Jay Dyer And East Ortho Bros

/his/'s thoughts on Jay Dyer and Eastern Orthodoxy in general?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >see this bozo posted all the time
    >check one of the clips
    >he’s just a conventionally attractive man with a deep voice stating that he’s right about everything with full confidence
    You guys know you’re gay and have girlbrain right?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The best physiognomy wins in every single conceivable aspect of life. It's not just womanbrain. Get with the program, homie

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The best physiognomy wins in every single conceivable aspect of life
        uh oh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why am I not surprised it's meathead luddites that love this homosexual?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't. I'm pointing out that 99% of normies don't give a shit about actual argumentation and will just latch onto whoever looks the best and that he wouldn't have his audience of tradlarpers if he was balding and indian

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is actually true.

            why am I not surprised it's meathead luddites that love this homosexual?

            Please don’t lump luddites in with him and his moronic fans. They worship funkopops.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's not selling this shit to normies, he's selling it to dweebs and incels. The content of his rhetoric clearly matters, otherwise he would have taken off the first time he was Orthodox, when he was a israelite, or when he was a Baptist. But, he didn't, he had to wait until post-2016 Larpodoxy came along to actually get a following.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You’re too dumb to have any sense of how dumb you are.
        Being good looking doesn’t make you correct automatically or successful, it just helps with being successful. It is especially stupid to spread some guy’s ideas because you think they’re attractive. I mean you’re just gay and turned on by him, that’s literally what that is.
        Being gay isn’t a bad thing but being stupid is

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          see

          I don't. I'm pointing out that 99% of normies don't give a shit about actual argumentation and will just latch onto whoever looks the best and that he wouldn't have his audience of tradlarpers if he was balding and indian

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >weed consoomer
    >so dumb he accidentally agreed with Arians.
    >uses needlessly big words in debates and when people ask what the word means he acts like that means he’s won.
    >claims he is orthodox but fails at orthopraxy
    >says the canons of councils aren’t binding and that people who think they are are papists despite his churches doctrines saying otherwise and numerous other EOs say otherwise.
    >debate bro cult of personality
    >treats his faith like a pair of shoes. Protestant, Catholic/Sedivicantist, atheist, Palamite, israeli, Palamite again.
    >Ecclesiological presupposationalism means talking to him or his fans is pointless, they already presupposed they are correct. The truth is irrelevant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Ecclesiological presupposationalism means talking to him or his fans is pointless, they already presupposed they are correct
      This is what I can't stand about Christianity as a whole. You have to deny so much much because you are always arguing from the point of view of "well we're just right because God said so". This guy constantly shits on the perennialists but honestly I feel like they have a point; the mystics of the world usually talk about the same thing for a reason, and that's just something that guys like Jay just blatantly ignore or just defacto say are wrong because they already know the answers.

      Unironically if the Ortho bros wanted to convert more people, they need to drop the smug attitude that they all have, that is one of the most annoying things about these guys.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Unironically if the Ortho bros wanted to convert more people, they need to drop the smug attitude that they all have, that is one of the most annoying things about these guys.
        Well, yeah? They're not trying to convert people, they're trying to retreat from the world into their personal grifter circlejerk where they can suck eachother off for being 2cool4school. It's why they chose fricking Eastern Orthodoxy: it's simultaneously completely and utterly harmless while also being obscure enough that the ortholarper can always be the smartest guy in the room on it because no one cares what St. Yabbadabbadoupolis of Mt. Pederasticon wrote in his 1642 treatise "On Penances".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>says the canons of councils aren’t binding and that people who think they are are papists despite his churches doctrines saying otherwise

      Where did you find this fact? In my experience, most Orthodox priests have told me this is the case (4). And one EO theologian.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >weed consoomer
        >so dumb he accidentally agreed with Arians.
        >uses needlessly big words in debates and when people ask what the word means he acts like that means he’s won.
        >claims he is orthodox but fails at orthopraxy
        >says the canons of councils aren’t binding and that people who think they are are papists despite his churches doctrines saying otherwise and numerous other EOs say otherwise.
        >debate bro cult of personality
        >treats his faith like a pair of shoes. Protestant, Catholic/Sedivicantist, atheist, Palamite, israeli, Palamite again.
        >Ecclesiological presupposationalism means talking to him or his fans is pointless, they already presupposed they are correct. The truth is irrelevant.

        >this is the case

        By this, I mean, that the Canons are non binding, but the ecumenical councils are infalliable. Which I have infered that this means the confessions of faith are infalliable

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Which I have infered that this means the confessions of faith are infalliable
          You mean the people attending confessions of faith are infallible?
          Like if Pope Whosey Whatsit the 4th said at the start of the council (because the e confession of faith happened at the start of the councils except for Chalcedon which switched stuff up) I believe X, Y and Z, and the Council says “yep your good we find this satisfactory” THAT is that parts that binding, not the part that says, “if a dude puts nut in his priests cereal let him be anathema”?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, confessions of faith like the Nicene creed, definition of the two natures of christ at Chalcedon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Where did you find this fact?
        As in the canons are binding?
        The nature of the canons themselves. They end with words to the effect of “and whoever holds X, or doesn’t hold Y, or doesn’t do Z, let them be anathema”.
        And then later councils say “whoever rejects the decisions of the council of Fart and Shart, let him be anathema”.
        I’ll also drop in a quote from one of the EO councils that say their church cannot error.

        If you mean where does Gay Cryer reject the Canons?

        %3D%3D
        I suspect Gay Cryer only took this line on the Council Canons because some of them are pretty absurd. I think it would be easier for him to just admit the councils errored, but then he would need to change religion for the 11th time.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I’ll also drop in a quote from one of the EO councils that say their church cannot error.

          I just said the councils are thought to be infallible but the canons are applicable depending.

          >The nature of the canons themselves.

          Doesn't work like that. As I said, most EO churches do not apply the canons fully and say that they aren't the parts which are infallible. This is a catholic notion.

          "The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are regarded within the Orthodox Church as universally authoritative, though not in a strictly constructionist sense. Their canons have often been repealed or revised by the decisions of local synods or even of later Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, their legislation is central to the Orthodox canonical tradition, and appeals to such canons are more frequently made than to any other source of canonical legislation. "

          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

          Priests have told me this sentiment. I believe if it were wrong they would be defrocked.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I just said the councils are thought to be infallible
            Thought or Are? the two are very different.
            >but the canons are applicable depending.
            Okay and thats not what the Councils seem to believe. That’s why they enforced them under pain of anathema.
            You don’t enforce stuff under threat of eternal damnation if it is just a circumstantial rule that you can take or leave as desired.

            >Doesn't work like that. As I said, most EO churches do not apply the canons fully
            Yeah I’ve gather from seeing how they behave. It seems to be a buffet where people will cite the canons one moment and ignore them the next (actually now that I think about it, it checks out because the Pharisees were called hypocrites too).

            >The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are regarded within the Orthodox Church as universally authoritative, though not in a strictly constructionist sense.
            That’s just a word salad saying they’re definitive but lol not really.
            >Nevertheless, their legislation is central to the Orthodox canonical tradition
            So apparently the Great Tradition is not only subject to change but can also be ignored.
            I got to be honest anon, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I thought it was just Gay Cryer, but knowing that the canons are functionally arbitrary in the EO Church convinces me more than ever that I made the right decision staying away.

            >Priests have told me this sentiment. I believe if it were wrong they would be defrocked.
            I’ve learned over time that priests (EO, OO or Catholic) say a lot of stuff and hierarchy is not swift to boot them out when they give a different of opinion.

            >No, confessions of faith like the Nicene creed, definition of the two natures of christ at Chalcedon.
            I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion. Those are enforced under the same anathema penalty as anything else.
            For example the EO church isn’t going to allow me in if I say “yeah I accept the creeds but all the canons on icon usages are non-binding”.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Thought or Are? the two are very different.
            Are.

            >That’s why they enforced them under pain of anathema.
            >You don’t enforce stuff under threat of eternal damnation if it is just a circumstantial rule that you can take or leave as desired.

            The Bible listed hundreds of commands that usually ended with "let them be put to death". The Orthodox church hasn't interpreted it in the way you're saying, for what I have heard.

            >It seems to be a buffet where people will cite the canons one moment and ignore them the next (actually now that I think about it, it checks out because the Pharisees were called hypocrites too).

            It would be more pharisitical if they were to thing the canons were always needed to be applied. This is, infact, the explanation I have been given for as to why the canons arent viewed as infalliable.

            >So apparently the Great Tradition is not only subject to change but can also be ignored.

            These canons were often circumstantial and referring to arbtrary random stuff, like "a priest shouldnt make a tavern into a church". Or some very specific things that don't make sense today. The councils were times to clarify the faith and also address circumstantial issues.

            >For example the EO church isn’t going to allow me in if I say “yeah I accept the creeds but all the canons on icon usages are non-binding”.

            I said that the confessions of faith seem to definitively constitute infalliability.

            The notion about icons, also, doesn't work. Icons were not aside from councils, it was a central topic. The 7th council was all about icons. This is a different matter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are.
            Okay so all the ecumencial councils are infallible.
            >The Bible listed hundreds of commands that usually ended with "let them be put to death".
            Your probably talking about Leviticus there. I would respond but every Christian should know why bringing up Levitical law isn’t relevant under the new covenant.
            >The Orthodox church hasn't interpreted it in the way you're saying, for what I have heard.
            And from what I’ve read (the council minutes) they were very convinced that they were making definitive declaration about the faith. Again which you just said ARE INFALLIBLE.

            >It would be more pharisitical if they were to thing the canons were always needed to be applied.
            No the law always needs to be applied. God doesn’t change his mind and truth isn’t subjective. The problem with the Pharisees is they followed the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. They would apply the law but wriggle out of it on the basis of silly technicalities.
            >This is, infact, the explanation I have been given for as to why the canons arent viewed as infalliable.
            Well whoever gave that advice is acting like a pharisee from my perspective. Claiming 1 moment “these are the canons and we are a CANONICAL church, but also we won’t follow them because like, they didn’t really mean what they wrong when they wrote it”.
            >These canons were often circumstantial
            And a lot of the time they are not.
            >and referring to arbtrary random stuff, like "a priest shouldnt make a tavern into a church".
            And a lot of the time they aren’t arbitrary. One doesn’t apply eternal damnation to something arbitrary.
            By what objective standard do you say “the canon against taking medicine for a israelite, or using unleavened bread, are just arbitrary” and “the canons that says you need to say Christ was In 2 natures and not of 2 natures IS BINDING AND CANNOT BE CHANGED OR QUESTIONED”?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay so all the ecumencial councils are infallible.
            Yes.

            >I would respond but every Christian should know why bringing up Levitical law isn’t relevant under the new covenant.

            Because the church said so. And the church says so with regard to what the eccumenicals are and how they're infalliable.

            >they were very convinced that they were making definitive declaration about the faith.

            Canon 1 of Nicea I:

            "If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, then it is good that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease, and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted† But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy."

            Yeah, sounds very related to "the faith" to me.

            >The problem with the Pharisees is they followed the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.

            They applied man made traditions and not traditions by God. One example was washing hands before you eat- which is good but shouldnt be law. The Talmud has hundreds of lines of bullshit manmade crap that they get hyperfocused on.

            >Well whoever gave that advice is acting like a pharisee from my perspective

            No, a pharisee puts hard burdens on people. The way it was said is the canon law is consulted by it depends on the person. If a person can carry a heavy burden, the priest would try to apply the law, otherwise, they don't use it. It is like penance during Confession.

            >You are arbitrarily deciding

            What I am saying about which parts are infallible and which parts aren't aren't infallible. I will say, just like the Bible is said to be infalliable, but some parts are taken as law, and some arent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/WQZZEC6.jpeg

            >Are.
            Okay so all the ecumencial councils are infallible.
            >The Bible listed hundreds of commands that usually ended with "let them be put to death".
            Your probably talking about Leviticus there. I would respond but every Christian should know why bringing up Levitical law isn’t relevant under the new covenant.
            >The Orthodox church hasn't interpreted it in the way you're saying, for what I have heard.
            And from what I’ve read (the council minutes) they were very convinced that they were making definitive declaration about the faith. Again which you just said ARE INFALLIBLE.

            >It would be more pharisitical if they were to thing the canons were always needed to be applied.
            No the law always needs to be applied. God doesn’t change his mind and truth isn’t subjective. The problem with the Pharisees is they followed the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. They would apply the law but wriggle out of it on the basis of silly technicalities.
            >This is, infact, the explanation I have been given for as to why the canons arent viewed as infalliable.
            Well whoever gave that advice is acting like a pharisee from my perspective. Claiming 1 moment “these are the canons and we are a CANONICAL church, but also we won’t follow them because like, they didn’t really mean what they wrong when they wrote it”.
            >These canons were often circumstantial
            And a lot of the time they are not.
            >and referring to arbtrary random stuff, like "a priest shouldnt make a tavern into a church".
            And a lot of the time they aren’t arbitrary. One doesn’t apply eternal damnation to something arbitrary.
            By what objective standard do you say “the canon against taking medicine for a israelite, or using unleavened bread, are just arbitrary” and “the canons that says you need to say Christ was In 2 natures and not of 2 natures IS BINDING AND CANNOT BE CHANGED OR QUESTIONED”?

            Cont.
            >I said that the confessions of faith seem to definitively constitute infalliability.
            The confessions of faith, so the Nicea-Constantioplian Creed. There is no creed for icon usage. Nicea 2 also didn’t add in a confession of faith that affirmed icon usage. If they did point me 2 it.
            >The notion about icons, also, doesn't work. Icons were not aside from councils, it was a central topic. The 7th council was all about icons.
            That just sounds like cope. You are arbitrarily deciding “anything the council said about X is binding because the church says it’s a major topic, but all that other shit, frick that, it’s not a real part of our unchanging tradition so we can scrap it”
            >There is a differance.
            Not that you have proven.
            Do you have any councils that say “only the 1 or 2 major topics are binding everything else is subject to change”?
            If not my example with icons works just fine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He's an obvious Russian shill.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As an Orthodox Jay Dyer makes me want to castrate myself and dress up like a woman in the Byzantine style.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What if Christianity is just a myth and the traditionalist school of perennialism is right?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://theopenark.substack.com/p/from-orthobro-to-orthodox-and-the

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Yes.
    >Because the church said so.
    How did it say so?
    Did it say in a Church Council Canon?
    >And the church says so with regard to what the eccumenicals are and how they're infalliable.
    So your saying Councils are infallible because the Church Councils say so, but when they say "yo homie, if a man don't do X he frickin anthema n shieeet" that that isn't canoncical because it just isn't okay.
    RIGHT............. I don't think I have an answer to that. Its so b rutally circular and self referential. There is no objective standard, its utterly fluid while pretending to be unchanging.

    >Canon 1 of Nicea I:
    >TLDR people who chop their balls off can't be priests
    >Yeah, sounds very related to "the faith" to me.
    Anon, I.......... doesn't it?

    >They applied man made traditions and not traditions by God.
    Your church is full of manmade traditions.
    all those Canons you say aren't binding, would that not make them traiditons of men?
    If your council is creating traditions of men, it wouldnt be infallible.

    >No, a pharisee puts hard burdens on people.
    I disagree, thats why israelites are so sneaky when it comes to violating their own laws. They follow the tradition of the Pharisee of finding loopholes in the law because they don't follow them in spirit. Similarly your councils put man made doctrine on people and when they go to far instead of just admitting "okay the councils are wrong" you create loop holes like "only select canons are binding, like ones on icons".
    >What I am saying about which parts are infallible and which parts aren't aren't infallible.
    And you are fallibly selecting that aren't you. Since you have no objective standard.
    >I will say, just like the Bible is said to be infalliable, but some parts are taken as law, and some arent.
    Thats a terrible example. No one denies some parts are legal code an other poetry and others historical account. Its all infallible becuase its ALL God-Breathed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How did it say so?
      >Did it say in a Church Council Canon?

      To put this in context it was Levitcal law. They said so at the Council of Jerusalem and set the bounds.

      More laws on what a person ought to do is by tradition and interpreted by the church.

      > that that isn't canoncical because it just isn't okay.

      Yes. The official Orthodox stance is holy tradition is infallible, and Eccumenical councils manifest this holy tradition. This is similar to the Catholics, where they give at least 4 things that are infalliable, one is holy tradition. The church has interpreted the Councils to be infalliable in the way they did.

      >Your church is full of manmade traditions.

      No.

      >would that not make them traiditons of men?

      No, it is of God. Manmade is excessive burdens on laity and which Jesus nor the apostles never told anyone.

      >Similarly your councils put man made doctrine on people

      No, it didn't. Most of them are on christology apart from the 7th. And none of this is on people. The israelites are more harsh.

      > "okay the councils are wrong"

      Not what happened, some of them are circumstantial and arbitrary as I said.

      >And you are fallibly selecting that aren't you.

      Yeah, I am not a priest nor a bishop.

      >Thats a terrible example. No one denies some parts are legal code an other poetry and others historical account. Its all infallible becuase its ALL God-Breathed.

      Works perfectly fine. The eccumenical councils are infalliable and have canon law. The Bible is infalliable and has purity laws. Purity laws have now been stated to be no longer needed. Is this not 'selective' as you say? Why do Christians work on the sabbath? Why do they eat shellfish? I thought it was all infalliable!

      'Instead of admitting "it is wrong", you create loop holes like 'only select Mosaic laws are binding, like the 10 commandments'"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >To put this in context it was Levitcal law. They said so at the Council of Jerusalem and set the bounds.
        I was talking more about what ecumenical councils are infallible and how they are infallible.
        Because if your standard is "we know the councils are infallible because the councils stay they are infallible" then you're trapped in circular logic.
        >Yes. The official Orthodox stance is holy tradition is infallible,
        And councils are a part of holy tradition. If you say that part of Holy Tradition is no longer infallible or valid then you have changed Holy Tradition. If you Change Holy Tradition you violate the Holy Tradition (Councils) that say you can't change Holy Tradition.
        >Your church is full of manmade traditions.
        >No.
        Then how do you explain the canons not being infallible. If they are the product of the council and the council is infallbile because its the product of the Holy Spirit the canons are the product of God. God does not change. If the Canons have change they must be products of men.
        >No, it is of God.
        Then they can't change. Boom simple as.
        >Not what happened, some of them are circumstantial and arbitrary
        God is not arbitrary. I don't mean this as an attack on you as a person but your church theologically is trying to wriggle out of a knot it tied itself. You dont want to be bound by the canons you accidentally created.
        >Yeah, I am not a priest nor a bishop.
        Well then we are at personal interpretation level.
        Its infallible and binding unless you or your priest really would rather not follow it.
        >Works perfectly fine. The eccumenical councils are infalliable and have canon law.
        Which you admit you don't always follow and some of its arbitrary, thus meaning its not breathed by God.
        >The Bible is infalliable and has purity laws. Purity laws have now been stated to be no longer needed.
        BECAUSE THE OLD COVENANT WAS FULFILLED!
        Do Palamites really believe the Covenant has changed again? Seriously?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >BECAUSE THE OLD COVENANT WAS FULFILLED!

          And who decided which parts of the old law where to be followed? For the law still holds! Let a sinner be damned! You clearly aren't reading properly here and are going in circles because you want to deperately cling to Protestant. Rules for thee (Orthodox) but not for me (You).

          >Which you admit you don't always follow and some of its arbitrary, thus meaning its not breathed by God.

          "The Bible...which you admit you don't always follow and some of its arbitrary, thus meaning its not breathed by God."

          >You dont want to be bound by the canons you accidentally created.

          The canons were not "accidentally created", and this is not how it works. the canon law was never intended to be a law as great as the law of the Bible. They were regulations, and no one indicated otherwise.

          >Then they can't change

          Well, then I suppose neither can the Bible, yet you decide 'arbitrarily' which laws to follow and which to not. And you changed the Old testament to include the New. Oh, even more! You changed the Bible and removed 7 books from your own church! I guess it must not be really that important or infalliable to you if you can do that, can it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How did it say so?
      >Did it say in a Church Council Canon?

      To put this in context it was Levitcal law. They said so at the Council of Jerusalem and set the bounds.

      More laws on what a person ought to do is by tradition and interpreted by the church.

      > that that isn't canoncical because it just isn't okay.

      Yes. The official Orthodox stance is holy tradition is infallible, and Eccumenical councils manifest this holy tradition. This is similar to the Catholics, where they give at least 4 things that are infalliable, one is holy tradition. The church has interpreted the Councils to be infalliable in the way they did.

      >Your church is full of manmade traditions.

      No.

      >would that not make them traiditons of men?

      No, it is of God. Manmade is excessive burdens on laity and which Jesus nor the apostles never told anyone.

      >Similarly your councils put man made doctrine on people

      No, it didn't. Most of them are on christology apart from the 7th. And none of this is on people. The israelites are more harsh.

      > "okay the councils are wrong"

      Not what happened, some of them are circumstantial and arbitrary as I said.

      >And you are fallibly selecting that aren't you.

      Yeah, I am not a priest nor a bishop.

      >Thats a terrible example. No one denies some parts are legal code an other poetry and others historical account. Its all infallible becuase its ALL God-Breathed.

      Works perfectly fine. The eccumenical councils are infalliable and have canon law. The Bible is infalliable and has purity laws. Purity laws have now been stated to be no longer needed. Is this not 'selective' as you say? Why do Christians work on the sabbath? Why do they eat shellfish? I thought it was all infalliable!

      'Instead of admitting "it is wrong", you create loop holes like 'only select Mosaic laws are binding, like the 10 commandments'"

      >Anon, I.......... doesn't it?

      I will also clarify that I might have been wrong on the piece of evidence I used. But I feel certain there are canon laws that are purely circumstantial. I once thought of testing the consistency between councils and saw some canon law that seemed non applicable and just useless really. Or dated.

      It is late and I will admit I read half of what I sent and thought it was fine. So, that was my bad. I guess it didn't work. I wanted to acknowledge that.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dyer is good looking but mentally challenged.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I stumbled across this guy for his Twin Peaks analysis like 6 years ago. It was very apparently that he was moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I really hate the people who think someone is a good debater because they're confident and arrogant.

      I get the same vibes from people who like Hitchens (though Hitchens was obviously smarter than this guy)

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He should debate Ibranyi. It would be interesting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Who?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *