Refusing to Believe Homosexual Acts Are Wrong

[josh987654321]

I watched the video and read the press release…but I gotta say, it doesn’t look very convincing to me at all. The filmmakers should have kept the camera on her without leaving the “wound” area for cutaways, or else how can anyone watching be sure that they didn’t put some of her blood on her, or cut her, when the camera was away from the area?

.

Because of this - youshallbelieve.com/A-plea-to-humanity.pdf

There were 9 people who witnessed the stigmata first hand, one of whom was catholic priest Fr. Renzo Sessolo Chies.

Quoted from above link -

Also what these critics have conveniently failed to consider, is that if they believe Katya or someone else somehow inflicted these severe wounds on her without the camera or the witnesses noticing, how did she make those wounds heal completely overnight as they did?

There is also another video there, in the same town where a statue of Jesus with the crown of thorns starts to weep tears that turn into blood, it is all filmed, they even run the statue under a CAT scan to see if anything is causing it, right before your eye’s you see tears develop from nothing on the statue of christ’s cheek.

These are free short clips of it - youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=483

They also have the full video of the stigmata, however I am unsure where to go to get that for free, however in the one they show you, you can clearly see the wounds develop and increase, especially the wounds on her head in accordance with the crown of thorns, you can see the spots of blood appear from nothing.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry, this is a little off topic, however I really want to share this with you.

I hope this helps you.

Again I apologise for the off topic nature of this post.

Thank you for reading
Josh

A good point in Dr. Phil’s book, is that “If you want different, you have to do different” you have to identify the payoffs you recieve from smoking, then you can change them by changing the payoff’s or removing the payoff’s.

It’s like those who say “Im going on a diet” yet fill their cupboard up with unhealthy food, it isn’t going to work, you can’t rely on will power when it comes to these things, you need to set your environment up so that it pulls for your success to quit smoking.

You are probably not familiar with what is called the Axex of Change…what you are saying is exactly what I said…find a reason to move away from what you don’t want and towards what you do want. When you find what you want more desireable and more beneficial than what you don’t want then change can occur…

If you always had a smoke at a certain pub after work, than go to a different pub, you need to change your environment so that it pulls for your success, so that especially when you don’t have the will power to quit smoking, you have set your environment up so that the payoff of not smoking out ways the payoff of smoking.

For example when you really want a smoke, yet you have no cigarette’s, the inconvieniance of driving all the way into town to buy a packet of cigarette’s might be enough to out way the payoff of getting to smoke a cigarette.

In the Axes of Change this is called the Creation phase, formulating a plan that allows you to succeed.

Also it’s very, very hard to quite something when you go about it in a “cool down” way so to speak, the best way is to go “cold turkey” thats why they send drug addicts to a rehab facility, because that environment pulls for their success, they don’t have available resource to their addiction.

Some people stop all together, some people stop slowly, there is no way to know what works for anyone person. Drug addicts and alcoholics in rehab smoke.

No offense CopticChristian, but just ‘motivation’ doesn’t work, motivation comes and goes, people cannot rely on just motivation/will power to quit an addiction, they have to make the payoff they get from an addiction no longer a payoff, the payoff of not giving into an addiction needs to outway the payoff of giving into the addiction, thats what I mean when I say to quit an addiction they need to set their environment up so that it pulls for their success and that if they want different they have to do different, you are right though that motivation is the first step to want different, but the next step is to do different, most struggle with how to do different when the motivation/will power goes as it always does.

No offense taken, I don’t think you understand the mechanism of change. Think of anytime you ever changed or anytime anyone has ever changed…

I got so fat, I could not fit into my clothes and I was breathing hard and I decided to change…That decision came with motivation to fit in clothes, breathe better, etc…

Fat, sick, nearly Dead…is a movie that illustrates that…that resulted in a 60 day juice fast becuase of bad health and something had to be done…the motivation…get healthy

These are the stages of change and how change is accomplished and the first thing that kick starts the whole process is a reason for change that is the motivation to change. Absent motivation, no change occurs or the process will not occur…

1. The Energy stage: creating sufficient emotional energy, **motivation, **and creative tension to feel both the need and the desire for the change. This gives us a propulsion for change: away from the aversions and pains and toward the attractions and pleasures.

1. **The Decision stage: **creating sufficient understanding and knowledge about what to change, why it doesn’t work, and generating enough decision power to create a readiness forchange. This gives us the prod to say no to the current way of thinking, feeling, and actingand yes to the possibilities of a generative change.

3)** The Creation stage: **creating a specific action plan that describes the change, giving us a step-by-step plan that we can then begin acting on and experimenting with. This gives us the plan to implement and actualize in real life.

1. The Solidifying stage: creating specific rewards and support for the new actions that we celebrate an champion all the while testing, monitoring, and using feedback to make richer,fuller, and more integrated into our new habit and way of responding. This gives us a way to keep solidifying the change so that it becomes part of who we are and so that it fits ecologically into our life style.

I stopped drinking, why…I woke in a gutter and decided that my face on the asphalt was not good for me…Motivation

I went to the gym and started working out, why…I couldn’t stand that the other guys were getting all the girls and they were in better shape…Motivation

I started going to Church after 20 years, why…because I missed God and I knew I had to get back to my roots…Motivation

anytime change occurs it is the result of asking “why”…when you find the reason then you can start the process…

 

[Publisher]

Speaking of what one believes

Isn’t one’s belief in God, as with other beliefs, dependent on how one’s mind and conscience was formed and who formed it? Your religion ergo your belief system about God goes back to it’s founder George Fox in the 17th century and those who after him developed your religion. BTW, God doesn’t cast anyone aside without one’s will being fully engaged.

For example

The instruction from the beginning, is not only to watch out for, but to avoid any and all who cause division from the Church. They don’t serve Our Lord Jesus but their own selfish appetites Romans 16:17-20 That was given in the 1st century. It has no expiration date to that warning. The warning is further explained 2 Timothy 4:3-4 therefore, when one exercises their will against God’s will, that’s when the soul runs the risk of being cast aside. Galatians 5:19-21 & 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Don’t worry, no one is just willy nilly cast aside.

Friend George was the founder, along with his wife Margaret, of the Society of Friends. My belief…faith in God is based on and experience with Him. That was Friend George’s message…a message “forgotten” in England at the time…and I dare say “forgotten” by most who go by the name “Christian”. The message was that God could not be known thru books and rituals but only thru direct experience with His Presence, a Presence that each of us share…the Light Within. Each of us as individuals with diverse personalities and minds comes to experience God’s Presence in our lives when we look within to the one place we know He dwells. And we form community when we recognize 'that of God" in each person we see…if we want to know what God looks like, look at the face of your neighbor or the “least of these” and there He is.

The Light was made known in our world thru Jesus of Nazareth…the Presence of God among us. God still in among us through the Risen Christ in our midst and can be seen in every face if we will but take the time and “speak to that of God in one another”. He can be Experienced as an abiding a nd Living Presence thru faith in Him. Quakers don’t get to recite a creed and claim this is what we beleive, each of us must Experience God and “work our out own salvation”, it is a weighty responsibility to do so. The Truth is not something we recite on a First Day morning, or read in a book, Truth is to be lived our daily in our lives.

This Community of men and women who have experience God and recognize Him in one another IS the Church, so there is no division as it is He who makes one in Him. As individuals, we need not agree on every matter, or do we all think alike becasue our individual experience of life is different and varied. Our commonality is reflected best thru the Voice Friend George heard when God was made known to him…“There is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.” Jesus makes God known and finds each of us, comes to us, loves us, heals our wounder spirits. He is the One that can Speak the Answer to the human condition. And each of us can Hear that same Voice…He alone is our One Priest, our One Mediator.

 

[steve_b]

Friend George was the founder, along with his wife Margaret, of the Society of Friends. My belief…faith in God is based on and experience with Him. That was Friend George’s message…a message “forgotten” in England at the time…and I dare say “forgotten” by most who go by the name “Christian”. The message was that God could not be known thru books and rituals but only thru direct experience with His Presence, a Presence that each of us share…the Light Within. Each of us as individuals with diverse personalities and minds comes to experience God’s Presence in our lives when we look within to the one place we know He dwells. And we form community when we recognize 'that of God" in each person we see…if we want to know what God looks like, look at the face of your neighbor or the “least of these” and there He is.

The Light was made known in our world thru Jesus of Nazareth…the Presence of God among us. God still in among us through the Risen Christ in our midst and can be seen in every face if we will but take the time and “speak to that of God in one another”. He can be Experienced as an abiding a nd Living Presence thru faith in Him.

This Community of men and women who have experience God and recognize Him in one another IS the Church, so there is no division as it is He who makes one in Him. As individuals, we need not agree on every matter, or do we all think alike becasue our individual experience of life is different and varied. Our commonality is reflected best thru the Voice Friend George heard when God was made known to him…“There is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.” Jesus makes God known and finds each of us, comes to us, loves us, heals our wounder spirits. He is the One that can Speak the Answer to the human condition. And each of us can Hear that same Voice…He alone is our One Priest, our One Mediator.

Add George to a very long list of dissidents and schismatics from the faith over the last 2000 years, which was condemned in scripture Romans 16:17-20 2 Timothy 4:3-4 . An action as one can clearly see, that goes squarely against Our Lord’s prayer for the ones he directly ordains, and also the ones ordained by them, and those they ordain in succession from Jesus through His apostles through His Church. John 17:20-23 No division of any kind is allowed. Apart from Our Lord’s Church one can’t be saved.

It’s as I said, one’s belief in God, as with other beliefs, depends on how one’s mind and conscience was formed and who formed it. If they are formed by heretical teachers they will have heretical beliefs as well.

 

[Publisher]

Add George to a very long list of dissidents and schismatics from the faith over the last 2000 years, which was condemned in scripture Romans 16:17-20 2 Timothy 4:3-4 . An action as one can clearly see, that goes squarely against Our Lord’s prayer for the ones he directly ordains, and also the ones ordained by them, and those they ordain in succession from Jesus through His apostles through His Church. John 17:20-23 No division of any kind is allowed. Apart from Our Lord’s Church one can’t be saved.

It’s as I said, one’s belief in God, as with other beliefs, depends on how one’s mind and conscience was formed and who formed it. If they are formed by heretical teachers they will have heretical beliefs as well.

Oh, I understand, that is your belief formed by your teachers which you accept. In a very real way that is the “core” of your experience so far with God…it hasn’t been so with me however.

 

[steve_b]

Oh, I understand, that is your belief formed by your teachers which you accept. In a very real way that is the “core” of your experience so far with God…it hasn’t been so with me however.

Have a look (btw, click on skip the ad if one shows up)
youtube.com/watch?v=l89_4H8Cyzg&feature=player_embedded

 

[Publisher]

Have a look (btw, click on skip the ad if one shows up)
youtube.com/watch?v=l89_4H8Cyzg&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for the link…I’ll take a look later…if it’s just an “apologetic” for what your church fathers believed, it won’t carry much weight with me however. Their experience with God really won’t convince me of anything since my experience with God has already “convinced” me of His Presence, mercy and love thru Christ Jesus. But thank you for the link, I will view it.

 

[Publisher]

Have a look (btw, click on skip the ad if one shows up)
youtube.com/watch?v=l89_4H8Cyzg&feature=player_embedded

I thought what the “hay” and gave it a look. Interesting. I thought is strange the claim to “apostolic succession” for those who agreed with them was valid…but those who also claimed to receive their teachings directly from the apostles were wrong, perverse, puffed up.

How is it that the presbyters of the proto-Catholic sect of the first centuries were in direct line of the apostles, yet the Gnostic sects that claimed a direct link to the apostles were false? Who made the decision that a presbyter in your particual sect’s “succession” was “valid” but let’s say Thedus the “presbyter” of a Gnostic sect who claimed to have been taught by Paul himself…was not “valid”?

I know you probably couldn’t bring yourself to read any of Bart Erhman’s books…but his “Lost Christianities” make a great read to see how the 'proto-Catholics" made wild and crazy accusations of sexual deviancy, canniblism, violence toward the “heretics” but denied the same accusations when made against them. “tit for tat” seems to be the core of the ECF’s apoligetic.

 

[steve_b]

I thought what the “hay” and gave it a look. Interesting. I thought is strange the claim to “apostolic succession” for those who agreed with them was valid…but those who also claimed to receive their teachings directly from the apostles were wrong, perverse, puffed up.

Jesus being God in the flesh, knew divisions were going to take place. That’s why He prays especially for Them (the apostles) to be one as Jesus and the Father are one. And Jesus prays for those who would follow THEM, that THEY would be one with each other, as Jesus and the Father are one. John 17:20-23 This is His Church. The divisions from His Church are not from Him. He isn’t divided from Himself. And as Paul said, those who divide from Our Lord’s Church will not inherit heaven. Paul wouldn’t write those warnings about divisions if they weren’t already taking place. And the ECF’s follow suit in condemning division from the Catholic Church.
P:

How is it that the presbyters of the proto-Catholic sect of the first centuries were in direct line of the apostles, yet the Gnostic sects that claimed a direct link to the apostles were false? Who made the decision that a presbyter in your particual sect’s “succession” was “valid” but let’s say Thedus the “presbyter” of a Gnostic sect who claimed to have been taught by Paul himself…was not “valid”?

Divisions from the Church are nothing more than sects of heretics and schismatics. The apostles knew who they were, as did Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine etc etc etc and they wrote against them. You saw but a snippit of those writings in that short video.
P:

I know you probably couldn’t bring yourself to read any of Bart Erhman’s books…but his “Lost Christianities” make a great read to see how the 'proto-Catholics" made wild and crazy accusations of sexual deviancy, canniblism, violence toward the “heretics” but denied the same accusations when made against them. “tit for tat” seems to be the core of the ECF’s apoligetic.

Irenaeus already dealt with guys like Erhman. Claiming all sorts of errors and contradictions in the bible, thus tradition also, as if he was there when it was unfolding

Bk 3 Chapter 2 vs 2-3

 

[CopticChristian]

I thought what the “hay” and gave it a look. Interesting. I thought is strange the claim to “apostolic succession” for those who agreed with them was valid…but those who also claimed to receive their teachings directly from the apostles were wrong, perverse, puffed up.

How is it that the presbyters of the proto-Catholic sect of the first centuries were in direct line of the apostles, yet the Gnostic sects that claimed a direct link to the apostles were false? Who made the decision that a presbyter in your particual sect’s “succession” was “valid” but let’s say Thedus the “presbyter” of a Gnostic sect who claimed to have been taught by Paul himself…was not “valid”?

I know you probably couldn’t bring yourself to read any of Bart Erhman’s books…but his “Lost Christianities” make a great read to see how the 'proto-Catholics" made wild and crazy accusations of sexual deviancy, canniblism, violence toward the “heretics” but denied the same accusations when made against them. “tit for tat” seems to be the core of the ECF’s apoligetic.

Here is the problem everyone should have with Bart Ehrman and his “lost Christianity”…

Topics that have been written about, researched, and are established as accepted have in time a string of literature that supports that thought…

Ehrman’s notion of Lost Christianity is nothing more than a reframe of something that existed and called something else. A heretic by any other name remains a heretic…

It is no different than falling for the repackaging of homosexaulaity that is accepted as
"alternative lifestyles’

or

Euthanasia is just killing old people

or

Pro-choice is still murdering babies…

Call it anything you want…Christianity was never lost and if it was then it does not conform to what the Bible/Scripture you quote says for it did then you would be quoting the Christianity that in time blossomed over that which was “lost” and for good reason…survival of the fittest…

 

[Publisher]

Jesus being God in the flesh, knew divisions were going to take place. That’s why He prays especially for Them (the apostles) to be one as Jesus and the Father are one. And Jesus prays for those who would follow THEM, that THEY would be one with each other, as Jesus and the Father are one. John 17:20-23 This is His Church. The divisions from His Church are not from Him. He isn’t divided from Himself. And as Paul said, those who divide from Our Lord’s Church will not inherit heaven. Paul wouldn’t write those warnings about divisions if they weren’t already taking place. And the ECF’s follow suit in condemning division from the Catholic Church.

Divisions from the Church are nothing more than sects of heretics and schismatics. The apostles knew who they were, as did Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine etc etc etc and they wrote against them. You saw but a snippit of those writings in that short video.

Irenaeus already dealt with guys like Erhman. Claiming all sorts of errors and contradictions in the bible, thus tradition also, as if he was there when it was unfolding

Bk 3 Chapter 2 vs 2-3

Ireaneus was proto-Catholic…the ECF’s claimed apostolic succession…so did the other sects of the time. What the proto-orthodox claimed was not unique among the sects of the time…they just happend to benefit from the fact the proto-orthodox gathered those local congregations under a larger umbrella and kept those congregations in contact with each other…something which the other sects simply didn’t do.

Also the other sects were not too keen on affirming the Roman state and become part of it’s governmental system…the proto-Catholic bishops gained a large amount of political power as well as state backed religous authority when Constantine decriminalize Christianity especially later when the proto-orthodox was deemed the “correct” version of Christianity backed by the authority of the state…plus the state had an already tried and true form of communication operated by the proto-orthodox…a great network system which the state exploited to the max.

 

[livingwordunity]

Ireaneus was proto-Catholic…the ECF’s claimed apostolic succession…so did the other sects of the time. What the proto-orthodox claimed was not unique among the sects of the time…they just happend to benefit from the fact the proto-orthodox gathered those local congregations under a larger umbrella and kept those congregations in contact with each other…something which the other sects simply didn’t do.

Also the other sects were not too keen on affirming the Roman state and become part of it’s governmental system…the proto-Catholic bishops gained a large amount of political power as well as state backed religous authority when Constantine decriminalize Christianity especially later when the proto-orthodox was deemed the “correct” version of Christianity backed by the authority of the state…plus the state had an already tried and true form of communication operated by the proto-orthodox…a great network system which the state exploited to the max.

With so much doubt where is there room for faith?

 

[Publisher]

With so much doubt where is there room for faith?

Faith is not accepting stories that cannot be substantiated except by casting aside our minds…faith is how we live…faith is what we do…faith is how we view the world…faith is trusting that we are in Good Hands and whatever befalls us…what eveer sorrow touches our lives…what ever tradgedy overtakes us…there is still Someone in control…and we just see a short “snippet” of the Story…I believe in the Story Teller…not the plot of one small infitesimal part thru my own limited Sight.

That’s faith…the author of Job wrote the best statement on faith I’ve ever read…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him.” That’s faith.

 

[livingwordunity]

Faith is not accepting stories that cannot be substantiated except by casting aside our minds…faith is how we live…faith is what we do…faith is how we view the world…faith is trusting that we are in Good Hands and whatever befalls us…what eveer sorrow touches our lives…what ever tradgedy overtakes us…there is still Someone in control…and we just see a short “snippet” of the Story…I believe in the Story Teller…not the plot of one small infitesimal part thru my own limited Sight.

That’s faith…the author of Job wrote the best statement on faith I’ve ever read…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him.” That’s faith.

So you are a Deist?

 

[Publisher]

So you are a Deist?

No friend, I’m a Quaker. God is Present With Us…in us…surrounds us…touches us holds us…nurtures us…sustains us…that is a Quaker belief…God is aloof and has no dealing with his creation is Deist. Surely you can see the difference.

 

[livingwordunity]

No friend, I’m a Quaker. God is Present With Us…in us…surrounds us…touches us holds us…nurtures us…sustains us…that is a Quaker belief…God is aloof and has no dealing with his creation is Deist. Surely you can see the difference.

Do you believe in the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity that Jesus Christ is true God as well as being a true man? In other words, do you believe what is professed in the ancient apostle’s creed?

 

[Publisher]

Do you believe in the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity that Jesus Christ is true God as well as being a true man? In other words, do you believe what is professed in the ancient apostle’s creed?

While I do not embrace “trinity” as understandable at all…I do beleive Jesus of Nazareth in some way…beyond my understanding was “God among us”. When we could not reach Him…He came to us. Jesus was completely 100% human in every way. How God was present in Him is beyond my comprehension. But God lived among us, “he emptied himself and became a servant” I don’t know how He did it…Jesus is the “exact preresentaion of His person”…He is “Immanuel” “God with us”.

I have no interest in seeking to qualify this Mystery…God entered our humanity and became one of us…like us…so we could be like Him and show us in flesh and blood who He really was and what He really was like. His Risen Presence is among us thru the work of the Holy Spirite…The Comforter…don’t understand it…can’t explain it…it is an Experienced Reality.

I can’t affirm your creeds because they are human construct…“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”…“and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”…“In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God.”…

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions of what I believe…for I have no othe words to expalin this Mystery.

 

[Jaysuitical]

I have a situation going on with a non-Catholic Christian and I am really kind of at my wits’ end with this person. What started the entire thing was me voicing my thoughts about gay marriage (after reading everyone else state that Christians were evil for “hating” homosexuals and “condemning” them by not allowing them to marry their partners, etc.). This person pretty much attacked me and asked why I hated homosexuals if I was a Christian and that “nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin.” I pointed out to her that I never said being homosexual was a sin, either – but the homosexual ACTS are sinful. Again, she said the Bible doesn’t say that, and further added that, “Christ would never have condemned gay marriages.” I’ve shown her Scripture that says that homosexual acts are sinful. I have even shown her what the Catechism says. She continues to dismiss them and claim that they are my opinion only, that the book of Leviticus is not to be taken literally and again, that nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexual acts or homosexual marriage is wrong. She also claims that if there is something in the Bible that “hints that it’s okay to treat people with disregard such as Lev. 18:22, then you can ignore that because God would never want our righteousness to get in the way of loving other people.” I don’t even know how to respond to that! What can I possibly say to this person to make her understand that what the Bible says is not my “opinion” and that I’m not just pulling things out of thin air? She just refuses to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. Help!

This is one of the problems with Bible interpretation – any fundamental moral point can be dismissed as a ‘false interpretation’, while, of course, one’s own current interpretation is the “true” interpretation.

The Bible has nothing to say about ‘homosexual marriage’ because not even the most depraved pagan nations ever came up with the notion that people of the same sex could be considered, in any sense, married.

It’s false love to condone any actions of another on the grounds that God ‘would never want out own righteousness to get in the way of loving other people’. It’s like saying that not approving drunkenness stands in the way of ‘loving’ alcoholics.

There is an element of prurience involved in the approval of same-sex acts – as men are frequently fascinated by the idea of acts between women, women can also have a prurient fascination with acts between men. This prurience is what lies at the bottom of the idea that rejecting the practices is not ‘loving’.

 

[livingwordunity]

While I do not embrace “trinity” as understandable at all…I do beleive Jesus of Nazareth in some way…beyond my understanding was “God among us”. When we could not reach Him…He came to us. Jesus was completely 100% human in every way. How God was present in Him is beyond my comprehension. But God lived among us, “he emptied himself and became a servant” I don’t know how He did it…Jesus is the “exact preresentaion of His person”…He is “Immanuel” “God with us”.

I have no interest in seeking to qualify this Mystery…God entered our humanity and became one of us…like us…so we could be like Him and show us in flesh and blood who He really was and what He really was like. His Risen Presence is among us thru the work of the Holy Spirite…The Comforter…don’t understand it…can’t explain it…it is an Experienced Reality.

I can’t affirm your creeds because they are human construct…“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself”…“and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”…“In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God.”…

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions of what I believe…for I have no othe words to expalin this Mystery.

Have you ever read any books by Dr. Scott Hahn or Dr. Tim Gray about salvation history and/or books by Steve Ray on OT typology? These topics fascinate me, and these guys know a lot more than I do about it. I would recommend them to anyone.

 

[steve_b]

Ireaneus was proto-Catholic…the ECF’s claimed apostolic succession…so did the other sects of the time. What the proto-orthodox claimed was not unique among the sects of the time…they just happend to benefit from the fact the proto-orthodox gathered those local congregations under a larger umbrella and kept those congregations in contact with each other…something which the other sects simply didn’t do.

Also the other sects were not too keen on affirming the Roman state and become part of it’s governmental system…the proto-Catholic bishops gained a large amount of political power as well as state backed religous authority when Constantine decriminalize Christianity especially later when the proto-orthodox was deemed the “correct” version of Christianity backed by the authority of the state…plus the state had an already tried and true form of communication operated by the proto-orthodox…a great network system which the state exploited to the max.

:hypno: