NationStates

The Eternal Aulus wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Which is why Islam gets off scot-free in Oklahoma. "Small" religions also punch above their weight in evil, such as Aum Shinrikyo and the Jonestown cult

Yes, definitly. It all needs to be ridiculed. But cults are dangerous as they're really close knitted groups. Hard to take them down.

Start with the Alevis then.

Genivaria wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Style?

Ritual Sacrifice Tuesdays?

I hear they do free donuts now.

-Jochistan- wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Tell us, oh great wise non-Western one, who is actually a Westerner, what you joined your religion for.

Also just because I'm a Westerner doesn't mean I can't criticize the erroneous approaches to spirituality that Westerners tend to follow.

You people do it all the damn time to people who don't agree with the dogma of your church. Christian or non Christian. So get off my case.

You have to actually make a coherent case for me to get on it. All you’re really doing is just ranting, “Christians are meaaaaaaaaaaaaan people and I’m enlightened so you should listen to me!” That’s not an argument.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Eternal Aulus wrote:Yes, definitly. It all needs to be ridiculed. But cults are dangerous as they're really close knitted groups. Hard to take them down.

Start with the Alevis then.

Don't worry, we ridicule ourselfs more than enough.

Luminesa wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:Why should either UMN or Parkus seek the sympathy or approval of anyone on NS? You and many others have had no intention of taking Christianity, or Orthodoxy in particular, seriously anyway. You are perhaps better than others, but not by much.

I wouldn't be so holier-than-thou (which is seemingly impossible for you) if I were you, m8, you've done a swell job yourself at making both your ideology and religion unsympathetic through your own pontification.

This is a weird criticism. Where did Parkus ever claim Catholics are not Christians? No where, to my knowledge. All he said was that Catholics are 'interested in the sympathy of the world', to paraphrase, which is false but not exactly 'Catholics are no Christians'.

What foolishness is Parkus perpetuating? Orthodoxy? Parkus, as I read it, only said that Christianity has and will be seen as foolish to many. If we are indeed seen as foolish, then we are already dragging ourselves down; to change this would require us to change our ways.

He was presuming that Christians should not care about the foolishness of the world-which is not entirely off, we shouldn’t care too much about what people say-though when people have misconceptions about the Church we should correct them with kindness and honesty. The point is that evangelization requires teaching truth alongside mercy. And War Gears has a point. A good Christian should love their faith and they should have joy preaching their faith, rather than desiring to perpetually self-flagellate to show how holy they are, then shunning everyone who disagrees with them. Which is what Parkus has been doing. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy itself.

Self-flagellation is a Catholic thing, not Orthodox

The Parkus Empire wrote:

War Gears wrote:
Because they love their religion and want people to understand and appreciate it as much as they do?

Unless they're just in it to be judgemental and Russian supremacists, which I'm 100% sure UMN is.




Look at all this hatred for Christianity, we're going to need to bring back blasphemy laws to charge me with all this slander.


If only you realized the irony, Felrik.


If I am an unpleasant human being, which I may well be when dealing with a thread of such unlikable folk as you all, then it would have nothing to do with my religion or ideology (whatever the latter is).

There is no way to appreciate or understand Orthodoxy from the outside, except in a way which is qualitatively different from how the Orthodox do.

“Orthodoxy is so esoteric you have to join it to find out.” Yeah no. That’s a cop-out.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Luminesa wrote:He was presuming that Christians should not care about the foolishness of the world-which is not entirely off, we shouldn’t care too much about what people say-though when people have misconceptions about the Church we should correct them with kindness and honesty. The point is that evangelization requires teaching truth alongside mercy. And War Gears has a point. A good Christian should love their faith and they should have joy preaching their faith, rather than desiring to perpetually self-flagellate to show how holy they are, then shunning everyone who disagrees with them. Which is what Parkus has been doing. It has nothing to do with Orthodoxy itself.

Self-flagellation is a Catholic thing, not Orthodox

I don’t mean in the literal sense of having a whip and beating oneself with it. I mean beating yourself down to make up for your less-than-stellar understanding of Christian humility.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Self-flagellation is a Catholic thing, not Orthodox

Also something condemned in Catholicism, mind.

I probably won't do a ton in here, but I want to keep up with all sides of things, so here I am.

The Eternal Aulus wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Start with the Alevis then.

Don't worry, we ridicule ourselfs more than enough.

You'd be surprised to find that Christians tend to be rather self-critical as well.

The East Marches II wrote:

The Eternal Aulus wrote:Red Shiite. It's not institutionalized religion nor very dogmatic. AKA Alevi.

Saddam go home you’re drunk.

Taihei Tengoku wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
Whose consumerism is not necessarily good, willing or not. The market doesn't simply fulfill desire, it invents it and fosters it.

It is almost like a process of discovery

Not at all. Inciting desire is not " discovering". And, in fact, the reduction of desire is what is philosophically good, not devoting massive effort to incite and create it.

Corrian wrote:I probably won't do a ton in here, but I want to keep up with all sides of things, so here I am.

*Boops nose.*

Hai. :3

Salus Maior wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Self-flagellation is a Catholic thing, not Orthodox

Also something condemned in Catholicism, mind.

Oh, well that is good.

The Eternal Aulus wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Start with the Alevis then.

Don't worry, we ridicule ourselfs more than enough.

I am a meme among memes, therefore have no fear.

The Eternal Aulus wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Bigness isn't really a predictor of badness. Despite that it did not change my Methodist temperament.

Well, once a religion gets big it becomes, from my perspective, more of a taboo to criticize it. Hence.

And I think kicking down holy houses is fundamental to progress.

...Say what?

The Eternal Aulus wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Bigness isn't really a predictor of badness. Despite that it did not change my Methodist temperament.

Well, once a religion gets big it becomes, from my perspective, more of a taboo to criticize it. Hence.

And I think kicking down holy houses is fundamental to progress.

"Progress" generally means the movement towards Brave New World.

War Gears wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, Yang isn't so much exclusively masculine as much as it is the chaotic component of the human psyche. It's as much associated with light and the realm of spirits as it is with the male gender.

Daoist dualism influenced Shintoism due to the natural dominance and hegemony of Papa Zhongguo over little Baby Nippon. :^)

It's pretty strongly associated with masculinity, at least in early texts, and that's what finds it's way into influencing early Shinto (though the amount of foreign influence on the Kojiki is minimal, it's a very native work).

Eh, Uncle Lao was a huge man-child and his writings were esoteric as fuck, to a point where I'd say he can even compete with Hegel for the title of most esoteric philosopher, but he never put too strong a focus with Yang and masculinity. At least, no more than he associated it with light, action, heaven, heat, and chaos in general.

That being said, the entire premise of Daoism is that the duality of Yin-Yang in life and nature is not a static binary or mutually exclusive phenomenon. No man is exclusively composed of Yang attributes, and no woman is exclusively composed of Yin attributes. The focus is far more on chaos and order, represented by Yang and Yin, respectively, and how most human suffering, at least psychologically, is due to too much importance being attributed to one or the other. The ideal psyche being one that accepts the necessity of both forces, and tries to find a balance that creates a symbiotic equilibrium between the two.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Your lot came up with the Trinity, not me.

Jesus is quintessentially a reincarnation of God in human form. Or at least, that's the simplest way I can explain centuries of Christian theology regarding the role of the Son within the Trinity.

Hence, an avatar of the Dao, but not the Dao per se. If we were to apply it in Daoist terms.

Which, again, doesn't really fit in with Daoist cosmology since the Dao isn't really considered to be a conscious entity. Hell, it's barely even considered an entity at all, but moreso the natural rhythm of the universe.

God is not technically an entity or being in Orthodoxy. He is rather the predicate of being

That doesn't really comply with the Nicene Creed.

War Gears wrote:Allegedly. I'm not inclined to believe it.

I can confirm that we are not the same person, obviously you wouldn't believe me, but still, may as well say it for the record.

War Gears wrote:If only you realized the irony, Felrik.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume that I am Minzerland, please show me the irony.

Reading Russell Kirk's biography. He and his family used to take in refugees, vagrants, ex cons and other displaced persons, sometimes for years. At one point there were 24 such souls living with them. Really great guy, I think he's my favorite 20th political philosopher. Also opposed the war in Vietnam.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Your lot came up with the Trinity, not me.

Jesus is quintessentially a reincarnation of God in human form. Or at least, that's the simplest way I can explain centuries of Christian theology regarding the role of the Son within the Trinity.

Hence, an avatar of the Dao, but not the Dao per se. If we were to apply it in Daoist terms.

Which, again, doesn't really fit in with Daoist cosmology since the Dao isn't really considered to be a conscious entity. Hell, it's barely even considered an entity at all, but moreso the natural rhythm of the universe.

God is not technically an entity or being in Orthodoxy. He is rather the predicate of being

...Whut? God is a being, dude. He literally is “IS WHO IS”.

Sanctissima wrote:That doesn't really comply with the Nicene Creed.

It complies with the Divine Names, by Pseudo Dionysius, which was held in high regard by everyone from Aquinas to Palamas.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:That doesn't really comply with the Nicene Creed.

It complies with the Divine Names, by Pseudo Dionysius, which was held in high regard by everyone from Aquinas to Palamas.

That's doesn't really take precedence over the Creed, of which:

"[...] And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father [...]"

and

"[...] who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man [...]"

seem to be at odds with the idea that God is not an entity or being.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
It complies with the Divine Names, by Pseudo Dionysius, which was held in high regard by everyone from Aquinas to Palamas.

That's doesn't really take precedence over the Creed, of which:

"[...] And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father [...]"

and

"[...] who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man [...]"

seem to be at odds with the idea that God is not an entity or being.

Ousia is understood in the way used by the fathers who were the basis of the creed, and those who wrote about it soon thereafter its adoption.

Luminesa wrote:

-Jochistan- wrote:Also just because I'm a Westerner doesn't mean I can't criticize the erroneous approaches to spirituality that Westerners tend to follow.

You people do it all the damn time to people who don't agree with the dogma of your church. Christian or non Christian. So get off my case.

You have to actually make a coherent case for me to get on it. All you’re really doing is just ranting, “Christians are meaaaaaaaaaaaaan people and I’m enlightened so you should listen to me!” That’s not an argument.

Well that's not what I'm fucking saying.

I'm saying that Traditionalist Christians are elitist and sectarian. Focusing on the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in particular.

I never extended it to all Christians. I never even directed it at you. So you can stop being insanely defensive for no reason.