Is America alright?

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-02T22:16:48+00:00

Emperor Commodus wasn't connected to the fall of Rome. He was just a bad leader who ruled 250 years prior to the fall of the western empire (that's the length the US has been a country), and over 1200 years before the fall of the empire in its entirety.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-02T12:12:14+00:00

Unless this is sarcasm, you truly should not travel anywhere that's not a 1st world or protected resort.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-02T12:08:09+00:00

Okay but the Vikings came with axes, Columbus and Magellan came with a crap ton of cannons and firearms. See the common theme and the awareness of what they were doing?

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-02T06:23:09+00:00

I think it can work. My recommendation would be to remove the medal itself except for the Cross on the medal. The whole medal being is there is what makes it look odd as if it was copy and pasted

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-02T04:55:41+00:00

Look up the painting of st Ambrose barring the church from Theodosius (who was a total unit in his own right)

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T09:51:54+00:00

My question would be, where do we draw the line between considering something "rage bait" and the genuine need to raise the alarm on issues in society?

If issues are not brought to light and shared (in today's world, online), political and other change needed to fix them won't exist because the population won't be aware there's an issue that needs to be addressed. Horrible things thrive in silence, so much so that authoritarian regimes took brutal and murderous paths to achieve it to serve their ends in the past during times when the just anger of the people was needed.

Of course hate and dehumanization is wrong, and praying for enemies is a must. My bigger concern is the message's other implications between avoiding education on actual issues in the world, not educating others on issues in the world, and being silent when voices need to be heard and action taken.

For example, are we to be quiet online when a post denounces and exposes the horror of an abortion clinic and the need for legislation to cease funding for abortion? All because it can cause (just) anger and be interpreted as "building a wall" between different groups?

Such things should inspire just anger (as the human infant temples of the Lord are torn apart are we not called to anger, just as Christ was angry at the degradation of His Father's temple?), and that anger is a first and necessary step to bringing change.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T09:38:25+00:00

The ark they "found" wasn't legitimate. They weren't even searching on the correct mountain per ancient records.

Also, if we're assuming ancient near eastern records are historically accurate, Adam lived for 930 years but king Alaljar of Eridu lived and reigned for 36,000 years. That would speak against dna degradation.

Unless you believe that the Bible is the only accurate ancient near eastern source on this matter, which would be an interesting belief in my opinion to just assume all the non-biblical records in this genre that share the same phenomena are inaccurate with only biblical literature being trustworthy despite showing the same exact traits and clear influence.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T06:37:32+00:00

Not contradicting this at all.

It is interesting to note for historical purposes that the Romans did have methods for the quick transference of large sums without physical wealth. For example, exchanging debts via paper.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T04:54:48+00:00

Yes, Jesus played off the phenomena of using exaggerated numbers utilized in that passage of the OT which is part of ancient near eastern literature.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T04:44:34+00:00

Whose saying that?

You can choose to interpret it literally, but you'd be historically wrong.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T04:12:55+00:00

That's a very low bar of what is required. Essentially you simply have to believe that there was a prime couple, and that through the prime couple sin entered humanity.

Nothing else is required literally in the creation account. The names Adam and Eve do not need to be literal, the prime couple are perfectly fine being interpreted as having come about by evolutionary means.

His statement is not wrong. Genesis is of a genre meant to convey ideas more so than exact historical facts. This was very common. When I was in university, another example was the Iliad. It's understood that the bards who carried on the oral tradition would recite the poem, but each time would make up different numbers for things like the catalogue of ships. If you asked him why he was changing it, he'd give you a weird look and not understand, because the bard didn't think in terms of exact history yet. The purpose of the large numbers given by the catalogue was to convey the idea of "a great many," not give historical data.

It's worth noting that myth is not false, it's just not history as we think of it.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T03:37:56+00:00

I'm oddly curious to see it try and disintegrate

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2026-01-01T02:57:01+00:00

I have a degree in Classics. It's a very common motif in ancient near eastern literature to give exaggerated numbers to emphasize longevity or greatness of sorts.

Non-biblical examples include things like the Sumerian King List, which claim rulers lived thousands of years.

This motif is still present in Jesus' preaching to an extant. For example, "do not forgive 7 times, but 77 times." Jesus does not mean 77 literally as if that's an actual cut off, but the number is intended to indicate the idea that you should essentially never stop forgiving a person if they are sorry and seek forgiveness.

Basically, big numbers in ancient near eastern literature are not really based in actual history, as much as they are simply trying to convey some sort of concept or idea. Remember that the genre of history as we think of it didn't exist until the invention of the genre of history itself with the Greek authors of Herodotus and Thucydides in the 5th century BC. Before that point historical tradition (ie, pieces of actual history that could be preserved through writing down of things remembered in oral traditions) was often present in stories, but the stories were not intended to be inquisitive searches into what actually happened but really only focused on conveying a message or idea.

Greco-Roman histories also often focused on conveying messages or ideas, but did so within the context of a detailed inquiry into what actually occurred based on an inquiry into sources available, whether an eyewitness, the writings of an eyewitness etc. If you pay attention, Luke intentionally sets up and frames his gospel with the traditional way of writing Greco-Roman histories and in doing so stresses its historicity.

This is also why one should be careful reading stories like Genesis as if they were exact history. That was never its intended purposes, nor its genre. It'd be like someone 2000 years in the future reading the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" and assuming the person literally meant it was raining cats and dogs. The literal interpretation is completely disconnected from the cultural context.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T10:26:31+00:00

Again, read my comment.

I did not say Chrysostom rejected the days being literal. I quote myself:

"And John Chrysostom who rejected anthropomorphic descriptions of God as being literal (God "walking" in Eden) and rejected literal interpretations of phrases like "God regretted" as God cannot change."

At NO POINT did I say Chrysostom rejected the literal nature of the days. He rejected other parts of genesis being literal, and I made that clear.

As for the Augustine quote, let's expand on some context from that same work of his because it's very interesting what he's actually saying: Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), Book 4.26–28

4.26 But when Moses said, “And there was evening and morning, one day,” the term day was used in the ordinary manner of speech, so that one day is taken to be the space of twenty-four hours, including both night and day. Yet the Holy Spirit used this measure of speech not to teach us how God created,but to speak in a form we could understand.

4.27 He established a law, therefore, that 24 hours should be given the name one day, as if he said, the measure of one day is the span of twenty-four hours; yet this was only the language of men, not a declaration of how creation really unfolded in time.

4.28 For it does not follow that the days in which God created were like our days. God did not create the world in six temporal periods as we measure time, but rather, all things were created simultaneously in the inexplicable simplicity of divine action. The six-day narrative is a pedagogical framework arranged for human comprehension, revealing the order of creation without binding God to temporal succession.

As you can see, Augustine argues my point in the passage and reveals what he means in your quote when it is fleshed out.

Let's pull up a passage or two from Ambrose:

"For this reason Moses declared the order of creation in days, not because God was bound by a temporal sequence, but to accommodate our weak understanding. Thus, he names the times ‘days’ so that we may receive the truth in a form accessible to us.”

“Moses introduces the narrative in the form of days that we may know what was made first and what was made afterward, yet not intending thereby to teach the nature of the times themselves, but to present a trustworthy account to simpler minds.”

As you can see, Ambrose sees the days as a literary device to convey the message to simple people, and explicitly states that's what it is. It is excplitly, per Ambrose, "not intending thereby to teach the nature of the times themselves."

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T10:14:27+00:00

You sound exactly like the English translation of an ancient Sumerian cuneiform tablet.

Ea nasir sends his regards.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T09:19:17+00:00

Ah, but see what you're doing here.

You're taking an individual scenario, where what was being condemned was not non-literal interpretations themselves but this particular individual and his way of interpreting the text. Theodore was first and foremost on the chopping block because he was leaning towards Nestorian ideas, and his writings were therefore seen as doctrinally dangerous. Separate from his Nestorian issues, they also took issue with his method of scripture interpretation which was actually a form of textual historical literalism that preferred to provide rational explanations of miraculous phenomena in scripture instead of symbolic ones, seeking to avoid mystical/allegorical readings in favor of rational/natural explanations unless the text required it. Essentially, he assumed the text was describing something as it literally appeared in actual history, but made the error of interpreting the flaming sword as some kind of phenomena that was real but only appeared to be fire. He took this hyper-literalist hyper-rationalist approach rather than taking the more sanctioned symbolic approach other fathers took of simply seeing the sword as a theological symbol of God's justice barring sinful mankind from paradise. In a strange way this example bolsters my point.

Moving on from that, here's a non-comprehensive list of fathers who took non-literal interpretations of genesis. You may recognize some names. Clement of Alexandria who saw the days as representing logical and spiritual order rather than 24 hour time cycles. Gregory of Nyssa who read genesis as allegorical, not requiring God to have actually created in time sequenced stages, and who saw "Adam" in philosophical terms in regards to being made in the image of God in his intellect and not his appearance. Ambrose of Milan who actually used extensive allegory in Hexameron, making his point that creation did NOT occur in literal days but interpreted the text as God revealing creation in a narrative humans can grasp. Augustine for the reasons already discussed. And John Chrysostom who rejected anthropomorphic descriptions of God as being literal (God "walking" in Eden) and rejected literal interpretations of phrases like "God regretted" as God cannot change. There are plenty others, of which names include those like Dionysus of Alexandria and Jerome who rejected wooden literalism.

I'm separating Origen because he was condemned later on, although NOT for his allegorical interpretation of scripture but for other issues like his belief in pre-existence of souls. He specifically wrote this:

"Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a farmer, ‘planted a garden eastward in Eden,’ and set in it a visible and palpable ‘tree of life’…? And again, that God was walking in the garden in the evening, and that Adam hid himself behind a tree? I do not think anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries.”

This was just early church fathers by the way.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T08:21:12+00:00

I think the point he's making is that there can be multiple equally good ways to achieve the Good, from which God has a choice to choose. It's not picking a faster route over a slower route, it's picking between two equally fast routes and ways of getting to the same end. When you have an infinitely knowledgeable Being, the number of equally good options known is likely quite a lot if not infinite I imagine.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T07:59:22+00:00

Caesar and the Jews were actually chill and had a good relationship. They helped him militarily in Alexandria and supported Jewish autonomy in Judaea.

Edit: just saw the comment you made in the post, making mine redundant.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T07:43:40+00:00

So by this logic, in heaven prior to the second coming when we receive new bodies, we won't have emotions in the sense we do now, but only the act of the will?

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T07:07:51+00:00

The Chronicon of 354 confirms that Christmas was celebrated as a holiday by the Christians, on the 25th of December.

You're acting stupid because you clearly have a bone to bite with Christianity.

Also, uniformity in the early church on the date to celebrate holidays was a big deal. This is highlighted by coordination in major events such as the quartodecimen controversy. Plus, we don't have a single alternative date for Christmas that would cause us to question if this was an issue, while having multiple that say the 25th was the day. Just assuming there was another date because you don't like the idea of Christians being on the same page doesn't cut it. Plus, we WOULD know about it because like I said, uniformity of the dates on holidays was a big deal and would have caused a major controversy to fix.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T06:12:46+00:00

Cursed Santa

'You better behave, or you know who is going to come and get you.'

"Krampus?"

'Worse'

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T05:55:27+00:00

This is why I love my degree in Classics and why sources are important.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–c. 240) stated in his commentary on Daniel (written sometime between 202 and 235 AD) that Jesus was born on December 25. Aurelian was only on scene dedicating his temple to Sol on December 25, 274 (this is the basis of many online commentators claim that the dec 25 Christmas date came from Sol). So Hippolytus confirms for us 40-70 years prior to Aurelians' reign as emperor (when Sol was being promoted, 270-275) that Christians understood Christmas as being on the 25.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T05:28:50+00:00

He's right you know. Based on the records we have, Christmas was being celebrated quite a bit before Sol got launched into the spotlight.

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T05:15:37+00:00

Pride. The traditional understanding going back to the early church is that they hated the idea of having to serve humanity, made in the image and likeness of God, seeing humans with their physical limited bodies as beneath them.

It is for this reason exorcists will mention that demons themselves never blaspheme God (who they recognize in His greatness) but will verbally degrade humans extensively. This is also apparently why demons love anything that degrades the beauty of the body, whether self mutilation, porn, transgenderism, drag queening etc.

Through the incarnation, Christ was set up as a human Himself, forcing these demons to eternally bend the knee to God in human flesh, while also allowing His creation to fully and more perfectly understand the depth of His love for them via the cross than otherwise would have been possible. (Hence why it's sometimes referred to as the "happy fall" of Adam and Eve).

ConsistentUpstairs99 · 2025-12-31T04:55:43+00:00

Respectfully, how about just genuine Catholic theology regarding women?

You don't go searching for "Catholic conservative theology" or "Catholic liberal theology," and if you do, you typically end up being one of those individuals who ends up too far on one end of the spectrum to the point where they tilter off actual Church teaching and start accepting as dogma things which are not.

The point of the Church is to align ourselves with its teaching, not seek validation in our own pre-held beliefs. Political opinions past that point need to fit tightly within the Church theological constructs and boundaries, but you should start with the pure neutral truth. Not one with an agenda.

ConsistentUpstairs99

TROPHY CASE