HazelMotes

@BiankaB12 @gris2049 @Molson_Hart AC sucks in general is the bloviating exclamation of someone who doesnt have AC.

Most of Europe has AC. I still don’t know where this myth is coming from. 🤷‍♀️ It’s only an issue in Northern parts of Europe where they usually don’t need it (although, the weather has been changing in recent years and those few hot days in the summer are now more like 2 weeks). The difference is that we don’t use it all the time and certainly don’t make the room feel like a fridge. AC just sucks in general, so it’s used only when really needed.

What happens when Americans realize that GDP is fake? That the US has the lowest life expectancy in the developed world? That driving everywhere is high stress and a miserable way to live? I get that this is an "opinion" article, but they edit those unless you're Barack Obama or something, and they're sponsoring it. They're just spreading ignorance. Europe is not poorer than the United States. It certainly has its problems, especially for those who are ambitious, but man...Europe is nice.

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Yes, and the priest in the above clip is one of them.

@hazelmotes52 @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City I'll say once again, some EOs these days go too far.

This is one of the last major controversies I plan to cover in my series of the discussions on the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that they are wholly unable to account for the Western Church for centuries leading up to 1054 is a major problem they just want to hand wave away. It's not just the random meddling of a few rogue theologians. The entire West had by the 5th c. received the Augustinian tradition, and you have to either be able to account for this, or you have to admit your Church communed with what you would now call material heretics for half a millennium. The priest here wants to go the hand wave route which is very common in their rather weak apologetics.

@naptunael @StNickRespecter @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City It doesnt matter if you are the first or 100th domino, if you are not with the tradition you are not with the Church.

@hazelmotes52 @StNickRespecter @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Calvin is further down the row of dominos

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City But I wouldn't need to read a single word of St. Augustine for the contradiction of the modern Orthodox to be laid bare, because the modern Orthodox who questions St. Augustine's influence is at odds with their very own council.

@hazelmotes52 @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Reading *is* interpretation. But some EO do go too far, as I said.

@naptunael @StNickRespecter @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Because he is removed from the tradition, just like a modern Orthodox who even implies that St. Augustine has problems or leads to error, that person is removed from the tradition and eccumenical tradition at that.

@StNickRespecter @hazelmotes52 @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Maybe. Or he just saw what he wanted to see.

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Interpretation is a whole other issue. The fifth council says the writing of St. Augustine are praiseworthy, some modern day Orthodox say reading St. Augustine lead the west into error. This is the contradiction.

One could have an opinion that's well short of heretical, but that someone else could take and run with. And if someone writes a lot, it could potentially make it more difficult to fully understand that person's context. (Speaking in generalities here--I don't like the St. Augustine hate you see from some EOs)

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Why mention St. Augustine at all when discussing the theological failings of the west, if St. Augustines theology has no unique impact on later western thought. The implicite premise is that there is novel thought in St. Augustine that at the least leads people into heresy.

@hazelmotes52 @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City That's a claim you can make, sure, but I don't see why it's an absolutely necessary condition.

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Fifth council that extolled St. Augustine. So even if the charge isn't blatant heresy, it must be that his Triadology was so manifestly in error that it should be impossible for a council 100 years after his death to praise his writing on the true faith.

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City The critique must be rooted in a belief that St. Augustine taught major errors in basic Triadology that allowed for the development of a major heresy taught very explicitly by disciples of St. Augustine, like St. Flugentius, who is a saint venerated by the EO and died before the

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City These Sts and their writings aren't Holy Writ; they aren't infallible in their writings about the true faith. But they were extolled by the council as exemplars of the true faith and if their writings contained heresy or its stink, there is no way the Holy Ghost could allow this.

I'm not informed enough to say. Is this saying that everything each saint wrote is fully correct Orthodox doctrine, or specifically their writings aligned with "the true faith" as understood by the council? Did none of these saints disagree on any point? How much of each saint's writings were available in Greek before then, or in Latin?

@Immaculata_City I've never heard a response to this that isn't lame. And it seems like they all require one to question the work of the Holy Ghost in guiding the Council Fathers as they met.

This is a major part of the East's Augustinian Dilemma as I call it.

@forsman_josh @Immaculata_City There were 5 pre scism Eccumenical Councils after St. Augustine's death, which one condemned any error arising from the thought of St. Augustine in the west? Was the Patriachcate of Rome participating in multiple pre scism councils as secret heretics?

@hazelmotes52 @Immaculata_City Augustinian thought wasn’t so terrifying. The mistakes that the Latins kept making after him WERE opposed. There were councils to try to hash out many of the differences. The west developed mistakes that the east didn’t even know about until after the schism started

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Why would the fifth Eccumenical Council say this about St. Augustine, over 100 years after his death, and other western fathers if they didn't know what was going on?

@naptunael @forsman_josh @Immaculata_City "we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John Crysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."

@forsman_josh @Immaculata_City Why weren't the Eastern Patriarchs constantly trying to correct all these barbarous errors, if Augustinian thought was so terrifyingly in error why did an eccumenical council praise him and why did all the ecs after St. Augustine not attempt to bring Rome back to the fold?

@Immaculata_City The Eastern patriarchates held out a long time trying to be charitable, the patriarch of Antioch even writes to Constantinople during the schism telling them to relax and give the western church a break because essentially Rome has become barbarians.

@civilibilly @FeelsGuy2003 The Church is lead in determining the correct interpretation of sacred scripture by the Holy Ghost, but the Church's interpretation doesnt bestow authority on the Bible through its action, it simply imposes the authority inherent in the Bible.

@hazelmotes52 @FeelsGuy2003 Right, it's the word of God. No disagreement. An authority would imply agency though. Meaning, you can ask it to rule on things. Settle disputes. Ask it for help. See the distinction? You can't ask the Bible to tell you which interpretation of the Bible is correct, right?

This is the best orthos are left with post-Jay Dyer.

@civilibilly @FeelsGuy2003 No, its not the Roman Catholic perspective. The Holy Bible is the very Word of God, what could have more authority. While, it is true the Church loves, stewards, and interprets sacred scripture, this in no way means that the Bible isn't the highest authority.

@FeelsGuy2003 Wouldn't this also be the Roman Catholic perspective? It's a refutation of Sola Scriptura, the idea being that the Bible itself is not an authority. You actually need a church for that, to teach and interpret what is within the authoritative source.

@whpub @Cee10William Hey I'm an idiot. Can you show me where St. Ireneus used the word symbol or even implied a symbolic reading?

@Cee10William Yeah, he’s perfectly clear—that Jesus uses created things for their symbolic value to make a point. Not to claim that those symbols actually are what they symbolize.

What's ironic about this halting attempt at establishing transubstantiation from Irenaeus is that the citations are from Irenaeus' account of the Last Supper at the moment when Jesus "confessed" unconsecrated wine to be His blood and "acknowledged" unconsecrated bread to be His body. Irenaeus focuses on the fact that it is "created" wine and "created" bread to drive home a rhetorical point: that Jesus had invested created things with symbolic value in order to counter a deeply held gnostic belief. Irenaeus' whole 5 volume work Against Heresies was addressed to Gnostics who believed the heavenly powers cannot "come in contact with any of those things which belong to creation” (AH 2.15.1) and that there were two gods, an evil one that had created, and a holy one that had not, and therefore Jesus' Father could not be the Creator (AH 4.33.2). From this they reasoned that Jesus could not have a body, could not have suffered and died, and that there could be no resurrection of the flesh. It destroyed the Gospel. To counter this claim, Irenaeus observes that Jesus used created things to reveal the Father: "For by means of the creation itself, the Word reveals God the Creator" (AH 4.6.6). Why? because of their rich symbolic value: "These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist; ... that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things;" (AH 4.16.1). So in the next chapter, Irenaeus applies the Eucharistic liturgy of the Supper to that very purpose, showing that God continued using created things for their symbolic value. This is why he keeps coming back to the fact that Jesus had used "created" wine to indicate His blood, and "created" bread to indicate His body. He was showing how concepts and truths could be symbolically "indicated by created things", just as God had been doing since the beginning of creation. Here are Irenaeus' accounts of the Last Supper, and note his consistent theme: Irenæus: Jesus "took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood" (AH 4.17.5) Irenæus: Jesus "acknowledged (lit. confessed) the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood ... and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body" (AH 5.2.2). The Catholic application of Irenaeus here glosses over the very point he was making, but don't miss it on their account. Irenaeus' sole point here is that there is no way Jesus would have called created bread and created wine His body and blood if His Father was not the Creator: “[H]ow could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood?” (AH 4.33.2). As with those citations above, this again is a description of a moment when Jesus took unconsecrated created food in his hand and used it to indicate a truth, using something created for its symbolic value. What was He illustrating? That He had a body. That He had blood. "For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made" (AH 5.2.2). By thanking His Father for created food, He showed that there is only one God, the Creator, and that Creator is His Father. Irenaeus had demonstrated the very thing the gnostics denied, because nothing illustrates the union of flesh and spirit better than Jesus offering created food to His Father, the Creator. Irenaeus believed that just before the Supper, Jesus had instituted a new covenant oblation of first fruits of the harvest as a thank offering, saying that He was "giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things" (AH 4.17.5). Therefore in imitation of Him, Christians "are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation" as a Eucharist tithe offering (AH 4.18.1), the new covenant oblation. Because nothing announces the union of flesh and spirit like an offering of created food to the Father: "For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit." (AH 4.18.5) Yes, Jesus called created bread His body and created wine His blood for their symbolic value, because the truths of the Creator God are "indicated by created things," the very point he had made in the previous chapter. Irenaeus didn't think Jesus was "confessing" that the bread was really changed into His body, or acknowledging that the wine was really changed into His blood (it hadn't even been consecrated yet), and he certainly wasn't teaching that the answer to the gnostic heresy was to offer Jesus' body and blood to the Father as the new covenant oblation. No. Irenaeus simply countered the gnostics by showing how Jesus invested bread and wine with symbolic value, indicating sacred truths with created things. Symbols.

@spoonfulofhan The Federal govt spent over 7 trillion last year, could they have ended homelessness and hunger 7 times over?

He could house every homeless person in the country and end hunger in one blink and chooses not to

@arindube Why did you choose not to include cost of living in your analysis?

We've been running an unprecedented natural experiment running for a decade and half. 30 states have raised their minimum wages. 20 have not. What happened to pay? What happened to jobs? The good news is that it's pretty easy to figure out now. Link next post.