I hope to see humanities departments removed from Universities and people learning humanities from uncensored self published sources instead
This person mentioned how seminaries use statements of faith to censor academics
I hope seminaries get shut down also and people post self published uncensored religious studies instead also
@shortstories He's trying to pretend, that his faith based knowledge is critical thinking. He also intentionally misrepresenting Theology by complaining, that it's not selfcritical enough to push people towards his version of faith.
Also, just the idea that theology is the science of morality is an inaccurate statement. Morality is studied by psychology.
So long story short: He just selling his bible course and trying to do so by running a smear campaing against actual higher education.
Even if this guy is scamming people both seminaries and secular universities are also scamming people
@shortstories @SilentSeeker By this point I see nothing wrong with smear campaigning against the sheer faggotry parading itself about as “higher education”.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories The source material is the problem here. There's only so many interpretations you can extract from a book. And this is a problem for other religions too. Especially, because religion itself can't prove anything. They always depended on other sciences to give them new ideas, prove and disprove them. So, at the end, I think the person is more at fault here, than the study itself. It's hard to discover something new at this point in an ancient material.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories People die, and Traditions must be studied generation after generation to keep them alive.
What you’re proposing is the death of an academic Tradition
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Constantine changed the tradition and people keep rediscovering the same ancient truths that were taught before constantine only to be censored by the academic instituitions that pass on constantine's new version generation after generation
What is constantine's new version
Constantine's new version is that the government has the right to create new religious traditions and claim the new traditjons were the original
1 of 2
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Constantine made the claim that the government determines the truth by having the government appoint a group of religious officials to vote what the religion will be and then having the government enforce their vote as the state religion
2 of 2
@shortstories @SilentSeeker What gives you that idea ?
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Are you denying that constantine used his position as a government official to order people to vote on what Christianity teaches multiple centuries after Christianity already existed
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Well I’m Orthodox so, yes; that’s not at all how it went down 😄
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Does the Orthodox Church have a committee to vote on what real christianity teaches?
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Orthodox neither believe the Deposit of Faith is a matter of voting, nor that “voting on what Christianity teaches” is what happened at Nicaea
@shortstories @SilentSeeker I can’t make you not believe DaVinci Code tier blackwash propaganda, but you probably should understand Traditional Christians generally deny the whole narrative framing you’re leaning into
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
So an ecumenical council could vote on something and that something could be a true statement but the council could vote that statement as false and a council could vote that a false statement is true
because you agree that we do not know what is true based on how councils vote
So the ecumenical councils accepted as legitimate by the Eastern Orthodox Church could have made factually incorrect statements
@shortstories @SilentSeeker If The Church were merely some human corporate endeavor, then sure; there’s no guarantee that any old group of dudes arranged hierarchically identically to the Ekklesia would be guaranteed to vote perfectly in line with the Objective Factual Truth.
That established, Traditional Christians believe The Church is the literal Body of Christ on Earth, indwelt personally by God the Holy Spirit; and as such is Divinely Inspired away from any and all doctrinal error.
As stated before, I can’t make you not believe blackwash propaganda; but you should probably understand the Traditional Christian Ecclesiology affirms the basic inerrancy of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Therefore, independently of whatever you might think transpired those days at Nicaea, it is Traditionally believed to have transpired under the deliberate auspices of God the Holy Spirit.
The way this looks to us is this; Emperor Constantine was a recent-ish convert to Christianity, as the Arian heresy began assailing the equanimity of The Church with great hostility - much civil strife. In order to settle the issue to restore peace in his realm, he ordered a Church Council involving every Bishop from around the world, in order to determine for himself and all Christendom what the True Traditional Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ had actually been since Apostolic times. Arian heretics were of course claiming theirs was “the Original”, and had amassed so many followers - it prompted Constantine to call the Bishops in from all around the entire world.
Because these Bishops were often enough from distant lands, Catholicity would suggest they’d be less likely to have fallen under the sway of popular local trends. The Consensus of all the Bishops in the World would likely settle the issue, Constantine reasoned. He was not wrong. It became rapidly apparent that the Full Divinity of Christ was what they’d received through Tradition. So it was ratified in Council in the presence of the Roman Emperor and all Bishops present, the intention being to cement it into Christian Officialdom.
Can’t make other people believe this, but it is what I believe; and it makes much better sense of everything imo than the DaVinci Code sensationalist pulp.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
How does one know which ecumenical council votes also certified statements to be true with 100% certainty and which ecumenical council votes are not legitimate after the vote that constantine ordered?
When did Jesus tell people that in the future people should vote on the meaning of his words in ecumenical councils?
How does one know which ecumenical council votes also certified statements to be true with 100% certainty and which ecumenical council votes are not legitimate after the vote that constantine ordered?
This is a valid question; the minutes and proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils themselves are a matter of Church and Public Record, and are a significant and central facet of what it means when one claims to study Church History. And one is free to do so; but understandably, the appropriate application of this historical study is the purview of the current living Bishops in the Church; as they’re tasked with Church governance and magisterium. It’s literally the Church’s business to understand the Church’s own history, believe it or not.
The Ratification of a given Ecumenical Council, historically, was the purview of the next Ecumenical Council. In their minutes, they go over the previous Whole Church Council, see if it’s proven true, and it becomes Ecumenical after that. All of these matters conducted in Faith that these means were and are transpiring under the auspices of The Holy Spirit - in Whom we trust to prevent the aforementioned Ratification if anything is amiss, in conjunction of course with the sincere best efforts of the College of Bishops.
Lord Jesus issued the Apostolic Mandate in Matthew 16:18:
“He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
~ Matthew 16:15-19
While Roman Catholics interpret this as singling out St. Peter as the Absolute Supreme Authority over the Entire Universe, we Orthodox believe this mandate applies equally unto all Right-Believing Bishops - for many reasons not just contrarian.
It is on this specific mandate that we believe in the God-Given Authority of Right Believing Bishops to shepherd The Church, according as they’ve received from their predecessors. We trust God The Holy Spirit has preserved this mission on earth.
Long story short; in Orthodoxy, we believe The Church is the Standard of Inerrancy - in contrast with Protestants who put “The Bible” in that position. While we believe the Bible is also inerrant, it is because it is The Church’s Scriptures that it is.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Starting with the untested assumption that the Bible is infallible or inerrant is a violation of Deuteronomy 18 which demands that prophets be tested. The Bible demands that you use historical knowkedge from sources outside the Bible to reject prophets who claim to speak for God who are mentioned inside the Bible if what they say came to pass in the name of God did not turn out to be true
Protesrants who say the Bible is the final authority are wrong
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Agreed; I ”tested” Sola Scriptura for about three years, and found no example of a community built around it that came anywhere near to the coherence I‘d soon find in Orthodoxy.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
I am not saying we should assume both the Bible and the Bishops have some special authority as our foundation but we should assume neither the Bible nor the Bishops have a special authoriry
If God always spoke factually accurate information then what has authority are the words God said and not the Bible
The Bible would merely be a history book containing God's words
The authority would rest on God's words and not the entire book if God is akways truthful
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Do you claim that God speaks directly to the bishops and tells them exact words in the same way that God gave exact words that he said to the Old Testament prophets?
@shortstories @SilentSeeker In the event God “speaks directly to the Bishop” (which I’m neither confirming nor denying), He isn’t going to tell them anything that He hasn’t already told The Saints — unless if possible, after said Bishop’s bodily death, the Church recognizes them as Glorified Saints, and confirms they have indeed survived death itself, and are alive and well in the Presence of God; at which point it may be discovered the newly Glorified Saint wrote something specific to our era that hadn’t been said, before.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Unless God soeaks directly to the bishops, I see no evidence that the bishops have an infallible source of information to confirm that their interpretation of the same data about God that other people have access to is any better than anyone else's interpretation of the same data
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Right; that’s addressed in what I just said. The True Orthodox Magisterial authority is preserved and transmitted through the Lives of the Glorified Saints. It’s not up to the Bishops in this earthly life to decide what’s true and what’s not; only to rightly divide what we’ve received.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
So if the bishops have the same data about the history of the lives of the saints as you do then why would you need the bishops to conclude what claims are true or untrue when you can study the lives of the saints yourself and use your own mind to analyse the data instead of just assuming the bishops analysis of the data in ecumenical council votes is always correct
@shortstories @SilentSeeker The Ecumenical Councils have been Ratified by The Church, and have Magisterial authority - becoming thereby an “Icon” of the Deposit of Faith. Councils were held between Bishops alive at the time - all those Bishops are now no longer among the Earthly-living. Some of them are Saints - through whom we learn about the Councils themselves. They are now alive with God in God’s Presence.
Today’s Bishops in the flesh are now in the same roles, as those earlier ones were then. If any of today’s Bishops will become Glorified Saints, we won’t know about it until long after they die. Eventually, what they’re doing now, will be Church History, just like it always was. Not all are Saints, some might be. Some Layfolk might be as well. Some Monastics perhaps. But we won’t know that until after we die.
@shortstories @SilentSeeker We actually believe the Saints are alive after they die, in case you missed that. It’s critical to the Orthodox take on The Faith, and Magisterial authority.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Let's say the bishops are alive after they died but they still have a dead body
You could not communicate with them without violating the Old Testament commands not to communicate with the dead, which I presume means not to communicate with anyone whose physucal body is dead
If you assume Samuel was a saint Saul got in trouble for trying to communicate with him after his body was dead even if his soul or spirit or mind was alive in an afterlife
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Yeah we have an entire Reliquary Tradition. As pertains to our Earthly bodies, the aim of this life is to leave Holy Relics, for the edification of the Faithful.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
It seems to me that this entire reliquary system is problematic according to old testament standarss if it is used to try to communicate with the dead and receive new messages from the dead that they said after their body died
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Yeah I think you’re thinking about mediums and necromancy. The Reliquary Tradition is like the Iconographic Tradition; Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. OT rules for Israel have been completed in Christ Jesus - Who has a better Covenant with His Church.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
It sounds to me like the Eastern Eastern Orthodox might be using mediums and necromancy to try to get messages from the saints after they die or would these only be things they said or wrote before dying that you classify as correct because a saint said it that you only know is a saint after they die? But how would you infallibly know which dead people were saints without other dead saints confirming they are saints?
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Glorification is this whole big, long “process”; in Orthodoxy it’s less precisely spelled-out than it is in Papal Christianity, but the idea is the objective verification by an entire Church that So-and-So has given us every reason to believe they’re still alive. Honestly it’s as unique as every Saint. Things like prayers answered in very specific, personal ways, miraculous healings or other signs, Relics with their own associated miracles etc etc … and finally after the Synod of Bishops agrees and the Layfolk say “Amen”, the Glorification of the Newly Glorified Saint So-and-So is its own Church celebration.
It’s not necromancy if the person you’re talking to is still alive.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
So if you are not going to classify talking to people who have dead bodies aw necromancy then how would one break the rule prohibiting necromancy?
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Well, not everyone survives death, obviously 😆
@shortstories @SilentSeeker In Orthodoxy, Saints’ Glorification is an “official” recognition of an objective reality. They are actually alive in God, and have no trouble seeing to it that the Faithful on Earth are made aware of the fact.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Why are there so many Atheists and Buddhists if people with glorified bodies can make everyone aware that they have been resurrected so easily with so little reason for doubt?
@shortstories @SilentSeeker I think I may have been less than clear; those who died and are now Glorified Saints haven’t received Glorified bodies yet. That’s after the Great and Terrible Day of The Lord. Nevertheless, history is absolutely jam-packed with many miraculous things. Honestly I can’t tell you exactly why so many still doubt. I remember I really resented the idea of eternal accountability, and didn’t like how I didn’t have a choice in the matter. Admitting God would mean accepting these sorts of things.
Lord Jesus in the Gospels consistently refuses to perform miracles for stubborn doubters. The fact that largely remains true is not at all inconsistent with what we would expect from His narrative. He does very often give people entire lives of several decades, and even up to a century in some instances, to decide for themselves whether to believe Him and His Church in history.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories No offence, but SS is right here, if you try to resolve this question with pure logic. Your explanation make sense within the framework of your religion, but if you compare the practices to cult behaviours, then you'll walk away with some uncomfortable realisations. The Ortodox system just filter out the voices, that reinforce it's internal stability.
SS as a priest in your system wouldn't be saintified, despite making good universal observations.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories There's nothing wrong with your religion within it's framework. But this create the problem for you. This is a universal human thinking flaw. Your religion approve or discard works once the person is dead, so they can't protest the decision and their work is judged by it's alignment with the main framework of the religion. This is why people complain about the church edited version of the Bible from. They canonized texts based on the church's needs. 2-4th c AD.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories The New Testament Canon wasn’t a topic of discussion at Nicaea, though. It was about the Divinity of Christ, and setting an agreed-upon date for Pascha. The earliest recorded mention of the Canonical New Testament works was in 367AD in St. Athansios of Alexandria’s Nativity Epistle.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories I won't try to prove, that I know these events better than you. But the overall principals remain true. Within your religions framework a priest can try and game the system for recognition by releasing ultra-conservative works, that reinforce the existing believes. Doing the opposite will likely make you erased. Science function the opposite way. It rewards outside the box thinking, especially, if proven right.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories It doesn’t matter to me if you know more historical details 😆 Orthodox simply don’t accept the notion that St. Constantine somehow successfully hijacked the Body of Christ for worldly power - and therefore aren’t going to subscribe to goofy slanted narratives trying to prove that 😂
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories Your system say, that everything is done according to God's will. But God's will is transmitted to us through the priests. And the priests, who served the collective well will become immortalised after death, when they become part of God and in essence God's will. Do you see the circular, self reinforcing logic here?
@SilentSeeker @shortstories Every thing that exists, and every event that transpires, is/happens according either to the Will, or otherwise the permission, of the Almighty God. And this holds and has held and will forever hold; it is an eternal and unchanging fact of absolutely universal scope and applicability.
Considering we believe that, it’s reasonable to assume our worldview will conform to that presupposition.
Given the objective Truth of the above, how could any true statement not, ultimately, be “circular” and “self-reinforcing” ?
You might imagine you’re onto something existing/transpiring “outside this logical framework”, but from our perspective, such an idea is ridiculous at best. And if our presupposition is objectively True, it actually really is absurd.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories Unfortunately we can't confirm this, because God don't speak to us directly. In this aspect, Judaism's explanation on God's nature is superior. They say, that you can get closer to God by studying the Torah and God's creation (the world). The Orthodox mentality is more similar to Islam, where everything is based on the Quran and what Mohammed may or may not said. Although Islam is even more flawed, since the Quran is the smallest of the 3 Holy Books here.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories What can’t we confirm ?
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories We can't confirm, that the world is developing/working/existing according to a Superiour Being's Will. Unless you go with Deist's world view, where God created the universe and then just sat back to watch it work.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories I can absolutely confirm that the Almighty God, about Whom I just poasted, either exists or does not exist.
All that you’ve said since, amounts to you really really hoping such a God does not exist. It’s extremely and incredibly obvious to me that’s the case, simply by sheer logic.
its like how some people are retarded and can't imagine a realistic apple in their mind
its best not to try with these closed minded morons
>i need proof
the dip shits say
you wont get it, and that's what faith is about
@dictatordave @SilentSeeker @shortstories It‘s utterly bonkers to me seeing how much Faith people pour into their doubt.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories @dictatordave Faith is what ever works for the person. Other religions usually describe every other religion outside their own the same way. "You have great faith in being wrong."
@dictatordave @SilentSeeker @shortstories The sheer terror of acknowledging even the possibility of the truly Almighty God, without the Will or permission of Whom nothing exists and nothing happens.
literally all these idiots who are too dumb to fathom a white ideal like faith
@dictatordave @SilentSeeker @shortstories Endless little leaps and feints and subject changes.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories @dictatordave I tried to challenge your system from within. You rejected it, saying that everything can be displayed as circular logic.
I brought in other religions to show a pattern. You rejected it saying, that I'm changing the subject.
DD here using a strawman argument. I never said, that your belief don't make sense. I actually started by saying, that it does within your framework.
I never said anything about my creation believes. I just referenced others.
you aren't the smartest person in the room, you aren't even smarter than the average pavement ape, and you know it, which is why you lash out like a retard at other people who are of a completely higher nature than you
here's a clue, stop being an emulation of a gen x faggot and grow up
@dictatordave @shortstories @KingOfWhiteAmerica You really made a convincing argument here by throwing insults and profanities at me. Maybe you should look into mirror.
maybe you should look into a mirror and consider hanging yourself
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories I'm personally indifferent to the existence of God/Gods/Spirits/Demons/Angels, ect. But through out history, in every culture, the supernatural and paranormal always existed in the unknown. Science currently looking for God in Quantum Mechanics.
@SilentSeeker @KingOfWhiteAmerica
It seems to me like acts of evil are done on a worldwide scale in such a coordinated manner to suggest some being or beings exists that are similar to how many religions describe Satan, Demons or Devils which might have different names in other religions or myths
If there are not one or more beings with supernatural, paranormal or miraculous power then how come these beings associated with coordinated acts of evil have not achieved total victory?
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
It does not matter what books were voted on because you can look at each of the books in the Bible yourself or their translations and decide what you want to learn from them yourself
Books in the New Testament that mention Jesus Christ are coincidentally the oldest books I know of based on the dates mainstream historians list that describe information about Jesus Christ so to me they would seem more relevant than later books about Jesus not because of a vote
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Now maybe my conclusion about the date ramge of the New Testament books is wrong because maybe me putting faith in mainstream historians runs into the same problem as people putting faith in a council that voted on books
But my conclusion is different because I am open to the possibility that the mainstream historians could be wrong and I do not conclude that the mainstream historians date is infallibly correct because of consensus
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
My point is that although I am open to hearing the ideas of a consensus is at the end of the day I do not assume the consensus is infalliblr and can try to think about what I read for myself
The problem I have which constantine is not about the books of the Bible but about how I believe he fundamentally changed the religion that Jesus taught from being about moral principles as a higher authority than government to human consensus being the final authority
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Obviously it’s not about it being a consensus — but the literal Body of Christ. If you don’t believe the Traditional Ecclesiology they clearly aren’t going to come across as anything otherworldly; they’re just a normal group of dudes with an occasional Saint in among them here or there.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories And yeah, by all means don’t let me stop you from Sciencing yourself purple; knock yourself out 🎉
I personally rather like authentic Science - I’d be stoked to hear if you find any 🧠
@SilentSeeker @shortstories The idea that St. Constantine “picked which NT books were Biblical” doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Hammering out an exact Canon wasn’t really much of a priority, as Local Churches were always more concerned with Holy Tradition, than precise Biblical Canonicity. The whole debate really only matters anyway if one is insisting upon Sola Scriptura. They’re the Church’s Scriptures - and weren’t ever intended to be sundered from the Tradition from whence they sprang.
@SilentSeeker @shortstories Thank you for reaching out; I’m not clear either on what SS is “right” about, nor any point on which I’m claiming SS is “wrong”. Please feel free to shine some light on that as I didn’t get the connection between these points, and what you wrote.