A: "Cultural Appropriation is ontologically evil!"
B: "I agree."
A: "You do?"
B: "Yeah. An indigenous cultural is like something holy and sacred, right? For outsider colonists to enter that sacred space without any regard for people to whom that culture belongs ... that's clearly ontologically evil, if any thing is."
A: "I'm glad we agree."
B: "Right, and the natives are totality justified it repelling that kind of invasion by any means necessary."
A: "Exactly! From the river, to ..."
B: "That's why we need full scare remigration throughout the West. These third-world invaders have got to go. Yesterday."
A: "Wait, what?"
B: "You said it, man. Cultures are holy and sacred and any means is necessary to defend them."
A: "I ... no, not those cultures!"
B: "Deus vult."
that i choose to remain in the same charismatic non-denom banner as someone who cannot understand a simple two-part sentence is an indictment of me as a person.
this is why I believe that if i am to remain an evangelical/non-denom prot, I am effectively handicapping myself. I am saying simply that i do not care about any of my stated principles and i'm just based on vibes.
how terrible it must be for me who says he loves logical arguments, philosophy and things of the sort to stay in such a space of openly attesting blowhards who revile structured thought.
the last two you mentioned have direct claims to the early christians, and considering christians until the split were referred to as "catholic", this statement is even more retarded.
I have come to thankGod for the fact that the first Christians were neither pentecostal,Reformed,Roman catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
It helps me to look outside my tradition and see God's hands in his work,see beyond liturgy, see beyond resolvable disagreements.
@samjunyarts you clearly cannot. I made a simple claim (in two parts).
1. both roman catholics and eastern orthodox come have direct claim to the early christians and church fathers.
2. this direct claim comes from the pre-schism church unity under the name of "catholic".
what's tough here?
@samjunyarts "both have direct claims to the early christians" = both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics are a result of the great schism of 1054.
prior to this, the universal church (katholikos) existed as a singular entity.
if you can't read, just say that.
@samjunyarts > I say "the early christians were called CATHOLIC"
> show you a quick search of the word katholikos (universal)
> somehow you arrive at "roman catholic institution"
> "you are daft lol"
look in the bloody mirror, nigga.