I know about castratos. I'm a music composition major. What does people doing something stupid in history has to do with today? Have you heard of eunuchs? This was done way before the castrati and it has nothing to do with trans. Nobody was confused about the sex of these people and they didn't claim to become women. This is retarded.
It's simple - islamisation takes precedence. Their anti-natalist agenda is already doing great given that all civilized countries are below replacment.
Yes I would rather people have personal freedom like the freedom of religion and speech, and people be able to do what they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others.
Oh, you're libertarian, cool. Why should people care about NAP? What's wrong with violating the rights of others, given that rights themselves don't exist ontologically but are made up social constructs that are subject to change? Is this like your personal preference or is it objectively true that rights should be respected?
You still haven't answered the elephant in the room. Would you kill me in the name of your God if you could legally get away with it?
Wtf does that mean? I wont kill you without good reason of course.
Dude, I've had this argument hundreds of times including on this forum. I'm not in the mood for writing apologetic arguments that will be rejected on principle. It's not worth the investment. Information is out there, I'm not going to say something new. Believe what you want.
Did I address any point of your OP? I'm addressing your comments on meta stuff.
Things are going great in the manner that your Church can't play tyrant over people anymore. Better to have issues and strife and personal religious freedom than live in luxury and be slaves of your cult.
Translation: I'd rather have illuminists talmudic child fuckers who push marxism, feminism and skittles and want to depop, poison and enslave everyone under an one world technocratic government than a Christian monarchy built around Christian values where usury and debt slavery is forbidden, 30% of women are not social media prostitutes and people who believe there are more than two sexes or that pee-pees going into poo-poos is love go to the madhouse (or rather to a monastery to get healed).
Yes. I know that.
Sure thing. If you were good faith, you'd look up an Orthodox source on the matter and not someone who seeks to strawman and undermine the position like you do. You presuppose the Church is corrupt and they made shit up as part of a huge conspiracy. Everything you read will be interpreted through that lens and you twist everything you read to fit your narrative. There's no point in arguing with you.
They're encouraging Islam and arab immigration as fabian socialist have always done. The government itself is malthusian so it's antinatalist. This is basic stuff but you're not interested in reality.
Yes, he's definitely going against Christians, especially those who claim to be the rightful Church.
I'm not bothered at all. I'm just exposing your suspicious activity.
I posted it because you're Orthodox and I thought it would annoy you if I put up how the Orthodox church operates.
You mean I'd be annoyed at idiot Protestant strawmen of what the Church teaches? Not in the slightest. I won't even engage with this stuff.
The conspiracy is that your beloved Church conspired together to gain control over people through spiritual and political means by proclaiming themselves as some kind of divine authority bearing the word of God. That's a pretty big conspiracy. People should hear about how your group operates and learn the tactics to avoid being brainwashed by them or other groups doing similar stuff.
Well, now that the Church is not in control and governments are secular things must be going great in the NWO, right?
Since you're making the story up he might be an alien from Sirius. Your imagination is the limit.
There was no Vatican at his time and neither was there Roman Catholicism. Rulers at that time may have burned and banned books but they also didn't have pride parades, they didn't transitioned their children and weren't getting cucked by invading muslims. I don't think people living today are in a position to criticize those living in the Middle Ages about any of this stuff.
Idk you tell me - is there a BTC national debt that's owed to the exchanges and the miners of BTC?
Shii.....
You're not very bright if you think the current economy of ANY modern country can function on barter. Do you know the complex production process that goes behind making every single item you use in your day to day? And that's just the production side. There's a reason why money was invented thousands of years ago, you absolute tool.
What's with the attacks against Orthodoxy all of a sudden? All this came shortly after the neocons like Rep. Joe Wilson went against it publicly for being tied to Russian espionage: https://www.christianpost.com/news/gop-lawmaker-faces-backlash-over-comment-about-orthodox-churches.html
How come you joined a year ago, sat on it with zero activity, and started spamming this forum 2 days ago, shill?
Let's cut to the chase here, because it's not a theology forum but a conspiracy one.
In that first paragraph you're stating that your Church was the Roman government, and that it was right to force convert people and persecute them. You don't have any issue with forced conversions or persecution of those you view as heretics do you? Laws of logic based on what standard? What you determine to be God's standards?... As determined by the books your Church wrote and edited? As determined by the standards your Church's traditions? Your basis of logic is subjective and doesn't come from God, but man. Whatever happened to loving one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and living in peace with all people (Romans 12:18)? Where does it say in the Bible to persecute those you view as heretics?
Where? I never said the Church was the Roman government. The government and the Church were two institutions with different roles in Byzantium. The Church never deals with state matters, law and enforcement. What I said was that those who opposed the teachings of the Church which is the ultimate authority on Christian theology, i.e. heretics, were outside of it by definition and not because of some arbitrary law.
Whatever happened to loving one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and living in peace with all people (Romans 12:18)?
Taking quotes out of context and applying them arbitrarily. Loving one's enemies has nothing to do with fighting heretics. Romans 12:18 says live in peace if it's possible which you conveniently omitted to fit your narrative. Peace can never come at the cost of truth and this is why Christianity is not a pacifist religion and will never compromise when it comes to matters of faith. There's a time for war and a time for peace. Christians don't make peace with sin and lies - we have a duty to destroy them and set people free.
Where does it say in the Bible to persecute those you view as heretics?
The Church doesn't persecute heretics. It condemns them and distances themselves from them. It is the government which is influenced by the Church that may decide to enact laws against them, banish or imprison them.
Look at the following differences in how a passage in 1 Peter reads, quoted from https://ebionite.com/BibleCorruption.htm. Notice how the shorter version naturally flows in its train of logic, whereas the version found in Bibles today doesn't logically flow well and advocates for being a complete allegiance to the king.
Ridiculous argument appealing to perception of "flow"? Come on. Again, realize that the NT and Scripture as a whole is holistic - what's said in 1 Peter here is inline with the overall teachings and philosophy of Scripture and tradition. What these ridiculous heretics have to do is to purge every reference to submitting to authority both in the Old and the New Testament which would mean rewriting the whole Bible. It's not just the epistles. Jesus Himself comes not as a rebel king, waging war against the Romans, but as a subject to the Roman law who ultimately urges His disciples to follow to submit to the authority and not interfere with the unjust death sentence He was given. The idiot Ebonites would have to rewrite the whole narrative of the Bible and not just throw away passages which explicitly refer to submitting to authority. This points to a very poor understanding of Scripture not as a whole interdependent system but as a piecemeal collection of texts. This is why forgeries and gnostic fanfic is obvious even without asking the questions like "Where did that text come from and why should we accept it as authoritative".
The claim that the Scriptures were corrupted by the Church that created and transmitted them for nefarious purposes, but a small sectarian group outside of that tradition somehow has the original uncorrupted texts and holds them is stands on no ground. It just fits neatly to the preconceived belief people have that the Church was obviously corrupted because power corrupts.
The problem is that even if I grant you that the Church corrupted the texts, then the Ebonites may also have a corrupted version or they may have still corrupted it themselves, or maybe what we have today from the Ebonite texts, has been corrupted and we don't even know what the original is. Do you see how you apply an ad hoc double standard taking their version at face value while rejecting the Church version? If you were honest, you'd at least stay fully skeptical and say "I can't know which one is true - maybe it's none." The whole reason you latch on to the Ebonites is because you want to undermine the Church, that's my point.
Wtf are you doing calling a man-made institution a divine organization and calling it the body of your God? What kind of logic is that? That kind of talk is a two-way street.
The logic of Scripture itself and the teachings of the Church?
“Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it.” 1 Corinthians 12:27 There are other places too like Romans 12:4, Ephesians 1:22, Colossians 1:18, etc.
You said your Church was the body of Christ, and that you don't consider Rome to be a part of the Church after 1054 CE. So all those people constituting what you view as Roman Catholics constituted what you call your Church in 1053 CE. Then, 1054 CE comes around and poof, they are no longer a part of your Church? If this Church is the body of your God, your God basically got cut in half. If all those people constituting Rome were not a part of your packaged deal in the tensions leading up to 1054, then you know what they say about a house divided against itself.
The schism with Rome wasn't the first time there was a split in the Church. God wasn't cut in half and there weren't two Churches, that's the point. One side became sectarian and the other remained the Church. There may be an argument which side continues to be the Church (the EO or the RC), but it surely is that way because the Church is always one and universal.
So what's your standards for determining what you call the true Church?
Looking back at history - what the early Church was like and what it taught. The Church which continues to be unchanged is the true Church.
You've failed to prove or establish that there even is a true Church so far. It's been claims without evidence at this point. That may be logical to you, but I don't find it convincing.
You not being convinced is not an argument. There's only one true Church according to the Nicene creed which defines what Christianity is. That's the evidence.
So you're saying that God's laws change over time? That he isn't consistent? Read the OT. It obviously endorses slavery.
God's prescriptions to men change over time. His moral law is unchanged. If you are a father, you know that you set different rules to your children when they're 5 and when they're 15. That doesn't mean your morality changed, but that what was appropriate at the time when they were little was no longer appropriate later in life and vice versa. In fact much of the Mosaic law applied to the time and place and the jewish people specifically and was not universal. What's described in the OT was appropriate for the time (it's not chattel slavery btw so there's confusion with the idea of slavery in your head and what is being described). The ancient world was brutal by today's standards and warfare ended with enslavement. Deuteronomy regulates ancient warfare but just like with polygamy, it's not an endorsement - that's your (incorrect) interpretation of the text that you're looking at through a modernist lens (so out of context). In reality, the OT is the most progressive piece of legislation for the time but the irony is people today criticize it for being cruel and savage - it's literally the opposite.
Point to where slavery and polygamy were outlawed in the Bible.
They were not "outlawed" but were deemed inconsistent with the Church's teachings. Here's a close one about slavery:
“…for the sexually immoral, for slave traders (Greek: andrapodistai), and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…”
1 Timothy 1:10
And here monogamy is affirmed:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female… and the two shall become one flesh.”
Matthew 19:4–6
“Because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
1 Corinthians 7:2
In Ephesians 5:25–32 polygamy is implicitly rejected by the imagery of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. The Christian marriage is and always has been monogamous so tradition itself proves it.
You have public debt. $38trils and counting. That's $112K per capita. It's called a debt slave system for a reason.
"But muh imaginary numbers on a screen". That's called reductionism. I already told you your cash is printed pieces of paper with ink and imaginary numbers on it. It's monopoly money. Yet you talk about "working hard" (being a wage slave and a cuck to the system) for it. Does that make sense to you?
You don't understand how money works.
20mil of BTC have already been mined and only 1mil is left. Makes sense that not many people are into the mining business as mining gets progressively less rewarding.
This is why BTC is better than precious metals as money, which can always inflate if new sources are discovered and tapped.
Work for your Fed shekels, goy! Go in debt like a good slave now.
I'm blocking you for being a troll. If you disagreed while making an argument I'd have zero problems with you.
Making a law that every non-Catholic Christian is a heretic and them persecuting them.
Doesn't it make sense to you that anyone who deviates from the faith and away from the Church's teaching is practically setting himself outside the Church and becoming a heretic? That law is called the law of identity and it's one of the laws of logic. What, you expect everyone who splits from the Church to be equally the Church as if there's no standard for determining what the true Church is? If I go to some island and declare a new nation and call it USA would that make sense?
By seeking to preserve Christianity, you mean they were scared their divine institution wouldn't cut it in the market of free ideas.
"Market of free ideas"? Wtf are you using Adam Smith and John Lock's liberal ideas as if any of this makes sense before their time? That's an anachronism. For thousands of years, nobody gave a shit about the free market of ideas before the freemasons took over in the 18c.
So your divine institution can't even keep itself together?
"So you need to fight your enemies who seek to destroy you in order to keep yourself together? How weak are you?" You're so bad faith it's not even funny.
Don't you believe Abraham and the Patriarchs were polygamists? Doesn't seem like God cared squat about polygamy in your sacred texts.
Polygamy was never the ideal. The ideal was monogamy in marriage and that's why God created a man and a woman to become one flesh and not a man and 5 women. The law of the OT was appropriate for the time and it regulated the existing practices of the time including polygamy and slavery. As humanity matured and with God assuming human nature, such practices were abandoned.
Longest lasting empire, but still gone like the rest. Christians had all the power they could desire and still things didn't last.
Every kingdom on Earth has a beginning and an end. The only eternal Kingdom is the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem which is the Church. There's no utopia and no heaven on Earth - this is an antichristian illuminist and talmudic concept.
Look at the statistics of the religious composition of Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive branch. Christians have been in political power for 250 some years and they go on about how persecuted they are. They make up the majority of the population, yet they act like they're the underdogs. Even with Christian rule, Christians aren't happy with the leadership, Congress has horrible ratings, and Christians play like they're under attack.
Sorry to break it to you, but what you have in the US is not Christian rule. It never was. It's a freemasonic liberal democratic rule under republican secularism. This form of government came straight from the Enlightenment and the French revolution (mostly the right side of Parliament there - the girondins). The founding Fathers were revolutionary antimonarchists. In what clown world does the US which is worse than Rome under Nero, Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah together pass for a Christian country? That's absolutely ridiculous.
The US is not even pagan like Ancient Greece - they were way more virtuous. Today it's outright antichristian in the most blatant way. Do you really think that just because someone stamps a marketing label on something, it becomes that thing? Is this why MAGAtards believe Trump is a Christian?
Would you prefer America be a religious monarchy?
I would, but that's not happening with today's society. Also I'm not an American and my country was a monarchy less than 100 years ago. In the future if more people turn to God it would make sense for them to organize themselves in a Christian monarchy but it's not something that can be forced from the top. This is the model of the OT too - the jewish people asked God for a king and a king, Saul, was given to them.
Why do I even bother with your retarded ass? Fuck off, I'm blocking you. I tried reasoning but you're an idiot troll.
Everyone burned and banned books historically. Do you know what books were burned and why they were burned? Burning dangerous and degenerate books is a good thing. That's one of the few things I applaud the nazis for doing, even though it's blown out of proportion and was a one time thing done by student movements and not sanctioned by the party.
Imagine a world were Das Kapital or some other degenerate influential book was burned and never got to the public? "But muh freedom of speech!" Stfu.
Have you noticed how every time "democracy" is exported to a third world country, it inevitably leads to a drop in population growth? Same thing will eventually happen to muslims imported to first world countries. UK won't become an Islamic state and the muslims there won't become englishmen. It's a dialectic that will bring about a synthesis - the new world citizen, who in Count Coudenhove-Kalergi's words will be neither white, nor black but a mongrel race.