrian (in office 1690–1700) died in October 1700, Peter prevented the election of a new patriarch, and instead appointed Stephen Yavorsky as patriarchal "exarch", locum tenens, or, literally, the custodian of the patriarchal throne (мicцeблюcтитeль пaтpiapшoгo пpecтoлy).[1] Yavorskii was a young professor from the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy of a breakaway region of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth also known as Cossack Hetmanate, who had trained at a Jesuit academy in Poland, and who argued in favor of a strong patriarchate and the independence of the church. He headed the church together with a bishop council, however his powers were very limited, as for example all church property was under administration of Monastical prikaz (see prikaz) which was out of the church jurisdiction. As a result, monasteries became the main nests of opposition and in order to fight them the government prohibited monks to keep in their cells pen and paper.

I backed up my
Facts showing medieval scholastics using us

clearly this is taqqiya

He's right you know

Because Orthodoxy is the last real stronghold of Christianity

>It's pretty hard to get to us, because our bishops are selected from monks. The most you can get to is our priests
A firewall against subversion. Neat.

Stop pushing your false god, loser.

Behold the original image.

I said explain how orthodoxy and the Byzantine empire was destroyed, you aren't answering my question, because I still see the remnants of the empire and I still see millions of followers of orthodoxy today worldwide......

Is that why the evolution is false?

Because we MUSLIMS made it

You're right, I did word it wrong. But it does seem the Ghazali believed that because Allah caused things to happen in a regular fashion, that one could still posit laws within nature, but could not have confidence universal application. Nonetheless, there is nothing anti-science about Al-Ghazali's views, and it is silly to say that the decline in Islamic science is due to him (obviously it is due to God). All save for a Deist would be hard pressed to believe anything else, if interrogated about the matter.

Peter could not tolerate the thought that a patriarch could have power superior to the Tsar, as indeed had happened in the case of Philaret (1619–33) and Nikon (1652-66). He therefore abolished the Patriarchy, replacing it with a Holy Synod that was under the control of a senior bureaucrat; the Tsar appointed all bishops.

In 1721 Peter followed the advice of Feofan Prokopovich in designing the Holy Synod. It was a council of ten clergymen. For leadership in the church, Peter turned increasingly to Ukrainians, who were more open to reform, but were not well loved by the Russian clergy. Peter implemented a law that stipulated that no Russian man could join a monastery before the age of 50. He felt that too many able Russian men were being wasted on clerical work when they could be joining his new and improved army.[27][28]

A clerical career was not a route chosen by upper-class society. Most parish priests were sons of priests, were very poorly educated, and very poorly paid. The monks in the monasteries had a slightly higher status; they were not allowed to marry. Politically, the church was impotent

He seriously hampered the Church (because he wanted it to be like a Protestant State Church), but he didn't have ultimate control within in--that is, most of the clergy did not support him. If you'd like to read Ways of Russian Theology (not actually a book on theology, but a book on the history of the Church in Russia), you will find there was severe dissent with him throughout his reign, including many clerics who got exiled for fired for writing theology that he didn't like, knowing well the consequences. He forbade the clergy to write against Protestantism, for instance, but many continued to regardless.

We invaded and won

AND WE LET
THEM
LIVE

>the Tsar appointed all bishops
He choose which bishops were in the synod He didn't actually appoint people as bishops.

Motives dont really matter here, Im just demonstrating how Orthodoxy isnt all that more immune from state corruption/cucking than that Brit and possibly yourself thinks

In the Latin West, Avicenna and Averroes were known as the principal adversaries on a much-discussed question of element theory, especially in the fourteenth century. Given that all physical substances (apart from the elements themselves) are mixtures of elements, how do the elements exist in them? (Maier 1952; Grant 1974, §77, Eichner 2005, 139–145). Avicenna's answer is that the substantial forms of the elements remain unaltered when a compound is formed; only the qualities of the elements are altered and unite to a mean quality (qualitas media), or complexion (complexio). The complexion disposes the matter to receive the substantial form of the compound from the active intellect, the giver of forms (dator formarum) (The Healing: Physics I.10, On generation 6). The problem with this position, as many scholastics saw, is that several bodies are combined in one, which do not form a true mixture. Averroes rejects Avicenna's theory and argues that the substantial forms of the elements are diminished in the compound (Comm. magnum De caelo III.67). The form of the compound is “composed” of the elementary forms (Comm. magnum Metaph. XII.22). In order not to violate Aristotle's principle that substantial forms cannot be diminished or augmented (a man is not more man than another), Averroes argued that elementary forms are not substantial forms in the full sense.

>He therefore abolished the Patriarchy
That fucker.

Thanks for the history lesson though.

> Why does the (((media))) hate Christ?
Gee, I don't know. But I'd bet Putin is somehow at fault for this too!

Orthodox is stupid

>Politically, the church was impotent
This is correct, but the Church has always been politically impotent. Where she had influence, it was being able to influence the state, but the Church herself never, ever was a political institution like the RCC was in the sense of being able to pass law and the like (the Church could pass canons, but those are not quite the same thing).

A third influential alternative was proposed by Thomas Aquinas. Thomas argued that the substantial forms of the elements are destroyed and that only the qualities contribute to the mixture. Thomas shares Avicenna's conviction that every form presupposes a certain material disposition, which is the mean quality characteristic of the compound. But he deviates from Avicenna in that the forms of the elements are not preserved; they are only virtually present in the compound, in that their powers survive (De mixtione elementorum, cf. Summa theol. Ia q. 76 a. 4). Thomas' position found many adherents. Its problem is that physical bodies cannot truly be called mixtures of elements.

MOVE ASIDE SCHOLASTIKEKS

LET ISLAM SHOW YOU THE WAY

The state didn't corrupt the Church, it just severely persecuted her under the guise of "Reform". The Church was basically a punching bag for Peter and Catherine.

Avicenna's theory of the permanence of substantial forms was often mentioned, but rarely accepted in the Latin West. Averroes’ position, that the elementary forms can be diminished and augmented, found many supporters, among them Henry of Ghent, Petrus Johannes Olivi, Richard of Middleton, John of Jandun and several members of the Merton school of the fourteenth century (Maier 1952, 36–46). Many authors accept Averroes' position with modifications, especially by reinterpreting the thesis of the intension and remission of elementary forms. Henry Bate and Dietrich of Freiberg argue that the diminished forms assume the character of potential forms and thus join the matter of the compound; the form of the compound is a form added to these diminished forms. For Averroes, in contrast, the combination of the diminished forms was identical with the new form of the compound. In the Renaissance, the issue continued to be discussed. There was disagreement even among the followers of Averroes. Some, as Marcantonio Zimara, held that the form of the compound was added to the other forms, others, as Jacopo Zabarella, argued against such addition (Maier 1952, 46–69).

Spontaneous generation, that is, the generation of life without their being any parents, as when worms grow in decay, is a much discussed issue of medieval physics and metaphysics. The conflicting explanations of the phenomenon by Avicenna and Averroes much determined the Latin discussion until the sixteenth century. While Avicenna holds that spontaneous generation depends upon ever more refined mixtures of elementary qualities which trigger the emanation of forms from the active intellect, the giver of forms (The Healing: Meteorology II.6), Averroes explains it with the influence of certain celestial constellations which actualize potential forms in water or earth. Avicenna and Averroes also disagree about the special case of the spontaneous generation of human beings, which Avicenna finds possible, whereas Averroes does not. For Averroes, all spontaneously created animals are not true, but abnormal, monstrous animals (Comm. magnum Metaph. II.15, VII.31, XII.13,18) (Hasse 2007a; Bertolacci 2013).

In the Latin West, Averroes' explanation dominated the discussion for several centuries. Thomas Aquinas argues that there is no need to assume the existence of an Avicennian giver of forms to explain spontaneous generation, since the celestial power suffices for producing ordinary animals from matter. More complex beings, however, such as horses and human beings, cannot be produced by the celestial power alone without the formative power of the semen (Quaest. de potentia, qu. 3 a. 8,9,11). Thomas' position was called the media via by later authors, that is, the middle way between Avicenna and Averroes, since Thomas rejected Avicenna's theory, but also modified Averroes' position in treating spontaneous generation as a natural, and not a miraculous phenomenon.

>The state didn't corrupt the Church, it just severely persecuted her under the guise of "Reform". The Church was basically a punching bag for Peter and Catherine.

It was effectively a case of Caesaropapism which is most certainly a corruption. When your church can no longer freely select its highest members it is solidly cucked.

>>I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.

> “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19:4-6

Luther hasn't even bothered to read the Scripture he ranted about so much.

Further proof that Protestants aren't Christian.

Averroes' theory of celestial influence and Thomas Aquinas' media via became mainstream in the Latin middle ages. A few authors, however, followed Avicenna in allowing for the spontaneous generation of human beings, among them Albertus Magnus, Blasius of Parma, and, in the Renaissance, Pietro Pomponazzi, Paolo Ricci and Tiberio Russiliano (Hasse 2007a; Hasse 2007c, 125-129). Pomponazzi makes the spontaneous generation of human beings dependent upon the conjunction of the superior planets Jupiter and Saturn, and thus introduces another Arabic theory into the discussion: Albumasar's astrological theory of the great conjunctions (Nardi 1965).

>Source, Soros?
His homosex butt-buddies. These fabulous people can't be wrong on matters of religion and morality!

A modified version of Avicenna's theory of the giver of forms appears in John Buridan, who deviates from the dominant position that the form of human beings comes from without, i.e. from God, whereas that of animals is educed from matter. In contrast, Buridan holds that all forms are given by a separate incorporeal substance, which he calls God. The phenomenon of spontaneous generation supports this view, since it cannot be explained with the influence of the stars, which is too weak and imperfect to generate animals (In Metaphysicen Aristotelis lib. 8 q. 9). What does not appear in Buridan, is Avicenna’s theory of the subsequent mixtures of elementary qualities.

In Latin psychology, the influence of Arabic works is particularly strong and lasted well into the sixteenth century. Avicenna and Averroes, the most influential philosophers, presented the West with a faculty psychology in the tradition of Aristotle and enriched by Graeco-Arabic medical doctrines, such as about the cavities of the brain, the nerves, and the spirits which transport information in the body. From about 1220 onwards, the full range of Avicennian faculties (vegetative, external and internal senses, the motive faculties, practical and theoretical intellect) appears in Latin treatises by masters of arts and theologians. This system of faculties remains, by and large, standard for a long time in philosophical handbooks, from the anonymous Philosophy of the Simple (Philosophia pauperum) and Vincent of Beauvais' Mirror of Nature (Speculum naturale) in the thirteenth century up to the Philosophic Pearl (Margarita philosophica) of the 1490s. Also influential was Avicenna's definition of the soul as a separate substance and his thought experiment of the “Flying Man” (Hasse 2000, 80-92; Hasse 2008).

Averroes disagreed with Avicenna on a number of topics concerning faculty psychology, for example: on the organ and medium of touch (Hasse 2000, 98–106), on the material or immaterial transmission of odors, and on whether human beings have an estimative faculty or not. These controversies were continued in the Latin tradition. The most influential pieces of psychological doctrine imported from the Arabs probably were Avicenna's theory of estimation (wahm), his theory of potential, acquired and active intellects, and Averroes' thesis that there is one intellect for all human beings.

>When your church can no longer freely select its highest members
You don't seem to understand, there is no office higher than "bishop" in the Orthodox Church. The synod, established by Peter, had the power to do things like censor works and administrate academia, but in administration of a diocese, each bishop is basically autonomous, even then. A Patriarch is not a mini-Pope

Avicenna had argued in his On the Soul (the De anima part of The Healing I.5 and IV.3) that human beings and animals share an internal sense called estimation (wahm, aestimatio), which perceives so-called “intentions” (ma’ânî, intentiones) in an object, such as hostility and friendliness: The sheep perceives hostility in the wolf and judges that the wolf is to be fled from. The basic ingredients of this theory were adopted by many scholastic writers. There was disagreement, however, over several issues: Firstly, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas (in contrast to Avicenna, Albertus Magnus and others) argued that estimation existed in animals only, but not in human beings. To explain instinctive reactions in human beings, it is not necessary, they argue, to assume the existence of a faculty besides the cogitative faculty, or ratio particularis, as Thomas calls it (Summa theologiae Ia 81.3c). Secondly, scholastic writers were divided over whether the intentions are perceived in the object, as Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas say (cf. also John Blund, Tractatus de anima, ch. 19), or abstracted from sensory forms, as for instance Albertus Magnus and John Buridan argue (Albertus, De anima II.4.7; Buridan, Quaestiones de anima II.22) (Black 2000; Hasse 2000, 141–153; cf. also Black 2011). Thirdly, there was disagreement about the notion of “animal judgement” propagated by Avicenna. Nominalists such as Adam Wodeham argue that judgements always involve the formation of a complex sentence, which presupposes linguistic capabilities; animals, therefore, never truly judge (Perler 2006).

>Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
Matthew 22:28

Typical for Arabic intellect theory is the distinction between several degrees or levels of intellect, from an entirely potential intellect up to a perpetually active intellect, and the assumption, taken over from later Greek philosophers, that the active intellect is an entity separate from the human being. Al-Fārābī, Avicenna and Averroes identify the active intellect with the lowest of the cosmological intelligences, and argue that the human intellect is able to conjoin with the active intellect. The great majority of scholastic writers teach that potential and active intellect are parts of the soul, but there also existed a current adopting the Arabic idea of a separate active intellect (e.g. Dominicus Gundisalvi and Petrus Hispanus). Several scholastic authors identify the active intellect with God on the authority of Avicenna and Augustine – a position which modern scholars have labeled “Augustinisme avicennisant” (Gilson 1926/27, 102). Among the earliest exponents of the doctrine is Jean de la Rochelle, whose psychological works were written in the 1230s. He teaches that the term “active intellect” refers either to God or to the angels' intellect or to the internal light of human beings, depending upon which intellectual objects are grasped by the human intellect (Summa de anima 116). This doctrine reappears in the 1240s in the Summa fratris Alexandri, and in Vincent of Beauvais. Later adherents are Roger Bacon, John Pecham, Roger Marston, Vital du Four, and also Henry of Ghent (though only in parts of his work). But other scholastics disagree. Adam of Buckfield, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas criticize unnamed theologians for identifying the active intellect with God. As philological evidence shows, they refer to the above-mentioned current which begins with Jean de la Rochelle (Hasse 2000, 220–221

Avicenna distinguishes four different states of the human intellect, which are not different faculties of the soul, but different phases of intellection: three potential intellects, called material, in habitu, in effectu, and one actually thinking intellect, the “acquired intellect” (al-'aql al-mustafâd, intellectus adeptus). The first potential intellect is pure potentiality to know anything; the second potential intellect knows axioms such as “The whole is bigger than the part”; the third has already acquired conclusions through syllogistic reasoning and the intuition of middle terms, but does not consider them at the moment; the “acquired intellect” comes about when the human intellect connects with the active intellect (De anima I.5). This theory exerted a profound influence on scholastic intellect theory, especially in the period from Dominicus Gundisalvi to Albertus Magnus. The scholastics inherited from Avicenna the principal idea that the activity of the human intellect can be differentiated into different phases of gradual development and into different acts of syllogistic reasoning (Hasse 1999 and 2000, 191–200).

Because Vatican II is progressive, you will have women priests, openly gay bishops and a transsexual pope within a decade or two.

Orthodox upholds its values. Values are evil and must be stamped out for the new world order.

>You don't seem to understand, there is no office higher than "bishop" in the Orthodox Church. The synod, established by Peter, had the power to do things like censor works and administrate academia, but in administration of a diocese, each bishop is basically autonomous, even then. A Patriarch is not a mini-Pope

Reread those quotes

>Peter could not tolerate the thought that a patriarch could have power superior to the Tsar, as indeed had happened in the case of Philaret (1619–33) and Nikon (1652-66). He therefore abolished the Patriarchy, replacing it with a Holy Synod that was under the control of a senior bureaucrat; the ****Tsar appointed all bishops.****

>In 1721 Peter followed the advice of Feofan Prokopovich in designing the Holy Synod. It was a council of ten clergymen. For leadership in the church, Peter turned increasingly to Ukrainians, who were more open to reform, but were not well loved by the Russian clergy.

You got cucked so hard the Church didnt recover until the fall of communism.

An important step in the reception of the doctrine is the anonymous treatise De anima et de potentiis eius by a Parisian master of arts of ca. 1225 (Gauthier 1982a, 53). This author adopts from Avicenna the first three levels of intellect, the first being pure potentiality, the second knowing first propositions, the third conclusions, and combines it with teachings from Aristotle's Posterior Analytics (I.3 and II.19) about the intellect knowing axioms and principles. Jean de la Rochelle continues this line and calls the second intellect intellectus principiorum, the third intellectus conclusionum, and uses a Boethian term for the axioms of the second intellect: “common notion of the mind” (communis animi conceptio), thus combining the Avicennian doctrine with Latin axiomatic theory (Tractatus de divisione multiplici potentiarum animae II.18).

Is there a paste bin for all this?
Do you actually think the Orthodox care about or could be persuaded by what you are writing?

In the writings of Albertus Magnus, the influence of Avicenna is combined with that of Averroes, who distinguishes two intellects apart from the separate active intellect: the material intellect, which is pure potentiality (and unique, see section 5.4 below) and the speculative intellect, which is the actuality of the grasped intelligible. Averroes and Avicenna both teach that the human and active intellect conjoin in the moment of intellection. Averroes, in particular, claims that a perfect conjunction with the active intellect results in God-like knowledge and that such a conjunction is possible in this life (Comm. magnum De anima III.5 and III.36).

It is called your asshole

wtf I'm converting to Islam now

Albertus Magnus, in his early De homine (qu. 56 a. 3), adopts the Avicennian doctrine of three potential intellects in his scholastic reformulation, but in his later works, under the influence of Averroes, transforms it into a theory of intellectual ascension. The highest level of the human intellect is called “acquired intellect” (intellectus adeptus) and results from the conjunction between the potential and the active intellect, both parts of the human soul. In this stage, the intellect is able to grasp all intellectual knowledge, and does not need to have recourse to the senses again. In virtue of this intellect, a human being becomes God-like (De anima 3.3.11) (Hasse 1999; de Libera 2005, 325-327). Thomas Aquinas sharply disagrees. The intellect can never dispense with the senses, since it needs the phantasms for conceiving an intellectual form. This is why perfect intellectual knowledge is not possible in this life (Summa theol. Ia q. 84 a. 7).

Good job my brother

Praise allah

Im serious I would like to read this stuff but I get the feeling the thread is going to 404. Likewise the Orthodox anons here dont seem to be resoponding to your points

Insha inshalaa (PBUH)

Averroes' best known philosophical doctrine holds that there is only one intellect for all human beings. The doctrine is sometimes labelled “monopsychism”, but this is a problematic term, since Averroes' unicity thesis concerns the intellect, not the soul. Averroes' theory has an epistemological and an ontological purpose. On the one hand, Averroes wants to explain how universal intelligibles can be known, on the other hand, he wants to account for Aristotle's claim that the intellect is pure potentiality and unmixed with the body (Comm. magnum De anima III.5). Many scholastic readers were troubled by the problem of whether the material (or potential) intellect, if it is one, can be the form of the body. This problem was not directly addressed by Averroes himself, but by many of his Latin partisans.

because they don't want us finding out they supported the butchery of christians in Syria and Iraq.

Do you know why?

Because it puts them to shame when they see the glory of ISLAMIC teaching and PHILOSOPhy which they plagarized

Be sure to convert to Shia Islam, the true Islam. Right my Malaysian bro?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xt12lRiAo8c

The Patriarch of the Church was not a mini-Pope, is what I'm saying. The synod replaced him by bishops appointed by Peter (not *ordained* by Peter, he just chose which bishops would fill the positions), but the synod's power was stuff like censorship and academic administration. They were not like, say, the Pope's position in the RCC.

Yes

Now for your first act of being islam you
Must suck my cock

NO

ONLY
SUNNI

Which kind of Islam is this?
youtube.com/watch?v=IcjWJ9t2Yag

I wanna fucking chop peoples' head off this is awesome

Which Muslims plagiarized from the Greeks.

Sunni allows it in war

And we will wage war against the West and Shia and Wahibi

We perfected it

that is the logical conclusion of centuries of consanguine marriage.

Fuck you

The Divine Liturgy is in fact based on Sunni Friday service

raping children and scaling the vatican are not scientific.

FUCK YEAH SUNNI

now what I don't want to suck jew cut cock, so there must be another way

The vatican kiss muslim feet

Let me fuck you and you are officially in

Which part? The consecration of the host? The Cherubic Hymn? The Nicene Creed?

We perfected it, with Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, and the like. The West, with all its problems, speaks to the inheritance of Avicenna and the like far better than any Islamic shithole, except for perhaps Turkey and Iran, the latter of whom you certainly hate.

When the medievals used the Latin term averroista, they referred to authors belonging to these groups. The term averroista came into use in the later thirteenth century, but on rare occasions. The first appearance, as we can see today, is in Thomas Aquinas' treatise On the Unicity of the Intellect (De unitate intellectus). The additional title phrase contra averroistas appears only in the later manuscript tradition and is unlikely to be authentic. It was in the decades around 1500 that the term was used most frequently. Averroistae were associated mainly with the unicity thesis, but also with theories about the eternity of the world, God's knowledge of the world, prime matter and happiness (Kuksewicz 1997, 93–96; Hasse 2007b, 309–317; Calma 2010). In the Renaissance, averroista was also used, with a positive connotation, to refer to experts on Averroes (Martin 2007; Martin 2013). A sensible historiographical usage of the term “Averroism” should be tied to the medieval and Renaissance usages. In particular, two senses of the term “Averroism” seem historically legitimate: as meaning a current of followers of Averroes who hold theologically controversional doctrines, or as meaning a current of experts on Averroes. The first sense has a longer tradition in the Middle Ages and in modern scholarship and is therefore to be preferred generally. Some modern historians use the term “Averroism” in a much broader sense for all influences of Averroes' thought (e.g. Gauthier 1982, 334–335; Calma 2010, 368–369); so-called “Averroisms” would then be found, for instance, in almost all Latin Aristotle commentaries of the later Middle Ages. This usage, however, ignores the historical roots of the meaning of the term.

Prostrations and incense are part of islamic ritual

All they did was repeat what WE SAID

> Peter, he just chose which bishops would fill the positions

Do you read your posts before you click post? That is cuckery in its purest. Your church lost the ability to select its own bishops independent of Tzarist sanction. Not even the Muslim Ottomans went that far

One could even tenously argue this broke the link of apostolic succession in Russia.

>Why does the media hate the Orthodox Church?

Just gonna leave this here

Prostrations and incense were used in worship both by pagans and Jews a thousand years before Christ.

Except the whole divine liturfy is based on Israelites who are muslims

Nope, and Shia Islam is true Islam. You are a Nasibi, and you will burn in he'll with your walad zina Umar and Yazid.

Kys

Fuck iff Shia are heretics

Do you have any sources that the Christians took the practice from Muslims and not the other way around?

Sunni Islam madter RACEMIXING

No, the Tsar did not select people to be bishops for the most part. He selected people who already were bishops, to fill synod seats. Most bishops did not sit on the synod.

In fact, for much of the Medieval era, bishops in the West were always always selected by kings or barons, but in later cases by the Pope (who was also selected by a king for quite some time). This is a lot more state controlled than how Russia was, if you want to talk about Apostolic succession.

That's based on the assumption that the Old Testament was drastically altered. Judging by the oldest manuscripts we have of it (the Dead Sea Scrolls), it was never drastically altered. So Jews never followed Islam.

12 caliphs, even in your books. No Abu Bakr "as-siddiq", no Muawiya, no Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, but rather imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) to Imam Mahdi (as)

>No, the Tsar did not select people to be bishops for the most part.

Going to need to see a source for that. That qualifier "for the most part" is pretty dubious

>In fact, for much of the Medieval era, bishops in the West were always always selected by kings or barons, but in later cases by the Pope (who was also selected by a king for quite some time). This is a lot more state controlled than how Russia was, if you want to talk about Apostolic succession.

All that does is demonstrate that both groups have failed.

That's interesting, and I'd like to hear more about the view of this from the Eastern perspective.

I'm not here to try to dance around how perverted it got in the West at times.

>Going to need to see a source for that.
Ways of Russian Theology. I don't have it with me, it's at my parish, but I checked it out before and read it

>That qualifier "for the most part" is pretty dubious
He definitely influenced certain appointments, obviously. Those in charge of appointments often gave into ambition and elevated certain people to bishop just to gain his favor

>Why does the media hate the Orthodox Church

You say that like the Orthodox Church is relevant and like the media regularly talks about it. The recent failed council was probably the first time in decades anyone in the media gave two shits about the Orthodox Church and even then it was only a few articles.

The Orthodox see Peter as an oppressor and persecutor of the Church. Same for Catherine. The monks are the heart and soul of the Orthodox Church, and both tried very hard to completely eradicate them, closing down almost all monasteries, and making it illegal for the monks to have pens or papers (monks, being very disciplined and holy, where the most likely to write works that Peter didn't like). It was an awful time because Peter and Catherine tried to completely strange Eastern theology, and if it weren't for a few very brave bishops who were defiant in their writings (and often suffered for it), Russian theology might have been totally gutted and replaced, because seminary was teaching things totally at odds with Orthodox theology (fortunately, Liturgy did not change, and that is what counts, because if Liturgy changed, that would count as the Church teaching heresy).

completely *strangle

>Ways of Russian Theology. I don't have it with me, it's at my parish, but I checked it out before and read it

Which chapter?

>He definitely influenced certain appointments, obviously. Those in charge of appointments often gave into ambition and elevated certain people to bishop just to gain his favor

Werent bishops appointed by the Holy Synod though?

>Which chapter?
I don't remember, I think there is only one on Peter's ecclesiastical policy, although there is a lot on the theology he promulgated.

>Werent bishops appointed by the Holy Synod though?
Normally a pan-Russian synod does select the Patriarch, but he abolished that office. local bishops were and continued to be chosen by local synods

Heres that book of yours for reference

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways.html

Also were things like this just a Russian thing?

>The Holy Alliance was conceived as a preparation for the Kingdom of a Thousand Years. As Golitsyn put it: "It will be apparent to anyone who wishes to see, that this act can only be understood as a preparation for that promised Kingdom of the Lord on earth even as it is in Heaven." The act of "Fraternal Christian Alliance" was signed "in the year of Grace 1815, the 14th/26th September," and the fact that the day coincided with the feast of the Elevation of the Holy Cross 27 according to the Eastern Orthodox calendar is scarcely an accident. The Holy Synod ordered that the Act of Holy Alliance be displayed on walls and in every city and village church. And each year on the feast of the Elevation of the Holy Cross the act was to be reannounced from the ambo, along with an accompanying manifesto, "so that each and every person might fulfill his vow of service to the one Lord and Savior, who speaks through the person of the Sovereign for the entire people."

The Holy Alliance was between several European powers along with Russia.

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap3.html

So its the manifesto that followed it on that special day which is of concern

>driving cars in Ramona

Wow. From what I know the West, the Church was a curator of written knowledge, particularly during the Black Death, and even into such things as writing down music. And that's not something I was taught in school or in church. It was basically the only institution for a while that knew how to read or write in the first place, necessitating a literate clergy to convey what was written to everybody else.

I'll have to keep an eye out for the way you describe it. Thanks for sharing.

Comparitive religion is always a good thing to study, particulary as its the only way to get the full picture whether that means seeing the skeletons in the closet that all faiths have and hide or destroying the falsehoods propagated by them

>100 posts by this id.
you trying so hard.

>Syriac Orthodoxs
>in Malaysia

spics and their gorillion kids all follow Pope Faggot because he's a spic not because they particularly like faggots

Orthocuck die

THE CHURCH OWES ISLAM DIPSHIT

YOU DUMBO MY PARENTS ARE EXPATS

Because the (((media))) loves islam

I really wonder why...

Are you poo in loo?