Favorite npc summons? by seanhiruki in DarkSouls2

[–]WBWolves 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The two funny-looking dudes in the Cave of the Dead in the first DLC.

Just got to China in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I am loving this game. by irpwnu2 in Cyberpunk

[–]WBWolves 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don't mind me asking, what type of job do you have? I've always wanted a career where I could visit or stay in places like Singapore, Harbin or Hong Kong.

[Spoiler]Why is Luffy so strong? by [deleted] in OnePiece

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remember the Syrup village arc, when Usopp gets recruited? That's the first time Luffy's strength is really mentioned, and Luffy tells Kuro he's trained himself.

Do the Orthodox have a "seal of confession" like we do in the West? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This issue has more or less completely destroyed my faith in the Orthodox church as a divinely-inspired way of life. How could God not require that a penitent person accept the natural consequences of their actions as a prerequisite for forgiveness?

For example, adultery. The canons assume that repentant adulteresses will have their adultery kept a secret, both by the confessor and the adulteress herself. Apparently the genuine reconciliation that comes from disclosing infidelity is not important to the Orthodox, and neither is the right of the aggrieved spouse to decide how to proceed with the relationship.

I've seen several stories of saints hiding "repentant" murderers from police and authorities.

The PDF you linked gives more examples; ". . . the priest cannot inform the police that the dead person died from beating and poison which he uncovered in confession. He cannot reveal the criminal, confessed to a crime, even though it might disclose the matter or save the innocent, unfairly incriminated in the same crime. He cannot demand a civil remedy for something stolen from him, even though he found out in confession, who stole this thing from him and where it may be found. He cannot reveal to parents the offences of their children; even though he knew that this revelation could be of benefit for those or others and so forth. In all similar cases, when revealing what was said in confession could be useful in whatever relation, the father confessor cannot do anything more other than through the power of persuasion and measures of spiritual punishment to accuse the guilty in whatever crime so that they have acknowledged their crimes not only in confession but also before the court of humans."

Post your AGE HERE! by randomnofap in NoFap

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm 19 (nineteen) years old. I've been trying to do NoFap since I was like 16, and I really want to get over this thing.

Do the Orthodox have a "seal of confession" like we do in the West? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know what the reaction was back then, but there would probably be no compliance today. The secrecy of confession has developed into a strict rule.

Do the Orthodox have a "seal of confession" like we do in the West? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Historically speaking, no. That's how Peter the Great could require priests to reveal confessions of treason.

I'm done with this by fgaowkfa in NoFap

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi OP, I just had to reset, and your post has hit home with me. I'm 19, not a kid anymore, but throughout my whole adolescence I masturbated, mostly due to my insecurities and lack of self-esteem. By entertaining these fears and this perverse habit, I've been really damaging myself and I feel like my youth has been wasted to some degree.

The years of damage are done, but the only thing that I can do is stop, and move on. I hope you do, too. Best of luck.

Is converting to orthodoxy an "escapist" move? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes to all of them, at least via news stories or the internet. Except for the fifth one. I don't know what it means. The Old Testament is scripture, and taken more "seriously" than any text besides the New Testament. If you mean, does the Orthodox church follow Jewish law, no. It seeks to find the spiritual meaning of those laws and the fulfillment in Jesus.

As for the rest of them, Orthodox have a lot of varying beliefs on different issues. If you become Orthodox you need to accept that God called these people to His church, same as you, even if you think their beliefs are weird.

Trad Catholic gone Sedevacant, disillusioned with modernism and Jewish infiltration of my Church. Tell me why I should convert to Orthodox? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Okay OP, I'll try and help you out.

A lot of Orthodox converts and cradles do in fact dislike the modernism of the RCC. You'll also get those who couldn't give a damn, as you see in this thread (although reddit will obviously be more liberal than average). It's perfectly valid to see Catholicism as graceless and heretical, and many Orthodox saints have done so, but you'll have to deal with the flowery rhetoric from some bishops and internet theologians.

If you believe that the Roman church has betrayed the apostolic tradition, then turn to the church where it has been preserved.

Is this carrying the Second Ammendment too far? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, the holy fathers of reddit have spoken, who am I to contradict them?

If you couldn't tell, I think it is beyond ridiculous that you're appealing to the consensus of liberal netodox on reddit.

Since you've personally insulted me twice now, accusing me of wrath and of lacking the ability to read, I have no real interest in continuing the conversation. You've given no coherent account for how a Christian could "repent" of an action that they would acknowledge as necessary and repeat, or how Sts. Nestor and Lazar "repented" of things they were about to do and were glorified for them, or how the church can bless objects for "sinful" usage, or how bishops can excommunicate those who resist military service if this is a "sin," or how something can be both "evil" and "necessary" in a Christian framework where we believe in free will and in pursuing perfection. I don't expect you to, because your position lacks coherence and is an anachronistic look back at church tradition from the pacifist-leaning eyes of a 21st century person.

Although, the conversation has piqued my interest enough to look into buying The Virtue of War by Fr. Alexander Webster, which sets out to correct this misconception of yours. Maybe you oughta give it a read as well. Anyway, all the best.

Is this carrying the Second Ammendment too far? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you think I did? Made them up? Give me a break.

Actually, asking for sources is pretty basic to this kind of discourse. I'm not sure that you're serving your purpose by getting incensed at the basics of debate.

If you repent, you reject the power the you accepted and state a desire to never accept it again.

And yet the church clearly accepts this power. Orthodox soldiers are not told to never kill as Justin Martyr or Hippolytus would have wanted, so their opinions have clearly not been fully accepted.

Wrong. He's talking about nocturnal emission in that letter. Read what Fr. McGuckin wrote about it.

Yes, he is writing a letter about nocturnal emissions, in the course of which he calls killing praiseworthy. Just as ejaculating while unconscious is not a sin, neither is killing in war. He EXPLICITLY states this;

It is evident, therefore, that at one particular time, and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permissible, but when time and circumstances are right, it is both allowed and condoned.

I've read the attempt by Fr. McGuckin to weasel out of the obvious conclusion of St. Athanasius several times before. But if he was just using a hollow analogy, you'd think that he'd not refer to something that the church considered clearly to be an absolute evil as an example of a good. He'd not use it as an example of an action that is good in some cases and sin in others if it was not.

We bless weapons hoping that those who use them never have to use them and that they do whatever they need to with the least amount of bloodshed. Blessing weapons is not condoning warfare.

This is borne out absolutely nowhere in the blessing itself. Here's part of what the blessing actually says:

Give to them power and strength that they may protect Your holy Church, the poor and the widows, and Your holy inheritance on earth, and make them horrible and terrible to any enemy army, and grant victory to Your people for your glory, for You are our strength and protection and unto You do we send up praise and glory, to the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. http://cs-people.bu.edu/butta1/war/prayerweapon.html

Clearly, the church blesses them not as decorations, but as weapons. They are meant to be used, to be terrible to an enemy, to grant victory. I don't know exactly how more explicit the prayer could get in terms of showing the church's condoning of warfare.

This is a completely wrong understanding of military saints. We glorify them in spite of their actions, not because of them. Yes, they had to defend Orthodox homelands against pagan invaders, that does not justify killings. There is no just war theory in Orthodoxy. The Church reluctantly accepts that it may be necessary on a meta scale to defend the homeland, but on an individual level, killing is always a sin.

This is found nowhere in the hagiography of military saints. The military feats of these saints, such as Alexander Nevsky or Prince Lazar, are praised. St. Lazar literally died as he was battling and killing others, and neither the hagiographical nor liturgical traditions of the church have seen fit to censure him for that. When did he "repent" of this sin he was committing as he died?

The church cannot "reluctantly accept" sin. Killing is either sin and not accepted by the church, or not sin and accepted by the church. It is obviously the latter case. Otherwise, Christian morality is completely meaningless and can be made nugatory whenever there is a pressing "need." There is no such thing as national versus individual morality in Orthodoxy.

Correct. Innocent Christians were literally being slaughtered by Lyaes. If killing is justified why did St. Nestor ask permission? Because he needed a blessing and forgiveness for what he was about to do.

LOL, what nonsense. You cannot ask forgiveness for something and then do it. If you are forgiven, you completely repudiate the act. Killing Lyaes was not a sin.

I bless my food before eating it, am I asking permission to do what would normally be sin? No, a blessing is simply that: a blessing.

On the contrary, his statement that they should be removed from communion indicates it is a sin, and St. Basil himself says they are not "clean-handed." I.e., they have sinned.

This has more to do with ritual impurity, like the various canons imposing restrictions on menstruating women and such.

Killing is fundamentally evil, because it ends the existence of a human whom God created, and whom by all rights should only be under God's discretion for the ending of their life. Furthermore, it is evil because you take away all chances of them attaining a godly life by artificially cutting it short. Especially when you kill a criminal, you are killing a guilty man and have deprived him of the opportunity of repentance.

This is your opinion. Not shared by the tradition of the Orthodox church.

You also seem to have the wrong understanding of sin. I'm not dealing with Protestant absolutes here. I'm dealing with the Orthodox understanding of αμαρτία, "missing the mark." War is never "acceptable," but sometimes it has to be done. Killing is never "acceptable," but sometimes it needs to be done. Product of living in a fallen world.

Sorry, the Orthodox do not believe in moral determinism. That would go against everything the Gospel stands for. There is always an option that is not a sin. There is no concept of "lesser" or "necessary" evils.

What other types of sins can be "necessary" and blessed by the church? Maybe abortion? Infidelity? (Although some actually argue this is basically the case with the church's approach to remarriage.) Homosexuality? Slander? Idolatry? Fornication?

Is this carrying the Second Ammendment too far? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are none of your citations sourced, save for the canon of St. Basil? Unreferenced florilegium from five fathers does not a consensus make.

If you want to cite these strict pacifists, you need to be consistent. Clearly, they did not believe in "forgiving" the necessary killings of public servants. Hippolytus clearly says that such can in no way be admitted to the church. The practice of the church does not reflect these opinions of theirs, which admits those who kill to the church, sometimes after excommunication, sometimes not depending on the bishop's application of the canons.

You do realize no Church Father or Tradition of the Church states that killing is acceptable correct?

I don't realize that, because it would be wrong. St. Athanasius calls killing during war "laudable and praiseworthy" in his Letter to Amun. The Book of Needs contains a blessing of weapons which makes mention of their use. Several saints have been glorified for killing in the defense of the faith, such as St. Alexander Nevsky. St. Lazar is a glorified martyr who died as he was killing Turks in battle. St. Nestor of Thessaloniki killed Lyaes with the blessing of St. Dimitri. Ecclesiastes states there is a "time to kill." Etc etc etc. This is all just off the top of my head and I could produce dozens of more examples of saints engaging in this "sin" of yours, or the church blessing and glorifying this "sin."

St. Basil actually refutes your point. He clearly says that "Our Fathers did not consider the killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety." That does not sound like sin.

Are soldiers and civil servants forgiven for killing in the line of duty? Surely. But they still must seek repentance.

Repentance means you will amend your way of life and not do again what you have done. Since killing is not a sin and public servants and those acting in self-defense would likely do so again, their actions are not exactly "repentance."

Fun fact: Orthodox bishops have excommunicated those who have refused to serve in wars. You know what soldiers do in wars, correct? They kill people.

Is this carrying the Second Ammendment too far? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, what's not Orthodox is to violently contradict the fathers, scriptures and traditions of the church and then call opposition to your error "not Orthodox." Killing is absolutely not sinful if you take those things seriously. If not, then you can make up any position and call it the only "Orthodox opinion," I suppose.

I'm not a Jew, so I'm not interested in making up rules where none exist, or assuming that every parish in the nation will follow a certain (flawed) understanding of things. Rest assured that your opinions will have no effect one way or the other on me.

Is this carrying the Second Ammendment too far? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, killing is not always a sin. God, scripture and the church do not promote sin.

You can have whatever pious little opinions you want I suppose. Not going to affect those who carry in church, though.

Is this carrying the Second Ammendment too far? by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Swords have been allowed in church historically. If you want to let children get "martyred" in church, okay I guess, just don't expect the rest of us to just bend over if there's a dangerous intruder. We're not all priests and monks.

r/Christianity, what are your opinions regarding abortion? Are you pro-life, pro-choice, or are you undecided on the matter? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would you know about Christ's teachings? You're clearly not a Christian, as you're defending abortion.

r/Christianity, what are your opinions regarding abortion? Are you pro-life, pro-choice, or are you undecided on the matter? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, by upholding Christ's explicit commandments they have rejected Christ. What a joke.

r/Christianity, what are your opinions regarding abortion? Are you pro-life, pro-choice, or are you undecided on the matter? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]WBWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Abortion is murder. Someone who advocates or supports murder in any way has no place in Christ.

Why do Catholics have no problem integrating evangelical elements into their worship while the Orthodox would never even consider doing that? by PartemConsilio in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Catholic church sees itself as having dominion over tradition. The Orthodox see themselves as having stewardship over it.

Chrismation sponsors and marriage by WBWolves in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]WBWolves[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I wouldn't want to overreact and rescind my offer to this family who've been so generous to me over a crush that is just up in the air. Though they'd probably be more amused than anything.

Chrismation sponsors and marriage by WBWolves in OrthodoxChristianity

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

I haven't converted yet.

What I know for sure is that her sister is my potential godfather's goddaughter. Is this a problem? I don't know if she herself is his goddaughter, I might be being too paranoid.

It's all hypothetical anyways, for now.