Let's Insult the Orthodox.

[Papist]

Papist:

Do you believe that God the Father is fully God?
Do you believe that Christ is fully God?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is fully God?

How many Gods does that make?

One God. You must not have read my posts because you are ignoring the fact that I have already demonstrated that this is not a contradiction. Once again: God is one God, not three. He is Three persons not one.
The reason why this is not a contradiction is that I am NOT claiming that God is three Gods and one God. Nor am I claiming that He is three persons and one persons. If the doctrine of the Trinity proposed such nonsense, then it would be a contradiction. Thanks be to God that such is not the doctrine of the Trinity.
Let me ask you a question, is it a contradiction that Ralph is bother a father and a son? Absolutely not because Ralph is a father to one person and a son of another person. Thus he can be A and not A in different relationships without contradiction.
Similarly God can be both one and three in different relationships without there being a contradiction. God is one in relationship to the concepts and metaphysical realities of divinity, existence, essence, nature, etc. He is relationship to the concept and metaphysical reality of personhood.

[Papist]

^ I meant to say that God is one with respect to personhood in the post above.

[Romanicus]

I don't think so. I think it concerns the limits of the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (with the axiom of choice added), in the sense that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable within that context. All you have to do is to add the axiom of constructibility and that will settle the question.

No it won't. See the following links.
(Those not interested in Mathematics can skip them.).

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_6_01.html

http://www.ams.org/notices/200106/fea-woodin.pdf

http://www.ams.org/notices/200107/fea-woodin.pdf

http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~dehornoy/Surveys/DgtUS.pdf

[Romanicus]

You must not have read my posts . . .

The problem is mutual.

you are ignoring the fact that I have already demonstrated that this is not a contradiction. Once again: God is one God, not three. He is Three persons not one.

One God. Three persons. That is exactly the answer I was waiting for. You know this answer to be true.

And so do I.

The individuating characteristics of the three persons of the TRIUNE Godhead

But to--let's say, an Arian--its not self-evident. To him, the questions in my post would be quite legitimate. And he would be confused by your answer. Not through any fault of yours.

The Arian could be using the most rigorous logic, but his assumptions are wrong. Therefore, whatever conclusions he comes to will be wrong.

My post was prompted by your immediately preceding post:

God is above human reason. That does not mean that he is above logic.

You seemed to be implying, in that post, (please correct me if I'm wrong) two things:

1) There's human reason, and then there's a superior Divine reason
2) There's ONLY ONE TYPE OF LOGIC. We have it. And God has it.

If that is the case, then I disagree with the second implication.

This is because I believe that logic is just one's conscious thought process made explicit and formalized. Logic originates in thought, which originates in one's mind.

The point of my posts, "reply #294" . . .

Oh, and here is an example from religion.

1+1+1=1

Normally called the Trinity.

Which brings up a pet peeve of mine.

I laugh every time a Roman Catholic acts as if they invented logic.
"Orthodoxy is absurd! Illogical!" they'll say.

But then a Jehovah's Witness can turn around and say that he doesn't accept the Trinity, which RCs as well as EO accept. Why? Well, because its, "absurd! illogical!"

And then an atheist can pop up and deny all of religion. His argument? why, its, "absurd! illogical!" of course.

It turns out that logic is pretty much like plasticine. It can be molded into any shape one desires.

. . . and  "reply #310," ...

Papist:

Do you believe that God the Father is fully God?
Do you believe that Christ is fully God?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is fully God?

How many Gods does that make?

 . . . was to show that human logic is fallible, because it originates in our thought process, which in turn originates in our fallible, finite human minds. To someone not familiar with Christian theology, and with a mind full of false assumptions, the examples and questions in the above two posts would seem perfectly legitimate, and our answers would seem illogical.

But God's mind is perfect, and infinitely superior to ours.

If God's mind is superior to ours, then His thought process is superior to ours. Hence, His logic is superior to ours, too. God is not illogical. He does not contradict logic, that's true. But His logic is vastly superior to ours, and while it doesn't contradict itsself, it can contradict ours. Otherwise, we would be able to explain exactly and ontologically:
 
How the Son is begotten of the Father
How the Spirit proceeds from the Father
How the Universe was created ex nihilo (scientists are still working on that one)
How the virgin birth occurred
How the resurrection occurred
. . . and countless other miracles that are a stumbling block to various heretics, agnostics, and atheists--who worship human reason above all else.

And no matter how far we extend our knowledge, God's mind--and logic--will always be infinitely superior to ours, and will always be capable of doing things that contradict our logic--i.e. miracles.

And that's the point I was trying to make in several of my earlier posts.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough before.

[Romanicus]

 I believe that God has logic. I even believe that "He _is_  Logic."

This, in two ways:

1) He is the Logos (In the Second Person)

2) "He _is_ Logic," in the same way that

      "He _is_ Love,"
      "He _is_ Wisdom,"
      "He _is_ Peace,"
      etc.

That is, we know He has these attributes because we experience them in His transcendent, eternal, uncreated ENERGIES--when they become immanent to us. Which means that, through God's energies, we can experience Him, we can commune with Him.

However, when one communes with Him--meaning, when the saints aquire His energies and become sanctified/glorified/deified--they realise that His attributes are infinately superior to ours.

This means that His Love is infinitely purer than any love we can display; His Holiness is superior not only to our holiness, but also to that of the angels; etc. Its exactly the same with His LOGIC.

Why is it that many people who are otherwise humble, will say,
"God is superior to us. God is perfect. His love is perfect. His wisdom is perfect . . .
"Ah! but when it comes to logic--THERE HE HAS MET HIS MATCH!"

Blasphemy!

That's how we make an IDOL of our finite, fallen human reason.

But God's reason is infinitely beyond ours. Thats why He can do things that to Him are perfectly logical and explainable--create the universe, produce the virgin birth, rise from the dead--but to us they are incomprehensible miracles.

---------------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong. Reason is good. Its a gift from God. But lets use it well.

For instance, lets ask a perfectly logical question:
If God created us out of nothing, and ...
If He is superior to us in everything, ...
Then, shouldn't the concept of "everything" encompass His LOGIC as well?

Or, look at it historically:
Even in the short course of human history, our understanding of logic has improved. We have gotten better at thinking about thinking. From the primitive logic of early people, we went to Aristotelian logic. Then we created various formal logical systems. Then there's paraconsistent logic, omega-logic, etc. There's no reason to assume that our understanding of our thinking process won't continue to improve.

But we believe God is infinately superior to us. Doesn't that imply a DIVINE LOGIC that is also infinitely superior? Doesn't that, in turn, imply that we will never reach it, no matter what kinds of logical systems we devise?

And in the end--what is logic?
Logic is the motor of our conscious mind. Its the way our conscious, discursive reason works. Its our thinking process when it becomes formalized. Its our "mental transportation". Logic begins with some piece of knowledge. It uses this knowledge as a light to illumine the path to further knowledge. It then "puts one thought in front of the other," and begins to move down the path. Along the way, it avoids obstacles (fallacies) and dead ends (false conclusions). In this way, it guides us to new knowledge.

BUT LOGIC ITSELF IS NOT KNOWLEDGE!

Knowledge has three ultimate sources:

1) Sensory experience
2) Intuition
3) Conscience

If we wish to advance scientifically, we must pay attention to sensory experience--experiments--and use the data we aquire to, first, induce basic principles, or hypotheses.
We then use these to make logical deductions, or predictions.
The predictions are in turn susbjected to new experiments. If the hypothesis is consistently not falsified, it is recognized as a law of nature, or it becomes an accepted theory to explain a natural law. Its then used to confirm or falsify newer hypotheses.

If we wish to advance in mathematics, then we begin with intuitively self-evident axioms. 
At some point in our calculations, we must make a breakthrough. We aquire, in a "flash of insight"--through intuition--a new conjecture.
We then take this through a path of new calculations to produce rigorous, logical proofs. Now the conjecture becomes a theorem, or at least a lemma. Then we use it in calculating proofs for still newer conjectures.

Art and literature, too, are based on intuition.

Finally, if we wish to advance spiritually, we must establish a "communications link" with God. We listen to our conscience (recieve) and we pray (transmit).
The saints  take the data they receive through their conscience--revelation--and use it to guide their logic.
Logic then indicates the path to keeping the "communication link" open--prayer, obedience to the commandments, etc.; and paths to avoid--sins.
Logic also helps them explain their experience to others, to guide them in establishing their own "communication link"--the spiritual life.

It must be kept in mind, in all this, that all the above descriptions of God, and all knowledge we aquire of God, has to do with His uncreated, divine, immanent-and-trascendent ENERGIES.

Beyond these, there is the hidden, unknowable-by-us divine ESSENCE. We will never aquire it in any way. Not through sense experience, not through LOGIC, not through intuition, not through revelation. Not now. Not ever. All we will ever be able to say about it is that its there.

[stanley123]

I don't think so. I think it concerns the limits of the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (with the axiom of choice added), in the sense that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable within that context. All you have to do is to add the axiom of constructibility and that will settle the question.

No it won't. See the following links.
(Those not interested in Mathematics can skip them.).

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_6_01.html

http://www.ams.org/notices/200106/fea-woodin.pdf

http://www.ams.org/notices/200107/fea-woodin.pdf

http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~dehornoy/Surveys/DgtUS.pdf

The first paper, the Devlin paper says flat out: “If the Axiom of Constructibility was assumed (as an additional axiom, on top of the Zermelo-Fraenkel system), then you could prove that the Continuum Hypothesis is true.”
The other three papers are concerned with the Woodin solution, but remember that according to the last paper you have listed here it is “unwise to claim that Woodin’s
solution to the Continuum Problem is the only possible one.”
To sum up, there is no logical contradiction involved anywhere.

[stanley123]

Would you be able to give us a concrete example in science or everyday life of something that is logically contradictory but still true at the same time.

Oh, and here is an example from religion.

1+1+1=1

Normally called the Trinity.

Which brings up a pet peeve of mine.

I laugh every time a Roman Catholic acts as if they invented logic.
"Orthodoxy is absurd! Illogical!" they'll say.

But then a Jehovah's Witness can turn around and say that he doesn't accept the Trinity, which RCs as well as EO accept. Why? Well, because its, "absurd! illogical!"

And then an atheist can pop up and deny all of religion. His argument? why, its, "absurd! illogical!" of course.

It turns out that logic is pretty much like plasticine. It can be molded into any shape one desires.

A couple of comments may be in order.
I don’t know who ever said or thought  that Orthodoxy is illogical
As far as  what an atheist may say, I don’t see how he would explain man’s ability to reflect on the world around him and his ability to create and communicate ideas, for example. Is this ability part of the material world,  or not?
I don’t know what you mean here by saying that logic can be molded into any shape?
Concerning the equation that you have written:  1+1+1 = 1,  I don;t think that this really expresses the Trinity at all. However, we can say that as a mathematical formula, it is a true equation in mod 2 arithmetic.

[Romanicus]

I don't think so. I think it concerns the limits of the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (with the axiom of choice added), in the sense that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable within that context. All you have to do is to add the axiom of constructibility and that will settle the question.

No it won't. See the following links.
(Those not interested in Mathematics can skip them.).

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_6_01.html

http://www.ams.org/notices/200106/fea-woodin.pdf

http://www.ams.org/notices/200107/fea-woodin.pdf

http://www.math.unicaen.fr/~dehornoy/Surveys/DgtUS.pdf

The first paper, the Devlin paper says flat out: “If the Axiom of Constructibility was assumed (as an additional axiom, on top of the Zermelo-Fraenkel system), then you could prove that the Continuum Hypothesis is true.”
The other three papers are concerned with the Woodin solution, but remember that according to the last paper you have listed here it is “unwise to claim that Woodin’s solution to the Continuum Problem is the only possible one.”

(Emphases mine)

Are you serious? You are actually presenting this as proof that the question is settled?

To sum up, there is no logical contradiction involved anywhere.

Since there is no logical contradiction anywhere, can you answer me one question?

Pick a biblical miracle--say, the resurrection of Christ--and explain exactly how it happened, using only logic, math, and the laws of science.

[stanley123]

Are you serious? You are actually presenting this as proof that the question is settled?

To sum up, there is no logical contradiction involved anywhere.

Since there is no logical contradiction anywhere, can you answer me one question?

Pick a biblical miracle--say, the resurrection of Christ--and explain exactly how it happened, using only logic, math, and the laws of science.

Yes, I am serious. There is no logical contradiction anywhere in the question or attempted resolution of the Continuum hypothesis. By now, it should be clear to anyone that the question cannot be resolved within the ZF or ZFC framework, but that does not involve any kind of a contradiction. There are various proposals for deciding the question, but  none of them involves a logical contradiction of any sort. 
Your last question concerns a religious  or historical fact which is outside of the realm of mathematics.. For example, everyone knows that the Crusades happened. But these are tragic historical truths and are not proven by mathematical theorems.  All the same,  I don’t think that it would be correct to say that our belief that the Crusades occurred is illogical.

[Romanicus]

Are you serious? You are actually presenting this as proof that the question is settled?

To sum up, there is no logical contradiction involved anywhere.

Since there is no logical contradiction anywhere, can you answer me one question?

Pick a biblical miracle--say, the resurrection of Christ--and explain exactly how it happened, using only logic, math, and the laws of science.

Yes, I am serious. There is no logical contradiction anywhere in the question or attempted resolution of the Continuum hypothesis. By now, it should be clear to anyone that the question cannot be resolved within the ZF or ZFC framework, but that does not involve any kind of a contradiction. There are various proposals for deciding the question, but  none of them involves a logical contradiction of any sort. 
Your last question concerns a religious  or historical fact which is outside of the realm of mathematics.. For example, everyone knows that the Crusades happened. But these are tragic historical truths and are not proven by mathematical theorems.  All the same,  I don’t think that it would be correct to say that our belief that the Crusades occurred is illogical.

Do you actually read other people's posts, or do you just pick random replies out of a hat?

[stanley123]

Do you actually read other people's posts, or do you just pick random replies out of a hat?

I was going to ask you the same question.

No, the fact is that in mathematics or in physics, there are no logical contradictions and logic is used as a tool to arrive at the truth. There is nothing  illogical involved here. The examples you have brought up show that there are spooky things in quantum physics and that there are undecidable things in some questions of mathematics given the ZFC framework. That is not the same as saying that any of math or physics in illogical.
With reference to theological questions, we use revelation, historical evidence, reason,  prayer and help from the Fathers of the Church to arrive at what we believe.

[Romanicus]

Stanley123:

At least we agree on some things. 

[stanley123]

Stanley123:

At least we agree on some things. 

That's great Romanicus. But of course it's no fun if we agree on everything.

[Romanicus]

Stanley123:

At least we agree on some things. 

That's great Romanicus. But of course it's no fun if we agree on everything.

No wonder I feel so down.

[stanley123]

Stanley123:

At least we agree on some things. 

That's great Romanicus. But of course it's no fun if we agree on everything.

No wonder I feel so down.

As you know, Carl Friedrich Gauss was the greatest mathematician since antiquity, and according to what Erich Worbs has written in his biography of Gauss: “Sartorius von Waltershausen reports that Gauss once said there were questions of infinitely higher value than the mathematical ones, namely, those about our relation to God, our determination, and our future. Only, he concluded, their solutions lie far beyond our comprehension, and completely outside the limit of science.”

[Romanicus]

Plus he had a waaaaay cool hat!

[Romanicus]

The use I made of the two words was only a little bit nostalgic of the power of the ancient Greek, who could construct new words to express very precise and inequivocal concepts, more or less as for the distinctions of ekpourenai/proienai for 'proceeds', "ousia/physis" for 'nature' and hypostasis/prosopon for 'person'. Western languages often use too simplistic concepts which can lead to misunderstandings, and I regret that we don't have (even in my language, i.e. Italian) the best words to use when needed.

In Christ,   Alex

Here is an elaboration on my previous reply (Reply #306 ) which includes some definitions and translations.

NOTE: The underlined syllables get the accent.

NOTE: I've put equivalent words that belong in the same row, in brackets.


1)   ................................................"IS".................................................
    Greek                                                                  Latin
      "esti"                                                                   "est"


2) ............................................ "BEING" ................................................
    Greek                                                                  Latin
      "own"                                                    ----->  ("ens" is the Latin equivalent), however . . .

   a) In the OT, the  Holy Tetragrammaton--YHWH ("Yahweh", or  "Jehovah")--is translated as:

      Greek                                                Latin
       "Kurios"                                   "Adonai" (from Heb)  or "Dominus" (Lat) = "Lord"

      But,
       In Exd 3:14- "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" (I shall be that I shall be")
                                                    (believed to be the root of YHWH) is translated as:

        Greek                                                   Latin
         "Ego eimi O Own"  ("I am Being")       "Ego sum Qui sum" ("I am that I am")

       In The  Apocalypse (Rev) 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17- "O Own" is translated as;

                                                                      Latin
                                                                      "Qui est" ("Who is")

   b) In icons, we find;
           the letters "omicron" (O), "omega" (W), and "nu" (N)--which spell "O Own"--around Christ's head.

       



3)..............................................."EXISTS"...........................................
   Greek                                                     Latin
     "hyparkhe"                                              ( ? )                 
     ( from "hypo" ("under")
              + "arkhe" (" a first principle" ))           

      ( ? )                                                       "existit"
                                                                   (from "ex" ("from") + "stare" ("to stand")

      In Modern English, "is" and "exists" are commonly used to mean the same thing. It wasn't that way in Greek and Latin.


4) .........................................."EXISTENCE"................................................
   Greek                                                                    Latin
     "hyparxis"                                                              ( ? )
     (from "hyparkhe")

     ("extasis" is the Greek equivalent)    <----             "existendum"?

      The word "extasy" comes from "extasis".


5).........................................."NATURE" (of something)..................................
   Greek                                                                         Latin
     "Physis" (from "phyein"                                                ( ? )
      ("to bring forth, produce, make to grow"))                                   

      ("genesis" is the Greek equivalent)<----                      "Natura"
                                                                                   (from "natus" ("birth"))

6)........................................"ESSENCE"..........................................................
   Greek                                                                   Latin
     "ousia" (from "einai" ("to be"))                                "essentia" (from "esse" ("to be"))

7)........................................"ENERGY".............................................................
  Greek                                                                           Latin
     "energia" (from "en" ("in") + "ergon" ("work"))                   ( ? )


8.)......................................."HYPOSTASIS" (or “PERSON” in Trinity)..........................
  Greek                                                                           Latin
     "hypostasis"                                                   "substantia" is the Latin equivalent
     (from "hypo" ("under")                                     (from "sub".("under")
              + "istanai" ("to stand"))                                   + "stare"("to stand"))

      The English word “substance” comes from “substantia”.

      a) The Greek word "ousia" (essence) is also sometimes translated as "substantia" in Latin.

      b) The Greek word “hypostasis” is often translated as “person”, in Western theology,

      “Person” comes from the Latin “persona” which, like the Greek “prosopon” originally referred to the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek theater.

      Because this term leaves the door open to Sabellian interpretations of the Trinity, the EO prefer to use “hypostasis”.

[Romanicus]

Concluding from my Reply #331

Here is an elaboration on my previous reply (Reply #306 ) which includes some definitions and translations.

NOTE: The underlined syllables get the accent.

NOTE: I've put equivalent words that belong in the same row, in brackets.


1)   ................................................"IS".................................................
    Greek                                                                  Latin
      "esti"                                                                   "est"

. . .
---
---
---

9)................................."PRE-EXISTS"...............................................
      Greek                                                                 Latin
     "Proeinai"                                                             "Preexistendit"?
      (from "pro" ("before")                                            (from "pre" ("before")
         +   "einai" ("exists"))                                             +   "existendit" ("exists"))

10)..................................."PROCEEDS"(General)................................
      Greek                                                                 Latin
     "Proienai"                                                             "Procedit"
      (from "pro" ("before")                                            (from "pro" ("forward")
        +    "ienai" ("he goes"))                                         +   "cedere" ("to yield, leave"))

     "Proienai" is not to be confused with "ProEInai" (see above). Its the earliest term used to differentiate the three hypostases of the Trinity.  The Son "proceeds" (proienai) from the Father; the Spirit "proceeds" (proienai) from the Father; and the Spirit "proceeds" (proienai) from the Son. In each case, it doesn't mean anything more than "goes out of".

11)................................."IS BEGOTTEN / GENERATED"............................
      Greek                                                                      Latin
      "Genietai"                                                                  ("Genitit" would be equivalent)
        (from "genos" ("a race, a kind"))                                   (from "genus" (."race, kind"))

       ( ? )                                                                         "Natum"
                                                                                        (from "nacere" ("to be born"))

      Refers specifically to the Son getting His origin--i.e., deriving His essence--from the Father.
The Greek "Genithenta" ("Begotten from") (th=theta) in the Ecumenical (Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed, is translated as "Natum" in the Latin version .

12)................................."PROCEEDS"(Specific)........................................
      Greek                                                                    Latin
       "Ekporeuetai"                                                          ( ? )
         (from ""ek" ("from")
               + "poreia" (" a travel, journey"))

      Refers specifically to the Spirit getting His origin--i. e., deriving His essence--from the Father.
The Greek "ekporeuetai" in the Creed, was translated as "procedit" in the Latin version.
Later on, the clause "filioque" ("and the Son") was added after the word "Father" (Spain, 589; Frankish Empire, 809; Rome, representing all the West, 1009).
The new Western Creed, when retranslated into Greek, read, "I believe . . . in the Holy Spirit . . . Who 'proceeds' (EKPOREUETAI) from the Father and the Son". This was the first major cause of division between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) churches.

13)............................................"RESTS".....................................................
      Greek                                                                      Latin
       "Anapauetai"                                                            ( ? )
         (from "ana" ("up")
             +  "pausis" ("pause, stop"))

      The Spirit not only proceeds from the Father, but rests in the Son.

14).........................................."SHINING-FORTH"........................................
      Greek                                                                     Latin
       "Ellampsis"                                                             ( ? )
         (from "ek" ("from")
            + "lampe" ("he shines"))

      A synonym for God's energies. Each hypostasis ot the Trinity "shines-forth" or projects the Divine energies: (1) Immanently, towards the creation, but also; (2) Transendently, towards one another--thus completeing the circle of communion within the Trinity,

NOTE:

The complex, precise terminology of the Eastern fathers was not created just because they loved words. Nor was it easy to create from some inherent superiority of the Greek language.

It was created out of historical necessity, and through much effort and prayer.

The Eastern, Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire was civilized much longer than the Western half. This left behind a slew of pagan philosophies with sophisticated arguments to back them up.

It was also more populated, urbanized, and affluent than the West. This was the perfect breeding-ground for new, over-intellectualizing heresies--which often borrowed from pagan arguments.

This forced the Eastern fathers to do two things.

a) They borrowed terms--but not beliefs--from the ancient philosophers, and gave them new, more precise, more christian meanings.

b) They invented new terms--not to reveal new dogmas, but to express the age-old dogmas of the Chuch in new ways, as a defence against new heresies.

The addition of the "filioque", while being motivated by the fight against heresy (at least in Spain), was ill-conceived, to say the least.

[trevor72694]

Eastern Double Standards never cease to amaze me. Maybe its cuz ya'll are ok with contradicitions.... wait, I mean....um.... mysteries. 

Sorry for the edit, the Warning thing doesn't like me.   

-- Friul

 For an uncalled for insult towards the Holy Mysteries and the Orthodox Faith.

Papist, I truly believe that if St. Maria Gratia were to meet you after reading what you have posted, she would be disgraced by such a blashphemer of the true Christianity to have her imge as your profile picture!

[trevor72694]

Plus he had a waaaaay cool hat!

on this, I must agree!  a very cool hat 

[PeterTheAleut]

Eastern Double Standards never cease to amaze me. Maybe its cuz ya'll are ok with contradicitions.... wait, I mean....um.... mysteries. 

Sorry for the edit, the Warning thing doesn't like me.   

-- Friul

For an uncalled for insult towards the Holy Mysteries and the Orthodox Faith.

Papist, I truly believe that if St. Maria Gratia were to meet you after reading what you have posted, she would be disgraced by such a blashphemer of the true Christianity to have her imge as your profile picture!

Isn't there a statute of limitations against chastising a poster for something he submitted close to two years ago?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Eastern Double Standards never cease to amaze me. Maybe its cuz ya'll are ok with contradicitions.... wait, I mean....um.... mysteries. 

Sorry for the edit, the Warning thing doesn't like me.   

-- Friul

For an uncalled for insult towards the Holy Mysteries and the Orthodox Faith.

Papist, I truly believe that if St. Maria Gratia were to meet you after reading what you have posted, she would be disgraced by such a blashphemer of the true Christianity to have her imge as your profile picture!

Isn't there a statute of limitations against chastising a poster for something he submitted close to two years ago?

Yeah, it ran out after the warning we gave him for that exact post expired.

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Not to contradict anybody here, but the equation 1+1+1=1 doesn't describe God mathematically. The best equation for the Trinity would be, IMHO, ∞+∞+∞=∞ which is not only correct from a theological point of view, but also from a mathematical one.
In Christ,    Alex

[visitor]

Some Papist. The Vatican officially approves of Orthodoxy. Of course, that's a bigtime contradition is it not!


It doesn't really matter. Everyone on this board knows all too well the pity that the Roman Catholic Church no longer exists anyway.

Think I'm wrong? Check the 1918 Code of Canon Law. Check the writings of Robert Bellarmine. Go ask an SSPX member, or better yet a Sedevacantist about the Papacy and see if you can reconcile yourself to those contradictions!!! Good luck. 

What a mess it is. The Dominicans and their rediculous Fatima cult struggling against the Franciscan contingent who can't even understand that the RC has changed a bit since the 13th century----and managing it all are the Jesuits who believe that they have been sent to both create and moderate every conflict in the world. Not to mention the vast international criminal conspiracies orchestrated against droves of innocent children. The Pope himself was sued successfully from Ireland over one man's own experience as a child. Yeah.

Compared to the Wh*** of the Seven Hills, Orthodoxy's problems seem rather plain. Don't you think?



You're no Thomas Aquinas, kid. I know, because scholasticism is no longer compatible with Roman Catholicism at all.

So mind your own eye. And get to an inquirer's class---you're repressed desire to convert to Orthodoxy is tedious to others.

[Papist]

Some Papist. The Vatican officially approves of Orthodoxy. Of course, that's a bigtime contradition is it not!


It doesn't really matter. Everyone on this board knows all too well the pity that the Roman Catholic Church no longer exists anyway.

Think I'm wrong? Check the 1918 Code of Canon Law. Check the writings of Robert Bellarmine. Go ask an SSPX member, or better yet a Sedevacantist about the Papacy and see if you can reconcile yourself to those contradictions!!! Good luck.  

What a mess it is. The Dominicans and their rediculous Fatima cult struggling against the Franciscan contingent who can't even understand that the RC has changed a bit since the 13th century----and managing it all are the Jesuits who believe that they have been sent to both create and moderate every conflict in the world. Not to mention the vast international criminal conspiracies orchestrated against droves of innocent children. The Pope himself was sued successfully from Ireland over one man's own experience as a child. Yeah.

Compared to the Wh*** of the Seven Hills, Orthodoxy's problems seem rather plain. Don't you think?



You're no Thomas Aquinas, kid. I know, because scholasticism is no longer compatible with Roman Catholicism at all.

So mind your own eye. And get to an inquirer's class---you're repressed desire to convert to Orthodoxy is tedious to others.

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

[visitor]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

[Papist]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

Do you assume that I still hold all of the views that I expressed above? Do you assume that I still have the same approach to Byzantine Christianity today?

And BTW, I know that I am no Thomas Aquinas. I am nowhere near that brilliant.

[visitor]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

Do you assume that I still hold all of the views that I expressed above? Do you assume that I still have the same approach to Byzantine Christianity today?

And BTW, I know that I am no Thomas Aquinas. I am nowhere near that brilliant.

At the moment I am assuming that you are a bit of a narcissist. 

[Papist]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

Do you assume that I still hold all of the views that I expressed above? Do you assume that I still have the same approach to Byzantine Christianity today?

And BTW, I know that I am no Thomas Aquinas. I am nowhere near that brilliant.

At the moment I am assuming that you are a bit of a narcissist. 

Then pray for me, rather than attacking me for you what you see from a few years ago. I find it interesting that you read old posts and have determined that I have not grown and matured since then. You don't know anything about me yet you attack. Very sad. Well, if you think that I such an aweful person, keep me in your prayers.

[Quinault]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

Do you assume that I still hold all of the views that I expressed above? Do you assume that I still have the same approach to Byzantine Christianity today?

And BTW, I know that I am no Thomas Aquinas. I am nowhere near that brilliant.

At the moment I am assuming that you are a bit of a narcissist. 

He isn't, he is a very nice man and I think this dead horse has been beat enough

[visitor]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

Do you assume that I still hold all of the views that I expressed above? Do you assume that I still have the same approach to Byzantine Christianity today?

And BTW, I know that I am no Thomas Aquinas. I am nowhere near that brilliant.

At the moment I am assuming that you are a bit of a narcissist. 

He isn't, he is a very nice man and I think this dead horse has been beat enough

There are still plenty of Catholics out there who feel the way that Papist used to.

Now they have a strong response to contend with.

Incidentally, Papist is still--meaning today--shortshrifting important terms. "Byzantine Christianity" is spelled ORTHODOXY. Period. Check the name of the website.

[theistgal]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

John Titor, is that you?   

[NorthernPines]

Incidentally, Papist is still--meaning today--shortshrifting important terms. "Byzantine Christianity" is spelled ORTHODOXY. Period. Check the name of the website.

First, welcome to the forum! I hope you will make a positive contribution to the site, and we can all learn from one another.

Now as for what I quoted from you . . . in case you were not aware, this sub-forum that you are posting in is the Religious Topics forum and is here for us to discuss Religious Topics, in general. That means that dialogue between many different faiths can and do take place here, and it is encouraged. If you prefer to discuss Orthodoxy specifically, and only Orthodoxy, and don't want to hear other voices of opinions from people of other Churches and other faiths, you may find the Faith Issues board more to your liking. However I think you'll find out rather quickly at that, that the term "Byzantine Christianity" while of course is a large part of Orthodoxy, is not the sum total of Orthodoxy. It is but one "flavor" of Orthodoxy, and while it at one time had the vast majority of influence upon Orthodox culture, theology, and Liturgy, it is not, and never was "all there is" to the Orthodox faith. And if you think to be Orthodox one must also adhere strictly to "Byzantine Christianity" you're going to have a tough sell, particularly with people like Ialmisry.


As for the name of the site, Papist is well aware of of the board rules, and has done nothing wrong at all.  However I think it drastically unfair of you to dredge up a 3 year old thread and bash someone for an opinion they once held and no longer do. It makes about as much sense as bashing CS Lewis for being an atheist, when in fact he spent most of his life as a Christian.

In Peace, NP

[visitor]

Incidentally, Papist is still--meaning today--shortshrifting important terms. "Byzantine Christianity" is spelled ORTHODOXY. Period. Check the name of the website.

First, welcome to the forum! I hope you will make a positive contribution to the site, and we can all learn from one another.

Now as for what I quoted from you . . . in case you were not aware, this sub-forum that you are posting in is the Religious Topics forum and is here for us to discuss Religious Topics, in general. That means that dialogue between many different faiths can and do take place here, and it is encouraged. If you prefer to discuss Orthodoxy specifically, and only Orthodoxy, and don't want to hear other voices of opinions from people of other Churches and other faiths, you may find the Faith Issues board more to your liking. However I think you'll find out rather quickly at that, that the term "Byzantine Christianity" while of course is a large part of Orthodoxy, is not the sum total of Orthodoxy. It is but one "flavor" of Orthodoxy, and while it at one time had the vast majority of influence upon Orthodox culture, theology, and Liturgy, it is not, and never was "all there is" to the Orthodox faith. And if you think to be Orthodox one must also adhere strictly to "Byzantine Christianity" you're going to have a tough sell, particularly with people like Ialmisry.


As for the name of the site, Papist is well aware of of the board rules, and has done nothing wrong at all.  However I think it drastically unfair of you to dredge up a 3 year old thread and bash someone for an opinion they once held and no longer do. It makes about as much sense as bashing CS Lewis for being an atheist, when in fact he spent most of his life as a Christian.

In Peace, NP

Hi. Thanks for the welcome.

Please allow me to make apology for my actions. It's going to be a bit bumpy, but bear with me and it'll work itself out.

The offensive material in the thread "Let's Insult the Orthodox" is at your discression to delete, is it not? In the meantime, you are actively publishing it. If you do not want social responses to such material, either on this board or worse, on the ground, then I would encourage you to, if you'll pardon the phrase, cease and desist.

My response was intened against the account/opinion expressed at the head of this thread. It is an account/opinion which is by no means extinct either simply because the poster has changed his own private mind about it. I'm engaging in public discourse, not showing up late to an intervention.

I hope you don't take my defense to be arrogant, or even necessarily polemical. What I do mean is simply this: If I were you, I would delete the inappropriate material from this thread, not try to censor responses to it even as I myself do continue to publish it. In other words, if responsibility no longer rests with the author (as I am told), then it must perforce lie with the site managers themselves.

Or again, to be perfectly tedious, you could protect both the Church and Mr. Papist at the same time by using your delete button.

Thanks again.

Very sincerely yours,
visitor

PS. There is some really good, I mean just first rate material above as well, which really should remain or be made accessible elsewhere.

[theistgal]

Or ... you could just look at the date of the OP, then skim through the thread to see how the conversation developed (it's only 8 pages), then read some of Papist's other posts, elsewhere on the Forum, to get a better idea of what his opinions are these days, before replying.

Hmmm ... nahhh, you're right - that's way too hard ...  

[Second Chance]

You do realize that these posts come from quite a while back, don't you?

Logic isn't time sensitive.

Do you assume that I still hold all of the views that I expressed above? Do you assume that I still have the same approach to Byzantine Christianity today?

And BTW, I know that I am no Thomas Aquinas. I am nowhere near that brilliant.

At the moment I am assuming that you are a bit of a narcissist. 

He isn't, he is a very nice man and I think this dead horse has been beat enough

There are still plenty of Catholics out there who feel the way that Papist used to.

Now they have a strong response to contend with.

Incidentally, Papist is still--meaning today--shortshrifting important terms. "Byzantine Christianity" is spelled ORTHODOXY. Period. Check the name of the website.

I do not think that your response is strong or helpful. In fact, I do not think that your postings are at all helpful. You seem to be a narcissistic little person, with all of its implications.

[PeterTheAleut]

Incidentally, Papist is still--meaning today--shortshrifting important terms. "Byzantine Christianity" is spelled ORTHODOXY. Period. Check the name of the website.

First, welcome to the forum! I hope you will make a positive contribution to the site, and we can all learn from one another.

Now as for what I quoted from you . . . in case you were not aware, this sub-forum that you are posting in is the Religious Topics forum and is here for us to discuss Religious Topics, in general. That means that dialogue between many different faiths can and do take place here, and it is encouraged. If you prefer to discuss Orthodoxy specifically, and only Orthodoxy, and don't want to hear other voices of opinions from people of other Churches and other faiths, you may find the Faith Issues board more to your liking. However I think you'll find out rather quickly at that, that the term "Byzantine Christianity" while of course is a large part of Orthodoxy, is not the sum total of Orthodoxy. It is but one "flavor" of Orthodoxy, and while it at one time had the vast majority of influence upon Orthodox culture, theology, and Liturgy, it is not, and never was "all there is" to the Orthodox faith. And if you think to be Orthodox one must also adhere strictly to "Byzantine Christianity" you're going to have a tough sell, particularly with people like Ialmisry.


As for the name of the site, Papist is well aware of of the board rules, and has done nothing wrong at all.  However I think it drastically unfair of you to dredge up a 3 year old thread and bash someone for an opinion they once held and no longer do. It makes about as much sense as bashing CS Lewis for being an atheist, when in fact he spent most of his life as a Christian.

In Peace, NP

Hi. Thanks for the welcome.

Please allow me to make apology for my actions. It's going to be a bit bumpy, but bear with me and it'll work itself out.

The offensive material in the thread "Let's Insult the Orthodox" is at your discression to delete, is it not? In the meantime, you are actively publishing it. If you do not want social responses to such material, either on this board or worse, on the ground, then I would encourage you to, if you'll pardon the phrase, cease and desist.

No one's wrenching your hand behind your back and forcing you to reply to the offensive material.  Much of Papist's material on this thread was indeed offensive, and maybe it's a good thing for him to have to continue to address the consequences of his rude behavior years later, which is why we didn't and won't delete his posts.  However, that doesn't make your actions on this thread right and honorable--no one forced you to post, so you could very well have not posted.  And just as you have the freedom here to criticize Papist for his unseemly comments, so do we have the same freedom to criticize your equally unseemly comments.  If you don't like that, then maybe you can moderate your own posts rather than insist that we censor someone else.

My response was intened against the account/opinion expressed at the head of this thread. It is an account/opinion which is by no means extinct either simply because the poster has changed his own private mind about it. I'm engaging in public discourse, not showing up late to an intervention.

If you wish to bash a general opinion because so many people hold onto it today, then focus your comments on that general opinion.  Don't bash the person who expressed that opinion years ago.

I hope you don't take my defense to be arrogant, or even necessarily polemical. What I do mean is simply this: If I were you, I would delete the inappropriate material from this thread, not try to censor responses to it even as I myself do continue to publish it. In other words, if responsibility no longer rests with the author (as I am told), then it must perforce lie with the site managers themselves.

Or again, to be perfectly tedious, you could protect both the Church and Mr. Papist at the same time by using your delete button.

Are you suggesting, then, that we delete Papist's offensive and inappropriate posts?  How is this real censorship any better than the pseudo-censorship of merely criticizing your response to the offensive posts?  You do understand what censorship is?  You do realize that if we really wanted to censor posts, we could delete your posts just as quickly as we could Papist's?  Fortunately, the management of this site is not into censoring posts, so you have no need to worry.

[Papist]

Visitor's comments on this thread have given me pause to think. Indeed, I have changed my views since I initially posted in this thread but that does not change the fact that my old statements have consequences. I would hope that Visitor would be able to demonstrate the same maturity that most of the members of this forum have shown so far and I thank everyone for doing so by exemplifying the Christian virtue of forgiveness. That being said, I understand that anyone could come across my old posts and the effect could be damaging to Catholic/Orthodox relations. While I think that Visitor was being unfair I would like to make a public apology for my older posts. My behavior was unchristian, offensive, and demonstrated a lack of maturity on my part. To anyone who reads this thread, please know that I don't think in the same manner as I did before and I am genuinely sorry. To Visitor, I hope you can see that when looking at something that some one wrote years ago you are only looking at what a person was and only a very small part of what that person was. I look forward to you learning a bit about what I now am.
- Chris

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: NorthernPines) > Topic: Let's Insult the Orthodox.