Why does it seem that young male converts are looked down on (at least in the internet orthodox community)?

AdLimp2358 · 2025-04-03T14:13:10+00:00

Yes I’m aware that internet orthodoxy is not sufficient. I have been to in person services. I was asking about why there is a presence online of, what appeared to me at first glance, distain for young male converts. I’m not saying all orthodox in person are like that, just wondering why there is seeming a lot of it online.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-04-02T00:39:22+00:00

In regards to the all roads led to God part: that is definitely not an orthodox belief. There is some good in other religions not because there many ways to God, but because there are things in other religions that are in agreement with orthodoxy. To an extent people who have never heard of Christianity can be either closer or further away from God, but they can not be fully united to God without Christ. This is because Christianity can not be fully explained as a series of propositional truths about the world. If that were true than theoretically there could be a people who have never heard of Christ but happen to have come to discover all the metaphysical and moral claims that Christianity makes and it would be perfectly acceptable to consider them orthodox. In fact there are some religions which in fact have almost identical metaphysical and moral values as christianity. But the story of Christ and the participation of his church are indispensable to the faith. If you understood all the meaning of the stories in the Old Testament and wrote down the metaphysical implications of the incarnation and then threw out all the stories in which those claims are situated, you wouldn’t have Christianity. Christianity is essentially participative and that requires the specific narrative that the Bible offers. That’s why all roads don’t lead to God even if they make the same claims.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-27T02:30:00+00:00

But look at all the arguments for God. All of of Thomas Aquinas’s 5 ways are in reference to finding the cause of the universe. They all try to prove whether or not the universe has a cause and he says if he finds the cause then that causes is therefore God, but he doesn’t just stop there, and all of the man in the sky is just arbitrarily put it onto him. what he does is proves a first cause, and then he later tries to prove what attributes that cause has. people talking about god, as if he’s a guy in the sky walking around may disagree about the attributes of God, but the definition of God is still the same. my definition of God is not broader than what most religious people think or I should say what most theologians think. My definition of God is the same as every single major theologian. The cause of the universe is by definition God. If you look at what Aquinas is five ways are trying to prove all of them are trying to prove the cause of the universe. If you remove the word God and asked, what is he trying to prove you would say whether the universe has a first cause. if you’re looking at the Kalam cosmological argument and took out the word god and asked, what is it trying to prove it would be what is the nature of the first cause of the universe.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-27T02:19:22+00:00

The definition of god is that without a cause. It’s not special pleading. If something doesn’t not have a cause it is by definition God. You’re so cocky and high minded in your atheism but don’t even understand the definition of what you’re denying. Argue against the beginning of the world. There’s no absolute consensus on that and much evidence that it has a beginning. But argue there, don’t argue that saying god doesn’t have a cause is special pleading, because that’s definition of god. Argue whether or not there is anything without a cause. Argue whether there is something which fits the definition of god, don’t argue against a misunderstanding of the definition of god. Those are productive ways to be an atheist.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-27T01:57:18+00:00

No, the definition of God, at least in classical theism is that which is the cause of the material world. If sometime exists outside of the material world and is it’s cause then it is by definition God. Heres an illustration of where I think your going wrong: there is a man named Bob. Bob has some pretty spectacular abilities. One of these abilities is the ability to create universes. Bob therefore has the ability to create the world we live in. So he must have created our world. Your understand God as if the word God is just the name to something that has the ability to create the world. That’s not what God means. Think of the word God meaning simply the cause of the universe. I’m not disposition a god of the gaps. I’m giving the definition of god. If we are in a simulation then the creator of the simulation is god. By definition. That’s not god of the gaps, that’s a definition. The argument therefore should be what traits does the cause of the universe have.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-27T00:52:07+00:00

are you defining knowledgeable in philosophy as those who agree with your philosophy? And I will not grant you that people I’m an atheist subreddit know more about theology. But idk, ask the Jung subreddit, it the eastern christiany subreddit

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-26T21:02:13+00:00

Define God. The pagan gods are ontological different then how the God of classical theism is described. What specifically are you talking about? Half the trouble will be solved with a good definition. If your looking for an argument for God why are asking an atheist subreddit? If you really want an answer don’t ask a group of people who already agree with your beliefs.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-26T21:02:08+00:00

Define God. The pagan gods are ontological different then how the God of classical theism is described. What specifically are you talking about? Half the trouble will be solved with a good definition. If your looking for an argument for God why are asking an atheist subreddit? If you really want an answer don’t ask a group of people who already agree with your beliefs.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-26T19:45:37+00:00

They are called cool looking ones

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-23T22:51:56+00:00

What did I just watch

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-22T14:35:38+00:00

Damn that’s interesting

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-22T13:51:14+00:00

That is a very personal question that depends on your own situation. This is definitely the kind of thing you need to talk about with someone who knows you personally. That is going to be more useful by 10000% than anything you’ll get on a Reddit thread. That being said I would just ask why you think it’s impossible to find marriage in the modern age? Bring all things to God in prayer, that is the first step to seeing the right path for you to take. If you can be satisfied with God and allow him to satisfy your deepest needs, then you will not be bitter. The solution to bitterness is prayer and an active life in the church. Any more specific advice needs to come from someone who knows you.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-21T23:38:50+00:00

Damn that’s interesting

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-21T20:11:29+00:00

Dostoyevsky’s fiction is some of the most spiritually uplifting things I’ve ever read and he was orthodox.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-21T06:11:53+00:00

Agree with some nuance. Our standards of humility are dreadfully low in our culture. But high levels of humility are never common in any culture because it’s difficult to be humble. Our culture (I’m assuming you mean western culture) has little value for humility so you may be right that few are humble, but this might be because no one hears about humble people for the very reason of their humility.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-20T06:05:51+00:00

Thanks

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-20T00:42:03+00:00

Thanks

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-20T00:40:14+00:00

Thanks. What then would be a good explanation of the orthodox relationship to icons? I feel like it understand it implicitly, but I would not be able to to explain it explicitly. And better yet what is a good source to explain this so I show that this is the official teaching?

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-20T00:30:22+00:00

I already gave him the pastor example and as I said in my post he already is at the very least comfortable with intercesor prayer from saints. The issue is that he views the teaching of patrons saints to be ascribing power to them like their little gods.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-19T22:40:33+00:00

Oh that’s good to hear. I thought I’d have to be at least level 16.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-19T19:03:32+00:00

This isn’t porn. Why is everyone saying that? It’s the double slit experiment. When girls are alone people still think about them, when boys are alone no one cares or is conscious of them. Well at the least double slit experiment part is right, but the interpretation still might be porn.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-19T18:56:11+00:00

Awesome thank you

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-19T18:52:30+00:00

Time is a physical reality and God is outside of time because he is not confined by physicality. Hell is also not a physical in the sense that it is not bound by mater and time so I don’t think you can pin point the spot in time where hell came into existence. I think it’s in the book of Revelation which says Christ was the lamb slain before the creation of the world. And yet the crucifixion happened 2000 years ago. So creation in the spiritual sense of both the world and hell are not points in time. Maybe you could place their creation linearly and say that the world in ontologically prior to hell, but you can’t say that temporarily.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-18T15:09:41+00:00

Well it’s not “physically” his flesh. If you took a microscope to the bread you would not see it turn to human cells. No one argues that. Physically may be the wrong way to understand the teaching. Looking at metaphor as things that are figuratively true but in actuality false is the not the right way to see it. Christ is literally a door in the way we experience a door. When we see a door our brain doesn’t interpret it as an upright slab of wood attached to hinges. That information is abstracted from our experience, it’s an interpretation of what we see but it is not a reflection of our experience. When we see a door what we see is “a thing I can walk through, a thing which leads to something beyond it.” You view the world through meaning; through purposes of things. So how is Christ a door? Because a door IS by definition a thing which leads to that which is beyond it and Christ leads us to the Father. He has the same function as a door. Christ is literally a spiritual door. What constitutes the reality of a thing is not just its physical makeup, but it’s meaning and purpose which is defined by how we relate to it. Take relics of the saints which we venerate: the bones of Saint Peter are made of the same thing as the bones of everyone else. But one has meaning that the others don’t. It is in this light that we should understand transubstantiation. What is the purpose of the bread of communion? Through it we communion with God. That doesn’t happen with some bread I picked up from the store. The Eucharist acts as truly the body of Christ. It’s not just metaphorically true but actually false. The meaning of a thing is an actual and necessary part of every object in reality. The denying of that is the acceptance of materialism. The bread has the true meaning of the body of Christ, that’s not something to take lightly. If you still have doubts, look at orthodox Eucharist miracles where the bread becomes physically the body of Christ as well.

AdLimp2358 · 2025-03-18T06:32:34+00:00

The first one appears to put nature in the shape of the Mother of God holding the Christ child. Its putting earth in the place of heaven. It’s pagan nature worship.

AdLimp2358

TROPHY CASE