>>7554504 The word for "icon" as a religious idea comes from the Greek word uses in Genesis of God fashioning man into, an icon of himself. The word idol comes from the Greek word for "form" (as in Platonic form). An icon is a reflection of something, to kiss an icon of the Virgin Mary isn't idolatrous anymore than kissing her reflection in a mirror would be.
If God becoming a man is idolatry, then you have to accuse him, not Christians.
The Trinity is three persons, one essence. It is like three persons with one soul. So if Joe, Jim and Bob are all persons, but have a single soul, then they are distinct persons, but the same Being.
>>7554562 >as in Platonic form Platonic form is an example, I mean. A form shares Being with something else. An icon just reflects something else. A Bible, for instance, is an icon of God, but not form of God.
>>7554568 If God has three persons, and you think that is polytheism, then it is him you need to direct your complaint to. God does have three persons, though, they aren't just "aspects", but three distinct persons. They persons are one way of looking how we are bad in God's image. Angels have a Spirit and a Soul, animals have a soul and a body, but man has spirit, a soul and a body, a reflection of the Trinity, three in one. With us, these are each different "dimensions" of us--that isn't how the Trinity works with God, but that explains a bit how we are created in the image of the Trinity. The Trinity is unity in diversity, and thus all of God's creation glorifies his Triune nature.
>>7554568 The Trinity isn't something Christians pulled out of their asses, it's actually present in Scripture. There's God, who appears throughout the Bible. There's Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, who is ALSO God, and then there's the Spirit of God, who is ALSO also God.
So we have three distinct entities claiming to be God, but Judaism believes that there is only one God. These contrasting positions have to be reconciled, hence the Trinity. It's not just something thrown in for shits and giggles, it's a human attempt to make sense of a real thing in Christianity's sacred text.
It is also worth pointing out that, at least in Catholicism, the Trinity is referred to as a 'mystery.' We can't fully comprehend how there can be one God yet three distinct persons. It's in Scripture, so it must be true, but the how of it is a little beyond our apprehension as limited, fallible beings. The Trinity should perhaps best be recognized as an approximation, an estimation of a truth we cannot fully comprehend.
>>7554661 >To love mankind FOR GOD’S SAKE—this has so far been the noblest and remotest sentiment to which mankind has attained. That love to mankind, without any redeeming intention in the background, is only an ADDITIONAL folly and brutishness, that the inclination to this love has first to get its proportion, its delicacy, its gram of salt and sprinkling of ambergris from a higher inclination—whoever first perceived and ‘experienced’ this, however his tongue may have stammered as it attempted to express such a delicate matter, let him for all time be holy and respected, as the man who has so far flown highest and gone astray in the finest fashion!
>>7554647 IIRC there are also names for God in Islam that describe him negatively (without limits). Such names are attempting to describe an infinite being using the finite words of human expression, they fail to fully capture it, but they offer an idea of them. The same is true with the Trinity, the description of it as three persons with one soul, and the acknowledgement of it as divine mystery. God is what He is, Christians don't try to fuck with that. Sorry that it's not as simple as you want it to be, but something capable of creating all of the universe will, by extension be beyond full human comprehension.
What is it about Orthodox Christianity that avoid Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity.
You made this same thread the other day and it was fucking nothing just like this time. If you have something to say, just say it.
I'm mostly asking you not because I give a shit about your worthless thoughts but because I doubt very much you have anything at all to say except simplistic idiotic provocations to get attention, because you're a pathetic loser who thinks you know something about theology.
>>7554925 All I did was call the trinity a retcon. It is an amusing comparison that needs no damage control from me as i'd happily admit it was a joke. It is the christian sci fi fan who doesn't like it.
>>7555396 The scientific framework seems to be more suitable for dealing with the universe. Doesn't mean it's right. Truth is a weird concept, and the species has developed very different frameworks for dealing with it. But if I had to choose, I would go for a non-emotional empirical approach.
>>7555454 Solipsism is not really a base for discussion. Talking to your own phantoms does not mean you're talking at all. But yes, I doubt existence itself. I just choose the most fitting description of reality. notwithstanding the fact I can't prove it. I you think about it, that's all you can do.
>>7555489 Neural networks may be very are real. Most depends on that. Whether sentience it a product of information processing inside of this universe. I'm not saying they are. The species did not have time to find out.
>>7555538 Which boils down to the problem of solipsism. I can't prove that reality is real, so even if anybody here would be able to simulate a full sentience, that won't mean it's real. That's why I said you're talking about solipsism. Which has been recognized as a dead end in western philosophy for about 200 years.
>>7555641 Not really. Stirner is correct, yet that is the whole point. According the Philokalia, "knowledge" (which means fugging in Hebrew) of "good and evil" meant being subordinated to (instead of harmonizing with) carnal good and evil (pleasure and pain). As Stirner says, Christians are involuntary egoists--we are trying to be freed of our enslavement to pleasure and pain. And Stirner is right, on our own, there is no way to escape being totally subordinated to those to principles, and that is why we need Christ.
>>7555637 It's too early to say that we can't prove consciousness physically.We could be state machines in the full sense of the meaning. And I'm selecting the scientific framework only because a lot points in that direction. Like everything for 200 years.
>>7555637 hey, not really related, but I think orthodoxy is pretty cool. I was raised catholic and went through a militant fedora phase, but my soul has begun to thirst yet again for Christ and His Church. I'm disappointed in the course the roman catholic church has taken, and I wonder if there's a more authentic alternative. Are Mexicans allowed to become orthodox? Also I like crossdessing and the occasional dick every once in a while, would that be much of a problem?
>>7555675 >We know they lack reason and free will Which means their souls, so to say, are not the same as ours, since that is what separates us from them. We have both the theroid and the rational aspects of a soul, while they do not.
>>7555700 That is the theoretical distinction between soul and spirit. They aren't necessarily separate or distinct from each other in humans (anymore than Christ's human and divine natures are separate or distinct), but there is no reason why any of this has a bearing on a soul's mortality. Morality is not a natural condition, even for animals, it is a product of the fall. So is their suffering.
They are not, I've never said they are separate in us. I am saying our souls have both those aspects, while those ''souls'' of animals don't, and therefore cannot be really called souls, because a soul requires reason and free will, made in God's image.
>>7555727 Science did a really great job to explain reality, there is no reason it can't explain sentience. I would need more to move to another framework. By the way a bottle of gin kicks in now so I have to go.
>>7555842 Hell is literally the same thing as heaven, it is being filled with the fire and light of God's love and being acutely aware of it. That is agony for those who hate God or who are ashamed of hurting God
>mfw Latins think hell is "separation" from God
Original sin isn't something that is "transmitted", it is the state of the material world. Do you think clones would not suffer from original sin?
>>7555865 >Original sin isn't something that is "transmitted", it is the state of the material world. gtfo gnostic. how could god create an evil world? >Do you think clones would not suffer from original sin? lmao are you retarded
>>7555865 >Hell is literally the same thing as heaven, it is being filled with the fire and light of God's love and being acutely aware of it. That is agony for those who hate God or who are ashamed of hurting God No, that's just Orthodoxy theology without basis in anything but speculation. Especially since Scripture talks about the two as both being quite different and in no way the same place. >mfw Latins think hell is "separation" from God It's one theory, yes. >Original sin isn't something that is "transmitted", it is the state of the material world. Do you think clones would not suffer from original sin? Do you think clones are not human? It's a metaphysical sin. I absolutely love it how orthodoxy is about tradition, unless it's about church fathers they don't like.
>>7555880 >gtfo gnostic. how could god create an evil world? It's not evil. It's encrusted by corruption *due to the fall*. All such corruption will be completely cleansed with the Second Coming. The material is a gift from God, we just didn't poo in loo.
>>7555883 >No, that's just Orthodoxy theology without basis in anything but speculation. Especially since Scripture talks about the two as both being quite different and in no way the same place. No, that has always been the Orthodox teaching, it's in the Philokalia. St. Isaac the Syrian iterates it very well.
>I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability
The idea that hell could be separation from God is heresy, nothing can exist without God constantly sustaining it will infinite love., panentheism is an eternal reality.
>Do you think clones are not human? I think clones weren't sexually conceived.
>I absolutely love it how orthodoxy is about tradition, unless it's about church fathers they don't like. Platonism has no place in Christianity. Plato was a great thinker, but he should not be used to make theological arguments for a very simple reason
>>7555926 No, but the state that original sin imparted is not transmitted by conception, it is a state that the whole material world suffers from (this is why the immaculate conception is a meaningless doctrine in Orthodox Christianity).
>>7555914 >No, that has always been the Orthodox teaching, it's in the Philokalia. St. Isaac the Syrian iterates it very well. And it's contrary to other things that have always been in the Catholic teaching from Augustine. And between you and me, Augustine is a more important and influential author for a reason. >The idea that hell could be separation from God is heresy, nothing can exist without God constantly sustaining it will infinite love., panentheism is an eternal reality. Separation from God means separation from his love. Not separation from existence supported by God. God is also not just love, but also will and intellect. >I think clones weren't sexually conceived. So their conception is asexual mitosis or something? As far as I know clones are still conceived using male and female cells. On top of that I'm pretty sure cloning in context of original sin isn't something that's been missed by augustinians. >Platonism has no place in Christianity. Plato was a great thinker, but he should not be used to make theological arguments for a very simple reason Theological arguments don't make all that much sense without his geist. Platonism has since earliest times been a part of Christianity, fucks sake John the Evangelist started his gospel using platonic thought, you know equating God with giest and logos. Ah yeah, I'll take your authority over that of Augustine and just about every theologian until Aquinas >Platonism is an inherently idolatrous school of thought. It's inherently predating Christianity. It's inherently in many ways compatible and complementary with Christianity. It's inherently a part of Christian thought since the earliest times and still is.
>>7555967 >And between you and me, Augustine is a more important and influential author for a reason. Augustine is a saint in the Orthodox Church, but he is also considered a flawed theologian for things like his just war theory, his understanding of original sin, and his Platonic theology. His tremendous influence on the West was a big factor in their falling away from Orthodox Christianity.
>you know equating God with giest and logos. This is only drawing from the Septuagint. In Greek, "logos" is distinct from "rhēmati". The latter simply means regular word or utterance (it is in fact the one Christ used when he said "every word" from God, to Satan). Logos is used in contexts where word and truth are synonymous. It is the word used to describe the relativism Babylon engendered when everyone had a different logos. So saying God is logos has nothing to do with Greek philosophy (John didn't even know Greek that well, compared to Luke). As for the Spirit (same word as breath) of God, that is in Genesis.
>n top of that I'm pretty sure cloning in context of original sin isn't something that's been missed by augustinians. They're still debating whether or not clones could have rational souls
>It's inherently a part of Christian thought since the earliest times and still is. Western Christian thought, not Orthodox Christian thought. The idea of Platonic forms is idolatrous. Man is an icon of God, not an idol of God.
his criticism of mysticism might apply, not an expert on orthodoxy so id appreciate input.
"Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow."
one of his aphorism fom beyond good and evil i think. only reference in his writing off the top of my head to mysticism. but honestly a lot of his criticsms of metaphysics or of the ways philosophers are basically applicable to orthodoxy
Kind of irrelevant but I feel torn between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and don't know how anyone would choose between them. I don't know what to believe about Papal Supremacy. What would you do /lit/?
>>7556162 i know its an application of their argument he doesnt accept what they propose wholesale that would be retarded and totally contradictory to his relationship woth logic/reason in the first place
>>7556166 I don't think Nietzsche remotely subscribed to any proto logical positivism, and to suggest he does, even a little, is a massive distortion of his philosophy. All Nietzsche is saying is that he doesn't think there is anything other than the material, and therefore to talk about it is not even shallow--shallow would be talking about the material in a purely cosmetic fashion. So mysticism isn't even shallow,
>>7556169 >Nietzsche doesn't use poetic device apart from Zarathustra the D-A tension
>>7556197 Your "thorough" reading of Nietzsche needs to be, within the next handful of minutes, thoroughly throw to the garbage, if you do believe that works such as Daybreak, Human, All Too Human and The Gay Science display a language made of "poetry, riddles, allusions and metaphors".
>>7556209 >in several books, in fact. Would this too too old earth be kind enough to have produced, be it by chance or design, within your mind, the knowledge of a single work that you could cite to explain your idiotic thought?
>>7556207 lol yeah. the importance of coldness and dispassion and clarity of thought is a theme throughout his whole bory of work. there are very few passages that could be termed riddles. i still dont wyite know what to make of the references to ariadne. can ya help a brotha out?
>>7554504 The veneration of saints used to be about giving converted pagans pseudo-deities that they could still worship in place of the gods that Catholicism was replacing for them. That's why the patron saints cover the range of topics that old gods covered and why their feast days overlap and why so many of the saints are fictitious.
Nowadays, with less traditional pagans to convert from polytheism, and more historical Catholics to choose from, there's not really a need to invent new ones for those old reasons. Instead, the Catholic Church underwent an unprecedented run of accelerated mass sainthood anointing during the late 20th century continuing to this one in order to accommodate the secular cult of celebrity. Saints like Mother Teresa thus become the modern day celebrity that these secular Christians-in-name-only etc. can worship.
I think in this latter regard they've failed fairly miserably, probably because they haven't kept up with the times in terms of reality tv, Web 3.0, etc. The acceleration of culture far outpaced the Vatican's own attempts at acceleration. However, their old sainthood tactic still works in Africa, where the future of Catholicism lies.
>>7556337 You're a fucking retard spouting your misreadings like your uninformed and uncultured opinion actually matters. That's what the polite poster you are replying to attempted to word in a proper manner.
>>7556403 What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” rebuke was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.
>>7556221 The case of the Ariadne figure is pretty enigmatic; perhaps the only understanding of her presence in Nietzsche's writings may be that of the /immediate certainty of instinct/, the supra-moral landscape of mythology, --- the first question should be, /what did to the Greeks Ariadne mean?/
Ariadne bears two mythological aspects: she helps Theseus in an unnatural construct, the labyrinth, and she marries Dionysus, either as mortal or goddess.
In a far-stretched understanding of her role within the labyrinth, this archetype of /artes ignotas/, Ariadne produces meaning in a meaningless universe; where Dionysus /eternally justifies/ existence by an oceanic feeling; where the angst of too complex form is solved by the dissolution of form itself, Ariadne creates meaning out of the chaos of form.
Or, perhaps, she's just Dionysus' wife, and Nietzsche merely thought of Cosima Wagner when he spoke of Ariadne, as indicated by his letter sent to Cosima on the third of January, 1889, where he names her his "beloved princess Ariadne", stating he was Dionysus, Buddha, Alexander, Caesar, Voltaire, lord Bacon (Shakespeare), Napoleon and... Wagner. Strikingly enough, he closes this short letter by "The skies do rejoice that I am here... I have been nailed to the cross, too."
Any belief in heaven or hell is strictly un-Nietzschean. Would any Christian call Cesare Borgia or Julius Caesar a higher man than a saint? Nietzsche was a smart guy. It's not like he didn't know what he was doing when he repeatedly called Christians nihilists.
>>7556450 >accepting condoms, remarriage >denying papal authority >having a non continent clergy >having a leading patriarchate in a non apostolic city that came into being through illegitimately >not modernist this anon hit the nail in the head right here >>7555883 >I absolutely love it how orthodoxy is about tradition, unless it's about church fathers they don't like.
>>7556483 Nietzsche's objection to heaven and was that they were antagonistic to the material, which is hardly the case in Orthodox Christianity, which is extremely materialist and considers heaven and the material to be complementary, the material being a gift from God. That is why all five senses are used in worship.
The Orthodox contrast Christianity with the anti-materialist Platonism by pointing how how Socrates faced death with practical indifference, whereas Christ pleaded not to die at Gethsemane.
>>7556491 >accepting condoms, remarriage There is nothing wrong with condoms, all the polemic against birth control by the Church Fathers is about abortificcents.
Way more Catholics remarry than Orthodox.
>having a non continent clergy Are bishops are celibate. Our secular priests generally aren't, because that allows them to minister to married couples better in confession and so on. We don't select our bishops from the secular clergy, we select them from monasteries. Even the Catholic Church doesn't see celibate priests as anything more than a discipline, and allows many rites bypass that.
The Catholic Church acknowledges the See of Constantinople as valid, so....
>>7556539 No, but there doesn't need to be, the Bible is hardly the whole of Holy Tradition, it is merely a part of it. If the writers of the NT knew some people would think their letters and the Gospels were supposed to be an exhaustive record, they'd be horrified.
>>7556535 yeahhhh i think you hit the nail right on the head. his references to truth as a woman, or the search for truth as wooing a woman are the key to understanding the ariadne references. i cant fuckin believe i never thought of that.
>>7556526 >There is nothing wrong with condoms, all the polemic against birth control by the Church Fathers is about abortificcents. [Citation needed] >Way more Catholics remarry than Orthodox. so? the Catholic Church is against the practice of divorce and remarriage >Are bishops are celibate. Our secular priests generally aren't, which is a novelty introduced by the Orthodox Church >Even the Catholic Church doesn't see celibate priests as anything more than a discipline, and allows many rites bypass that. sure, but is a discipline that has always existed until Orthodox and Protestants changed it.
>so... so it still is a patriarchate that came into being through political manipulation and has no apostolic basis whatsoever
>>7556635 because God made the saints >Why do people pray to patron saints? we ask for the intercession of certain saints because of a preference of a saint or that saint is one with which we can identify
>>7556635 Okay so if you know someone that's sick you tell your church community to pray for that person, right? Because you want to communicate to God and try and meek out some favor for that person.
In catholicism we can divide the church (meaning the body of human beings baptized and confirmed into Christ's Church) into two categories. The church militant and the church triumphant. The church militant are those of us here on earth, still living. The church triumphant is the members of the Church that have passed on and are in heaven. The title of saint in the catholic church just means that a person is officially recognized as being in heaven.
tl;dr veneration of saints is no different from praying for a friend, we're all in this together
>>7556708 Saints are just the all too human need to encrust detail onto something simple. All those myths and legends adding a pokemon-like roster of minor characters for people to enumerate. It doesn't really conflict with scripture it just adds a human element that is easier to digest for most people than the more recondite rules and metaphor.
>>7556708 nope, even the first verses of Timothy calls for all Christians to be intercessors for all men. There isnt any contradiction if one takes the intercession of the saints as merely participating in the role of Christ as mediator
>>7556546 It's entirely Orthodox. That's the reason the vault of Orthodox Churches are decked out to look like heaven, so show that the angels and stains are worshiping with us, and Christ is ruling over us all there (he's always in the dome).
Latin theology is crypto-Gnostic, they got it from flirting with Plato.
>>7556812 Praying to the saints asks them to pray for us. Look at the prayer to St Jude below >Oh glorious apostle St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus, the name of the traitor who delivered thy beloved Master into the hands of His enemies has caused thee to be forgotten by many, but the Church honors and invokes thee universally as the patron of hopeless cases--of things despaired of. Pray for me who am so miserable; make use, I implore thee, of that particular privilege accorded thee of bringing visible and speedy help where help is almost despaired of. Come to my assistance in this great need, that I may receive the consolations and succor of heaven in all my necessities, tribulations and sufferings, particularly (mention your request), and that I may bless God with thee and all the elect throughout eternity. I promise thee, O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favor, and I will never cease to honor thee as my special and powerful patron, and to do all in my power to encourage devotion to thee. Amen
First third is just preamble and honorifics so let's skip ahead to the important bit > Pray for me who am so miserable; make use, I implore thee, of that particular privilege accorded thee of bringing visible and speedy help where help is almost despaired of. At the very core of it, it is simply asking that a man who is traditionally recognized for helping out so-called "lost causes" pray for the person praying.
>I promise thee, O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favor, and I will never cease to honor thee as my special and powerful patron, and to do all in my power to encourage devotion to thee. Again it's asking St Jude to take the person under their wing, keep an eye out for them, like an older brother or a godparent. Someone who should have the person's best interests at heart and wish the best for them.
>>7556626 Yeah, that's because we don't venerate elders these days. If you were born in ancient times and were used to bowing to elders and kissing their hands and referring to them very respectfully, it would not seem odd to you at all. There's a reason this wasn't a controversial subject at all in the Church until iconoclasm, and even then it was about the *icons* (including those of Christ), not the actual veneration. Our attitude to our elders had to become modernist before Protestants could find it upsetting.
>>7556944 >Condoms didn't even exist back then. how is that a response? contraception is contraception regardless of the form it takes >Right, so they just annul the marriage. And then remarry. not all marriages can be annuled, one has to see if a sacramental marriage actually took place, if it did then the marriage cant be broken. >What is 1 Timothy 3:2? Where does 1 Timothy 3:2 justify an incontinent clergy? It looks like youre confusing two different questions. That of a married clergy and that of a continent clergy >Why would you need apostolic basis for a patriarchy? because it used to be tradition, m8, that the three original patriarchates were Apostolic
>>7557029 >how is that a response? contraception is contraception regardless of the form it takes Uh, no, it's not the same thing. One kills life after conception, the other prevents conception.
>not all marriages can be annuled, one has to see if a sacramental marriage actually took place, if it did then the marriage cant be broken. There must be a ton of couples unknowingly living in fornication with all the annulments you have. Just think of how many couples who no longer want to be married, discover that their marriage never happened--now imagine how many couples aren't living in Holy Matrimony because they never wanted to break up and didn't find out they were never married!
>It looks like youre confusing two different questions. That of a married clergy and that of a continent clergy The next verse talks about children.
>because it used to be tradition, m8, that the three original patriarchates were Apostolic That's not surprising, seeing as how they were the first bishops.
>>7557189 >Uh, no, it's not the same thing. One kills life after conception, the other prevents conception. you havent shown that the Fathers spoke only of abortificents, which isnt an obvious interpretation btw >There must be a ton of couples unknowingly living in fornication yes, there must be a lot of people forced into marriages or marrying unbaptized people that have an invalid marriage, again what's your point? >The next verse talks about children ok, i read that verse, now where does it justify an incontinent clergy? married priests with children werent uncommon, but they were required to abstain from relations with their wife after becoming a priest >That's not surprising, seeing as how they were the first bishops. do you even know why they chose Rome, Alexandria and Antioch in the first place?
>>7556526 >There is nothing wrong with condoms That's what you get when your theology stops at 400 ad and you don't address contemporary problems >all the polemic against birth control by the Church Fathers is about abortificcents. And also against pulling out which was seen as a condom of the time. >Way more Catholics remarry than Orthodox. Way more orthodox have abortions. Russia is the number one there. What are you trying to say? >Are bishops are celibate. Our secular priests generally aren't, Secular priests. What the fuck? >Even the Catholic Church doesn't see celibate priests as anything more than a discipline, and allows many rites bypass that. By many you mean few who convert, like Anglicans >>7556038 Apparitions >>7556028 Augustine is a saint because you can't unsaint him. Every theologian is flawed. Platonic thought was a thing for almost all church fathers. John knew greek best, what are you talking about? He was also very educated in Greek philosophy as his gospels is the gospel for philosophers and theologians in intent, primarily, just like others are for Jews, Romans and gentiles. He knew platonic thought very well and used it incredibly intentionally, exactly to redefine philosophy of his time and point to God as the Form and Unmoved mover of Plato and Aristotle. Logos as eternal law used to mean just word, but form used to mean just a form and not a metaphysical category. So yeah, basically, even Vulgata knew that and used Verbum as the roman translation of the greek philosopher's Logos. Clones are considered to have rational souls. Ain't that much debate. It was a part of most church fathers, including Greek ones. Rejection of platinism came later on for Orthodox butthurt. What is idolatry about Platonic forms? You really like to throw that word at just about everything. God is the ultimate perfect platonic from which is the source of everything. He is the Idea.
>>7557735 >And also against pulling out which was seen as a condom of the time. Sure, many were, they also said it was murder. They didn't understand biology then, and thought the sperm contained really little human beings.
>Way more orthodox have abortions. Russia is the number one there. What are you trying to say? 10% of people in Russia go to Church, and they are not the ones having abortions.
>Secular priests. What the fuck? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_clergy
>By many you mean few who convert, like Anglicans No, I mean there are 24 rites in the Catholic Church, and many of them allow married clergy. Eastern Rite, for example.
>>7557809 10% of Catholics go to church. What was the point of your argument before? They thought the same thing we do, contraception is divorcing sexual acts from procreation meaning they are there purely for hedonistic pleasure. It's drawn directly from the bible.
>>7557822 Abortions isn't a Church sanctioned act, whereas annulment and remarried afterward, is.
To say sexual acts in a marriage have to be about hedonism where no child is possible, or at least probably, in wrong. What if, for instance, one of the married couple has an STD? Would you still say condoms were immoral? Obviously if the couple is just engaging in mindless sex on a regular basis for purely carnal pleasure, then birth control is absolutely out of the question. That is why the use of condoms requires consultation with one's priest to ensure they aren't being used for sexual gluttony.
>>7557936 >Abortions isn't a Church sanctioned act, whereas annulment and remarried afterward, is. An annulled marriage never existed because of a serious, before not known information, such as woman not wanting children, or being a minor or being forced into marriage or being a trap. >To say sexual acts in a marriage have to be about hedonism where no child is possible, or at least probably, in wrong. Openness to life is the category here. > What if, for instance, one of the married couple has an STD? Would you still say condoms were immoral? Still debated, but yes. > Obviously if the couple is just engaging in mindless sex on a regular basis for purely carnal pleasure, then birth control is absolutely out of the question. That is why the use of condoms requires consultation with one's priest to ensure they aren't being used for sexual gluttony. They are always there in conflict with the natural law. But than again, orthodox theology doesn't recognize theology.
>>7557994 >An annulled marriage never existed because of a serious, before not known information, such as woman not wanting children, or being a minor or being forced into marriage or being a trap. Or
"You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended."
>Openness to life is the category here. Yes, and that is always the better choice. And if you can't afford kids or can't have them for one reason or another, then you should not get married at all. But if you do intend to have them, and do get married, and procreate, condoms are acceptable when and if more children would would be hazardous for the children one already has, if poverty could be the result. This, rather than simply a mutual abstinence (the intuitive solution) is justified because 1 Corinthians 7:5 strongly warns against marital abstinence except temporarily (such as during fast periods). Under such circumstances, condoms, with the guidance of one's priest to ensure that they are both needed and not abused, are acceptable. https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/
This isn't some willy nilly nonsense of condoms being the same as with secular couples. They are condoned in very select contexts in order to ensure 1 Corinthians 7:5 is heeded.
>They are always there in conflict with the natural law. But than again, orthodox theology doesn't recognize theology. Not theology derived from Aristotle. Natural law in Orthodox Christianity is the Law written on men's hearts. It's not something arrived at by logic.
>>7557809 >They didn't understand biology then, and thought the sperm contained really little human beings.  i cant understand how a guy living hundreds of years ago had knowledge of spermatozoa. Most only knew of semen, and didnt consider them to have tiny humans >>7558054 >"You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended." what's wrong with that? seriously, you have to know the person before marrying them >>7558082 >As for Orthodox grounds for divorce there arent any Orthodox grounds for divorce, since what God has united man cannot separate it. Sure, there would be many reasons for annulment in Orthodox couples, but because they follow an Eastern understanding of the sacrament, they cant possibly get one
Also, you havent proved that the Fathers were talking about abortificents only, and you havent justified a non continent clergy based on apostolic tradition.
>>7558054 > "You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended." Yes. If I pretended to be a prince and was also maried before and was a muslim who tricked a woman into marriage it would be invalid. > condoms are acceptable when and if more children would would be hazardous for the children one already has No, that's abstinence.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.