I noticed this little list is going around, as much as I dislike "normiedoxy", some of the things listed here seems unreasonable and I'd like to give my perspective on them. Good conclusions necessarily are derived from good method and this is what I want to provide here as a 🧵: 1 and 2 It's not an actual term you see in the early church, but the conceptual idea is that certain things can be theologically optional/speculative. Dogmatic views sometimes are misunderstood to be merely optional beliefs (see toll houses, they are dogmatic)

What is the proper name to give to what is known today as the "Eastern Roman Empire" or the "Byzantine Empire", and an illustration of why the name "Byzantine Empire" for the Empire of the Romans is wrong, and a better, more accurate alternative.🧵 Some people refer to the so-called "Byzantine Empire" as the "Eastern Roman Empire". The name is due to the administrative division of the empire into two. In short, there was one nation separated into two, and each region was ruled diarchically, resulting in a tetrarchy.

Apostolic Canon 46 We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord has Christ with Belial, or what part has a believer with an infidel? Apostolic Canon 47 Let a bishop or presbyter who... shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

Realpill on modern dating

Rules and conditions set by women only apply to sub8 males with few exceptions. If you're average (between high 4 and 8) you need "game" in order to be successful. This applies whether you're looking for a religious woman or a secular woman. Women for various reasons, good and bad, always prefer to date but men on the other hand are willing to date down. This creates an imbalance in modern day dating where it becomes a race to the bottom for men.

Those who want an Orthodox take on the Demond vs Cassman debate, this article does a sufficient enough job to explain that we do not have the concept of "ipso facto excommunication" orthochristian.com/118822.html From the rudder of St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite: The canons command the councils and bishops to act in certain ways, but it is not actualized unless there's a formal decision made by a council. There is no such thing as automatic excommunication.

Although protestants are obviously closer to the Truth than Muslims, I've never seen a protestant defeat a Muslim in a debate.

This is because although they largely share the same presuppositions, the Muslim's presuppositions are more justifiable in comparison. For instance, whether their hermenutics are based on plain reading of scripture or studied reading of scripture, the Muslim has to perform way less mental gymnastics, which is why protestants always resort to the Aisha argument.