/og/ - ORTHODOX GENERAL

Big guy just goes for it. Bull.

jesus made me this way

Dont Orthodox see you guys as a bigger part of the problem though?

Are you a girl?

I can make you normal again

We do, but they at least have valid mysteries and holy orders.

...

Yeah go fuck yourselves. Orthodoxy is a cancer on society. A theological mafia run by venal, obtuse old men. They would sell you and your entire family if that meant getting another Mercedes limousine. The only god they worship is Mammon

jesa made so much beauty

Reminder that religion generals belong on /his/, and to sage and report them.

>based patriarch

this faggot was put in place by the KGB, which had almost complete control over the Russian Orthodox Church, especially the higher ranking clergy

he was a professional shill for the USSR at the World Council of Churches where he was an apologist for communism and helped manipulate that organization into being a pro-Soviet propaganda mouthpiece

he gets special privileges from the Kremlin to import alcohol and tobacco duty-free so he can undercut the competition and get filthy rich selling poison to Russians

all this is well documented

pic related is a stalin calendar sold by the official publishing company of the Russian Orthodox church

fucking communist garbage, all of it

for centuries the Orthodox leadership is nothing but puppets of state power with no self respect or real faith

Please stop being do obscene. It is ok to share your feels

...

Novus Ordo doesn't have valid anything. Only (some of) the Trads are valid, and you probably don't see them as part of the problem (though we do see you that way).

The Novus Ordo is just an underlying sign of the rot within Rome. It's indicative of the Roman predilection to change.

And yes, their holy orders and sacraments are still valid.

You can. Only don't forget, Christians will always be hated in this world by those that walk the path of death and not life. Christianity is a cross to bear
>But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; -Mt 5:44

I'm very doubtful Catholicism of Orthodoxy see their conflict anywhere as big as the conflict with Modernism generally - particularly with the demographics on this board - hence my recommendation in

>Christians will always be hated in this world by those that walk the path of death and not life. Christianity is a cross to bear

Yes, and filtering posts helps both to avoid the temptation to anger and the pollution of the mind.

>and now for my next trick... watch me disappear!

High Church general should be made. And Novus Orcucks kept out

What the fuck is going on in this thread

Kissu to make you feel better

>sung in english
sorry it sounds like crap

youtube.com/watch?v=XWdzSaykf08
youtube.com/watch?v=S-XMydhFXFk
youtube.com/watch?v=o81A31hlgEA

Dude, you're a fucked up cunt.

That seems to just bring conflict between standard Catholics and Traditional Catholics, which is a valuable discussion but one unnecessary conflict when what we should be addressing is Modernism and Protestantism so we can move forward to more important discussion.

Apostolic General is ideal.

Is this thread just for you Orthodox or is everyone else invited assuming you don't behave like this imbecile?

Novus Ordo isn't Apostolic liturgy

I'll have to agree with you here. It was made up wholscale.

The holy orders and sacraments are still valid, howevr.

>I'm very doubtful Catholicism of Orthodoxy see their conflict anywhere as big as the conflict with Modernism generally
The problem is that a lot of Orthodox see Catholics as modernist.

You're welcome here, so long as you can tell us where the bible says it is the only source of teaching authority, and that we define our dogmas and doctrines by it alone.

The Orthodox don't see Catholic Sacraments as valid, at least not officially. If they were valid, the Catholics would be the same Church as us, since we'd be sharing the same Body in Communion.

oh look another russian shill web brigade thread, fuck you and your "religion"

If they were not valid, my bishop wouldn't have given me permission to take communion from a Catholic priest in extremis. He very tellingly mentioned that this was not extended to protestant "communion."

Again, liturgy is not the thing to parse threads on but denominations themselves. Hence the focus on denominations with a connection to apostolic succession like I have rather than liturgy. Liturgy is a valuable discussion that needs to happen but to confront Modernism on ideological grounds it is effective to stick to denominations before and start with the basics before we move on to more complex discourse.

All they had to do in Vatican 2 was to say let the Tridentine Mass be vernacular and also not tone down on fasting

And I'd parse "Catholics" from "Catholicism" in this claim.

But Rome does as Rome does. As I said, it's indicative of the character of the Romans. Change.

Anyone knows the name of this flag?

vocaroo.com/i/s0sJz5R9hB6Z

Hi thread. I had a theological question, something I've been pondering, can someone please listen? I didn't want to type it all out, takes forever for me to type anything. Thanks!

Liturgy is important. Modernism seeps in and 'mordenize' the liturgy, turning divine performance in the amphitheater of God into a pursuit of personal euphoria chaos

And I never said liturgy was not important and spoke about the importance of speaking of it in the post you're responding to.

Your bishop saying you can doesn't make them valid, I'm afraid. He's also dead wrong, you can't do that. If it were okay to take it in extremis, it would be a sin to say you could not take them with them otherwise, since we are to live as if we are on the verge of death.

I'm too afraid to watch this

bumping for an answer to this

It is related to modernism isn't it

I'm going to take my bishop's word over yours. Sorry.

Jesus repeatedly cited the Scriptures as authoritative, often prefacing his points by saying: “It is written.” Jesus and the Apostles constantly quoted from the OT and reminded others to refer to the written law. The Pharasees had their own "tradition" that was outside scripture called the Talmud or the Oral Law that they considered was just as legitimate as the Torah, or the Mosaic, written, Law. However, Jesus considered the Oral Law invalid and didn't recognize it.

__________________________________________________
(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,

(Matthew 4:4) But in reply he said: “It is written, ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.’”

(Matthew 4:7) Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’”

(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

(Luke 19:46) saying to them: “It is written, ‘And my house will be a house of prayer,’ but YOU made it a cave of robbers.”

(Acts 17:11) Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes•sa•lo•ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

(2 Timothy 3:15) and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus.

(1 Peter 1:10) Concerning this very salvation a diligent inquiry and a careful search were made by the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for YOU.
CONTINUED

(Malachi 2:7) For the lips of a priest are the ones that should keep knowledge, and [the] law is what people should seek from his mouth; for he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies.

(Nehemiah 8:8) And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the law of the [true] God, it being expounded, and there being a putting of meaning [into it]; and they continued giving understanding in the reading.

(1 Timothy 4:13) While I am coming, continue applying yourself to public reading, to exhortation, to teaching.

(Colossians 4:16) And when this letter has been read among YOU, arrange that it also be read in the congregation of the La•o•di•ce′ans and that YOU also read the one from La•o•di•ce′a.

(1 Thessalonians 5:27) I am putting YOU under the solemn obligation by the Lord for this letter to be read to all the brothers.

(2 Peter 3:15) Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

(Habakkuk 2:2) And Jehovah proceeded to answer me and to say: “Write down [the] vision, and set [it] out plainly upon tablets, in order that the one reading aloud from it may do so fluently.

(Luke 24:27) And commencing at Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.

CONTINUED

Did jesus accept the oral sex as valid? Did he suck off his apostles and lick their fucking dirty feet and whack his bag to thoughts of gay fucking

You can, but your bishop absolutely does not have the authority to say it's okay to Commune with heretics who are not part of Christ's Body. Most bishops require converts to confess all their sins from their baptism, even those confessed to Catholic priests.

The Bible is against going beyond what is written. Any teaching or tradition that does not adhere to what is written is condemned.
____________________________________________________
(1 Corinthians 4:6) Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A•pol′los for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.

(Matthew 15:3) In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition?

(Matthew 15:9) It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

(Mark 7:8) Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men.”

(Colossians 2:8) Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

(Titus 1:14) paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth.

(Revelation 22:18) “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

(Galatians 1:8) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.

(1 John 4:3) but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.

CONTINUED

(Deuteronomy 4:2) YOU must not add to the word that I am commanding YOU, neither must YOU take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah YOUR God that I am commanding YOU.

(Deuteronomy 12:32) Every word that I am commanding YOU is what YOU should be careful to do. YOU must not add to it nor take away from it.

(Proverbs 30:6) Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar.

(Joshua 1:7) “Only be courageous and very strong to take care to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may act wisely everywhere you go.

END

>reverse image search

twitter.com/shockwave423

Oh lord the edge

this jw fag is more nuts than me

JW, what do you think John meant when he said the Word was (in Greek, the word used here is for something that both was and is) God? And all things that were made, were made by the Word?

...

what exactly is your problem?
get lost from Cred Forums ?

And it did, hence me saying labeling threads based on denomination is more valuable than parsing it on liturgy. While liturgy plays central importance in our lives, it does not confront the whole socio-political situation of Modernism in full, hence the focus on the apostolic faiths themselves and their connect to the traditions that existed before Modernism. Issues with liturgy are important, particularly if claims of modernism are on them, but if we choose to focus on liturgy and not the whole of the tradition we lose focus.

I follow my bishop as I would follow Christ. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. I'm not going against the wishes of a representative of Christ because an anonymous layperson on Cred Forums says otherwise.

Those are all well and good, but the problem is that all the talks against the traditions of men are speaking of the Pharisees. The traditions we follow were handed down to us by Christ himself, through the Apostles. God himself gave us these traditions.

I would also ask you to explain away John 20: 30-31

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

These verses clearly state that not everything was put into the gospels.

I appreciate the effort, though.

that middle picture is actually pretty cool

no clue what you're asking tbqh

He's just a demon possessed manchild who get's uncomfortable around Christians

I'm not exactly Christian but open to it, just saw this idiot spamming gore and shit from the main page. Probably a triggered mudslime

KJ21 - Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.

lmao at that faggot posting all those deleted pics. this is Cred Forums, dumb ass. hope jesus helps you pull your head out of your ass! god bless, you piece of shit.

They act like some of us haven't been here for a decade.

>all scripture
>not scripture alone

Do JWs also use all the Apocrypha texts?

...

...

i went to a kingdom hall a few times. they made me sit with the guy who brought me, a faggot, in the back of the church with glass windows and a door. the sermon was over some speakers in the corner. felt kinda weird, especially the way they made the children read everything. also weird knowing that countless others were doing the same thing at the same time, following that weeks printed information.

OP your pic is attack on Titan: orthodox edition

...

...

...

...

...

ur a sad cunt.

>I follow my bishop as I would follow Christ.
In respect and obedience, that doesn't mean bishops are infallible. If the Catholic Communion were valid, we would be de facto One Church, as the Church is defined as Christ's Body.

...

...

...

...

not a single one of your images is disturbing. all are quite boring, probably like your life.

...

>I would also ask you to explain away John 20: 30-31
>30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

This is you trying to Special Plead. An attempt of demanding an exception so you don't have to acknowledge what was posted. This verse is only implying that Jesus did much more then what was written but what was RECORDED OFFICIALLY IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY. That's why Jesus childhood was left out almost entirely. The majority of it wasn't necessary. The bulk of his work was after his Baptism at 32. That's all. You could also add to that why God didn't mention the Dinosaurs at all in the creation verses. Because those are unnecessary details.

>Those are all well and good, but the problem is that all the talks against the traditions of men are speaking of the Pharisees.

Not true. It includes religious beliefs, rites, and traditions beyond the Pharisees. It includes every other religion and philosophy in the world.

>(Colossians 2:8) Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to ELEMENTARY THINGS OF THE WORLD and not according to Christ;

>(Titus 1:14) paying no attention to Jewish fables and COMMANDMENTS OF MEN who turn themselves away from the truth.

>(Revelation 22:18) “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If ANYONE makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

>(1 John 4:3) but EVERY INSPIRED EXPRESSION that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.

das a hammer dawg

babby's first burn

...

dump inc

...

...

...

...

...

I see and respect your point and opinion. However, my bishop is hardly the only bishop ever to have held this view. By all means, if it tests your faith, you shouldn't view their sacraments as valid. God alone knows the truth of the matter.

Actually, I've grown quite bored of speaking with JWs. You idiots come to my house every week, and every week I refute your points, and every week a new person is at my door spewing the same thing the last people were. And now here you are on Cred Forums, talking the exact same points. At the risk of sounding uncharitable, I find you all quite tedious, cherry picking verses from your own translation of the bible to suit whatever point your magazines are trying to sell that week. I can't keep you out of these threads, but in my opinion you're an unwelcome guest.

>I find you all quite tedious
lol a christen saying this

...

KJ21 Timothy 3:17 - that the man of God may be perfect, THOROUGHLY equipped for all good works.

AMP so that the man of God may be COMPLETE and proficient, outfitted and THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for every good work.

NWT that the man of God may be FULLY competent, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED for every good work.

NCV Using the Scriptures, the person who serves God will be capable, HAVING ALL THAT IS NEEDED to do every good work.

NIRV By using Scripture, the servant of God can be COMPLETELY PREPARED to do every good thing.

>THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED
>COMPLETELY EQUIPPED
>HAVING ALL THAT IS NEEDED

Look up any Bible in 2 Timothy 3:17. According to EVERY translation. The Bible COMPLETELY equips a man FOR EVERY GOOD WORK. That by itself seals Sola Scriptura. Scripture only. If The Bible is not enough then this verse is wrong.

According to you and your tradition the Bible is too incomplete to equip a man for EVERY good work. This goes for you as well.No

Noone cares about your slav only club

twitter.com/TreyWCNC/status/778406278720872448/video/1

Sacraments, I think we can agree, are performed strictly by the Holy Spirit, and only through Christ's Church. I think we can also agree that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and Christ's Church is the Body guided by the Spirit of Truth, and that if a body is not guided by that, it is not Christ's Church, and therefore the Holy Spirit does not perform Sacraments through it.

Is cumming in Jesus' ass a sacrament?

...

On the sacraments coming through the spirit we can most certainly agree. On your logical conclusions, I would say take them to Rome and allow us the mystery.

...

...

Those aren't logical conclusions, they are mystical dogma. Both of these

The Spirit only performs Sacraments through the Church.

The Church is guided by the Spirit of Truth.

...

It is though, it's a highly simplified version of the Tridentine mass if you compare the two. I've seen some really great Novus Ordo masses and some terrible ones and I would choose novus ordo over a Tridentine low mass anyday. With that said I attend Tridentine high mass every week.

Would you then make the claim that someone baptised in the trinitarian form in, say, a baptist church, is not validly baptised?

...

orthodoxy is just another mary worshipping, jesus eating, dead worshipping false form of christianity. it is completely focused on the self and "thesis". There is no room in Orthodoxy for the atoning work of jesus on the cross since they in fact reject penal substitution.

In fact they deny God punishes at all ever. They don't believe death is a punishment but rather an ontological state of separation from God.

Orthodoxy is a complete delusion immersed in magical scarements, self-diefecation, and the worship of pictures. Don't say you merely venerate. Burning incense to, expecting miracles from, prostrating to, praying to, and kiss icons is worship.

I would, at least until they are received into the Church.

im finally getting bored

There are verses in the OP addressing this

God's energies can be wrath, anger, punishment, reward, many things, but these are your experience of his energies, not his, God is immutable.

such a bullshit argument

Yeah yeah sure energy/essence distinction. simply a false aristotelian distinction refined by palmas.

and the east disparages the categories of the scholastics!

Why is Catholic are mind blowing while most Orthodox art looks like it was finger painted by children. I've had a couple good laughs at the body proportions of some icons. Also why have Orthodox countries been so much less successful compared to western Christianity, they seem to not even exist throughout history outside Byzantium and even now they're poverty stricken shitholes. And it's not a slav thing either, compare Catholic Poland to other Orthodox Slav countries, it's a stark difference. They also haven't seemed to produced very many great works of art compared to the western church. It church seems like Orthodoxy is fragmented and broken, just looking at the news I saw Orthodox Christians calling for the demolition of an Orthodox Church that wasn't the same nationality as theirs, it's pathetic and is unheard of in Catholicism. Also Orthodox haven't reached a consensus on anything for the last 1,000 years and even allow divorce and contraception.

wtf i hate orthodoxy now

>orthodoxy is just another mary worshipping, jesus eating, dead worshipping false form of christianity. it is completely focused on the self and "thesis". Orthodoxy is a complete delusion immersed in magical scarements, self-diefecation, and the worship of pictures. Don't say you merely venerate. Burning incense to, expecting miracles from, prostrating to, praying to, and kiss icons is worship.
>Don't say you merely venerate.
This. It's this expression of venerate. through bodily actions. If you are doing a respectful bow or kiss to any person, it does not mean that you worship him as God.

>There is no room in Orthodoxy for the atoning work of jesus on the cross since they in fact reject penal substitution.

wtf? This is your speculation.

cause it aint supposed to be realistic. its supposed t one ethereal and otherworldly and remind you of heaven.

orthodoxy hates the wests modern humanist art. art is to be for sacred purposes only.

wtf i love orthodoxy now

I've heard some Orthodox memers say Thomism leads to rationalism and atheism, but I think if they study him, they will see a mystic who used Aristotelian language, not somebody who over-emphasized reason.

nigga please you aint down a respectful bow. you are buring incense to icons, praying to icons, expecting miracles from icons, embeding relics in icons, kissing icons.

the 7th ecumenical council says that what you are seeing is actually jesus when you look at a jesus icon. its worship not veneration. stop kidding yourself.

that is not my speculation. read evdokimov. he says orthodoxy is not a religion of remission and propitiation (that is atonement for sins) but rather a religion of recapitulation.

Guys is jesus real

i read cosmikov who said "blah blah jesus blah blah its all made up blah poop nigger"

its not just thomism. its the filoque. the filioque leads to rationalism. Listen to thomas hopko on ancniet faith radio.. he's got about 200 podcasts. he's dead now. very good teacher. learned a lot about orthodoxy from him.

You really don't think art such as the entirety of the Vatican doesn't remind you of heaven? If art is for sacred purpose only you should try toake it as awe inspiring as possible not look like 2D finger paintings that were copied from a cave somewhere in the desert 2,000 years ago. The Catholic Church is a living organism that adapts to its time and expresses itself accordingly, the Orthodox Church is a museum.

Looks like a museum.

Your point is destroyed.

We do not pray to icons. We pray to God or the Saints who are depicted on icons.

Thanks but I don't listen to racist schismatics.

"that is why in the east atonement is usually discussed in physical and ontological rather than ethical and juridical terms; and the end is not 'redemption' or 'salvation' (in the 'salvationist' or individual sense) but apocostatiss, universal healing and restoration."

Paul Evdokimov, Orthodoxy, pg 96

Aristotle said God is Actus Purus, ya dingus. That's why Catholics rejected the energies-essence distinction (which is way older than Palamas, see: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383 )

well if you want to remain ignorant of the other side then go ahead.

Same shit different words and focus

Can anyone suggest me any Orthodox books on The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and other, typical things people like to bring up? I need to know more about Orthodox Responses.

Ebooks would be great too.

I honestly don't give two shits what the rednecks of Europe think. By your fruits you shall know them.

>the 7th ecumenical council says that what you are seeing is actually jesus when you look at a jesus icon. its worship not veneration. stop kidding yourself.

The icon is simply a board with an image of God or a saint. It needed to concentrate in prayer, to deter the imagination. God can show the grace through material objects (see Bible). This is normal when you kiss a photo a loved one and take good care of photo.

no its not. its completely different. nothing to with sin at all. the orthodox do not believe jesus christ took on our sin and punishment on the cross. are you orthodox? have you studied orthodox? it seems like maybe not.

rednecks of europe?? are you aware of the russian diaspora? are yo aware of all the orthodox in North america and even canada?

>Thanks but I don't listen to racist schismatics.

With all due respect, then wtf are you doing on Cred Forums?

So from Orthodoxy's point of view, I can just reject god and choose separation from him, and I will simply die and be nothing forever? So I can reject Jesus and God and my death will simply take me? No eternal torture? SIGN ME UP

i do not burin incense to or pray to pictures of my parents. its not the same at all. false equivocation.

>We pray to God or the Saints who are depicted on icons.

You're not supposed to do that. That is using icons as mediators to God. God already arranged a mediator for you.

>(Hebrews 12:24) and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s [blood].

>(1 Timothy 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,

>(Hebrews 9:15) So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance.

>(Hebrews 8:6) But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.

Using icons, saints, etc to get to God is still idolatry because it bypasses Jesus as the true mediator. You can't pray to Saints neither because that is still bypassing the true mediator which is Jesus.

You can only pray to God THROUGH Jesus Christ. You can only worship God THROUGH Jesus Christ. Nothing outside this arrangement is allowed.

non-JW's BTFO once again, how does he keep getting away with it

pls respond

no. no. no. you will die and experience the love of god as wrath. see you will look towards heaven nd see the love of god towards the saints and you will burn in envy and anger because you cannot experience that love

you will experience gods love as his wrath. you won't burn in flames though.

>Paul Evdokimov

not Sacred tradition or Church Fathers. This is a random opinion.

Bumping again for this

Suffering is generally considered good for you in Orthodoxy. Evil is considered disobeying God, so the best way to solve it is to stop doing it.

No, you'll experience God's energies as consuming fire

You pray to your parents every time you ask something of them, including to intercede for you.

random opinion? wrong! its a synthesis of the church fathers. i mean really wtf are you even saying? so we don't need modern teachers?? do you reject seraphim rose??

i will burn in god's love as wrath huh
you know that sounds really stupid right

couple things I always wondered about:
1: Seems like the Trinity could be best explained as our way of seeing god depending on how he relates to things. God as he is is the Father, God as he relates to the world is the Son, and God as he relates to the individual is the Holy Spirit. But thinking of them as a triune deity or three coequal personalities just seems artless
And also
2: Seems like those saved by Christ are his elect few and the rest of us would just die and disappear. Like, death is our nature because we are mortal, but Christ made an exception for a chosen few, and the rest of us are sol. But no, we are mortal but then are made immortal just to suffer in the afterlife. Sounds dickish.

Also nigger

Icons aren't mediators, they're reflections.

wrong. i have never prayed to my parents. not one time. in fact no one does.

Also I might be heading off in a bit can you tell me whether you are intending on answering this issue on Stirner and Rose or whether I should wait for another thread

God's energies can be called either love or wrath, they're inherently either since God doesn't experience emotions (except through his human incarnation). We say they are "wrath" or "love" to describe our experience of them (like The Sea Was Angry That Day).

What about Satan he seems so damned cool, in Orthodoxy is he this cool dude who attacked the Throne and swept the angels out of the sky and got thrown down to Pandemonium and waged war on the Eternal Tyrant and refused to bow and earth is just a battleground for him and god to hash out their shit and badass angels use swords and shit
Probably not
Angels are probably just a poetic name for "gods energy" or something
my energy is my cum

>With all due respect, then wtf are you doing on Cred Forums?

I come here to vent after another failure of a week.

does anyone else besides your little sect believe in this energy shit, because i gotta be honest, it sounds really stupid

none of the little boys would get in the van, huh??

I will try to answer you. It will take some time. I can not answer quickly

The problem is, you haven't actually read the whole work "Nihilism" (which is very short), so you continually misunderstand where Stirner fits in with those. I've read all of the Ego and Its Own

Stirner's ideology supports destroying anything that gets in the self's way, full stop.

>does anyone else besides your little sect believe in this energy shit, because i gotta be honest, it sounds really stupid
Nope, it's strict an Orthodox teaching, but attested to by the Church Fathers. God's essence is like the combustion of a flame, God's energies are like the brilliance of a flame

It's one of our fundamental beleifs that church is not supposed to adapt and change. It was given to us by God as is. To change it is heresy.

>I'm not fat, I'm big boned
>I'm not retarded, I'm mentally challenged
>Icons aren't mediators; they're reflections.

Semantics.

Explain Joshua 7:6

>Nope, it's strict an Orthodox teaching, but attested to by the Church Fathers. God's essence is like the combustion of a flame, God's energies are like the brilliance of a flame
uh huh

Can someone please answer a question for me. Why did God create?
He's immutable, and it's not right to say he needs anything, or wants anything, because that would imply something is missing from him, which can't be. He's not compelled to act, no action could add anything to him. So why create.

After I got married I converted to the Assyrian Church of the East since my wife is Assyrian. I learned her dialect of Aramaic and the mass is conducted beautifully. 10/10 would do again.

satan approves of ur post my son

post your wife's pussy

Wew lad 2 edgy

He never really told us

>The problem is, you haven't actually read the whole work "Nihilism" (which is very short), so you continually misunderstand where Stirner fits in with those. I've read all of the Ego and Its Own

Are you saying that reading the rest will somehow make the following coherent? can you give a tldr on how he makes the link adequately?

>" Max Stirner (whom we shall encounter again in the next chapter)[19] declared war upon every standard and every principle, proclaiming his ego against the world and laughing triumphantly over the "tomb of humanity"--all, as yet, in theory. Sergei Nechayev translated this theory into practice so perfectly that to this day he seems a creation of myth, if not a demon from the depths of Hell itself

with

The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution. "

Being the perfection of Stirners thought?

>Stirner's ideology supports destroying anything that gets in the self's way, full stop.

Including Ideology like Nachevs or the pharisees. Far from being its perfection its the abandonment.

Im not saying Stirner isnt an Egoist im disupting the conclusions Rose drew from this particulary his link to Nachev which indicates him missing Stirners nominalism hard.

so you retards dont know nothing
"muh energy"
i hate you fucking idiots so much

Fair enough.

Was just checking that you realize that this place is all about schismatism, in all its forms.

or her feet

i drank too much milk and my tumtum is hurting

>false equivocation.
Prayer is an appeal in the first place, which is carried through the Holy Spirit.
to burn incense =\= to worship. It is an expression of venerate. Create a pleasant atmosphere for communication. Orthodox worship only God.

If you'd care to read the work, you'd see how they are linked.

if i pray for god to blow me does the hs have to carry that prayer in its little satchel or does it just go "fuck that"

...

>30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;

Many other signs means magic tricks , jesus preached for about 3 years his teachings is in the bible , why would he leave out anything?

yea he's alive and living in San Francisco
He fucks his partner Raul in the ass during the middle of the day with the door open, no one gives a fuck

John 16:12

Look just explain how this:

"The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution. "

Is the perfection of Stirner

>If you'd care to read the work, you'd see how they are linked.

Why cant you even just give a couple of sentences on how this is so?

If an answer to a question wasnt answered in the 200-400 years following Christs rising by approved people you will not get an answer. Dont get mad at Orthodox for upholding tradition.

new to the faith. Whats up everyone.

>(Exodus 25:21, 22) And you must place the cover above upon the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the testimony that I shall give you. 22And I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover, from between the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony, even all that I shall command you for the sons of Israel.

>(Numbers 7:89) Now whenever Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with him, then he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs; and he would speak to him.

>(Exodus 30:6) And you must put it before the curtain that is near the ark of the testimony, before the cover that is over the Testimony, where I shall present myself to you.

God used to speak to the Israelites through the Ark. He would present himself there on top of the cover of it through a cloud of fog/smoke over it. Then light would come out of this cloud all around them. The Jews called this the Shechinah.

Unless you Orthodox and Catholics all have your own arks where God speaks to all of you in real time then the claim still stands: your icons are idols unless this phenomenon happens up above. If not, then they are just sacred paper weights.

>implying your denomination is "orthodox" for more than greeks and slavs

You sure are one angry redditor

fuck you faggot

wtf i dont goto reddit
well i do lurk r/videos/...

>Halleblewya!
fucking kek

Why do atheists always act so angry and pathetic?

If you believe you only have this life, why the fuck are you wasting it on Cred Forums trolling religious threads? Pretty sad desu.

>Is the perfection of Stirner
Because Stirner's though it primarily driven by the impulse to destroy that which impedes his ego. And if you've read Hegel (which Stirner of course did), you'd know what that entails

>Self-consciousness has before it another self-consciousness; it has come outside itself. This has a double significance. First it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as an other being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially real, but sees its own self in the other.

> It must cancel this its other. To do so is the sublation of that first double meaning, and is therefore a second double meaning. First, it must set itself to sublate the other independent being, in order thereby to become certain of itself as true being, secondly, it thereupon proceeds to sublate its own self, for this other is itself.

Stirner's concept of creativity, means extending the ego. It is not about creating something *outside* the ego, everything outside the self must be either destroyed, or sublated and incorporated into the ego as its property. Nechayev goes a step beyond, because he focuses purely on destruction for destruction sake, not just destruction which is sanctified by the ego.

orthodoxy is just like transgenders.

man thinks he's a woman. he keeps repeating "I'm a woman"

orthodox think they are not worshipping icons. keeps repeating "i only worship god"

...

>Actually, I've grown quite bored of speaking with JWs. You idiots come to my house every week, and every week I refute your points

I am without a denomination , but when i read the bible i found out that the jehova witness of all denomination are the most in truth according the bible

Do you think bowing to someone and kissing their hand is de facto worship? Yes, or no?

They don't believe the Word is God.

LOL! I'm the only one USING the Word of God up above to the fullest. Nobody else is.

we aren't talking about giving the homage due to a king. its a false equivalency.

you are not merely paying respects. icons are an essential part of christology according to the 7th ecumenical council. they are an integral part of worship. no worship without icons. do you not know these things? are you even orthodox? what is your experience with orthodoxy??

jesus is the human face of god and therefore we can worship him through pictures. indeed we must worship him through pictures. that is orthodox doctrine and that is idolatry.

even the hindu says "i don't worship the image but the god behind the image"

...

>Nechayev goes a step beyond, because he focuses purely on destruction for destruction sake,

Thats seems like a step behind a focus not on destruction of destruction but for the for the sake of revolution. A grand placing the ego and all other things on the altar of ideology.

>not just destruction which is sanctified by the ego.

Which is destruction sanctified by spooks is it not ? Which is not the fulfillment or consequence of Stirner.

>t. Statues of Mary everywhere arent paganism but icons are
(You)

>worshiping Jesus is idolatry

kys mohammad

But people ask questions like "So why did God make/give that kid/allow cancer?" And will attempt to use the Epicurius """argument"""

>Thats seems like a step behind a focus not on destruction of destruction but for the for the sake of revolution.
The "revolution" is nothing but a revolution of destruction, it's only cause is destruction.

>Which is destruction sanctified by spooks is it not ?
Stirner doesn't see the ego as a spook.

they aren't worshipping jesus. they are worshipping the icon. that is the point. they say they are worhispping the god behind the icon but they aren't. they are worshipping the icon.

Because of free will and allowing humans to suffer the consequences of them disobeying God and the fall of man.

Can you show me an early christian protestant?

Or are you just one because of evangelical gimmedats

Because the last time i checked, Jews venerate dead saints and ask prayers from OT Patriarchs even in the time of the NT, Christians literally treat bones of martyrs as treasure and even those who are alive they can even kiss their bonds in prison as seen in the Acts of Paul.

If what Orthodox do with icons are idolatry, it logically follows that christianity is in fact idolatrous in nature

You can only see what God allows, you don't actually see what he prevents (which is a lot more, Revelations gives you an idea of what happens when he stops preventing).

Btw Early Christian use of Nomina Sacra in fact acts as a sort of Icon and is widely agreed to have infleunces from Jewish Tetragrammatron.

So by your logic Jewish treatment of the word "Yahweh" is idolatrous

>but they aren't
Wew, that's a good argument

>John 16:12

>12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

that is not the last book of the bible is it? , could the diciples handle revelation , how can they if we cant even handle it , and we are probably living in the end times

>Christianity is the final redpill
>you've wasted your life being a fedorafag

>That is using icons as mediators to God. God already arranged a mediator for you.

see >The icon is simply a board with an image of God or a saint. It needed to concentrate in prayer, to deter the imagination.

Orthodox can pray without icons. Icon is just an optional element. God hears prayer without icons. The icon is a photo of loved one. It shows that God incarnated, had a human form. The icon can contain dogmatic information, etc.

The Saints are living people. They pray to God

8. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
(Revelation 5:8)

They are our brothers in Christ. We pray for each other.

16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
(James 5:16)

The saints are living righteous people. They pray for us. This brotherhood, not mediation.

16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
(James 5:16)

>The "revolution" is nothing but a revolution of destruction, it's only cause is destruction.

Jesus's destruction of the Pharises control and restoring the true faith was a revolution, Orthodoxy comming to Russia was a revolution. Revolution whilst involving destruction of some ways does not mean destruction of creation as a whole.

>Stirner doesn't see the ego as a spook.

Which is why Nachev is such a step backwards, he is not being destructive for the sake of his ego he is being destructive for the sake of revolution or destruction (if we accept your point). Destruction and Revolution are no longer his property but he has become enslaved to them.

Orthodoxy Today interviewed the Charlotte Protestors
vocaroo.com/i/s067WWRkOWVk

the jews do not pray to the dead. they never have. one verse in maccabees proves nothing. no one prays to abraham, isaac, jacob, david, samuel, or any other prophet.

christianity is not idolatrous in nature. rather much of christianity has been polluted just like judaism in the OT. read ezekiel 16.

an early christian protistat?

hmm ohh read galatians. read it again. read it again. SOLA FIDE. the law profits nothing. keep your nose in the scripture and out of apocryphal writings and tradition not found in scripture.

If you actually look at current Biblical scholarship, it is widely agreed that there is no notion of penal atonement. And this is the case for all of early Christian history.

Legalistic elements are merely one of many ways the atonement is expressed. So you are just showing that your understanding of what Christ did is in fact something foreign to Scripture

>Jesus's destruction of the Pharises control and restoring the true faith was a revolution, Orthodoxy comming to Russia was a revolution. Revolution whilst involving destruction of some ways does not mean destruction of creation as a whole.
I'm talking about the one Nechayev speaks of

"The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction. "

>Destruction and Revolution are no longer his property but he has become enslaved to them.
Meaning even his ego is no spared from the impulse, he is no longer an ego looking to annihilate everything which is not his, he becomes an force of omni-annihilation, the darkest and purest form of nihilism, the one that is at odds with God's creation itself.

That's because they see the dead as in Sheol

>Orthodox can pray without icons. Icon is just an optional element

are you even orthodox???? its NOT OPTIONAL!!!! read the 7th council. read damascene.

They do at the time of the NT. The earlier Jews who have no concept of an afterlife don't.

Christianity is by your own logic idolatrous because they worship martyrs and have a magical view of Sacraments

Do you even read scholarship on the subject?

> icons are an essential part of christology according to the 7th ecumenical council. they are an integral part of worship. no worship without icons.

Orthodox pray not only on temple worship. Monks pray every second (hesychasm) and do not use the icon for it.

That is debatable the trinity is from pagan orgins, and the bible uses the word god a lot even we are gods according some scripture , satan is called god from this world . I just take it as it is; the father is god and the son is the son of god and has become our god until we go in to the father christ is the mediator

>Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

so yes he is our god but not in a trinity sense

---->

The "law" is The Mosaic Law not the act of good works which Paul, Jesus and the whole NT is clear you MUST do

The only difference is this is not done in a legalistic way to gain merit

Yes but Christians had the Nomina Sacra, the Sacred Names used for God and is seen somewhat like the Tetragrammatron

So the Christians worship words as well

Don't kid yourself. You're still bypassing Jesus as mediator. You're not even supposed to acknowledge other heavenly beings. Why do you think angels refuse to let people know their names?

>(Genesis 32:29) In turn Jacob inquired and said: “Tell me, please, your name.” However, he said: “Why is it that you inquire for my name?” With that he blessed him there.

>(Judges 13:18) However, Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Just why should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?”

Even angels know better then to give out their identities. This is to prevent any kind of focus on them individually whether it is prayer, veneration, acknowledgement, supplication, etc. The only angels to give their names were Michael and Gabriel. The rest never gave their names for this very reason.

The fact that you know the names of all your saints and none of your saints ever reproached humans for focusing on them proves even more that this is still idolatry. The angels remain anonymous but saints make themselves known and famous.

You're not supposed to pray for people in heaven. Why would you do that? They are in a better place and are indestructible now. That's like praying for beautiful, healthy, rich people to get better.

Icons are a representation and window into the divine.

They are venerated, not worshipped.

Also veneration of Icons are a system of honor derived from SECULAR aspects of Roman culture, not Pagan.

Images of the emperor are censed with incense as a sign of respect and loyalty.

Key government figures themselves receive this treatment of getting censed. It had nothing to do with Pagan worship

Even the Iconoclasts accept veneration of saints

How are you going to be in perpetual prayer (the idea for Orthodox) with an icon?

That's sort of true in the sense of censing images of the Emperor were basically the same as saluting the flag, but icon traditions don't really come from that, images of the emperor weren't paintings, they were generally statues or carvings. Icons are paintings, and as a practice started with Veronica's veil, which obviously had to be replicated by painting as opposed to statues or carvings.

>tfw this was used to be kabah of Orth*doxs.
kek:D u fucking cucks.

>"The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction. "

All he is doing is replacing one ideology with another and is no different than the other progressive and young heglians Stirner was mocking in his book. Like them far from destroying all ideology they are simply creating a new one.

The first part of his catechism demonstrates how contradictory his ideology is. He does to Destruction what liberals do to mankind or "reason".

>Meaning even his ego is no spared from the impulse, he is no longer an ego looking to annihilate everything which is not his, he becomes an force of omni-annihilation, the darkest and purest form of nihilism, the one that is at odds with God's creation itself.

Lovely language but when viewed in the context of the above its clearly misplaced. Far from being an omni-annihilator he is just another haunted individual sacrificing all for the idea.

"By a revolution, the Society does not mean an orderly revolt according to the classic western model – a revolt which always stops short of attacking the rights of property and the traditional social systems of so-called civilization and morality. Until now, such a revolution has always limited itself to the overthrow of one political form in order to replace it by another, thereby attempting to bring about a so-called revolutionary state. The only form of revolution beneficial to the people is one which destroys the entire State to the roots and exterminated all the state traditions, institutions, and classes in Russia."

This sciene of destruction is wholly limited to left wing dogma and creating a new world for "future generations"

Honestly you've made demon out of a particularly violent "progressive". This omninihlisit might exist but its not in Nachev or Stirner

We don't have a Kabah, we face East in Liturgical prayer no matter where the Church is.

Mankind is considered an icon, as we are created in his image.

Thus all are censed.

> Like them far from destroying all ideology they are simply creating a new one.

He's not really creating anything, he's sole concern is destroying as an impulse. It's about as ideological as a rabid dog. You're concerned more about the philosophical cosmetics than the actual realization of his philosophy.

> This omninihlisit might exist but its not in Nachev or Stirner
No, it's rather an *impulse* they both tend toward, as opposed to an ideology either consciously subscribes to. Which, again, you'd understand if you'd read the work.

Yep.

Apart from the part of the old testament that's about the travels of Abraham's family, what would you say is the overall message of the old testament?

This.

Emperors where and are not venerated as a point of worship. Depictions of them are not icons, in a religious sense, but rather a political expediency.

They depict the Emperors place in the mundane, not in the divine.

>Thinking Hagia Sophia is equivalent to your kabah and not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre

Kek, dumb kebab can't even get his bants right.

>Emperors where and are not venerated as a point of worship
Well, yeah, actually they were, often enough, which is where Christians drew the line--they wouldn't do things like sacrifice to the Emperor, which is why they were persecuted.

One may argue that it emerged from the use of Nomina Sacra and relic veneration

Thanks for the info btw

>Don't kid yourself.

Do not think, that your interpretation of Orthodox actions is correct. In fact, you slander, when talk about idolatry. Orthodox worship only God. We do not worship icons or someone else, only God.

7. But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.
(Psalms 5:7)
>worship toward thy holy temple.
David did worship to the temple, not to God here? I do not think so. Similarly, with icons.

>You're not supposed to pray for people in heaven.

The Bible says otherwise. We pray with the saints in heaven for each other. The conclusion from this idolatry as stupid as the claim that idolatry is a common prayer in the temple of Jehovah. The Bible urges people to pray for each other.

Revelations make clear that Saints in heaven are invoked by saints on earth and that they offer prayers to God from those on earth.

Either way, early christianity confirms the veneration of saints or in their time, martyrs

Hello /og/!

I grew up in a lax, nonspiritual Lutheran family (the kind that only went to Church on Easter, and then only to please great grandma), and as an adolescent vaccillated between outright atheism, neopaganism, and agnosticism. Now I'm an adult and I've returned to the idea of Christianity, and I say idea because I don't know very much about Christianity. Didn't get much in the way of Sunday School as a kid, and I've retained close to none of what I did learn as a kid.

I'm not a fan of the transnational nature of most Protestant denominations, and I'm not a fan of the current Pope, which pretty much leaves Orthodoxy. I like most of what I've learned about Orthodoxy so far, the rich history, the ritualistic aspects, the singing, the heavier requirements on the faithful.

As someone who has very little grounding in Christianity I feel like I'd be out of my depth if I attended a Liturgy, and reading through the Bible has been slow-going, partially because I'm still a bit self-conscious about reading it in public. So I guess what I'm asking is: where should I start? What advice do you have for someone like me? What other things should I read/watch?

You could argue that, but there is a reason why Christian icons were so distinct and completely different from all other religious icons in being painted. In Orthodox tradition, it's because the first icon was Veronica's veil, and it was, in a sense, made by Christ. Also Luke is sometimes credited as painting a picture of the Theotokos, and thereby also starting that as a tradition.

While carved icons are not really wrong, they were probably avoided heavily specifically *because* they so associated with pagan veneration. And statues were pretty much out of the question for a very long time, and the entire time in the East, where they were seen as attempts to replicate rather than merely reflect.

As for the veneration practice itself, it didn't really have to evolve from venerating anything else, I'm sure it would have been natural to venerate Veronica's veil in the same way icons are venerated today.

Read The Way of a Pilgrim

transactional

>when one word brings down your entire post

>Why do you think angels refuse to let people know their names?

That is actualy a good point that really made me think , the angel god uses always is mentioned as the angel of the lord

The dispute against the Catholic Church and the autocephalous Orthodox churches is ultimately a dispute against the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, and the Bishop of Constantinople (Istanbul), the Successor of Photius, or the Bishop of Moscow, the Successor of ???

Who has more authority, Peter or Photius? The answer should be damn obvious. The schism has not been a permanent thing. A few times the Orthodox have repented and come back to Rome, but then some "Champion of Orthodoxy" servant of the devil comes along to remind all Eastern Christians why the Pope is the Antichrist, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE.

There is one who is probably the Word (God says of this angel "my name is in him," and this is the angel who speaks through the burning bush). But other angels of the Lord clearly have names, Gabriel is referred to by name in the annunciation, and others are mentioned in revelation by prophets

Citation needed ,

>He's not really creating anything, he's sole concern is destroying as an impulse. It's about as ideological as a rabid dog.

Look at that other quote and combine it with this

"The Society has no aim other than the complete liberation and happiness of the masses – i.e., of the people who live by manual labor. Convinced that their emancipation and the achievement of this happiness can only come about as a result of an all-destroying popular revolt, the Society will use all its resources and energy toward increasing and intensifying the evils and miseries of the people until at last their patience is exhausted and they are driven to a general uprising. "

Hes trying to create a new society and shitty one and with a violent method.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks_communism

This is not rabid dog ideology. Indeed the realisation of his end goal was embodied by his ideology with its totalitarianism, authority and sacrifice of individuals.

>No, it's rather an *impulse* they both tend toward, as opposed to an ideology either consciously subscribes to. Which, again, you'd understand if you'd read the work.

Which would be fine if Rose's point was that both these people are just ideologically destructive. However he errs in stating that Nachev is the perfection of Stirners thought or that both tend towards omninilism indeed even that can only be applied to Stirner if you rely on a very specific and Heglian definition of destruction.

>No, it's rather an *impulse* they both tend toward, as opposed to an ideology either consciously subscribes to. Which, again, you'd understand if you'd read the work.

No, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with whether or not the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction and is infallible.

Peter did not claim a higher title than bishop (1 Peter 5:1), and Bishop of Rome is not the rock, Peter is. The Rock is not an office, it's a title.

>I'm not a fan of the transnational nature of most Protestant denominations, and I'm not a fan of the current Pope, which pretty much leaves Orthodoxy.

Mate, are you really going to decide which Church to join based on such silly preference? You don't get to choose what Church to belong to - you have to join the Church that Christ founded, that He said the gates of hell would never prevail against, which He said that he would found upon the rock, Peter. I don't particularly like Francis either, but that doesn't affect my Catholic faith at all. Now the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church (or group of autocephalous churches) are close in very many respects - hierarchy, apostolic succession, seven sacraments, devotion to he saints and angels, respect for the Church Fathers, monastic life, etc. In fact, they ought to be one Church just as God intended, but there is a dispute between them that creates a de facto schism. Now this schism is ultimately a dispute between bishops, and so you have to ask yourself which bishop has the greatest authority.

1. Pray to God to help.
3. Find the Catechism of the Orthodox Church. Read. Strive for conscious faith.
2. Find the Orthodox community. Questions to Ask the priest.
4. Take the Sacrament of Baptism in the Orthodox Church. Participates in the sacraments (confession, the Eucharist)
5. Pray on attend the temple, read the Bible. Try to look into matters of faith, to know much. But only with prayer, the sacraments, and membership in the community. Then the grace of the Holy Spirit will lead you to salvation.

>are yo aware of all the orthodox in North america and even canada?
all 50 of them?

You cannot use 1 verse from revelation for a whole doctrine, the bible is full of parabels , revelation is one big mind fuck

>7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. 8And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

>bulgarian
thats church slavonic
we use that too

>Hes trying to create a new society and shitty one and with a violent method.
He has zero blueprint for one, he's not concerned with a blueprint for one. He has no creation in mind, at most he sees it as a leftover when enough destruction is done.

>However he errs in stating that Nachev is the perfection of Stirners thought
He doesn't just state it, he sets up a long argument for it.

>No, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with whether or not the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction and is infallible.

The debate doesn't even need to go that far. You just look at the first facts of the case: here you have two rival religious authorities claiming to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Creed. So you look at the highest authorities in each of these two competing churches and see which of them has the greatest claim to authority. Now, the evidence (of scripture and the fathers, and of history especially relating to Ecumenical Councils) clearly demonstrates that in a dispute between bishops, the Bishop of Rome has the greater authority - whether or not he is infallible or has universal jursidiction in the Catholic understanding does not even need to enter the debate, it is periphery. All you need to acknowledge is that the Bishop of Rome has greater authority than the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Moscow, so when the Bishop of Constantinople or Moscow argues with the Bishop of Rome, you know the Bishop of Rome is the one you ought to listen to.

>Peter did not claim a higher title than bishop (1 Peter 5:1), and Bishop of Rome is not the rock, Peter is. The Rock is not an office, it's a title.

The Church Fathers referred to the Bishop of Rome as Peter / the Successor of Peter.

>He has zero blueprint for one, he's not concerned with a blueprint for one. He has no creation in mind, at most he sees it as a leftover when enough destruction is done.

Then why did he write a an article on one?

"The Fundamentals of the Future Social System" doesnt seem like something someone with no creation in mind would create.

>He doesn't just state it, he sets up a long argument for it.

Ill have to give it a look over then, to save any trouble is there any necessary pre reading

Mate, why would you argue against a practice (veneration and intercession of saints) which was witnessed to very early on in Christianity and by all the Church fathers? Why would you dispute one of the most basic religious practices that Christians have always practiced, universally both in East and West?

If you are interested in getting a good primer on the Bible, you should check out Chuck Missler's Learn the Bible in 24 Hours series. You can stream it from his website at khouse.org

The Roman Church professes a series of heresies and moved away from the Church. It is devoid of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:14-18)

It has nothing to do with Rome. The Church stands on a Rock of confession of Christ as the Son of God. And it is the Orthodox Church.

Well too bad if the Bible disagrees with you.

Either way one can simply look at the Jewish practices at the time(which Jesus and the NT never said that it is wrong) and Early Christianity to see the presence of such a theological viewpoint

Because we are saints not some special people the church choses , jesus teaches this , there is no special status, you are a saint .

>46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Greater authority, what? In the Orthodox understanding, authority is a matter of jurisdiction, not authority over the whole Church, which the Ecumenical Patriarch surely does not have.

The bishop of Rome doesn't have any more authority in any way.

The Bishop of Rome is ceremonially the successor of Peter, his bishopric is certainly not any different office from that of any other bishopric. He's obviously not Peter. The Church Fathers did not even see Peter as holding an office above regular bishops, let alone everyone who reigns in the See of Rome.

>"The Fundamentals of the Future Social System" doesnt seem like something someone with no creation in mind would create.
His system in that was basically just a description of how communists groups were already living back then

>Ill have to give it a look over then, to save any trouble is there any necessary pre reading
no

meant for

Thanks for making this thread OP..I think i will look for the Orthodox church here. what kind of things should I look for in this church?

my saint is lazarus lets see where lazarus is

>23Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

oops lazarus is death

king david then?
Acts 2
>29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

>34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Oops dead wich saint is heaven ?

One that does the Liturgy in English

>oops lazarus is death
Prior to the hallowing of hell

>david
>his soul was not left in hell,
>his soul was not left in hell
>his soul
>was not left
>in hell
Harrowing of hell

Interesting so the Bible even attests to Jewish veneration of OT prophets by mentioning their tombs as if they are well known sites.

Furthermore, Revelations makes clear intercession and invocation of departed saints who are in heaven.

But let it be that all the saints are dead and cannot hear the living because Jesus is not the God of the living

I definitely agree, for more sensitive people it may be required for them so they can enjoy the thread. I only make the point that there isn't real life vs virtual life, it's all real. Christians still need to be Christians and there maybe a lost opportunity to "shadow ban" in this way. We glorify God to bear the persecutor's wounds, that may or may not include Cred Forums and that's the beauty of Orthodoxy, we have free will. Thanks for the filtering reminder btw

Go back to sucking muzziecocks like your Pope does, catholic cuck.

>The Roman Church professes a series of heresies and moved away from the Church.

On whose authority do you make this claim?

If the bishops all have equal authority, then who do we follow in a dispute between bishops? The Church fathers said the Bishop of Rome.

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

OK . thanks

acts was after jesus had risen from the dead hell=hades why would david be in hell

If david is not in heaven after christ had done his thing , then who is?

according scripture eliah was taken in heaven with a flaming chariot , so eliah confirmed for heaven status

>If the bishops all have equal authority, then who do we follow in a dispute between bishops?
The Church Fathers

> The Church fathers said the Bishop of Rome.
No they didn't
christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

Sure

David's soul is in heaven, his body is in his sepulcher.

Elijah was unusual in that he was taken up bodily. although he will come back down and die a martyr, when he is announcing the Second Coming of Christ

Filioque, Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, Purgatory in this and of some other questions Orthodox Church considers the Catholics as heretics.

> 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You die and you get raised the last day with your heavenly body,

try to find one verse in scripture were you fly to heaven when you die, pro tip you cant , jesus got resurrected he was the first ,then we get resurrected in the last day

There are some who go to heaven,eliah had something to do with john the baptist but for all will and purpose mary only birthed a child , there would be no reason for her to be in heaven

>try to find one verse in scripture were you fly to heaven when you die
Luke 23:43

Are you saying you remain in Sheol (Hades, not to be confused with Gehenna)?

Why Christians love to show themselves martyrs and saviors? And why Atheism? There are plenty of religions and beliefs apart from Christianity and Atheism.

The division between Orthodox and Catholic start from hunger for power and influance. Why one religion should be considered true if other also say the same about themselves?

Also they are not pagans that worships gods and supernatural beings, just like shitton of those Saints.
Peoples like to think that prays is like magic. Some Christians even contact with astrologist and other mages.

>Luke 23:43

yes that is the only verse in the bible and it contradicts most of the bible and it contradicts john

John 20:17
>Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

>yes that is the only verse in the bible and it contradicts most of the bible and it contradicts john
Nope, the Bible makes it clear Sheol is no more.

I'm not seeing how John 20:17 contradicts that.

If the thief is in heaven how can jesus be with him the same day?, jesus did not go to heaven after three days ,

>Nope, the Bible makes it clear Sheol is no more.

citation needed

Thanks

what is sheol , hades is it just death its not some greek mythology underworld

Hosea 13:14
>I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

Hosea 13:14
>14Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight.
1 Corinthians 15:55
>O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

It's a Mandylion

It was originally death

Then the Jews see it as some sort of underworld

Yeah the jews have shit wrong all the time

>jesus did not go to heaven after three days

I am not yet ascended to my Father =\= jesus did not go to heaven

No one knows what exactly Jesus was engaged in these 3 days. How long he was in hell. He went up and down once or more. If a particular quote contradicts your guesses, then you say that you need more citations. At that, from anywhere quote you are able to compose a pleasing version for yourself. Satan did so, when he tempted Jesus in the desert (Tearing of quotations and juggling with meanings)

Huh...praise Paganism?

Russian Orthodox Church is a part of Orthodox Church.
>Stalin
>communist garbage
Remember the Roman emperors during the persecution and harassment of Christians. Christians are loyal to any regime.
>alcohol and tobacco
Smoking is a normal phenomenon for the clergy of many confessions as tea or coffee. Ban of alcohol is Islam innovation and post-Protestantism.

Christianity is not an art, wealth and influence. This is the way of salvation in the first place. Orthodoxy is focused solely on this.

> they seem to not even exist throughout history outside Byzantium and even now they're poverty stricken shitholes.

see pic

>compose a pleasing version for yourself. Satan did so, when he tempted Jesus in the desert (Tearing of quotations and juggling with meanings)

pot and kettle i dont want a pleasing version for myself , i just want the truth

jesus never went to hell he died as it is written

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

>And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

> 11These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

You die and your spirit returns to the father , the immortal soul is a meme from the greeks and nowhere to be found in the bible

>In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

dust thou shalt return, no meme immortal souls , just death , because the wages of sin are dead

Did god say if you eat the fruit you die but your soul becomes immortal?

>17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

>All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

>jesus never went to hell he died as it is written

quotes here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell

>You die and your spirit returns to the father , the immortal soul is a meme from the greeks and nowhere to be found in the bible

4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
(Revelation 20:4)

9. And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11. And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
(Revelation 6:9-11)

Yes you quote revelation after the seventh trumpet the saints have become immortal

souls are also described as people in the bible

Acts 27:37
>And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.

>seventh trumpet the saints have become immortal

it's 11:5 Revelation > I quoted 6:9.

>souls are also described as people in the bible

This is exactly the soul
>the souls of them that were slain for the word of God
>that were slain

>
>And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

>and man became a living soul.

The bible is full of soul , but not immortal ones , the slain people get resurected and become a living soul again , After the judgement you either become eternal or you go to hell

at least that is what i understood from revelations

Now i really have to think because when you belief in christ you pass judgement because you are saved , how can the souls then be judged who believed in jesus

>flag
Bozgor detected

Look what changing and adapting to the current year did to the catholic church and the pope
Nuff said

bump