Some Fathers on Sola Scriptura:
"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)
"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)
"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
Some Fathers on Sola Gratia
But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle's meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted. Ambrose (Letter 73, to Irenaeus, a layman)
"After speaking of the wages of sin, in the case of blessings, he has not kept to the same order: for he does not say, the wages of your good deeds, but the gift of God: to show, that it was not of themselves that they were freed, nor was it a due they received, neither yet a return, nor a recompense of labors, but by grace all these things came about. And so there was superiority for this cause also, in that He did not free them only, or change their condition for the better, but that He did it without any labor or trouble upon their part: and that He not only freed them, but also gave them more than before, and that through His Son." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to the Romans, Homily 12, Rom 6:23)
you already got BTFO when you posted this on 8ch/christian/, are you sure you are ready for round 2?
>tfw you realize there is no good or bad, just that which is dialectically necessary and that which can be ignored
Have I just finished philosophy?
It isn't a truth if you can't live it.
It doesn't really matter what you SAY is good or bad, it's how you feel after you've performed an action. If you suffer negative emotion after performing an action, it's safe to say that the action you preformed is bad.
>>1387595
Emotions are spooks
>>1387600
That may be the case, but if you can't live with your emotional spooks, you've done something bad.
why japan is so much more efficient to maintain a civilization in comparison to russia
japan has roughly the same population size as russia but as you know it is fucking tiny and
has absolutely no resources relative to Ivan
> be Russia
> Mongols come and destroy everything
> be Japan
> Mongols destroyed by a random storm
Being located on the fucking Island is easy mode, compared to being bordered by Turkey, Germans, Austrians and god knows who else. Same reason why for England it was so easy to maintain status of the great power.
Russia has been relevant for hundreds of years and was a superpower for almost 50 years. Russia has had to fight for itself and maintain its own security.
Japan has only been relevant since the Meiji Restoration and had an empire for 50 years that was utterly crushed by America. Then, they leeched off of American security and destructive trade policies where American citizens suffered so Japan could become prosperous. So fuck off with your bullshit, Hiroshi.
> mfw Japanese dying even faster than Russians
Why do the north sides of American cities tend to encompass the most wealthy and developed areas?
Not for NYC.
>>1387166
Are we a meme?
>>1387166
northeners are genetically superior to southerners, that's a fact I read in the scientific journal "Mein Kampf".
Also, fuck the international jewish bolshevism.
It's sound realistic, that all citizens cannot rule their country at the same time. Otherwise, that will be mean, that considering of every law will be like referendum every time, when somebody will decide, that hats shouldn't be above 43.27 cm, and every time citizen will have to go and vote. But progress does not stand still, and humanity gets its advantages, that were unimaginable before, like internets, which give reason to reconsider this situation. Is it possible already to, at least, imagine, that people can vote not for elites, who represent their interests, but for their interests directly, using the system, they can completely trust somehow, where everyone can express an opinion, which is similar to an endless referendum, in which only the current state of voting matters?
>>1386977
So, democracy? You're asking if it would be possible to have a democratic system using today's technology. It could be. You would have to go back 2000 years and learn what actual democracy is like, not this representative government bullshit we have today. You pick a representative at random and make it work creating laws, then you make people vote for those laws. You could use some kind of electronic ID in order to vote from your computer or even your mobile phone. Though I guess most of the people would grow tired of it and would stop voting after a while, unless you somehow manage the voting process.
You could have voting periods in which the people would be able to vote, in this way, maybe you could catch their attention and make more people vote than compared to always throwing laws at random and expecting them to check the voting system every day.
However, you would have a problem, and that is that people are just fucking stupid. Even if you tell them that raising taxes is beneficial because the state has run out of money, they would probably vote against a raise of taxes and stuff like that.
All in all, the good old democracy is hard to implement into the current world because today's countries are too damn complex. So, to answer your question, no, people directly voting for their interests is unfeasible and would result in anarchy.
"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy"
"democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property"
>>1388243
>You pick a representative at random and make it work creating laws
I suspect, that everyone could creating laws. Laws just should be shown to a small group of people at the beginning of its existing and then - depending on the situation.
>people would grow tired of it and would stop voting after a while
All people shouldn't vote at every law, that gets in their sight. Only interested people, who understand this particular law, maybe specialists. Most of regular people should just to track upcoming changes to prevent some sudden trash to become a reality.
>people are just fucking stupid
Unfortunately, still could be worse without this system, I think. But, of course, I cannot assert this without looking at the implemented system work.
>>1386977 (OP)
I would say this sort of thing sometimes. Be it written differently.
An interesting crux of this sort of thing is that the real worth is not that all must vote all the time. But a more powerful allocation of power and money and possessions.
Of course also a good allocation of decision making. Not in some burdensome way.
Because something is interesting and favourable does not mean there HAS to be a burdensome catch. Or does anyone have any view on why this would have to be? So: ''''There will always be this unacceptable burdensome thing''''. ''''Even though everything was done in a way to avoid just that''''.
Is there anything that wasn't invented by France?
>>1386768
There's a world war II joke in there somewhere
>>1386768
All latin languages
Who was the most influential person in western civilization since Jesus?
In my opinion it was this man.
>>1386734
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Charlemagne
William the Conqueror
Voltaire
Et cetera
>the guy who moved the Roman capital to Constantinople and created Eastern Orthodoxy
>Western
Do people on /his/ have trouble with directions or something?
Napoleon
Wasn't really possible to send the blacks back to Africa at the end of slavery? Did any politician ever considered it as an option?
>Wasn't really possible to send the blacks back to Africa at the end of slavery?
No.
>Did any politician ever considered it as an option?
Yes.
Great thread OP, this was totally worth it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia
>>1386090
>Wasn't really possible to send the blacks back to Africa at the end of slavery?
If there is a will there is a way, they got them over didn't they?
What went wrong?
winter
red army was bigger than wehrmacht and had burger support
also german supply lines were too long
>>1386073
the front and supply lines get stretched as fuck -> blitzkrieg/schwerpunkt is completely ineffective and then simply the much bigger capabilities of the soviets+lendlease to put units on the field wins the war
Why are countries today so gay compared their historical masculine civilizations
>>1385836
Have you read anything from that period bro.
Apollo and Heracles both had boyfriends and I am literally only through the first lineage of Apollodorus' library.
>>1385845
Ancient Greece
>Had the best military
>Had great architecture
>Had very good knowledge in science
>Had very interesting mythology
Greece today
>Full of hairy fucks who watch football
Because we've replaced our warrior ethic with Christian empathy, which wasn't just added to Western thought, but completely replaced it
You cannot have forgiveness without revenge. One is meaningless without the other
How does chomsky even get away with calling himself a communist? All he does is bitch about the US and push for more welfare state. I never once hear him pushing for land redistribution or workers owning the means of production, he's a god damn millionaire it would take a couple of hours for him to make a worker's cooperative but he doesn't give a shit
Worse he apologizes for dictators in between and US bashing, I mean even US was closer to communism than USSR because the workers didn't own anything. Chomsky is basically just an edgier bill mahr and a better paid one
He doesn't call himself a communist and his idea of libertarian socialism isn't even Marxist.
making a cooperative in capitalism will not push society towards communism though, so that's why he doesn't create one.
he pushes for the welfare state since that's better for the worker's self interest than a lack of a welfare state. i agree he's a little moderate, but i don't think much of what he says is in contradiction with communist ideology.
Chomsky is a quintessentially American thinker. For all his US-bashing, he's a fundamental part of its intellectual and political establishment. It's because he's more concerned with practice than with the correctness of his ideology that he seems so inconsistent. Also, this practice must be divorced from actual historical, social, and philosophical concerns. It's why he had such a hard time debating Foucault. Foucault was the much more consistent and incisive of his critiques of power and the constructions of the idea of human nature. Chomsky just wanted to know which causes to support, and always has.
Is this picture real? Was Hitler in contact with alien civilization?
>>1385316
Yes and yes.
yeah shit was cash
>>1385316
I recommend sleep and more productive and meaningful questions in the morning.
And as always, thank you for shitposting on 4chan
What exactly led to the Roman civilization's extraordinary durability, even discounting the Byzantine portion?
They weren't an Ancient people, by the standard of the time or in possession of a wealth of natural resources; they were surrounded on both sides by much superior peoples; and anything they had, they appropriated from someone who had it longer.
By all counts, they should have fallen with the litany of other Italic tribesmen before them to the Greek, Etruscan, or Phonetician powers, yet they put all of them under the yoke and lasted as a civilization for over 1000 years, despite numerous bad rulers, political upheavals, and horrific invasions.
Hijacking this thread to request any sources, historical or otherwise, on roman architecture and construction both domestic and military.
>>1385083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd3MJPHaotQ&list=PLBCB3059E45654BCE&index=1
?????
>>1385089
Thanks
What can /his/ teach me about the Dahomey Amazons?
>>1384758
Who gives a shit about spear chucking sheboons
>>1384838
Kill yourself, ignorant shit
>>1384838
Thanks for contributing with this insightful post
You can continue this line of thought on /b/ and /pol/
Can a person be a proper Christian while respecting religious diversity?
>>1384721
Maybe. One can respect the devotion and self discipline of certain people while holding that the religion is false.
However it is proper that he should tolerate the religion, if it doesnt do any harm.
If you believe people who aren't in your religion are going to hell and yet don't try your hardest to convert them aren't you a horrible, horrible person?
Today? Yes
Yesterday? No