/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Surely this thread will end well.

Here is a more comfy 2-hour long ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi30Omxe3M

>Listen to my cult leader for 2 hours about how x is heresy

>putting Orthodox in quotes

Dropped - grow up man.

>>802763

theres no audio anon

This is clearly your first time here. Are you even a catechumen in the Catholic church?

>All these memedox pretending that the Dimond Brothers aren't the foremost theological scholars of the 21st century

>>802785

why don't you present an argument instead of outsourcing it to some hour long YouTube video? Some of us have jobs / school / lives.

There must be papists who spend all day on the internet looking for something that "debunks" Orthodoxy.

>>802837

He provides proofs from the Fathers, Scripture, and the Council of Florence, a council that brought many people into the Catholic Church. This was posted in another thread, and provides proofs for the filioque.

https://erickybarra.org/2018/02/11/does-the-filioque-subordinate-the-holy-spirit-to-creation/

Filioque is irrelevant. The canonical form of the Nicaean Symbol is in Greek.

>>802899

idk, as far meme e-celebs go, I've at least seen some reasonable Jay Dyer and Steve Anderson posters around here. But I've never seen a reasonable Diamond bros poster. These sede memers are on their own level of cringe.

>>802899

Not really. He's kind of a normie, has a hot girlfriend, only calls himself a layman (doesn't larp as a monk), and talks about a wide variety of subjects. Not just religion. I mean, the only books he's written are about Hollywood. And half of his content is the Boiler Room podcasts, where he's actually funny and can socialize with other human beings.

The Dimond brothers seem very insular and autistic. There isn't even any affect in the way they speak (or at least one of them). It's almost robotic.

>>802908

>He's kind of a normie, has a hot girlfriend

uh, he's not cohabitating and waiting until marriage for sex, right?

>>802899

The Dimonds have a cool underground heavens gate aesthetic

>>802757

Everything in there has already been debunked by the Diamond brothers' own avid followers. Vid related.

"the eastern quote orthodox"

oh memestary you never grow old

>>802899

The Dimond bros actually have a very good understanding of theology and doctrine though, unlike Dyer who is a church hopper. Note that nobody can ever refute their actual arguments which are thoroughly backed by scripture and the Saints, they fall back to meaningless ad hominems.

>>802920

I don't know why I know this, but no..And I think she was Orthodox before he was. The guy seems to be cool in a normie way, and unlike these others, isn't starting a cult or anything.

>>802982

>The Dimond bros actually have a very good understanding of theology and doctrine though

Hah! that's utterly laughable, and demonstrably false, as pointed out by >>802976

They cherry pick and completely ignore the context of all the material they "cite".

>>802982

I saved posts from a discussion on here about their video against Palamas, if you want to know why they're idiots. Hold on.

<(user A):

The whole video is based on the wrong assumption that "one divine essence" has the same meaning as "one God". Do Peter, James and John have three human essences? No, they are three persons but they share the same one human essence – just as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons who share one divine essence. Then why Peter, James and John are three men but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God? This is exactly the question that St. Gregory of Nyssa answers in his work to Ablabius about the three Gods:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

The tl;dr is this:

"''Men, even if several are engaged in the same form of action, work separately each by himself at the task he has undertaken, having no participation in his individual action with others who are engaged in the same occupation. For instance, supposing the case of several rhetoricians, their pursuit, being one, has the same name in the numerous cases: but each of those who follow it works by himself, this one pleading on his own account, and that on his own account. Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his own environment, according to the special character of his operation.

But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfill it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things.''"

The videos makes some horrible statements:

At time 2:46: There is no real distinction between the divine essence and divine persons.

At time 2:59: There is a real distinction between the divine persons between themselves based on the relation of opposition. However, when we compare the Father to the divine essence, the Son to the divine essence and the Holy Spirit to the divine essence, there is no real distinction between the divine persons and the divine essence. All three persons individually and all three together are in reality identical to the divine essence.

I wish to believe that these are made inadvertently, but then again maybe they are not. They seem to think of the divine essence as something hypostasized (≈having reality) by itself, irrespectively of the three divine hypostases (≈realizations) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

<(user B):

What do you guys think of their argument that since the profession of faith of Nicea states that "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God". Since Christ is said to come to from the essence of the Father than that means that the Father is the essence.

I've done some researching of this myself and found two sources that say that:

"In the early fourth century the terms ousia and hypostasis were synonyms and virtually interchangeable in philosophical usage"

(https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/st-gregory-of-nyssa-differentiating-ousia-and-hypostasis/)

And

"The concept "essence" was expressed in the Greek language by the word ousia, and this word was in general understood by everyone in the same way. Using the word ousia, the Holy Fathers referred it to the concept of "Person."

(http://www.stspyridon.org.au/ourFaith.php?articleId=88&subMenu=Orthodoxy#c2)

If the two above quotes are to be believed then wouldn't that mean that "from the essence" means "from the person", and that this was said to say that the Son comes directly from the Father, and is not some creation?

I also found this quote by St Gregory Nazianzus who said it in front of the Bishops convened in the Second Ecumenical Council:

"St Gregory Nazianzus, Oratio 42 XV"

(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310242.htm)

What do you make of the above quote?

(1/2)

<(user A):

>the only begotten, from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father

What? I've missed this during my first watch of the video but now I see it is there at time 10:40. It seems that in order to prove their point the people of the meme monastery have falsified the Profession of the Council of Nicea (the Greek text they quote is correct). The correct English translation is this:

>begotten from the Father, the only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father

The expression "the only begotten" is in between, so "from the essence of the Father" can not be taken as an explanation of "from the Father".

>I've done some researching of this myself and found two sources that say

I am not sure 100% about this, but I think that the word 'ousia' has always had one meaning – nature (essence). 'Hypostasis' was the problematic word as it could be used to signify both the persons and the essence. Only after the Cappadocians its meaning in the East was fixed and it no longer could be used to signify the essence. In the West the opposite happened: the direct Latin translation of 'hypostasis' is 'substance' (hypo=sub, stasis=stance) and today the word 'substance' can not be used to signify the persons of the Trinity but only the essence.

>If the two above quotes are to be believed then wouldn't that mean that "from the essence" means "from the person" and that this was said to say that the Son comes directly from the Father, and is not some creation?

The Fathers affirm the validity of the expression "from the essence of the Father". But yes, this expression says that the Son does not exist by the will of the Father (because this would make the Son a creation). When a mother gives birth to a son, we can say that the birth doesn't happen by the will of the mother but from her nature (essence).

The following is from St. John of Damascus (Exact exposition, chapter 8) explains thus:

"In treating, then, of the generation of the Son, it is an act of impiety to say that time comes into play and that the existence of the Son is of later origin than the Father. For we hold that it is from Him, that is, from the Father's nature, that the Son is generated. And unless we grant that the Son co-existed from the beginning with the Father, by Whom He was begotten, we introduce change into the Father's hypostasis, because, not being the Father, He subsequently became the Father. For the creation, even though it originated later, is nevertheless not derived from the essence of God, but is brought into existence out of nothing by His will and power, and change does not touch God's nature. For generation means that the begetter produces out of his essence offspring similar in essence. But creation and making mean that the creator and maker produces from that which is external, and not out of his own essence, a creation of an absolutely dissimilar nature.

(2/2)

Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continues, both begetting and creating are passionless. For being by nature passionless and not liable to flux, since He is simple and uncompound, He is not subject to passion or flux either in begetting or in creating, nor has He need of any co-operation. But generation in Him is without beginning and everlasting, being the work of nature and producing out of His own essence, that the Begetter may not undergo change, and that He may not be God first and God last, nor receive any accession: while creation in the case of God , being the work of will, is not co-eternal with God."

The following is from St. Basil the Great (Letter 125):

"Some, moreover, of the impious following of the Libyan Sabellius, who understand hypostasis and essence to be identical, derive ground for the establishment of their blasphemy from the same source, because of its having been written in the creed "if any one says that the Son is of a different essence or hypostasis, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes him." But they did not there state hypostasis and essence to be identical. Had the words expressed one and the same meaning, what need of both? It is on the contrary clear that while by some it was denied that the Son was of the same essence with the Father, and some asserted that He was not of the essence and was of some other hypostasis, they thus condemned both opinions as outside that held by the Church. But when they set forth their own view, they declared the Son to be of the essence of the Father and they did not add the words "of the hypostasis". The former clause stands for the condemnation of the faulty view; the latter plainly states the dogma of salvation."

And from St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus we have the following argument for the distinction between essence and energy (=act/operation): Since the generation of the Son is from the essence of the Father, if essence=energy, then the generation of the Son would be from the energy of the Father. Therefore, the Son would be an act of the Fathers will, i.e. a creation.

<(user B):

Do you have a source for that translation or do you know Greek? I'm saying this because I copied the Greek they use into google translate (not the most accurate I know) and got a translation that matches what they put up; "We believe in Lord Jesus, the son of God, born of the Father alone, that is, the Father of God, God of God".

<(user A):

>source for that translation

For example at Wikipedia (only there the preposition 'of' is used instead of 'from'):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Καὶ (And) εἰς (in) ἕνα (one) Κύριον (Lord) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) Χριστόν (Christ), τὸν υἱὸν (the Son) τοῦ Θεοῦ (of God), γεννηθέντα (begotten) ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς (of the Father), μονογενῆ (only-begotten), τοὐτέστιν (that is) ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας (of the essence) τοῦ Πατρός (of Father)

The same for the Latin translation (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.iii.html):

Et (And) in (in) unum (one) Dominum (Lord) nostrum (of ours, missing in Greek) Jesum (Jesus) Christum (Christ), Filium (The Son) Dei (of God), natum (begotten) ex Patre (of the Father), unigenitum (only-begotten), hoc est (that is), de substantia (of the essence) Patris (of Father)

Notice, however, the comma before the Greek μονογενῆ or the Latin unigenitum. This comma is missing in the sources I see in Internet and apparently this can create a confusion, a conflation between the participle γεννηθέντα (natum/begotten) and the adjective μονογενῆ (unigenitum/only-begotten). It can be seen that these two words must not be conflated from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan revision of the Nicene creed where the expressions 'only-begotten' and 'begotten of the Father' are transposed and each of them has its own definite article:

Καὶ (And) εἰς (in) ἕνα (one) Κύριον (Lord) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) Χριστόν (Christ), τὸν Υἱὸν (the Son) τοῦ Θεοῦ (of God), τὸν (the) μονογενῆ (only-begotten), τὸν (the One who is) ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς (from the Father) γεννηθέντα (begotten) πρὸ (before) πάντων (all) τῶν αἰώνων (ages)

<(user B):

That was an amazing response, thank you brother.

What do you make of the Dimond's critique of Jay Dyer at 11:44?

Jay says that the "I Am" of Exodus 3:14 does not signify the essence of God by is rather a statement of Divine Personhood and does not indicate the essence of God.

The Dimonds quote St Athanasius:

"When then He says, 'I am that I am,' and 'I am the Lord God’ [Exodus 3:14-15, 20:22], or when Scripture says, 'God,' we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of." (De Decritis #22, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm)

And also St Gregory of Nazianzus

"As far then as we can reach, He Who Is, and God, are the special names of His Essence."

(St Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 30 XVIII, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310230.htm)

<(user C) (me):

God says "I am that I am", not "I am the essence".

For example, if "essence" is "love", and "energy" is "loving", then the essence and energy still need to be "hypostatized", so that there is an actual subject that -is- and that -does-. We can say that YHWH is the name of the Essence, because it is the name common to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but this name still needs to be "hypostatized" to be realized in a subject. "I Am" indicates the essence, but this necessarily implies the hypostases (after all, "who" is?), and it even implies the energies (how else would this "I am" come to a mere creature like Moses?). Therefore it is nonsensical to say that God could speak of His essence without implying Father, Son, or Holy Spirit at all; but it is also nonsensical to say that because the essence and persons are referred to at once, it means they are the same thing. (after all, we say the exact same thing with the hypostases - that we cannot refer to one without implying the two others, because of their unity of essence - yet it would be heretical to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person as a result).

The folks over at Most Meme Monastery interpret the fathers starting with the presupposition that, ontologically, essence "precedes" hypostasis, and therefore when it is said the Son comes from the essence of the Father, it is understood to mean the Son is begotten of the essence (and not the person) of the Father, rather than it meaning that the Son is begotten from the Father's person according to the Father's essence (rather than according to the Father's will, which would make the Son a creature). And likewise, they therefore misinterpret the saints to mean that we can know God directly in His esseence, when the saints speak of God's essence, but they do not realize that, again, for them, hypostasis precedes essence, and they speak of essence so much because their concerns are to defend the Son and the Spirit's consubstantiality with the Father.

(last one)

<(user A):

I admire the Dimonds for their striving to keep the traditional Roman-Catholic faith. The only times I am angered by them is when they slander us by criticising something which is not really our faith. But when they criticise what is actually our faith, I can understand them. Why? Because they are only men and our faith is wiser than human knowledge. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and how unfathomable are his ways! (Romans 11:33)

God exists but his existence is above any existence, therefore he doesn't exist in any humanly meaningful way. Now, suppose an Orthodox guy reads somewhere about this and then in an attempt to teach the Catholics says "Listen, guys, you are very misguided because God doesn't really exist!". What do you think the Dimons will do? Well, surely they will create another video to refute the Orthodox heretics who say that God doesn't exist.

So, is our imaginary Orthodox guy wrong when he says that God doesn't exist? No, because he doesn't really mean this. Our mind naturally tries to attain knowledge about God but in its fallen state all that it can achieve are idols, false images of God. Absurd statements like "God doesn't exist" are meant to be like brakes for the mind. Only through such incomprehensible absurds our mind becomes aware that what it tries to build is just an intellectual tower of Babel, incapable of reaching the heavens. Then, in this state of self-awarenes and awe we became able to turn to God and to receive true knowledge about God from God in the Holy Spirit.

The heresies are deadly not because God is stubborn or obstinate about doctrines. They are deadly because in one way or another they always make the heretic incapable to receive the Holy Spirit, which is a pledge of our inheritance, until the redemption of those who are God’s possession, to the praise of his glory (Ephes. 1:14) The Holy Spirit is not intrusive like the fallen spirits. If someone wants to humble his prideful mind in order to receive divine wisdom and be a trusted friend of God, the Holy Spirit is ready to help and comfort him. However, when someone is misguided by a heresy to think that human logic can give some knowledge about God, then he is unable to humble his mind, rather he won't even try to humble properly his mind.

Now about the divine names. I think the most comprehensible Orthodox treatise about the divine names is "On Divine Names" by St. Dionysius the Areopagite. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dionysius_the_Areopagite,_Works/On_Divine_Names

The Dimonds have provided some quotes to prove that "I am that I am" in Exodus 3:14 refers to the essence of God. Many more quotes by more saints can be found to say that the name "That-I-am" refers to the essence of God. Then is Jay wrong? Maybe not. He is refuting some Roman-Catholic mistakes but since my knowledge of the Roman-Catholicism is limited, I'd rather not try to explain him. I think that if I were Jay, my response to the Dimonds would be "Instead of criticizing me, try to understand what I am trying to say".

By the way, in Hebrew and Greek "that I am" is one word and in the above English translation of "On Divine Names" this one word is translated as "Being" (see chapter 5).

>>802899

Jay Dyer, Dimond bros, Pastor Anderson and Varg Vikernes are the meme theologians of our era

>>803070

>>803079

Pastor Steven Anderson is a modern-day Paul the Apostle converting entire nations and flying the flag of Christ unapologetically in the face of mass secularization and apostasy by Christians. Don't even try to compare him to some nobodies like Jay Dyer or E. Michael Jones the sum of whose "evangelization" efforts amounts to making epic youtube videos.

>>803081

We're talking about memes. But you had to ruin it.

>>803081

Cronycons don't convert they "soul-win" using free market capitalist gambling terminology for it.

>>803088

The term "soul-winning" comes directly from the Bible.

>The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. (Proverbs 11:30)

>>803089

Yeah I see 'win' and 'souls', in the translation specifically, but no such deleterious compound of "soul-winning".

>>803081

Obligitory "pastor" Anderson is a fraud and here's why exposé

He is also an admitted Bible-idolater, so it is safe to assume his followers are as well.

>>802803

>papists

Fags aren't even catholics.

They are a bunch of sedevacantist whos.

>>803156

Dimond brothers are sedevecantist?

>>803187

Very very much so.

>>803187

See >>802976

>>803103

Maybe you should learn English then.

>>802757

>Sedevacantist calling anyone out for heresy

Repent. Sedavacantists are just protestants who pretend to be Catholic, why don't they just own up and say that they're protestants at this point?

>>803216

Because that's not what Protestantism means.

>>803243

It's to protest. Against the Church.

They aren't Catholic, they're LARPing protestants.

>>803273

But they're not protesting against the Church, they're saying the current person claiming to be the Pope is illegitimate… That's completely different from what Protestants believe. The only way sedevacantists are Protestants is if you are redefining Protestantism to mean "heresy" or "thing I don't like," when in fact Protestantism is a specific heresy with actual theological claims that are distinct from the claims of sedevacantists.

>>803276

And that's a heresy and they're protestanting against the Church and claiming that the succession has been broken yet trying to act like they're cool with the Church itself too.

>>803279

If a Satan worshipper manages to become the Bishop of Rome and 90% of the Church follow him and choose to worship Satan instead of God are they really "The Church" anymore? Because that is essentially what has occurred.

>>805363

we're ment to submit under his authority but not be mindless sheep even is the pope was the antichrist himself.

>>805369

The Pope won't be the antichrist (presumbly a military and political figure). Maybe the False Prophet at worst.

That said, you should never submit to that. That's a ticket to hell. Run for the hills, as Jesus said. He predicted that some Christians will in fact be deceived. You don't want to be one of them.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before."

>>805363

>If a Satan worshipper manages to become the Bishop of Rome and 90% of the Church follow him and choose to worship Satan instead of God are they really "The Church" anymore?

"The Church" was founded by Constantine the Great about 300 A.D. as the state church it still is. The church of the apostles didn't survive that. A millennium later, reformation famously failed and created another state church, where each ruler decided, which denomination their people have to follow.

Just because America doesn't have state churches, it still changes nothing about what happened in Rome.

>>805400

Jesus isn't against state churches. Creation will be renewed with church and state being one for eternity under the Kingship of Christ.

>>805400

> the Church of the Apostles didn't survive Rome

So Jesus lied when He said that Hell shall not conquer His Church?

>>805409

State church is first and foremost a secular power system: Your government decides which religion you belong to. If your government decides, that you worship Satan or false prophets like Mohammed, you fall in line or face dire consequences.

Again, this is not comprehensible for Americans, as they don't have a state church or religion and are free to chose whatever they like to follow.

Still the Church was never a church of choice for most time of its existence.

>>805410

His original church doesn't exist anymore. What we are left with are the works of Roman converts and later converts to different denominations under rulers in power.

Ruler converted - all their people converted as well (or died as heretics).

That's the reason why Europe has at least three state churches now.

>>805416

>State church is first and foremost a secular power system

This might be one of the most outright retarded things I've ever read. You think Vatican City is secular because it's a Catholic State?

>If your government decides, that you worship Satan or false prophets like Mohammed

I fail to see your point. A state church that is of the wrong religion is bad. No shit? Giving people a choice isn't necessary you just need to guide them to the right religion.

>Again, this is not comprehensible for Americans, as they don't have a state church or religion and are free to chose whatever they like to follow.

America is the whore of Babylon and is collapsing because it succumbed to secularism

>His original church doesn't exist anymore

It does. It's the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church and you can join it any time you choose.

>>805416

>Jesus lied when He said Hell shall not prevail over His Church

The absolute state of Protestantism

>>805421

>This might be one of the most outright retarded things I've ever read.

It's European history. In the Middle East it's still in effect.

>Giving people a choice isn't necessary

Thanks for proving my point.

This was the reason why people needed licenses from the state church to read the Bible.

>Catholic Church and you can join it any time you choose.

Wrong.

My parents can choose to baptize me as an infant. Then I'm "member" of the state church, without ever "joining it at any time I choose".

And whether this state church is Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran or simply Islam is not for me to decide, not for my parents to decide, but for the secular ruler in power.

You seemingly understand nothing about Rome and the European history, that unfolded from it, leading to the current happenings in Europe.

>>805423

>The absolute state of Protestantism

First: Protestantism didn't exist 300 A.D.

Second: Lutheranism just ended up with becoming another state religion.

>>805434

Just go ahead and say what church/denomination/fringe sect/whatever you belong to. This discussion hurts my head to read.

>>805436

The discussion quickly boiled down to:

>giving people a choice to follow Jesus isn't necessary

I just explained how worshiping Satan can become a state religion, because any religion can become the state religion, if the ruler in power decides so.

The whole "you choose to become <insert favorite religion> here" is simply bullshit for most of the world. The USA is the exception, not the rule.

>>805439

That's not what the people you're talking with are concerned with. You say that Jesus's original church is gone, and we're stuck with a bunch of state churches that deviated from the original true church.

So tell us what church you belong to, if you even belong to one at all.

>>805442

>You say that Jesus's original church is gone, and we're stuck with a bunch of state churches that deviated from the original true church.

Regardless of how you call it:

The "original true church" is one of the state churches with involuntary membership and involuntary church tax since about 300 A.D.

You can play feel good in America, but this is not the reality in most of the world.

The only right some Western countries in Europe grant you is to become apostate and sign a form to "leave church" (and pay for it). Though some of state churches theologically still consider you a member after this, because they think they own you for eternity.

BTW: This civil right goes only back a few decades, before that your only choice was dying as heretic.

>So tell us what church you belong to, if you even belong to one at all.

For me the following of Jesus Christ is a voluntary choice made in faith. If this is a "fringe sect" view, there is nothing I can do about it as a Christian.

>>805431

Baptism is pretty easy to do, it’s totally in your control. EOC recognises RC baptisms and I think vice versa. Idk about Protestantism. It’s very easy to convert over to Orthodoxy.

>>805454

>Baptism is pretty easy to do, it’s totally in your control.

It has nothing to do with baptism or whether people accept certain sacraments of other denomination or not.

This is not about denomination. These didn't exist in 300 A.D.

>It’s very easy to convert over to Orthodoxy.

First in certain doctrines it's not possible to convert once you joined (involuntary).

Second: Orthodoxy isn't universally available. It's rooted in certain cultures.

It's just that Americans don't get around the fact that freely choosing the "one true church" out of 1000s is not happening in most of the world, because that "one true church" is simply the state/country collecting taxes, which entirely replaced the "one true church founded by Jesus".

You don't make a deliberate choice for a state/country, when I already live in it and follow its rules or get thrown out/into jail otherwise.

>>805457

>Orthodoxy isn’t availiable

Like where?

>>805457

Yes, Orthodoxy did exist in 300 AD, this is the closest we can get to the early church.

>>805459

>Like where?

Like every Islamic country, where Christians are simply put to death?

>>805459

Or try your favorite denomination of your choice in China, were practicing Christianity is only legal in sanctioned state churches in bed with the communist government since this century.

>>805462

>Like every Islamic country

They are the main church in the Levant.

Even with our dear evangelical brethren trying to take advantage of Islamic aggression and civil wars to steal their believers,

>>805472

The main chuch in the Levant is Maronite, anon.

>>805475

I stand corrected.

>>805462

But none of us live in China / India / Islamic republic X. It just seems a bit of a bizarre point to bring up especially in connection with baptism.

>>805487

>we all live in freedomland

Is that so?

>>805489

>speaking English

>>805503

Ever heard of "speaking a foreign language"?

Oh wait, I forgot, it's America…

>>805505

>doesn’t realise I’m making a deduction