Roosh Hour #65 – Milo Yiannopoulos

The sun is not a lightbulb. I'll repeat then flesh out what @MichaelWitcoff said, The sun cannot exist without giving off light, and sunlight cannot exist apart from the sun which causes it. If it does not give off light, then it's not a sun. If the sun ceased to give off light, then it wouldn't be the sun anymore. It may have used to be a sun, but it is not a sun anymore. Objects require properties for their existence, without those properties they cease to be the same thing. If you throw a chair into a fire, is it still a chair? or would you describe is as a pile of ashes? Is a hole still a hole if it's been filled?

@MichaelWitcoff read my previous post on page 8, Dr Johnson/Fr. Raphael believes that St. Augustine is misinterpreted.
Again, I understand the analogy but it's not 100% suitable for describing the creation of the Trinity purely because we know that the light is literally created this tiny fraction of a moment after the source of light comes to existence. And alternatively, the light might still exist even after it's source ceased to do so (many stars we see is in fact just the light they produced as they are already dead). To apply this analogy to the Trinity we would have to accept that there was a moment when there was only the Father.
 

iop890

Peacock
Gold Member
Have you considered if the increased issues are a result of the overall shift in attitude/saltiness of the EO membership on the forum here has changed after Roosh joined ROCOR?

Remember Matthew 7.

The last time you made these vague accusations about Orthodox members was in the thread about the non-Chalcedonian churches where you were offended over the Orthodox members having the gall to correct someone that thought churches which schismed in 451 were Eastern Orthodox.

After I asked what was wrong with this you stopped responding.
 

citizen

Pigeon
The Icon of the ladder is so appropriate.

The weakness of his particular catholic upbringing quite evident.

He is reacting from pain body, fear of hell, not healthy.

I bet Spiridon is clamping at the bit between chiding you both for focusing on past sins and not the steps needed for healing, and wether it's humble to do so.

Milo is obviously struggling with something. Loss of income, personal life, and habits he is interpreting as part of him.

He even describes himself in animalistic terms (attack dog for conservatism) , possibly the biggest block is his attachment to the old personality, a sincere searcher will find the way.

It would have been better for him to go away for a few more years, an entirely different fight, himself, visit monasteries, delete social media, throw away the world and pick up his cross.

A dog will return to its vomit.

Maybe part of the healing is learning we are more then that.
 
Last edited:

Rivershield

Pigeon
I'm a brazilian protestant from the Presbyterian Church in Brazil, and I find it absurd the things Roosh says about protestantism. It seems to me that either there's a huge misunderstanding of our teology or American Protestantism is so far gone thatno american nowadays can actually acquire any understanding of protestantism as long as their reference are american or european churches.
 

Janine

Chicken
Woman
Roosh, I discovered you today courtesy of Milo's YouTube channel. I am Orthodox (me, Armenian; husband, Greek), and I just wanted to complement you on your demeanor. Very humble. God bless you. I have no doubt this conversation, despite the feisty-ness and resistance of your guest, will have an impact on him. I remember the Jordan Peterson interview with him which was superb in its probing of psychological realities. I am sure that also started Milo on a particular road. I pray for both of you, Lord have mercy on all of us. Peace.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Orthodox
I'm a brazilian protestant from the Presbyterian Church in Brazil, and I find it absurd the things Roosh says about protestantism. It seems to me that either there's a huge misunderstanding of our teology or American Protestantism is so far gone thatno american nowadays can actually acquire any understanding of protestantism as long as their reference are american or european churches.
Father Josiah Trenham, an Orthodox priest and former Presbyterian minister has a two part series on the faults of Protestantism:


The main criticisms predate any American Protestant zaniness. Protestantism, no matter how you look at it, and from the very beginning was a new faith. People including all of the Church Fathers and saints, believed in the real presence of the Eucharist. They stripped away much of the biblical canon that didn't support their arguments, denied the Eucharist (Christ had many followers leave when He told them to partake of his Body and Blood), believe in sola scriptura, but don't believe in the Church that compiled the bible, many denominations ignore that clear apostolic succession taking place in Acts with new bishops being ordained, etc. None of that is American specific or even touches on the ridiculousness of the Pentecostal movement.
 

gwk123

Chicken
Jimmy Martin and his Jesuit 'ilk' are ready to deal with this 'clown'. Fr. James Martin is an unusual catholic priest. HE KNOWS HIS BIBLE! I followed Joseph Nicolosi's 'reparative therapy' business for personal reasons and discovered that 'you can't pray the 'gay' away! This whole endeavour on Milo's part is going to be very 'messy'! Roosh, I appreciated the firm 'correction' you offered Milo maintaining that we are spiritual infants. That did something I've rarely seen happen with Milo, it shut him up for a bit. Keep up with your pursuit of 'purity via the 'Pilgrim's' prayer!
 

Jessie

Sparrow
Woman
I am a Protestant and have been actively seeking God since about 2005. During this time I have listened to over 10,000 sermons and read more than 10,000 pages of theology. I firmly believe that I knew Christ in 2005 (and likely even earlier) but during this time I shifted my views on dozens of different issues starting in the non-denominational megachurch movement to settle into what I am firmly convinced is true: Reformed Presbyterianism. I can attest that I know firsthand that God has been mightily at work in me and I am genuinely his, but also that there is not a magic period where it stops being difficult. God's grace is instrumental.

At the same time I do find it distasteful to see so much Protestant bashing between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in between discussions about humility. By your own admissions you are not very well informed on all the details of your own faiths so I don't even understand how you can even know if they are accurate. I have noticed that in the neo-reactionary/redpill/trad movement there has been a reflexive but unreflective rejection of Protestantism as we are scapegoated for all the problems in the world but I find this behavior very lazy.
I agree. It seems that all Protestantism is lumped together with the likes of Joel Osteen, rainbow flags of degenerate denominations, and churches with effeminate men in leadership, or women. I mean, the Catholic Church has its share of horrors with the current pope and the child molester priests. Or the Orthodox churches that won’t open up because of covid. Each Protestant church has to be weighed by its own merit. I mean, I don’t recall any of the Catholics or Ortho churches standing up to the government during the lockdowns, while mine did and faced fines, imprisonment for our pastor, etc. Only the Protestant churches stood when it mattered.
 

Rivershield

Pigeon
Father Josiah Trenham, an Orthodox priest and former Presbyterian minister has a two part series on the faults of Protestantism:


The main criticisms predate any American Protestant zaniness. Protestantism, no matter how you look at it, and from the very beginning was a new faith. People including all of the Church Fathers and saints, believed in the real presence of the Eucharist. They stripped away much of the biblical canon that didn't support their arguments, denied the Eucharist (Christ had many followers leave when He told them to partake of his Body and Blood), believe in sola scriptura, but don't believe in the Church that compiled the bible, many denominations ignore that clear apostolic succession taking place in Acts with new bishops being ordained, etc. None of that is American specific or even touches on the ridiculousness of the Pentecostal movement.
I will watch these videos when I have the time.
But, for now, I will just say that protestantism is a reform, in other words, a return to the original gospels which the catholics distorted over time. We never doubted the church which compiled the Bible. We also adhere to the creeds of the times of Saint Augustin. The church we wanted to reform, however, was no longer THAT church. We questioned what that church had become, with all the indulgences and other heresies they created to justify their material longings and apparent urge for political influence.
I have a huge deal of a respect for early catholicism, as I'm myself a descendant of a Templar from spain. However, when I read about the church of the apostles, and the early Roman Church, I do not see that in modern catholicism. At least not here in Brazil.

Here, the Catholic Church even assimilated pagan gods from the religions of the slaves and indians and just changed the names of those gods to one form of Mary or John. They also tolerated mysticial practicies like fortune telling and talking with spirits (aka demons) which my own grandmother, a fervorous catholic, practiced. And in the region I lived up north they had something called Círio de Nazaré (you can google it if you want). Nazaré is a type of Virgin Mary which they say appeared in the city of Nazaré. Almost all brazilian cities have their own Virgin Mary which they claim appeared at one point, so they built statues of her and bow and pray to them and make vows to these statues. They pray to her as if she was a goddess who can grant wishes. Tell me how this is not idolatry.
I was born in a city called Santa Luzia (which means Saint Luzia). I have no idea who Luzia was, but she sure was not a saint because that city was created out of brothels. Some say she was an ex-prostitute who converted and married a Baron, and was famous for her charity. Other says she never existed. Nevertheless, it's hard to believe she was a saint given the fact that my city was never specially faithfull as far as recorded history is concerned.

Lastly, the Catholic Church rightfully prohibited europeans in medieval times and beyond from practicing usury, but tolerated jews doing it. Why? This is what led to jewish families becoming wealth powerhouses withim european soil, despite many banishments, and these families are the source of the degeneration of western civilization. The Catholics had many opportunities of eliminating once and for all the Synagogue of Satan, but not only they didn't but they mixed with and made deals with them, despite Luther warning them of their danger. Now we all pay the price.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Orthodox
Here, the Catholic Church even assimilated pagan gods from the religions of the slaves and indians and just changed the names of those gods to one form of Mary or John. They also tolerated mysticial practicies like fortune telling and talking with spirits (aka demons) which my own grandmother, a fervorous catholic, practiced. And in the region I lived up north they had something called Círio de Nazaré (you can google it if you want). Nazaré is a type of Virgin Mary which they say appeared in the city of Nazaré. Almost all brazilian cities have their own Virgin Mary which they claim appeared at one point, so they built statues of her and bow and pray to them and make vows to these statues. They pray to her as if she was a goddess who can grant wishes. Tell me how this is not idolatry.
Look, many Catholics here strongly dislike me here, but I'll defend them on this one. The issue with the Roman Catholic Church largely has to do with the poorly catechized natives - there is no Catholic teaching that endorses anything like fortune telling or talking with spirits. They simply were not taught correctly and then people were taught by people who were not taught correctly, so on and so forth. The native peoples of Central and South America had very barbaric and idolatrous beliefs before they were colonized that are not representative of Roman Catholicism as a whole.

Also just because someone is very spiritual does not make them a fervent Catholic. I doubt your grandma studied the Roman Catholic Catechism for example. The very same types of whacky beliefs are carried on in some Protestant Caribbean islands where the black islanders worship Haile Selassie - but that doesn't represent all of Protestantism.
 

Rivershield

Pigeon
Look, many Catholics here strongly dislike me here, but I'll defend them on this one. The issue with the Roman Catholic Church largely has to do with the poorly catechized natives - there is no Catholic teaching that endorses anything like fortune telling or talking with spirits. They simply were not taught correctly and then people were taught by people who were not taught correctly, so on and so forth. The native peoples of Central and South America had very barbaric and idolatrous beliefs before they were colonized that are not representative of Roman Catholicism as a whole.

Also just because someone is very spiritual does not make them a fervent Catholic. I doubt your grandma studied the Roman Catholic Catechism for example. The very same types of whacky beliefs are carried on in some Protestant Caribbean islands where the black islanders worship Haile Selassie - but that doesn't represent all of Protestantism.
I understand. I have read some catholic material and it does indeed not endorse such heresies that I mentioned. But the brazilian church does.
Differently from prostestant denominations which do not hold autorithy with one another, all Roman Catholic Churches must answer to one central leader, the Pope. The Pope never done anything to punish the cardinals which tolerated such heresies. The catholics are more interested in keeping their civilizational influence than to correct the heresies that might lead the people to leave the church and thus make them lose power.
 

shrinebuilder

Chicken
Orthodox
He just wasn't getting it - and if he keeps trying to be in the limelight he runs the risk of becoming another Michael Vooris (Church Militant), who in spite of some good journalism was still carrying on as an active participant in deviant life while pretending to be repentant.
Could you please elaborate what's wrong with Michael Vooris? His videos seem quite based.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
The issue with Voris is that by highlighting scandal within the Catholic Church, he could be leading people away from inquiring, and hence away from Christ.
No, the issue with Voris is that he a manipulative character with a highly chequered past who is more likely to cause scandal than find it. E Michael Jones wrote a book about him, The Man Behind The Curtain, which goes into his experience of dealing with this arch-narcissist. Everything Voris touches is a function of his twisted soul and another act in his homo ego drama, which is why he seeks out conflict and exposing self-identified wrongs in others, or other institutions, like the Church.
His whole TV larp is a reaction to the crushing guilt he must feel because of the things he has done in life and the people he has himself hurt. I understand he was molested at a young age and he obviously never got over this awful crime. These men who are so damaged need to heal in private and remove themselves from the media for some years, or preferably forever.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
Could you please elaborate what's wrong with Michael Vooris? His videos seem quite based.
EMJ wrote a pretty detailed break down of Vooris. Don't get me wrong, Church Militant has done a lot of great work finding out information that I never would have heard, but Vooris is living a lie. He pretends to be reformed and virtuous but continues to live an actively homosexual lifestyle, according to members of that community who regularly report his antics as an effort to discredit him. It used to be on Amazon; you may be able to find a copy out there.


When I heard Milo speaking to Roosh, I could not help but be reminded of Vooris living nothing like the penitent soul he pretends to be. I really want to be wrong about Milo and hope he's on the right path with the best influences. The more he goes towards anything narcissistic, the more he risks falling back into his old ways.
 

Basilus of Moro

Sparrow
Orthodox
I joined specifically to relate some comments on the exchange with Milo. I've been meaning to join for awhile, but this pushed me to finally do it.

As a general impression, it seems that Milo represents a kind of microcosm of papist methodology and therapeutics, although he and anyone else would surely admit he has a long way to go even if he follows that method. I must note here that the papist methodology and therapeutic is very different from the authentic Orthodox one, and so it is from that principle (the Orthodox method) that I will evaluate Milo's perspective.

Before I say too much by way of detail, I should summarize some of the main points I wish to dive into. These are not necessarily in order of their appearance during the stream.

First, Milo expressed the idea that there is a certain bare minimum, the major sins that imperil his mortal soul, that must be avoided, while seemingly excusing minor sins that he engages in for some greater goal, his "calling," as he sees it. He could have merely claimed that his calling is NOT in contrast or opposed to his rhetorical methods, but although he sought to defend this rhetoric, he did also admit that they were not proper, or ideal, or the kinds of things that were not in some way sinful. This was not clearly teased out, however, although it lends itself to the next observation & analysis.

Second, Milo seemed to think that prayer for himself is less than ideal; again, that it is opposed to his calling, or would at the very least hamper its success. He seemed to think that, although the papist prayer books contain that kind of thing, it is not essential, that is, lacking it, he does not imperil his soul. This is a theme that continued, that is, the principle that things that do not imperil one's soul are permissible.

Third, Milo often contrasted his calling with a more cloistered approach, a monastic approach. He likened his approach to Francis of Assisi - perceptively, but I will come back to that. This is partly why he thought it unnecessary to pray too much for himself.

Fourth, Milo noted his wandering mind. He did humbly ask for help with this, and noted that he never received much specific instruction from the papist priests who advise him. This is very interesting, and something to really emphasize as we delve in further.

Fifth, and finally, Milo was rather taken aback when Roosh said Christ did not laugh. He thought this absurd. In his breakdown of Scandinavian culture, he described the lack of joy, dancing, smiling, etc.. Although he did not draw out this connection, it is interesting to note that he seemingly dismissed Orthodox monasticism (perhaps in jest) due to its joyless seclusion, and he also seemed to think Roosh's lack of humor was related to some problem, though he didn't go into detail. It is also worth noting here that he thought many people became Orthodox because of the earthy, down-to-earth aesthetics.

There's more to draw attention to, but I don't have enough time to do so.

To keep the structure clear enough, I'll use numbers to reference expansions of the above summaries.

TO (1), this seems to be a papist principle, the principle of minimalism: "what's the bare minimum that one must do to fulfill x?" Here is where the search for the necessary and sufficient conditions reveals its reductionistic nature. When the papist considers baptism, he thinks, well we just need the matter (water), the form (in the name of trinity), and the intention (to be baptized into the "church"), and so came the renovation of the rite of baptism in the post-schism West. This of course came slowly, and did not reach absurd levels of mere pouring until much later. Without getting into the history, St. Mark of Ephesus charged the papists at Florence with having "two baptisms" - one by pouring and one by immersion, but the reply by the papists was that they had one baptism by immersion, but did not fully immerse infants, rather submerging them to their neck, then pouring on their head (still not proper, but it goes to show they had not abandoned the proper form even in the 15th century). This same principle is the source of innumerable heresies in the west, but more for our purposes, it is the source of a kind of minimalist piety that does not imitate the saints, but rather gives a list of how often one must confess, or receive communion, a so called manual, etc. By contrast, the Orthodox Church is maximalist. We don't ask, "what's the minimum thing we must do," but merely "how has this always been done"? I should add of course that there is OF COURSE the things we must do, but the approach is not to ask that question, but merely to pass on what we have received, and hold up the uncompromising lives of the saints.

The second issue here is difficult for me to make. With mere minimalism, you cannot get to a pour over baptism, or believing / excusing smaller sins. The next principle needed is logos as EMJ conceives it: that the Logos is known via the intellect, and that one can take aspects known in this manner, and infer on their basis some further principle, that can then be used to infer something else. Because Milo started with the bare minimum ("what keeps me away from sodomy"), he infers that that means he can continue on, knowingly, with lesser sins. This line of thinking is later used to seemingly dismiss any ascetical methods. For Orthodox Christians, we know we will sin, and so must be humble, but we must not sin knowingly, or grace will depart until we repent. And if grace is not operating, there is no synergy, and one cannot say one is fulfilling a calling. This is why the Fathers speak so often of guarding grace. Christ is all or nothing. This is the absolutely high calling we must all undertake. If He is in us, we are with Him, but if we depart from Him, the Holy Spirit departs from us. Humility and repentance attracts Him, but excusing sins sullies us for His approach. Although at some level papists may get this point, I do not believe this is something stressed, or understood entirely both due to them being outside of the Church, and also due to them lacking the therapeutic method of the Church that produces saints. The main point I want to make, however, is that a good thing cannot be done in a bad way. Milo does seem to have acquired a measure of humility, and so his confusions might just be temporary blips, although my desire is not to psychoanalyze him.

TO (2), our calling cannot be opposed to a sinless life, as already stated. God will accept our lowly offerings, if done with humility, but if we knowingly excuse and believe our approach is moved by sin, in part, God will not accept this. All of our callings do not come from some abstracted principle of what's good, or discovered via the rational intellect's wanderings. Our calling comes from Christ's Life. He charts the Way, and we follow, and so our calling is really just a participation in His life and His Way, and His Way is not moved by sin. Again, THIS is the high calling all must fulfill, and lacking that, we must ask God's mercy.

The other important point to stress in reply is that we cannot help anyone unless we are ourselves helped and healed. I speak here only of disposition. I'm not implying that one must be healed entirely to help another, but one must humbly offer whatever they can, within limit, while asking God for his forgiveness for what is surely the sinful mires of the evil one that ensnare our every act. We mustn't think we are saving the world, or even doing much good. God takes our pittance and multiplies it. We only offer mere disposition. If we are moved by our own ends, God will not bless this. Think of why this is true in this way: if a tree is dying, it will not produce fruit. Sin is death.

TO (3), Milo represents here a very common perspective. The question always must be "what does Christ want?" He Himself said after His ascension, His disciples would fast and live ascetically. In His many parables, He cautioned that we must be like the wise virgins, staying vigilant always, even at night, ready to receive the bride groom through the purity of our faith that dwells only in a purified heart. The holiest of ascetics in our day (and since the beginning) do vigil, pray without ceasing, even sometimes forgoing sleep for months (as did St. Gregory Palamas). They live an angelic life, and they show us the Way - that Way that Christ Himself charted out.

I must also stress that prayer moves the cosmos, and sustains creation. If holy people did not entreat our Lord, what would become of the world? The beast would be unchained, since the Church restricts him. The Church does not restrict the devil by merely outward operations, but principally by prayer, which purifies and illumines. It is therefore vitally important that we hold up our Orthodox monastics, especially when they live hesychastically.

There is no genuine, spiritual contrast between monastics and lay people. The calling is the cross, though the mode may differ. Nonetheless, we mustn't make too fine a point about this difference, since it is this desire to pull things apart, to reduce to the minimal aspects that serves to destroy pious intention. Nothing in our Faith works without discernment, so let us permit discernment.

Now with reference to Francis of Asisi, I think it would be enough to quote Fr. Seraphim Rose, and leave it to the reader to make any relevant connections with Milo's current situation:

"So we've seen in the Middle Ages the rationalism, logicalness, replacing faith or taking over and shaping now faith, becoming the criteria, romantic elements entering in. And now we come to a very important concept which is maybe even more important than Scholasticism, because in the end this will do more to bring about Antichrist than Scholasticism. This is the concept of sanctity which becomes now different from the Orthodox concept of sanctity. And the best example of this is the life of Francis of Assisi.

The fact that this man became so popular, in fact, tremendously popular wherever he went, people went around, acted like Christ Himself coming to them; and they sang and accompanied him. He aroused great enthusiasm, which shows that he was very much in the spirit of his times. But if we look at his life, we see that it is so strange from the Orthodox point of view; and we can say that it's not at all an Orthodox Life of a Saint.

For one thing, he founded a new manner of life. He invented the rule of poverty because in church one day the Gospel was being preached about poverty, about the Apostles not taking anything with them when they preached, although later on, of course, the Apostles did take with them money and so forth. The first time they went out they went by two's to the cities preaching to the Jews and took nothing with them. And he heard this in church and became inspired to invent a new rule, a new way of life, a rule of poverty based on the Gospel, as though there was no monastic tradition before him, which there was. And there were many great Saints at this time.

[...]

Another aspect of his so-called "sanctity." One historian of him says, "His very asceticism was often clothed in the guise of romance." So he woos the Lady Poverty, thinks about her as though she's a real person, and keeps wooing her, as the bridegroom, and of course about Sister Death and all of these personifications.

And a very typical example of something new which is not at all Orthodox is what happened once when he was sick. He ate meat. And an Orthodox person who isn't a monk maybe might eat meat during sickness or something. If he did he would feel repentant about it, ask God's forgiveness, and feel that "I'm no good anyway," and ask that if He would, God forgive him. But not Francis of Assisi. Instead, he went out to preach to the people. There was a large crowd, thousands of people as usual, and he said, "Stop. Everyone stay here until I come back." And he went to the church nearby, and he forced two of his disciples to do whatever he told them out of obedience. One of them poured over his head ashes, a bucket full of ashes; the second put a rope around his neck and led him out before the people who were all waiting to see what's going to happen. And here comes Francis of Assisi led by a rope with ashes on his black head, and he looks at them and says, "You consider me a saint, but I ate meat when I was sick.""

(Orthodox Survival Course; one day I will post a nicely designed version of it)

TO (4), this is where our Holy and God Bearing Fathers shine like a battle standard in our ailing age. This is the summit of the faith, and the one thing needful indeed. Vigilance is required of all. The attention is where we hold ourselves, and it is the place that the demons most desire to assault us. It makes sense that Milo (like all of us) has issues with his attention. He said he can barely pray. So many of us are the same. As I understand it, the papists have entirely lost any understanding or practice of noetic prayer, of hesychia, or of wakefulness (as the virgins in the parable), not only among the monks, but also more obviously among the laity. This is the crux upon which all of Milo's troubles arise (as for us). This is why he cannot help anyone truly unless he acquires watchfulness over his thoughts and says the Jesus prayer with attention on his heart. This is why there is no spiritual contrast, at bottom, between laity and monastics. If he acquires this method in the Orthodox Church, he will find the absolute and enduring balsam for his troubles. God help him to find it (and us).

TO (5), I don't want to dive into this one too much since there's far too much to say. I do not have any quotes on the matter, but I have heard it said of the Fathers, that they taught that Christ did not laugh. If we are being honest with ourselves, if our life is directed towards repentance, what is there to laugh about? Sobriety is opposed to wantonness, jokiness, and idle talk. Vigilance is opposed similarly. If we acquire purification, illumination, and deification, we will weep for our sins and the sins of the world. None of us are on this level. That said, there is perhaps a place for laughing at oneself, or a laughter used to throw off the demons. Elder Joseph the Hesychast once laughed, seemingly randomly, and so his disciple asked why. He replied, if memory serves, that he did this to throw off the demons since he was despairing. The demons can send us thoughts, but they do not read our minds, that is, how we appropriate those thoughts. They are nonetheless very good at observation.

The take away in describing Orthodox culture is that it is no fun to the deeply perverted west. At first, it IS exciting due to its novelty, but many have come for novelty and grown tired at the high calling, either falling into indifferent secularism, or completely leaving the Church altogether. To make progress, we have to have some desire for paradise, to have rejected this world for the deathly end it offers. We have long lived by poisonous waters and grown accustomed to their stench, even - God forbid! - enjoying the noxious smell and taste. Our ancestors passed on this rotten estate to us as though it were precious and hard fought, but in truth, it is poison and death, sometimes mixed with lovely seeming perfume.

And so Orthodoxy isn't about high culture or poetry. Although we have all of those things, they are energized by Christ, and if they lack that, they are useless dead ends. The joy then of Orthodox culture isn't found in some vague good, true, or beautiful, but in the particularized life of Christ that moves unto paradise. The rest (those cultural things that are good, true, or beautiful in some worldly manner) are threads that lead to Christ, but we do not hold them up as examples or as virtues, but merely humbly accept the many and divers manners God undertakes to lead man into His Church, the Orthodox Church.

Milo is clearly moving away from a bad thing (sodomy), and for that we must all thank God. Like all of us, he faces many battles, but like all of us, he can only really make sustained and substantial progress along one straight and narrow road. God help him to find it.

If anything above is untrue, or if I got carried away with my language, forgive me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
The demons can send us thoughts, but they do not read our minds, that is, how we appropriate those thoughts. They are nonetheless very good at observation.
Can you expand more on this, particular what the Church Fathers said about the ability of demons to read our thoughts?
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I'm glad Milo is realizing the absurdity and degeneracy of the gay lifestyle and the fact that he deciding in being celibate. That is a good decision, however, I don't think he is actually saved. He says in one article that he is saved by Jesus' Grace, practicing Catholicism and following St Joseph. That is contrary to what the Bible teaches on Salvation. There is no works when it comes to Salvation. He would have to put his Faith in the Cross. Jesus already paid for his sin. Another theory I have, considering his history of trolling the Left, is that he is doing this all for show and that he is being paid for another stunt. There are things being said that he is actually an FBI informant and that he is secretly working with the government.
That's interesting for both Milo and Roosh laughed at the protestant idea of being saved at a particular day. ''It was may 15th when I was saved and that was that''. Nah the struggle is way broader. Personally I think it's a deception to think that believing in Christ is it and nothing more is required, it doesn't matter what you do for you are saved. It appears to be somewhat arrogant and even prideful to me to even make the statement about yourself that you're saved. Personally I fall back all the time at this moment even though I genuinely believe in Christ and the Gospel, but doing the works and orient and navigate yourself in daily life in this modern world is an utmost challenge, I think it would be unwise and even delusional to deny that.
 

Vigilant

Kingfisher
Woman
That's interesting for both Milo and Roosh laughed at the protestant idea of being saved at a particular day. ''It was may 15th when I was saved and that was that''. Nah the struggle is way broader. Personally I think it's a deception to think that believing in Christ is it and nothing more is required, it doesn't matter what you do for you are saved. It appears to be somewhat arrogant and even prideful to me to even make the statement about yourself that you're saved. Personally I fall back all the time at this moment even though I genuinely believe in Christ and the Gospel, but doing the works and orient and navigate yourself in daily life in this modern world is an utmost challenge, I think it would be unwise and even delusional to deny that.
For this protestant, if I am truly saved I would have been saved before the world was created, and assuming I'm saved I have no idea when this conversion took place.
I have an inconsistent struggle working out my salvation in fear and trembling.

Philippians 2:12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
 
Top