I don't believe so, I use just-war doctrine.
That's begging the question how do you determine what aggression is just. Scripture and Church history give examples of aggression being justified and God Himself engages in it (OT is full of it, but also Jesus whipping the crap out of the moneylenders).
I've never been able to dredge up support for Chrysostom, having the same feelings about him as you have about Augustine, and now you tell me he's a liar too. Not surprising. I'm comfortable with my selection of fathers.
A liar? Gtfo dude. I don't base my position on vibes so don't give me that. Go collect Church fathers as if they're pokemons. What's your standard for discerning which father is reliable? Your personal judgment? Makes sense when you're your own Pope.
Btw no Church father teaches that lying is not a sin but that it could be justified under some circumstances. Same goes for killing. St. Paisios reiterates the patristic position.
I remain subject to my own conscience that I do not permit deception at all even as I am not always called to tell everyone everything.
You do you, it's not as if your bound to any position. Tomorrow you may wake up with a different feeling and go off it. But if I were to use your standard and go off my feeling, I'd not trust a single word you write here. You give me a very slimy and deceitful vibe. I sense you're posing as something you're not.
I meant the 10 commandments. For example do you think you ought to honor your parents if they are complete degenerates who treat you and your family like trash for no good reason? You're supposed to apply discernment and not follow the commandments like a freaking robot. God endowed man with reason and we should use it appropriately.
And it's not invalid. Why do you believe they're not confusing?
You're making the positive claim - what makes them confusing? Give an example how any of the above is confusing? If you lie to a demon to save the life of some innocent man is that bringing confusion? You see, this is why commandments cant be taken as universal maxims but should be examined case by case with wisdom. This is Kant's categorical imperative level idiocy.
Of course, reason alone is not enough and we're not rationalists or pragmatists. If a person is spiritually mature, if he partakes in the divine sacraments and follows the teachings of the Church and the advice of his spiritual father, then it gets much easier to discern.
PS: On the funny side, my favorite command is "Thou shall not gang bang". On a more serious side, genocide is a modern concept. I mean, what constitutes a genocide? Did the Israelites genocide the neighboring nations when they settled down or did they just ask them nicely for their land?
Dude, I just quoted some of the most important early Church fathers who back up the position. If you still can't understand the context where lying is permissible that's on you. Your logical argument is invalid because the second premise is false.
Every rule has exceptions to it. I can take pretty much any commandment and think about some exception where one would be justified to break it. What matters is intentionality and consequences. Since we can't comprehend every consequence of our actions because we're limited in knowledge, intentionality and spiritual discernment is paramount.
Here's Jay Dyer schooling a libertarian on the same subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb-RJmFOdM8
Oy vey! Hava Nagila!
The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2).
Fair enough, I agree about the distinction between killing and murder (unjustified killing). But it's not just in self-defense, because God commands Israel to attack and slaughter other nations too, so aggression is also justified.
I can give other examples where commands can contradict one another and where a person has to discern what the righteous action is.
So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox
Individual saints and Church fathers aren't infallible. St. Augustine held a host of problematic beliefs like filioque, inherent guilt, infants going to hell, predestination, abstracted essential Trinitarian model, lack of essence/energies distinction, emphasized institutionalization which led to papalism. He worked in Latin and didn't have access to the Greek fathers which led him to his errors. The Orthodox Church has canonized him but doesn't consider him an authoritative father and he's not part of the dogmatic consensus.
and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen.
No, the position of pastoral flexibility and economic consideration is what St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern fathers held.
I agree there is a time not to tell the whole truth if deception isn't involved, but that time expires when one is asked to testify the whole truth. I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so.
Sure. Here's Chrysostom:
“For as physicians, though they know many remedies, yet do not employ them all indiscriminately, but according to the condition of the patient, sometimes even deceiving him for his benefit, so must we also act.”
- On the Priesthood, Book I
“It is not the same thing to speak falsely with intent to harm, and to do so to save another from danger.”
- Homilies on Genesis (Homily 44)
Basil:
“The truth is not to be told at all times, nor to all persons, nor in all circumstances.”
- Letter 8 (to Caesaria)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus:
“It is necessary sometimes to deceive in order to benefit, as physicians do with their patients.”
- Oration 40 (On Holy Baptism), §45
St. Ambrose:
“What of deception in war? Is it blameworthy when it brings about victory without bloodshed?”
- De Officiis Ministrorum, Book I, ch. 30
So in this case Origen is correct since he goes along with the consensus. Remember that just because someone was condemned, it doesn't mean everything he teaches is wrong and vice-versa - someone being canonized doesn't make him infallible. Origenism refers to his condemned heretical teachings and not to everything he ever wrote.
On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest.
I don't care about what OrthodoxWiki says as if it's some authoritative source. This has nothing to do with prelest.
Correct. The founding fathers were deists and the God they postulated is not the Christian Trinity but the masonic ambiguous deity (let's face it, that's Satan). The idea behind the great US experiment was to create a secular republic based on Enlightenment revolutionary and humanist ideas borrowing from the jewish orchestrated French Revolution and the newfound republic's left (jacobins - communists and illuminists) and right wing (girondins - classical liberals and libertarians) factions of parliament.
Historically, all Christian countries were governed as monarchies with the king and the Church assuming their respective roles of secular and spiritual governance (symphonia)*. This form of government is the direct reflection of the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity and of Christ being the divine King of kings. There are zero mentions of parliaments, presidents and democracy in the Bible but Christians (mostly Protestants) pretend that means nothing. The US is much like pagan Rome with some Christians living in it but it's yet to be truly Christianized.
The greatest jewsh feat was the toppling of the Christian monarchies which they achieved between the French Revolution and WWI. This is the origin of the NWO and this agenda has been disclosed in their Protocols. Then WWII completed the transition and this is when we got NWO proper. What happened next is obvious to everyone with a brain.
*It should be noted that in Christian monarchies, especially in Byzantium, the emperor also held a minor clerical office of a diakonos (deacon which translates to God's servant) which is exactly what Paul writes in Romans 13:4. So yes, monarchy is Biblical, republicanism and democracy is freemasonic and it inevitably leads to fake and gay one world technocratic governance.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment
That's false. I can easily refute you by saying you should defend your family (or country) with lethal force if necessary. In this case the command not to kill is contradicted by the command to love and serve your family. Choosing not to kill in this instance could actually be sinful.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
Not at all. You hold the Augustinian position which is the basis for the western Church. But the Eastern fathers agree concealment of truth and even deception is permissible in certain situations (pastoral flexibility) - precisely what Athanasius did in your anecdote.
It doesn't matter. The point is even if they had lied, what matters is the intention because God sees our heart and judges according to it. For example if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
The commandments are general rules of behavior but they are not absolute because there are always exceptions. Judging how to apply them correctly requires wisdom and spiritual knowledge. As a general rule we're commanded to love our enemy and to turn the other cheek but that's not always appropriate. Why? Because that may lead to the enemy destroying our loved ones that we have a duty to protect. And yet idiot protestants don't seem able to grasp this line of reasoning somehow but always speak in absolutes. It's like their minds are broken and they can't apply nuance and discernment.
Except you're wrong. All those questions with zero Scripture to corroborate your bad opinion.
I assumed you knew where they're from since you're such a Bible enjoyer.
It's almost like you are leaning on your own understanding
Hilarious projection. I follow the Church Father's interpretation of Scripture which is the apostolic tradition of the Church. Personal opinions are meaningless.
I'm not interested in your opinion about the Word of God. I'm only interested in the Word of God.
Does the Word of God interpret itself or does it require interpretation? How do you determine which interpretation is correct if everyone reading it has equal authority on interpretation?
You can have a vengeful heart if you so choose though but.. first consider the levity of the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35. Right now, you're the unforgiving servant.
You're not holier than St. John Chrysostom, but go on and piety signal all you like. This weak pussified subverted Christianity is why you deserve to be enslaved by your enemies.
Do you understand that quote mining is not proving anything? Scripture outside of the tradition which holds its correct interpretation leads to heresy and delusion (which St. John speaks about in the video, because jews have the OT and yet they misinterpret it and use it for evil).
I also noticed you didn't answer my questions - is the God of the OT Jesus Christ? Have you read Psalms? Who is David talking about in Psalm 110 "The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Psalm 58: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.” Why does King David say this in Psalm 139: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? … I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.” Do you consider yourself above David?
What protestants like you don't understand that everything in Scripture is within context and no command is universally applied in the same way. Lying can be virtuous if you do it to save someone from the gestapo. Even killing isn't sinful in the proper context just like loving someone could mean punishing him and causing him suffering. Protestants tend to have a very modernized, reductionist and naive worldview based on word-concept fallacies and generalizations and that's why it's a good idea to look at what the early Church Fathers taught because only the Church has the fullness of the faith.
I'm rabbi for telling you you shouldn't love jews? Makes total sense.
Why did Jesus command His followers to buy a sword? Why did He call the pharisees vipers and sons of the Satan? Why did He whip the moneychangers in the Temple? Because He loved them so much?
Is Christ the God of the OT who gave the Mosaic law?
Face it - you don't follow the Christianity of the early Church established by Christ. You follow the judaized subverted fake and gay Christianity that came 15c after Christ where each individual is their own Pope with zero regard for tradition. Your translation of the OT is based on the Masoretic texts (jewish Torah) and not on the Septuagint which was used in the NT. Do you care to guess why is that?
Dude, St. John Chrysostom was not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but also one of the Church Fathers who affirmed the 27 books of the NT and helped fleshing out the canon of Scripture. I think he knows what he's talking about.
You may love your enemies, but If you love and tolerate the enemies of Christ, you're an antichristian and you're one of them basically. If what you said was true, Christians wouldn't be allowed to fight in wars, killing their enemies. Yet many Christian saints were warriors because they fought the invading muslims. According to your interpretation, they must be destroyed then, right? Not to mention the examples of the OT where God commanded Israel to wage war and slaughter their enemies. Protestants can never get this correct with their quote mining arriving to heretical positions like pacifism, marcionism and origenism. That's why there's an apostolic Church which holds the authority on interpretation of Scripture.
22/12 edit: You never answered if you love your greatest enemy, who is Satan and his principalities?
You: "bUt yOu sHoUlD LovE yOUr eNeMieS huRR durRR!1!! Scripture says so, so I'll read it out of context and I'll tolerate and extend grace to the absolute demons who blaspheme, destroy my country and civilization and want to kill and enslave me and my family".
The problem is not about loving your enemy, but about what such a love entails and the literal naive understanding people like you have about what Christ means by those words. You're equivocating on the word love. It doesn't entail what the modern liberal thinks it does (surprise surprise, 'love is love' is not love). The love of your enemy doesn't prevent you from waging war against him and destroying him or delivering his soul to judgement.
When Chrystosom talks about hating the enemy, he doesn't contradict Christ. He only does if you don't understand words have different nuances depending on context. Chrystosom knows very well Christians can't really hate the way non-Christians understand hatred because we know everyone is an icon of Christ. Again, do you really believe you have more wisdom and spiritual insight the early Church fathers who were guided by the Spirit and who were crucial for spreading Christianity and made it possible for it to come to our day and age?
"It's an imaginary foreign invasion as we see that Hungary has one of the lowest immigration rates of the whole EU"
I wonder why the fuck that is? Could it be because of Hungary's policy?
How retarded are normies for listening to this MSM Soros backed garbage really?
America was never Christian but it will be in the future. As people get wiser about what's going on, Orthodoxy is spreading faster and wider. The western man, living under the judaized freemasonic NWO, is realizing he's been duped and is thirsty for authentic Christianity. And as our Lord said those who seek Him shall find Him. We live in historic hard times and we're blessed for it.
He is calling Candace "crazy with her crazy conspiracy theories". This is exactly the language The View uses to attack people vocal against public gaslighting.
So if I call someone crazy for believing something I'm automatically an Israel shill and The View kind of guy? I haven't heard what Andrew's take is and how he argumented himself but people can disagree and go after one another without being paid shills. I agree with Candace's take on Bridgette Macron but I wouldn't call anyone who called her crazy then an asset doing damage control.
Saint veneration is Scriptural though.
How many "saints" were deemed so by the Catholic Church, which also calls old pedophiles "holy" and "father".
That's why you shouldn't listen to them but to the true apostolic historic Church that Christ established which is the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Andrew is not a fan of Israel. He literally debates zionists. Nick is a RC and his Church supports Israel and condemns antisemitism so I agree about him. Wait, so is Candace... The cognitive dissonance with those guys must be insane, or maybe they're just facelords playing their part.
Only absolute retards deny the historic existence of Jesus Christ. They wish He never existed because deep down they know the truth.
The crusades are fake and gay though. And what was the point even? In the end the gay RCC promotes open borders and teaches that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Go check and you'll see Catholic foundations are the biggest sponsors for immigration - they outmatch even the jews!
I love democracy!
Lol, imagine sending your children to die for the NWO.
Upshot: Trying to justify that Dec 25 was in no way pagan fails; it was syncretist from the start (I believe it was Ambrose that admitted this).
I agree about the calendar thing. But still it doesn't follow it's syncretist. As mentioned in the video Christians did adopt the symbolism of the Sun dying and being born again but this has nothing to do with the initial reason for celebrating Christmas. The Church co-opted and baptized pagan rituals and this helped with the adoption of Christianity among the pagans. In the case with Christmas, the nativity was a purely Christian feast and it had to compete with the pagan celebrations of Sun worship.
That's what proves they were working from the equinoxes and not the actual date of Passover (2 weeks after the calculated new moon of the equinox, e.g. 1 Apr 33 AD Julian or 3 Apr Gregorian). Since they worked from the equinox, they got the solstice, open and shut. (They also assumed Christ's conception was the same day as his birth, which was symbolic but also not justified, especially because shepherds didn't watch their flocks by night in winter.)
No, Hippolytus used the jewish Temple calendar from Luke 1:5 and determined John the Baptist was conceived late September and Jesus was conceived 6 months later getting 24th Match + 9 months = Christmas.
The reason people are afraid to say Merry Christmas is the opposite of Protestantism, namely rabbinical Judaism and Islam. If you merely meant Orthodox and Catholics are not afraid to say Merry Christmas, that would have a bit of correlation considering the whole world, but the fight against Christ being celebrated proceeds apace in Catholic and Orthodox countries too in its own way, so I don't know that Protestant policy is the only reason for its advances.
It doesn't matter because the reason why the West is in this state is ultimately secularism, materialism and liberalism which was brought about by the Reformation.
That's your evidence? I might just as well say that Tolkien's extremely colorful Catholic retellings of Father Christmas's adventures (and Dickens's Anglican carol, and Lewis's Anglican Father Christmas in Narnia) were just as responsible. Lewis even wrote an essay on how there were two different celebrations of the same date already, a pagan and a Christian, and he put forward his Father Christmas to direct people back to the Christian side, but it's been amalgamated into the pagan side too. So, yeah, it's syncretist and it's not the Protestants' fault.
The evidence is that during the middle ages the figure known as Santa Claus was St. Nicholas who was a real person. Eventually his attributes and characteristics were modified which led to the Coca-Cola token fairy tale figure living in the North Pole. The reason why this happened is because Protestants weren't keen on veneration of the saints but also because of rising secularism that inevitably accompanies Protestant nations.
I get it, you are correct that Rome has primacy but that doesn't translate to hierarchical authority of the Roman bishop over the Church. Almost all heresy is the result of word concept fallacies and papal supremacy, hinging on "Rome's primacy" is a great example. The RC deliberately misinterpreted and twisted the meaning of that legitimate Early Church idea.
Also, since the Orthodox still pretty well agree with Roman primacy if Rome isn't schismatic, without agreeing with Roman superiority, the crux is the claims of superiority, not of the pope having a unique ultimate authority alone. That quibble is only important because the path to unity and resolving the conflict would involve the Orthodox and the Catholics both admitting that the pope didn't actually mean to claim a superiority he didn't have; and in my (perhaps scholastic) understanding of the pope's pronouncements, he didn't.
No such thing as Rome's primacy. There never was such a thing in the first millennium. It was always "first among equals" honorary title and didn't pertain to ecclesiological superiority so that's a word concept fallacy. You should know that the Vatican has admit the Early Church didn't operate under Rome's primacy but had a synodal autocephalous structure in the Chieti document. Papalism is a later development like much of RC dogma.
So you're not supposed to foresee the consequences of your actions and consider them before acting? Why were you given reason then - just follow the rules like an algorithm and you'd be fine, right? Do you realize that Scripture contains seemingly contradictory commandments if taken out of context and used as maxims? If you were to adhere to every commandment like a damn robot, you'd quickly run into absurdity. Prots get around this and cherry pick the commandments they like and pretend they should be applied without reasoning and nuance regardless of context.