@cowanon@opphunter88 yeah the difference between demonetize and ban is pretty slight. It's hair splitting. It's like the word "decriminalized." Which minds accounts are even worth following?
@opphunter88@cowanon I just went on there and it looks lame. I enjoy fedi more. I even enjoy people on fedi who have a demented hatred of me personally more. This looks like dog shit.
@NEETzsche@cowanon It means nothing if you don't trade in their fake money to begin with, but whatever.
As far as I can tell they're all low quality accounts, but there are a lot of them, so maybe there will be some gems to follow. It's hard to say because they aren't federating that well.
@opphunter88@cowanon You need an excuse to dunk on Poast? Listen if you can get gleasonator.com defederated from Poast you'll get on my level in this respect :anintellectual:
@NEETzsche@cowanon I don't actually care about Minds. When I've tried to use it in the past, it was impossible to get any engagement without paying money. Most people just post stupid shit to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which gets them higher crypto payouts from the site.
I'm following a lot of them because I'm always interested in new people, but I don't take them that seriously, tbh. I'm mostly just enjoying the excuse to dunk on Poast.
@opphunter88@cowanon So what got you into fucking with Poastniggers? For me, it was a history of involvement with TRS and their circles around 2020. Back then they thought I was nuts for shilling fedi. The TRS is, the podcastrace, is insufferable.
@NEETzsche@cowanon No, actually, we were just talking about the LCMS situation and the Catacomb Synod. The LCMS and AALC have been excommunicating anyone to the right of the Republican Party and doxing them to Antifa, so a lot of us are trying to figure out how we can still organize, and they were telling me about @SuperLutheran's project to essentially streamline underground house churches that remain faithful to the Lutheran tradition.
@opphunter88@cowanon I'm glad LDS is not doing that sort of thing yet, at least not here. We've got older guys fedposting IRL in priesthood meetings on the regular.
@opphunter88@cowanon frankly, if LDS fags out they will not need to excommunicate me, I'll just withdraw from the priesthood and leave. It's literally written in the scriptures that the Church will lose legitimacy and need to undergo ordeals to re-attain it, in a cyclical fashion. It's like the strong men good times meme except Joseph Smith beat them to the punch. Also, this sudden "Hail Hydra" heel turn will likely be the work of "secret combinations" (think the kinds of Satan-commie pedocults QAnon types obsess about, but unironically)
I bet these ideas being literally written of at length in our scriptures helps us repel subverters.
@NEETzsche@cowanon The LDS church has it pretty good. I think there was one recent statement that softened their stance on homosexuality. BYU is very theologically liberal, but the structure of the LDS ward actually shields it from the result of bad seminary formation.
Everyone participates in the LDS church, so generally speaking, unless it comes from the top down, one liberal leaning person doesn't spoil the entire group, whereas in traditional parishes, if you get assigned a libtard pastor (more and more of them are libtards) there's a good chance you're screwed.
@opphunter88@cowanon I'm aware that the New Testament deals with the Church being driven underground, but I don't recall it being approached as something that's cyclical. I also don't recall secret combinations.
@NEETzsche@cowanon It’s in the New Testament. Everyone should know the Church will one day be forced underground, and it’s every man’s responsibility to be prepared for that in their own way.
I view the current situation in American Lutheranism as a good test run. The Russians had their catacombs under Soviet rule, it’s entirely possible we will soon need the same.
@opphunter88@cowanon The secret combinations idea is distinctive as well. And I know they're real first hand. Tbh I don't even care if I come off as total nutcase. I done seent it.
@NEETzsche@cowanon The cyclical view is a LDS distinctive, but prophecies do repeat. The Old Testament prophecies frequently have an initial fulfillment, and then a Christological one later. We also have typology, for example, Jesus uses the Exodus event as a proof or the Resurrscgion. Then you look at Church history, and it very frequently mimics the history of Israel and Judah in the Books of Kings. Arianism and Monothelitism aren’t unlike idols and high places.
Point being, the repetition is there, though not necessarily the circularity.
@Quentel@NEETzsche@cowanon Roman Catholicism will not survive the apostasy at the end of the world. The entire Roman epistemology hinges on a man made system of hyper centralization that has no resistance to Antichrist infiltration.
@opphunter88 Secret combinations are oath-bound secret societies that covenant with the devil or one of his many assistants. They engage in things like organized crime, ritual murder, complex webs of blackmail, extortion, and coercion.
@NEETzsche@Quentel@cowanon It’s not an orthodox problem, it’s a Roman problem. The ancient church, in emulating the governing structure of Rome, confused it for the shape of the Body of Christ itself.
Matthew 18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
This is all we need for true orthodoxy to survive; two people who can meet and share the faith. As long as we have this, historic Christian orthodoxy will survive.
@opphunter88@cowanon I get that you're a Lutherbro and are therefore thoroughly jewpilled, but I'm telling you, rabbinical judaism and its secular sister organizations is but one of many secret combinations.
@opphunter88@cowanon I don't recommend you use that phrase in your Lutheran circles, anyway. The more educated among you will identify it as Mormon phraseology and cast doubt on you. Guilt by association.
@NEETzsche@cowanon I know that jews are not the only powerful demonic force acting in the world, but it's easier to just say "the jews" than some obscure phrase like "secret combination."
It will be down to home churches like it was originally done.
Denominations will mean little as they come to slowly represent the world rather than God. Some are further along than others currently. Some like the RCC and LDS cucked a long time ago.
Yes and no. I could really say the others have idolatrous tendencies.
My biggest gripe is the RCC so that's why I threw them in. I don't even consider the LDS a arm of Christianity so I don't take them seriously. I threw it in because I knew I would get a response from Neet, and it worked.
No, the main point on those two is following man before God. Shit the Mormon church was largely founded on Joseph Smith who claimed some divine revelation. Bullshit
Roman Catholicism is an idolatrous whore long plagued by worship of saints, and practice of retarded doctrines, including the belief that the pope is the vicar of Christ.
Longer answer: I’m a Gnostic Mormon. This means my own personal beliefs do not align 1:1 with LDS, I just think it’s the most theologically correct and practical church in the US today. The chief objection LDS holds with the Apostle’s creed, which I personally agree with, is a rejection of early Orthodoxy’s claim to authority in the first place. This ecumenism is considered apostate. Look up the Great Apostasy.
It was half a shitpost, but I have a disdain for Gnosticism in general. Truths aren't revealed in private. They are known or made so. And they are lasting.
That... isn't the case, even going by the "Orthodox" "canon." I recommend you update your perspective since you "disdain" a correct view, which is a grave error.
The Truth. To be clear what I meant, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He is not hidden, but proclaimed. His kingdom is open. Vapors and entrails and hidden wisdom will not get you there.
What is the point of hiding the day of revelation from Christ himself?
Good question. Maybe if I knew all of the mysteries I could tell you. I suppose I’ll keep reading and get back to you on that if I find something.
In the meantime, I’ve gotten you to backpedal from truths are never spoken in private, to truths are spoken in private, but it doesn’t matter. I’d say that’s a pretty big W for me. Maybe you should show a little respeck, bucko. :anintellectual:
Mk, so, let’s do a recap: you said you disdain a view that, quite objectively, is correct. You were corrected. Do you still disdain the objectively correct view?
Your claim, the basis of disdain: truths are not revealed in private.
Fact: they are.
Your attempt at shifting the goalposts (coping mechanism): “No no, I meant CAPITAL T truths”
In conclusion, truths are hidden. This places the score, so far, at Gnosticism 1, Orthodoxy/Catholicism 0.
Now. This places you in a predicament. You can either:
Admit that you were incorrect on this point (little l, potential for redemption and vindication in the future),
Openly deny reality (big L, the final score is Gnosticism 1 Catholicism 0)
I wouldn’t have been so harsh if you weren’t inclined to disdain (your choice of words) an objectively correct position. But, here we are. And these are your options now.
My view, the correct one, is that there is no hidden knowledge needed to find Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Yours is that hidden secrets obscure. No, I'll keep with mine no matter how you hide what I objectively did say.
My mistake was believing that we were operating from the same platform of faith. Clearly you don't have the same frame. You don't even comprehend the difference between the two and you lied about my usage of it. That should be something hidden revealed to you. Keep your secrets.
I never lied, but I did make a mistake, which I corrected. You, on the other hand, have consciously chosen to openly deny reality. It’s unfortunate that you deny Christianity by rejecting the words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John.
I agree. That is a very practical problem with Gnosticism. But it’s not really a theological problem with it. Secret knowledge is real, at least according to even mainstream scripture. Which means that the problem with Catholicism/Orthodoxy, which rejects this fact, is that it’s outright wrong.
I guess it’s a pick your poison scenario: do you prefer to be in an ambiguous position where you have to at least attempt to suss out who is authentically hearing the Spirit’s instructions and who is full of shit, or do you prefer to be just outright wrong?
Problem with gnosticism is anyone could claim to have been told anything. That is super prevalent in pentecostal, charismatic and NAR denos.
"God told me x" "God wanted me to tell you x" "God reveal x to me, but I can't release it yet"
That leads to monumental amounts of confusion and error. Frankly id wager 99% of it is bullshit and you hearing yourself talk in your own mind. If "what you were told" goes against scripture it's pure fantasy.
You are bringing me around. I use the same words and capitalization with you that I would with people who have understanding but you can't comprehend them. Perhaps I should use a parable.
You need to learn humility. You were wrong about something. It’s not a big deal. The pride is a bigger issue than the incorrect understanding of scripture. Will you repent of this pride, or choose an even lower path?
Here’s your original argument: >It was half a shitpost, but I have a disdain for Gnosticism in general. Truths aren’t revealed in private. They are known or made so. And they are lasting.
Whether or not you’re using the capital T Truth or just regular old truth without the capitalization is ambiguous because you used that word at the beginning of the sentence. You were corrected on this point that truths are never revealed in private. They are, at least according to mainstream scripture. Your attempt at coping was that you meant to use the capital T version, but that was only made after the fact.
Because you used the word “disdain” in this context, you were given a parsimonious interpretation of the facts, a parsimonious interpretation you’re essentially bound by. It’s not my fault your argument is shit.
Should I give you another opportunity to admit you were wrong and only take a little l? Or do you prefer your permanent, big L, and me just muting you, discarding your opinion permanently?
Nigger, you are still lying. I just saw your edit. It ignores the second post later where I used the before Truth at the beginning of a sentence. You don't know the difference and are deflecting or you do and this is malicful.
My apologies. I was very imprecise in my language. I meant to say that the Kingdom is not hidden. Little t truth can be conveyed in private. Disdain is a feeling, nothing more.
That’s fair. I apologize for getting hostile. Maybe it is a character flaw, but I get real activated when people try to position as above me over bullshit like sectarian beefs. As for the extent to which the Kingdom is hidden or it is revealed, I’m mixed. I do think that Gnostics have a point about a few key ideas. Most notably:
Secret knowledge is real (importance of which we can debate later)
Satan controls the world and plays a sort of demiurgic role
Direct experience with the divine, not any church, is the source of salvation
Ecumenism is of dubious authoritativeness
But people take these four points I take from Gnosticism and conclude from it that I accept at face value every acid trip Yaldabaoth Sophia cosmology and every diabolical scribbling about Mary Magdalene being Christ’s side piece
Of the four, point two is accepted as fact. Point one is a sticking point we'll leave Point three is the Holy Ghost and separate from salvation 4 is observably wrong
You read those scriptures very different than me and I think you may have a frame of reference even, that does not align. But maybe we can communicate.
Well, by nature, no human institution functions as gatekeeper between me and God, and Orthodoxy/Catholicism absolutely aims to do that. By study, you find out that the early Church debated quite a bit about topics such as which scriptures “counted,” and a lot of them were excluded or edited heavily in an effort to reconstruct them from bits and pieces of different manuscripts. By thought, certain ideas like the Trinity are nonsensical, and God wouldn’t expect us to forsake logos as an article of faith, that’s something a demon would come up with.
@opphunter88 Actually it was a humongous issue. So-called Orthodox Christian had to exert an extreme amount of effort to unify their church to get them to all agree on one canon. I don't know why you keep dying on this hill. I can cite Orthodox historians who say as much. Irenaeus comes to mind.
It wasn’t an important issue, individual churches just used whatever Apostolic writings they had on hand, which we know from citations are mostly identical to what we have today. We went over this in another thread, and I even linked you to a collection of the Apostolic Fathers that proves it by noting all the citations.
The first local synod dealing with the canon was in 382 AD in Rome. Irenaeus died in 202 AD. The first church-wide synod that addressed it was Trullo, in 692 AD.
That's a gap of almost 200 years before it was formally addressed anywhere, even on a local level, and 500 years before it was important enough for the entire church to bother with it.
You shouldn't make historical claims that you're uninformed about.
Sorry, I went to take a shower and do my thing afk.
Irenaeus was dealing with “heretics” who were debating about the legitimacy of Orthodox scripture vs everybody else’s scripture. Here are a few examples of Irenaeus either bemoaning that early certain Christians don’t acknowledge the Orthodox canon or including things they don’t.
So, yeah. Debate on what was and was not appropriate scripture has been going on for a long, long time, at the latest, in 180AD, but probably much sooner.
Yeah, obviously the Gnostics disagreed with the Bible, but they were never a significant competing stream of thought in Christianity. Quite the opposite, they were a series of tiny cultish groups led by grifters like Simon Magus whose intention was explicitly to subvert the actual Christians.
Your claim: No one was even talking about the canon in the early Church.
Factual Refutation: People absolutely were talking about the canon in the early Church. At the latest, Marcion was excommunicated for debating the point on this in 144 AD.
Claim: Christians weren’t talking about the canon in the early Church. Christians already knew what it was, which can be easily proven by reading Christian books from the time.
Factual Refutation: Marcion was a Christian. Valentinus was a Christian. The Marcionates were Christians. The Gnostics were Christians.
Conclusion: Christians were talking about the canon in the early Church.
Christians weren’t talking about the canon in the early Church. Christians already knew what it was, which can be easily proven by reading Christian books from the time.
Just read the Holmes edition of the Apostolic Fathers, it’s all there.
They were. The whole point of this is whether or not Orthodoxy gets to decide what is and is not canon, and who is and is not a Christian. In order to claim they weren’t Christians, you must engage in a fallacy known as “begging the question,” which is where you presuppose the conclusion you want to arrive at.
Because we’re not rejecting logic in this exchange, or at least I’m not, your position rests on outright falsehood.
Your claim: I can give you the exact criteria by which they aren’t Christians. You have to serve the Jesus Christ that actually existed to be a Christian.
Alright. Quote Marcion and Valentinus explicitly rejecting that Christ actually existed. Do not use deliberately defamatory Orthodox historical accounts like “Against Heresies.” You are positively claim they are NOT Christians, so by your own standard, you must demonstrate this. If you cannot, you acknowledge that they are.
You have to serve the Jesus Christ that actually existed to be a Christian. Those groups made up new, fictional Christs, who were similar only in name. Their Jesus is about as real as the Easter Bunny.
Only one Jesus actually existed in history.
This isn't a game where we get to pick multiple options from a buffet. If you don't follow the real thing, you burn forever in the Lake of Fire.
That is what you said, and you said it here: “I can give you the exact criteria by which they aren’t Christians. You have to serve the Jesus Christ that actually existed to be a Christian.”
You are claiming they definitely aren’t Christians. The criteria you listed is believing Christ actually existed. So, show me they fail to meet this criteria.
I’ll give you a second chance to demonstrate your case, here.
Okay. You have claimed, that Marcion and Valentinus were definitively NOT Christians. The basis for your accusation is, and I quote, “I can give you the exact criteria by which they aren’t Christians. You have to serve the Jesus Christ that actually existed to be a Christian.” When prompted to show they fail this criteria, you failed to not once, but twice.
In conclusion, there is no basis to believe they weren’t Christians. This places the score at Gnosticism 2, Orthodoxy 0. Let’s do a quick recap of where this conversation has led us:
Round One: opphunter88 claims that the early Church did not debate what is and is not scripture. It did, and Marcionites and Valentinus/Valentinians are cited as examples of people doing exactly that.
Round Two: opphunter88 claims that they don’t count because they aren’t Christians. He stakes out a criteria to claim they aren’t Christians but then fails to demonstrate that they meet it.
You claimed that Marcion and Valentinus didn’t qualify as Christians because they denied the historicity of Christ, which is a criterion I’m not even sure I agree on, since many early Christians believed in Christ spiritually but not physically, but when I gave you the opportunity to show me that these two men actually denied the historicity of Christ, you had a hissy fit in place of doing so.
So your (dubious) criterion for tr00 Christianity, even if accepted at face value, doesn’t bring us to the conclusion that Marcion and Valentinus weren’t real Christians.
Oh, you meant that you must have the correct historical account. My apologies. Well, you’re still in a pickle. You still need to show that the particular history Orthodoxy holds is accurate and true, and that the Gnostic one isn’t. Since you made the claim, you still hold the burden of proof.
I’ll give you one final opportunity. However, since you started with personal attacks (“your IQ is too low”) you wil need to use persuasive argumentation. You will get the chance to persuade me, but if you fail for any reason, you’re just wrong.