From a literary perspective, which Church is better: Roman Catholic or Orthodox?

>Luther 100% anti-Catholic
breh, he loved the Catholic church and wanted to Reform it, not change 100% of it.

>t. John Calvin

Tell again where it mentions anything about papal authority?

Tell me again about how any dogma is based on scripture?

Tell me again why the Church was never able to show any of the reformers to be in error by use of scripture?

Piss off.

Catholic in my experience since well they dominated literature. Orthodoxy has Russian literature, but it's not exactly as orthodox as one might expect. Gogol became pious near his death and there are almost no religious themes in it. Lermontov also doesn't deal with any of it. Tolstoy was not even nominally a Christian, he was even excommunicated. Chekhov is free of religion, I don't even remember a priest character. Bulgakov is arguably Orthodox, but I don't think so, it's more with the aesthetic and there's more freemasonary in there. Turenev? Not sure. Fathers and Sons could be seen as a moral tale.
Of course I did spend more time invested in Catholic stuff, but even with my love of Russian literature it doesn't appear to be as religiously inclined in the big names to in comparison be "better" than Catholic literature.

>The Way of the Pilgrim
>Laurus
>Master and Margarita

Orthodox for sure

>evil
Well spook'd. They had political power over the whole Europe, impressive buildings and statues, supported great artists, extended their religion the most in the whole world. They are certainly not very Christian, but there's nothing wrong with it.
Dostoyevsky was often considered pretty liberal for his time with his big emphasis on muh good feels and that scene in C&P where literal murderer reads the Gospel with that poor girl really shook up Russian society, and some religious people thought it was over the line and turned away from his ideas, so he is not a representative of the whole Orthodoxy. He's still a great writer and aritst though.

>they got memed by dostoyevsky

Considering 1/3 of it is written by a probable atheist and that it's only 3 books, it isn't a very convincing argument.

Neither. Jesus Christ has no denomination. The catholic church and the orthodox are the exact same filth. You fell for the Hegelian dialectic.

Salvation is by faith alone, it happens instantly once the person believes.

www.holytext.org/gospel

I always wonder if protestants role-play or are just retarded.

Truth hurts eh? :(

>no love for the ethiopian coptics
>they can't even speak ge'ez

...

Honestly this from a literary perspective. Tolstoy's best novel, The 1001 Night, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, much of Borges, from a literary perspective Islam is objectively the best religion.

Are there even any texts inspired by Coptism available in the West?

The existence of Tolstoy kind of suggests Orthodox, in general. But if you're into history as well, then without a doubt Catholic: Dante and all.

>tolstoy
>orthodox

how do i Commence with the Coptics?

>666
>Are there even any texts inspired by Coptism available in the West?
Some of their medieval texts got picked up in the West and their Biblical canon is easy to find.
Everything Rasta is derived from a sect of it, who thought Haile Selassie was the new Jesus and should fight the fascists, so if you want some next level shit published in the West, start with Garvey and Holy Piby. TW if you're a white nationalist.

Tolstoy wasn't Orthodox or even a Christian.

Protestant

What the fuck is the image on the right supposed to be?

>Are there even any texts inspired by Coptism available in the West?
I guess any on the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs

I would guess a miniature (small painting, not warhammer) of the same crest.

Since when m8

Since he explicitly denied the Incarnation, which is one of the most essential doctrines.
He was theologically much closer to a Muslim than a Christian.

Is this bait? I don't come to this board often enough for this shit

You obviously also don't know anything about Tolstoy or Christianity or Orthodox Christianity either, maybe if you read more and came here more often some remnants of knowledge would have stayed with you.

More like coming here often would probably make me as retarded as you if you're going to argue that Tolstoy's theological stance was closer to that of Muslims than that of Christianity.

>arguing with a fundamentalist

no it's a retard
retard, the incarnation is not the essential doctrine, and doesn't get solidified until nicaea which holds much more sway over what the roman church believes than the orthodox churches, especially russian christians. russian christianity has everything from "god can't love you until you're a sinner" to "jesus was only god for three years, and a man on the cross". speaking of an organised heretical list for russian orthodoxy is retarded enough to say you know nothing about russia or history.

Since the core difference between Christianity and Islam is the denial of Incarnation, yes, he is. The fact that he is similar to Christianity as opposed to Islam in his morality doesn't change the fact that he isn't a Christian and is theologically closer to Islam.

>the first four hundred years of christianity built no churches and left no texts
lol k

Nevermind, the others were right, you are just a retard

Incarnation was essential then, yes. Unless you are referring to Arianism, Manecheism and Gnosticism, because those were not Christian denominations or Churches.
>retard, the incarnation is not the essential doctrine, and doesn't get solidified until nicaea
It's the very core doctrine, everything else is secondary to it. The fact that it got recognized officially at Nicea doesn't mean it wasn't professed earlier. And even considering, what Christianity is is defined at Nicea, it's the reason you dismiss Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses as non Christian faiths, but can group Orthodoxy, Catholicism and most protestant groups as Christian.
>which holds much more sway over what the roman church believes than the orthodox churches, especially russian christians. russian christianity has everything from "god can't love you until you're a sinner" to "jesus was only god for three years, and a man on the cross".
While the first is a possible belief the second one isn't. Orthodoxy has always affirmed Nicea, even more strictly that Catholicism.
>speaking of an organised heretical list for russian orthodoxy is retarded enough to say you know nothing about russia or history.
Is the official Russian church a heretical organization?
None of you read about or understand Christianity at all, but posture as if you do for whatever reason.
Anyone who explicitly denies that Christ is God is by the very fact no longer a Christian, unless you chose to redefine it to the point of it being any faith which thinks there was a Jesus who did some nice stuff.

greek orthodox, you can feel the byzantine heritage in it my friend

>Incarnation was essential then, yes. Unless you are referring to Arianism, Manecheism and Gnosticism, because those were not Christian denominations or Churches.
You mean because they're heresy like patripassionism? Yeah, that's why lots of Russians beat up on those who thought Jesus being divine at the Crucifixion was patripassionism. You're assuming that the doctrines laid down at Nicaea are interpreted the same in not just the Russian Orthodox Church (not the only church btw in case you missed half of Dostoveysky and Tolstoy) but all other Churches.
Right after Nicaea, there's the first massive schism of the Church because the primacy of Roman doctrine compared to the other possible Sees who aligned more with all those "heresies" split off from the Roman interpretation. The Orthodox and Roman church don't even agree if Origen is pure heresy or a Church Father, ffs, which gets really tricky if you consider Jehovah's Witnesses or some other Christian sects to be in agreement on the resurrection of bodies, the nature of the soul and ensoulment, and whether God is in us as much as Jesus. The heresy of one Church isn't the heresy of all Churches since half the time the main people following Nicaea think that all of Protestants have misinterpretted how godlike Rome is, even if they do try to be ecumenical to Orthodoxy these days. Christianity has never held the power to stop other groups claiming they were Christians, otherwise we'd all have kicked the Mormons out.

Serbian> Greek
You can feel the Byzantine spirit.

And you can feel the Serbian heritage in many other orthodox churches.

My readings thus far in related subjects have been a lot of Dostoevsky (most of what is ever talked about), Anna and Resurrection by Tolstoy for Orthodoxy. I did notice there were heterorthodox movements, Tolstoy was especially fond of them, but Dostoevsky seemed to be completely universal in his Christianity as far as Catholic orthodox divide goes, not counting his dislike of Rome (so here speaking of approach and doctrine).
John Henry Newman and Hilaire Belloc have thus far been my main sources and will probably read Church Fathers by Ratzinger today to follow up on this thread.
Anything you found particularly insightful?

...

>russian christianity has everything from "god can't love you until you're a sinner" to "jesus was only god for three years, and a man on the cross"
I am russian christian. And this is nonsense. Where did you get that?

I'll ask you this as well.
Now on the assessment of Christianity of Tolstoy, would you and could the orthodox church consider someone a Christian if he denied Incarnation?

Yes. Not either of them but Orthodoxy allows an immense amount of autonomy. I don't think it's the case in all churches but in many communion isn't given habitually, and in a sense everyone is in excommunication until you go through a kind of purification ritual involving a lot of fasting. Confession is also not a thing.

>Confession is also not a thing.
In the same way as in Catholicism I mean.I'm trying to do two things at once.

I explicitly remember a scene of confession in Demons.
Also this
orthodoxwiki.org/Confession

>Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies.

>...

>There is no question in my mind but that Palamism, derived from the theology of Gregory Palamas, and endorsed by a series of Eastern Councils in the 14th century, is the dominant system of thought in Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been for centuries. Therefore, while not denying that there have always existed counter-currents, I will feel free to consider the terms Palamism and Eastern Orthodox theology and mysticism as interchangeable.

>...

>In direct contradiction to Catholic theology, Palamite Eastern Orthodoxy considers Absolute Divine Simplicity to be the fundamental flaw in Thomistic Catholic theology. Just as the Absolute Divine Simplicity is the first and foremost principle in considering the Catholic view of the nature of God's existence, so a fundamental division in the Divine, a Divine Duplicity, is the fundamental principal for understanding the God of Eastern Orthodoxy.

>This "Division of the Divine" is something which is posited between God's "Essence" and His "Energies." In Palamism, the essence of God (Palamas is forced to use this word essence in naming the unnamable even though he must, at the same time, posit that God is beyond essence since He is beyond all names) is Absolutely Transcendent. He is beyond all Naming. He is beyond all the attributes, including Being, which we might try to apply to Him. Consequently, God's Being, Power, Will, Love, Truth are not to be attributed to the "Essence" of God, but to His "Energies. These "Energies" are to be seen as including all that is associated with what are called the "economies" of God – with everything which we associate with God "operating." In other words they have to do with everything that we can name about God, including such things as Truth, Love, Will, Intellect, Infinite, Eternal, Omnipotent, Goodness, etc. And, of course, they apply supremely to everything that is considered to be God's actions outside Himself (creation), since God's Essence, in Eastern Orthodox theology, transcends all action.

>These Divine Energies, according to Palamism, must in no way be construed as constituting, or as being in any way identified with, the essence of God. In Gregory Palamas' own words:

>"all these [the Divine Energies] exist not in Him, but around Him." (The Triads, p. 97 - all quotes from Palamas are taken from The Triads, translated by John Meyendorff, published by Paulist Press).

>Further, the absolute non-identity of God's energies with his essence is succinctly stated in the following passage:

>"But He Who is beyond every name is not identical with what He is named; for the essence and energy of God are not identical." (Ibid)

>However, the distinction between Essence and Energies goes much further than non-identity. It is an infinite distinction:

>"The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning; from which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them 'to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times', as the divine Maximus says." (The Triads, p. 96)

>The following statements are therefore absolutely true in regard to the conclusions of Palamite theology: God is not to be identified with His Will; God is not to be identified with His Intellect; God is not to be identified with Love; God is not to be identified with Truth.

>...

>Eastern Gnosticism:

>In light of the above, the following question immediately presents itself to any knowledgeable, orthodox Roman Catholic: Why should anyone want to do this thing to God and, consequently, to his own ultimate destiny? Why should anyone want to embrace a Divine Duplicity which places contradiction and division at the heart of the Divine, and denies to man the Vision of the Face of God?

>The answer is rooted deeply in the Gnostic history of the East.

>It has often been asserted that all the major Christological heresies of the early Church originated in the Eastern Churches. Gnosticism, of course, was the first great heresy (other than the Judaizing heresy) which the Church had to face. Arianism was very clearly a form of Gnosticism applied to the question of Who Christ was; and we may in fact view all of the early Christological heresies as outgrowths of Gnostic contamination of Christianity.

>Gnosticism is traditionally considered a syncretization of Hellenistic speculative philosophy and Jewish monotheism. And, of course, when Christianity came along, Gnosticism attempted to assimilate Christ and His teaching to its own philosophical and theological speculations. I believe we must also consider Gnosticism as having even more distant roots – in Vedantic Hinduism and those forms of Eastern theology which are profoundly Monistic, and in which the Divine is absolutely transcendent – to the point where the only thing that can be posited of this Absolute is, "Not this, Not this, Not this (Eastern Orthodoxy has its own name for this absolutely negative theology: "apophatism."). I believe, in fact, that we can justly view Eastern mysticism as a sort of tide of Gnostic-pantheism always attempting to eat away at the shores of Christian realism.

>...

>“The essence of God is everywhere, for, as it is said, 'the Spirit fills all things', according to essence. Deification is likewise everywhere, ineffably present in the essence and inseparable from it, as its natural power. But just as one cannot see fire, if there is no matter to receive it, nor any sense organ capable of perceiving its luminous energy, in the same way one cannot contemplate deification if there is no matter to receive the divine manifestation. But if with every veil removed it lays hold of appropriate matter, that is of any purified rational nature, freed from the veil of manifold evil, then it becomes itself visible as a spiritual light, or rather it transforms these creatures into spiritual light.” (The Triads, p. 89)

>Anyone who is familiar with the flavor of such systems of thought as Vedantic Hinduism, Platonism, Neo-Platonism, all the various forms of Gnosticism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, and even the New Age movement should recognize the spirit of this passage. It is ascending gnosis by which one attains to enlightenment through a rending of the veils which conceal the Divine within creation, and especially within man. As John Meyendorff (translator of the Triads, and possibly the most influential Palamite of the 20th century) writes:

>“The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world.” (Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology p.133)

Rasputin- even though he was part of a different, almost as weird, sect- used get accused of being a member of the Skoptsy. They get linked with Origen sometimes too. I got it by reading books by Dostoyevsky and other Russian writers and some history, so I assume you're the kind of Russian Christian who didn't attend Russian high school.

>This is so because the Divine,in the Eastern view, is part of man's nature from the beginning of his existence:

>“This concept of salvation is itself based upon an understanding of the human being which views the natural [this is Meyendorff’s own emphasis] state of man as composed of three elements: body, soul, and Holy Spirit….The Spirit is not seen here as a ‘supernatural’ grace – added to an otherwise ‘natural,’ created humanity – but as a function of humanity itself in its dynamic relationship to God, to itself, and to the world.” (Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, p.21).

>There is simply no question but that this constitutes Gnostic Pantheism. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Thomism totally reject.

>...

>Grace And Deification:

>Nowhere is the radical opposition between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy more clear than in their respective teachings concerning the knowability of God. It is the unanimous teaching of Eastern Orthodox writers that God is absolutely unknowable in His Essence, and that the State of Glory consists not in the Vision of God's Essence, but in union with the Divine Energies. Meyendorff writes:

>"The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world." (Byzantine Theology, p. 133).

>The Catholic position is diametrically opposed. St. Thomas writes:

>"It is written: We shall see Him as He is (1 John, ii,2). I answer that, Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable….Hence, it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God." (I, Q.12, A.1).

>This vision of the Essence of God is possible because there is true proportion (even though it be infinite) between the intellect of man and the Essence of God. This "proportion" extends to the possibility of the Vision of the Divine Essence. St. Thomas, in Summa Contra Gentiles, LIV, writes:

>"There is indeed proportion between the created intellect and understanding God, a proportion not of measure, but of aptitude, such as of matter for form, or cause for effect. In this way there is no reason against there being in the creature a proportion to God, consisting in the aptitude of an intelligent being for an intelligible object, as well as of effect in respect of its cause."

>...

>This Vision of the Divine Essence is not to be confused with "comprehending" God in all His Fullness. Again, St. Thomas:

>"God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above, is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God." (Ibid, A.7).

>This is the ultimate fulfillment of man in the Beatific Vision: while seeing, and obtaining complete union with the Essence of God, we yet do not fully comprehend Him Who is infinitely knowable. St. Thomas gives us the following description of the blessed in Heaven:

>"But the blessed possess these three things in God; because they see Him, and in seeing Him, possess Him as present, having the power to see Him always; and possessing Him, they enjoy Him as the ultimate fulfillment of desire." (Ibid).

>We thus have the perfect Catholic solution as to how the human person can come to full union with God in the Beatific Vision without this union in any way involving a pantheistic confusion of the human and Divine.

>The Real Effect of the Denial of the Filioque:

>Denying a knowable Essence in God, it seems inevitable that Eastern Orthodox theology and philosophy would be corrosive to human nature. If such concepts as truth, love, goodness are not applicable to God's Essence, then it only makes sense that their eternal verity and applicability to the human condition should also be eroded. As the Essence of God must disappear behind an apophatic (negative) theology, so the being of man becomes engulfed in an eschatological anthropology which is the negation of all that we associate with being human. Vladimir Losskey writes:

>"This is the perfecting of prayer, and is called spiritual prayer or contemplation….It is the 'spiritual silence' which is above prayer. It is that state which belongs to the kingdom of Heaven. 'As the saints in the world to come no longer pray, their minds having been engulfed in the Divine Spirit, but dwell in ecstasy in that excellent glory; so the mind, when it has been made worthy of perceiving the blessedness of the age to come, will forget itself and all that is here, and will no longer be moved by the thought of anything." (Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 208)

>Such a description of human fulfillment sounds more like the state of Nirvana, or the Vedantic state of self-realization, than it does union with a Personal God. Even more explicitly "Eastern" is the description of beatitude offered us by Dionysisus the Pseudo-Areopagite who, next to Gregory Palamas, is the most important writer in this Eastern Tradition:

>Eastern Orthodoxy does not deny the importance of the humanity of Christ in the salvific sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. In other words, Christ's Humanity is integral to their view of the act of Redemption. It does, on the other hand, profoundly devalue the centrality of Christ's Sacred Humanity in the process of our sanctification and deification. This "bypassing" of Christ's Humanity is intimately related to the denial of the Filioque – the Catholic doctrine that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son (Latin: Filioque).

>In the Catholic view the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son in order to enable us to imitate Christ in His birth, life, passion, death, and resurrection. The Way of our humanity is the Way of Christ's Humanity, working out our salvation in imitation of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is thus in a spiritual sense truly "incarnate": sent by the God-Man Jesus Christ in order to form us into the likeness of the Man-God Jesus Christ. The Filioque is therefore absolutely integral to this incarnational work of the Holy Spirit.

>It is otherwise with the Eastern Orthodox. Their denial of the Filioque enables the Holy Spirit to be "liberated" from this connection to the Sacred Humanity of Christ in order to that He might become what some Orthodox writers have been so bold as to call the "Soul of the World." The Holy Spirit, having been liberated from the necessity of working through the Humanity of Christ, thus becomes the source of those Divine Energies which are in creation from the beginning, and are the object and source of our Divine communication, sanctification, and deification.

>Eastern Orthodox writers are therefore right in claiming that the rejection of the Filioque is the axis around which revolve all the significant differences between Eastern and Latin Rite theology and spirituality. Ultimately, while accepting the salvific fact of the Incarnation, it rejects or bypasses its meaning in regard to our salvation and deification. The Holy Spirit, sent by Christ in order to form us into His likeness, is deflected by Dionysian-Palamite theology into a type of Gnostic-Pantheistic Esotericism. And at the end of this road of ascending gnosis, we also find that our own humanity has also been bypassed. There, in this Heaven of Orthodoxy, we find no personhood as we know it, no love, no thought, no truth, no purity, and no prayer, but only a Divine Darkness beyond all being, essence, and naming. In other words: the negation of all that we now consider human.

>With a Heaven like this, Who needs a Hell?

Source of all of this?
It's interesting.

>We need also mention that this liberation of the Holy Spirit from the Incarnation also has immense effects upon Eastern Orthodox positions in reference to all sorts of other Catholic doctrines: rejection of purgatory; rejection of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption; rejection of Transubstantiation; rejection of the Catholic doctrine on Original Sin; rejection of the Papacy, rejection of the Church’s teaching on contraception and divorce. If the ultimate road to union with the Divine is rooted in negation of everything that we can possibly affirm, then ultimately truth itself becomes a victim, and all doctrine and dogma are swallowed up in that darkness which is the apophatic God of Eastern Orthodox theology.

>Finally, we need also mention that there has always existed in Eastern Orthodoxy, as a sort of minority, a "counter-Palamite" theology which to various degrees distances itself from Palamism, and is much closer to Catholic theology. We can do no greater service to such persons than to simply invite them home.

waragainstbeing.com/partiii

With my lot the focus on confession is on absolution from the community. You can have a private confession but they're held at best infrequently. There also isn't a taking a sacrament of confession as in Catholicism. First confession is a big thing with catholics and a prerequisite to taking communion. It used to be you had to confess to take communion full stop.

Yeah I mostly don't take communion unless I confessed recently.
Very interesting blog.
I've read the article on latest encyclical and it really does seem to me like it has become impossible to defend Francis as an orthodox pope, he has openly declared his heresy.

Tolstoy is deeply christian

I was on board with this until the last paragraph. The writer basically just dropped it at "it removes your humanity to reject Filioque because reasons."

He was influenced by it and many good things about him can be said, but he wasn't a Christian, if we take Christianity for a religion which has at its core the belief that God became man, died on the cross, resurrected and has given us the ticket to eternal life.

neither are a lot of christian sects by that definition. try a less retarded definition.

that's the definition of christianity. and it is by nature retarded. try again

I've read a few articles and they are good, but often go too far. For example the accusations of heresy towards Benedict and John Paul and the very spiteful attitude towards non Catholic groups.
Indeed, they are not.
This is the general definition most commonly used as far as I know with which you include Catholicism and say Evangelicals, but not Mormons.

it's your definition of christianity. catholics even have a write in about the limbo of the ancients because of the obvious chronological problem that definition creates, and they're the hold outs on original sin being a thing for everyone after jesus.

No, it's even the Catholic definition of Christianity.
Limbo is not a thing. It used to be, but was rejected.

You're thinking of the Limbo of the Innocents, which was never a thing because it was never ratified and recently had a Pope point out there was nothing to reverse, the one which Augustine thought was paved with the bodies of unbaptised babies.
The other Limbo is where everyone born before Jesus who was just, like Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, et al, went. It's also present in some Protestant denominations, who focus more on it in their version of the Harrowing of Hell. Capitals to ease your google scholarship on shit you don't bother to read.

But Moses and Elijah explicitly didn't go there, and accompany Christ during the transfiguration.

fukkin heretic

I'm a Catholic and this is in the gospels f a m t b h

>tfw when I had a nihilistic crisis as a teen I considered converting to Christianity because it looked like it had a definitive worldview and shit
>tfw this thread
Things like these make me even more atheistic.

There's a couple different interpretations; I was making a joke. Whether Moses and Elijah appear varies across the gospels, like all events, but it's mostly Catholics and Mormons who claim they appeared in bodily form on the Mount. Luther claimed like Origen that they were metaphorical apparitions, not bodies, while Catholics and Mormons differ over questions of spirit and matter.
>in the gospels
One of the reasons why Luther is so insistent that they're metaphors is because 2[4] Kings has them ascending to Heaven.

hey hey hey, ethiopian orthodox*

they are no longer considered part of the coptics. but now im curious, i wonder if there are ethiopian coptics in/near egypt? interdasting...

>if we take Christianity for a religion which has at its core the belief that God became man, died on the cross, resurrected and has given us the ticket to eternal life
I think some early christianity and no doubt some absolutist dualists are problematic with this tho.

I thought they just became their own independent coptic church with the blessing of the main coptics like most of the smaller coptics?

Early Christianity took centuries to form dramatically, but there has always been a line of orthodox beliefs which we trace from then to now.
Dualism, and here I assume Gnosticism, are not particularly Christian.
Luther had a very strong tendency to interpret things he didn't understand as metaphors which can largely be attributed to his disdain for scholasticism.

>he didn't understand
Moses and Elijah being the Law and Prophets isn't much of a stretch, m8.

>Dualism, and here I assume Gnosticism, are not particularly Christian.
There's always a level of dualism in Christian thought (that's really what it's all about) but absolute dualism does have a line through the eastern church and the Bogomils that leads into things like the Cathars. They were really quite popular.

Gnosticism is like a cousin to all that.

It's obvs Gnosticism that is the most Veeky Forums Christianity, ye lot of archon-worshippers.

didache confirms
>There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways.

Dualism of matter and spirit as opposites which conflict is not a part of the christian doctrine and the bogumils (they are back again btw as a new age shit sect here) and cathars were continnuation of the gnostic tendency.
Not just in that, it was a general tendency to call things he didn't get a metaphor and those which supported his cause against all odds literal (the redaction of confession is pretty nonsensical considering how often the lines appear in say gospel of matthew)

>Not just in that
redaction of the earliest traditions does make sense if you want a vernacular culture too to be fair tho. that one which you're still saying was a clumsy attempt at making it a metaphor has been debated as a metaphor long before scholasticism. the problem with claiming that one's not a legit metaphor is it means it wasn't one in all the shit before luther either that claims it is a metaphor.

calvinism is the only religion thats close to making sense, okay

Papal infallibility was the greatest scene in the whole history of the Church.

In the sacred college of cardinals and archbishops and bishops there were two men who held out against it while the others were all for it. The whole conclave except these two was unanimous. No! They wouldn't have it!

And they were a German cardinal by the name of Dowling...this great German cardinal, was one; and the other was John MacHale. John of Tuam was the man.

There they were at it, all the cardinals and bishops and archbishops from all the ends of the earth and these two fighting dog and devil until at last the Pope himself stood up and declared infallibility a dogma of the Church ex cathedra. On the very moment John MacHale, who had been arguing and arguing against it, stood up and shouted out with the voice of a lion: "Credo!"

"Credo!" That showed the faith he had. He submitted the moment the Pope spoke.

The German cardinal wouldn't submit. He left the church.

I'm still waiting for someone to be visibly shaken and an eagle to fly in

>the message hasn't been cucked to appeal to a mass-market
This.

Isn't this vignette from/in Dubliners?

>666
>pro-islam
The trips speak for themselves

Wait wait this wasn't a meme?