Do you believe in God or Christianity?

[trvechud]

If so why?
@Gargantuan @Gengar’s Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

 

[polarpop]

I don’t follow a religion

But I do believe there is a creator of some sort out there. Supernatural being

 

[trvechud]

I don’t follow a religion

But I do believe there is a creator of some sort out there. Supernatural being

Do you believe he intervenes?

 

[polarpop]

Do you believe he intervenes?

No

 

[trvechud]

No

Why do you believe in a creator

 

[polarpop]

Why do you believe in a creator

I believe in a creator because the alternative makes less sense to me. My mind just cannot logically accept the concept that everything around us came from absolutely nothing. For 'something' to exist, 'something' had to put it here.

 

[{Vesper}]

Nobody knows by the end of the day so it doesn’t matter what you think

 

[blinkers]

i did but stopped i have no actual good reason now that i think about it

but tbh i do believe there is a god

 

[infraorbidal]

If so why?
@Gargantuan @Gengar’s Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

I used to, Christianity seems simple but it’s incredibly complex.

Once you dive into theology it seems to make sense, everything clicks but it seems impossible at the same time.

There are really no cracks or contradictions in Christianity

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I used to, Christianity seems simple but it’s incredibly complex.

Once you dive into theology it seems to make sense, everything clicks but it seems impossible at the same time.

There are really no cracks or contradictions in Christianity

Yeah it’s by far the most complicated abrhamic faith by far. If you ignore Judaism annoying bureaucracy and silly numerous interpretations of shit.

Only Hinduism is more complicated and that’s because that religion is barely organised you have tribes that are Hindu that worship cow poo god and others that view it as a philosophy and not a religion

 

[infraorbidal]

Yeah it’s by far the most complicated abrhamic faith by far. If you ignore Judaism annoying bureaucracy and silly numerous interpretations of shit.

Only Hinduism is more complicated and that’s because that religion is barely organised you have tribes that are Hindu that worship cow poo god and others that view it as a philosophy and not a religion

then you have the two main denominations and Filioque and miaphysitism (Protestant don’t count they’re heretics)

 

[filthycurrycel]

I believe in a creator because the alternative makes less sense to me. My mind just cannot logically accept the concept that everything around us came from absolutely nothing. For 'something' to exist, 'something' had to put it here.

Wasn't exactly nothing, millions if not billions of years of evolution.
It didn't come from nothing, if i'm not wrong some scientists conducted a experiment using inorganic / organic matter in a closed tub and it had the same chemical biology of early earth.
it did show life

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

then you have the two main denominations and Filioque and miaphysitism (Protestant don’t count they’re heretics)

Filioque isn’t an denomination


It’s an dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

The miaphysitism refers to the Christology adopted by churches

You have 3.

Dyophysitism (followed by EO, RC and protties as protties are RC with extra steps)

Miaphysitism (followed by the OO (Oriental orthodox)

And Monophysitism (Follwed by the Church of the East and Assyrian church and some offshoots in Mongolia)


I consider all non Orthodox Christian’s heretics

 

[infraorbidal]

Filioque isn’t an denomination


It’s an dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

The miaphysitism refers to the Christology adopted by churches

You have 3.

Dyophysitism (followed by EO, RC and protties as protties are RC with extra steps)

Miaphysitism (followed by the OO (Oriental orthodox)

And Monophysitism (Follwed by the Church of the East and Assyrian church and some offshoots in Mongolia)


I consider all non Orthodox Christian’s heretics

yes I know Filioque isn’t a denomination


There are 2 denominations orthodoxy and Catholicism

Filioque was just “the son” that was added to the nicene creed thus following the split between Catholicism and orthodoxy

And I was referring to the oriental Orthodox Church when I said miaphysitism

 

[Divineincel]

then you have the two main denominations and Filioque and miaphysitism (Protestant don’t count they’re heretics)

Why are protestants heretics?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

yes I know Filioque isn’t a denomination


There are 2 denominations orthodoxy and Catholicism

Filioque was just “the son” that was added to the nicene creed thus following the split between Catholicism and orthodoxy

And I was referring to the oriental Orthodox Church when I said miaphysitism

Nope

The Filoque was something the RC added to THEIR specific Niceness creed in the 10th Century. Before this the Nicene creed was identical amongst all churches.

It has nothing to do with the Son But the origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene creed and church fathers (St Basil, Gregory of Nysa and Gregory of Nazianzus known as the “Cappadocians” who were the ones present and the main catalysts and debaters during the 2nd ECUMENICAL COUNCIL which made it very clear the HOLY SPIRIT COMES FROM ONLY THE FATHER IN ORGIN AND SPIRATES THROUGH THE SON. Backed up by others such as st maximums the confessor in the 7th century all affirm the HOLY SPIRIT COMING FROM ONLY THE FATHER, however SPIRATING through the Son)

This is believed by every church up until Roman Catholics went schitzo mode due to mozarabism becoming a thing in Islamic Spain causing them to shift shit. Even eaely
Popes such as Gregory etched the Nicene creed that the Orthodox use on St Peter’s Basilica of the Vatican City and its still there today. Now RC say the Holy Spirits origin is BOTH the father and the Son which is stupid and leads to both the Son and Father being equal in attributes as each person in the trinity have unique attributes to each person (Father Is Asei, Son Begets, Spirit Spirates), leading to an infinite ingress what’s the stop the RC Son from having his own Son if he can also make his own spirit?

Shit like this collapses their whole philosophy and theology.

 

[kimorishi]

No

i think this is deism something like that

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Why are protestants heretics?

Their religion is just a group of low IQ idiots making up their own fan fiction using the bible with 0 historical backing and attachment to the early church in any way. It’s a 500 year old religion and for evangelicals only 300 years old. Evenaglicals in particular referred to as “Low church” are literally only 1/3rd Christian in their beliefs one can’t truly call them Christian as their beliefs are so divorced from the original teachings


Religion makes Islam look ancient

 

[infraorbidal]

Nope

The Filoque was something the RC added to THEIR specific Niceness creed in the 10th Century. Before this the Nicene creed was identical amongst all churches.

It has nothing to do with the Son But the origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene creed and church fathers (St Basil, Gregory of Nysa and Gregory of Nazianzus known as the “Cappadocians” who were the ones present and the main catalysts and debaters during the 2nd ECUMENICAL COUNCIL which made it very clear the HOLY SPIRIT COMES FROM ONLY THE FATHER IN ORGIN AND SPIRATES THROUGH THE SON. Backed up by others such as st maximums the confessor in the 7th century all affirm the HOLY SPIRIT COMING FROM ONLY THE FATHER, however SPIRATING through the Son)

This is believed by every church up until Roman Catholics went schitzo mode due to mozarabism becoming a thing in Islamic Spain causing them to shift shit. Even eaely
Popes such as Gregory etched the Nicene creed that the Orthodox use on St Peter’s Basilica of the Vatican City and its still there today. Now RC say the Holy Spirits origin is BOTH the father and the Son which is stupid and leads to both the Son and Father being equal in attributes as each person in the trinity have unique attributes to each person (Father Is Asei, Son Begets, Spirit Spirates), leading to an infinite ingress what’s the stop the RC Son from having his own Son if he can also make his own spirit?

Shit like this collapses their whole philosophy and theology.

Dude….
What does Filioque stand for in English …


For “and the son”

 

[infraorbidal]

Why are protestants heretics?

they’re missing the deteurocanon + they don’t believe Mary is sinless

 

[AbnormalAfrican]

im irreligious

 

[accinr]

If so why?
@Gargantuan @Gengar’s Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

neither, too many inconsistencies problems and no substantial proof

 

[Daddy's Home]

If so why?

No, but I will only do it for her (in order to marry her)..

 

[infraorbidal]

Nope

The Filoque was something the RC added to THEIR specific Niceness creed in the 10th Century. Before this the Nicene creed was identical amongst all churches.

It has nothing to do with the Son But the origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene creed and church fathers (St Basil, Gregory of Nysa and Gregory of Nazianzus known as the “Cappadocians” who were the ones present and the main catalysts and debaters during the 2nd ECUMENICAL COUNCIL which made it very clear the HOLY SPIRIT COMES FROM ONLY THE FATHER IN ORGIN AND SPIRATES THROUGH THE SON. Backed up by others such as st maximums the confessor in the 7th century all affirm the HOLY SPIRIT COMING FROM ONLY THE FATHER, however SPIRATING through the Son)

This is believed by every church up until Roman Catholics went schitzo mode due to mozarabism becoming a thing in Islamic Spain causing them to shift shit. Even eaely
Popes such as Gregory etched the Nicene creed that the Orthodox use on St Peter’s Basilica of the Vatican City and its still there today. Now RC say the Holy Spirits origin is BOTH the father and the Son which is stupid and leads to both the Son and Father being equal in attributes as each person in the trinity have unique attributes to each person (Father Is Asei, Son Begets, Spirit Spirates), leading to an infinite ingress what’s the stop the RC Son from having his own Son if he can also make his own spirit?

Shit like this collapses their whole philosophy and theology.

Also it wasn’t added in the 10th century

The Filioque (“and the Son") was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD


So it was the 6th century..

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Dude….
What does Filioque stand for in English …


For “and the son”

Yes and I just told you what that’s about… it’s about dumb Roman Catholics saying the holy spirits orgin as a person is from BOTH the Father and SON which isn’t biblical nor historical and makes Roman Catholics Heretics like the Protestants which go against the Creed and Early church fathers in line with the churches Dogma. This is why I get annoyed when RCs try call protties heretics like you fucks aren’t as heretical you’re the first Protestants that’s why we had to kick you lot out

Thanks for telling me you understand now

Also it wasn’t added in the 10th century

The Filioque (“and the Son") was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD


So it was the 6th century..

The statement that the Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD is not historically accurate in the way it is often presented. The Third Council of Toledo did promote the Filioque in Spain, but it did not universally alter the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed for the whole Church, nor was this the first theological expression of the idea.


The Creed of 381 says:


“the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father”

An ecumenical creed cannot be changed by a local council.

the reasons for its Addition was innocent at first. The intention was to defend Christ’s divinity, which the Orthodox also defend but the method introduced a new theological formula into the Creed.


And as I stated previously

When the Frankish world adopted the Filioque, the Papacy initially resisted adding it to the Creed. Pope Leo III (early 9th century) defended the Creed without the Filioque and famously had the original Creed displayed in Greek and Latin on silver tablets in Rome.


The RC position for centuries was in line with orthodoxy


The theology may be discussed, but the Creed should not be altered.

Therefore it is Heresy. The Spirit is onlt
Orgin is the father. This is due to misunderstanding Augustine of Hippo and his works which he himself even said anything he gets wrong he hands over to the church to supersede it so even if he had that wrong in his own words he says the church’s dogma supersedes his own

 

[infraorbidal]

Yes and I just told you what that’s about… it’s about dumb Roman Catholics saying the holy spirits orgin as a person is from BOTH the Father and SON which isn’t biblical nor historical and makes Roman Catholics Heretics like the Protestants which go against the Creed and Early church fathers in line with the churches Dogma. This is why I get annoyed when RCs try call protties heretics like you fucks aren’t as heretical you’re the first Protestants that’s why we had to kick you lot out

Yes and I just told you what that’s about… it’s about dumb Roman Catholics saying the holy spirits orgin as a person is from BOTH the Father and SON which isn’t biblical nor historical and makes Roman Catholics Heretics like the Protestants which go against the Creed and Early church fathers in line with the churches Dogma. This is why I get annoyed when RCs try call protties heretics like you fucks aren’t as heretical you’re the first Protestants that’s why we had to kick you lot out

Thanks for telling me you understand now

The statement that the Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD is not historically accurate in the way it is often presented. The Third Council of Toledo did promote the Filioque in Spain, but it did not universally alter the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed for the whole Church, nor was this the first theological expression of the idea.


The Creed of 381 says:


“the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father”

An ecumenical creed cannot be changed by a local council.

the reasons for its Addition was innocent at first. The intention was to defend Christ’s divinity, which the Orthodox also defend but the method introduced a new theological formula into the Creed.


And as I stated previously

When the Frankish world adopted the Filioque, the Papacy initially resisted adding it to the Creed. Pope Leo III (early 9th century) defended the Creed without the Filioque and famously had the original Creed displayed in Greek and Latin on silver tablets in Rome.


The RC position for centuries was in line with orthodoxy


The theology may be discussed, but the Creed should not be altered.

Therefore it is Heresy. The Spirit is onlt
Orgin is the father. This is due to misunderstanding Augustine of Hippo and his works which he himself even said anything he gets wrong he hands over to the church to supersede it so even if he had that wrong in his own words he says the church’s dogma supersedes his own

Dude, I hope you know that without the Filioque, the Son and the Spirit would share an identical relationship to the Father which would just render them indistinguishable from each other.

Furthermore, Scripture reveals that the Son temporally sends the Holy Spirit into the world, an action that strictly necessitates the Spirit's eternal procession from the Son.


Historically, this truth was not an innovation but the explicit consensus of early Church Fathers like Saint Augustine, who affirmed the Spirit proceeds from both, and Saint Cyril, who recognized the Spirit flows through the Son.


The Catholic Church therefore did not invent a heresy(like you claimed)

If anything it clarified the Creed to defend Christ's full divinity against Arianism long before the East fractured the visible unity of the Church.

also the claim “you guys kicked us out” is just completely wrong, it was a mutual agreement.

Truthfully, if we’re being absolutely impartial and true to history, the east and west were growing apart for centuries…

and you’ll find seeds of 2 different ecclesiologies and what the west and east thought about themselves existed long before the schism even happened.

But of course, we are going to have “biases” thus to different church teaching.

Also are you using an LLM? You’re using a lot of “ if x, then y.”

It looks pretty apparent that it’s AI writing

Also, I always understood the Filioque, I found it a bit rude when you accused me of not knowing it and then laughing

I get you orthodox’s might find it heretical.


Also, who said I was RC? If anything I was Byzantine Catholic.

And yes, we don't use it during liturgy but we also accept it’s not heresy.

The statement that the Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD is not historically accurate in the way it is often presented. The Third Council of Toledo did promote the Filioque in Spain, but it did not universally alter the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed for the whole Church, nor was this the first theological expression of the idea.


The Creed of 381 says:


“the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father”

An ecumenical creed cannot be changed by a local council.

the reasons for its Addition was innocent at first. The intention was to defend Christ’s divinity, which the Orthodox also defend but the method introduced a new theological formula into the Creed.


And as I stated previously

When the Frankish world adopted the Filioque, the Papacy initially resisted adding it to the Creed. Pope Leo III (early 9th century) defended the Creed without the Filioque and famously had the original Creed displayed in Greek and Latin on silver tablets in Rome.


The RC position for centuries was in line with orthodoxy


The theology may be discussed, but the Creed should not be altered.

Therefore it is Heresy. The Spirit is onlt
Orgin is the father. This is due to misunderstanding Augustine of Hippo and his works which he himself even said anything he gets wrong he hands over to the church to supersede it so even if he had that wrong in his own words he says the church’s dogma supersedes his own

Dude, are you serious…

You completely changed your entire argument the second your first rant got picked apart and you're still confused over the basic history.


On Toledo and the Creed

Nobody ever claimed Toledo was a universal council meant to alter the Creed for the Greeks; it was a local response to a local crisis to protect Spain from the Arian heresy.

The Western Church didn't look at it as changing the faith, they looked at it as explicitly spelling out a truth that was already baked into the theology.

To call a pastoral clarification "heresy" just because a local council started it ignores how church doctrine developed over time.


On Pope Leo III and the Silver Shields

Leo III explicitly stated that he completely agreed with the theology of the Filioque.

He put up those shields to keep the peace with the East, not because he thought the phrase was bad theology or heretical but because the papacy wasn't "in line with Orthodoxy"against the Filioque; all he was doing was practicing cautious diplomacy while fully believing the Spirit proceeded from the Son.




Also, blaming this all on a "misunderstanding of Augustine" COMPLETELY ignores a massive line of other Western and Eastern Fathers who taught the exact same concept.

For example, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and even St. Cyril of Alexandria all wrote that the Spirit flows through or from the Son long before Augustine's books took off.

Augustine submitting his work to the Church doesn't help your point

Because it was the western Church that looked at his theology and declared it completely orthodox.


Links:

Third Council of Toledo - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Toledo


Controversies of the Creed: The Filioque – Red Door Church of South Royalton
https://reddoorchurchofsoro.org/controversies-of-the-creed-the-filioque/

St. Cyril on the Filioque
https://answeringislam.blog/st-cyril-on-the-filioque/


Pope Leo III: Defender of the Filioque? – Orthodox Christian Theology
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2024/11/29/pope-leo-iii-defender-of-the-filioque/



https://escholarship.org/content/qt3859m82c/qt3859m82c_noSplash_ed6581ea650a9b240824b934d08c8ba6.pdf

 

[Gargantuan]

If so why?
@Gargantuan @Gengar’s Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

Since nobody actually discussed God ITT, I'll go ahead.

Like everything, it starts with definitions since the answer to the question depends entirely on what you mean by God.

If by God you mean an anthropomorphic bearded sky daddy who occasionally intervenes in human affairs, then no, I don't believe in that.
But if by God you mean the fundamental principle underlying existence itself, the source from which everything emerges, then yes.

As a species, we only perceive a tiny fraction of reality through a very narrow sensory and cognitive bandwidth, this is well known.
Given that, the existence of a deeper order behind reality is far more plausible than the claim that reality is muh meaningless or muh self-explanatory.

 

[trvechud]

No, but I will only do it for her (in order to marry her)..

View attachment 5258043

Looks like a tribe member

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Dude, I hope you know that without the Filioque, the Son and the Spirit would share an identical relationship to the Father which would just render them indistinguishable from each other.

Furthermore, Scripture reveals that the Son temporally sends the Holy Spirit into the world, an action that strictly necessitates the Spirit's eternal procession from the Son.


Historically, this truth was not an innovation but the explicit consensus of early Church Fathers like Saint Augustine, who affirmed the Spirit proceeds from both, and Saint Cyril, who recognized the Spirit flows through the Son.


The Catholic Church therefore did not invent a heresy(like you claimed)

If anything it clarified the Creed to defend Christ's full divinity against Arianism long before the East fractured the visible unity of the Church.

also the claim “you guys kicked us out” is just completely wrong, it was a mutual agreement.

Truthfully, if we’re being absolutely impartial and true to history, the east and west were growing apart for centuries…

and you’ll find seeds of 2 different ecclesiologies and what the west and east thought about themselves existed long before the schism even happened.

But of course, we are going to have “biases” thus to different church teaching.

Also are you using an LLM? You’re using a lot of “ if x, then y.”

It looks pretty apparent that it’s AI writing

Also, I always understood the Filioque, I found it a bit rude when you accused me of not knowing it and then laughing

I get you orthodox’s might find it heretical.


Also, who said I was RC? If anything I was Byzantine Catholic.

And yes, we don't use it during liturgy but we also accept it’s not heresy.




Dude, are you serious…

You completely changed your entire argument the second your first rant got picked apart and you're still confused over the basic history.


On Toledo and the Creed

Nobody ever claimed Toledo was a universal council meant to alter the Creed for the Greeks; it was a local response to a local crisis to protect Spain from the Arian heresy.

The Western Church didn't look at it as changing the faith, they looked at it as explicitly spelling out a truth that was already baked into the theology.

To call a pastoral clarification "heresy" just because a local council started it ignores how church doctrine developed over time.


On Pope Leo III and the Silver Shields

Leo III explicitly stated that he completely agreed with the theology of the Filioque.

He put up those shields to keep the peace with the East, not because he thought the phrase was bad theology or heretical but because the papacy wasn't "in line with Orthodoxy"against the Filioque; all he was doing was practicing cautious diplomacy while fully believing the Spirit proceeded from the Son.




Also, blaming this all on a "misunderstanding of Augustine" COMPLETELY ignores a massive line of other Western and Eastern Fathers who taught the exact same concept.

For example, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and even St. Cyril of Alexandria all wrote that the Spirit flows through or from the Son long before Augustine's books took off.

Augustine submitting his work to the Church doesn't help your point

Because it was the western Church that looked at his theology and declared it completely orthodox.


Links:

Third Council of Toledo - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Toledo


Controversies of the Creed: The Filioque – Red Door Church of South Royalton
https://reddoorchurchofsoro.org/controversies-of-the-creed-the-filioque/

St. Cyril on the Filioque
https://answeringislam.blog/st-cyril-on-the-filioque/


Pope Leo III: Defender of the Filioque? – Orthodox Christian Theology
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2024/11/29/pope-leo-iii-defender-of-the-filioque/



https://escholarship.org/content/qt3859m82c/qt3859m82c_noSplash_ed6581ea650a9b240824b934d08c8ba6.pdf

All of this cope just to justify your heresy it’s anti biblical and anti early church and segments your religion as the first Protestant church. Always ironic when you both hate each other because both your religions are just Western European bullshit.

I ain’t even gonna read all that nonsense it’s basic philosophy and not worth my time arguing with 80 IQs



The real issue is whether the Son is an eternal cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis, and whether the Creed could be altered without an ecumenical council.


On your first point, saying that without the Filioque the Son and Spirit become indistinguishable misunderstands the Eastern position. The Son and Spirit are distinguished by their eternal modes of origin: the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father remains the single source (archē/aitia) of the Trinity. The distinction does not require two different causes of the Spirit.


The argument that “Christ sends the Spirit in time, therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Son eternally” also doesn’t automatically follow. The Church Fathers were careful to distinguish eternal origin from temporal mission. Christ sending the Spirit reveals His unity with the Spirit, but it does not necessarily mean the Son is the Spirit’s eternal cause. Otherwise you would collapse the distinction between what God does in creation and how the divine Persons eternally exist.


Augustine is important, but Augustine is not an ecumenical council. The question has never been “did Augustine believe something like the Filioque?” Many acknowledge that he did. The question is whether his theological language became the universal faith of the undivided Church. One Father, even a great one, does not settle a dogmatic dispute by himself.


Same with St Cyril. Yes, Cyril speaks about the Spirit being “of the Son” and flowing through the Son. But the East has historically understood that language as referring to the Spirit’s manifestation and relation to the Son, not making the Son a second cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis. That distinction matters.


The Toledo point is also more complicated than “they were just clarifying what was already there.” The Third Council of Toledo was a local council responding to a local situation in Spain. The Eastern objection was precisely that a local council did not have authority to alter the wording of an ecumenical Creed used by the whole Church.


And with Pope Leo III, the fact that he personally accepted the theology but still opposed adding the phrase to the Creed actually proves the Orthodox concern was not simply “the West had bad theology.” The question was authority and whether the Creed could be changed unilaterally.


Also, nobody is saying the East and West woke up one day in 1054 and randomly split. Obviously there were centuries of growing differences. But “it was mutual” doesn’t erase the fact that there were real disputes over papal authority, ecclesiology, liturgy, and theology.


So the argument isn’t “Catholics invented a random heresy.” The argument is that a Western theological development became dogmatically required in a way that departed from the conciliar wording and the Eastern understanding of Trinitarian monarchy.


And regarding the AI comment — whether someone writes in “if X then Y” doesn’t really prove anything. That’s just a common argumentative structure. The actual arguments should be judged on the substance, not the phrasing.

 

[infraorbidal]

All of this cope just to justify your heresy it’s anti biblical and anti early church and segments your religion as the first Protestant church. Always ironic when you both hate each other because both your religions are just Western European bullshit.

I ain’t even gonna read all that nonsense it’s basic philosophy and not worth my time arguing with 80 IQs



The real issue is whether the Son is an eternal cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis, and whether the Creed could be altered without an ecumenical council.


On your first point, saying that without the Filioque the Son and Spirit become indistinguishable misunderstands the Eastern position. The Son and Spirit are distinguished by their eternal modes of origin: the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father remains the single source (archē/aitia) of the Trinity. The distinction does not require two different causes of the Spirit.


The argument that “Christ sends the Spirit in time, therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Son eternally” also doesn’t automatically follow. The Church Fathers were careful to distinguish eternal origin from temporal mission. Christ sending the Spirit reveals His unity with the Spirit, but it does not necessarily mean the Son is the Spirit’s eternal cause. Otherwise you would collapse the distinction between what God does in creation and how the divine Persons eternally exist.


Augustine is important, but Augustine is not an ecumenical council. The question has never been “did Augustine believe something like the Filioque?” Many acknowledge that he did. The question is whether his theological language became the universal faith of the undivided Church. One Father, even a great one, does not settle a dogmatic dispute by himself.


Same with St Cyril. Yes, Cyril speaks about the Spirit being “of the Son” and flowing through the Son. But the East has historically understood that language as referring to the Spirit’s manifestation and relation to the Son, not making the Son a second cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis. That distinction matters.


The Toledo point is also more complicated than “they were just clarifying what was already there.” The Third Council of Toledo was a local council responding to a local situation in Spain. The Eastern objection was precisely that a local council did not have authority to alter the wording of an ecumenical Creed used by the whole Church.


And with Pope Leo III, the fact that he personally accepted the theology but still opposed adding the phrase to the Creed actually proves the Orthodox concern was not simply “the West had bad theology.” The question was authority and whether the Creed could be changed unilaterally.


Also, nobody is saying the East and West woke up one day in 1054 and randomly split. Obviously there were centuries of growing differences. But “it was mutual” doesn’t erase the fact that there were real disputes over papal authority, ecclesiology, liturgy, and theology.


So the argument isn’t “Catholics invented a random heresy.” The argument is that a Western theological development became dogmatically required in a way that departed from the conciliar wording and the Eastern understanding of Trinitarian monarchy.


And regarding the AI comment — whether someone writes in “if X then Y” doesn’t really prove anything. That’s just a common argumentative structure. The actual arguments should be judged on the substance, not the phrasing.

1. It’s not even my heresy considering I’m not even Catholic

2. DNR

3. Bro, I literally know how AI works.
I’ve worked with ai before, you’re writing exactly like an LLM.

3.How am I 80iq?

 

[JOTAROSON]

Если да, то почему?
@Gargantuan @Gengar's Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

2,I grew up in a religious family.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

1. It’s not even my heresy considering I’m not even Catholic

2. DNR

3. Bro, I literally know how AI works.
I’ve worked with ai before, you’re writing exactly like an LLM.

3.How am I 80iq?

Yeah and so why would I give a fuck if you know how AI works? Why would I waste time writing up a response to debunk shit I’ve debunked hundreds of times.

Jay dyer has already proven that your religion is an Germanic Western European cult no diff from Protestantism which it gave birth to

There’s nothing else to discuss. The Cappadoncian fathers and the 2nd ecumenical councils CREED are Clear, the Bible is clear.

Filioque is a Heresy that gives the Father and Son the same attribute of being an orgin of a person leading to an imbalance in the trinity and thus a DIAD. And if the Son has the power to be an orgin of a Person why doesn’t the Son have his own Son if he can also be the orgin of a Spirit? And what’s to stop this process from repeating infinitely ? With every “Son” in the chain having his own Son and spirit lmfao

Once again philosophically it leads to absurdities just like your stupid Thomism doctrine of absolute divine simplicity which if followed through without intellectual dishonesty leads to the persons being equal to the nature and his act making God an “It” as opposed to an who. It also means the trinity is not real as everything is one with the nature and act making the trinity nonsensical

As I said RC is just Germanic Frankish Gay faggot shit also inspired by Spanish mohammedens. Thanks to you faggots we
Have to deal with protties which are even lower IQ THAN YOU LOT SO THANKS FOR
THAT YOU IDIOTS AND YOUR HERESY HAVE RUINED EVERYTHING

 

[hazgardiceslayer]

If so why?
@Gargantuan @Gengar’s Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

I personally believe in simulation theory, second to that a Creator but not one from any of the main religions

 

[infraorbidal]

Yeah and so why would I give a fuck if you know how AI works? Why would I waste time writing up a response to debunk shit I’ve debunked hundreds of times.

Jay dyer has already proven that your religion is an Germanic Western European cult no diff from Protestantism which it gave birth to

There’s nothing else to discuss. The Cappadoncian fathers and the 2nd ecumenical councils CREED are Clear, the Bible is clear.

Filioque is a Heresy that gives the Father and Son the same attribute of being an orgin of a person leading to an imbalance in the trinity and thus a DIAD. And if the Son has the power to be an orgin of a Person why doesn’t the Son have his own Son if he can also be the orgin of a Spirit? And what’s to stop this process from repeating infinitely ? With every “Son” in the chain having his own Son and spirit lmfao

Once again philosophically it leads to absurdities just like your stupid Thomism doctrine of absolute divine simplicity which if followed through without intellectual dishonesty leads to the persons being equal to the nature and his act making God an “It” as opposed to an who. It also means the trinity is not real as everything is one with the nature and act making the trinity nonsensical

As I said RC is just Germanic Frankish Gay faggot shit also inspired by Spanish mohammedens. Thanks to you faggots we
Have to deal with protties which are even lower IQ THAN YOU LOT SO THANKS FOR
THAT YOU IDIOTS AND YOUR HERESY HAVE RUINED EVERYTHING

What?

 

[eliasdickrider2237]

no i dont

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

What?

Learn to read

Your religion isn’t Middle Eastern it’s a Western European cult

Christianity is a western religion and only the Orthodox can claim that. Our religion still
Adheres to the councils, still carries
The beliefs of the apostles and the church fathers. Yours does not as it’s just a European spin off

The same way chinks In Korea have K
Pop Which is just a spin of black American 90-early 2K RNB and hip hop, now imagine if the chinks start saying they are the true pioneers of rnb and hip hop it would be a fucking joke but that’s what you Roman Catholics are to us. Your just idiots that copied our religion and failed miserably at the copy and Aquiested to European subhuman savage barbarians and mohammedens like faggots

That’s why Gods only Protecting orthodox nations whilst Your nations have mass
Apostasy. God knows his own and you guys are shoddy spin offs

 

[infraorbidal]

Learn to read

Your religion isn’t Middle Eastern it’s a Western European cult

Christianity is a western religion and only the Orthodox can claim that. Our religion still
Adheres to the councils, still carries
The beliefs of the apostles and the church fathers. Yours does not as it’s just a European spin off

The same way chinks In Korea have K
Pop Which is just a spin of black American 90-early 2K RNB and hip hop, now imagine if the chinks start saying they are the true pioneers of rnb and hip hop it would be a fucking joke but that’s what you Roman Catholics are to us. Your just idiots that copied our religion and failed miserably at the copy and Aquiested to European subhuman savage barbarians and mohammedens like faggots

That’s why Gods only Protecting orthodox nations whilst Your nations have mass
Apostasy. God knows his own and you guys are shoddy spin offs

Dude, I know how to read but this is pointless considering I’m not even Catholic(or at least anymore).

This is pointless(again)

 

[Petsmart]

Dude, I know how to read but this is pointless considering I’m not even Catholic(or at least anymore).

This is pointless(again)

Dont argue with this retard lol

 

[infraorbidal]

Dont argue with this retard lol

he’s not a retard he seems to know some amount of theology he just shifts his arguments insults me and calls me low iq

Like wtf

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Dude, I know how to read but this is pointless considering I’m not even Catholic(or at least anymore).

This is pointless(again)

No you’re tapping out because you lost and I proved your religion gay now your distancing yourself from your cult it’s ok I have that affect on people (if I’m wrong then I’m impressed u can still defend that gay cult)

@petsmart you have no arguments
Go ahead debunk me then faggot, that’s right you can’t because I spit facts idgaf if you don’t like HOW I spit the facts the reality is that I AM spitting facts your gay Catholic cult is fake gay and a cumskin faggot religion that’s going extinct your whores literally
Marry Muslims like the protties your religion is so gay most whites end up GAYtheist now lmfao you lot are pathetic

 

[iblamexyz]

If so why?
@Gargantuan @Gengar’s Ghost @PrinceLuenLeoncur @Mainlander @InanimatePragmatist

Christ is king

If you ask me why? God has been present in my life ever since I was born, that's why. If you want a more logical answer, it's more logical to believe that there is a creator. Furthermore I would argue that no one comes close to being influential like Jesus Christ is

 

[iblamexyz]

i did but stopped i have no actual good reason now that i think about it

but tbh i do believe there is a god

good man I think you should check out a local church or pick up the bible lol

anyway I'll pray for you brocel

 

[Petsmart]

No you’re tapping out because you lost and I proved your religion gay now your distancing yourself from your cult it’s ok I have that affect on people (if I’m wrong then I’m impressed u can still defend that gay cult)

@petsmart you have no arguments
Go ahead debunk me then faggot, that’s right you can’t because I spit facts idgaf if you don’t like HOW I spit the facts the reality is that I AM spitting facts your gay Catholic cult is fake gay and a cumskin faggot religion that’s going extinct your whores literally
Marry Muslims like the protties your religion is so gay most whites end up GAYtheist now lmfao you lot are pathetic

Im not arguing with fairy tales lol

 

[infraorbidal]

Christ is king

If you ask me why? God has been present in my life ever since I was born, that's why. If you want a more logical answer, it's more logical to believe that there is a creator. Furthermore I would argue that no one comes close to being influential like

 

[infraorbidal]

No you’re tapping out because you lost and I proved your religion gay now your distancing yourself from your cult it’s ok I have that affect on people (if I’m wrong then I’m impressed u can still defend that gay cult)

@petsmart you have no arguments
Go ahead debunk me then faggot, that’s right you can’t because I spit facts idgaf if you don’t like HOW I spit the facts the reality is that I AM spitting facts your gay Catholic cult is fake gay and a cumskin faggot religion that’s going extinct your whores literally
Marry Muslims like the protties your religion is so gay most whites end up GAYtheist now lmfao you lot are pathetic

so you’re calling your religion gay?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

so you’re calling your religion gay?

I’m not Roman Catholic

I don’t consider Protestant and Roman Catholic my religion

I’m an Christian an Orthodox Christian that’s my religion I’m not here to defend or uphold any heretical doctrine just as I don’t defend Islam or Mormonism

If it’s not Orthodoxy it’s Gay in my view

 

[infraorbidal]

I’m not Roman Catholic

I don’t consider Protestant and Roman Catholic my religion

I’m an Christian an Orthodox Christian that’s my religion I’m not here to defend or uphold any heretical doctrine just as I don’t defend Islam or Mormonism

I was trying to find your user, thank god

I decided to not go with Yeezy slides, they rain out of my size


I got OOFOS slide instead, I’ll see how they are.

Apparently better material then Yeezy and they’re comfier


But I tried a pair of my friends new Yeezy slides today (they’re broken in)

They’re FANTASTIC
Go ahead and buy

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I was trying to find your user, thank god

I decided to not go with Yeezy slides, they rain out of my size


I got OOFOS slide instead, I’ll see how they are.

Apparently better material then Yeezy and they’re comfier


But I tried a pair of my friends new Yeezy slides today (they’re broken in)

They’re FANTASTIC
Go ahead and buy

Brutal


I got the Yeezies (they had some in my size I get US 13) and wow I didn’t know it was you who I was talking 2 last time

How embarrassing

Yo ass got me the Yeezies so I owe you and take my mean comments back bhaiiiii.

 

[infraorbidal]

Brutal


I got the Yeezies (they had some in my size I get US 13) and wow I didn’t know it was you who I was talking 2 last time

How embarrassing

Yo ass got me the Yeezies so I owe you and take my mean comments back bhaiiiii.

I understand where you’re coming from nw

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I understand where you’re coming from nw

I got the Chocolate fudge YS-1

I’m happy with them they should come in 2 days or tomorrow