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.
You think Musk, the transhumanist guy who dressed as Satan's champion and the son of May Musk who is a known witch, is Christian? LOL
Dude doesn't know the difference between mining rigs and server nodes but is here to argue about BTC and cryptocurrency.
What this actually shows is the enormous amount of investment behind BTC both in electricity and technology and that both public and private institutions take it seriously enough to invest in it.
Read the BTC Standard - you have nothing to loose. It's the same as atheists reading the Bible. If you're so convinced in your position, read what the opposite side has to say.
Do some actual research into history. The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE made Nicene Christianity the official religion of Rome, and the only legal one, upon threat of punishment. Check out https://youtu.be/WkCFJC_cCWg?si=MlGe4Wrj4B7fymSa.
Outlawing and prosecuting heretics is not the same as force converting people to Christianity. The purpose of the edict was to preserve Christianity and go after sectarians, not to baptize pagans by coercion. Theodosius ramped up anti-pagan legislation too and went after their practices and temples but didn't force them to convert.
See, while you say that "Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice...", the truth is that it has been the Christian practice at times whether you like that or not. Check out about the Albigensian Crusade (https://www.cathar.info/cathar_wars.htm#crusade), they killed the Cathars because they wouldn't convert.
Crusades are Rome's thing and we don't consider Rome to be part of the Church after 1054. But there were similar heretical sects which were politicized and rebelled (they were proto-commies denying private property and monogamy) in the East like the Bogomils and they had to be dealt with by force because they terrorized the locals. In general, in a Christian societies heretics were seen as dangerous - much like terrorists are seen by the regime of today.
In today's society, many people are rejecting Christianity because of the fruits of Christians.
What are the fruits of Christians? The creation of civilized society built around long-lasting tradition, community, social cohesion and shared values?
The phrase there's no hate like Christian love is a testament to glaring issues with Christianity. Rabbis and Freemason goons? What are you talking about? Christianity has completely failed to produce some kind of super awesome society to live in and it has had nation after nation to succeed in.
It literally produced the longest lasting empire in history - the Byzantine empire. I'm not sure how you'd define "super awesome" society but it definitely doesn't sound like you apply some objective standard to this and it's all based on your subjective ideas of what such society looks like.
Even with the vast majority of national leadership being Christians for the history of the nation, Christians aren't happy with Christian rule.
How did you determine that? Such a bizarre sweeping claim. How much do you know about the history of Christian monarchies?
I find it ironic that Christians bash Gnostics about how only they have some special knowledge by which they're saved when Christians are the ones professing to have special knowledge of a dying and resurrecting Jesus-God by which they're saved. Doesn't your Church claim to be the only ones in the world with the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things?
There's a difference between esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Christianity is the latter - everyone can come and see what it's all about and is welcome in the Church. There are no secret initiations and secret knowledge. Epistemically Christians profess knowledge about their faith through divine revelation that is deposited in the Church and not by personal enlightenment achieved through mystical experience leading to gnosis, which is the be all end all of gnosticism (hence the name). It's glorified folder chasing and special pleading shrouded in secrecy. But it all boils down to self-worship and rejection of outside authority and that's where its appeal lies (screw the Church, tradition, mainline history - I'll make my own system instead).
Based from here to eternity.
You think forced conversions is a good thing? You think killing off your religious opposition is a good thing?
I'll take things that never happened for 500 hundred, Alex.
Compulsory conversion is generally not a Christian practice because the teachings of the Church hold that people have free will and come to God willingly. Historically this happened mostly under Justinian in parts of Asia Minor and Africa but it was the exception. You're mistaking Christianity for Islam.
The reality of how Rome (and other nations) was converted follows the model Outlined in the OT - the head of the family (patriarch) converts and so does his entire household - wife, children, relatives and subordinates (see Abraham). Likewise, no one forced Christianity on the masses. It was a process that starts with the conversion of the elites and aristocracy and trickles down to the population at large because society was strictly hierarchical back then and people were dependent and infuenced by those above them socially. Thus Constantine's mother Helen converted him, and the aristocracy was influenced by his conversion and followed suite.
But as you said you can tell a tree by its fruits and many people converted to Christianity because they saw its fruits. Even Julian the Apostate who hated Christ with a passion wrote that Christians were outdoing pagans in charity (it's the same today of cours - Christians are the most charitable group in every society).
I bet it was rabbis and their freemasonic goons who spread that disinformation.
You can tell a tree by the fruits it produces, and the Church you hold in high esteem was producing some really crappy fruit force converting people and killing off the opposition. Obviously not a sacred divine institution.
Where do you get the standard for judging that from? As I already told you, Rome killed its opposition too, yet you brushed it aside.
I'm sorry dude, I can't deal with this gnostic idiocy. I just addressed the Ebonite heresy in the other thread and here you come with the same shit again... I don't see a point in arguing. I made my case.
Yes, go through this TAG argument. You brought it up as a flex, so lets see what you have. I'm familiar with philosophy, apologetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Are you?
Like hell you are. I can tell how well versed you are in epistemology based on the arguments you make. You literally believe a 4th c. sect that completely distorts the teachings of the early Church to hold authority over what Jesus was about even though they basically do fanfic of Scripture and reject the tradition itself. Why don't you read what St. Irenaeus wrote about them? Or was he part of the conspiracy to push Christianity on everyone (even though at his time the Church was insignificant and prosecuted by both romans and jews)?
You're mad that Roman emperors became Christian and changed the official religion of the Empire from pagan cults to Christianity. "But they forced them!" Cry me a river. Go read what Nero, Diocletian and Julian did to the Christians who rejected the cults. Oh, but I bet that particular history is made up by the Church and pagan Romans loved their Christian neighbors and brought them blankies and hot cocoa.
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.