Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that there is no need to stir up fear around nuclear weapons, as Christians are not afraid of the end of the world.
Kirill added that this “does not mean that we should sit by idly”.
“On the contrary, our earthly mission is to be the Lord’s soldiers … to resist evil and defend high moral ideals. This is the goal setting in Russia,” he said.
Empty words. Not only they don’t belive in their god, but also such a god, if existed, would hardly be happy of destruction of the world he created. So, if there are different sorts of hell, those who are responsible of world destruction would go to the worst sort of it.
Russia must be close to collapsing for them to be saying this sort of thing. Remember, nukes require all sorts of expensive things to work. Things that get stolen or scammed in a kleptocracy like Russia. Putin cannot depend on real knowledge of his arsenals readiness. Lots if not most all of his nukes won’t work. But almost all of the West’s will. Does even a crazy man risk it under this situation?
Nah, this has been the position of the Russian Orthodox Church for a very long time. They bless Russia’s nuclear weapons. This isn’t new.
Seriously heretic from an Orthodox Christian perspective.
Is this one of the guys that literally blesses Russian military equipment, including their nukes?
This is one of the guys that was a KGB agent, yes
Yeah, let’s all follow the guy that thinks he’ll be at the front of the line in the afterlife that doesn’t exist.
I mean are any of us at this point? Aren’t we all just kind of wishing for it? Let’s get this shit over with.
My favourite theory is we’re all dead and in purgatory, being teased with the end ofnthe world.
Kirill will burn in hell.
Me either. Launch em.
Let’s hit this guy first
Religion is a scourge on humanity. Just like Russia.
💯
Kill everyone before “don’t question your cult leader” loses it’s effect.
Standard cult leader stuff.
Split tongues, sharpen the blade
The war ends when they say
They don’t care, they won’t learn
Sit back and watch the world burnNo. I’m a Christian, and can say that the end of the world would not be liked by me
I’m pretty sure y’all are in fact ordered to take care of it and serve as good stewards of it. Also I seem to recall a rule against killing, and a guy advocating peace among all people
A random on the internet christian, or a patriarch. I’m gonna trust the patriarch
Unsure if sarcastic.
What if two patriarchs differ? I mean, they already differ because otherwise there’d only be one denomination of Christianity, so which one is right?
That was a trick question. You aren’t allowed to decide because you’re some random Christian. You can only allow your head to implode.
The one with the longest beard
What if two patriarchs differ?
Then they differ. The Orthodox Churches are autocepalous, that is, self-leading, there’s one per nation – and generally only one, if multiple are operating in the same then because they’re serving their diaspora and there’s no native orthodox church. The Patriarch of Constantinople has a special role among the patriarchs as first among equals but it’s about representation, calling synods, no actual power. Oh, one thing: To declare a Church autocephalous. The Russian Church maintains that it’s the prerogative of the individual Patriarchs to turn internal sub-divisions into new Churches and guess who declared the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephalous, and who didn’t, and who the other Patriarchs agree with.
That was a trick question. You aren’t allowed to decide because you’re some random Christian.
Christianity in fact has the doctrine of universal priesthood, though it tends to get forgotten: Believers need no mediator to be in contact with god, consequently, god can choose to act through anyone. Luther re-ignited that whole thing which is why Lutherans are saner and much more democratic than Catholics and then America happened making people retroactively think the reformation was a mistake. All you really need is a vision and a following and you’ve got yourself a denomination.
The truth of it all is that it’s all held together by inertia, tradition, and hastily applied duct tape slowly turning into the former two. Just like anything else in human culture.
The unbroken chain of succession is why catholic leadership is typically more sane than Lutheran leadership, though the laity can go either way.
American Catholics get a bad rap, but in my experience they have two groups that give it to them: the neofrancoists, and the vibes based converts. The average person who grew up a Catholic in America is socially a bit more conservative than the Democratic Party, but votes for them and is more opposed to state enforcement of religious rules than American Protestants. Think JFK and Biden.
I’ll also say that the rejection of sola fide and the reasonable hope for salvation by works alone are probably the things that temper Catholics the most. But really you get everyone from Alito to Dorothy Day under the umbrella of American Catholics. if you’ve done a lot of left wing activism in America you’ve probably worked alongside people who felt called to do so by their Catholic faith
I’m sorry but it wasn’t Lutheran leadership which systematically and institutionally covered for, protected, and enabled, paedophiles, and you dare talk back to me about sanity. That “unbroken chain of succession” is a massive source of hubris and self-righteousness. It’s also a myth there’s been plenty of broken links in that chain.
And why would sola fide need to be tampered: The difference here between Lutheran and Catholic positions, both accepting sola gratia, is that faith is the result of that grace, its acceptance, faith cannot be without grace. Your works aren’t god’s grace. Your prayer and your worship isn’t god’s grace, only god’s grace is god’s grace. You’ll see it at the heaven’s gates, you’ll see definite proof of it, all you need is to not reject it once you have that proof. You really think an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god would create a world with plenty reason for doubt but then “haha gotcha, stupid” people into hellfire.
Trusting that guy is a terrible idea. A random person is much more credible.
The neat thing about your statement is that it works both ways, canceling itself out with its own “logic”.
One random Christian says yes.
One random Christian says no.“Patriarch” is a social construct, everyone is “just a guy”. I do not revere a Christian more or less because they dress up like a wizard.
“Patriarch” is a social construct, everyone is “just a guy”
What I, a Christian Anarchist, have been trying to scream from the friggin rooftops lol. Thank you!!!
I do not revere a Christian more or less because they dress up like a wizard.
Yeah! But…what if my Gandalf cosplay is like really good tho?
👉👈
For real though, these fancy costumes and performative piety should not impress a follow of Jesus. It should disturb them.
Oh ok, never mind guys, this one random Christian on the internet said it’s ok.
That’s why we’re all so fucking weirded out by you.
Christianity is literally a death cult
The last super has cannibalism and vampirism.
Easter celebrates zombies.
Perhaps normal “interpretation”, but a spectacular misinterpretation of what he meant…
What you eat is the body/living-substance of LivingSpirit
What you drink is the “blood”/essence of LivingSpirit
ALL living-food is sacred.
He was telling people to focus on the prana they were eating/drinking, but in an Abrahamic-religion translation of it, & we’ve only got a distorted rendition of it to go from, too.
Try comparing it with what the Hopi say, & see how it’s the same thing, just in differen lingo…
( & yes, the way the Christian bible distorts things sometimes makes it nearly-impossible to see-through-the-cultural-gunk,
but once cracked-open, truth can be remarkably resilient )
( a completely-unrelated brilliant-insight in their bible is in Rev:
the John who wrote Rev was given the Book of Truth to eat…
in his mouth, syrupy-sweet…
in his belly, bitter…
Superficial-symbolic-truth is syrupy-sweet.
Digested-truth, experience-induced-understanding-that-goes-right-through, is bitter.
Perfectly nailed the diff between superficial-symbolic-“truth” and bitter-all-context-considered-all-confounding-factors-too-Truth.
I’ve never seen any Christian identifying that profound psychological-truth, as what it is: they just memorize stuff by rote, not really-understand it?
shruggeth )
_ /\ _
Uhm. This is why historical context is incredibly important when talking about these things.
Jesus was the son of a carpenter. he wasn’t exactly wealthy, by any means. He certainly didn’t have the resources to take a trip to India to study anything- such a trip would have taken at least a year just to travel.
He was raised in the Jewish tradition and taught their religious teachings, which, most certainly did not include the philosophies of other religions. Suffice it to say, that Jesus was thoroughly Jewish his both his understanding of the world about him, and how he expressed that understanding.
Further to the point, when jesus was at what we now call “the last supper”… he was not speaking to a bunch of Hindus. he was speaking to a bunch of Jewish men. Even if he had been aware that Hindus exist at all- never mind having studied their teachings and philosophies- he wouldn’t be relating such in that place at that time.
When he says “this is my body” or however you want to translate that, he meant it to be a more literal symbolism than you ascribe. in jewish tradition, when an animal was brought to the temple for sacrifice, it was common for only a small part of that animal to be burned at the altar. the rest of that animal was then divided between the priests and the petitioner (or it went entirely to the priests, or it was the less-common sort that was entirely burned. it depends on the reason for the sacrifice).
he was speaking to jewish men. He was establishing a new sort of sacrificial offering (the right of communion.) and while the disciples didn’t fully understand what he meant, they figured it out pretty damn quickly. he was saying he’s the ‘final’ sacrifice, and therefore- as part of the ritual offering- his followers were to symbolically consume his flesh and blood.
now Catholics take that a step further and follow a doctrine that says the communion bread and wine literally become such during the right (it’s called ‘transubstantiation’). But he was ultimately talking about how he was a sacrifice and he was establishing a new sort of ritual for his followers.
This was an echo of already-established jewish tradition. he wasn’t drawing on hindu or hopi or any one else’s teachings. he was drawing on jewish tradition surrounding sacrificial offerings and echoing that. because he and his followers were jewish.
Totally original idea man, imagine if Netflix made a show showing the parallels of vampires and Catholics.
So something by Anne rice?
Rad
Some denominations are even a cannibalistic death cult (with a special focus on blood and raw meat).
All of the abrahamic religions are. It could probably be argued that Hinduism is as well, at least historically, as far as the caste system basis and such. Not sure what modern Hindu beliefs are whatsoever tho.
Ok, but they should logically be afraid of causing it. The only reason not to be afraid of the end of the world is if you’re going to the good afterlife.
