Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 6, 2023 7:56:03 GMT -8
I started watching the first episode. It's too bad this guy didn’t' overlay some text and thus spell out some of the key names he used. But I was able to Google and find Monophysitism. Lest we turn up our nose at those "ignorant Christians" who seem to be enacting a Monty Python sketch back in the 5th century, there is no less of a schism occurring today. The orthodox believe that human beings are born either male or female. A heretical and growing sect believes that "gender" is completely fluid, and that there is no true male or female. Obviously the disagreements about Christ's true nature – although they may seem (and could be) just as arbitrary – are not as inherently silly as the modern Transgender sect which can be proven wrong simply by looking between a person's legs. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 6, 2023 8:55:21 GMT -8
I touched upon the controversies regarding the 'Nature of Christ" earlier in this string. But it that post, I focused on the question of Arianism. But as this narrator mentions, Monophyitism was another bone of contention about the Nature of Christ. This stood in contrast to Dyophysitism which holds that Christ was the perfect unity of two natures, one divine, one human. Dyophysitism stands in contrast to Miaphysitism which holds that Christ was fully divine and fully human in one perfect nature. These discussions aroused great passions and effected millions of people who had no idea of their content. Frankly, I believe those involved in the discussions had little real understanding of their content as they were, in my opinion, arrogantly trying to define the holy and mystical nature which cannot, by definition, be explained. Humans cannot definitively state what the Nature of Christ is. More often than not, all the fine words and heated arguments are the spoutings of vain persons trying to impose their ideas and beliefs upon others. As we have discussed in the past, the Bible does not give us all the answers. It does not give strict instructions as to how to behave in every situation. It does not give detailed and scientific explanations of God. For different reasons, (political, to make logical and rational irrational and contradictory verses, to unify doctrine) believers, particularly the large institutional Churches, have tried to do answer those questions. From these attempts have come layer-upon-layer of doctrines, tenets, Canon Law and instructions which are nowhere to be found in the Bible. I believe these discussions, and ensuing controversies, were inevitable once the Christian faith was tied to the Greek mind. Note, that all the Church Ecumenical Councils before the great schism of 1054 were held in the East. As they say, Greeks like to argue. That said, I believe these people were sincere in their search for the answer to a big question. They were trying to build upon something. Today's Transgender Gypsies are not trying to build anything. They are trying to destroy our civilization, and know they are lying while attempting to do so. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 6, 2023 9:40:36 GMT -8
To a modern ear, these things seem silly to argue over. I'm in no position to describe, let alone understand, the nature of God. The hair-splitting involved would be almost comical if such dire consequences didn't result from them. Was Christ of just one nature, combining God and Man? Or was he of two simultaneous natures, God's nature and man's nature? Or was he mostly or completely divine? All these beliefs, and more, have words to go with them. But one can't help thinking that these disagreements were not about God or Christ. They were just examples of man's propensity to divide into factions. In the end, who should give a flying fig about these things since it ought to be obvious that we can have no idea as to the truth. I couldn't have said it better. That is exactly it. Isn't there a Kungian Rule in this? I would think that I'm on rather solid ground when I say, whatever God and Christ's true nature, I doubt that a major component is bureaucracy. Endless pissing contests by vain men. Yes, surely much of this was meant to add layers of understanding...probably in an attempt to make the esoteric, invisible, and faith-based into something more concrete. This aspect is certainly understandable, but something less than innocent can hide within it. I've seen how an ego can become tied to a particular idea of God. Man (ironically, given the example of Christ or St. Francis) aims to elevate himself and his prestige by association. And if you punch holes in those often manufactured and convoluted theories-of-belief (the dogma, etc.), it is as if you were stabbing one with a sword.
People invest a lot into these belief systems. There is the same dynamic in the Transgender belief system. Blasphemy is using the wrong pronoun. And if they aren't yet stoning you or burning you at the stake, you can get fired and banned from "social" media (which, ironically, would be doing someone a favor). This is one of the things that divides the evil of Islam from the basic Judeo-Christian religion. Islam inflates, exaggerates, invigorates, and exonerates a supremacist or fascist outlook. In Christianity, the example of Christ himself is an inherently humbling one. Nothing is as arrogant or unhumble as Islam. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 6, 2023 10:46:28 GMT -8
Too true, but one must not forget that religion was much more important and real to those of the Middle Ages than it is to moderns. There is and as a reminder, I post it below.  The primary rule for all bureaucracies is, "Protect and expand the bureaucracy."
The second rule for all bureaucracies is, "Read primary rule." |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 7, 2023 7:05:57 GMT -8
One of the interesting points of that YouTube video is that someone gave Justin some money to spread around to grease the skids to becoming the new emperor. But there is just so little honor among thieves. Justin takes the money, and does indeed distribute it. But instead of telling people to support the guy who gave him the money (I forget his name), Justin advises people to support himself.
And then Justin becomes the next emperor and ties ups some loose ends by accusing the guy he double-crossed of heresy and having him (and another guy) killed.
Reminds me a Twitter. We mustn't leave hanging around those fellows who can expose our corruption. The consequences may be different and less dire (for now). But the methods seem to be ageless.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 7, 2023 7:43:31 GMT -8
He saw the main chance and grabbed it. Just another example of my point that those who attain high power are those who are morally least worthy of exercising it. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 4, 2023 9:53:34 GMT -8
Lord Acton said, "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I agree with that statement as far as it goes. Even if one was not corrupt at the beginning of his journey to attain power, he will be by the time he reaches it.
Yet, cynic that I am, I see it a bit differently and I have long added "People who seek power are exactly those who are, morally, least qualified to use it." Plainly said, "Virtually all of those who seek power are crooks, criminals and psychopaths."
The statement is, perhaps not very poetic, but it gets to the point.
Still, I do like a beautiful turn of phrase and came across this last night while reading the Cambridge Medieval History. The words describe a certain Rainulf, one of the early Normans who showed up in the South of Italy during the first half of the eleventh century. But they could be applied to politicians in general. Yes, the Normans were making trouble in South Italy before William conquered England.
"Devoid of scruples, guided only by interested motives, in no way hampered by feelings of gratitude, he possessed all the requisite qualities for arriving at a high political position."
Perfectly said. The author has a thorough and complete grasp of reality. Everyone should have such clear vision.
A few pages later, as if to demonstrate how the above philosophy is applied, the author writes of a certain Robert Guiscard, another Norman thug.
"Guiscard shrank from no violence, and nothing was sacred to him; he respected neither old age, nor women and children, and on occasion he spared neither church nor monastery."
That said, I am not sure how different these types were from the Byzantines, Saracens, Lombards, Romans and others they rubbed elbows with.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 9, 2023 9:37:09 GMT -8
I agree. I remember reading in Albion's Seed about how Southern gentlemen in the aristocracy had the attitude that they should serve their community...as a judge or administrator of some kind. But the idea was serve, not rule.
And if there is a natural aristocracy who are born to rule (or at least administer), nothing could give them better justification for doing so than the slobocracy on the lower rungs. As nice of a notion it is that "any man can be president," you wouldn't want most of those you see at Walmart to even run for dog catcher.
That leaves us with the problem of using the talents of the upper-crust without them consuming the rest of us with their arrogance. The America Constitution was set up with this in mind. Power would be distributed, diluted, and set against itself. Even the mob would be set up against the natural inclination of elites to horde power via the House of Representatives.
Yep. Many put a nice face on it. But then so did Ted Bundy.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jun 12, 2023 12:57:19 GMT -8
The chapter titled "The Crusades" is the best short history I have read on the subject. These days, we hear all sorts of things about how the Western Crusaders were at fault, basically criminals and the Muslims were nice guys. The following excerpts put things in the proper perspective. To give the reader an idea of what the actual situation was before the Muslims started their assault on the rest of the world, I have attached the below map of the Byzantine/Roman Empire at AD 555. I have tried to find a map of the empire as of AD 650, but have not been able to, so far. Note the area (red) which belonged to Christendom under Justinian. In fact, Christendom was much larger than just the area controlled by the Byzantine Empire. It should be clear that the Muslim imperialists took over Christian lands. Their expansion continued, unabated, until AD 1683 when they were defeated at the gates of Vienna. They have not given up.  |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jun 12, 2023 13:44:40 GMT -8
"The Crusades"
The author continued with the following points.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jun 14, 2023 7:26:29 GMT -8
Yes, Islam is an ongoing invasion by a religion of rabid dogs. Nothing marked the loss of respect for our own culture more than the pining for an idealized Islam, fed to young skulls-full-of-mush primarily through government schools and what we euphemistically call "higher" education.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jun 14, 2023 8:54:55 GMT -8
Yes, Islam is an ongoing invasion by a religion of rabid dogs have some respect rabid dogs deserve better then Islam. |
|
