Hoping to help the ideological orphans of this world see it like a child again. Symbolism, Fairytale history, and other fun adventures. Lots of Rapunzel | 26M✝️
@OutisCrow "I am weary with my sighing
every night I make my bed swim
I dissolve my couch with my tears
my eye has wasted away with grief
it has become old because of all my adversaries." (Psalm 6
@MateyYanakiev Ironically, his own Catholicism uses your exegesis and other typological virginity passages on this exact point to demonstrate the biblical value of virginity for doctrines pertaining to the theotokos. But dare not apply that value to anything practical in your own life!
Has anyone ever found this part of Catholic girl Twitter? This is supposed to be sarcastic, right? I've never met a single woman who had pre-downloaded agreement with the church on contraception. I always have to propagandize them.
Catholic Girl Twitter: “I wanna be a trad wife, have 17 children, wear cute dresses tee hee 🥰✝️✨☕️🪿🌼”
Catholic Guy Twitter: “A foid looked at me during mass. I’m on my way to join a domestic terrorist organization.”
"How it looked" doesn't really exist anyway because each individual's eyes function like camera lenses. They are probably seeing different shades of color based on their own eye color, and different deapths (affecting perception of face shape) based on astigmatism and other factors. As well as our own habits of perception when looking at someone. I don't notice people's teeth almost at all for example when they talk to me, but I heard the other day most people notice other peoples teeth almost instantly upon interacting with them. I, by contrast, could only tell you maybe 1 friend i am confident has funny teeth, everyone else I have absolutely no idea. I don't think about it. And there is no single perfect hypothetical observer either, because many of these perceptual differences probably existed pre fall.
There are, of course, excessive examples of photo editing, but lighting and sharpness and focal points/foreground background contrast just choose a perceptual interpretation for us instead of letting our mind do the filters in real time.
@Dew2Top@IHTAcast Also, unlike many of the other plagues, Moses did not lift his staff for the appearance of the death angel. The death angel was coming, and God gave instructions for deliverance from him.
@Yapman1 And a 0% failure rate if you have never done it 😎
If there is a 0% chance of not X
There must be a 100% chance of X
So your success rate is 100%
Its a valid syllogism, just lock in and try it one time!!!
All the Egyptians who joined Israel in Passover sacrifices had their children spared, hence why the Egyptians were so friendly to them on the way out and gave them an abundance of riches. God brings judgment to all those who die. This is completely unrelated to humans sacrificing other humans.
I think the point regarding scripture and tradition is that the Apostle's themselves were binding. But given their emphasis on scripture and tradition as together constituting the Apostolic deposit of faith, they make a big deal about the fact that the Apostles established the liturgies for the churches and that all of their writing were to be understood in a liturgical context in the first place, not the other way around. The living Apostles and their life in the church with their liturgical practices contextualized their Scriptural statements from the very beginning.
Assuming they are correct for sake of argument for example, suppose we had video cameras 2000 years ago and had film of Saints Peter and Paul venerating the images of OT saints during their synagogue liturgies. Well, we would know for certain then that their is a liturgical context which limits the range of possible interpretations for passages of Scripture which may otherwise be taken as supposedly against icon veneration.
This answer isn't immediately satisfying to Protestants because some aspects of tradition are not as transparently obvious in history just due to lack of ink on particular subjects that they claim are Apostolic.
The life of the church is like knowing a friend really well, and when you hear a story of something he said, or gossip spoken about him, because you know his character, you say to the gossip, "surely you misunderstood, I know so and so quite well, I'm sure he meant X by that statement and not Y."
According to the letters, there may not be anything that restricts Y from being a valid interpretation. But because you know your friend, when you ask him about it later, he says "Oh no! I didn't realize it could be taken that way, let me go clarify/apologize for the misunderstanding."
Analogously, it's really hard for Protestants to come to terms with the fact that at least sometimes, language is not so easily tied down to their own perspective's most obvious interpretation. Friendship with the church grants you the ability to see whether or not X or Y was intended by the words.
As a final point, the supposition of the Orthodox is that the church is the unified body of Christ over time, and is assumed consistent with herself as far as possible. When there is any possible interpretation of a canonical saint that is Orthodox, even if the same saying has 3 "legitimate" ways it might be understood as heretical or wrong, in charity and in confidence you read them as intending the Orthodox meaning of their words. Because they are saints, and this is what saints would mean by those words.
Hope this kind of helps.
@Strittposter I've heard it is an intentional point in Dracula, that he is not fearful of just any crosses, but of a crucifix with the body of Christ displayed.
@redeemed_zoomer Peter Leithart is still technically PCA and has a dispensation to minister in the CREC. He was formally charged with heresy. But then the guy heading the charges became Roman Catholic while studying justification for the heresy trial LOL. He ended up acquitted in the end.
This is something Pageau said in his first video that came out clearly in the discussion. Protestants assume that everything authoritative *ought* to be read with the same kind of hermeneutics *Protestants* use for the Bible. Fact is, EOs don't read Scripture or tradition with this kind of hermeneutic. For EOs, the reception and practice of the Canons by the current church *is* the application and interpretation of the pronouncements. The living church has bishops and priests who apply the Canons with Oikonemia.
Jonathan kept trying to say this. Gavin refused to see how this isn't "development" or a "contradiction." It's simply a hermeneutical difference/life view difference. Protestants are used to saying texts have an objective meaning, and the human consciousness must discern and assent to the norms contained in a text. For the EOs, the life of the church and her application of the text by the Spirit is where the most foundational locus of meaning/authority lies. "Let them be anathema," is only actually applied when a heresy is dealt with at the local level and they must finally excomunicate someone with an anathema, or refuse their entrance to the church do to unwillingness to be corrected. Just the words existing in a text don't do anything for the EOs, except serve as a guiding principle for future local circumstances by the churches.
This is, at least, as far as I understand. I am not even an official inquirer. Though I have been attending. But this I think is where the talking past occurs.
From experience, even though I still haven't managed a relationship to the point of engagement, it's not usually that difficult to explain to a girl why contraception is wrong if she is even slightly godly. It has never been what turned away any girl I discussed it with.