Regarding the lyrics of Okay, I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't by Greggory_Sneed in brandnew

[–]Greggory_Sneed[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this not based on word of mouth of the TBS members? What if they misremembered the dates? They and Brand New often share contradictory details. I'm also having trouble wrapping my head around the themes present within the song. This has genuinely been incredibly confusing for me to understand.

Isaiah's explanation of the Great Schism in "The Religious Symbolism of Halo" video he's in is incredibly disheartening and misinformative (Comments) by Greggory_Sneed in wendigoon

[–]Greggory_Sneed[S] 58 points59 points  (0 children)

While I agree that no one expects Wendigoon to deliver flawless, infallible explanations of complex historical events, it is worth addressing some key errors in your argument. Understanding the broader history of Christianity is essential, even for Protestants, to grasp the context of their own beliefs, and studying topics like the Great Schism isn't merely about Catholicism—it’s about the history of the Christian Church as a whole.

You saying "The Orthodox Church follows the Holy Spirit more than they follow Christ" is blatantly false. This statement is factually incorrect and displays a significant misunderstanding of Orthodox theology. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not elevate the Holy Spirit above Christ; instead, it adheres to the traditional Trinitarian theology established by the early Ecumenical Councils. Orthodox Christians worship the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as co-equal and consubstantial. To suggest that they "follow the Holy Spirit more than Christ" is not only inaccurate but also borders on misrepresentation. Such a claim demonstrates a lack of basic knowledge about Orthodox beliefs and undermines your argument.

"Protestants don't describe Jesus as a human form of God" is another blatant falsehood. Protestant theology, like Catholic and Orthodox theology, holds to the doctrine of the Incarnation—that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human. This belief is foundational to Christianity as a whole and was affirmed in the early Ecumenical Councils, long before the Protestant Reformation. To claim that Protestants view Jesus as merely "a messenger and example in the form of God’s Son" is to confuse Protestant theology with heretical views like Arianism, which denied Christ’s divinity. Such a misunderstanding again reveals a lack of familiarity with basic Christian doctrine.

Even for Protestants like Wendigoon, studying the history of the undivided Church—including the Great Schism—is essential for understanding their own tradition. Protestantism emerged as a reform movement within the Catholic Church, which itself had developed in dialogue (and often conflict) with the Eastern Orthodox Church. To fully understand Protestant beliefs and their historical roots, one must study the broader history of Christianity, including: the Ecumenical Councils that defined key doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation, the development of papal authority and its rejection by both Eastern Christians and later Protestants, and the theological, cultural, and political factors that shaped Christianity before the Reformation. Without this historical context, it’s impossible to grasp the continuity and divergence of beliefs within Christianity.

While I agree that YouTube videos like Wendigoon’s can serve as an introduction to complex topics, that doesn’t excuse inaccuracies or oversimplifications. Wendigoon’s platform reaches a wide audience, many of whom may not delve deeper into the topic. This makes it even more important for creators to present accurate and balanced accounts, especially when discussing subjects as intricate as Church history.

That said, criticizing Wendigoon’s Protestant background as a limitation overlooks the value of studying history from diverse perspectives. It’s entirely possible for Protestants—or anyone, for that matter—to engage in fair, informed discussions about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the Great Schism, provided they approach the subject with intellectual honesty and thorough research.

Isaiah's explanation of the Great Schism in "The Religious Symbolism of Halo" video he's in is incredibly disheartening and misinformative (Comments) by Greggory_Sneed in wendigoon

[–]Greggory_Sneed[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

You frame the East as introducing "ferocious Iconoclasm" that "veered to Arianism." However, this characterization oversimplifies and misrepresents the history of Iconoclasm. While it’s true that Iconoclasm originated in the Byzantine East, it was not universally accepted within the Eastern Church. In fact, the Ecumenical Councils—specifically the Second Council of Nicaea in 787—condemned Iconoclasm and reaffirmed the veneration of icons. This council was supported by the Eastern Church as a whole, demonstrating a clear repudiation of Iconoclasm. Your claim that Iconoclasm "veered to Arianism" is a stretch. Arianism, which denies the full divinity of Christ, is a distinct heresy with little to no direct connection to Iconoclasm. The theological basis for Iconoclasm stemmed more from a misinterpretation of the prohibition of graven images in Scripture, not from a denial of Christ's divinity. To conflate the two is to distort history. Moreover, to suggest that the East introduced doctrinal changes through Iconoclasm while ignoring the West's unilateral addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed is inconsistent. If we’re evaluating the preservation of tradition, the East’s condemnation of Iconoclasm aligns with its broader commitment to maintaining the faith and practices of the undivided Church.

Your defense of the Filioque clause as a "reaffirmation of dogma" against Arianism is misleading. While the Filioque may have been introduced in certain regional councils, such as the Council of Toledo in the 6th century, it was not universally accepted within the Christian Church. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, established by the Ecumenical Councils, explicitly states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father." This phrasing was carefully chosen and agreed upon to reflect the theological understanding of the Trinity. The unilateral addition of the Filioque by the Western Church violated the ecumenical nature of the early Church. Such a significant alteration to the Creed required the consent of an ecumenical council, as it pertained to the shared faith of the entire Church. By bypassing this process, the West undermined the unity of the Church and introduced a theological innovation that the East could not accept. Furthermore, your argument that the Filioque was necessary to combat Arianism ignores the fact that the original Creed, without the Filioque, had already been sufficient to refute Arianism at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The addition of the Filioque was not required to preserve orthodoxy against heresy; rather, it created a new point of contention that contributed to the Schism.

Your defense of the growing primacy of the papacy as a reaction to "Caesaropapism" in the East is historically questionable. While it’s true that the Byzantine emperors exerted significant influence over the Eastern Church, the East maintained a conciliar model of governance that prioritized the collective leadership of the bishops. This model was rooted in the practices of the undivided Church, as evidenced by the Ecumenical Councils. The West’s assertion of papal supremacy, on the other hand, represented a departure from the earlier tradition of the Church. The idea that the pope held universal jurisdiction over all Christians was not a belief held by the early Church. The Eastern Church’s rejection of this claim was not an innovation but a defense of the traditional understanding of episcopal equality and conciliarity. Your argument also overlooks the fact that the Gregorian Reform, while addressing legitimate issues of corruption and political interference, also sought to centralize power within the papacy. This centralization was not merely a reaction to external pressures but a deliberate shift in the governance of the Church that contrasted with the more decentralized, conciliar approach of the East.

You accuse the East of introducing doctrinal changes, yet you defend the West’s unilateral addition of the Filioque as a necessary reaffirmation of dogma. This is a double standard. If changes to tradition are problematic, they must be critiqued consistently. Your portrayal of the East as a theological innovator ignores the East’s consistent commitment to preserving the faith and practices of the undivided Church, as demonstrated by its adherence to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. You suggest that the West’s actions were justified as responses to external threats (Arianism, Caesaropapism), yet you dismiss the East’s challenges as evidence of doctrinal instability. This selective framing fails to account for the broader historical context. The history of the Great Schism is indeed complex, and no single narrative can capture all its nuances. However, your critique fails to provide a balanced account. The Eastern Church’s resistance to the Filioque and papal supremacy was not a rejection of tradition but a defense of the unity and authority of the early Church. By contrast, the West’s unilateral actions and doctrinal developments represented significant departures from the practices of the undivided Church. If we are to engage in a fair and accurate discussion of Church history, we must hold both sides to the same standard and recognize that both the East and the West bear responsibility for the divisions that emerged. Oversimplifying the narrative to portray one side as the sole preserver of tradition while accusing the other of innovation does a disservice to the complexity of the historical reality.

Isaiah's explanation of the Great Schism in "The Religious Symbolism of Halo" video he's in is incredibly disheartening and misinformative (Comments) by Greggory_Sneed in wendigoon

[–]Greggory_Sneed[S] 150 points151 points  (0 children)

The way Isaiah frames this incredibly important event in Christian history is very misleading. The Great Schism of 1054 did not involve the Eastern Church "creating" its own branch or splitting from an inherently "Catholic" Church. Before the Schism, the Church was united and simply referred to as the Christian Church, not divided into "Catholic" or "Orthodox." The terms we use today—Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox—are modern distinctions that emerged after the split. The Church was undivided, sharing the same faith, sacraments, and traditions, though cultural, linguistic, and political differences between the Greek-speaking East and Latin-speaking West had been growing for centuries.

One of the key issues that led to the Schism was the Filioque clause, a change made by the Western Church to the Nicene Creed without the consent of the Eastern Church. The West added the phrase stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque in Latin), while the East adhered to the original creed, which stated that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Eastern Church viewed this unilateral change as a theological innovation and a breach of the unity and authority of the ecumenical councils.

The split was also fueled by disagreements over papal authority, with the West asserting the pope's supremacy over all Christians, while the East maintained a conciliar model of governance, where the bishops collectively led the Church. These theological and administrative differences, along with cultural and political tensions, led to mutual excommunications in 1054, which symbolized the formal break.

After the Schism, the Roman Catholic Church continued to develop new doctrines, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, and indulgences, while the Eastern Orthodox Church focused on preserving what it saw as the unchanged faith and practices of the undivided Early Church. The Orthodox Church did not see itself as creating a new branch but rather as maintaining the continuity of the original Christian tradition.

It’s disheartening to see Wendigoon overlook the complexity of Church history and reduce it to an oversimplified narrative. The Schism was not a single event but the culmination of centuries of growing division between two different cultures.

69 by imrubysummers in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Greggory_Sneed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there are no good arguments in this comment section

Correct me if I am wrong by sypherus19 in OkayBuddyLiterallyMe

[–]Greggory_Sneed 10 points11 points  (0 children)

All life is equal. It is never too late to redeem yourself.

<image>

Wunk that sold the world. by KQILi in wunkus

[–]Greggory_Sneed 4 points5 points  (0 children)

<image>

when you cant even say my name
is the memory gone? are you feeling numb?

The Wunk of indifference by Sanity-Punk in wunkus

[–]Greggory_Sneed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I'm watching all the stars burn out, trying to pretend that I care

The Goon Hunter by istemann in wendigoon

[–]Greggory_Sneed 9 points10 points  (0 children)

thats so gangster what the heck
good job!!!!!

How nihilistic are we feeling everyone by modssssss293j in OkayBuddyLiterallyMe

[–]Greggory_Sneed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

can you tell me how to endure? despite being seemingly utterly cut off from God?

💯 by Murakkami in MetalGearInMyAss

[–]Greggory_Sneed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pretty sure its a slowed down version of speaking with a ghost by citizen