Mark Betts you are a total plank

135678

Comments

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Maybe he'll go from being an obnoxious Russian Orthodox convertitic to being a born-again atheist convertitic, like that guy whose name I disremember. Dang it what was his name?....

    ...One thing I can say for sure about him is that he has absolutely no idea how to carry on a rational discussion or debate.

    It shows what sort of a Christian you are doesn't it mousethief. You are a convert too, aren't you - and now a convert from the OCA to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America of the schismatic Constantinople Patriarchate - whom you bankroll to carry out the US administration's "projects".

    You seem to wish for people to leave Christianity and become atheists? Shame on you.

    Well that shows the sort of person you really are. A nasty snide condescending and arrogant twerp who tries to make himself "the face of Orthodoxy" on the ship.

    And since when have you ever tried to have a proper rational debate with anyone, unless they agree with your liberal views in the first place?

    And this just shows what you are: a contemptuous, pompus prick.

    Why don't you go somewhere that you can be a convinced of an audience for your bullshit?

    Do you have a shed?

    Do you see what I mean? I wasn't even talking to or about you, but you jumped straight in there to defend him. THAT'S why I called you a creep.
  • Looks like we got us a CAPS LOCK kinda guy here.
  • Mark Bets, for your own peace of mind, just step away from the keyboard.

    You are bringing all this on yourself. If you're damaging your knuckles by punching a brick wall then what's the most sensible thing to do? Yes, you'vr got it. Stop doing it.

    Hell is a mean place. It stings. Anyone would be well advised to steer clear of it.

    If you can't see what you'ge done or said to warrant a call here then you have even less self-awareness than I thought.

    Your posts have been pompous, dismissive, poorly argued and referenced and far more likely to damage your cause than foster or defend it.

    Any one of us here could probably put forward a far better defence of the Russian Orthodox position on the Ukraine than you and most of us aren't even Orthodox let alone Russian Orthodox.

    Your arguments simply consist of 'tu quoque' sneers and xenophobia.

    There is no subtlety, no nuance and when you turn to invective it's nowhere near as creative or hideously interesting as that of some of the well-practised practitioners here.

    I am afraid you are out of your depth. It's horrible to watch you bring torn apart but you clearly lack the nous and posting agility to avoid it.

    This has got nothing to do with East / West relations, Orthodoxy / heterodoxy or anything beyond you acting like a complete knob.

    Put it away. We don't want to see it.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I don't remember ever posting to try to impress Mousethief. Because I know from long experience that is a near impossible task.

    Impressive insight. You are an utter wanker from time to time, but I have absolutely no reason to think you are a creep.
  • By the way is this guy ThomasDF's brother or something? OMG what a plonker. The moment anybody catches me trying to be the Orthodox Voice anywhere or of anything, please slap me in the face with a wet blini.

    Oh, and the EP is not schismatic. Everybody in the Orthodox world is in communion with him except Patriarch Rolex.
  • I think the lack of oxygen that far up Putin's rectum must be having a cognitive impact.
  • I was wondering about the schismatic charge against the Ecumenical Patriarch.

    It rather makes the point I was trying to make on the Ukrainian thread, that it seems to me that the Russian Orthodox appear to see themselves as the epicentre of world Orthodoxy and that all the others have to dance to their tune and do that Cossack squatting knees-up thing.

    I've noticed some more Russia-inclined clergy among the Antiochians beginning to express doubts about Patriarch Bartholomew and express the view that the future lies with Moscow.

    Hitherto they had nothing but praise for the EP, now they are chuntering openly about him behaving in Papal fashion.

    I don't know enough about it to tell whether the EP has acted Papally, foolishly, wisely or whatever else.

    But it does strike me that in declaring him schismatic does rather suggest that it's Patriarch Kyrill who sees himself as First Among Equals or even More Equal Than Others.

    He's got a Rolex to prove it.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    mousethief wrote: »

    Oh, and the EP is not schismatic. Everybody in the Orthodox world is in communion with him except Patriarch Rolex.

    I do not claim to have any special knowledge, but Orthodox Wiki lists several (presumably small) churches that are not in communion with Constantinople despite more-or-less believing the same things, including the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

    Also I can assure you that the loathing is entirely mutual.
  • That said, jurisdictions which declare themselves autonomous and are not recognised by anyone can presumably be fairly described as schismatic.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    That said, jurisdictions which declare themselves autonomous and are not recognised by anyone can presumably be fairly described as schismatic.

    What does this have to do with anything?
  • A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.

    Take it up with the Orthodox Wiki. They consider themselves Orthodox and are listed on the wiki as such.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    That said, jurisdictions which declare themselves autonomous and are not recognised by anyone can presumably be fairly described as schismatic.

    Everyone else is schismatic. We are orthodox, even if we are not Orthodox.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That said, jurisdictions which declare themselves autonomous and are not recognised by anyone can presumably be fairly described as schismatic.

    Everyone else is schismatic. We are orthodox, even if we are not Orthodox.

    Ok, I'm in deep water here - but presumably there is a difference between Orthodox schismatic and everyone else schismatic, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    mousethief wrote: »
    A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.
    I don't agree.
    orthodox
    adjective
    of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

    The Russian Orthodox church would remain orthodox if everyone else fell out of communion with them if they maintained the same set of beliefs.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    That said, jurisdictions which declare themselves autonomous and are not recognised by anyone can presumably be fairly described as schismatic.

    Everyone else is schismatic. We are orthodox, even if we are not Orthodox.

    Ok, I'm in deep water here - but presumably there is a difference between Orthodox schismatic and everyone else schismatic, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.
    If the schism is doctrinal, then there would be contention over who is truly orthodox. If the schism is political, then there needn't be.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Well that shows the sort of person you really are. A nasty snide condescending and arrogant twerp who tries to make himself "the face of Orthodoxy" on the ship.
    This really is not the road you want to down, I don’t think. In your posts, you present yourself as little more than “a nasty snide condescending and arrogant twerp.” If there is anything more, it would probably be “petulant” and “childish.”
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.
    I don't agree.
    orthodox
    adjective
    of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.
    @mousethief spelled orthodox with a capital O. There's a difference here between "orthodox" and "Orthodox."

    orthodox
    adjective
    6. ( initial capital letter ) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.

    I take mousethief to be describing how capital-O Orthodox Christians identify churches as capital-O Orthodox, and to be saying that communion with other capital-O Orthodox churches is a sine qua non of capital-O Orthodoxy.

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Lilbuddha, I'm not sure you get to define for someone else's organization who does our does not qualify, especially using the dictionary. It'd be like you decided every church that has methods must be Methodist, or every church that has a board of elders must be Presbyterian. That's not how the names of organisations work.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    @mousethief spelled orthodox with a capital O. There's a difference here between "orthodox" and "Orthodox."

    orthodox
    adjective
    6. ( initial capital letter ) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.

    I take mousethief to be describing how capital-O Orthodox Christians identify churches as capital-O Orthodox, and to be saying that communion with other capital-O Orthodox churches is a sine qua non of capital-O Orthodoxy.

    This. With a huge, huge dollop of "DUH" (directed not at Nick Tamen but others).
  • It reminds me of Wonko the Sane in H2G2, who builds an inside-out house, calls it "the Asylum," and declares that everybody inside the house (everybody in the world but him) is insane. Some church, whatever its pedigree, proclaiming itself Orthodox and everybody else in the world non-Orthodox, is absurd.

    I suppose the Macedonians are Orthodox in the same way the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are Christian. The latter are detritus of the Christian religion, and we "own" them in that sense, even though their theologies are manifestly anti-Christian. So in an encyclopedia describing Christianity we'd expect entries for various schismatic and heretical offshoots; so in OrthoPedia (which does NOT speak for all Orthodoxen, TYVM) they will have an article about the Macedonian Church.

    But let us stop with the "I know better than the Orthodox what it means to be Orthodox because I can look up words in the dictionary" bullshit. It's risible.
  • There are lots of dollops of 'DUH' on this thread (using UK style punctuation single inverted commas there), as well as dollops of Doo-Doo.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It reminds me of Wonko the Sane in H2G2, who builds an inside-out house, calls it "the Asylum," and declares that everybody inside the house (everybody in the world but him) is insane. Some church, whatever its pedigree, proclaiming itself Orthodox and everybody else in the world non-Orthodox, is absurd.

    I suppose the Macedonians are Orthodox in the same way the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are Christian. The latter are detritus of the Christian religion, and we "own" them in that sense, even though their theologies are manifestly anti-Christian. So in an encyclopedia describing Christianity we'd expect entries for various schismatic and heretical offshoots; so in OrthoPedia (which does NOT speak for all Orthodoxen, TYVM) they will have an article about the Macedonian Church.

    But let us stop with the "I know better than the Orthodox what it means to be Orthodox because I can look up words in the dictionary" bullshit. It's risible.

    The irony being that Wonko actually was the sanest person on the planet, of course.

    Are you saying that if the Russian Orthodox church goes out of communion with everyone else it is no longer Orthodox? Or is it about being in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in particular?
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I love figs.

    Buy. some. then

    I pick them from under my own tree.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    If you're going to note who's supporting who, you might also note that everyone here is of the opinion that you are an utter tosser.

    And that's based entirely on your behaviour on this thread, never mind what gave rise to it.

    I've rediscovered that word recently. Boris Johnson. All sorts. It's far more dismissive than wanker.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Oh, won't someone please think of the poor pixels?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, I'm not sure you get to define for someone else's organization who does our does not qualify,
    Just fuck right off with that rubbish, that isn't what I was doing. And I refuse to belive you are stupid enough to think this.
    The non-bug up the arse way to address this would be to say Orthodox as a title doesn't directly relate to orthodox as a definition.
    And mr cheesy's question is pretty relevant.

    BTW, if one doesn't get to define another's religion, then that includes you, but you did this anyway in regards to JWs and Mormons.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.
    I don't agree.
    orthodox
    adjective
    of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.
    @mousethief spelled orthodox with a capital O. There's a difference here between "orthodox" and "Orthodox."

    orthodox
    adjective
    6. ( initial capital letter ) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.

    I take mousethief to be describing how capital-O Orthodox Christians identify churches as capital-O Orthodox, and to be saying that communion with other capital-O Orthodox churches is a sine qua non of capital-O Orthodoxy.
    Fair enough. But mr cheesy's point is still to be answered, though.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    BTW, if one doesn't get to define another's religion, then that includes you, but you did this anyway in regards to JWs and Mormons.

    Really? Where did I do that?
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Are you saying that if the Russian Orthodox church goes out of communion with everyone else it is no longer Orthodox?

    Yes.
    Or is it about being in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in particular?

    No.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, I'm not sure you get to define for someone else's organization who does our does not qualify,
    Just fuck right off with that rubbish, that isn't what I was doing. And I refuse to belive you are stupid enough to think this.

    Me: A church not in communion with any Orthodox church is not Orthodox
    You: Yes it is, because of this definition of orthodox (wholly irrelevant definition follows)

    Yes, that's fucking well what you were doing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, I'm not sure you get to define for someone else's organization who does our does not qualify,
    Just fuck right off with that rubbish, that isn't what I was doing. And I refuse to belive you are stupid enough to think this.

    Me: A church not in communion with any Orthodox church is not Orthodox
    You: Yes it is, because of this definition of orthodox (wholly irrelevant definition follows)

    Yes, that's fucking well what you were doing.
    You noticed I didn't use the big fucking O? That should have been a clue that perhaps we were talking about different things.
  • There are some local churches which the ROC will never be out of Communion with, such as the Serbian Orthodox Church. Also there is no reason for it to be out of Communion with any other Patriarchates other than Constantinople. So sorry to disappoint you, but.... 'ain't gonna happen.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BTW, if one doesn't get to define another's religion, then that includes you, but you did this anyway in regards to JWs and Mormons.

    Really? Where did I do that?
    I suppose the Macedonians are Orthodox in the same way the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are Christian. The latter are detritus of the Christian religion, and we "own" them in that sense, even though their theologies are manifestly anti-Christian.
    You are defining their theologies as anti-Christian. The lot of you "normal" Christians cannot agree and it wasn't that long ago that protestants and the RCC were shouting that at each other. Not sure where the Orthodox fit in there, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't sniping involved as well.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I love figs.

    Buy. some. then

    I pick them from under my own tree.

    even. better. Enjoy.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BTW, if one doesn't get to define another's religion, then that includes you, but you did this anyway in regards to JWs and Mormons.

    Really? Where did I do that?
    I suppose the Macedonians are Orthodox in the same way the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are Christian. The latter are detritus of the Christian religion, and we "own" them in that sense, even though their theologies are manifestly anti-Christian.
    You are defining their theologies as anti-Christian. The lot of you "normal" Christians cannot agree and it wasn't that long ago that protestants and the RCC were shouting that at each other. Not sure where the Orthodox fit in there, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't sniping involved as well.

    You should really use "define" the way other people do. I wasn't defining JW's. I was stating (claiming, if you want) that they are not Christian. By THEIR definition of their theology.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.
    I don't agree.
    orthodox
    adjective
    of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

    I used Orthodox with a big O. You said you disagree, and gave a definition of orthodox with a small o, as if that were relevant. You are, in fact, disagreeing (YOU SAY SO YOURSELF) with my description of the boundaries of Orthodoxy (big O) based on the definition you found of orthodoxy with a small o.

    But keep digging. You're very amusing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    A church that is not in communion with ANYONE isn't Orthodox by definition.
    I don't agree.
    orthodox
    adjective
    of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

    I used Orthodox with a big O. You said you disagree, and gave a definition of orthodox with a small o, as if that were relevant. You are, in fact, disagreeing (YOU SAY SO YOURSELF) with my description of the boundaries of Orthodoxy (big O) based on the definition you found of orthodoxy with a small o.

    But keep digging. You're very amusing.
    mt, the shame of this is that whilst you are not a bad person, sometimes you are a right tool. I just don't care any longer, so whatever, you win.

  • If I am a right tool, I sure haven't shown it on this thread. But I'm glad you stopped digging.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited December 2018
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    There are some local churches which the ROC will never be out of Communion with...<yadda yadda yadda>
    As I skimmed this, I thought I saw mention of "IROC". And I thought to myself, "Does Marked Butts drive a fire chicken?" Which seemed simultaneously preposterous but also strangely awesome (in a retrograde sort of autophilia). But then I actually read the drivel he wrote and was massively disappointed, because, well, it was just Murky Beats being xemself.

    Which raises the question, might it be better to only pretend to read Mork Borks' posts so that we can be free to imagine more interesting things than the invariable knuckle-dragging simplistic unpleasantness of xyr reality?
  • RooK wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    There are some local churches which the ROC will never be out of Communion with...<yadda yadda yadda>
    As I skimmed this, I thought I saw mention of "IROC". And I thought to myself, "Does Marked Butts drive a fire chicken?" Which seemed simultaneously preposterous but also strangely awesome (in a retrograde sort of autophilia). But then I actually read the drivel he wrote and was massively disappointed, because, well, it was just Murky Beats being xemself.

    Which raises the question, might it be better to only pretend to read Mork Borks' posts so that we can be free to imagine more interesting things than the invariable knuckle-dragging simplistic unpleasantness of xyr reality?

    Free to keep your head stuck up your own arse more like.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    There are some local churches which the ROC will never be out of Communion with...<yadda yadda yadda>
    As I skimmed this, I thought I saw mention of "IROC". And I thought to myself, "Does Marked Butts drive a fire chicken?" Which seemed simultaneously preposterous but also strangely awesome (in a retrograde sort of autophilia). But then I actually read the drivel he wrote and was massively disappointed, because, well, it was just Murky Beats being xemself.

    Which raises the question, might it be better to only pretend to read Mork Borks' posts so that we can be free to imagine more interesting things than the invariable knuckle-dragging simplistic unpleasantness of xyr reality?

    Free to keep your head stuck up your own arse more like.

    Having said that, I suspect you were pissed.
  • You literally just told yourself you were drunk posting.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    You literally just told yourself you were drunk posting.

    Well, dude. Sometimes the only way to have a conversation is to have it with xyrself.

    With thanks and apologies and admiration aimed RooKway, as the author of the only post worth reading on this entire thread.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited December 2018
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    I suspect you were pissed.
    Fun facts time!
    1. I don't drink, as a general rule. Exceptions are made for delicious glasses of meal-paired wines, or occasional samples of sour microbrew when taking my team out for lunch.
    2. In the remote Canuckistanni village of my upbringing, the term "pissed" was more commonly associated with a state of being angered. Which, technically, I also was not. Note: there is ample evidence to support the fact that I genuinely enjoy taunting stupid people such as yourself.
    3. Male platypi, -er platypuses have venomous spurs on the hind limbs. This is relevant only in terms of wondering how "down with monotremes" people are, and the general truth that any fucking thing is more interesting than literally everything you have to say.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    I suspect you were pissed.
    Fun facts time!
    1. I don't drink, as a general rule. Exceptions are made for delicious glasses of meal-paired wines, or occasional samples of sour microbrew when taking my team out for lunch.
    2. In the remote Canuckistanni village of my upbringing, the term "pissed" was more commonly associated with a state of being angered. Which, technically, I also was not. Note: there is ample evidence to support the fact that I genuinely enjoy taunting stupid people such as yourself.
    3. Male platypi, -er platypuses have venomous spurs on the hind limbs. This is relevant only in terms of wondering how "down with monotremes" people are, and the general truth that any fucking thing is more interesting than literally everything you have to say.

    I was right to begin with - you are so up your own arse you are not worth wasting time talking to.
  • If Bettsy insults enough people with enough vehemence he'll win the internets and be a respected member of the Foolish Ship.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...you are not worth wasting time talking to.
    <blink blink>
    Wheeelp, that is some next-level stupid right there. Makes one ponder that this is no casual stupidity. No sir. This, ladies and gentlemen and mousethief, is a dedication to hypocrisy unseen in the modern era... outside of politics. And churches. And blockchain seminars.

    [GASP!]
    Could it be that Monk Blatts is a crypto-hertic fascist?!
  • RooK wrote: »
    Male platypi, -er platypuses have venomous spurs on the hind limbs.[/list]

    They are also semi-aquatic, egg-laying mammals of action. Or one of them is, anyway.
  • Mark, mate. Oh mate.

    If you berate everyone else on a Purgatory thread where almost nobody really gives much of a shit, then nobody is going to engage with you.

    I get that it is important to you. But if you want to debate Russian Orthodox politics with people who care and who want to engage with your abrasive style of "discussion", you are going to have to go somewhere else.

    You can schlup about and you can stomp around complaining that other people are not engaging on the level that you want to talk about it. But that's not going to make a viable thread - because pretty quickly others will give up even trying to talk with you.
This discussion has been closed.