NationStates

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Diopolis wrote:You can have your state with divorce and birth control, we can have ours without it.

Orthodoxy is ok with birth control? Since when?

Dunno how trustworthy Orthodoxwiki is, but...

The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow[3], the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America[4], and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and Stanley S. Harakas, may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Diopolis wrote:You can have your state with divorce and birth control, we can have ours without it.

Orthodoxy is ok with birth control? Since when?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... _Orthodoxy
According to wiki, Orthodoxy has a fair range of views on birth control, tends to view there as being no definitive teaching(when in fact the church fathers spoke unanimously on the issue), and even the "conservative" member churches are more liberal on the question than an outright ban.

Diopolis wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Orthodoxy is ok with birth control? Since when?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... _Orthodoxy
According to wiki, Orthodoxy has a fair range of views on birth control, tends to view there as being no definitive teaching(when in fact the church fathers spoke unanimously on the issue), and even the "conservative" member churches are more liberal on the question than an outright ban.

One could say the same about Catholics, though, no? Regardless of what the Church says.

Diopolis wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Orthodoxy is ok with birth control? Since when?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... _Orthodoxy
According to wiki, Orthodoxy has a fair range of views on birth control, tends to view there as being no definitive teaching(when in fact the church fathers spoke unanimously on the issue), and even the "conservative" member churches are more liberal on the question than an outright ban.

Orthodoxy is a broad grouping of course. Theology within it can vary significantly.

Novus America wrote:

Diopolis wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... _Orthodoxy
According to wiki, Orthodoxy has a fair range of views on birth control, tends to view there as being no definitive teaching(when in fact the church fathers spoke unanimously on the issue), and even the "conservative" member churches are more liberal on the question than an outright ban.

Orthodoxy is a broad grouping of course. Theology within it can vary significantly.

Except in the case of an Ecumenical Council, in which case the ruling is final. But those are only called for truly major issues; not every little social problem. In that respect, we are less autistic than our estranged Catholic cousins.

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Orthodoxy is a broad grouping of course. Theology within it can vary significantly.

Except in the case of an Ecumenical Council, in which case the ruling is final. But those are only called for truly major issues; not every little social problem. In that respect, we are less autistic than our estranged Catholic cousins.

The last of (Orthodox only but mostly recognized by Orthodox) which was held in 1872 which was a failure and its rulings not followed.
It is not because Orthodox are less “autistic” than Catholics but because Orthodoxy lacks the ability to organize as effectively.

Novus America wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Except in the case of an Ecumenical Council, in which case the ruling is final. But those are only called for truly major issues; not every little social problem. In that respect, we are less autistic than our estranged Catholic cousins.

The last of which was held in 1871 which was a failure and its rulings not followed.
It is not because you are less “autistic” but because you lack the ability to organize as effectively.

Vatican I ended in 1870, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
If you mean Orthodox ecumenical councils, there hasn't been one in over a thousand years IIRC. Largely because the Orthodox patriarchates spend the better part of the last thousand years as the caliph's bitch.

Diopolis wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The last of which was held in 1871 which was a failure and its rulings not followed.
It is not because you are less “autistic” but because you lack the ability to organize as effectively.

Vatican I ended in 1870, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
If you mean Orthodox ecumenical councils, there hasn't been one in over a thousand years IIRC. Largely because the Orthodox patriarchates spend the better part of the last thousand years as the caliph's bitch.

I am referring to the Orthodox Synod of Constantinople in 1872 (I was off by a year).
It was the last largely though not completely recognized Orthodox Ecumenical Council and was a complete failure.

True the last universally recognized Ecumenical council was 787.
An institution that has be in abeyance for at least over a century, possibly a millennium cannot be considered currently functioning regardless.

They did try to hold some after, but certainly the fall of Constantinople was a blow from which Orthodoxy never really recovered.

It would have perhaps been great mercy to have annexed Mexico following the war.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:Kicking people out of the country? Holy fuck the insecurity. Did you get ass whooped by a New Englander or something once?

Most of my family is still in New England, actually. My parents were Appalachian transplants. I just believe that ethnonationalists have no place in this country, or really this world, but I suppose people should be free to hold their dangerous delusions somewhere, preferably somewhere very isolated.

Bear Stearns is not an ethnonationalist, is he?

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Orthodoxy is a broad grouping of course. Theology within it can vary significantly.

Except in the case of an Ecumenical Council, in which case the ruling is final. But those are only called for truly major issues; not every little social problem. In that respect, we are less autistic than our estranged Catholic cousins.

You mean you're less faithful than your Catholic cousins. :^)

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Diopolis wrote:You can have your state with divorce and birth control, we can have ours without it.

Orthodoxy is ok with birth control? Since when?

It's something that can be decided Bishop-to-Bishop. A Bishop can allow or disallow the use of birth control, so long as it is not abortifacient.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Except in the case of an Ecumenical Council, in which case the ruling is final. But those are only called for truly major issues; not every little social problem. In that respect, we are less autistic than our estranged Catholic cousins.

You mean you're less faithful than your Catholic cousins.

As a Catholic, and as someone with criticism towards some elements of our schismatic brethren, I would never say that Orthodox are less faithful to Christ. Even if some errors persist with them.

Conserative Morality wrote: I just believe that ethnonationalists have no place in this country, or really this world...

I too think that Wilsonian indulgence of nationalism on ethnic lines was incredibly short sighted and naive.

catholicism delenda est

Dradnine wrote:catholicism delenda est

Let me know when anarchists actually make a successful society and then I may take you slightly seriously.

Salus Maior wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote: I just believe that ethnonationalists have no place in this country, or really this world...

I too think that Wilsonian indulgence of nationalism on ethnic lines was incredibly short sighted and naive.

Wilson worst president

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
I too think that Wilsonian indulgence of nationalism on ethnic lines was incredibly short sighted and naive.

Wilson worst president

I’m still putting Andrew Jackson as the worst, but okay.

Kowani wrote:
I’m still putting Andrew Jackson as the worst, but okay.

Jackson at least championed votes for the common man and put the kibosh on nullification. Sure he was an authoritarian racist shithead with no respect for the rule of law, but so was Wilson.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Kowani wrote:
I’m still putting Andrew Jackson as the worst, but okay.

Jackson at least championed votes for the common man and put the kibosh on nullification. Sure he was an authoritarian racist shithead with no respect for the rule of law, but so was Wilson.

Wilson also gave us an income tax, made the Sherman Anti-Trust Act not suck, and dropped tariffs.

Plus, Jackson committed Genocide, there’s no winning there.

Kowani wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Jackson at least championed votes for the common man and put the kibosh on nullification. Sure he was an authoritarian racist shithead with no respect for the rule of law, but so was Wilson.

Wilson also gave us an income tax, made the Sherman Anti-Trust Act not suck, and dropped tariffs.

Plus, Jackson committed Genocide, there’s no winning there.

Tariffs > income tax.

Novus America wrote:

Kowani wrote:Wilson also gave us an income tax, made the Sherman Anti-Trust Act not suck, and dropped tariffs.

Plus, Jackson committed Genocide, there’s no winning there.

Tariffs > income tax.

Not of you want fairness to consumers, a
proper diplomacy and a government that isn’t always strapped for cash. Plus, stratification of wealth tends to not go well.

And besides, Wilson brought the estate tax too.

Kowani wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Jackson at least championed votes for the common man and put the kibosh on nullification. Sure he was an authoritarian racist shithead with no respect for the rule of law, but so was Wilson.

Wilson also gave us an income tax, made the Sherman Anti-Trust Act not suck, and dropped tariffs.

Plus, Jackson committed Genocide, there’s no winning there.

Anyone could have made an income tax or dropped tariffs. Only Wilson could have fucked up international relations for generations to come.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Kowani wrote:Wilson also gave us an income tax, made the Sherman Anti-Trust Act not suck, and dropped tariffs.

Plus, Jackson committed Genocide, there’s no winning there.

Anyone could have made an income tax or dropped tariffs. Only Wilson could have fucked up international relations for generations to come.

Is this one of those “Should’ve stayed out of WW1 things?”

Kowani wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Tariffs > income tax.

Not of you want fairness to consumers, a
proper diplomacy and a government that isn’t always strapped for cash. Plus, stratification of wealth tends to not go well.

And besides, Wilson brought the estate tax too.

Tariffs can raise plenty enough revenue.
And do not destroy domestic industry causing soaring inequality and the loss of good paying jobs to slave labor overseas.
They allow you to prevent a suicidal race to the bottom on labor and environmental laws.

Global trade causes stratification of wealth.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews ... ontext=amp

Are you really surprised? How do you think destroying high paying jobs here to create low paying ones elsewhere would not stratification of wealth?