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
@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.
@shortstories @SilentSeeker This is the key critical Magisterial difference between Orthodoxy, and everything else.
@shortstories @SilentSeeker By this unique key Magisterial difference, do the Orthodox understand the “Priesthood of All Believers” - and how all Orthodox, Clergy or Laity, are able to learn The Voice of The Master.
@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.
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Not just in some vague hazy way; like “he’s with God” — yeah, Orthodox teaching authority depends directly upon it.
@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
So if what you are saying is true it would imply to me that we can not determine if how the bishops voted in an ecumenical council was correct or not until after they bishops died because we do not know if the bishops were glorified saints or not until after they died?
Why would you need the hierchical structure couldn't you just study the meetings of the previous councils without joining the hierchical structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church
@shortstories @SilentSeeker The Clerical Hierarchy is responsible not merely for teaching - but for administering the Holy Mysteries (aka Sacraments, they’re called in The West). Thus has been ordained by Lord Jesus Himself
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
If there is a priesthood of all believers then all believers can administer sacraments as priests without need for a hierarchical structure
@shortstories @SilentSeeker We don’t interpret it that way; different stations, different roles.
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Women can’t be priests, either. Nothing wrong with exclusive roles, my man.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
So you believe in the priesthood of all believers except female believers or the priesthood of all believers who are male which might be stricter if you rule out Eunuchs and or certain rare genetic phenotypes
Intersex are not an additional biological gender they are just individuals whose gender is hard to guess correctly from physical appearance but there miht be neuters and maybe less than 1 in a billion "true hermaphrodites"
@shortstories @SilentSeeker In “Priesthood of All Believers”, there exist specific, exclusive roles - but also some universally applicable ones. I’m not sure I understand why this would be especially remarkable.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Because a priesthood is a set of priests
If someone is not a priest then they are not part of a priesthood
If there are women that are believers but not priests then it is the priesthood of some believers but not all believers
@shortstories @SilentSeeker Yeah I think the point is that it’s meant in Orthodoxy in the broader sense; that everyone is responsible for The Faith; it’s not just the Bishops’ job, or the Deacons or the Lay. Everyone Baptized shares responsibility
@shortstories @SilentSeeker You seem to be hearing me say “the authority rests on the Bishops”. That’s not what I’m saying. The authority rests on the Holy Tradition, as preserved by The Saints. Bishops have virtually zero authority, apart from this Tradition.
Bishops serve a specific role in The Church during their lives. But they’re not inerrant or infallible. We regard The Saints of The Church in history as having the true Magisterial authority. Some, but by no means all, of these Saints, were Bishops.
@KingOfWhiteAmerica @SilentSeeker
Presuming the character called God in rhe Old and New Testament really existed
I would be interested in getting a historic record of the exact words that God spoke to people possibly including other sources than the Bible but I know of no proof that the character called God in the Bible said anything which the bishops had access to that was not in the Old or New Testament
@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?