Can someone explain to me the differences between Catholic and Orthodox theology? (Besides the Holy Spirit thing, I already know about that.) From what I understand, Catholic theology is more Aristotelian while Orthodox theology is more Platonic.
Can someone explain to me the differences between Catholic and Orthodox theology?
What a shitty room.
You can tell a weak beta male let his woman design it and loved what she did with the place. From an aesthetics standpoint, and from a pragmatic one, the room is abhorrent.
Three barstools facing a fake brick wall has to be a joke right?
Yes, the joke is that they are inhabitants of the allegorical Cave and can only stare at shadows on the wall, dipshit.
I think I remember the original man cave pic and the 3 chairs had a counter against the wall, but I could be wrong. Even if those chairs were pointing towards something, the room looks very uncomfortable.
I can practically hear the thumping Taylor Swift and Katy Perry noise
what a fricking b***h
Only thing wrong is the design is too modern. A medieval style would be much better.
No the original image. There are three stools facing nothing but a brick wall.
Both traditions span centuries of writing so saying that one is Platonic and the other Aristotelian is insufficient and unacceptable.
Here are some paleo-Thomist manuals:
isidore.co/aquinas/
aquinas.cc
isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Woodbury, Austin Maloney, S.M., 1899-1979/
isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922/
maritain.nd.edu/jmc/aristotl.htm
https://www.faith.org.uk/article/january-february-2014-the-collapse-of-the-manualist-tradition
https://onepeterfive.com/defense-manuals-manualism/
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/11/neo-scholastic-revival.html
It needs a plucked chicken.
I always thought the shadows in the cave were just byproducts of others walking around. Did Plato actually really intend for it to be fricking puppet shows of rubber duckies and shit consciously used to psychologically torture the prisoners? Something about that is absolutely hilarious to me.
I think they are very similar.
Orthodox usually have the Jesus prayer and Catholics have the Rosary.
Check this out:
>throw dart
>house turns
>flys into TV
Bullseye
thank you for posting the redbubble sticker image of toasting pepe
Orthodox Christianity has a much stronger Universalist tradition than Catholicism
By Universalist I mean that for any individual who is being consciously tortured in Hell, that torture will not last forever but be finite, either through annihilation or reunion with God
I genuinely cannot fathom non-universalist Christianity, or honestly any non-universalist doctrine of faith tha has a concept of unceasing, inescapable torment. There is not one human being that has ever lived in my knowledge that I would wish this upon, or any living being for that matter. It is so unbelievably evil to even entertain the concept of eternal torment that I must imagine it was only concocted to assist in the spreading of religion rather than being the sincere sentiments of those original prophets/idealists.
>It is so unbelievably evil to even entertain the concept of eternal torment
nta but if God saw fit that some pedophile deserved to be tortured forever, I wouldn't argue against it. I bet the child they tortured wished they themself could be annihilated instead of facing the torture of the pedophile, so I could see why God wouldn't rescue them from eternal torture by annihilating them. That way they have an eternity to figure out that what they did was very very wrong. But I could be wrong. If God has a plan to annihilate bad souls and universally save the salvageable ones, I'm all for it.
I am not arguing against obliteration though. I am specifying the doctrine of eternal, irrevocable torture for a life of worldly sin as being entirely alien to any reasonable sentiment of justice. There just isn't any justification I have ever heard for it outside of vague moronic shit like "well achshually all sin is eternal aginst god so in a way eternal punishment is completely justified" which even the most harsh judge of men would see as outright sadistic. Even the most evil person to ever live does not deserve to be subjected to UNDENDING punishment. Yes, torture into obliteration after a finite period is harsh but can reasonably argued for. Infinity however is just off the table unless you're some weirdo sadist or simply lack the imagination to conceptualize the reality of torture/suffering that never ends.
The eternal torture doesn't have to be cosmic torture devices, though, it could be experiencing the fact that you fricked up and never get to see God again.
When Lazarus' master was in hell, he could talk and ask for water. Someone being physically tortured wouldn't be able to talk, but it's apparent he was very uncomfortable. But if God decides that someone does in fact deserve eternal torment, then that person deserves it, otherwise God would be wrong. If God says it's justified, then it is, but that, like other things, we can't really know until we're dead.
My point remains the same in regard for eternity: a finite mortal lifetime of sin and failure simply cannot justify any infinite inescapable anguish. Obviously if God says otherwise then He is right, but I find it so comically unbelievable that any being of benevolence and forgiveness would even create beings that are unforgiveable solely so that they may experience everlasting misery away from Him.
It sounds like we mostly agree then; it's kind of hard for me to speculate on what punishment people might deserve, I just have faith that God will provide perfect justice, whatever that is.
>be moronic sinner
>persist in sin in the face of God
>could I be a sinner? no, it must be God who is wrong
>be tormented by own sin for 1000 years
>instead of realising the mistake and becoming saved, harden in sin and hate
>be tormented for another 1000 years
>harden in sin even more, hate God even more
>this cycle repeats for eternity
Wala eternal torture through sinner's own arrogance
yeah but now you're banking on the idea that there's a soul so unbreakable that even God's will couldn't overcome him. you just turned a sinner into a being more powerful than God.
What about the child who was tortured to death and went to Hell? Do they have a say about their murderer who went on to repent and find Christ?
Children are innocent so they don't go to hell.
Repenting may not be enough for someone who does something like murdering the child... Even Jesus says so.
>
ChristB4us
Elect
JoinedMay 19, 2023
Messages104
Reaction score8
Points18
LocationPennsylvania / Hermitage
May 20, 2023
#1
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
>23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Children are not innocent unless you define a child as being innocent in which case I'm not really sure which age-range you consider children to be in
Why do people baptise babies? They have original sin
Do children lie? I think they do
Do they know they've done wrong when they do so? At a certain point yes!
You're the one assuming murdered children go to hell, not me. I'm pretty sure God wouldn't send a child to hell for lying
>Why do people baptise babies?
I don't put too much stock in that, but I guess it couldn't hurt
>They have original sin
there's plenty of different conceptions of this doctrine, not all of which damn children to hell for misbehaving before they have a chance at redemption. God is merciful and if anyone deserves his mercy, it's small children.
It's called "OG Sin" in the hood
Is this really the position of the Orthodox church? I've been interested in that line of Christianity and this is really interesting because the one concept that I've never fully been able to grasp is the concept of eternal hell. To my knowledge, the Bible never explicitly states the state of hell as the same as the modern day interpretation of it, unless I'm wrong. Jesus only speaks of eternal fire and the gnashing of teeth which doesn't really tell us much other than that it really sucks but it only says that there is no return, not that a soul will be there eternally. We can assume this refers to a spiritual world so I've always assumed Jesus put it in terms we can understand. But what exactly does that mean? And why does God even let that be the default resting place for humans? What about the people born before Jesus? Do they get a chance?
The other thing I've always wondered is that, if all sin is worthy of damnation, does that mean that if I've been good my whole life and on my last day on Earth I lie and don't get the chance to repent, am I fricked? I've always assumed that God is more gracious than that and understands our human condition more than anyone else but it also doesn't track to me that that person will get burned eternally, either.
>Is this really the position of the Orthodox church?
I'm not really sure, I'm not a capital o Orthodox Christian.
>What about the people born before Jesus? Do they get a chance?
Yes, look up inclusivism vs exclusivism.
As far as the Orthodox position, some of them (if not all) believe that Christ descended into Hades to preach the Gospel after he died. So even the people in Hell get a chance at redemption from their standpoint.
>I lie and don't get the chance to repent, am I fricked?
No, I don't think so.
>I've always assumed that God is more gracious than that
I believe he is. Also I tend to think some sins are more egregious than others. But everyone in the end will have to account of their life in front of Christ on the day of Judgement, regardless of what they did or believed.
Catholicism is more Platonist and more Aristotelian at the same time. These are not opposing mindsets. Christian Platonism peaked with Augustine who the Orthodox tend to see as the root of everything they find wrong with Catholicism.
Catholics have a bigger emphasis on Original Sin and the idea that Original Sin is fundamentally the cause of mankind's continued disconnect with God. Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which teaches that Mary was from conception free of the effects of both Original Sin and also free from actual sin (i.e. not committing sinful acts during life). Orthodox think Mary never committed actual sin, but do not have a special provision for being free from Original Sin, which they don't accept in the same doctrinal sense.
People have been misunderstanding Plato's Cave for years. He was talking about post nut clarity. There was a cave outside of Athens where Plato used to go and jerk off in the dark for 6, sometimes 16 hours a day. He almost lost his position at the Academy several times because he'd be gone for weeks at a time slapping his dick around in the dark. I'm dead serious, little motherfricker just couldn't stop whackin it. Socrates tried to get him to stop and eventually killed himself by drinking hemlock because he was so sick of Platos shit (Plato later fabricated a story about execution for corrupting the youth to cover this up). Every few days he'd return to Athens shouting some shit about how he'd "escaped the cave" and could "see all truth" lolol and everyone would just stare at him like this frickin freak man. Get him the frick out of town. All it was was once he'd cum he'd realize he spent hours in a cave and thought that the insight that he didn't have to jerk off anymore was some profound truth when it was just him clearing his balls and thinking straight again. Aristotle eventually distanced himself entirely from this weird ass shit and came up with the idea of looking at shit in the world to figure out how it works aka "science," when people would ask about Plato he'd just say "look man he was great when he was young just let it go."
This is also a rare point of parallel between Plato & Diogenes too, except Diogenes used to jerk off in broad daylight in the city center while cracking up, high as frick on mushroom laced wine. Plato would come talking about his cave and Diogenes would tell him to stop being a b***h and "whip out his wiener like a man."
Strange place.
immersion was broken because Xenophon also wrote about Socrates's execution
i'm gonna paraphrase here a bit, but it basically boils down to:
catholics posit that spider-man would win against batman, while the orthodox are firm believers in batman with prep time could defeat spidey
hope that helps
Actually a better comparison is that Catholicism is Aristotelian while Orthodoxy is Kantian.
There are none. Both are pure paganism.
To call it paganism is to say the church decayed immediately and Jesus was a liar for saying the Holy Spirit would guide his followers into all truth.
Because even early patristic writers within a hundred years like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr were already speaking matter of factly about things like bishops and the Eucharist. While Nicene writers were already honoring Mary and the saints.
Catholics used Aristotelian methods to support some stances, but they're not the only way to do it. Only trads still insist on it, but the entire Catholic world doesn't even touch it.
Why are trads so fixated on Thomism?
I'm not entirely sure, but St. Thomas was the bulwark for arguments made at the Council of Trent. And trads don't want to move from Trent. It's almost like to them, that's the actual beginning of the Church. A lot of scholars since then have had a renewed appreciation for biblical studies, mysticism, and patristics (especially Resourcement Theology like Balthasar and Ratzinger/Pope Benedict) and in some ways, they're more trad for simply trying to get back to basics and not centering the whole church on scholasticism. This has also engendered more ecumenism because they can speak to Orthodox and even some Protestants (like Lutherans) on some common ground. Something trads think is evil somehow. It's like all or nothing in their minds.