What is a 'tismatic?

ah. I can't think of what the other part is that merges with schismatic

oh haha

Another thing I don't get is hypocrisy: Why does it matter?
The leftists etc. are always happy when they find out that someone who encouraged Christian morality turns out to have been unfaithful to his wife, or a pedo, or whatever it is. But that stuff really doesn't matter for what the person was arguing, does it? It seems like a form of ad hominem to me. It's not just moral matters, but that's probably the most relevant to this group

Yes, Jesus did call Pharisees hypocrites, so it has to mean something. 🤔 In that case, it was a tool of Jesus insulting them righteously. The core of what they preached wasn't wrong, but their practice didn't live up to it. Jesus pointed out the discrepancy observing people would know the (((Elders))) were not really serving God, only pretending to.

So it's probably something where the motive matters more than the tactic. When lefties use it, it's to discredit the good message. When Jesus used it, it was to rightly discredit Pharisees.

I saw a headline about Russian and Greek Orthodox splitting. What's going on there?

I need help thinking of the word for something

You know how in the high middle ages, wealthy families would often pay for little shrine things in a cathedral?

What are those things called?

Found it. They're called "chantries" or private chapels

Confessional Weeb Page is great

reliquary bust of st Yrieix

I've come across that argument sometimes, that in the early church baptism was often put off until the person was on his deathbed, so that its justifying power would be like how you wait until after a workout to shower. Constantine was one of those, iirc.
It doesn't square with scriptural descriptions of new converts being baptized immediately, though.

exactly

Excellent distinction to make

for the Sola Scriptura thing, I mean

Constantine is also not someone to base anything theological on, considering he favored the Arians and was baptized by an Arian

Speaking of the Arians, are you familiar with Islamic history? or really, the specific episode in which Mohammed talks to "Bahira," which is a corruption of the title bhira which just is a priest. And so potentially Mohammed took ideas from an Arian in creating Islam

which makes a lot of sense, even if we don't go so far as to say he was demon-possessed

Yeah, okay, I had only heard/read he was baptized by an Arian and personally agreed more with them, but if the baptizer was only a former Arian that makes a lot more sense.
Even if he had been a heretic, of course God used him as a tool for legalizing and promoting the faith. I would never describe him as a heretic. I imagine him more as someone who was struggling to make sense of the theology and getting caught between the factions without any sort of grounding

My point, as such, was that we should not take his example of deathbed baptism over the many scriptural examples of immediate baptism on conversion or shortly after birth

I met a Gnostic today. Hard to believe there's people who believe that swill

possibly in some contexts, but this guy was legitimately talking about how the demiurge made this material world and that's why it's flawed, and crying that the orthodoxy suppressed them and tried to get rid of their texts

Yes, but also I pity him. He was raised Catholic, but evidently not taught well enough to stick with it, so he said he was actually drifting into agnosticism before an uncle died and he found out that the uncle had secretly been a gnostic for many years. I guess something in it appealed to him. Like the view of a fallen world because it was administered by a flawed emanation of God somehow made more sense than real Christian theodicy.

I pity the part where he didn't learn the answers to his doubts from a legitimate source

Yeah. The popularity of "witches" and satanism among edgy girls has to be one of the most irritating things on the internet

ignoring the useless comment at bottom that tells brainlets this is funny

@Deleted User Hesiod's Theogony is one of the earliest written ones, and is also the chronological start. He was contemporary with Homer, but I don't know who would actually be first. Of course, both worked from previous oral traditions or nonsurviving written works. Are you trying to read every known work on Greek mythology in order?

I'm making my way through a William Faulkner short story collection. Much better at novels, in my opinion. Also started reading Native Son because I had it lying around for a while.

I need help with the caption

"Me and the boys prophesying at Pentecost" is the idea I'm going for

I just googled to find some kind of mideast-looking city background

we can workshop it

Acts 2:3

I thought they were cartoonish but I guess they really are like emojis. I'm pretty bad at graphic design, but it doesn't keep me from trying

Is today Pentecost for Orthodox too or is it a week later like Easter?

7 weeks later is 49 days = close enough to 50 days. 50 days after Easter was Pentecost so we celebrate it in my church

It's not that Louis was fat or buff, the guillotine blade was dull

And I thought they had to drop it 3 times

retiarius pleb

For Whom the Bell Tolls reads pretty well, but I have a feeling you want wholesome nonfiction

I love how they're outside the restroom because the Women sign is visible

Imagine a toilet in the hall outside the restroom

Also if it were in the bathroom there'd be a stall around the toilet <:eksdee:558283291292336138>

Big brain time

Use cav or micro with the split order

Yeah I mean that's ideal but I agree it is hard to deal with

DE?

I read an abridged version one time. It reminded me of Job somewhat. Krishna goes on a long spiel about how he's divine so that Arjuna trusts him enough to fight the battle because it's his place in life to be a warrior.

Notice how other religions usually contain some shreds of truth remembered from Eden or observed from nature

Pilate allowed Jesus to be murdered

Washing his hands was a nice try but he still bears some of the guilt

So much the worse, for recognizing truth and still not defending it

I think his wife converted but he didn't. Could be wrong

We can understand his sin but we had better not be excusing it

Sure, things had to occur in the way they had been prophesied, but we don't use that defense for Judas and certainly not for the Jewish leaders.
I'm sure in Pilate's position of unbelief and politics I would have done the same, so I don't mean to judge him in that regard. But what he did by flogging and crucifying an innocent man, our Savior, is unarguably a sin.

The Jews killed Jesus. Yes. They demanded his death. I agree. I'm not disputing that. Cool it with the "perverse judaizer" talk.
Pilate tried a couple strategies to avoid putting Jesus to death without openly opposing the Jews. Good on him. In the end, he sentenced him to crucifixion anyway and had his soldiers perform the act itself. He sacrificed an innocent man's life to avoid a potential rebellion. Do you really still not see my point? The fact he was pressured into doing it mitigates his blame but doesn't eliminate it entirely.
Even in the Nicene Creed, we have confessed for centuries that Jesus "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried." The holy church fathers list Pilate's name there, not Caiaphus'. Were they perverse judaizers? Of course not. They still recognized that Jews demanded Christ's death, but that didn't keep them from admitting Pilate's complicity.
[Edited to remove an accusatory question]

I apologize if my tone is hostile or forceful here. I really don't mean for it to be so

My point is not that Pilate killed Christ. You're totalizing. The point is Pilate played a role in killing Christ. A much smaller role than the Jews, but a role nonetheless

I cited the Creed to show that it is not simply a modern thing to condemn Pilate for the role he played.

Oh Pilate said he was innocent, guess I'll go home now

I'm familiar with the scripture, my guys

Btw this conversation has been moved from <#435529023666257932>, I'd recommend reading that first if you want to weigh in.

Luke 23:6-7

Trying to pass off the responsibility onto Herod

John 19:10-11

(quick note: how do I set the translation for it? I thought it was set to DR for everyone)

I think this is a great passage for our common ground. The Jews clearly had a "greater sin" in demanding Jesus' death and refusing to accept any other punishment. The use of this phrase, though, indicates a lesser sin on Pilate's part in bowing to the pressure and ordering the crucifixion, even though he finds no legal reason to punish Jesus.

+setversion DRA

Thanks

John 19:10-11

Do you say it latinex or latinks?

¿Se dice latinex o latinks?

Is there a functional difference between Anglican and Episcopal? I thought the latter was just Americanized version

So, severed connection to Canterbury and monarchy, but doctrine is in theory the same?

Perhaps Chinglican meant that before the birth of Christ, Jews would have read Isaiah and not realized what it really meant, only expecting a conventional human liberator?
His original comment seemed to say Isaiah himself didn't know this, though? That's kinda cringe vro. (No need to reply, finish your paper first)

@El Fletchy women have agency and free will, including to accept or decline a husband. Don't pretend that all or even most men are good enough to do what's best for both. And even in systems of arranged marriage, for most of history, the financial standing of the husband has always been a concern. If you're mad that thots won't date you, stop going after thots and look for good women instead.

Is that Australian dollars or burger?

<:crash:590191196299722861> that's a lotta cheddar

That was intentional. Arthur is an unreliable narrator because of his psychosis. He never had the relationship with her, only talked to her in the hall once. His co-worker might not even have given him the gun.

Paradox games are not really that expensive if you buy them on sale and only buy a few of the expansions. Even if you spent 100 on it, it's worth it for the thousand+ hours of entertainment you can get.

Dems know they can't remove Trump from office, but the impeachment "trial" grants them more access to information and subpoenas. They're hoping to dig up enough dirt and scandal to convince the public not to vote Trump next year. If it looks like Republicans are covering for a guilty Trump, democrats can play that up and take Congress too.

ok?

Am I retarded there for breaking the chain or for blue pill politics?

Another camp of neopagans is basically just anti-Christian environmentalists who seek spirituality in nature. That would be the druid or wicca side.

Still degenerate though

In their case, they have the aesthetic draw towards the beauty and wonder of nature. However, where we know the beauty of nature speaks to the truth of God, they blind themselves to that truth and make an idol of nature itself

If Christians fear what happens when you die, why would they invent hell?

It's not comforting

Supernatural doesn't mean not real

There's tons of stuff that's outside empirical science's epistemology

"Science" is just what can be observed in a lab again and again or proven mathematically

Sure, but my point is that there are limits to what can be known scientifically

Think of some abstract idea. Love works, but it might seem cringey

What's this about infrared?

Is Ed Feser's The Last Superstition still in Resources?

I can wrangle up the pdf if not