This is a total and utter misunderstanding of Church Doctrine. Orthodox Doctrine doesn't change, at most it is clarified. The Doctrine is the sum total of the Patristic Consensus. It is the reason why people get so shitty about saints, because to change saints to many is almost to repudiate the Doctrines. Similarly it fails to mimic real life, where morality laws in the West fell on the church to be enforced.
An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
I will respectfully have to correct you that I am quite aware of the unchanging nature of the Orthodox Church. You've simply failed to understand my meaning, and how it applies to the nature of the butterfly effect, in that with a divergence of over 400 years past there will be few aspects of a world that will not feel the ripples of a different history. In such a drastically different position than in our world, the Orthodox Church is one such institution that has changed, and it has done so a couple of times in timeline. Whether that contradicts any beliefs that the Doctrine remains stagnant due to it being the true word of the Christian God, or the nature of church in our timeline, doesn't matter here. To point out these divergences as mistakes simply because they are different from our world, rather than problems in how they emerged, would be pointless, as pointless as me claiming error in the continued existence of a Muslim polity in Iberia, or a fairly centralized Holy Roman Empire, or even the continued existence of the Byzantine Empire.
Doctrine means the taught position of a Church. For the Catholics, this means the supremacy of the Pope, over other Bishops, to give but one example. For the Orthodox, it means the total adherence to the Patristic Consensus. To say then that because the Roman Emperor continues to exist this would cause a change is failure to understand what Doctrine means. Maybe, Role, Power, and Liturgy could change, but otherwise to "reform" would be a move that would have you burnt at the stake, or otherwise thrown out of the church.
I was going to say that i had long since given up on this TL, thinking it was dead & that i was pleasantly surprised to discover that Basileus444 had resurrected.
I took 2 days off normal life to catch up & was really enjoying it until the last few pages, which appear to have been derailed by a… i'd better not say it seeing how touchy-feely-easily upset some people on this site can be… contentious discussionisto (should that be discussionado ?)
& now i see that Basileus444 has gone fishing
Well done, you know who you are, what a wonderful service you have rendered unto us.
Come back soon B444, we are missing you.
I took 2 days off normal life to catch up & was really enjoying it until the last few pages, which appear to have been derailed by a… i'd better not say it seeing how touchy-feely-easily upset some people on this site can be… contentious discussionisto (should that be discussionado ?)
& now i see that Basileus444 has gone fishing
Well done, you know who you are, what a wonderful service you have rendered unto us.
Come back soon B444, we are missing you.
Last edited:
Don't you think a 400 years of divergence can change that? This is church doctrine, not laws of physics.
Warning
I've always found art critics , food critics ,film critics etc about as useful as a spare prick at a lesbians wedding . Not only can they not do what they criticize but are annoyingly boring cretins . B444 in my own humble opinion is THE pre eminent writer on this site . The writer of a truly brilliant timeline. So what if occasionally he may not be 100% accurate or correct in somethings. This timeline covers a huge area of time and space , and its written by someone who is still in his early 20s and at University .
So my reply to the morons who have seriously nit picked with overt and way over the top criticism , I say this to you .....Go write a timeline as brilliant as this and let us critique your work . Ive read this timeline from the beginning and it is by far and above the best timeline on here ,so get writing and let us all read what you are so expert at ............
So my reply to the morons who have seriously nit picked with overt and way over the top criticism , I say this to you .....Go write a timeline as brilliant as this and let us critique your work . Ive read this timeline from the beginning and it is by far and above the best timeline on here ,so get writing and let us all read what you are so expert at ............
No, I don't. The reason is quite simple. The orthodox mindset is focused around the total rejection of Innovation in Church Doctrine. To be a Theologian, you must have undergone Catharsis, to undergo Catharsis you must be Orthodox, to thus talk about Theology you must therefore be Orthodox, and believe the Patristic Consensus. And this is reflected in the fact that there is no theological differences between the different Orthodox Churches, despite the fact that a Russian and a Greek wont even be able to talk to one another.
Also there seem to be quite a few people here who are attacking the fact that I have voiced criticism of the fact that the Author of the TL said they don't care about Theology. Theology is an Ideology, as simple as that. This would be like if a person wrote a TL about Mao's China, but didn't care about Communism. Whether or not quality is affected something is still lost.
However, this is not to say that I dislike this TL I still think it is brilliantly written, considering this is a hobby. I just think that you should be able to criticise things you love, in the same way that people can like a movie and still critique it.
Last edited:
Also there seem to be quite a few people here who are attacking the fact that I have voiced criticism of the fact that the Author of the TL said they don't care about Theology. Theology is an Ideology, as simple as that.
So what if he B444 doesn't care about theology , he could be an atheist ,Jewish ,Hindu ,Jedi or Muslim ,did you bother to find out ?? maybe it simply bores him.
This would be like if a person wrote a TL about Mao's China, but didn't care about Communism
Again , so what? are saying that a person who writes about a subject then they must care deeply about it ? I had to write an essay devoted to the agricultural revolution , a subject I find numbingly boring but I did it and got a strait A .The subject of theology is obviously one of B444,s weak spots , because as you have pointed out ,he doesn't care about it, just as I don't care about the agricultural revolution . He wrote about it because it was necessary to the timeline , but only because of that .
You sir obviously care a great deal about theology and feel you have a much deeper understanding of it and so wish to point things out in a timeline that you feel is wrong , as is your right . I and many others also have a right to point out that this timeline isn't about theology and never has been , and from a personal point of view , glad its not .
I also have the right to point out that constant argument about a tiny detail (which may or not be wrong) which upsets a writer to the extent that they go on a hiatus to get away from the critic makes us others blood boil to the point where we will stand up and defend the writer ( who happens to be a great lad) from such ridiculous over the top criticism , and to say to you direct please write a timeline about theology or any other subject you know so much about and care so deeply about for all of us to be able to critique
So what if he B444 doesn't care about theology , he could be an atheist ,Jewish ,Hindu ,Jedi or Muslim ,did you bother to find out ?? maybe it simply bores him.
This would be like if a person wrote a TL about Mao's China, but didn't care about Communism
Again , so what? are saying that a person who writes about a subject then they must care deeply about it ? I had to write an essay devoted to the agricultural revolution , a subject I find numbingly boring but I did it and got a strait A .The subject of theology is obviously one of B444,s weak spots , because as you have pointed out ,he doesn't care about it, just as I don't care about the agricultural revolution . He wrote about it because it was necessary to the timeline , but only because of that .
You sir obviously care a great deal about theology and feel you have a much deeper understanding of it and so wish to point things out in a timeline that you feel is wrong , as is your right . I and many others also have a right to point out that this timeline isn't about theology and never has been , and from a personal point of view , glad its not .
I also have the right to point out that constant argument about a tiny detail (which may or not be wrong) which upsets a writer to the extent that they go on a hiatus to get away from the critic makes us others blood boil to the point where we will stand up and defend the writer ( who happens to be a great lad) from such ridiculous over the top criticism , and to say to you direct please write a timeline about theology or any other subject you know so much about and care so deeply about for all of us to be able to critique
Last edited:
Amen to that ........is that the correct term? , maybe I have the wrong theological saying .......I know a guy who might help
What I think is the massive difference between the Orthodoxy of OTL and of TTL, is the fact that OTL Orthodoxy was held together partially by Imperial authority, then from Islam, and then Soviet threats. This site while having an opinion piece does touch on the route of Orthodoxy. Catholic Bridge.
Mao's communism, couldn't be labelled as true communism, as he believed that there was a division between the peasant and the worker. True communism has no division. This is where we get Maoism, out of the family of Marxism.
Evilprodigy
Donor
Also there seem to be quite a few people here who are attacking the fact that I have voiced criticism of the fact that the Author of the TL said they don't care about Theology. Theology is an Ideology, as simple as that.
So what if he B444 doesn't care about theology , he could be an atheist ,Jewish ,Hindu ,Jedi or Muslim ,did you bother to find out ?? maybe it simply bores him.
This would be like if a person wrote a TL about Mao's China, but didn't care about Communism
Again , so what? are saying that a person who writes about a subject then they must care deeply about it ? I had to write an essay devoted to the agricultural revolution , a subject I find numbingly boring but I did it and got a strait A .The subject of theology is obviously one of B444,s weak spots , because as you have pointed out ,he doesn't care about it, just as I don't care about the agricultural revolution . He wrote about it because it was necessary to the timeline , but only because of that .
You sir obviously care a great deal about theology and feel you have a much deeper understanding of it and so wish to point things out in a timeline that you feel is wrong , as is your right . I and many others also have a right to point out that this timeline isn't about theology and never has been , and from a personal point of view , glad its not .
I also have the right to point out that constant argument about a tiny detail (which may or not be wrong) which upsets a writer to the extent that they go on a hiatus to get away from the critic makes us others blood boil to the point where we will stand up and defend the writer ( who happens to be a great lad) from such ridiculous over the top criticism , and to say to you direct please write a timeline about theology or any other subject you know so much about and care so deeply about for all of us to be able to critique
I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying in terms of the nature of criticism, I did something similar when I told B44 about the population of Jews in the OTL Ottoman Empire, but you're coming off incredibly rude and condescending in this post. Just stop. Everyone already moved on, you're just dragging it out.
So what if he B444 doesn't care about theology , he could be an atheist ,Jewish ,Hindu ,Jedi or Muslim ,did you bother to find out ?? maybe it simply bores him.
OP, is an Atheist of Baptist Heritage, which he says is the reason it bores him. However, I object to the idea that Theology is only Christian, Islamic Theology for example while similar enough to Christian that I can understand it reasonably well, is not a strong suit, and I would want to research more before tackling a TL that has significant Religious effects, beyond just, they are more or less tolerant.
To use your example, you might not have liked the Agricultural Revolution, but you still understood it. Now in the case of a more generalised thing such as this, it is not necessarily bad, but there are things in here that seem unbelievable to me.
You sir obviously care a great deal about theology and feel you have a much deeper understanding of it and so wish to point things out in a timeline that you feel is wrong , as is your right . I and many others also have a right to point out that this timeline isn't about theology and never has been , and from a personal point of view , glad its not .
This is not about just talking about Theology, the problem that I had is that some of the actions to me seemed unbelievable, notably citing religious events such as in Sicily, that seemed so alien to a Catholic, Orthodox, or Jewish worldview, that it is obviously strange. IF it was an undue focus on Theology, then I would also dislike this TL, but the focus isn't on that so I don't dislike it.
I also have the right to point out that constant argument about a tiny detail (which may or not be wrong) which upsets a writer to the extent that they go on a hiatus to get away from the critic makes us others blood boil to the point where we will stand up and defend the writer ( who happens to be a great lad) from such ridiculous over the top criticism , and to say to you direct please write a timeline about theology or any other subject you know so much about and care so deeply about for all of us to be able to critique
I doubt that something someone said on one thread on an Alternate History Forum, caused someone to go a Hiatus. I mean my first post was 4 days ago, I don't see why ~4 posts, would cause someone to go a Hiatus. Secondly, I haven't meant to pick a fight, as you seem to imply, and if I somehow have that is a misunderstanding of my point, which is that paying more attention to something, which people went to war over historically, is a good idea. I mean I would say the same thing if someone was misunderstanding military tactics. Finally, I would rather you address my on what I am saying, rather than just dismissing it, and saying, "Oh no one cares, it doesn't matter".
I am not asking that this TL, be about the interplay of Byzantine Government and Theology, that would be unreasonable, rather I was questioning certain events in the world, which is incredibly rich and detailed. And While, I will admit I made mistakes, such as with the Religious Emperors, and misusing the word dishonest, I don't think that is equivalent to an attack on someone.
Amen to that ........is that the correct term? , maybe I have the wrong theological saying .......I know a guy who might help
Hardy, Har, Har.
That site is quite clearly sectarian. I am not going to bother correcting the whole article, as this is not the place, but to point to a Catholic and say "look these guys have changed" would be the same as going to Martin Luther to ask whether or not the Pope is a good guy, you just wouldn't do it. I mean the stuff that guy says about "Monophysitism", is against taught Catholic Doctrine, the Acacian Schism was because the Orthodox failed to condemn Miaphysitism, which is different, and form the basis of the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches. These groups have now been said to have the same theology as the Catholics, which would mean that what that guy is saying is technically heretical, in the eyes of the pope. So I would not take his word for it.
On Mao, that is my point exactly, something is lost if you don't understand this.
Sorry my apologies to everyone , I guess I am quite passionate about this time line, but also about what I feel sometimes comes across ( at least to myself ) as unnecessary criticism ......so mia culpa (think I got it right ) .
have always been taught by my late father , if your in the wrong be a man and admit it ......and I guess I was overly harsh
point taken ,and as I said .....mea culpa .....my apologies to everyone
Fine, fair enough.
With the growth of the global trade, and the more mobile of social structure within this world, at least in Rhomania, would we get the same restrictive guilds that came about? How they inhibited the development of a culinary culture is evident in the fate of Boulanger and his first modern restaurant in Paris. Would there already be an evolved restaurant from the basis of Roman taberna, and popinae? The latter being more of what we have with Bar/Pub that offer a small selective food menu. The more the growth of these ventures the higher of demand would go for certain food stuffs. Would we see the rise of "Michelin" rating system? I know they don't have Tire magnates trying to subversly push demand for their products, but still if there were established restaurants, and tourist pamphlets, we could see a "Dining Pamphlet" for respective cities with an established restaurant industry. This would also go hand in hand with equal rights, as traditionally Men made up the majority of employed cooks in the restaurant industry from the Middle Ages to even now. This has been documented in Hampton House with Henry VIII hiring almost all men as his culinary staff due to the prestige of having a more expensive brigade. Do TTL Rhomans have this same stigma of women vs men in the habit of pay inequality?
With the growth of the global trade, and the more mobile of social structure within this world, at least in Rhomania, would we get the same restrictive guilds that came about? How they inhibited the development of a culinary culture is evident in the fate of Boulanger and his first modern restaurant in Paris. Would there already be an evolved restaurant from the basis of Roman taberna, and popinae? The latter being more of what we have with Bar/Pub that offer a small selective food menu. The more the growth of these ventures the higher of demand would go for certain food stuffs. Would we see the rise of "Michelin" rating system? I know they don't have Tire magnates trying to subversly push demand for their products, but still if there were established restaurants, and tourist pamphlets, we could see a "Dining Pamphlet" for respective cities with an established restaurant industry. This would also go hand in hand with equal rights, as traditionally Men made up the majority of employed cooks in the restaurant industry from the Middle Ages to even now. This has been documented in Hampton House with Henry VIII hiring almost all men as his culinary staff due to the prestige of having a more expensive brigade. Do TTL Rhomans have this same stigma of women vs men in the habit of pay inequality?
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it would be kind of strange if Greeks were using Roman words for Inns and Bars.