Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[-Jochistan-]

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.

>Conservatives using the work of a Neo Vedantist Progressive to attack Religious Progressives
Lol

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

What you mean is we aren't open to modernism in our faith. Which is true. Although calling traditionalism "elitist" is not necessarily apt.

[Sanctissima]

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.

Homoousianism was more of a clever wordplay that allowed Nicene Christians to present their side as pliable and willing to compromise whilst simultaneously painting the Arians as dogmatic and unwilling to compromise during the Council of Nicaea, as opposed to being a genuine theological concept. Regardless though, even if we accept Ousia at face value, it is part and parcel with the Trinity, that asserts that all three aspects of God are, at the very least, true entities (with the Holy Spirit's form being debatable but at the very least it is considered an entity in a metaphysical context). If all three aspects of God are entities, how can God himself be considered anything other than an entity?

[Luminesa]

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.

And I happen to be a Catholic. But yeah, that’s basically what you’re saying. “Christians are meaaaaaan and I learned the truth about them except I haven’t said a single thing that’s of any substance to incriminate them.” I’m not being defensive, you’re the one getting angry. You’re cussing me out. Might want to back-up and actually write an argument before you keep going.

[-Jochistan-]

Although to be fair, liberals really have pretty much thoroughly bastardized the notion of social progress.

[The Eternal Aulus]

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.

The point is that all people are inherently dominate and subjugate others according to their own norms of what freedom and liberty is. Even if said person does not agree with it.

Everything is a lie Jochy. Everything is. Wubba dubba dub dub. Brb kms.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

>Conservatives using the work of a Neo Vedantist Progressive to attack Religious Progressives
Lol

I use his term because it is readily familiar to people.

[Luminesa]

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

>Conservatives using the work of a Neo Vedantist Progressive to attack Religious Progressives
Lol

> Using terms like “Neo-Vedantist” which most people don’t know or understand.
> Accuse Catholics and Orthodox of being “elitist”.

Okay. Sure.

[Luminesa]

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.

The point is that all people are inherently dominate and subjugate others according to their own norms of what freedom and liberty is. Even if said person does not agree with it.

Everything is a lie Jochy. Everything is. Wubba dubba dub dub. Brb kms.

INCLUDING THE CAKE.

DO YOU LIKE CAKE?! TOO BAD. IT’S A LIE!!!

*Pies you but with cake.*

[-Jochistan-]

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.

What you mean is we aren't open to modernism in our faith. Which is true. Although calling traditionalism "elitist" is not necessarily apt.

The view that modernism in itself is bad is understandable. I myself subscribed to that point of view. And still believe that modernism has brought with it harmful qualities and modernity as a whole is awful.

But distancing oneself from it so much that you start wanting to actually go back in time to the idealized vision of Medieval Europe is a bit much.

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

Homoousianism was more of a clever wordplay that allowed Nicene Christians to present their side as pliable and willing to compromise whilst simultaneously painting the Arians as dogmatic and unwilling to compromise during the Council of Nicaea, as opposed to being a genuine theological concept. Regardless though, even if we accept Ousia at face value, it is part and parcel with the Trinity, that asserts that all three aspects of God are, at the very least, true entities (with the Holy Spirit's form being debatable but at the very least it is considered an entity in a metaphysical context). If all three aspects of God are entities, how can God himself be considered anything other than an entity?

Homousian means "same entity" or "same being".

The term by the fathers who were the basis of the Creed, and those who came shortly after, was understood purely as a placeholder. God is ineffable they said, so ironically we cannot say God "is" because "is" is a human concept. "Is" is therefore an analogy, like "hand of God" or "wrath of God". Very important and in a sense true, but not technically definate.

[-Jochistan-]

>Conservatives using the work of a Neo Vedantist Progressive to attack Religious Progressives
Lol

> Using terms like “Neo-Vedantist” which most people don’t know or understand.
> Accuse Catholics and Orthodox of being “elitist”.

Okay. Sure.

...youre calling me elitist because I named a religious sect?

[Luminesa]

> Using terms like “Neo-Vedantist” which most people don’t know or understand.
> Accuse Catholics and Orthodox of being “elitist”.

Okay. Sure.

...youre calling me elitist because I named a religious sect?

I’m saying that the term indicates “elitist” behavior because it’s not a term that most people readily know, and you don’t seem too willing to explain it, using it as a green-text as though it should be somewhat common information.

[The Parkus Empire]

What you mean is we aren't open to modernism in our faith. Which is true. Although calling traditionalism "elitist" is not necessarily apt.

The view that modernism in itself is bad is understandable. I myself subscribed to that point of view. And still believe that modernism has brought with it harmful qualities and modernity as a whole is awful.

But distancing oneself from it so much that you start wanting to actually go back in time to the idealized vision of Medieval Europe is a bit much.

I think many aspects of modernism are ill, but others are great. Nonetheless it needs to stay out of my faith.

[Taihei Tengoku]

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.

yes you are right, iconoclasm now

[-Jochistan-]

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.

The point is that all people are inherently dominate and subjugate others according to their own norms of what freedom and liberty is. Even if said person does not agree with it.

Everything is a lie Jochy. Everything is. Wubba dubba dub dub. Brb kms.

Goggle Boogchin : DDD

[Sanctissima]

Homoousianism was more of a clever wordplay that allowed Nicene Christians to present their side as pliable and willing to compromise whilst simultaneously painting the Arians as dogmatic and unwilling to compromise during the Council of Nicaea, as opposed to being a genuine theological concept. Regardless though, even if we accept Ousia at face value, it is part and parcel with the Trinity, that asserts that all three aspects of God are, at the very least, true entities (with the Holy Spirit's form being debatable but at the very least it is considered an entity in a metaphysical context). If all three aspects of God are entities, how can God himself be considered anything other than an entity?

Homousian means "same entity" or "same being".

The term by the fathers who were the basis of the Creed, and those who came shortly after, was understood purely as a placeholder. God is ineffable they said, so ironically we cannot say God "is" because "is" is a human concept. "Is" is therefore an analogy, like "hand of God" or "wrath of God". Very important and in a sense true, but not technically definate.

In the sense of being an almighty omnipotent being that more or less simultaneously is and is not the universe, sure. That's still an entity, since it is the sum of its parts, and both the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all entities, hence God must also be so.

[-Jochistan-]

The view that modernism in itself is bad is understandable. I myself subscribed to that point of view. And still believe that modernism has brought with it harmful qualities and modernity as a whole is awful.

But distancing oneself from it so much that you start wanting to actually go back in time to the idealized vision of Medieval Europe is a bit much.

I think many aspects of modernism are ill, but others are great. Nonetheless it needs to stay out of my faith.

In terms of mysticism, rites and sacred art sure it should stay out.

I don't see why social views such as the views on women, homosexuals, and religious systems outside the church shouldn't be subjected to modernism to prevent abuses.

Plenty of Christians already have made steps in this direction in those areas. In virtually every major denomination.

[Salus Maior]

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.

It's not elitist to care about Christian truth.

[-Jochistan-]

...youre calling me elitist because I named a religious sect?

I’m saying that the term indicates “elitist” behavior because it’s not a term that most people readily know, and you don’t seem too willing to explain it, using it as a green-text as though it should be somewhat common information.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta

Here, it explains it. Sorry for cursing.

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

yes you are right, iconoclasm now

Icons are not painted to please man, but to please God.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think many aspects of modernism are ill, but others are great. Nonetheless it needs to stay out of my faith.

In terms of mysticism, rites and sacred art sure it should stay out.

I don't see why social views such as the views on women, homosexuals, and religious systems outside the church shouldn't be subjected to modernism to prevent abuses.

Plenty of Christians already have made steps in this direction in those areas. In virtually every major denomination.

I am not so concerned about secular same sex marriage if that sort of thing is what you mean. Though we shouldn't chide other countries for not having it.

[-Jochistan-]

In terms of mysticism, rites and sacred art sure it should stay out.

I don't see why social views such as the views on women, homosexuals, and religious systems outside the church shouldn't be subjected to modernism to prevent abuses.

Plenty of Christians already have made steps in this direction in those areas. In virtually every major denomination.

I am not so concerned about secular same sex marriage if that sort of thing is what you mean. Though we shouldn't chide other countries for not having it.

Well that's good. Not necessarily asking for the acts to be accepted as non sinful even.

Just that homosexuals and trans people aren't viewed as bad people that need to be suppressed in some way.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

I seem to recall you pretty directly insulting her with words that shouldn't be repeated on the Abrahamic skype chat.

[Luminesa]

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.

I seem to recall you pretty directly insulting her with words that shouldn't be repeated on the Abrahamic skype chat.

Not really part of the convo itself, but thank you. My concern was more with the lack of self-awareness regarding his complaints against Catholicism and Orthodoxy.