I oppose abortion, perversion, sexism support govt. intervention w. limits I think outside the box. Eastern Orthodox but against Serbian cultic nationalism and imperialism.
THIS SITE MAY USE COOKIES AND I CAN'T MAKE ANYTHING WORK TO GIVE YOU A CHOICE USE AT YOUR OWN RISK I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE COOKIES OR NOT.
[This is from Facebook I think I posted similar information from an Orthodox source,
this counting up of dates adding to Dec. 25 as Jesus' birthdate goes back of course to the
days before the Roman Catholic Church existed, and the pope was the ORthodox
Patriarch of Rome.] . Catholics traditionally celebrate Christmas every December 25 as the birth of our lord Jesus Christ. However, there are some cultic type religious groups like INC, SDA, JW, MCGI, and many cults who opposed and do not celebrate Christmas as they believe that December 25 is not really Jesus’ birthdate. Instead, they said that this month and date is invented, unbiblical tradition made by the pagan Catholic Church. How to respond to this accusation? . These anti-Catholic cults keep on asking to look in the bible for the literal word-for-word of the specific month & date of Jesus' birth. They failed to realize that the Bible is not a "Calendar" that contains all the dates. Ironically, these cult members who don't celebrate Christmas, are enjoying Christmas Holidays and even accepting Christmas bonuses. . . THE CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS . The fact that the date itself was found right there in the bible by computing the chronological events.
. It had started with Zachariah, a Jewish priest who went inside into the temple to offer incense, as we can read in (Luke 1:9) it says ⏬ . "When it fell to him by lot, as the priestly custom was, to enter the Lord's sanctuary and burn incense there." (Luke 1:9) . According to Jewish tradition, this burning incense inside the temple's inner sanctuary is traditionally done once a year, in the Jewish Month of "Tishrei 15" (which is equivalent to September 25 in Gregorian Calendar). . As Zachariah incensing the temple's inner sanctuary, an angel came to appear to his presence, and brought a message that he will have a son to his wife Elizabeth, which name “John”, and that the same date & same month of Tishrei (September 25), Zechariah’s wife, Elizabeth becomes pregnant, as we can read in (Luke 1:11,13) ⏬ . "Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord, standing on the right of the altar of incense.".. But the angel said to him, 'Zechariah, do not be afraid, for your prayer has been heard. YOUR WIFE ELIZABETH IS TO BEAR YOU A SON and you shall name him John." (Luke 1:11,13) . Thus, after having pregnant on (September 25) , we should count another 6 months ahead for another event - the annunciation of Mary. . Just because if we continue the reading until (Luke 1:24-27, and 30-31) we can see that when 6 months of Elizabeth's conception is another angel has been sent once again to a Virgin girl, Mary, bringing her a message that she will be having a baby: ⏬ . "Some time later HIS WIFE ELIZABETH CONCEIVED and for five months she kept to herself, saying,... 'The Lord has done this for me, now that it has pleased him to take away the humiliation I suffered in public.' IN THE SIXTH MONTH the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David; and THE VIRGIN'S NAME WAS MARY. but the angel said to her, 'Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God's favour. Look! YOU ARE TO CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB AND BEAR A SON, and you must name him Jesus." (Luke 1:24-27, 30-31) . Thus, if we compute the chronological event of dates, a (December 25) Birthdate of Jesus will be derived: ⏬ . TISHREI 15 (SEPTEMBER 25) (Annunciation of Elizabeth, started to conceive baby John) + 6 MONTHS (of Elizabeth's pregnancy ) _________________ = MARCH 25 (Annunciation of Mary & starting point of Mary's conception to baby Jesus) . MARCH 25 + (9 Months of Pregnancy) = DECEMBER 25 . THEREFORE, (December 25) is the birthdate of Jesus, based on the scriptural events computed. Thus, the early church fathers never erred (mistaken) with their idea / theory / thoughts on Jesus birth, the fact that it supports scriptural analysis as a proof, and not invented as some anti-Catholic's allegations. . THE CELEBRATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE DATE . December 25 is not Catholic Church doctrine, nor written in the catechism of the Catholic Church. It is just a belief that came from tradition and computed chronological events in the bible. . Just because, the church do not ignore the fact that the actual date of Jesus may fall between 25, which is either 23, 24 or 26, 27. Thus, Catholic Church do not officially proclaim it as church doctrine, but a mere traditional belief that came from ancient Christians. . Hence, this belief comes out from scriptural theory, by computing chronological events in the bible which made more closer view to (December 25) as Jesus' birth. What's most important to Catholics is the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Saviour, and not the date itself. . Date is nothing more important than the celebration itself. You may be born on a leap year (Feb 29), yet you still want to celebrate your birthday on the following year either on Feb 28 or March 1, that does not fall on the actual date of Feb 29. Because what matters most is the celebration that you have added 1 more year of your age. Likewise, Dec 25 might not be accurate date of Christ's birth, but it will not matter for Christians since we only want to commemorate the birth of saviour Jesus Christ. . DECEMBER 25 IS THE BIRTH OF PAGAN GOD CALLED "SOL INVICTUS"? . Most of the anti-Catholic cults favorite allegation is that December 25 is of pagan roots and not really Jesus birth. They based it from some limited references quoted from unreliable history books. . As a matter of fact, long before the paganic declaration for the feast of the unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) the (December 25) is already belief of the early Christians. . First thing we should know "WHEN" does paganic feast declared? Here let us have some references... . “ Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the official sun god of the later Roman Empire and a patron of soldiers. In 274 AD the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official cult alongside the traditional Roman cults.” (Source: Wikipedia – Sol Invictus) . See? It is clear, (274 AD) is the year that pagan feast for the sun god was declared, called Sol Invictus. . On the other hand, the belief of Jesus birth in (December 25) is much earlier than paganic feast Sol Invictus, Here are the references about early church fathers identifies (December 25) as Jesus nativity. . St. Theophilus (circa 171-183 A.D) was the first to identify December 25 as the birth date of Christ, saying ... . “We ought to celebrate the birth day of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origin Festorum Christianorum) . St. Iranaeus (circa A.D 202) ⏬ . “ In his work Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus (c. 130–202) identified the conception of Jesus as March 25 and linked it to the crucifixion at the time of the equinox, with the birth of Jesus nine months after on December 25 at the time of the solstice." (Link: Source: Wikipedia – Christmas – Choice of December 25) . St. Hippolytus (circa. 170-236 A.D) due Speculation as to the time of Jesus’ birth dates back to the 3rd century, Hyppolytus believed that Jesus was born on December 25. He explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day, he said... ⏬ . " For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls." . Apostolic Constitutions (circa A.D. 70-250) The Apostolic Constitutions are a compilation, whose material is derived from early sources differing in age AND different early writers during apostolic age. he said..⏬ . " Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead,." (Apostolic Constitutions , Book V, Section 3, Chapter XIII) . Take Note: This ninth month counting from Nisan (April) is Casleu in the Jewish calendar. Transferred to our Roman calendar, this ninth month answers to December. . Now, let us compare and see the contradicting year interval between the two (Nativity of Jesus VS. Sol Invictus), in which didn't even meet nor coincided: ⏬ . - Dec.25 "Jesus nativity" was first used (70–250 A.D) by early Christians . VERSUS . - Dec.25 "Sol Invictus" later declared (275 A.D) by pagan emperor . Here, we can see from the two, that early church fathers from (1st-2nd century A.D) is the earliest groups who believes & identifies (December.25) as Jesus nativity, While contrary to paganic feast of Sol Invictus which later declared in late 2nd century (275 A.D). . THEREFORE, long before the emperor's declaration of December 25 as the pagan feast of 'Sol Invictus' in (274 A.D), the (December 25th) was first identified by the early Christians as the Jesus’ birth . Take Note: early Christians, is the people who were closest from apostles time, thus, they much know something about Jesus and apostles life. . THEREFORE, THE "DECEMBER 25" CHRISTMAS IS DEFINITELY NOT ROOTED OF PAGANISM, BUT ROOTED FROM EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHTS BY OUR EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, IN WHICH ALSO SUPPORTED WITH CHRONOLOGICAL COMPUTATION FROM THE BIBLE.
Many people doubt the Bible for various reasons. One of them is that the Bible is not accurate scientifically, but this just isn't so. The Bible is not a book about science, but when it does speak scientifically, it is accurate. In fact, it was far ahead of any other writing of its time. Please consider the following...
The Earth is suspended in nothing "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.
The Stars are Innumerable
"He took him outside and said, 'Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be,'" (Gen. 15:5, NIV).
The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils," (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).
The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened," (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.
The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! ... When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, ... You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet ... the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas," (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).
The Hydrologic Cycle
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV). "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV) "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
The Concept of Entropy
"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded," (Psalm 102:25-26, NIV).
first off I am totally opposed to ordaining women for several reasons. all practical. now, it also says elsewhere in the NT that the believer is to grow up into his head, Christ, be more like Him. both sexes have one model, a male, Jesus Christ. The order of creation theory, that man being made first before woman is closer to God, would have rocks plants, birds fishes creeping things various animals as closer to God than man is. Thios is perilously near to the deep ecology notion, so obviously this idea of man made first and woman made from him is therefore the head is not an absolute analogy but conditional else you risk heresy if pushed too far. (especially if you add the filioque run wild as per St. Photios the Great.)
If the believer is to grow up into the Head Who is Christ, then if man is head of woman she is to grow up into man, be more like him, he is her model. she should strive to be competent in the same ways man is.
The analogy to Christ as head however, has also to be conditional not absolute, because although He is 100% human He is also 100% divine, and the divine has no continuity of being or essence with the creature, while woman has continuity of human nature essence with the man.
Feminism of the third wave sort probably derived from "difference feminism" or pseudo feminism as I called it when it first appeared, is totally different. First there is generally a conflict of opposites implied or explicit in the ideas of masculinity and femininity, and frankly this has gone on all along anyway, but in a socially non destabilizing format. the occult philosophies invariably posit such Hegelian opposition butr without resolution in a synthesis. but some especially gnostic and third wave and "androgyny" do posit a synthesis, of continually inadequate women and soy boy emasculated men with the women ramped up enough to go to the gym, be inpolitics, public speaking, etc. all things considered unfeminine, unnatural, etc. by opponents of women suffrage even of women speaking or voting in organizatins that had both sexes in them in the 1800s.
Androgyny posits the same dialectic of opposition (complementary and so forth being a cover for this and a means of denial of women their birthright of development like a boy is encouraged to develop more pain resistant courageous, not phony, etc. stride freely and so forth) and instead of saying there is something wrong with the sexist ideas, exalts it and then says to combine the "energies" of the sexes, instead of sorting out what's wrong in the sense of evil or wrong in the sense of inadequate and get rid of that and stop trying to be radically different and play all kinds of sick games.
The entire feminism mess of today, having some of its roots in problematic notions that were a minor feature in the 1800s and even in second wave feminism, which was then swamped by Marxism, is FAKE FEMINSIM. it is full blown difference feminism which claimed to have women be managers executives etc. without losing their "femininity" and no talk much of blue collar type jobs and marry for money as well as looks when you get down to it, it became a predatory version of the standard traditional man as provider woman as dependent therefore dominatable especially because of the personality encouraged in her, and is now armed with laws in case of divorce that MGTOW developed in reaction to. MGTOW assumes also all women are by EVOLUTION (heavy materialistic Ayn Randian and evolutionary notions inform this) to be predatory, disloyal, etc. etc. and monkey branch man to man and do hypergamy or dump a man for a "better" man i.e., better money and looks, and are incapable of love or truth or integrtity while men are inherently loving and truthful and have integrity. it almost reads like a reverse of Victorian balderdash about sacred womanhood and its virtues vs. low life man which must be raised to civilization and decency by Woman (capitalized) a notion partly exploited by the women's suffrage movement, true. MGTOW posits that woman's inherent evil nature is held in check by patriarchal systems and some advocate taking away woman's vote and look longingly at the moslem control of men over women.
a modified Christian version posits similar, almost blasphemously implying God made women that way, and designed an order of rule that contains and limits the evil potential if obeyed. like containment theory regarding communism.
Meanwhile, whether Christian or not, the male ego titillating and pandering manipulation esteemed is mere sin of pride and vain glory and the femininity that does this mere deceptive and somewhat vainglory and ambition insofar as she gets a "good provider" she can brag about and look down on stupider women who married lower, and can push him gently to become a high status male (more so than he is already since 80 % of women are competing in MGTOW social theory for 20% of men) so she is high status by being married to him. This is all evil.
interesting thing emailed to me from, some people whose other ideas are
a mix of good and bad so I won't name them lest they be a bad influence.
(yeah on the one hand we might be Babylon and evangelical church has
definitely struck a deal made in hell in joining with big money and
government and the intelligence community which is a major part of the
swampy deep state. But there are problems smoothly interspersed with all
this and dubious presuppositions.)
Doing research on some antiquity stuff, I noticed there seemed to be a
very ancient tradition of facing north to worship, a holdover from belief
in the True God YHWH.
"
HEAVEN IS IN THE NORTH OF OUR UNIVERSE
Whenever you ask a child, "Where is heaven?" they will usually point straight up. Twelve hours later if they were still pointing upward, they would be pointing in a totally different direction. Because the earth is turning on its axis constantly, the direction (when you point upward) is constantly changing. So then, where is heaven?
It appears from a study of the Scriptures that heaven is located in the north in our universe, and that is precisely why, when the priests offered sacrifices in the Old Testament, they would offer them northward toward the Lord. Notice what Moses said in Leviticus 1:11:
"And he shall kill the sacrifice on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar."
The implication is clear: the Lord's throne is in the north. "Northward before the Lord," says God's Word.
North is always the same direction from this planet no matter what time of day. If you were to point to the north in the morning, twelve hours later you would still be pointing in the same direction. No matter where the earth is in its orbit about the sun, north is always the same direction in relationship to the earth. So no matter what time of day or what time of year, north is always the same direction.
Moreover, the Bible suggests that salvation comes from the north. In Psalms 75:6 we read,
"For salvation cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south."
Therefore, it must come from the north since it is the only choice left.
Thirty-five hundred years ago in the book of Job in the Old Testament, God gave us an amazing. Job 26:7 says, He -
"... stretcheth out the north over the empty place."
THE SUPER VOID
The super void
Regarding the exact location of heaven, Sarah Knapton, the Science Editor for Britain's Daily Telegraph, reports that astronomers have now discovered a curious empty section which is missing around 10,000 galaxies - a super void, which is 1.8 billion light-years across. István Szapudi of the University of Hawaii at Manoa described the object as possibly "the largest individual system ever identified by humanity." The Scriptures tell us that beyond this void is where heaven is.
Lucifer (Satan) in his rebellion (ie., when he tried to overthrow God in "eternity past") spoke of this void in the north. Isaiah 14:13 tells us,
"For thou [Satan] hast said in thine heart, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the side of the north."
The Fall Of Satan
"12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north..." (Isaiah 14:12-13)
This undoubtedly refers to this empty space in the north where there are no stars.
Another fascinating passage of Scripture regarding the place where God's throne is, is found in Psalms 48:1-2:
"Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King."
Special counsel Robert Mueller claims to be investigating a ‘conspiracy’ between members of POTUS Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government. What is truly sickening about it is that he’s one of them actually in on a conspiracy — to undermine our duly-elected president.
On Friday, another co-conspirator, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, announced that Mueller has indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.
And this comes just a few days before Monday’s face-to-face meeting in Helsinki between POTUS Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Timing is everything, right? ... The disgusting Deep State’s military-industrial complex can’t have peace with Russia and China because it would wither and lose its power and influence. Much better to remain on a hair-trigger nuclear status with both countries so we can blow each to bits someday!
As for the indictment, Mueller can’t seriously believe that Putin is going to surrender 12 of his GRU officers to the United States for a sham trial…does he? Because he didn’t believe that 13 other Russians he indicted earlier were going to fight back in court — until they did. Discovery in that case is ongoing.
How do we know this is bogus? Let us count the ways:
#1 - WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange has said repeatedly that Russia did not hack the DNC’s emails and has even promised to provide evidence of same in exchange for a pardon. Assange and WikiLeaks have never been proven wrong or to have lied.
#2 - A group of former U.S. intelligence officials including some former NSA agents has said they have examined the cyber-forensic evidence and have concluded that the DNC servers were not hacked. What’s more, the DNC has never allowed its servers to be examined by the FBI’s cyber-forensics team; so how can Mueller know that “Russian officers” hacked them?
#3 - Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism expert, military officer and recognized intelligence authority, in a December 2016 Facebook post, said there is “no evidence” to support the Obama administration accusation Russia was involved in the DNC ‘hack.’ He wrote that “apart from assertions of Russian activity connected to an unnamed political party, [the report] provides absolutely no evidence that the alleged intrusions into the DNC servers were anything beyond normal intelligence agency probing for vulnerabilities.” “In fact,” he adds, “it doesn’t even provide the evidence for that.”
#4 - The Russian “counterintelligence” investigation into the Trump campaign was bogus. It was based on a phony “dossier” that came in three different versions — none of which have been substantiated.
#5 - Never forget that James Comey leaked classified memos in order to trigger Mueller’s appointment. The whole thing was a set-up; Hillary Clinton is the real criminal here but she was exonerated so she could remain in the race and ‘beat Donald Trump’ — or so everyone thought.
That Jeff Sessions has allowed this clown show to continue is a disgrace. Like POTUS Trump said, a make-believe probe which is wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars is also preventing our president from pursuing his vision of foreign policy, which is his right. As we have noted, that’s a national security threat.
At least he’s not trying to enrich a terrorist-supporting regime (Iran) while making “deals” that will someday lead it to nuclear weapons.
Someday the guilty will be made to pay. And POTUS Trump won’t be among them because the only thing he’s done is dare to run for the presidency…and win.
The Virtuous Woman (or valorous, excellent, of noble character) Proverbs 31:10-30 totally wrecks the unbiblical notions of what women should be like, and what a man should find acceptable. An awful lot of what is taught as "biblical" is just baptized sin. Pride, ambition, vainglory, dishonesty, cowardice, self indulgence are all denounced everywhere else, but get a free pass if they are linked to women or men as part of their supposed created nature.
The Masoretic based KJV and others, and the Septuagint (LXX) from older texts than the Masoretic differ slightly, but add up to the same thing.
"11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life." no need of or temptation to dubioius or wrong means of making money, involvement in pluder, or evenjust the results of the warfare of business and the marketplace.
The Septuagint "Theheart ofher husband trusts in her she will not be at a loss forfine spoils, FOR SHE PROVIDES GOOD THINGS FOR HER HUSBAND ALL HER LIFE."
Hereit is clear as implied in the Masoretic, that she is one who brings home the bread a lot, theone who comes home with the spoils of the competition of the marketplace. (The Talmud saysthe text the Masoretics based on was flawed when they got it, they just froze it from more errors. The Qumran Scrolls often agree with the LXX against the Masoretic,s omketimes a third variantisshown to have exited, but they all add up to the same thing.
"13She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. ... 16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. [aggressive independent farming savvy businesswoman.]
17She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. [very masculine terminology here. Likely does a lot of her own field work, nothing unusual in itself for women in some parts of Asia and Africa.]
18She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. [keeps track of finances and profit and loss not an airhead.]
19She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. ... 24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. [LXX says she is kind to her kids so they become rich, i.e., not torn down or smothered but built up to get out and things done, incl. the females are raised this way since it doesn't specify sons.]"
Notice that her husband is proud of her and he is also well known sits with the elders in the cfity gates, soshe is well known also.
Somuch for man the provider woman the housekeeper dependent and manipulator. And theidea that remarriage was allowed because a woman couldn't survive without marrying for money is also false.
the situation described in the article below is one of the reasons I OPPOSE a self governing American ORthodox Church. as for canonical problems, the Roman Empire had more than one Metropolitan or Patriarch in its borders and the rule was one bishop per city not per region. I think the USA can manage the same way."
This is what I sent to the Orthodox Christian Laity group that sent me an email
seems their 11th get together called for a united Orthodox Church in America.
the history of this sort of thing is complicated, and generally such scream about canonical impropriety of the setup now, ignoring more important canonical improprieties that go on all the time regarding morals, finances, etc. some jurisdictions are better than others.
The Russians were the first in North America as per Orthodox Christianity. Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and part of San Francisco, Ft. Ross (the Bear in the California flag refers to the Russian part of California history, limited in scope and eclipsed by the Spanish.) When the Arab Christians and the Greeks arrived, the Russians provided clergy then they got their own from their home patriarchates.
The Orthodox Church in America, heavily Slavic in origin with connections to the dubious segment of the Russian expatriate community, two or three times declared themselves THE Orthodox Church in America, the last time getting a tomos of autocephaly from the Russian ORthodox Church in Moscow, the so called living church, which Stalin had reestablished as a patriarchate. The ROC had been disestablished as a patriarchate and made a department of the government by Tsar Peter the Great. reestablishing the patriarchate had been discussed during the interim between the Tsar Nicholas II's abdication and the Bolshevik revolution itself, but the church was put on the run with the rest of the "white Russians."
Meanwhile as per canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of AD 451 at a city in Asia Minor aka Anatolia now called Turkey, the Ecumenical Patriarchate or Greek Orthodox Church headquartered in a backwater of Constantinople now called Istanbul claims authority over all the barbarians including us, that didn't already have a Patriarch at the time. (since then various nations acquired their own patriarchate status so there are now 15 autocephalous churches which are canonical and in communion with each other, except for the spat between the Antiochian Patriarchate, which has operated out of Damascus for the past 500 or 600 years I forget why and the Jerusalem Patriarchate over Qatar's ORthodox Christians.)
When confronted with absolute evil or the depths of human depravity, some of us experience a very particular kind of depression. It’s as if we just can’t cope with such a repudiation of humanity.
Some experience it when exposed to the details of child sexual abuse. And some feel it over the libelous falsehoods hurled at Israel whenever it’s forced to defend itself against genocidal fanatics, as happened this week in the Hamas onslaught on the Gaza border fence.
There is actually a strong thematic connection between these twin evils.
Two awful features are associated with child sexual abuse over and above the assaults themselves.
The first is the way the perpetrator projects all blame onto his victim. She led him on, he tells himself, she dressed like a tart, she was asking for it and so on. In his mind, he must rob his victim of her innocence in order to deny that she is a victim and thus justify himself.
There’s something very similar about the West’s systematic abuse of Israel. There’s a refusal to acknowledge that Israel is the victim of Arab and Muslim exterminatory violence.
Instead, Israel-abusers project that violence onto Israel. It is Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian Arabs that is said to have driven them in despair to act as they do. So Israel deserves its punishment.
We’ve been watching this sickening spectacle again this week from the usual suspects: the United Nations and European Union, NGOs, politicians, and above all, the media.
With the riots in Gaza, they fell over themselves to mouth the murderous script Hamas had given them—that these were spontaneous, peaceful protests against the hellish conditions imposed upon Gaza by Israel, whose soldiers proceeded to kill around 60 unarmed Arabs out of sheer trigger-happy brutality.
These were all incendiary lies. The riots that reached a crescendo this week weren’t a protest but, in the words of Hamas itself, an attempted invasion intended to slaughter Jews and destroy Israel.
A report published this week by the High Level Military Group of distinguished military figures around the world describes these onslaughts over the past six weeks as “carefully planned and orchestrated military operations intended to break through the border of a sovereign state and commit mass murder in the communities beyond, using their own civilians as cover. The purpose: to criminalise and isolate the State of Israel.”
The BBC and other journalists in the United States, Canada and elsewhere howled down those who said this was organized by Hamas and accused Israel instead of using live fire against unarmed demonstrators.
Israel said it had so far identified 24 of the dead as Hamas terrorists. On Wednesday, however, a senior Hamas official declared that no fewer than 50 of the 62 said to have been killed were its own operatives.
In other words, the Israel Defense Forces had been remarkably careful not to kill the civilians whom Hamas had pushed to the front as cannon fodder. No other army in the world would have been so scrupulous in the face of a murderous mob 40,000-strong trying to storm its border. Yet the media has vilified the IDF instead.
The rioters were armed with IEDs, petrol bombs and guns. They dispatched burning kites to set fire to Israeli farmland. On Facebook they were urged to “bring a knife, dagger or handgun” in order to kidnap Israeli civilians and murder Israeli soldiers. The Western media ignored all this.
The IDF leafletted Gazans, warning them not to assemble at the fence; then they used tear gas and foul-smelling “Skunk” sprays; then they fired warning shots; then they shot at legs. They only used lethal force when facing a direct threat posed through weapons or explosives. The Western media ignored all this.
Hamas blew up its own fuel terminals three times; it wrecked conveyor belts used to bring in construction materials and animal feed; when Israel opened the border crossing for humanitarian relief, Hamas sent back trucks of medical aid, food and other supplies.
The Western media ignored all this, blaming Israel for Gaza’s “hellish” conditions. Britain’s Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn condemned Israel’s “slaughter” of “dozens of unarmed protesters.” British Prime Minister Theresa May called for an inquiry into the “deeply troubling” loss of life and Israel’s use of live fire.
Grotesquely singling out Israel as an endemic abuser of human rights is now the default position in the West. Israel is therefore in effect the abused child of the world.
Its abusers aren’t just the Arabs and Muslims who continuously try to murder Jews and steal their country; they are also the BBC, Britain’s Channel Four News, America’s NBC, Canada’s CBC and numerous newspapers throughout the West.
But there’s a second awful feature that these two forms of abuse share. Tragically, the sexually abused child believes the reason she was abused must be something really bad she herself has done. Otherwise, why else would she have been attacked?
In exactly the same way, Jews over the centuries have asked why the world hates them with such unique ferocity—and the answer reached by a distressing number is that it must be because of something uniquely hateful in them.
Today, such Jews turn against Israel, swallowing and regurgitating the disgusting falsehoods and distortions perpetrated by the enemies of the Jewish people. And some of those Jews, in both the Diaspora and Israel, shamefully took part in this week’s anti-Israel verbal auto-da-fé.
The unanswerable question, though, is why Israel is abused like this. Plausible factors such as anti-colonialist ideology or plain ignorance don’t begin to explain the unique virulence of this hatred, and its obsessional and paranoid nature.
The essence of it is the refusal to view Israel as victimized. And the essence of that is the unhinged belief that the Jews are all-powerful. So if Israel exercises its undoubted military power—even though it only ever does so to defend its citizens’ lives—this gives traction to the ancient anti-Semitic trope.
Hence the obscene outrage voiced by some that no Israelis were killed at the Gaza border—imbecilically offered as proof of Israeli aggression. The fact that the Jews can now defend themselves is considered unacceptable.
So these Israel-abusers champion instead those who send flaming kites decorated with swastikas to incinerate Israel and its people, while describing the Jews defending their country as latter-day Nazis.
It isn’t just the Hamas who are evil. There’s a profound moral and spiritual sickness in the West, too. Jewish News Syndicatehttps://www.jns.org/opinion/at-the-israel-border-pointing-fingers-at-the-wrong-abuser/
" a talk, given by Rabbi David Hartman, in 1990. He was discussing Christian attitudes towards Israel in relation to the Holocaust. The excerpts are as reported in the Nov. 2, 1990 issue of the Long Island Jewish World.
"Christianity sees itself as the New Israel, God's newest revelation, that is to replace Judaism. Why do you think the Pope refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital? Because if it is, then the Jewish exile has ended. And if the Jewish exile has ended, then Christianity cannot explain its own tradition. Because its own tradition is parasitic on God's rejection of Israel."
"Do you know what's at stake? What do you think; just some sort of argument going on? The fundamental vision of Christianity was parasitic on the idea that God's initial revelation... the [Jewish] experiment ... did not work." Hartman said that Christianity viewed the suffering and exile of the Jewish people as punishment from God for not accepting the new message.
"As long as we were weak, as long as we were homeless, then Christian theology had a living witness to their claim to be the New Israel. Jews in exile confirmed the claim of a new revelation of Jesus. This is central to Christian thology."
Hartman stressed that suffering is a symbol Christians can deal with. "That is why Christians could handle the Holocaust. Because the Holocaust deals with Jewish suffering, and also because Jews are a suffering people, a crucified people. Crucifixion is a symbol Christians can deal with." "They *cannot* deal with a living rebirth of the Jewish people in Jerusalem. And that is why I claim that the most important struggle in human history today is not the Holocaust - we should not be a Holocaust people - but a people reborn in Jerusalem." "
misunderstanding one: replacement theology, which might indeed feel challenged by Jewish control of the land of Israel. But Romans chapter 11 and the Prophets rule this out anyway. The Jews are not totally cast off but are the root that bears the branches the church, and will be restored eventually. Though Christians are spiritual Israel, physical Israel is not irrelevant.
misunderstanding two: that Christianity is parasitic on Judaism, and rendered irrelevant and a failure by restoration of Jews to the Land of Israel. No, in fact this is in line with Paul and the Prophets, for the Jews would be restored to the land in an unclean condition and cleansed later (Ezekiel) and will be practicing Orthodox Jewish worship sex separatist when Jesus comes back (Zechariah), and God will make Jerusalem a burden for all nations (ongoing and maybe getting more so I forget which Prophet's book that is in), and that eventually all Israel incl. physical will be saved.
the restoration of Jewish control in the land of Israel, then, is not in any way contradictory to Christianity. And membership in the Kingdom of Heaven is not the same thing as title to real estate.
All the Christological heresies partake of confusion between nature and person.
When you read the Bible and don't ignore anything, the only view of Christ that
accounts for everything is that He is BOTH God AND man.
God is both a person (someone who is God) and a nature (the divine nature).
a Person is a WHO. a Nature is a WHAT.
Jesus is God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son, God the Logos,
from all eternity, begotten by The Father without a mother, of His essence, and is
divine. Jesus then BECAME MAN so now has the second nature of a creature
more specifically a human nature.
(The term "trinity" is not in the Bible, it is a short way of saying what IS in the Bible,
various hints and explicit statements, that give the same titles to all The Persons.
"God" is often used to refer to The Father, from Whom the other Two come, but
they come outside of time and are therefore always existing, never a time when the
Son or The Holy Spirit was not. At Jesus' baptism, all three are present as distinct beings.
modalism is thus refuted.)
This human nature is held by Christ at the level of person not by merging it with
the divine at the level of nature. He is permanently human without losing any of His
divinity, and without the humanity being something other than human. This is a great
Mystery, don't try to fathom it.
Nestorianism separates the two natures so much that they become like two persons.
This is one confusion of person and nature. Monophysitism unites and confuses them
into one, another confusion of person and nature. miaphysitism and monotheletism
do something similar though milder enough to be close to Orthodoxy (technically
Orthodox because Trinitarian, Orthodox being the term developed in reaction to Arianism
which denied Jesus' full divinity).
Docetism (which monophysitism resembles) denies Jesus is truly physical, that this
is only an appearance not a reality. monophysitism would have His human nature
swallowed up in the ocean of His divinity so much that it might as well not exist. This
is a bit backwards, almost, because although His divinity was not swallowed up in
His humanity, it was HIDDEN in His humanity except at The Transfiguration.
Essentially, the Council of Chalcedon rejected Eutychianism, a variant of
Apollinarianism (which has NOTHING to do with traducianism except
inasmuch as it may misinterpret or misapply it, unlike the rash statements
of a proabortion video that pretends that anti abortionism partakes of the
Apollinarian heresy). Both in slightly different ways claimed that Jesus
Christ was essentially divine only, and that His humanity was swallowed
up in the ocean of His divinity so irrelevant at best (Eutychianism).
Like most if not all heresies, the origin was either clerical or monastic, the
latter in Eutyche's case, so much for fasting and prayer automatically
making you a good theologian.
The tendency semiconsciously to view Christ as divine only and lacking
much if not all humanity, is the sole reason that alledged proofs of His
having been married and maybe had children (false) are treated as
in some way disproving His divinity, the assumption being that anything
that showed He is human disproves His divinity. (ignored of course is the
issue of His dying on the Cross or suffering from flogging and nailing
or mention of His being hungry or tired or sleeping.)
The fact is, that since Jesus is both 100% divine AND 100% human,
IF He had married and had children such events would be totally
irrelevant. (There is no reason to believe they are true and always hail
from weird agendas and fraudulent "gospels" of much later origin than
the eyewitness Four Gospel of the New Testament. Indeed, knowing He
would not remain on earth long enough to be a good husband and father
He might well have deemed it unfair to use this option. It could also
interfere with His mission when it would start, so His wife and children
would effectively have to be abandoned if they didn't trail along with Him.
And maintaining celibacy was a good example anyway of self control
not only of bodily desires but of emotional needs.)
Chacedon is rejected by the monophysites, who range from really
monophysite similar to Eutychianism to miaphysite which is monophysitism
lite and tends to claim it is misunderstood. Both sides accept the Nicene
Creed, that He became flesh, but seem to understand it somewhat
differently. Using what he thought was from Athanasius but actually from
Apollinaris, St. Cyril of Alexandria had used the formula one divine nature
incarnate to answer Nestorius who divided the two natures too much.
But the interpretation that this means there is one emulsified combined
nature after the Incarnation that involves modification of both the divine
and human so that it is not really either anymore, is hardly what St. Cyril
was driving at and makes contrary statements here and there, but his focus was
on the excessive dividing of the natures so often sounded monophysite.
Chalcedon made sure its dogma matched that of St. Cyril who the monophysites
also claim. Monophysitism was also fuelled in part by politics, wanting to
use this religious variation to escape the control of the Byzantine emperor.
the Monophysites rejected Eutyches ALSO before long. so the end result is
closer to Orthodoxy.
Often their supporters quote St. John of Damascus who said they are Orthodox
in all ways but leave out that he said "EXCEPT" in this matter of their ideas
about the human and divine natures of Christ.
Also a problem is that the Greek language was evolving, so that physis and
hypostasis and so forth had more than one meaning. Likely many miaphysites
hold an Orthodox view but think they don't others don't and pretend they do.
Miracles and so forth are reported among them. One Orthodox writer considered
their Eucharist is valid, but because they partake of it in a state of sin (heresy)
it causes their souls harm or stores up wrath for them in the Judgement, rather
than being salvific.
The importance of Chalcedon is precisely that it declares that Christ is both
fully human and fully divine, refuting ahead of time some new agey notions
about Christ, and ruling out the use of either evidences of humanity or evidences
of divinity as proof against the Orthodox (or Roman Catholic or original
mainline protestant) Christology.
A subclinical Marcionism (denial of the Father being good and drawing a distinction
between "the God of the Old Testament" dismissed as petty and tribal and "the God
of the New Testament") and a subclinical monophysitism seems to exist in the
mentality of many protestants in America at least for many generations.
Interesting thing about wolves, they interfere in the efforts of the their young to
get sexy with each other. Sometimes in winter several packs will team together.
however, the alpha male concept of being focused determined, knows what he
wants, etc. is not invalid. it needs to be mixed with loyalty to a mate, monogamy
and tenderness however. ditto alpha females.
There is a movement out there of men who are sick of toxic feminism,
the third wave feminism, in other words. This began as "difference
feminism" which I labeled pseudo feminism at the time. Its premise is
you can get ahead as much as a man be a manager level person for
instance, and still be "feminine" i.e., use your wiles, your sex appeal,
maybe put out, exploit men for money etc. and generally continue
business as usual. (Granted women are raised to be like this.)
A typical woman complained of by mgtows uses a man up and tosses
him aside taking all his money and has been cheating on him in the
meantime. a category of men called "manginas" worships these
women and takes no end of abuse as okay.
Now, guys can make these problems, by lying, by not keeping their
word to their women like they'd keep their word to a male friend,
so they get "nagged" and their "loving" support financial is really
treating her as an asset to show off to other men that they can support
a hottie. Sex is demanded without the goaless eroticism of physical
affection throughout the day or here and there as possible, the courtship
behavior which kept her "in love" which has been described as
essentially a low intensity sexual turn on, is not continued. So after
a while both are seeing the "support" as payment for services (sexual)
rendered.
and a woman who is an asset becomes a liability when he loses his
job so he starts abusing her.
now, we've all heard of this. but there are women who are toxic bitches,
totally selfish, unfaithful and greedy. they feel entitled to whatever they
can get. (that doesn't mean that you are paying for sex you got a right
to expect if you take her to dinner and a movie, this is not supposedly
prostitution.)
but the big problem in this is the separation of sex from love, that a man
can (and many women can) fool around with people they wouldn't think
of marrying or settling down with or being permanent with.
Now, on the MGTOW board there are promiscuous sleazy guys, and
this is supposedly seen as part of manliness. Here is an example.
"
Cpig: Jesus f~~~ing christ. think about it bro. she was probably watching the superbowl high on meth and saw that T Mobile ad. Now she’s killed an unborn boy for the Feminist cause. Damn, guys we are facing some dark s~~~ these days."
yes, that is serious shit, this woman killing her baby for the feminist cause bad enough
for the usual reasons, but this is extreme.
"On the lighter side, my mangina neighbor is about to go to work and his girlfriend cooked for me last night. we are going shopping today because she wants to help me pick out some s~~~ for my crib. should be fun…i gotta work about four hours and she’ll be blowing me at the beach around 2 pm. damn, should be an ok thursday here."
okay, so MGTOW guys complain of women who cheat, but wait a minute....
right in their midst is a man WHO IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, a man who
will get sexual or as I call it parasexual (e.g., oral sex) from a woman who
effectively belongs to another man.
it takes another man in the picture for a wife or girlfriend to cheat with.
its all very well to talk about life being short to live by other people's rules,
but it is sheer hypocrisy to complain of women cheating and aborting or
putting their husband's name on a kid a lover produced with her just to piss
her husband off as one is quoted from a feminist board one of the MGTOWs
lurked on, and then engage in sexual or parasexual activities with a woman
who is married or attached to another man.
it is sheer hypocrisy to sneer at a woman who brags of having sex with two
or three men a few minutes apart, and yet go out and have sex with a
hookup made at a bar or try to find such.
The unchaste man is as much a part of the MGTOW's problems as the
toxic feminist is.
This man is "Spectator 1159" who also "came out as a Christian" and complains
of the singer madonna giving filth to children and talks about Catholic church and
decency and whatnot offended by her or dissed by her song"like a virgin." and
of course nickname.
get wise you guys, spectator 1159 and his kind are the other half of your
toxic feminist problem, this is the guy your wife came home from at 2 or 4 am
smeling like man goo per one or two poems. or this kind of guy.
this hypocrite is really got a game going, he can play his games at work,
manage toxic manipulative women, keep them in line okay, but he's got a
following o of men sick of being cuckolded and financially drained, while he
or his kind at least were who cuckolded them in the first place!
Sure maybe he didn't do this with any wife or girlfriend of any men on that
board or part of the movement. but he did this to other men and still does and
is proud of it. WITHOUT HIS KIND OF MAN, YOUR CHEATING WOMEN
WOULD HAVE NO ONE TO CHEAT WITH. Spectator 1159 is part of
the problem MGTOW complains of, the male half of it, they only see the
female half of it.
Spectator 1159 gives a heartrending complaint of how modern feminism has ruined
the women that he could have loved prevented the children he could have nurtured,
but he has apparently no concerns about male behavior other than do they rule
women or not? sure if you don't get drunk at a frat party you won't get gang
banged while passed out - unless someone slips a drug in your drink - but there
seems no condemnation of the guys who take advantage of this? its a matter of
common sense caution in a dangerous environment not blame the victim when
this issue is raised usually, but he almost makes it sound like blame the victim.
the guy who is being cock teased into blue balls - he's playing along and
enjoying the process and apparently too stupid to masturbate.
the gal who had a nice and traditional minded husband who she cheated on
because he wasn't up that much in bed, and is wondering how to get all
his money from him in the upcoming divorce (he found out), on the
femininazi board the MGTOW spies went to deserves to be shot. She's a
real piece of shit.
and she's too stupid to masturbate. or play with her man and find ways
for them to pleasure each other to orgasm if he can't get it up yes, it
can be done.
but the man she cheated with - is he a mangina, a white knight rescuing her
from the workaholic who can't get it up poor dear, or is he a MGTOW
himself? he could very easily be the latter, laughing at the fool who works
and supports a wife.
decades ago I came to the conclusion that most men are fit for nothing
but castration or extermination, and a somewhat smaller majority of
women are in the same category.
oh, yeah, spectator 1159 thinks he can find a "good one" in some locality
where the women are often better than this. But he's various other guy's
girlfriends and probably some casual hookups sloppy seconds. why
should a good one have to settle for damaged goods like him?
A big problem the MGTOW movement is looking at is unchastity,
specifically male unchastity, but they don't see it, its in their faces but
they don't see it. If guys weren't out cruising to get laid, then the
girls who do girls' night out wouldn't get any.
Due to a recent interest in the movie Jaws, I have been reading a lot of analysis of it
that is often plain idiotic. there is all this talk about what the shark represents for
instance.
how about it represents a big ass shark.
some of the things at least one reviewer ascribes to hidden meanings etc. are
the direct result of mechanical failure of the fake shark. lack of information
(or ignoring of it or forgetting) can breed wrong evaluation.
biting off a limb is supposedly castration symbolism. Well, this writer should
look at photos of shark victims or a video of a girl who lost an arm to a shark.
its just plain facts that this can happen.
I think this kind of crap can only occur (that is, be written or thought of) in
a society that is comparatively safe. Back in the days when you might run
into a bear or pack of wolves or whatever or some godawful disease, no
one would be thinking of the symbolism of anything, though they might
consider the wrath of God was involved.
A few years ago, I saw a video of some people who live in a wild part of
the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia) and at night they had to take
turns sleeping because someone had to guard against lions.
that was just plain a fact of life. no garbage about the majestic nature of
the things, no garbage about what the predatory beast creeping about in the
dark looking to pick off someone represented, it was what it was and you
kept on guard and that's that.
That doesn't mean someone can't draw analogies to describe bad human
behavior that was done in societies that were not sheltered in lands free
for generations from some dangers that others just grow up with. Or some
city dweller might use a motif in some story maybe. But for the most part,
all this crap about "symbolism" is crap. the movies at issue describe
things that are in some places and were in other places stark realities.
That some characters might represent ways of doing things or embody
some philosophy is one thing, but again I think that this is accidental
in Jaws since it is drawn off a book and modifies to make the characters
more likable so everyone isn't rooting for the shark like one book
reviewer was (everyone in the book was crap).
from usenet aka google groups alt.religion.Christian.east-orthodox
Michalopulos Blog / Crete and the Globalist Agenda Crete and the Globalist Agenda July 4, 2016
INTRODUCTION: EARLY IMPRESSIONS We here at Monomakhos were going to wait another week or so before we read the entrails of the Council of Crete. That’s because things were pretty opaque in the immediate aftermath. The only thing we had was a gut feeling that the globalist agenda was derailed –at least for the moment.
And now, Antioch has spoken, calling what transpired in Crete neither “Great,” nor “Holy,” nor “Orthodox,” but merely a “preparatory council.” Things are starting to come into clearer focus.
So why the boycott in the first place?
Mainly because it had long been suspected that American, British and Israeli intelligence services were the most active in pushing for this Council to take place. In light of this, Moscow felt it had no choice but to throw a wrench in the machine. It did so by ensuring that other Churches led the boycott while it came in late in the game and delivered the coup de grace, effectively demoting it from a “Pan-Orthodox council” to a mere local one. That being said, we can be sure that despite it’s lack of substance, the Phanar and its eparchies will continue to give it more importance than is warranted. In short, it will become yet another lynch-pin in the Canon 28 mythology.
At present, Your’s Truly is poring over the documents from the Council and the only thing I can say for sure is that –to my mind at least–there is less here than meets the eye. His Holiness did his best to consolidate his claim to preeminence within Orthodoxy but given the fact that four of the fourteen universally recognized autocephalous Churches weren’t there, it’s hard to see how Crete will have any binding authority.
This in fact, is the opinion of “You Sunk my Vatican II,” an editorial recently published in Social Matter. The author, Mark Citadel, shows quite clearly how some Orthodox modernists were fervently hoping that Crete would serve as a kind of an Orthodox Vatican II –an attempt to drag Orthodoxy kicking and screaming into the modern world. All the stops were pulled out. Secular editorialists were assuring those of us who were reticent to get with the program. Didn’t we know that Pope Francis has over 30 million Twitter followers?
For good measure the Patriarch of Alexandria tried to shame those Churches, daring them to “come off their thrones” and be a part of the people. This of course is particularly rich coming from Alexandria, which like all Greek-controlled Churches treats the native Christians among them as decidedly inferior. For good measure the Archbishop of Cyprus spoke in a most ungracious manner as well. And of course there was the LGBT community of Europe which wrote paeans to the bishops in Crete entreating them to welcome into the fold of Holy Orthodoxy.
The stars in the modernist firmament were aligning rather nicely. Or so it seemed but neither Antioch nor Bulgaria nor Georgia nor Russia succumbed to their blandishments, while Serbia attended under duress.
Citadel’s take is that for these people, Crete was a spectacular failure. Not only did they fail in universalizing this Council, their desire to make Orthodoxy a part of the New World Order, in the manner of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church was a failure as well. It’s an interesting perspective and I highly recommend that you take the time to read it for yourself. The fact that it uses as its template Vatican II and the Roman Church’s subsequent irrelevancy means that Citadel speaks to the heart of the matter.
How easy it is under the present pontiff to forget that Catholicism was once a bastion against modernism in all its forms in that it saved Mexico, Spain, Portugal and Hungary from submission to the Bolshevist yoke. Under a stalwart pope like John Paul II, it helped bring down an evil empire. How times have changed; Rome has now succumbed to the Zeitgeist in almost every aspect where it counts.
MY 2 CENTS When all is said and done, the fact that four –or five if you count the OCA– Churches chose not to attend means that Crete will be ephemeral. It’s certainly no “Pan Orthodox Council” by any stretch of the imagination, no matter what Dn John Chryssavgis says to the contrary.
Case in point: if we are to believe the Phanar triumphalists, this means that the OCA has no autocephaly at all and is automatically remanded to Moscow. This of course is belied by Metropolitan Tikhon’s concelebration in Istanbul last February. He could not have been there as a bishop of a semi-autonomous archdiocese of Moscow, because he would have had to ask permission from Moscow to attend. And as he is not apart of the GOA, then who did he represent but an independent Church? At any rate, and despite the fact that there is a strong Phanariote impulse in certain precincts of Syossett, I’d be surprised if the Holy Synod of the OCA agreed with the Phanar’s understanding of its newly “codified” status.
To be sure, the impression that Constantinople is the sole arbiter of autonomy in the Diaspora appears to be the Phanar’s only win –a fig leaf if you will. That being said, it is hard to see the various jurisdictions abiding by its directives, especially in the case of the replacement of superfluous bishops within a single city. According to this document, if there is a vacancy in an ethnic jurisdiction which is already served by a Greek ordinary, the non-Greek bishop is not to be replaced. This means that the ethnic parishes within that (vacant) diocese would be merged into the existing Greek diocese.
I wouldn’t hold your breath on this one if I were you.
For one thing, I see problems with this expectation ever coming to fruition under the current crop of GOA metropolitans in America. I imagine most would find it hard to believe that the Serbs (for example) would not elect another Serbian bishop for Chicago, or the Antiochians to not elect another Archbishop of New York when the time comes to do so. Or the Romanians to not elect another bishop for Detroit, and so on. We in the OCA haven’t been able to effect such a change in the ethnic dioceses within our Church and, given the fact that we are the only territorial Church in North America, the dissolution of the ethnic dioceses should be very easy to execute. That we have not been able to do so does not bode well for hopes of the Phanar-triumphalists.
More will be said about the particulars as time goes on. For now, I want to concentrate on the modernist agenda and two men whose work seem to align with the globalist program. The men in question are Alex Rondos and Fr Alexander Karloutsos and, based on what we know, they worked feverishly to make Crete happen through their fundraising skills and their proximity to a certain globalist financier. Much of the information (but not all) which follows comes from Katehon.ru, a Russian think-tank closely allied with the Russian Orthodox Church.
AGENTS IN PLACE: ALEX RONDOS AND ALEXANDER KARLOUTSOS According to Katehon.ru, both Rondos and Karloutsos are active in globalist circles and extremely close to the infamous financier George Soros. (Karloutsos actually lives next door to Soros in the Hamptons.) For those who may not know, Soros is a notorious speculator and financier, leaving much economic ruin in his wake. An atheist of little conscience, he actually bet against the English pound in 1992, causing Great Britain to be thrown into a recession.
Alex Rondos is a United States intelligence asset who currently serves as EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa. Rondos, a Greek citizen, was born in 1954 in what is now Tanzania. He studied in the UK and was a correspondent for West Africa Magazine and then worked for Catholic Relief Services, an American Catholic non-governmental organization (NGO).
In the 1980s, Rondos met with Soros and remains close to him to this day. Through Soros’ influence, Rondos was able to ingratiate himself into the Patriarchate of Constantinople and in 1992, he founded and headed the major emergency relief agency of the Patriarchate of Constantinople known as International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC). Soon after founding the IOCC, Rondos made the acquaintance of Rev Alexander Karloutsos (of which more will be said shortly).
According to Katehon, the IOCC served as a conduit for the flow of monies needed to finance the various “color coded revolutions” under the auspices of philanthropy. If true, this is shocking to say the least. All that is known for sure is that wherever Rondos and/or the IOCC is active, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, pro-Russian governments tend to fall.
Perhaps it’s just a coincidence. However Rondos’ biography is more complex; not only is he involved in the ecclesiastical sphere but he is active in secular NGOs as well. Congruent with his work with the IOCC for instance, Rondos created the Centre for Applied Non-violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) in 2004, while stationed in Belgrade. Shortly thereafter he served as an advisor to the ill-fated Mikhail Sakaashvilli, then President of Georgia, who upon the instigation of American neoconservatives, provoked war with Russia. (Whether Rondos had anything to do with this or not is presently unknown.)
Rondos has also been active in Greek left wing politics. A friend of former Prime Minister George Papandreou (also a Soros protegee), he worked behind the scenes to prevent a rapprochement between Russia and Greece. The Greek government published a report accusing Rondos of using government money to fund one of his NGOs. (For the record, I try not to put too much stock in reports emanating out of certain foreign governments but am merely reporting what the Greek government itself published.)
Rondos is also active within the World Bank and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), an American think tank which actively promotes the globalist agenda. It may be nothing more than a coincidence but wherever he appears, pro-Russian regimes tend to fall and the neoconservative policy of American hegemonism proceeds apace. Whether this is by design or also under the direction of the Phanar is unknown as well. If true, then Soros and the Phanar are in active collusion and whose primary purpose is to weaken the autocephalous Churches of the Balkans and Syria.
As for Alexander Karloutsos, he likewise is a friend of Soros. As one of the main spokesmen for the Council, it was Karloutsos who swatted down attempts by the Bulgarian and Russian churches to postpone the Council. According to Karloutsos, “there is no mandate to change or postpone and we are going to proceed. They asked for a pre-conciliar meeting on the 17th and we expect them to be here. We are the church of love and embrace everyone.” (Except the OCA it seems.)
“Fr Alex,” as he is endearingly called by various and sundry people, is close to several Greek-American moguls and controls the purse strings of Faith: An Endowment for Hellenism and Orthodoxy. This clumsily named endowment is the largest single source of funds that flows to the Phanar. (In 2014, it gave $250,000 to refurbish the Olympic sized swimming pool at the Ionian Village.) Because of his control of this endowment, the word on the street is that he has more influence in the GOA than any of the metropolitans.
According to Epikera a Greek news magazine, Karloutsos was instrumental in the overthrow of Archbishop Iakovos Coucouzis in 1996 because of his involvment in the Ligonier Conference. His contacts in the Greek government include Dora Bakoyiannis, Constantine Mitsotakis and other operatives within the Karamanlis family. He is also a link between conservative Greek politicians and the Bush clan. In this way Soros plays both ends against the middle: using Rondos to ingratiate himself among the Greek Left while use Karloutsos to influence the Greek Right.
Karloutsos has done well by doing good, as the old cliche has it. He lives in a house estimated at $700,000 in the elite suburb of the Hamptons and his nearest neighbor (as mentioned earlier) is George Soros.
Things get stickier from there. According to Turkish sources, Karloutsos is also close to Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish Islamist leader who resides in the United States and is active with American intelligence agencies. Gulen runs one of the largest construction firms in America and is a leading light of the Charter Schools movement. As such, his construction firm has benefited mightily from taxpayer monies awarded to it by the Department of Education.
Because of these complicated and intertwining alliances, Karloutsos’ and Rondos’ circle of friends make the Patriarchate of Constantinople a “hostage” of the State Department. According to Katehon, “[Karloutsos’] participation in the organizing committee of the Council reflects the desire of the American special services to directly influence this Council.”
Things are stranger than they seem at times. The apparent lack of good faith is stunning to say the least. All things considered, the engineering of the boycott of this Council by the Russians seems the best possible outcome.
No doubt more will be said in the future as more information comes out.
As to what this means for the Phanar and its continuing existence in a hostile environment time will tell. It is ironic that Patriarch Bartholomew, who began his archpastorate as an obstructionist in the service of a globalist program may well end it by being the victim of obstructionists who are opposed to the furtherance of this very agenda. All things considered, we can be glad that Crete will be soon forgotten.
the previous one I read of is posted in a much earlier post here, he called in an airstrike
on his own position when surrounded. This one was shot down by "anti Assad forces"
which are mostly ISIS and similar.
Augustine being influenced by Origen, it might be better to just title this the Plague
of Origenism, but the outflow is more like this title.
Origen seems to have started okay but he was always seeing a "deeper meaning" to
the Scriptures even as a child and got into wild speculation and allegory. this was
partly true of Clement of Alexandria, who made Origen his successor as head of the
academy at Alexandria. But Origen went way farther, and his semi Gnosticism is
evident in his infamous teaching, continued by some church Fathers, that the prelapsarian
(unfallen) state of the human body was more ethereal and the coats of skins God gave
fallen Adam and Eve was the physical kind of body we are used to. St. Epiphanius in
his Panarion called this "nonsense" and wrote to someone that Origen denigrated human
sexual reproduction. https://www.patristics.co/examining-the-origenist-controversy/
the above referenced article attempts to make Origen out to be more okay than he was,
and notes that the anathemas were added to the decrees of the Ecumenical Council by
Justinian, but people who argue this ignore that no one seems to have objected to this
until sometime later. Considering that the denunciation of the idea of heavenly bodies
being once ethereal till they stopped contemplating God and became physical as we
see them now, is nearly the same as said about Adam and Eve's bodies the two notions
are condemned together.
The idea presented by Augustine and others even now some monastic verbiage. that
without the Fall children would have been produced without sexual intercourse is
absurd on the face of it. The Creed cites the Scriptures not traditions of Church Fathers
(who constantly cite Scripture whether interpreted well or not) for the Resurrection of
Christ, so to the Scriptures we shall go.
What would God expect people to think when they read that He made them male and
female? sexual organs would be the main thing, especially when "be fruitful and multiply"
is added, though this is an empowering fiat not an order to breed but granting the ability,
granting fertility to existing organs. NOWHERE do we see any hint of anything but
the usual mode of reproduction being intended.
I might add that allegorization and non literal reading plays a role in denial of the physical
and permanent Resurrection of Jesus Christ by heretics. This literal fact being established,
efforts to go there were rejected but less important matters were let slide sometimes.
The anathemas were added to the Council decrees oddly lacking the ethereal nature
supposed of Adam and Eve's prelapsarian bodies, perhaps Justinian and others were
intrigued by this, but by the Grace of God a near identical notion WAS condemned. and
the two stand or fall together.
the practice of arranged loveless marriages and the contrast with unstable serial relationships
and flat out friends with benefits and no strings overnight and goodbye hookups being the
apparent only alternatives, conditioned I'm sure some of the negative reaction of church
fathers to sexuality in general. Likewise the Book of Revelation came into question for a
while, because of its misuse by the montanist heretics, and the chilasts twisting the Reign
of Christ on Earth after His Second Coming to be limited to 1,000 years. This limit was
rejected at the First Council of Constantinople which added "of His kingdom there shall
be no end" AFTER the reference to His Second Coming, so His rule on earth is not the
life of the church on earth, that is a foretaste not the rule of Christ after His Second Coming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381
Augustine reiterates the crazy idea that without the Fall human reproduction would have been
asexual. Ausgustine also, in total contradiction to St. Paul, argues that a woman kept in lawful
marriage for love and erotic pleasure not for reproduction primarily or only, is only a legal
prostitute, his words, but St. Paul says each shouldhave their own spouse to avoid fornication.
Indeed, reproduction is a sideline to sex in the Bible. God designed reproduction in mammals
and most others to be by sex, but it is accomplished (when it is accomplished, many matings
producing no children) by the attraction and interactions leading to sex between a couple of
opposite sex. The human focus is to be the relationship not the reproduction. To say as Roman
Catholicism does that to view sex as anything but reproduction is to view the partner as a tool
of use for one's own purposes, while repro-sex orients to each other and is a giving to each other
is absurd. hypocritical. the most venal and even sometimes violent kinds of sex in marriage
and the nearly or actually forced creations of legal marriages between unattracted strangers, is
precisely motivated by reproduction.
Another example of unbiblical focus is the speculation by some protestant one of those "bible
believers" who don't know the Bible at all well, that the "one flesh" situation created by sex
is the resulting child. What does Paul say in I Corinthians 6:16? that the sex act in and of itself
automatically mechanistically creates this situation, even when with a prostitute and that this
is why the man who fornicates sins against his own flesh.
A heavy dose of Roman Catholic attitudes came into Orthodoxy at varioius times, expecially
from the Russian section when Catherine The Great took Jesuit refugees from the unfounding
of their order in, or rather let them remain undissolves and unimprisoned. This "latin
captivity of the Church" is usually decried in terms of original sin (misdescribed as personal
guilt for Adam's sin instead of inherited corruption, but sometimes denying even that) and
"atonement" (misdescribed as a solely juridic transfer of attribution without an underlying
reality occurring, though this is the Calvinist view somewhat, and heavily weighted towards wrathful God engaging in "divine child abuse"
although Jesus was a grown man when the Crucifixion happened)
but taught by St. John Cassian in explaining why the
6th hour prayers are made and presupposed in several early writers). And in terms of iconography.
The fact is, that this latin captivity is a bit more complicated and subtle. Orthodoxy technically
allows divorce for reasons that add up to a relationship focus and admit Jesus said what He said,
that fornication (which includes adultery and prior sexual activity you get wind of later and
homosexual acts) is grounds for divorce and remarriage without this constituting adultery but RC
pretends He didn't say this and only allows "annulment" on similar grounds as ORthodoxy allows
divorce.
The rejection of oral sex by both, and by Protestantism and civil law influenced by these in the past
centuries is based partly on rejection of pleasure, and partly on the reproductive focus. And a
confusion of this with "sodomy" which it is labeled as sometimes merely because homosexual acts
include these. (anal sex is obviously perverted and it and deep throating oral sex is physically
harmful and has long term damage problems like prolapses etc.) Homosexuality is nowdays
rejected on grounds that it is sterile, along with contraception. So is sex in marriage with a
post menopausal woman or someone who had sterilization procedure but it is argued God can always
work a miracle.
The real problem, that same sex activity shows a serious warping in the persons involved because
their pleasure orientation is abnormal, is ignored. And by this kind of thinking, the transgender
absurdity could be accepted if it was figured out how to implant a workable female reproductive
system in a male or vice versa. Sterilization by vasectomy is called mutilation by some ORthodox
on the basis of the canons against castration which make a man to be not a man but without him becoming functionally a woman. Clearly this is about external appearances, not about invisible
internal operation of some tubing. the effects of castration are far different than of sterilization
by vasectomy.
Sure, sex is reproductive but the approach to it from the get go is to be personal pleasure and
intimacy and sharing of self (which includes one's body, the rejection of body as part of self
shows a subclinial gnostic trend) with one's special life pal, note Genesis 2:18). This relationship
is to come after outgrowing one's parents., the man shall leave his father and mother and cling to
his woman, and as result of this they become one flesh not a growing in the relationship after
sex which can happen, but the sex act itself as the most extreme development of all this. NOT
a marriage of families but of individuals.
A sendup of the various styles of literary interpretation, all of them wrong.
all of them ridiculous. the absurdity of the lot displayed in their handling of Winnie the Pooh shildren's stories. The pooh Perplex which I read (and
particularly liked Simon Lacerous' views, when I was a dysfunctional
teenager in a dysfunctional family (translation I thought I was the only sane
and decent person in that household, which was full of assholes I was
incidentally related to but rejected as family just weird people I lived with,,
however I was pretty weird myself) and the Postmodern Pooh which I
don't recall reading, are here described in more or less detail. http://www.spanielbooks.com/pooh.pdf
