Dust...

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1351653052' post='2500887']
Eh- I am actually one of the few undecideds on here. For sure not Obama. I am having some moral issues with voting for Romney, but in reality it is either going to be Romney or Obama. So I am back and forth on the issue. Still praying/discerning who I am going to vote for.

Sorry I highjacked your thread to poke at dUSt. If you got some time and a few beers read the Debate Table and you'll get it.
[/quote]
Poke at? This was a serious proposal to Dust.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351652129' post='2500869']
[snip]Robama has already stated he would return to Iraq.

Robama[snip]
[/quote]
You'd make an excellent salesman for the "I bark for Barack" or "Get ruff with Romney" campaigns.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5nxFz75QxGM/UFoHis_AeVI/AAAAAAAAMwo/tiKgSfKE-64/s1600/I-bark-for-Obama.jpg

Are you secretly Scooby Doo?

[dUSt]

Every tag is another "member group" I must create a completely separate set of permissions and settings for, and then update those settings every time we have to adjust something on the board.

I am not opposed to having more tags, but I need to find a more efficient way of doing it without having to create an entirely new group.

I am also looking into creating a "donor" tag that would give everyone who donates a special trophy or something under their name.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351661882' post='2500967']
Every tag is another "member group" I must create a completely separate set of permissions and settings for, and then update those settings every time we have to adjust something on the board.

I am not opposed to having more tags, but I need to find a more efficient way of doing it without having to create an entirely new group.

I am also looking into creating a "donor" tag that would give everyone who donates a special trophy or something under their name.
[/quote]
If you find it, you have permission to keep me to my word here.

If it is a matter of research, it's not an area I know much about; however, I might be able to do some sort of research online (after the election) for the website setup or pick a few people's brains.

Plus, there's always minions to boss around...

Edited October 31, 2012 by Light and Truth

[KnightofChrist]

I support Light and Truth, she's a woman and womens is always right. A Eastern Church Tag would be cool. Other eastern Catholics and Orthodox have made similar requests over the years. Latin-rite Christians have the CM tag, Eastern Christians should have something like it.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351661882' post='2500967']
Every tag is another "member group" I must create a completely separate set of permissions and settings for, and then update those settings every time we have to adjust something on the board.

I am not opposed to having more tags, but I need to find a more efficient way of doing it without having to create an entirely new group.

I am also looking into creating a "donor" tag that would give everyone who donates a special trophy or something under their name.
[/quote]

Make this happen and I'll vote Romney instead of going third party.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351661882' post='2500967']


I am also looking into creating a "donor" tag that would give everyone who donates a special trophy or something under their name.
[/quote]
Yeah! A donor tag. It's the only way I will ever get a tag. By buying one!

[Egidio]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1351652214' post='2500870']
We are the other ones in the 451 split at the Council of Chalcedon (4th ecumenical council). This makes us miaphysites. The Copts will explain that this is a matter of translation. I'm not good at explaining the theology yet, but we believe that Christ was fully human and was fully divine, but instead of two separate natures, his natures exist together in one hypostatic union. Because this schism occurred at this point, the first total 7 ecumenical councils may be considered Orthodox, however, we non-Chalcedonians are not obligated to hold to the 5th-7th, and of course there is still that division over the 4th.
[/quote]

Strictly speaking, "Non-Chalcedonians" are known as "monophysites", who believe that the human nature of Christ was somewhat absorbed by His Divine nature; so that only His divine nature remained.

The "miaphysite" position is seen somewhat as a compromise, which, as you say, still leaves Christ with one nature, but also states that the other nature remains in someway. From a Catholic point of view, this sounds similar to a catholic definition, but to an Orthodox term...it can get a little confusing .

The term "hypostatic" (which means person), refers (as i am sure you all know ) to the union of the two natures in Christ (according to Catholic Theology) in the one divine Person of Christ. . .so Jesus is not a Human person, but a Divine Person, with a complete and perfect human nature and divine nature.

Today, most Orthodox Coptics admit that it is indeed just an error of translation. In the past the terms caused a great deal of confusion, because you had latin theologians trying to understand Greek theologians, and in the end they had to have an Ecumenical Council to try to sort it out. But, as we see in our recent history also, even though the Church may define something as true, doesn't mean that the confusion amoung the faithful disappears .

Warren Carroll explains the council of Calcedonia very well in his series of "Christendom" history books.

Praying for union among all Christians!!!!!!


[color=#000080][size=5][font=comic sans ms,cursive]AVE MARIA!![/font][/size][/color]

Edited November 1, 2012 by Egidio

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Egidio' timestamp='1351752785' post='2501915']
Strictly speaking, "Non-Chalcedonians" are known as "monophysites", who believe that the human nature of Christ was somewhat absorbed by His Divine nature; so that only His divine nature remained.

The "miaphysite" position is seen somewhat as a compromise, which, as you say, still leaves Christ with one nature, but also states that the other nature remains in someway. From a Catholic point of view, this sounds similar to a catholic definition, but to an Orthodox term...it can get a little confusing .

The term "hypostatic" (which means person), refers (as i am sure you all know ) to the union of the two natures in Christ (according to Catholic Theology) in the one divine Person of Christ. . .so Jesus is not a Human person, but a Divine Person, with a complete and perfect human nature and divine nature.

Today, most Orthodox Coptics admit that it is indeed just an error of translation. In the past the terms caused a great deal of confusion, because you had latin theologians trying to understand Greek theologians, and in the end they had to have an Ecumenical Council to try to sort it out. But, as we see in our recent history also, even though the Church may define something as true, doesn't mean that the confusion amoung the faithful disappears .

Warren Carroll explains the council of Calcedonia very well in his series of "Christendom" history books.

Praying for union among all Christians!!!!!!


[color=#000080][size=5][font=comic sans ms,cursive]AVE MARIA!![/font][/size][/color]
[/quote]
Good write-up. I have heard that it was a translation matter couple times from Copts. One of my Catholic friends was saying that a Coptic priest's explanation of our miaphysite position sounded like the Catholic view.

Strictly speaking though, my church was on the other side of the Council of Chalcedon from you, and we are miaphysites. What does that make us if not non-Chalcedonian? I would not be officially permitted to receive communion by the Eastern Orthodox church because of the different sides of Chalcedon (though some priests may differ, as I understand, particularly among some of the Antiochian).

Edited November 1, 2012 by Light and Truth

[qfnol31]

Mia physis is just the term hammered by St. Cyril in the years between Ephesus and Chalcedon. It was rejected at Chalcedon as a poor choice because of figures like , Eutyches who saw himself as carrying on Cyril's legacy after the latter's death. Eutyches took the union as a union of nature, which was more than what the fathers at Ephesus affirmed. For Eutyches, the union created a new nature. Many bishops saw Chalcedon as a return to Nestorianism, but that was a silly charge based on a number of other problems.

Edit to change the name.

Edited November 1, 2012 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1351759724' post='2501948']
Strictly speaking though, my church was on the other side of the Council of Chalcedon from you, and we are miaphysites. What does that make us if not non-Chalcedonian? I would not be officially permitted to receive communion by the Eastern Orthodox church because of the different sides of Chalcedon (though some priests may differ, as I understand, particularly among some of the Antiochian).
[/quote]
Not all people who accepted the theology continued to follow the language and symbol of the council. In fact, the next hundred years or so saw a few different approaches that rejected the council while keeping a more open theology. But since the council was eventually established as normative, any Church wanting a different language or more open theology became rejected by the others, even though their theology was essentially the same.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351794477' post='2502106']
Not all people who accepted the theology continued to follow the language and symbol of the council. In fact, the next hundred years or so saw a few different approaches that rejected the council while keeping a more open theology. But since the council was eventually established as normative, any Church wanting a different language or more open theology became rejected by the others, even though their theology was essentially the same.
[/quote]
So you are saying that miaphysite is a more open theology/language than diphysite?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1351958302' post='2503475']
So you are saying that miaphysite is a more open theology/language than diphysite?
[/quote]
That was the intention, but normally going back on theology like that has bad repercussions. It was later rejected because physis was determined to be nature, like human nature, and hypostasis was reserved for the person, supposit, individual, or conscious entity. It's hard to translate hypostasis in this context and capture all its meaning.

[BG45]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1351722880' post='2501441']
Yeah! A donor tag. It's the only way I will ever get a tag. By buying one!
[/quote]

If memory serves, I got jokingly accused of this after getting my CM tag because I had just bought 3 of Phatmass's albums on iTunes the week before.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1351704255' post='2501221']
Make this happen and I'll vote Romney instead of going third party.
[/quote]
You read it hear folks... Voote 3rd party!