OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: Jetavan on January 14, 2013, 07:15:27 PM

Title: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Jetavan on January 14, 2013, 07:15:27 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tallitot on January 14, 2013, 07:17:04 PM
Good grief.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 14, 2013, 07:21:09 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Absolutely a possibility.  :(

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 14, 2013, 07:25:05 PM
Good grief.

This should definitely be the post of the month.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: choy on January 14, 2013, 07:28:46 PM
In a way this circles back to us.  Christians have maltreated gays for centuries, instead of being charitable to them and helping them with their struggle, they were maligned and abused.  Now they have "rights" on their side, this is going back to bite us.  Because of our track record for handling this issue, no one is taking our side.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 14, 2013, 07:33:36 PM
get a grip ye priests!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: biro on January 14, 2013, 07:39:01 PM
I didn't realize the church had faced centuries of persecution by Anglican gay married guys.

Who do they mean, Elton John?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Ashman618 on January 14, 2013, 08:03:49 PM
1054 priests, lol it seems fate is not without a sense of irony
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 14, 2013, 08:06:28 PM
however can we be Christians without the state guaranteeing our say on other people's lives? how many parish members's donations are we going to lose if being christian does not translate as being a noble child of the state?wa :'( wa  :'( wa.  :'( what if these gay people did what we Christians did when we came to the power of the state?huh? what if they also start to round us up and imprison us, burn us on a stake, declare a law against us freely practicing what we believe to be right, strip us of our civil rights what if what if they too decide to do what we have done with those who oppose us?

if they are anything like us,or have learnt how to behave while in power from us, then the sky will fall!

back to the pre-Constantine era folks, you decide whether its good or bad judging by the state of christian affairs in the world today.

if we had preached and practiced the Gospel all this panic would have been unnecessary as we would have lived with all our neighbors in peace and love, even while we tell the Truth of our Faith to them and live it out daily. but we have wielded the weapon of the state, and we have chosen to run to it for shelter. let us see if this serves Christianity. or make another history of shame for us by our very own standards and ideals.

but there is even worse, we talk this way expect the worst of them judging by what we are used to do , and yet they show mercy, justice, love , towards us and what will we say then? are we not setting ourselves to disgrace of our own making of epic proportion?

yeah you disagree, and I disagree with you, so there.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 14, 2013, 08:20:42 PM
Why is everyone acting like this is so absurd? Catholic institutions have already been closed down because of this.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Santagranddad on January 14, 2013, 10:45:46 PM
It might be said that the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales reaction is a bit 'over the top'. However here we have seen ever increasing pressures for change. Seven years ago Civil Partnerships were created for those same sex couples that wished take that option. Now same marriages suddenly appear out of Prime Minister David Cameron's head, despite the concept appeared in no political parties manifesto at the last general election. The implementation date set for this appears to allow little time for in depth exploration of all possible implications of such a move. Religious bodies other than the Church of England would have to opt in if they wished to carry out such 'marriages'. Anglican would be forbidden by law from doing so.

Potential problems might include a legal challenge by a same sex couple to any of the supposed safeguards for religious groups that have grounds for not accepting 'same sex' marriage on European equal rights laws. Lynne Featherstone, Minister for Equalities pooh poohs this, but is not the intellectually brightest minister on the front bench, and ministerial assurances have not always lived up to expectations in the past.

What concerns me is the change the government is seeking in terms of what constitutes marriage. Since the 1800s marriage here has in law been defined as being between a man and woman. The change does not even appear to be universally wanted by members of the Gay community.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: pmpn8rGPT on January 14, 2013, 10:55:04 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 14, 2013, 11:13:47 PM
To pin the return of persecution on gay marriage is a bit wrong, gay marriage is just one symptom of a much larger problem.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tallitot on January 14, 2013, 11:20:33 PM
(http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u495/fragdoll2/a8239eec9077431cb6c6bc15712285ff_zps73821bbd.jpg)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on January 14, 2013, 11:24:49 PM
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 14, 2013, 11:28:36 PM
Let me guess Tallitot, you're in pretend-Jew "Reformed Judaism"?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on January 14, 2013, 11:30:48 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.

I agree with this. In the United States, a similar manifesto, the Manhattan Declaration, was initially signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders. Later, ordinary citizens, like yours truly, have also signed it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 14, 2013, 11:32:57 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.

I agree with this. In the United States, a similar manifesto, the Manhattan Declaration, was initially signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders. Later, ordinary citizens, like yours truly, have also signed it.

and myself...
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: biro on January 14, 2013, 11:34:20 PM
Why is everyone acting like this is so absurd? Catholic institutions have already been closed down because of this.

I am not aware of one church that has closed because the church didn't like gay marriage. I have heard of many that were closed because they had to be sold to pay settlements from the child abuse scandal.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 14, 2013, 11:42:10 PM
I agree with this. In the United States, a similar manifesto, the Manhattan Declaration, was initially signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders. Later, ordinary citizens, like yours truly, have also signed it.
+1

Didn't realize we could sign it until you mentioned it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 14, 2013, 11:43:53 PM
Why is everyone acting like this is so absurd? Catholic institutions have already been closed down because of this.

I am not aware of one church that has closed because the church didn't like gay marriage. I have heard of many that were closed because they had to be sold to pay settlements from the child abuse scandal.
Biro, do you honestly think that the powers that be will tolerate any "intolerance" from the RCs whether real or supposed? I'm with William on this.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 14, 2013, 11:56:04 PM
Why is everyone acting like this is so absurd? Catholic institutions have already been closed down because of this.

I am not aware of one church that has closed because the church didn't like gay marriage. I have heard of many that were closed because they had to be sold to pay settlements from the child abuse scandal.

Catholic orphanages have been forced to close for refusing to allow gay couples to adopt.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tallitot on January 14, 2013, 11:57:38 PM
Let me guess Tallitot, you're in pretend-Jew "Reformed Judaism"?
No, Conservative:
http://uscj.org/
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 14, 2013, 11:58:46 PM
Let me guess Tallitot, you're in pretend-Jew "Reformed Judaism"?
No, Conservative:
http://uscj.org/

You realize Judaism strongly condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage right? It's only the pretend Jews of the Reformed Judaism movement that accept it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tallitot on January 15, 2013, 12:01:49 AM
Let me guess Tallitot, you're in pretend-Jew "Reformed Judaism"?
No, Conservative:
http://uscj.org/

You realize Judaism strongly condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage right? It's only the pretend Jews of the Reformed Judaism movement that accept it.
Are you Jewish? If not then perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 15, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
You realize Judaism strongly condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage right? It's only the pretend Jews of the Reformed Judaism movement that accept it.
Conservative Judaism, while not being part of Reform Judaism, seems to vary between being closer to Orthodox or Reform.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 15, 2013, 12:05:43 AM
Let me guess Tallitot, you're in pretend-Jew "Reformed Judaism"?
No, Conservative:
http://uscj.org/

You realize Judaism strongly condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage right? It's only the pretend Jews of the Reformed Judaism movement that accept it.
Are you Jewish? If not then perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.

I think this would have sufficed.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 15, 2013, 12:16:57 AM
Let me guess Tallitot, you're in pretend-Jew "Reformed Judaism"?
No, Conservative:
http://uscj.org/

You realize Judaism strongly condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage right? It's only the pretend Jews of the Reformed Judaism movement that accept it.
Are you Jewish? If not then perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.

I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 15, 2013, 12:21:52 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 15, 2013, 12:22:27 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tallitot on January 15, 2013, 12:25:28 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Whatever...but that really isn't the point of this thread.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 15, 2013, 12:28:30 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Whatever...but that really isn't the point of this thread.

Of course, modern Judaism itself is just fake since Orthodoxy is the true successor to Israel but that's beside the point. I'm sure pretend Jews like the Reformed and Conservatives are just going to destroy the Jewish faith and turn more of them to atheism, it's already been happening.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 15, 2013, 12:29:20 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Whatever...but that really isn't the point of this thread.

Of course, modern Judaism itself is just fake since Orthodoxy is the true successor to Israel but that's beside the point. I'm sure pretend Jews like the Reformed and Conservatives are just going to destroy the Jewish faith and turn more of them to atheism, it's already been happening.

Do you have a point other than spreading your misinformation-fueled absurdities?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:32:38 AM
In a way this circles back to us.  Christians have maltreated gays for centuries, instead of being charitable to them and helping them with their struggle, they were maligned and abused.  Now they have "rights" on their side, this is going back to bite us.  Because of our track record for handling this issue, no one is taking our side.

Christians who weren't being Christian at the time...
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:33:25 AM
I didn't realize the church had faced centuries of persecution by Anglican gay married guys.

Who do they mean, Elton John?

I feel persecuted every time I hear him sing.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:34:55 AM
Why is everyone acting like this is so absurd? Catholic institutions have already been closed down because of this.

Indeed.

Catholic adoption agencies ceased work in Massachusetts after gay marriage became legal there, I remember reading.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:37:14 AM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs

We can and do show love and compassion, but some people want an endorsement and blessing for their behavior, and that we cannot give.

How is the position of the Orthodox Church with regard to homosexual activity any different than that of the Roman Catholic Church?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:37:43 AM
To pin the return of persecution on gay marriage is a bit wrong, gay marriage is just one symptom of a much larger problem.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:40:43 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

There's apparently a trend of Orthodox Christians becoming gay Jews. I know at least three.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 15, 2013, 12:42:01 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Whatever...but that really isn't the point of this thread.

Of course, modern Judaism itself is just fake since Orthodoxy is the true successor to Israel but that's beside the point. I'm sure pretend Jews like the Reformed and Conservatives are just going to destroy the Jewish faith and turn more of them to atheism, it's already been happening.

Do you have a point other than spreading your misinformation-fueled absurdities?

What would the Patron of Cigarette Manufacturers say?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 15, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Whatever...but that really isn't the point of this thread.

Of course, modern Judaism itself is just fake since Orthodoxy is the true successor to Israel but that's beside the point. I'm sure pretend Jews like the Reformed and Conservatives are just going to destroy the Jewish faith and turn more of them to atheism, it's already been happening.

Do you have a point other than spreading your misinformation-fueled absurdities?

What would the Patron of Cigarette Manufacturers say?

Well he certainly wouldn't restrict his attacks to Reform Jews.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nicene on January 15, 2013, 02:35:30 AM
I wouldn't put it impossible any european government to force churches to marry gay couples some time in the future.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: jmbejdl on January 15, 2013, 05:19:33 AM
I wouldn't put it impossible any european government to force churches to marry gay couples some time in the future.

To my knowledge no Orthodox churches in Britain conduct legal marriages (certainly I was told that the Ecumenical Patriarchate priests here need to see a marriage certificate first) and the same is actually true back in Romania. You have to bring your civil wedding certificate to the the priest before he will marry you. As long as that's the case, I fail to see how any government could force the Orthodox Church to 'marry' people of the same sex. Unfortunately for those churches, such as the Anglicans, that do conduct legal as well as religious marriage, I suspect you may be correct.

James
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tallitot on January 15, 2013, 06:49:32 AM
1054 priests signed it. How does that compare to the number of Catholics who coming forward with accounts of being sexually abused by priests?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 15, 2013, 08:26:15 AM
To pin the return of persecution on gay marriage is a bit wrong, gay marriage is just one symptom of a much larger problem.

I agree completely; however, the social acceptance of homosexuality as normal is the chosen battle front from both sides and it appears strategy may not be the strongest quality of Christians.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 15, 2013, 12:48:55 PM
1054 priests signed it. How does that compare to the number of Catholics who coming forward with accounts of being sexually abused by priests?
Is that relevant for the soundness of their claims? If not, leave your mud-slinging elsewhere.

I'll give you a hint: it's not relevant.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Monk Vasyl on January 15, 2013, 01:31:13 PM
1054 priests signed it. How does that compare to the number of Catholics who coming forward with accounts of being sexually abused by priests?
Is that relevant for the soundness of their claims? If not, leave your mud-slinging elsewhere.

I'll give you a hint: it's not relevant.

Glad I'm not the only one to feel that its NOT relevant.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Santagranddad on January 15, 2013, 02:10:35 PM
Amen
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 15, 2013, 02:11:28 PM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

There's apparently a trend of Orthodox Christians becoming gay Jews. I know at least three.

In this economy, what else can you do?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 15, 2013, 02:12:51 PM
 88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: vamrat on January 15, 2013, 02:26:28 PM
The main thing with gay marriage that concerns me is, will freedom of religion be maintained?  I will vote 'no' on any law that does not have specific clauses guaranteeing that a church is not required to marry anyone and that marriage services can be denied at the discretion of the church

If Catholic orphanages are indeed being persecuted for refusing adoptions to homosexual than I also find this disturbing, as long as the church is not receiving state funds for operation.


Personally, I disagree with the concept of civil marriage in general as it is nothing more than a lopsided financial contract.  But as it is, if divorce is legal than I really don't care if gays get civil marriages.  What do you expect from marriage in Babylon?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 15, 2013, 02:33:38 PM
The main thing with gay marriage that concerns me is, will freedom of religion be maintained?  I will vote 'no' on any law that does not have specific clauses guaranteeing that a church is not required to marry anyone and that marriage services can be denied at the discretion of the church

If Catholic orphanages are indeed being persecuted for refusing adoptions to homosexual than I also find this disturbing, as long as the church is not receiving state funds for operation.


Personally, I disagree with the concept of civil marriage in general as it is nothing more than a lopsided financial contract.  But as it is, if divorce is legal than I really don't care if gays get civil marriages.  What do you expect from marriage in Babylon?

Two things:

[redacted. darn news.]

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: genesisone on January 15, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
The main thing with gay marriage that concerns me is, will freedom of religion be maintained?  I will vote 'no' on any law that does not have specific clauses guaranteeing that a church is not required to marry anyone and that marriage services can be denied at the discretion of the church

The solution is very simple. Churches should play no role in the civil aspects of marriage (however defined by the state). An Orthodox wedding is a blessing of a union between a man and a woman. We need change nothing - other than omitting the signing of legal documents in connection with the service. In fact, I believe it would make the service an even more sacred event than it is likely often treated.

How heterodox churches deal with it is their problem, though it wouldn't surprise me that they take our lead as a model.

Priests (and other clergymen) would simply refuse all weddings in which they act as agents of the civil authority.

Couples can easily get required legal documents at a city hall, courthouse, or whatever the local system provides.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: vamrat on January 15, 2013, 03:32:06 PM
The main thing with gay marriage that concerns me is, will freedom of religion be maintained?  I will vote 'no' on any law that does not have specific clauses guaranteeing that a church is not required to marry anyone and that marriage services can be denied at the discretion of the church

The solution is very simple. Churches should play no role in the civil aspects of marriage (however defined by the state). An Orthodox wedding is a blessing of a union between a man and a woman. We need change nothing - other than omitting the signing of legal documents in connection with the service. In fact, I believe it would make the service an even more sacred event than it is likely often treated.

How heterodox churches deal with it is their problem, though it wouldn't surprise me that they take our lead as a model.

Priests (and other clergymen) would simply refuse all weddings in which they act as agents of the civil authority.

Couples can easily get required legal documents at a city hall, courthouse, or whatever the local system provides.

That would solve the problem pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Jetavan on January 15, 2013, 03:32:19 PM
If Catholic orphanages are indeed being persecuted for refusing adoptions to homosexual than I also find this disturbing, as long as the church is not receiving state funds for operation.

"The conservative Irish religious group, the Iona Institute (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Conservative-Irish-Catholic-group-supports-gay-adoption-over-children-in-orphanages-174993851.html), has come out in favor of adoption by gay couples, over “Romanian-style” orphanages.

David Quinn, the director of the group, that promotes marriage and religion in society, made these comments after a High Court judge ruled that banning single people and gay couple from adopting children, in Northern Ireland, was discriminatory.
....
David Quinn said: 'If the choice is between being left in an orphanage and being raised by a loving single parent, a loving same-sex couple, or a loving unmarried couple, then absolutely the child has to be adopted.

'Institutions, even when they are well run, are awful places for a child to grow up in. I've seen this and there's no question about it.'"
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Santagranddad on January 15, 2013, 06:16:52 PM
British Government assurances of a quadruple lock protecting religious groups exercising their conscience in respect of same sex marriage are all very well but in an increasingly secular Europe will those assurances stand up. There are always those who will push at any boundaries, as history has demonstrated.

So I do not believe Christians and others can sit back and say, that's alright then. On the other hand 'over the top' reactions as have seen on the part of the Roman Catholic Church do those with reservations about same sex marriage no favours.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 15, 2013, 06:49:10 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.

LOL this sounds like something a person such as Pat Robertson would say.  It's all those danged gays and atheists fault, they're ruining our society haha.   I don't see why anyone would seek to limit them practicing their faith, however they should not be in positions of power to enforce their idea of morality upon the rest of us who disagree with it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Antonis on January 15, 2013, 08:07:58 PM
I think the Hebrew Scriptures, Talmud and Midrash speak pretty plainly. Pretend Jews just try to re-interpret them, or ignore them. They're no better than the Jews who worshiped the golden calf. They are the exact same as Pretend Christians.
The point was that he is Conservative, and much of Conservative Judaism accepts it like Reform Judaism does.

That's why I said that Conservative Judaism varies between being closer to Orthodox (minority I think) and closer to Reform (majority), particularly on issues like these.

Then Conservative Judaism is just a fake and pretend as Reformed Judaism
Whatever...but that really isn't the point of this thread.

Of course, modern Judaism itself is just fake since Orthodoxy is the true successor to Israel but that's beside the point. I'm sure pretend Jews like the Reformed and Conservatives are just going to destroy the Jewish faith and turn more of them to atheism, it's already been happening.

Do you have a point other than spreading your misinformation-fueled absurdities?
He's supporting his opinion just as much as you are. He could say the same about you, and frankly, the scriptures are clearly on his side. Any disagreement with that is a "misinformation-fueled absurdity."
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Sakeneko on January 15, 2013, 11:25:34 PM
The solution is very simple. Churches should play no role in the civil aspects of marriage (however defined by the state). An Orthodox wedding is a blessing of a union between a man and a woman. We need change nothing - other than omitting the signing of legal documents in connection with the service. In fact, I believe it would make the service an even more sacred event than it is likely often treated.

How heterodox churches deal with it is their problem, though it wouldn't surprise me that they take our lead as a model.

Priests (and other clergymen) would simply refuse all weddings in which they act as agents of the civil authority.

Couples can easily get required legal documents at a city hall, courthouse, or whatever the local system provides.

Too simple.  Too easy.  Too logical.   And it just might work.  :)

There are other issues in the UK, but the first amendment appears to protect us in the U.S. from the worst of them. 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: primuspilus on January 16, 2013, 10:22:52 AM
Quote
1054 priests signed it. How does that compare to the number of Catholics who coming forward with accounts of being sexually abused by priests?
It doesn't compare. They are 2 completely separate issues.

PP
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: vamrat on January 16, 2013, 10:41:23 AM
Quote
1054 priests signed it. How does that compare to the number of Catholics who coming forward with accounts of being sexually abused by priests?
It doesn't compare. They are 2 completely separate issues.

PP

Indeed, the 1,054 Priests are doing something that doesn't grant cash and prizes.  I always suspect the accuser when settlements are involved.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 16, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 16, 2013, 06:37:27 PM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".

Thanks for helping us realize some of us were never really Orthodox.......... lol
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: biro on January 16, 2013, 06:46:00 PM
Quote from: 88Devin12

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".

Lots of modern Jews actually did die horrible deaths, not too long ago.

Do you think at all before you set fingers to keyboard?

If half of the people who post here are as angry in real life as they are on this board, we're all lost.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2013, 06:55:13 PM
In a way this circles back to us.  Christians have maltreated gays for centuries, instead of being charitable to them and helping them with their struggle, they were maligned and abused.  Now they have "rights" on their side, this is going back to bite us.  Because of our track record for handling this issue, no one is taking our side.
What? What are you talking about? What "christians" might that be?

If anything, the followers of Christ have went out of their way to placate these sodmites. Why don't they go take their chances with the Moslems or pagans and come back and tell Christians how awful we "treated them.

This whole "gay bashing" by the Church and Christians is really getting old and one of the biggest lies perpetuated out there.

Enough already.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
1054 priests, lol it seems fate is not without a sense of irony
Hmmm..... Why should that specific number mean something to me?

I don't know, I guess it doesn't.  ;D
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 16, 2013, 07:04:39 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion
and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs
What? Not to call sin and error for what it is? And how is that some way considered "compassion?

What in God's holy name is wrong with "christians" today, especially on the Internet?

I swear half the Christian Internet is choke full of homosexuals or homosexual-sympathizers.

If that's the attitude you have, then yes, good thing you're not RC indeed.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 16, 2013, 07:06:47 PM
(http://i.qkme.me/35w664.jpg)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 16, 2013, 07:07:43 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion
and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs
What? Not to call sin and error for what it is? And how is that some way considered "compassion?

What in God's holy name is wrong with "christians" today, especially on the Internet?

I swear half the Christian Internet is choke full of homosexuals or homosexual-sympathizers.

If that's the attitude you have, then yes, good thing you're not RC indeed.


The internet never fails to be a source of entertainment.   I think I came from a very different planet...  :laugh:
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 16, 2013, 07:11:06 PM
(http://i.qkme.me/35w664.jpg)

LOLOLOL :laugh: :laugh:   The fear that people have over this, is beyond me..
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: biro on January 16, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion
and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs
What? Not to call sin and error for what it is? And how is that some way considered "compassion?

What in God's holy name is wrong with "christians" today, especially on the Internet?

I swear half the Christian Internet is choke full of homosexuals or homosexual-sympathizers.

If that's the attitude you have, then yes, good thing you're not RC indeed.

Charles, what is your obsession?

And why do you talk like a maiden aunt who grew up in the 1930s?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Antonis on January 16, 2013, 08:58:52 PM
Quote from: 88Devin12

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".

Lots of modern Jews actually did die horrible deaths, not too long ago.

Do you think at all before you set fingers to keyboard?

If half of the people who post here are as angry in real life as they are on this board, we're all lost.

That is clearly not what he meant at all. Nice try at guilting him though.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nicene on January 17, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
I wouldn't put it impossible any european government to force churches to marry gay couples some time in the future.

To my knowledge no Orthodox churches in Britain conduct legal marriages (certainly I was told that the Ecumenical Patriarchate priests here need to see a marriage certificate first) and the same is actually true back in Romania. You have to bring your civil wedding certificate to the the priest before he will marry you. As long as that's the case, I fail to see how any government could force the Orthodox Church to 'marry' people of the same sex. Unfortunately for those churches, such as the Anglicans, that do conduct legal as well as religious marriage, I suspect you may be correct.

James

That hte church would discriminate and not hold equal certain people may be thought of as unfair or violating the rights of people. I suspect this attitutude will only grow in europe, even here in New Zealand and I would not be surprised by it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: jmbejdl on January 17, 2013, 05:04:40 AM
I wouldn't put it impossible any european government to force churches to marry gay couples some time in the future.

To my knowledge no Orthodox churches in Britain conduct legal marriages (certainly I was told that the Ecumenical Patriarchate priests here need to see a marriage certificate first) and the same is actually true back in Romania. You have to bring your civil wedding certificate to the the priest before he will marry you. As long as that's the case, I fail to see how any government could force the Orthodox Church to 'marry' people of the same sex. Unfortunately for those churches, such as the Anglicans, that do conduct legal as well as religious marriage, I suspect you may be correct.

James

That hte church would discriminate and not hold equal certain people may be thought of as unfair or violating the rights of people. I suspect this attitutude will only grow in europe, even here in New Zealand and I would not be surprised by it.

I don't doubt that people will think it so - a lot of them already do - but if the Church is not involved in anyway in the legal aspects of marriage and is not acting as a business (for some reason here the state seems to think that if you offer services for sale you have to offer them to everyone impartially), which it isn't, I fail to see how the government could ever force the Church to marry same sex couples. Private organisations are allowed to discriminate and set entry requirements whether they are secular or religious. If a Church offers legally binding marriages, then I think that, eventually, they will be compelled by the state to offer them to all. However, until such time as the state starts intervening in churches to force them to offer all their sacraments to all - something I can't see ever happening - then I'm sure Orthodox weddings will be free from interference. If they did start interfering in such a way they would definitely drive the Church underground and we'd surely be facing an age of persecution, but we'd have a lot more to worry about than the occasional request for a same sex marriage - being forced to offer the Eucharist generally to heterodox or non-Christians, for example.

James
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 17, 2013, 09:52:06 AM
I don't doubt that people will think it so - a lot of them already do - but if the Church is not involved in anyway in the legal aspects of marriage and is not acting as a business (for some reason here the state seems to think that if you offer services for sale you have to offer them to everyone impartially), which it isn't, I fail to see how the government could ever force the Church to marry same sex couples. Private organisations are allowed to discriminate and set entry requirements whether they are secular or religious. If a Church offers legally binding marriages, then I think that, eventually, they will be compelled by the state to offer them to all. However, until such time as the state starts intervening in churches to force them to offer all their sacraments to all - something I can't see ever happening - then I'm sure Orthodox weddings will be free from interference. If they did start interfering in such a way they would definitely drive the Church underground and we'd surely be facing an age of persecution, but we'd have a lot more to worry about than the occasional request for a same sex marriage - being forced to offer the Eucharist generally to heterodox or non-Christians, for example.

James

I'm afraid that walling-off to the secular world will only work for so long, if we grant that culture at large turns down the road being talked about;

For example:
Quote
The decision gave only limited guidance about how courts should decide who counts as a minister, saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.” Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.
[...]
In addition to ministers, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders, the decision appears to encompass, for instance, at least those teachers in religious schools with formal religious training who are charged with instructing students about religious matters.
[...]
Ms. Perich was a “called” teacher who had completed religious training and whom the school considered a minister. She was fired, the school said, for violating religious doctrine by pursuing litigation rather than trying to resolve her dispute within the church.
[...]
The administration had told the justices that their analysis of Ms. Perich’s case should be essentially the same whether she had been employed by a church, a labor union, a social club or any other group with free-association rights under the First Amendment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html

While the SCOTUS shot the case down 9-0, it shows that there is at least the presence of a position (the Obama administration in this instance) interested in controlling internal elements of church life. If the SCOTUS had decided differently on the issue, even ministers would have been able to sue for "job discrimination."
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 17, 2013, 08:40:12 PM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion
and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs
What? Not to call sin and error for what it is? And how is that some way considered "compassion?
"
What in God's holy name is wrong with "christians" today, especially on the Internet?

I swear half the Christian Internet is choke full of homosexuals or homosexual-sympathizers.

If that's the attitude you have, then yes, good thing you're not RC indeed.

Charles, what is your obsession?

And why do you talk like a maiden aunt who grew up in the 1930s?
Seems the "obsession here is the constant attack on RC clergy for one reason or another when it comes to the homosexual platform especially on the issue of" same-sex" marriage (Which is a joke if I ever heard one).

I've never seen so much pro-homosexual babble on a christian forum, I can't believe that most Orthodox really believe this way.

And what, has the truth changed since the 1930's?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 17, 2013, 08:45:50 PM
I can't believe that most Orthodox really believe this way.
I'd say most don't.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Father H on January 18, 2013, 12:00:01 AM
Good grief.

This should definitely be the post of the month.

New category:  "Charlie Brown's post of the month"
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 18, 2013, 12:00:40 AM
More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html) could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as "meaningless".

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition's plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.
Disgusting how religious leaders care about legislation

Even more so how uncharitable these statements are

We should love and pray for the sinners, if gay marriage is somehow a cause for Christian persecution then it is our own fault for not showing love and compassion
and doing what we can to make them want to seek repentance from their promiscuous and homosexual behavior

Good thing we're not RCs
What? Not to call sin and error for what it is? And how is that some way considered "compassion?
"
What in God's holy name is wrong with "christians" today, especially on the Internet?

I swear half the Christian Internet is choke full of homosexuals or homosexual-sympathizers.

If that's the attitude you have, then yes, good thing you're not RC indeed.

Charles, what is your obsession?

And why do you talk like a maiden aunt who grew up in the 1930s?
Seems the "obsession here is the constant attack on RC clergy for one reason or another when it comes to the homosexual platform especially on the issue of" same-sex" marriage (Which is a joke if I ever heard one).

I've never seen so much pro-homosexual babble on a christian forum, I can't believe that most Orthodox really believe this way.

And what, has the truth changed since the 1930's?

I can't believe you think this forum is particularly "pro-homosexual."
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Father H on January 18, 2013, 12:08:25 AM
I can't believe that most Orthodox really believe this way.
I'd say most don't.

Correct.  One would be foolish to judge a whole religious body based on a single thread on a single forum. 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 18, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
I can't believe that most Orthodox really believe this way.
I'd say most don't.

Correct.  One would be foolish to judge a whole religious body based on a single thread on a single forum. 
Right Father, that's why I said "I can't believe".

There's no way most Orthodox are pro-homosexual.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 18, 2013, 08:08:48 PM
Define "pro-homosexual".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 18, 2013, 08:12:27 PM
Define "pro-homosexual".
In this context it probably means not foaming at the mouth and not writing all manner of psycho-analysable babble.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 18, 2013, 09:56:33 PM
I can't believe that most Orthodox really believe this way.
I'd say most don't.
At least, not the ones I have met in person.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 18, 2013, 09:57:16 PM
Define "pro-homosexual".

Define "define".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on January 18, 2013, 10:05:27 PM

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Having participated in both of these traditions, I can report that they do seem to be dying out.

I believe that everyone should practice as they want (but if they see the light of Orthodox Christianity, hooray!)  "Pretend" Christianity and Judaism (which is the best term ever,) are ridiculous.  I support people who want to practice them, but I do not support the practices themselves.  It's silliness.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 06:42:30 AM
Define "pro-homosexual".
Anything not definitively anti-homosexual.

Or at least how the Church defines it.

And charity does not equal acceptance.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 06:42:55 AM
Define "pro-homosexual".

Define "define".
;D
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 19, 2013, 07:49:34 AM
Define "pro-homosexual".
Anything not definitively anti-homosexual.

Or at least how the Church defines it.

How does the Church (what Church?) define it?

Define "anti-homosexual".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Santagranddad on January 19, 2013, 08:25:33 AM
I was taught to hate the sin NOT the sinner, bearing in mind we are all sinners.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 08:29:27 AM
Church = The, or of the, original Apostolic Church (i.e., Orthodox and Roman Catholic)

Pro = In favor of, promoting, or not in opposition to

Anti = Against or in opposition to

Homosexual = Of or pertaining to homosexuality/homosexual acts (Sin)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 19, 2013, 08:34:12 AM
Church = The, or of the, original Apostolic Church (i.e., Orthodox and Roman Catholic)

I don't consider Vatican to be a part of the Church.

Quote
Pro = In favor of, promoting, or not in opposition to

"In favour" is not equal to "not in opposition to".

Quote
Anti = Against or in opposition to

"Against" is not an opposition to "in favour".

Quote
Homosexual = Of or pertaining to homosexuality/homosexual acts (Sin)

"Homosexuality" does not equal to "homosexual acts".

Your definition is dumb. Make it more precise.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 08:40:56 AM
Church = The, or of the, original Apostolic Church (i.e., Orthodox and Roman Catholic)

I don't consider Vatican to be a part of the Church. (That's you, not Catholics)

Quote
Pro = In favor of, promoting, or not in opposition to

"In favour" is not equal to "not in opposition to". (Yes it is.)

Quote
Anti = Against or in opposition to

"Against" is not an opposition to "in favour". (Yes it is.)

Quote
Homosexual = Of or pertaining to homosexuality/homosexual acts (Sin)

"Homosexuality" does not equal to "homosexual acts".  (There is a little word I placed in there you apparently skipped over.  Its "or", and Yes it does.)

Your definition is dumb. Make it more precise.

Then perhaps you should have posted YOUR definitions.

Because you do not like it in no way makes it dumb. (bolded portion reference).  

Did you forget what this thread was discussing?  (blue portion reference)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 19, 2013, 10:01:42 AM
I think "pro-homosexual" and "anti-homosexual" may be too vague, and any other similar words are going to be loaded.

Maybe say the "opposition of legal or moral acceptance of homosexual behavior (e.g. marriage)," the "encouraging of legal or moral acceptance of homosexual behavior," or the "indifference to legal or moral acceptance of homosexual behavior."

In each case, "legal or moral" may be contextual as an either-or situation, or a both-and.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 10:17:40 AM
"How does the Church (what Church?) define it?


Church: One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Here's some help for you;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfqKOUqy9OM

Homosexuality: "2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


"Define "anti-homosexual".


Anti: an·ti/ˈæn taɪ, ˈæn ti/ Show Spelled [an-tahy, an-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural an·tis. 
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual?s=t


Are we clear now?

Or do I have to define "clear". ::)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 10:20:31 AM
"I don't consider Vatican to be a part of the Church."


It doesn't matter what you consider outside of the  Michal Kalina-kingdom.

2000 yrs of history says different.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Nephi on January 19, 2013, 10:22:04 AM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 10:23:32 AM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 19, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 19, 2013, 07:18:57 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

You do have a point, after all, in the words of Our Lord: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you hate teh geyz.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 07:25:06 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

You do have a point, after all, in the words of Our Lord: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you hate teh geyz.
What "Lord" might that be?

My God said to despise sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 07:29:05 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 19, 2013, 07:36:19 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 19, 2013, 07:48:10 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?
I see you hate me James.

Is there anyway you can stick to a topic without calling someone a "hater"?

Are we projecting again?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: theistgal on January 19, 2013, 08:13:12 PM
Uh guys, can you ease up on the slap fight?  ::)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:05:21 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.    

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:06:59 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

Are you saying, if a person has a same sex attraction but NEVER acts on that attraction in a physical way, that person is not a homosexual?  But when that same person acts on the attraction in a physical way, that person then becomes, by definition, a homosexual?  Charles, you can’t say things like this.  It makes too much sense.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 19, 2013, 09:30:12 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:30:52 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."

This carries us back into the realm of “words no longer have meaning”.  When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.  In this instance, a person is not a homosexual until that person engages in homosexual activity.  Let me provide a couple of examples to explain.

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

What if I think someone is so bad the world would benefit if that person was killed off?  Does that make me a murderer?  No, not until I entertain this thought resulting in an overt action on my part. 

So, if someone finds the same gender sexually appealing, does that make the person a homosexual?  No, not until that person entertains those thoughts resulting in an overt action on their part.

Now, if a person has engaged in homosexual acts, by definition, that person is a homosexual and is wrong…in the same manner as if I were to have an adulterous affair on my wife or murder someone in cold blood. 

Homosexuality does not get its own rules and definitions due to political correctness.  It is still restricted by the same standards as everything else in the world.

Life is not as complicated as people pretend.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:31:58 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

I don't follow.  Maybe he is saying we are to hate all sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:33:55 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Let me ensure I understand you correctly.  As long as a person does not engage in homosexual activity they are ok, but if they do they are wrong.   Yes?  If so, it’s the same thing everyone else is saying.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 19, 2013, 09:45:25 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

I don't follow.  Maybe he is saying we are to hate all sin.

""One is activity and one is a person."  Can you separate one from another?"
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 19, 2013, 09:58:55 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.

I don't follow.  Maybe he is saying we are to hate all sin.

""One is activity and one is a person."  Can you separate one from another?"

I already did. ???
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: choy on January 20, 2013, 01:23:29 AM
Funny how in the US it is MLK Day and half of the conversations I watch on TV about it talk about "Gay Rights".  I think it is only a matter of time before we win the debate on abortion, but this is one thing that we will lose and at some point the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will be considered "hate organizations".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: choy on January 20, 2013, 01:36:20 AM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 20, 2013, 01:46:13 AM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 20, 2013, 03:21:20 AM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.   

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?


Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 20, 2013, 04:01:14 AM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.    

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?


Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

Do you ever watch television?

...and thanks for showing what I said was accurate.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 20, 2013, 07:51:16 AM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.   

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?


Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

Do you ever watch television?

Never heard of any Orthodox Church being "attacked" by gays.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 20, 2013, 08:31:10 AM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective  
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.    

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?


Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

Do you ever watch television?

Never heard of any Orthodox Church being "attacked" by gays.

Then you aren't "paying attention."

I truly enjoy your selective understanding and word usage.  It makes for such invigorating dialogue. 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 20, 2013, 01:13:06 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 20, 2013, 01:15:13 PM
Uh guys, can you ease up on the slap fight?  ::)
Woman what does your concern have to do with me?  ;D
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 20, 2013, 01:23:40 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
He most likely is; however, consistent with his traditional debating style, he confused what is being discussed with what he wants to discuss.  This then creates an environment of confusion in which only he knows what he is talking about and everyone else is “wrong”.   

I suggest, rather than do this, he uses an open mind and attempt to understand what people are saying.  This thread isn’t about homosexuals who control their desire to sin.  It’s about all of the others, the 99.9% of them and social acceptance resulting in the attacks we see increasing on churches.  In other words, he is avoiding the real topic and making his own arguments which have been made in other threads and are completely irrelevant to this thread.  Michal needs to stop for a moment and actually attempt to understand the argument before posting.  We are all guilty of not doing this from time to time, but there are some of us who do it regularly.

Hint:  Michal, this isn’t about individual, specific people who have deviant sexual desires (as most people alive do) and control themselves, it’s about the rest of it all.  Do you need a definition of “the rest” or do you get me?


Who has attacked "your Church"? How? Can you post some links to newsstories?

'Gay' hate vandalizes church, threatens even more violence

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356361/#U2Z7ITAsSfJVD90P.99


In the early morning hours, on the eve of a banquet designed to expose the homosexual activist agenda, security cameras on the campus of the Christian Liberty Academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights, Ill., captured what may be a prominent example of an anti-Christian “hate crime.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/10/356361/#U2Z7ITAsSfJVD90P.99

Threat to burn down local Catholic church & profane attacks after pro-traditional marriage sign is posted on church property.
But the Catholics aren't backing down!

Flood of hate and profanity targeting churchHomosexual activists also came and put hateful signs on the Church property. One sign said "Holy Mother Virgin Whore" and another said "Jesus freaks pray for death." Two activists stood outside the church for about an hour.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/acushnet_church/index.html

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 20, 2013, 01:43:20 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: choy on January 20, 2013, 02:00:40 PM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

The fact that the sinful thought pop-up means that there is still lust in your heart that needs to be stomped out by prayer and asceticism.  Lustful reaction is not natural, therefore it is not okay to have them even if you didn't will the initial thought that popped into your mind.  You mean not have a tree of lust in your heart, but you certainly have the seeds of lust in there.  Many writings by saints say this.  I forgot which monk was it who was with brother monks and there was this parade of a pagan queen where she paraded around naked.  They were in the crowd and the other monks turned around so as they will not see the woman and be tempted into lustful thoughts.  While the one monk (who is a saint, I wish I have better memory) just stood there and watched.  Because he was pure in heart, he didn't even had that involuntary thought, entertained or not.  That was the point of the story.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: choy on January 20, 2013, 02:04:14 PM
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil.

This is why I believe the so-called traditionalist movement in the Roman Catholic Church is bogus.  It is spearheaded by people who mask their hate and bigotry with grandeur of Roman Catholic ritual tradition.  All they clamor is traditional externals, the traditional Mass, Latin, vestments, incense, etc.  But I have never heard of them talk about traditional Christian values of love.  Its all about judging someone for their sins or even for the type of Mass they attend.

By their fruits you will know them.  That is why I became Orthodox.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: theistgal on January 20, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Uh guys, can you ease up on the slap fight?  ::)
Woman what does your concern have to do with me?  ;D

Since you're not Jesus Christ, you don't get to use that line.  ::)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 20, 2013, 05:26:14 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?
I see you hate me James.

Is there anyway you can stick to a topic without calling someone a "hater"?

Are we projecting again?

Mr Charles , that was a legitimate question, if you say all sinners are evil and we are to hate evil, then pray tell, WHO are we told to love? and most importantly WHO are WE? are you not a sinner like me? then we should hate one another, declare war against sinners, oh ye holly folks who declare yourselves followers of The Christ! by your definition Perhaps Christ was wrong in eating and drinking with sinners in being friend of harlots and tax collectors,perhaps he should have become like one of those androgynous palace peacocks ,who have decked themselves with the symbol of Christ's infinite Love for Mankind and yet have drunk themselves into intoxication with the theocratic dynasty they have built forthemselves in the name of the Creator. perhaps He should have accepted Pilot's proposal when He was facing his Cross, perhaps His Church today should espouse herself to the power of the State so she may not face her Cross.

your insist that the Church is in danger from the civil liberties of homosexuals. pray tell me, what kind of danger is being talked about? is it the church abandoning her Faith and condoning sin of anykind? if you believe that then you believe heresy. the gates of hell shall not prevail upon the Church of Christ. now so what is your fear you want everyone infected with? that Christ's Love is not enough to bring men to repentance? that Christ's arms are not stretched on the cross to bring all men into himself in the Spirit for the Glory of the Father? that if Christians can not live in a christian state, Christianity becomes crippled? this is a new Gospel to me. the church will have enemies , men and women of varying degree of brokenness will lash out against God against the Church of Christ, this will not change, however if the Church starts to stop being the hospital to sinners, where they get her motherly compassion, guidance in wisdom, faithful with steadfast unshakable love for all mankind, where Christ's love and mercy trumps all other human reservation, where the harlot and the virgin stand together before God who loves them alike. Where Christ the humble Physician who labours to care for the sick and the wounded, the labored and the dying. where He is touched by those covered in shame more than by those who accompany him out of their perceived importance. I assure you the Church survives because the Church has managed to Speak the Truth with LOVE at all times, this is the key that makes her different from all the heterodoxy out there, which either embraces sin as glory, or turns around and declares hate towards men and becomes a bully claiming Divine Authority.  both cups of madness the Church has seen there were those who among her chose to drink from each and they are remembered for how far they have fallen from being the Faithful Witness of Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected. The Messiah has rejected the offer of Pilot, His Church also will reject it and will trust in the Love of God for All Mankind : Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected to heal mankind of its infirmities and will Pray for those who will persecute her with compassion and love, never hate and will say with the very prayer of the Son crucified for the Love and Life of Mankind ' Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!'

I have seen you mock the trust of others in the POWER of God's Love, you forget me and you exist even now because of that Love, that Mercy. if God had judged us according to our sins, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah the both of us. But we are here because of that Love that sustains all and is patient with all. the level of hate we have for other human beings after we profess Christ with our lips after we have claimed to be His followers, makes our sin even worse than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ was not loving the sin when He gave His VERY LIFE for US Sinners! He did not love us because we were saints, He loved us when we are sinner and loved us with the full measure of Love, and died for us sinners. I am one such sinner here to tell you that Such Love SAVES the condemned such love Regenerates the old, Vivifies the dead and with insurmountable generosity Exalts the lowly!

It is that very Love that will judge us at the end, and He goes through our heart looking for Love, saying if you have done it to one of the lowly you have done it for me. perhaps some of us are prepared to tell him how we have seen how cruel he can be, and we were afraid and we buried the talent he has given us. perhaps some of us will remind him how zealously we have campaigned for the abolishment of all sinners in his Name. how he was not there when we tolerated those lazy poor with our money and time, how even though our hearts were moved by disdain we made ourselves give that coin the homeless asked of us because it was our christian duty.what more are we supposed to do, we might say many many things, yet we will see our loquacious reason be silenced while those who Loved and showed Mercy trusting in His Mercy hear from His Pure Loving Lips,in the language of Infinite Love, the Infinite Joy of being called 'Beloved of My Father!'

Lord have Mercy!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 20, 2013, 09:42:50 PM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

The fact that the sinful thought pop-up means that there is still lust in your heart that needs to be stomped out by prayer and asceticism.  Lustful reaction is not natural, therefore it is not okay to have them even if you didn't will the initial thought that popped into your mind.  You mean not have a tree of lust in your heart, but you certainly have the seeds of lust in there.  Many writings by saints say this.  I forgot which monk was it who was with brother monks and there was this parade of a pagan queen where she paraded around naked.  They were in the crowd and the other monks turned around so as they will not see the woman and be tempted into lustful thoughts.  While the one monk (who is a saint, I wish I have better memory) just stood there and watched.  Because he was pure in heart, he didn't even had that involuntary thought, entertained or not.  That was the point of the story.

Such is the struggle of a Christian, the weakness of humanity and the stain of the flesh.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 20, 2013, 10:16:25 PM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Notice I expounded by saying "entertain these thoughts" rather than simply leaving it to them existing.  There is a difference between sinful thoughts popping up and us focusing on those thoughts.  If a person centers on those thoughts, I would agree with you completely.

KJV says it better, I think:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking notice and lusting after are different.

The fact that the sinful thought pop-up means that there is still lust in your heart that needs to be stomped out by prayer and asceticism. 

Maybe. It depends.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 20, 2013, 10:18:12 PM
People do not become their sins.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: serb1389 on January 20, 2013, 11:33:02 PM
Tell that to satan
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 20, 2013, 11:34:19 PM
People do not become their sins.

People don't have to, but some choose to become their sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 21, 2013, 01:00:59 AM
People do not become their sins.

People don't have to, but some choose to become their sin.
I haven't cracked open a theology book in many years now but still something sounds really off in this saying of yours; you tell that to the whatever chanters that sing at say a drunkards burial " I am an image of your ineffable glory  even if I bear the wounds of sin etc" ; they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 01:34:51 AM
People do not become their sins.

People don't have to, but some choose to become their sin.
I haven't cracked open a theology book in many years now but still something sounds really off in this saying of yours; you tell that to the whatever chanters that sing at say a drunkards burial " I am an image of your ineffable glory  even if I bear the wounds of sin etc" ; they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

My apologies, but you lost me somewhere.    Are you saying a drunkard is not a drunkard?  That this drunkard did not allow himself to become his sin?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 21, 2013, 01:37:21 AM
they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

IIRC Cavafy made his last confession and died in good standing with God and the Church.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 21, 2013, 01:46:29 AM
they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

IIRC Cavafy made his last confession and died in good standing with God and the Church.
Well as he was unable to speak with throat cancer and a sectioned trachea it would have made confession somehow difficult. The only biography I read of him says he received the last rites whatever that included.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 21, 2013, 02:12:47 AM
they even sang this to that famous Greek poet Cavafy

IIRC Cavafy made his last confession and died in good standing with God and the Church.
Well as he was unable to speak with throat cancer and a sectioned trachea it would have made confession somehow difficult. The only biography I read of him says he received the last rites whatever that included.

I remember reading something about 'last rites' too. I assumed that included confession. Under such circumstances, a nod of regret would do, I guess...

I hope he made it to heaven. It sure would be a pity if he didn't.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 21, 2013, 02:31:29 AM
Fair enough although Cavafy like most people I am sure would have rather stayed her on Earth  a bit longer. Anyway my point to Kerdy was that the church when speaking through the burial rites at least does not de-humanize people to the point where x is his or her sin. With this I don't wanna imply that Kavafi was more of a sinner for having loved Alexandrinian sailors or shop boys either.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 21, 2013, 02:35:44 AM
My point to Kerdy was that the church when speaking through the burial rites at least does not de-humanize people to the point where x is his or her sin. With this I don't wanna imply that Kavafi was more of a sinner for having loved Alexandrinian sailors or shop boys either.

I agree.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 02:43:26 AM
Fair enough although Cavafy like most people I am sure would have rather stayed her on Earth  a bit longer. Anyway my point to Kerdy was that the church when speaking through the burial rites at least does not de-humanize people to the point where x is his or her sin. With this I don't wanna imply that Kavafi was more of a sinner for having loved Alexandrinian sailors or shop boys either.

But I didn’t de-humanize anyone?  People usually are what they choose to be and if the sum of their life is following fleshly and sinful desires, they de-humanize themselves (or for that matter, prove their humanity and ignore their spirit).  Please do not put the burden of their choices on me for speaking the truth of the matter.  If you will notice, I said some people, and for some people, this is true.  Folks often become what they aspire to be, no matter how low they set the goal.

I will use the example you provided.  If a person chooses and allows himself to become a drunkard, that is what he is…a drunkard.  That does not mean it is the sum of who he is, but the fact of the matter is, he is a drunkard and has become his sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 21, 2013, 03:31:50 AM
If you're gay and get married, obviously you don't agree with the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church.  So just get a civil secular marriage,  the Church has no rights to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.  It's as simple as that.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 21, 2013, 03:38:21 AM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 04:23:37 AM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.
Two things I wish to correct you on from your post.

1)   Rallying to make something legal or illegal is not hate work.  You didn’t just fall for the propaganda, you drowned in it.  Look at it this way, and I will use your example of abortion, someone rallied to make it legal.  Would you consider that a hate group?  If not, you shouldn’t consider people attempting to make it illegal a hate group.  The sword cuts both ways.  Not only that, but homosexual marriage has never been legal, so no one is trying to make it illegal because it already was.  People are trying to make it legal and people are trying to prevent it, very simple.  Additionally, Congress has nothing to do with marriage.  It’s always been state level and I suspect, even with the two cases SCOTUS is looking over, it will remain a state level issue, unless SCOTUS chooses to be unconstitutional.  Disagreement, even great, is not hate.  Propoganda!

2)   This nation was founded on religious freedom and freedom from tyranny, period, not secular principles.  More propaganda you have fallen victim of.  Do some serious US history study.  I say serious because they don’t teach it in schools anymore.  They did, but no longer, so you will have to most likely look outside your classroom for the truth.

Additionally, what do you expect Christians to do?  Nothing?  If that is what people expect Christians to do, I suggest they show us how by doing nothing first.

Finally, there is a way to stop, avoid and end the “hate group” label.  People could always stop lying about it and using it.  I think that would work splendidly.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 04:28:27 AM
If you're gay and get married, obviously you don't agree with the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church.  So just get a civil secular marriage,  the Church has no rights to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.  It's as simple as that.

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage.  Why was that not enough?  I know, they wanted to infiltrate the Church and force the Church to recognize their mockery.  So, if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with), why do non-Christians feel the need to tell Christians what to do?  Again, the sword cuts both ways.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 21, 2013, 04:31:29 AM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part.

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.
Two things I wish to correct you on from your post.

1)   Rallying to make something legal or illegal is not hate work.  You didn’t just fall for the propaganda, you drowned in it.  Look at it this way, and I will use your example of abortion, someone rallied to make it legal.  Would you consider that a hate group?  If not, you shouldn’t consider people attempting to make it illegal a hate group.  The sword cuts both ways.  Not only that, but homosexual marriage has never been legal, so no one is trying to make it illegal because it already was.  People are trying to make it legal and people are trying to prevent it, very simple.  Additionally, Congress has nothing to do with marriage.  It’s always been state level and I suspect, even with the two cases SCOTUS is looking over, it will remain a state level issue, unless SCOTUS chooses to be unconstitutional.  Disagreement, even great, is not hate.  Propoganda!

2)   This nation was founded on religious freedom and freedom from tyranny, period, not secular principles.  More propaganda you have fallen victim of.  Do some serious US history study.  I say serious because they don’t teach it in schools anymore.  They did, but no longer, so you will have to most likely look outside your classroom for the truth.

Additionally, what do you expect Christians to do?  Nothing?  If that is what people expect Christians to do, I suggest they show us how by doing nothing first.

Finally, there is a way to stop, avoid and end the “hate group” label.  People could always stop lying about it and using it.  I think that would work splendidly.


1.) I never said rallying is hate work.  You are allowed to protest, that is your right.  "Homosexual marriage has never been legal" does not automatically mean it was illegal, it was simply not discussed.  For example, in many states you could commit beastiality -- even though it was frowned upon, there was nothing against it.  Now many states are trying to change that by making it a felony.   There were no laws saying that it was "okay to commit beastiality".   Just as there were no laws saying it's okay to have a homosexual marriage.  Not that I'm equating the two, it's just what I thought of -- off the top of my head.

2.) I haven't been in school for awhile, thanks for the compliment.  I have seen no evidence to suggest the Protestant claim that this nation was founded upon "Christian principles", although there were in fact many Christians who came here to escape religious persecution.   It was the Protestants who first made this claim, and now the burden of proof is on them because I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise.   I'm well aware that Jefferson had his own ideas, and so did Paine, and Deism was a philosophy that was attractive in that time period -- although it is questionable to what extent the others agreed or disagreed with Christianity.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 21, 2013, 04:32:20 AM
If you're gay and get married, obviously you don't agree with the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church.  So just get a civil secular marriage,  the Church has no rights to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.  It's as simple as that.

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage.  Why was that not enough?  I know, they wanted to infiltrate the Church and force the Church to recognize their mockery.  So, if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with), why do non-Christians feel the need to tell Christians what to do?  Again, the sword cuts both ways.


I agree it should be enough.  The Church shouldn't have to recognize anything, and neither should they feel that they must be "accepted" -- and instead should learn to accept themselves. 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Jetavan on January 21, 2013, 10:24:27 AM

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage. 
Are you sure about that?

Quote
In Illinois, a civil union is a legal relationship (http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=2) between two people — either of the same or different sex — providing all of the legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits that the law of Illinois grants to married couples. But a civil union is not a marriage; a civil union does not provide federal protections or responsibilities to couples who enter into one, and a civil union will be recognized only in certain other states, not by all states.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 12:18:52 PM
The image of God is marred and obscured, but not destroyed through sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 21, 2013, 02:34:45 PM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

And why should Christians care what libertine apostates and heathens think of them?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Cyrillic on January 21, 2013, 02:50:41 PM
If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.

If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me before it hated you. (John 15:18)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: dzheremi on January 21, 2013, 02:59:51 PM
Yeah, maybe I'm an extremist or something, but I don't particularly care if I'm considered "hateful". God knows what's in my heart (both good and bad), so the judgments of others might hurt temporarily, but they don't actually matter in the long run.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Ashman618 on January 21, 2013, 03:09:29 PM
Psalm 2, to me at least, seems like a warning to Leaders of nations to conform the law of the land to Gods teachings.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 21, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: TheMathematician on January 21, 2013, 05:48:41 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

But, is that not when they would need our love the most? Instead of despising them, should we not offer them our love and compassion? I am not saying you need to accept their lifestyle, but showing compassion and love will change their actions more than passing harsh judgement and treating them as outcasts.

"Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Even though I may not struggle with this particular sin, i know that my own sins are countless, and need to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and the sum of my own sins is greater than their sins.

Call it a sin, you can back that up, I am not arguing that, but love and compassion(while not tolerance per say) is what will cause them to be repentant and change their ways, instead of harsh judgement and leperizing them, which only serves to harder their hearts to God.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Charles Martel on January 21, 2013, 05:54:48 PM
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil.

This is why I believe the so-called traditionalist movement in the Roman Catholic Church is bogus.  It is spearheaded by people who mask their hate and bigotry with grandeur of Roman Catholic ritual tradition.  All they clamor is traditional externals, the traditional Mass, Latin, vestments, incense, etc.  But I have never heard of them talk about traditional Christian values of love.  Its all about judging someone for their sins or even for the type of Mass they attend.

By their fruits you will know them.  That is why I became Orthodox.
And you're judging me.

I don't get why calling sin evil and those in the act of doing it are evil in God's sight is somehow construed as "hate" and "bigotry".


And I love how your kind gets all uppidity and loves to make accusations while pontificating about tradtional "Christian luuuvvve" while you can barley contain your contempt for us nasty ol "judgmental" folk.

Christian phoneys......the worst.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 21, 2013, 05:58:39 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 06:08:30 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

But, is that not when they would need our love the most? Instead of despising them, should we not offer them our love and compassion? I am not saying you need to accept their lifestyle, but showing compassion and love will change their actions more than passing harsh judgement and treating them as outcasts.

"Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." Even though I may not struggle with this particular sin, i know that my own sins are countless, and need to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and the sum of my own sins is greater than their sins.

Call it a sin, you can back that up, I am not arguing that, but love and compassion(while not tolerance per say) is what will cause them to be repentant and change their ways, instead of harsh judgement and leperizing them, which only serves to harder their hearts to God.

Maybe I missed something in the thread--I haven't read it all. But I think it's hard to generalize. We are commanded to love everyone. And the saints show us by their example that even the most sinful person is still better than I am. Moreover, as long as we are in this life, repentance and redemption is possible--indeed God is working toward this.

So, how do we show love? It can be done in many ways and usually depends on the situation and the people involved. This takes discernment, which is a rare virtue.

Not having discernment, we need to do the best we can with what we have. It is likely that, whatever we say, we will not be listened to. Particularly if in this case the homosexual person has fallen for the lies coming from those who promote the lifestyle. I think that's why a lot of people simply fall back on stating it is sinful and then leaving it at that.

Now, there are many people with temptations who have taken up the valiant struggle against them in the Church--which is as it should be. Every day, they have to put up with people in the Church saying that what they're bravely fighting is not sin, and that they should just give up, because some of these so-called Christians are motivated by what they call love, but is in fact hatred in disguise.

In the battle with this particular sin--given the general climate--showing love to the sinner is standing with him in his fight against the sin, encouraging him to keep fighting, not to give up and give in. This is the case with any other sin, actually.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 06:09:30 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

I've heard the word in Greek apparently translates to "wanting to throw up." So there you go.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 21, 2013, 06:30:01 PM
And I love how your kind gets all uppidity and loves to make accusations while pontificating about tradtional "Christian luuuvvve" while you can barley contain your contempt for us nasty ol "judgmental" folk.
Christian phoneys......the worst.

If you do know the scriptures so well, you may have taken notice that Jesus, too, pontificates about "Christian luuuvvve" while barely containing his contempt for nasty ol' judgmental folk. Perhaps you skimmed over those parts in order to find reasons to justify your contempt for those wicked sinners that you look down upon and "despise" until they are repentant to your satisfaction.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: theistgal on January 21, 2013, 09:46:19 PM
And I love how your kind gets all uppidity and loves to make accusations while pontificating about tradtional "Christian luuuvvve" while you can barley contain your contempt for us nasty ol "judgmental" folk.
Christian phoneys......the worst.

If you do know the scriptures so well, you may have taken notice that Jesus, too, pontificates about "Christian luuuvvve" while barely containing his contempt for nasty ol' judgmental folk. Perhaps you skimmed over those parts in order to find reasons to justify your contempt for those wicked sinners that you look down upon and "despise" until they are repentant to your satisfaction.


Isn't it judgmental to show contempt for people you deem "judgmental"?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: lovesupreme on January 21, 2013, 10:11:23 PM
I love homosexuals so much.

(http://i.imgur.com/vfmNWj8.jpg)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 21, 2013, 10:17:28 PM
Don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage.

It's not like heterosexual marraiges mean anything anymore either.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: theistgal on January 21, 2013, 10:53:06 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 21, 2013, 10:59:06 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 21, 2013, 11:03:35 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

Yeah, but he's wrong.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 11:11:19 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

Yeah, but he's wrong.

And twice over, getting married after being made a bishop.  :P
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 21, 2013, 11:11:41 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 21, 2013, 11:15:08 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.

As does Bishop Gene Robinson

Yeah, but he's wrong.

And twice over, getting married after being made a bishop.  :P

I mean once you've had an atheist bishop there's really no more room for the floodgates to open anymore. Maybe an axe-murderer wouldn't qualify.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:22:25 PM

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage. 
Are you sure about that?

Quote
In Illinois, a civil union is a legal relationship (http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=2) between two people — either of the same or different sex — providing all of the legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits that the law of Illinois grants to married couples. But a civil union is not a marriage; a civil union does not provide federal protections or responsibilities to couples who enter into one, and a civil union will be recognized only in certain other states, not by all states.

Yes, very sure.  The states which provided this ensured it was legally equivalent.  Of course, each state has its own provisions, but it's the same.  In what you cited, you seem to forget marriage is controlled by state entities, not federal, as described multiple times by SCOTUS.  I have never seen a federal marriage certificate.  They are issued by each state.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:23:02 PM
If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.

If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me before it hated you. (John 15:18)


WAAAAAY out of context.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:24:44 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

I have learned there is always more than one definition to ancient words and context is how we figure out which one to use.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 21, 2013, 11:26:48 PM
From the Telegraph as quoted by a government official at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html

Quote
Schools have a requirement to ensure they do not teach anything that would be considered inappropriate to a pupil’s age, religious or cultural background and they must ensure pupils are presented with balanced, factual information about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.

Down the slippery slope into hell.

Oh, yeah, California said the same thing as the UK government official, but with California's new laws, homosexual marriage must be presented as part of the normal lifestyle. Thus, teachers in public schools have great difficulty presenting a "balanced view." Those "tolerant" of gay marriage are very "intolerant" of marriage as presented by Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:27:38 PM
I love homosexuals so much.

(http://i.imgur.com/vfmNWj8.jpg)

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do. :(
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:28:39 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 11:30:04 PM
I love homosexuals so much.

(http://i.imgur.com/vfmNWj8.jpg)

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do. :(

Could remake it. Change "gay people" to Nazis and watch people squirm.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:30:13 PM
From the Telegraph as quoted by a government official at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html

Quote
Schools have a requirement to ensure they do not teach anything that would be considered inappropriate to a pupil’s age, religious or cultural background and they must ensure pupils are presented with balanced, factual information about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.

Down the slippery slope into hell.

Oh, yeah, California said the same thing as the UK government official, but with California's new laws, homosexual marriage must be presented as part of the normal lifestyle. Thus, teachers in public schools have great difficulty presenting a "balanced view." Those "tolerant" of gay marriage are very "intolerant" of marriage as presented by Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

This is why I will never reside in any state even similar to California.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 21, 2013, 11:30:18 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.
No it does not. But that requires a reconstruction of society from what I can see.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:31:29 PM
I love homosexuals so much.

(http://i.imgur.com/vfmNWj8.jpg)

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do. :(

Could remake it. Change "gay people" to Nazis and watch people squirm.
It’s as if they believe one liner quips make doctrine.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:32:55 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.
No it does not. But that requires a reconstruction of society from what I can see.

The reason things have gotten so bad is BECAUSE of this sort of thing (not in spite of it) and the apathy of Christians.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 11:34:32 PM
I love homosexuals so much.

(http://i.imgur.com/vfmNWj8.jpg)

I am consistently amazed at how people so easily miss the point.  One would think I would get used to this, but I never do. :(

Could remake it. Change "gay people" to Nazis and watch people squirm.
It’s as if they believe one liner quips make doctrine.

It works for relativists.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 21, 2013, 11:35:24 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.
No it does not. But that requires a reconstruction of society from what I can see.

The reason things have gotten so bad is BECAUSE of this sort of thing (not in spite of it) and the apathy of Christians.

Largely. However, we've been centuries in getting to this point.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 21, 2013, 11:38:03 PM
Achronos, I'd like to think my marriage means something.
I think you know what I'm getting at, though.

Marriages these days doesn't have the value that it used to.

Yes I am broad-brushing, but this is the picture we have painted recently.

For starters, we have removed God out of our marriages.

That doesn't mean we just give up and give in.
No it does not. But that requires a reconstruction of society from what I can see.

The reason things have gotten so bad is BECAUSE of this sort of thing (not in spite of it) and the apathy of Christians.

Yeah if Christians actually did praxis the world would change overnight.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 21, 2013, 11:38:07 PM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 21, 2013, 11:38:59 PM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.
That's refreshing coming from you, Devin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 21, 2013, 11:40:27 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

I have learned there is always more than one definition to ancient words and context is how we figure out which one to use.

Thank you for not actually addressing anything I said.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Jetavan on January 21, 2013, 11:42:39 PM

Homosexuals already had a legal and binding civil union.  On paper, it’s the same thing as marriage. 
Are you sure about that?

Quote
In Illinois, a civil union is a legal relationship (http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=2) between two people — either of the same or different sex — providing all of the legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits that the law of Illinois grants to married couples. But a civil union is not a marriage; a civil union does not provide federal protections or responsibilities to couples who enter into one, and a civil union will be recognized only in certain other states, not by all states.

Yes, very sure.  The states which provided this ensured it was legally equivalent.  Of course, each state has its own provisions, but it's the same.  In what you cited, you seem to forget marriage is controlled by state entities, not federal, as described multiple times by SCOTUS.  I have never seen a federal marriage certificate.  They are issued by each state.
Unlike in the case of marriage, neither the federal government nor any state need honor another state's civil union laws. So, civil unions are not "the same" as marriage, even on paper.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:43:07 PM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:43:44 PM
Homosexual:ho·mo·sex·u·al/ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl or, esp. British, -ˈsɛks yu-/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh l or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 
1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
This is the problem definition. I think he's making the distinction between "homosexual (the person)" and "homosexual behavior/activities," which are very different meanings meant by "homosexual" in this context. So if one says "anti-homosexual" it could mean "anti-homosexual (the person)" or "anti-homosexual behavior/activities."
Let me ask you this.......would he make the same distinction between pedophile and pedophilia?

One is activity and one is a person.
Can you separate one from the other?

If I murder someone am I not a murderer?

If I fornicate with someone am I not a fornicator?

If I blaspheme the name of God am I not a blasphemer?

You can not do one thing and say you have nothing to do with it.

So you hate all men, yes?

Could you elaborate?  I am not clear how you came to this conclusion.

Romans 12:9, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."  Is sin evil?  If it is, then Martel says we are to hate all men.
Yes, sin is evil and those in the act of sinning are evil. what do you want to hear? Do you take sin that lightly? Do you believe the Lord does? You are a fool if you take God for granted and depend soley on his mercy and love. We will all one day be held accountable for every sin, every thought, every slight in the eyes of God. True, God is a loving and merciful God but he is also a Righteous and Just one as well and we are all under his judgment at the appointed time. Don't think for a second that you can trivialize a sin because   God said we must be "sincere" in our love, acutally if that's the case, then we should speak out even more to the homosexual for the error in his ways and the corruption he sows to others, especially children who are easily decieved with this culture and it's stamp of approval on sodomy and fornication and a host of other sins.

But yes, we are to despise the homosexual if he is not repentant and actively engages in his debased "lifestyle". Seems many on here as well as everywhere else want some special rules for homosexuals, like in the secular world, we have to treat them and their sin like it's something special with special considerations and watch how we address them or we are to be taken as "haters" and "bigots" well you can count me out. I will call them out and name their sin, they are no better than anyone else regardless of how much browbeating and shaming we get from the immoral secularists and the powers that be from the well financed "gay" mafia that threaten and intimidate anyone in their way in getting what they want and what they want is simple; acceptance and legitimacy. We seem to be just about there, here in the "real world" where they call evil "good" and good "evil" or what they now label the "new normal".

So that's where we're at now, that even in the church we can't even call men bedding down with other men something that's "evil" and a sin which God said he hates without being called "haters" ourselves. The New Church of Sodom, open acceptance for one and all, no matter what deviancy you cling to becaue after all, God will still "wuv" you very much. Good luck with that.

Your attitude sucks. And is un-Christian. We are not to "despise the homosexual", or any human being for that matter. I suggest that you go back to the basics and re-read the Gospels.
I said when they are "unrepentant" and choose to engage in their "lifestyle" regardless when they have been convicted in their sin. God has even pointedly states that he considers homosexuality an "abomination" in the O.T. and St. Paul fiercly condemns it in almost the whole chapter of !st Romans in the N.T. God even destroyed two cities over the Sin of Sodom, a sin which the Church declares that "cries out to heaven for vengeance"

So don't worry about me, I've read and re-read scipture and Church teaching on this and it is very clear.

I'm sorry if it offends you. take it up with God.

Actually God never calls anything an abomination in the Old Testament.  Rather, God calls it to’ebah.  That word has a meaning closer to "unclean," than to the English "abomination."  Other examples of things called to'ebah are wearing clothes made of more than one kind of thread, eating shellfish, as is sacrificing a blemished or defective animal to God.  The first use of the term actually comes in Genesis where it is said that the Egyptians wouldn't dine with Joseph's brother, for it was to'ebah to them.  

Please get educated.

I have learned there is always more than one definition to ancient words and context is how we figure out which one to use.

Thank you for not actually addressing anything I said.

I did, but it seems you missed it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 21, 2013, 11:52:04 PM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 21, 2013, 11:55:44 PM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 21, 2013, 11:58:32 PM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore. I recall him offering her love and forgiveness and the Gospel first.

This is how the Orthodox Christians and Priests I know are like. However, as I said, many of the Evangelicals and others I've known are as you describe. Many of those Fundamentalists and Evangelicals proselytize. We evangelize. We offer the Gospel, not threats of hellfire and brimstone.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 12:02:20 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 12:04:28 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 12:07:00 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.

Either way, regardless of who it is, Jesus told the truth and in this instance, she told the truth on herself.  She knew as others should know, she was living in sin.  I agree we should not be rude, but we should tell the truth.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 22, 2013, 12:07:45 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

Yes, but I don't recall Him stating the price of tea in China, either.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 12:10:22 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.

Either way, regardless of who it is, Jesus told the truth and in this instance, she told the truth on herself.  She knew as others should know, she was living in sin.  I agree we should not be rude, but we should tell the truth.
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

Yes, but I don't recall Him stating the price of tea in China, either.

Kerdy and William, I know it's hard to accept, but its the truth. It takes a long time to rid ourselves of our Protestant baggage. I started in about '06, was finally baptized in '09 after a long inquiry, and catechism/catechumenate and I'm still working on ridding myself of my Protestant Fundamentalist mindset nearly 4 years since my baptism and 7 years after my first interactions with Orthodoxy. It's an ongoing struggle, but one we must wage as we conform to the Orthodox phronema.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:26:46 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.

The sinful woman weeping at His feet in the house of the Pharisee? "Her sins, which were many, are forgiven her because she loved much." That is, she repented and showed her great love for God, whereas the Pharisee neither believed in Him as God nor showed even elementary hospitality for the time in washing His feet and anointing His head.

The Lord was not above harshly reproving sinners in Scripture, but in the Gospels, He reproves those who think they are righteous.

But, there's also "Go and sin no more" and "See, now you are better. Sin no more, lest something worse happen to you."

Love does not mean we ignore sin. However, there is not a one-size-fits-all application. For some people, a reproof is needed. For others, it would crush them.

It is a difficult road to travel, to support the person even while not supporting some of his choices. But the way to do it depends on one's own circumstances and those of the other.

There was a story I read in an Orthodox publication written by a man whose brother and sister, after being abused as children, came out as homosexuals. The writer was married with small children. His siblings were, according to him, very involved in their lifestyle and its defense, and his parents and other family was accepting it as normal. The writer said because of this climate, he has had to separate himself from his siblings, for the sake of his children.

That's got to be a difficult situation. The writer seemed to tout his way of doing things as the only way. I do not at all agree. However, each situation is unique. Sometimes it is necessary to suspend or end a relationship. But even if the reason for this is good, it's still a tragedy. But I think it would be incorrect to place all the blame on one person.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 12:28:18 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.

Either way, regardless of who it is, Jesus told the truth and in this instance, she told the truth on herself.  She knew as others should know, she was living in sin.  I agree we should not be rude, but we should tell the truth.
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

Yes, but I don't recall Him stating the price of tea in China, either.

Kerdy and William, I know it's hard to accept, but its the truth. It takes a long time to rid ourselves of our Protestant baggage. I started in about '06, was finally baptized in '09 after a long inquiry, and catechism/catechumenate and I'm still working on ridding myself of my Protestant Fundamentalist mindset nearly 4 years since my baptism and 7 years after my first interactions with Orthodoxy. It's an ongoing struggle, but one we must wage as we conform to the Orthodox phronema.

Are we then to let them live a lie and stand by supporting them in that lie, knowing they are destroying themselves?  That doesn’t sound right.  Appeasing their sinful acts is in no way, that I can see, beneficial to them or the message of God.  Perhaps if you explain in detail your understanding of what we should, how we should do it, and why, I will be able to see if from your point of view.  As of now, it makes no sense to me.  Let me explain.

Let’s say I have a friend I know sleeps with hookers.  He is married and has small children.  I know hookers aren’t cheap, so he is taking money from his family.  He is also committing adultery, and we know all of the pain and suffering this brings to a family.  Let’s not ignore the fact he most likely is going to catch a nasty little gift and pass it on to his unsuspecting wife, which potentially could orphan his children.  Am I to say nothing?  Am I to do as you suggest and provide my opinions only when he asks, because chances are he isn’t going to ask?  Or, should I confront him in the hopes he will think about his actions and potentially stop them?

I could provide a variety of other scenarios, but the point remains, it is our duty and responsibility to provide instruction to the world and provide them a means to escape their damnation.  Unless I don’t understand the Great Commission, which coincidentally, is paired with the other commandment Jesus gave us.  I believe the two are intertwined and inseparable.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 12:29:10 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.

Either way, regardless of who it is, Jesus told the truth and in this instance, she told the truth on herself.  She knew as others should know, she was living in sin.  I agree we should not be rude, but we should tell the truth.
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

Yes, but I don't recall Him stating the price of tea in China, either.

Kerdy and William, I know it's hard to accept, but its the truth. It takes a long time to rid ourselves of our Protestant baggage. I started in about '06, was finally baptized in '09 after a long inquiry, and catechism/catechumenate and I'm still working on ridding myself of my Protestant Fundamentalist mindset nearly 4 years since my baptism and 7 years after my first interactions with Orthodoxy. It's an ongoing struggle, but one we must wage as we conform to the Orthodox phronema.
You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:29:53 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

You mean this one?

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.  The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."


He said it, he just said it a nice way.  We can too.

That's the sinful woman, not the prostitute. The two are different. Also, I don't think he's telling her she is sinful in that passage, it's more of a revelation of his omnipotence and that he knows her heart and her life, and things about her that no one else knows.

Either way, regardless of who it is, Jesus told the truth and in this instance, she told the truth on herself.  She knew as others should know, she was living in sin.  I agree we should not be rude, but we should tell the truth.
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I don't recall Jesus telling the prostitute that she's a sinful whore.

Yes, but I don't recall Him stating the price of tea in China, either.

Kerdy and William, I know it's hard to accept, but its the truth. It takes a long time to rid ourselves of our Protestant baggage. I started in about '06, was finally baptized in '09 after a long inquiry, and catechism/catechumenate and I'm still working on ridding myself of my Protestant Fundamentalist mindset nearly 4 years since my baptism and 7 years after my first interactions with Orthodoxy. It's an ongoing struggle, but one we must wage as we conform to the Orthodox phronema.

Except you tend to misattribute Protestant Fundamentalism to people who never had it. That dog don't hunt as well as you think it does.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:32:53 AM
Here is what one Orthodox fool for Christ, Crazy John, did for a transvestite:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/crazy_john2.htm
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 12:37:24 AM
You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?
What purpose does childish and snarky comments perform, especially when it doesn’t apply to the people you use it against?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 12:38:05 AM
There are some good lectures/talks given on Ancient Faith Radio on this whole topic by Fr. Thomas Hopko, Frederica Mathewes-Green and Steve Robinson.

First comes Christ, the Gospel and the Church, then you can talk about sin. When you go to an Orthodox Church as an inquirer, you don't immediately have confession, catechism comes first, learning the Gospel comes first, and then confession, baptism and chrismation.

Also, you aren't going to turn gays into straight people. They will live with the struggle as much as us straight people have to live in our struggle of unhealthy sexual attraction. Upon inquiring we aren't told that we are sinful, lustful people, we talk about Christ's Gospel first, and the Church, and the Orthodox faith, then we start working out our repentance.

Protestants, especially the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals put the former before the latter, they practice what is called proselytism, which is basically the same as Muslims using a sword to convert people. Whereas we use the Gospel, we evangelize people.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 12:40:05 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

Formatting mine.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 12:40:13 AM

Except you tend to misattribute Protestant Fundamentalism to people who never had it. That dog don't hunt as well as you think it does.
I don’t want to dismiss his point of view prematurely.  I am genuinely interested in what he has to say, but I do want him to explain it in enough detail for a meat head like myself to understand.  However, you make an excellent point!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 12:47:59 AM
My opinion is that the official discourse of the church -insofar as it can be called official- with regards to homosexuality and a few other things is really left behind . Heck, in Romania I recall,  around the year 2000 or so many a religious organizations and clergy were on the streets protesting the de-criminalization of homosexual sex in a quite hysterical tone. IIRC even the patriarchate issued some encouragement to that. Moments like these are revealing. You see, behind the whatever theological and moral reasons are put in front, the real animating sentiment of this proudly "uncompromising attitude' is just some banal prejudices and the yuck factor.  Some would say that's somehow nature. I know, I used to suffer from the yuck factor too. But I grew up I reckon.
 It's like you know "scientific creationism" vs scientific approaches. So talking about the position of the church it's like beating a dead horse, mostly. Who wants to change it will have to patiently work from the inside or else if it affects them personally either heroically submit to all the rules or find a modus vivendi where they'll just do whatever they think it's right without causing a ruckus; and there are sympathetic clergy that will do what they can to help you. But things will have to be done in a low-key "pastoral" way.
Debates like these, AFIK are largely absent in religious circles in Orthodox countries, because the people are more uniformly homophobic if you push them, although. otherwise, homosexuality isn't really on their radar. But here in America, since the society is more evenly split on it, even religious people debate it. When that's gonna reach the orthodox ur-land you'll have these debates there too. And only then is realistic to hope that something will officially change.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:50:13 AM
You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?
What purpose does childish and snarky comments perform, especially when it doesn’t apply to the people you use it against?

I believe he was referring to what some in Orthodox countries, who have never been Evangelical Protestants, do.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 01:08:43 AM
You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?
What purpose does childish and snarky comments perform, especially when it doesn’t apply to the people you use it against?

I believe he was referring to what some in Orthodox countries, who have never been Evangelical Protestants, do.

I see.  In that case, I withdraw my previous statement.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 22, 2013, 01:47:18 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.

I agree.

By remaining silent in the face of evil, we give consent.

It takes courage and faith to speak the truth in love.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 01:50:55 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.


By remaining silent in the face of evil, we give consent.


Not always. I can think of a number of examples from the Scriptures and the Desert Fathers, for example. There were good reasons for keeping silent, but it did not at all signal consent, but rather the opposite. And often it was no less courageous.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 22, 2013, 01:52:41 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.


By remaining silent in the face of evil, we give consent.

It takes courage and faith to speak the truth in love.


Not always. I can think of a number of examples from the Scriptures and the Desert Fathers, for example. There were good reasons for keeping silent, but it did not at all signal consent, but rather the opposite. And often it was no less courageous.

Give an example then. Notice that it does take courage and faith to speak the truth in love.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 22, 2013, 01:55:55 AM
Christ remaining silent when he was falsely accused would not be an appropriate example pertinent to this discussion.

We are talking about the need to witness to others about the truth of Christianity.
Being silent when lies are being told, is damning when these satanic lies lead to damnation.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 01:59:50 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.


By remaining silent in the face of evil, we give consent.


Not always. I can think of a number of examples from the Scriptures and the Desert Fathers, for example. There were good reasons for keeping silent, but it did not at all signal consent, but rather the opposite. And often it was no less courageous.

Give an example then.



Okay. There are many examples in the Desert Fathers where a brother is committing or has committed some sin and the particular Abba says nothing to him, but instead commends him to God. There are other incidents where an Abba has seen a brother committing a sin and reproached the sinner, and then has to repent for it later.

In Ezekiel 8-9 (IIRC), the people that are saved are those who do not take part in the iniquities of the city, but instead groan over them. It does not say they told anyone anything, but rather that they mourned and did not take part in the iniquity.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 02:01:17 AM
Christ remaining silent when he was falsely accused would not be an appropriate example pertinent to this discussion.

We are talking about the need to witness to others about the truth of Christianity.
Being silent when lies are being told, lies that can lead to damnation is damning.

God's judgment is more penetrating than yours.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 22, 2013, 02:02:57 AM
Christ remaining silent when he was falsely accused would not be an appropriate example pertinent to this discussion.

We are talking about the need to witness to others about the truth of Christianity.
Being silent when lies are being told, lies that can lead to damnation is damning.

God's judgment is more penetrating than yours.

For shame.
Your comment is not relevant nor appropriate to this discussion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 02:06:47 AM
Christ remaining silent when he was falsely accused would not be an appropriate example pertinent to this discussion.

We are talking about the need to witness to others about the truth of Christianity.
Being silent when lies are being told, lies that can lead to damnation is damning.

God's judgment is more penetrating than yours.

For shame.
Your comment is not relevant nor appropriate to this discussion.

Keep your shame. I think it does. But whatever.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 22, 2013, 02:08:23 AM
One of my best friends is gay, I have at least a dozen friends that are either gay or lesbian and I love them all, and I've never told any of them they were sinful or living in sin and I never will. The only time I will tell them what I and my Church thinks is if they ask me.

My brother is a homosexual.  Now what?  I think it important for people to know where you stand, what you believe, and still see you love them.

We have no business forcing our opinions onto them unless they ask us. I don't tell anyone my political or religious opinions in real life unless they ask me.

The imposition of opinions on all peoples, and the idea that all people should know where we stand is more of a feature of Evangelical Protestants than Orthodox Christians, at least from the Orthodox Christians I know.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't follow this standard.  I suppose we will have to disagree.  I feel real love is telling people when they are wrong and letting them see you still accept them as people.


By remaining silent in the face of evil, we give consent.


Not always. I can think of a number of examples from the Scriptures and the Desert Fathers, for example. There were good reasons for keeping silent, but it did not at all signal consent, but rather the opposite. And often it was no less courageous.

Give an example then.



Okay. There are many examples in the Desert Fathers where a brother is committing or has committed some sin and the particular Abba says nothing to him, but instead commends him to God. There are other incidents where an Abba has seen a brother committing a sin and reproached the sinner, and then has to repent for it later.

In Ezekiel 8-9 (IIRC), the people that are saved are those who do not take part in the iniquities of the city, but instead groan over them. It does not say they told anyone anything, but rather that they mourned and did not take part in the iniquity.

Okay. Those examples all fail because you have taken them out of context.

In some cases, when a sinner fails, speaking to him will be in vain because the sinner has hardened his heart.
Thus, if a homosexual comes to me and says that his love for his partner will purify him, he is so convinced in his lies that nothing I could say would be of benefit.
Then we should walk away as the scriptures say and dust our feet.

In the other case, if someone with a proud and unrepentant heart (like the Westboro BC) were to try to correct a homosexual and that homosexual became hardened as a result of that prideful action of the preacher, then yes, it would have been better for the preacher to remain silent.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 22, 2013, 02:11:18 AM
However, this discussion is about "centuries of persecution" returning because of governments allowing homosexual marriage and thus preventing Christians from reading passages from St. Paul without penalties.

We already are experiencing this in California.

If we do not speak up, we will lose our freedom of religion.
However, if we do speak up, it is already too late.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 02:16:15 AM
However, this discussion is about "centuries of persecution" returning because of governments allowing homosexual marriage and thus preventing Christians from reading passages from St. Paul without penalties.

We already are experiencing this in California.

If we do not speak up, we will lose our freedom of religion.
However, if we do speak up, it is already too late.


What do you experience I. California? Centuries of persecution? Autos da  with Paul's books on pyres?
What do you experience I. California? Centuries of persecution? Autos da  fe with Paul's books on pyres?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 02:39:14 AM
I do find it interesting who is involved with the dissenting opinions here, those defending the method of proselytism and confrontation are either people who have recently come from a Protestant background or who have left for a more fundamentalist/extreme conservative Orthodox group. This is simply a curious observation and not an insult.

Kerdy, I'll be honest, I pray to God the same doesn't happen to you that's happened to other like-minded Orthodox folk, who often end up jumping ship to a break off sect.

One such man I know from Greece did just this. He confessed his sins to a Priest who told him to come take communion and they'll deal with it. He decided his sins were too great and he shouldn't be allowed to commune immediately and so he ended up joining a breakoff group in Greece. This particular group was so extreme and zealous in their sort of fundamentalism that they actually beat the local Bishop with a belt for being an "ecumenist". Needless to say, not all the groups are like that, but still, I hope you don't end up jumping ship to a breakoff sect.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 22, 2013, 02:44:53 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 03:07:25 AM
I do find it interesting who is involved with the dissenting opinions here, those defending the method of proselytism and confrontation are either people who have recently come from a Protestant background or who have left for a more fundamentalist/extreme conservative Orthodox group. This is simply a curious observation and not an insult.

Kerdy, I'll be honest, I pray to God the same doesn't happen to you that's happened to other like-minded Orthodox folk, who often end up jumping ship to a break off sect.

One such man I know from Greece did just this. He confessed his sins to a Priest who told him to come take communion and they'll deal with it. He decided his sins were too great and he shouldn't be allowed to commune immediately and so he ended up joining a breakoff group in Greece. This particular group was so extreme and zealous in their sort of fundamentalism that they actually beat the local Bishop with a belt for being an "ecumenist". Needless to say, not all the groups are like that, but still, I hope you don't end up jumping ship to a breakoff sect.

I appreciate the concern, but it is a little over reactive.  I would settle for a response to my inquiry.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 22, 2013, 03:25:49 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 03:27:20 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 03:38:05 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?

As a Protestant, I never believed this.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 03:40:45 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 03:48:25 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 03:49:27 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 03:53:42 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
This sort of ends any additional discussion on that matter, doesn't it?

The next question is, does all of the recent developments over the last few decades in favor of public and social acceptance of homosexuality benefit, hinder or hurt the Church as a whole?  Keeping in mind the decline of church attendance, the increased and emboldened attacks on Christianity, the war being waged on the Christmas holiday, mockery of Christians and services, attacks on church buildings, etc.  Also keeping in mind, the same basic arguments being made are the same arguments which were made for abortion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 03:57:10 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?

As a Protestant, I never believed this.

Apparently neither did my parents, I got most of it from TBN, and all sorts of Fundamentalist and Evangelical literature.

I was a full-blown zealous right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist, Pre-Millenialist, Post-Tribulationist, Young Earth Creationist, Adult Baptismist, Anti-Intellectualist, Judgemental Homophobe with strong tendencies towards Messianic Judaism.

Then I realized that wasn't the ancient faith and got introduced to Orthodoxy and I've been shedding that nonsense ever since then. In many ways, by becoming Orthodox, my world and views got turned upside down and I had to totally relearn how to be a Christian and how Orthodox Christians think and what we believe.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 03:58:02 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 04:03:02 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?

Such is life as a Christian.

I'm against proselytizing and forcing our church on anyone. But I'm also opposed to gay marriage since its obvious there is a bigger agenda at play.

Just because I and others want to see people shut up and quit harassing gays about being sinful doesnt mean we aren't opposed to gay marriage.

It's like abortion, do we go to the mothers and tell them they are sinful little child murderers? No, but we do oppose abortion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 04:05:07 AM

Apparently neither did my parents, I got most of it from TBN, and all sorts of Fundamentalist and Evangelical literature.

I was a full-blown zealous right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist, Pre-Millenialist, Post-Tribulationist, Young Earth Creationist, Adult Baptismist, Anti-Intellectualist, Judgemental Homophobe with strong tendencies towards Messianic Judaism.

Then I realized that wasn't the ancient faith and got introduced to Orthodoxy and I've been shedding that nonsense ever since then. In many ways, by becoming Orthodox, my world and views got turned upside down and I had to totally relearn how to be a Christian and how Orthodox Christians think and what we believe.
You, or course, realize one can still be a right-winger, believe in Millennialism, believe in the Tribulation, be a young earth creationist and still be Orthodox, right?  As far as I know, none of these things are considered to be heretical.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: LBK on January 22, 2013, 04:08:49 AM

Apparently neither did my parents, I got most of it from TBN, and all sorts of Fundamentalist and Evangelical literature.

I was a full-blown zealous right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist, Pre-Millenialist, Post-Tribulationist, Young Earth Creationist, Adult Baptismist, Anti-Intellectualist, Judgemental Homophobe with strong tendencies towards Messianic Judaism.

Then I realized that wasn't the ancient faith and got introduced to Orthodoxy and I've been shedding that nonsense ever since then. In many ways, by becoming Orthodox, my world and views got turned upside down and I had to totally relearn how to be a Christian and how Orthodox Christians think and what we believe.
You, or course, realize one can still be a right-winger, believe in Millennialism, believe in the Tribulation, be a young earth creationist and still be Orthodox, right?  As far as I know, none of these things are considered to be heretical.

Millennialism is indeed a declared heresy for the Orthodox. It's better known as Chiliasm.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 04:12:45 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?

Such is life as a Christian.

I'm against proselytizing and forcing our church on anyone. But I'm also opposed to gay marriage since its obvious there is a bigger agenda at play.

Just because I and others want to see people shut up and quit harassing gays about being sinful doesnt mean we aren't opposed to gay marriage.

It's like abortion, do we go to the mothers and tell them they are sinful little child murderers? No, but we do oppose abortion.
I think we most likely agree more than disagree.  The difference is our approach.  When people see or hear my approach, they seem to always believe it is done in the most cruel and obstinate way. 

I have a Catholic friend who is extremely active in the Pro-Life movement.  He regularly attends gatherings at abortion mills, but they do so very quietly and peacefully.  They as people if they would like literature, if not they leave them alone.  They pray, sometimes all night, but they never get rude or confrontational and at the same time, there is no question where they stand on abortion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 22, 2013, 04:16:27 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?

Such is life as a Christian.

I'm against proselytizing and forcing our church on anyone. But I'm also opposed to gay marriage since its obvious there is a bigger agenda at play.

Just because I and others want to see people shut up and quit harassing gays about being sinful doesnt mean we aren't opposed to gay marriage.

It's like abortion, do we go to the mothers and tell them they are sinful little child murderers? No, but we do oppose abortion.

I'm against making correlation between state marriage and Church mystery.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 04:16:38 AM

Apparently neither did my parents, I got most of it from TBN, and all sorts of Fundamentalist and Evangelical literature.

I was a full-blown zealous right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist, Pre-Millenialist, Post-Tribulationist, Young Earth Creationist, Adult Baptismist, Anti-Intellectualist, Judgemental Homophobe with strong tendencies towards Messianic Judaism.

Then I realized that wasn't the ancient faith and got introduced to Orthodoxy and I've been shedding that nonsense ever since then. In many ways, by becoming Orthodox, my world and views got turned upside down and I had to totally relearn how to be a Christian and how Orthodox Christians think and what we believe.
You, or course, realize one can still be a right-winger, believe in Millennialism, believe in the Tribulation, be a young earth creationist and still be Orthodox, right?  As far as I know, none of these things are considered to be heretical.

Millennialism is indeed a declared heresy for the Orthodox. It's better known as Chiliasm.

Odd, I looked it up before I posted to be sure and it didn't say this.  What it did say was, "The view of the Orthodox Church can best be described as "amillenialist"; that is, holding to the teaching that the thousand years mentioned in the Apocalypse refers to the current age of the Church."  So I guess it depends on what you place prior to Mellennialism (Post, Pre, A).
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 04:17:26 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?

Such is life as a Christian.

I'm against proselytizing and forcing our church on anyone. But I'm also opposed to gay marriage since its obvious there is a bigger agenda at play.

Just because I and others want to see people shut up and quit harassing gays about being sinful doesnt mean we aren't opposed to gay marriage.

It's like abortion, do we go to the mothers and tell them they are sinful little child murderers? No, but we do oppose abortion.

I'm against making correlation between state marriage and Church mystery.

Where do you think it originated?  The state of from God?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 22, 2013, 04:31:49 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?

Such is life as a Christian.

I'm against proselytizing and forcing our church on anyone. But I'm also opposed to gay marriage since its obvious there is a bigger agenda at play.

Just because I and others want to see people shut up and quit harassing gays about being sinful doesnt mean we aren't opposed to gay marriage.

It's like abortion, do we go to the mothers and tell them they are sinful little child murderers? No, but we do oppose abortion.

I'm against making correlation between state marriage and Church mystery.

Where do you think it originated?  The state of from God?

Wasn't that one of the emperors who imposed on Church conducting state marriages (and ie. interfaith marriages originated then)?

And so what?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 22, 2013, 05:33:24 AM
Back on subject.  Does God condone and bless homosexual "marriages" as a sacrament?

Never
Also, when the Church says no, it is labeled a hate group and retaliated against in full force as being a bunch of Draconian homophobes.  Is this not considered persecution?

Such is life as a Christian.

I'm against proselytizing and forcing our church on anyone. But I'm also opposed to gay marriage since its obvious there is a bigger agenda at play.

Just because I and others want to see people shut up and quit harassing gays about being sinful doesnt mean we aren't opposed to gay marriage.

It's like abortion, do we go to the mothers and tell them they are sinful little child murderers? No, but we do oppose abortion.

I'm against making correlation between state marriage and Church mystery.

Where do you think it originated?  The state of from God?

Wasn't that one of the emperors who imposed on Church conducting state marriages (and ie. interfaith marriages originated then)?

And so what?
Sounds like an example of persecution to me.

So what?  Nothing I suppose, except for the whole God thing.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: 88Devin12 on January 22, 2013, 11:03:27 AM

Apparently neither did my parents, I got most of it from TBN, and all sorts of Fundamentalist and Evangelical literature.

I was a full-blown zealous right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist, Pre-Millenialist, Post-Tribulationist, Young Earth Creationist, Adult Baptismist, Anti-Intellectualist, Judgemental Homophobe with strong tendencies towards Messianic Judaism.

Then I realized that wasn't the ancient faith and got introduced to Orthodoxy and I've been shedding that nonsense ever since then. In many ways, by becoming Orthodox, my world and views got turned upside down and I had to totally relearn how to be a Christian and how Orthodox Christians think and what we believe.
You, or course, realize one can still be a right-winger, believe in Millennialism, believe in the Tribulation, be a young earth creationist and still be Orthodox, right?  As far as I know, none of these things are considered to be heretical.


Millenialism is a heresy, there isn't a 1000 year reign of Christ, rather his reign is eternal.

 and you shouldn't believe in the Tribulation except as taught by Orthodox. We are living in the tribulation and there won't be any rapture.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 22, 2013, 11:43:10 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.

I will speculate that they probably wouldn't be proudly marching in the first place if homosexuals hadn't been oppressed, shunned, bullied, reviled, correctively raped, and/or stoned to death throughout history.

Racial and gender equality movements also involved displays of public pride following years of oppression and injustice. Such is progress.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:14:26 PM
However, this discussion is about "centuries of persecution" returning because of governments allowing homosexual marriage and thus preventing Christians from reading passages from St. Paul without penalties.

We already are experiencing this in California.

If we do not speak up, we will lose our freedom of religion.
However, if we do speak up, it is already too late.



So, you have no point.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
I do find it interesting who is involved with the dissenting opinions here, those defending the method of proselytism and confrontation are either people who have recently come from a Protestant background or who have left for a more fundamentalist/extreme conservative Orthodox group. This is simply a curious observation and not an insult.

Kerdy, I'll be honest, I pray to God the same doesn't happen to you that's happened to other like-minded Orthodox folk, who often end up jumping ship to a break off sect.

One such man I know from Greece did just this. He confessed his sins to a Priest who told him to come take communion and they'll deal with it. He decided his sins were too great and he shouldn't be allowed to commune immediately and so he ended up joining a breakoff group in Greece. This particular group was so extreme and zealous in their sort of fundamentalism that they actually beat the local Bishop with a belt for being an "ecumenist". Needless to say, not all the groups are like that, but still, I hope you don't end up jumping ship to a breakoff sect.

Now you are being completely insane in your misassessment of people.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:18:44 PM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?

Because you have made yourself, together with your misassessments of individuals, a part of this conversation.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:20:01 PM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.

Neonazis do.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 22, 2013, 12:21:37 PM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?

As a Protestant, I never believed this.

Apparently neither did my parents, I got most of it from TBN, and all sorts of Fundamentalist and Evangelical literature.

I was a full-blown zealous right-wing Protestant Fundamentalist, Pre-Millenialist, Post-Tribulationist, Young Earth Creationist, Adult Baptismist, Anti-Intellectualist, Judgemental Homophobe with strong tendencies towards Messianic Judaism.

Then I realized that wasn't the ancient faith and got introduced to Orthodoxy and I've been shedding that nonsense ever since then. In many ways, by becoming Orthodox, my world and views got turned upside down and I had to totally relearn how to be a Christian and how Orthodox Christians think and what we believe.

And that is your personal experience, not necessarily the experience of those who oppose your arguments.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 22, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
My opinion is that the official discourse of the church -insofar as it can be called official- with regards to homosexuality and a few other things is really left behind . Heck, in Romania I recall,  around the year 2000 or so many a religious organizations and clergy were on the streets protesting the de-criminalization of homosexual sex in a quite hysterical tone. IIRC even the patriarchate issued some encouragement to that. Moments like these are revealing. You see, behind the whatever theological and moral reasons are put in front, the real animating sentiment of this proudly "uncompromising attitude' is just some banal prejudices and the yuck factor.  Some would say that's somehow nature. I know, I used to suffer from the yuck factor too. But I grew up I reckon.
 It's like you know "scientific creationism" vs scientific approaches. So talking about the position of the church it's like beating a dead horse, mostly. Who wants to change it will have to patiently work from the inside or else if it affects them personally either heroically submit to all the rules or find a modus vivendi where they'll just do whatever they think it's right without causing a ruckus; and there are sympathetic clergy that will do what they can to help you. But things will have to be done in a low-key "pastoral" way.
Debates like these, AFIK are largely absent in religious circles in Orthodox countries, because the people are more uniformly homophobic if you push them, although. otherwise, homosexuality isn't really on their radar. But here in America, since the society is more evenly split on it, even religious people debate it. When that's gonna reach the orthodox ur-land you'll have these debates there too. And only then is realistic to hope that something will officially change.
This.  we need a two thumbs up icon in here :)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 01:35:53 PM
Heck, in Romania I recall,  around the year 2000 or so many a religious organizations and clergy were on the streets protesting the de-criminalization of homosexual sex in a quite hysterical tone. IIRC even the patriarchate issued some encouragement to that.

Hmm, like most Romanians, I don't think I was paying much attention to the subject back then, but somehow I have to doubt the accuracy of your recollections (again).

Moments like these are revealing. You see, behind the whatever theological and moral reasons are put in front, the real animating sentiment of this proudly "uncompromising attitude' is just some banal prejudices and the yuck factor.  Some would say that's somehow nature. I know, I used to suffer from the yuck factor too. But I grew up I reckon.

Now, there we do have common memories - I remember when, about 5 years ago, in Vienna we saw "Franz Joseph" and his male partner reunited at the train station and then a guy passionately kissing his dog in some park and we were both thinking it was Lala Land we stepped into. You "grew up" because you moved there - I was "left behind". I don't know who's more fortunate.

Debates like these, AFIK are largely absent in religious circles in Orthodox countries, because the people are more uniformly homophobic if you push them, although. otherwise, homosexuality isn't really on their radar. But here in America, since the society is more evenly split on it, even religious people debate it. When that's gonna reach the orthodox ur-land you'll have these debates there too. And only then is realistic to hope that something will officially change.

There's some people (ACCEPT & Co.) who desperately try to bring the issue of homosexuality on our radar (schools, media, etc.). So are the many foreigners who come to march at the pride parades in Bucharest. They'll soon go to Mount Athos to campaign there for the rights of the gay monastic minority, as they do at the Vatican or in Jerusalem (the pilgrimage of the LGBT community from Tel Aviv).     
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 02:14:59 PM
Hmm, like most Romanians, I don't think I was paying much attention to the subject back then, but somehow I have to doubt the accuracy of your recollections (again).
*********

First time with archm. Efrem you were wrong. I was wrong about Noica's son.
The things referenced above happened around that time when the infamous article 200 was about to be struck down from the Penal Code as a requirement to join the EU. It was on TV, the press. I don't presume to know the things you were paying attention back then.
In the nineties there were cases of people imprisoned for having had sex with persons of the same sex. If you don't trust my recollections, you can always check.
************
Now, there we do have common memories - I remember when, about 5 years ago, in Vienna we saw "Franz Joseph" and his male partner reunited at the train station and then a guy passionately kissing his dog in some park and we were both thinking it was Lala Land we stepped into. You "grew up" because you moved there - I was "left behind". I don't know who's more fortunate.
******

That was 2005, August. Anyways after an initial shock or whatever, I moved on. I do not understand  this "You "grew up" because you moved there - I was "left behind". I don't know who's more fortunate."
********
There's some people (ACCEPT & Co.) who desperately try to bring the issue of homosexuality on our radar (schools, media, etc.). So are the many foreigners who come to march at the pride parades in Bucharest. They'll soon go to Mount Athos to campaign there for the rights of the gay monastic minority, as they do at the Vatican or in Jerusalem (the pilgrimage of the LGBT community from Tel Aviv).  
***********  

Well, these are somehow interesting scenarios (the Athos/Vatican one especially). As for Jerusalem there are enough gay locals there so no need to import them from Tel Aviv.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 22, 2013, 02:19:54 PM
Romaios, with all due respect, the general point being made you have chosen to either ignore or I don't know what. the main point in that thoughtful and candid post was to say it is when we create the opportunity to responsibly discuss this issue with due pastoral and civic concern to those who are affected directly or indirectly by it that we Christians can positively convey  and stand by our principles. I do not see how ignoring the subject will suddenly make it go away, or how when it does come to the public fora and the reaction is violence of various sorts, from words to actions, I do not know anyone who is sane and understands justice and fairness, be they christian or pagan can say that engaging the topic responsibly is the wrong thing to do. from a christian perspective , how is it that we can not sit down in peace and talk with our kids and friends and neighbors regarding this subject without lashing out in rage and violence. Homosexuality is not a modern issue despite what many would like to tell themselves. the movement for the civil rights of homosexuals that is like many civic issues had bid its time to seek equal treatment under the civil law. the modern era has its flaws yet for most of us it has made living in this world far more easier than earlier eras when it comes to the respect of human rights. so calling it a modern issue( as if this word is the silver bullet to win the argument) will not change the fact that it is a reality that must be addressed regardless. the first step is to look at ourselves and examine our understanding of the issue, our cultural and religious reservations on the issue, doing that allows to communicate with one another without rancor and malice. so at the end of the day it is up to all of us to decide how exactly we will deal with the issue. denial, avoidance, violently silencing those who would raise it etc.. I wonder if that is truly the way to stand by our principles we so proclaim to be right and just and true.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 02:35:13 PM
Romaios, with all due respect, the general point being made you have chosen to either ignore or I don't know what. the main point in that thoughtful and candid post was to say it is when we create the opportunity to responsibly discuss this issue with due pastoral and civic concern to those who are affected directly or indirectly by it that we Christians can positively convey  and stand by our principles. I do not see how ignoring the subject will suddenly make it go away, or how when it does come to the public fora and the reaction is violence of various sorts, from words to actions, I do not know anyone who is sane and understands justice and fairness, be they christian or pagan can say that engaging the topic responsibly is the wrong thing to do. from a christian perspective , how is it that we can not sit down in peace and talk with our kids and friends and neighbors regarding this subject without lashing out in rage and violence. Homosexuality is not a modern issue despite what many would like to tell themselves. the movement for the civil rights of homosexuals that is like many civic issues had bid its time to seek equal treatment under the civil law. the modern era has its flaws yet for most of us it has made living in this world far more easier than earlier eras when it comes to the respect of human rights. so calling it a modern issue( as if this word is the silver bullet to win the argument) will not change the fact that it is a reality that must be addressed regardless. the first step is to look at ourselves and examine our understanding of the issue, our cultural and religious reservations on the issue, doing that allows to communicate with one another without rancor and malice. so at the end of the day it is up to all of us to decide how exactly we will deal with the issue. denial, avoidance, violently silencing those who would raise it etc.. I wonder if that is truly the way to stand by our principles we so proclaim to be right and just and true.
Now I do follow the Romanian press and almost every single scandal that involves a male monk (or bishop, ar archimandrite ettc etc) is of a homosexual nature. It's not like that's random. One should also read Jacques Lacariere's account of his trips through Greece and Athos in the fifties ("The Greek Summer"-"L'ete grec"); he has a few anecdotes there too. My theory is that monastic life always attracted people that were not sexually attracted to women to some extent. It was an outlet. And nothing wrong with that. An islet of humanity, oftentimes within a sea of cruelty.
 But it also attracted or maybe that's not the right word, as they were mostly sent off there by their families, lots of surplus children for whom there was no place within the rural economy of the time. But now, that has largely disappeared ( I mean this supply of "surplus" sons and daughters and the rural economy) and so the percentage of SSA people most likely increased. Not saying that they are a majority but in any case a large component. That should pose a challenge in the future . Plus the further liberalization of  Orthodox countries.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 02:35:24 PM
My opinion is that the official discourse of the church -insofar as it can be called official- with regards to homosexuality and a few other things is really left behind . Heck, in Romania I recall,  around the year 2000 or so many a religious organizations and clergy were on the streets protesting the de-criminalization of homosexual sex in a quite hysterical tone. IIRC even the patriarchate issued some encouragement to that. Moments like these are revealing. You see, behind the whatever theological and moral reasons are put in front, the real animating sentiment of this proudly "uncompromising attitude' is just some banal prejudices and the yuck factor.  Some would say that's somehow nature. I know, I used to suffer from the yuck factor too. But I grew up I reckon.
 It's like you know "scientific creationism" vs scientific approaches. So talking about the position of the church it's like beating a dead horse, mostly. Who wants to change it will have to patiently work from the inside or else if it affects them personally either heroically submit to all the rules or find a modus vivendi where they'll just do whatever they think it's right without causing a ruckus; and there are sympathetic clergy that will do what they can to help you. But things will have to be done in a low-key "pastoral" way.
Debates like these, AFIK are largely absent in religious circles in Orthodox countries, because the people are more uniformly homophobic if you push them, although. otherwise, homosexuality isn't really on their radar. But here in America, since the society is more evenly split on it, even religious people debate it. When that's gonna reach the orthodox ur-land you'll have these debates there too. And only then is realistic to hope that something will officially change.

Great post augustin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 02:41:45 PM
They'll soon go to Mount Athos to campaign there for the rights of the gay monastic minority

Or they can stop as a point of interest on gay cruises, which from what I understand, already happens.

A "bi" dude I knew asked if I was religious, I told him "Orthodox".

He launched into a whole speech about how wonderful it is, its history, etc. First person I ever met who knew much about it around here who wasn't Orthodox. He knew more than most. Enormous fan of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. He gave me tons of links of videos, etc. that I "just had to watch".

He's been to Mt. Athos.

So have other sexed men. None Orthodox as far as he knew.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 02:47:02 PM
First time with archm. Efrem you were wrong. I was wrong about Noica's son.

Ok, let's leave it at that - even though I wouldn't say that the purpose of Archim. Ephrem's talk back then was to 'slander the West'. It was just an answer to a couple of questions that revealed what he thought on the matter of post-schism Western Saints being worshiped by the Orthodox and his curious view on Pope JP2's visit to America. Obiter dicta.  
  
The things referenced above happened around that time when the infamous article 200 was about to be struck down from the Penal Code as a requirement to join the EU. It was on TV, the press. I don't presume to know the things you were paying attention back then.

In the nineties there were cases of people imprisoned for having had sex with persons of the same sex. If you don't trust my recollections, you can always check.

In Romania homosexuality was and, to a great extent, still is a non-issue. It passingly became one because of the European integration. That law existed, like it did everywhere in Eastern Europe since the days of Communism - it was seldom if ever enforced. We've done away with it and that should have been enough IMHO.
 
I do not understand  this "You "grew up" because you moved there - I was "left behind". I don't know who's more fortunate."

It's just a matter of being influenced by the majority's stream of thought. No personal credit to be taken.  


Well, these are somehow interesting scenarios (the Athos/Vatican one especially). As for Jerusalem there are enough gay locals there so no need to import them from Tel Aviv.

Hasn't the Vatican been a favourite target of all sorts of militants? Femdom, LGBT rights and so on? They're not satisfied with Catholic doctrine on some issues and feel like pressuring the Pope into changing his mind or something.

As for Jerusalem, I'm not sure that its actual gay inhabitants would make up for 10% of a pride parade. The Israeli LGBT capital is Tel Aviv, not the Holy City.

I think what bothers most Christians in traditional Orthodox countries is how these guys try to make their agenda an issue in places where it's traditionally never been one. The LGBT gospel is being preached to us by missionaries from abroad, like Mormonism, Baptism or Krishnaism.    
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 02:53:05 PM
Quote
I think what bothers most Christians in traditional Orthodox countries is how these guys try to make their agenda an issue in places where it's traditionally never been one.
Well, it only started to be an "issue" , I mean a public one, since the sixties, in the West too. So the time gap isn't all that great. What's different is the greater percentage of rural population in Romania or people of rural extraction (like we are too). So once that's gonna change attitudes will follow suite.
Quote
The LGBT gospel is being preached to us by missionaries from abroad, like Mormonism, Baptism or Krishnaism.   
   That's not nearly as clean cut but anyways, so was the abolition of serfdom or the ending of Gypsy chattel  slavery. These didn't come out of the Euchologion, unfortunately, but were Enlightement ideas.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 22, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
Romaios, with all due respect, the general point being made you have chosen to either ignore or I don't know what. the main point in that thoughtful and candid post was to say it is when we create the opportunity to responsibly discuss this issue with due pastoral and civic concern to those who are affected directly or indirectly by it that we Christians can positively convey  and stand by our principles. I do not see how ignoring the subject will suddenly make it go away, or how when it does come to the public fora and the reaction is violence of various sorts, from words to actions, I do not know anyone who is sane and understands justice and fairness, be they christian or pagan can say that engaging the topic responsibly is the wrong thing to do. from a christian perspective , how is it that we can not sit down in peace and talk with our kids and friends and neighbors regarding this subject without lashing out in rage and violence. Homosexuality is not a modern issue despite what many would like to tell themselves. the movement for the civil rights of homosexuals that is like many civic issues had bid its time to seek equal treatment under the civil law. the modern era has its flaws yet for most of us it has made living in this world far more easier than earlier eras when it comes to the respect of human rights. so calling it a modern issue( as if this word is the silver bullet to win the argument) will not change the fact that it is a reality that must be addressed regardless. the first step is to look at ourselves and examine our understanding of the issue, our cultural and religious reservations on the issue, doing that allows to communicate with one another without rancor and malice. so at the end of the day it is up to all of us to decide how exactly we will deal with the issue. denial, avoidance, violently silencing those who would raise it etc.. I wonder if that is truly the way to stand by our principles we so proclaim to be right and just and true.
Now I do follow the Romanian press and almost every single scandal that involves a male monk (or bishop, ar archimandrite ettc etc) is of a homosexual nature. It's not like that's random. One should also read Jacques Lacariere's account of his trips through Greece and Athos in the fifties ("The Greek Summer"-"L'ete grec"); he has a few anecdotes there too. My theory is that monastic life always attracted people that were not sexually attracted to women to some extent. It was an outlet. And nothing wrong with that. An islet of humanity, oftentimes within a sea of cruelty.
 But it also attracted or maybe that's not the right word, as they were mostly sent off there by their families, lots of surplus children for whom there was no place within the rural economy of the time. But now, that has largely disappeared ( I mean this supply of "surplus" sons and daughters and the rural economy) and so the percentage of SSA people most likely increased. Not saying that they are a majority but in any case a large component. That should pose a challenge in the future . Plus the further liberalization of  Orthodox countries.

Augustin, I understand the points you are making, I am also aware of the elements you speak of ,only too well. it is not a romanian issue alone. it has as you know the inherent complexities of economic, pshychological, cultural factors that has found its mix in the religious one . a lot shall remain unsaid over here for the sake of others. but I want you to know I totally get what you are saying.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:00:24 PM
But I grew up I reckon.
LOL.  The very definition of the sophmore.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 03:03:16 PM
Now I do follow the Romanian press and almost every single scandal that involves a male monk (or bishop, ar archimandrite ettc etc) is of a homosexual nature. It's not like that's random.

We have about 11.000 priests in Romania and I don't know how many monks. The press feasts on any bit of scandal that involves the Church. Even if all they write in the papers was actually true (I'd trust you to know better), it still would not make it an issue.  

One should also read Jacques Lacariere's account of his trips through Greece and Athos in the fifties ("The Greek Summer"-"L'ete grec"); he has a few anecdotes there too. My theory is that monastic life always attracted people that were not sexually attracted to women to some extent. It was an outlet. And nothing wrong with that. An islet of humanity, oftentimes within a sea of cruelty.

Homosexuality is taken into account and dealt with by monastic rules of all sorts. Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. The Church deals with it on its own terms. It doesn't need preachers to teach it what's acceptable and what is not.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:06:59 PM
Quote
Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. T
That overlooks the bear community, I'm afraid.
Quote
The Church deals with it on its own terms. It doesn't need preachers to teach it what's acceptable and what is not
Just expressing opinions, not really preaching.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
Quote
I think what bothers most Christians in traditional Orthodox countries is how these guys try to make their agenda an issue in places where it's traditionally never been one.
Well, it only started to be an "issue" , I mean a public one, since the sixties, in the West too. So the time gap isn't all that great. What's different is the greater percentage of rural population in Romania or people of rural extraction (like we are too). So once that's gonna change attitudes will follow suite.
Quote
The LGBT gospel is being preached to us by missionaries from abroad, like Mormonism, Baptism or Krishnaism.   
   That's not nearly as clean cut but anyways, so was the abolition of serfdom or the ending of Gypsy chattel  slavery. These didn't come out of the Euchologion, unfortunately, but were Enlightement ideas.
Rather odd, given the role of the "Englightenment" in spreading and expanding chattel slavery.  It took that Evangelical Wilberforce to overturn it in Western Europe.  In the American South, for instance, it didn't come into being until after the English Anglicans gave up the superstitious idea that baptism made a new person and accepted the "enlightened" idea of the natural inferiority of the black race instead.

I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 03:10:48 PM
Quote
Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. T
That overlooks the bear community, I'm afraid.

Now this IS double entendre!

(outside joke)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 22, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
Quote
Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. T
That overlooks the bear community, I'm afraid.

Now this IS double entendre!

(outside joke)


LOL!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:14:53 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 03:15:03 PM
Quote
Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. T
That overlooks the bear community, I'm afraid.

Bears were tolerated around Saints - see the icon of St. Seraphim of Sarov. If it's those bears you meant.
 
Just expressing opinions, not really preaching.

I didn't mean you personally, unless you plan to join the gay parade on Patriarchate Hill in Bucharest next month.  
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:15:15 PM
Quote
Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. T
That overlooks the bear community, I'm afraid.
I doubt bestiality was ever popular with bears, about as popular as with tigers (an old Latin work has a marginal on bestiality "rarely attempted with tigers.")

You talk as if such problems were ignored by the Church in the past, before the "enlightened" press brought them to our attention.  As pointed out, the canons etc. show otherwise.
Quote
The Church deals with it on its own terms. It doesn't need preachers to teach it what's acceptable and what is not
Just expressing opinions, not really preaching.
lost the courage of our convictions, have we?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:20:01 PM
Quote
I didn't mean you personally, unless you plan to join the gay parade on Patriarchate Hill in Bucharest next month. 
Not really. But I've always watched the one here. Passes literally by my house. Always had a great time.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 03:21:54 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.

Also as a consequence of so much social progress, the Gypsies of Romania lost their traditional crafts and roamed about all free and emancipated, but not integrated in anyway by society. Now they moved westward, to learn Enlightenment from the French themselves. Monsieur Sarkozy was terribly happy!  
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:23:48 PM
Sarcozy is a reactionary. He lost.
 I didn't say things are perfect. But, you know, the abbot or the boyar won't be selling "gypsy slaves in fne condition" now either. They lost their crafts, btw, because of the mechanization/industrialization. Like everywhere where capitalist relations of production take root.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:29:17 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.
Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better.  I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal.  That silence is deafening.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:32:11 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.
Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better.  I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal.  That silence is deafening.


Red herrings much?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:35:25 PM
Sarcozy is a reactionary. He lost.
 I didn't say things are perfect. But, you know, the abbot or the boyar won't be selling "gypsy slaves in fne condition" now either. They lost their crafts, btw, because of the mechanization/industrialization. Like everywhere where capitalist relations of production take root.
They were supposed to be integrated into the peasantry. The emancipation had a lot to do with the program of centralization and statism as the government's policy (cf. the confiscation of monastery lands).  That much I do know.

Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:38:51 PM
Quote
Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.
Like everyone on the South side can become president or a CEO if they only wanted. Yes sir.
Hope orthonorm will bother to break down for you this judgement fallacy.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 03:43:26 PM
Quote
I didn't mean you personally, unless you plan to join the gay parade on Patriarchate Hill in Bucharest next month. 
Not really. But I've always watched the one here. Passes literally by my house. Always had a great time.

I can picture you with a multicoloured whig, dressed as a kadına, belly-dancing on top of some chariot and having the time of your life - all 'grown up'!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:46:02 PM
Quote
I didn't mean you personally, unless you plan to join the gay parade on Patriarchate Hill in Bucharest next month. 
Not really. But I've always watched the one here. Passes literally by my house. Always had a great time.

I can picture you with a multicoloured whig, dressed as a kadına, belly-dancing on top of some chariot and having the time of your life - all 'grown up'!  :laugh:
Could put up some pics although it wouldn't be as wild as your scenario. But once IIRC I was wearing a fez.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:46:41 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.
Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better.  I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal.  That silence is deafening.


Red herrings much?
is that what is in your ears?

Myself, I can't stand herring, red or otherwise. Not much of a fish person.

So, pray tell: you can't interpret the events and institutions of the state and century you were born in right, how do you claim to get it right over a century before your birth, in the predecessors to your country?  After all, the Danube-Black Sea Canal was built by "enlightened" slave labor (while the Erie Canal was built by workers well paid by capitalism)-how did they differ from Tigani slaves?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:48:25 PM
Quote
I didn't mean you personally, unless you plan to join the gay parade on Patriarchate Hill in Bucharest next month. 
Not really. But I've always watched the one here. Passes literally by my house. Always had a great time.

I can picture you with a multicoloured whig, dressed as a kadına, belly-dancing on top of some chariot and having the time of your life - all 'grown up'!  :laugh:
kadina-is that a word?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 03:52:27 PM
kadina-is that a word?

In Turkish it means woman - in Romanian, a certain kind of woman.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 03:53:15 PM
Quote
Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.
Like everyone on the South side can become president or a CEO if they only wanted. Yes sir.
Hope orthonorm will bother to break down for you this judgement fallacy.
he might be working on wrapping his cryptic post into an enigma even as we post.

Hopefully he might point out the fallacy you committed in your post.

But most like he will confirm you in your folly.

Btw, I guess you haven't heard.  Someone on the South Side has become president.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:54:08 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.
Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better.  I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal.  That silence is deafening.


Red herrings much?
is that what is in your ears?

Myself, I can't stand herring, red or otherwise. Not much of a fish person.

So, pray tell: you can't interpret the events and institutions of the state and century you were born in right, how do you claim to get it right over a century before your birth, in the predecessors to your country?  After all, the Danube-Black Sea Canal was built by "enlightened" slave labor (while the Erie Canal was built by workers well paid by capitalism)-how did they differ from Tigani slaves?
You know, I can take a critical look at Romanian communism. The problem is that all over Eastern Europe communist had to do, or at least did, the job that capitalists did in the west: industrialization, transformation of peasants into factory workers etc. According to Marx that's not how things work. Communism will pick up after capitalism has thoroughly done their job.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 03:56:52 PM
Quote
Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.
Like everyone on the South side can become president or a CEO if they only wanted. Yes sir.
Hope orthonorm will bother to break down for you this judgement fallacy.
he might be working on wrapping his cryptic post into an enigma even as we post.

Hopefully he might point out the fallacy you committed in your post.

But most like he will confirm you in your folly.

Btw, I guess you haven't heard.  Someone on the South Side has become president.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 04:16:25 PM
kadina-is that a word?

In Turkish it means woman - in Romanian, a certain kind of woman.
I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman").  I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word.  The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
kadina-is that a word?

In Turkish it means woman - in Romanian, a certain kind of woman.
I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman").  I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word.  The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."
It's mostly a literary term, not used in real life. Transylvania wouldn't know it for sure.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 04:26:00 PM
kadina-is that a word?

In Turkish it means woman - in Romanian, a certain kind of woman.
I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman").  I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word.  The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."

I don't know any Turkish, so I just spelled the word as I thought it might look like in the original without consulting a dictionary.

It doesn't necessarily have a pejorative connotation in Romanian - many of our young girls would have ended up in this condition through no fault of their own in the past. Alas, they still do!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 04:35:10 PM
Quote
I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.
Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.
Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better.  I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal.  That silence is deafening.


Red herrings much?
is that what is in your ears?

Myself, I can't stand herring, red or otherwise. Not much of a fish person.

So, pray tell: you can't interpret the events and institutions of the state and century you were born in right, how do you claim to get it right over a century before your birth, in the predecessors to your country?  After all, the Danube-Black Sea Canal was built by "enlightened" slave labor (while the Erie Canal was built by workers well paid by capitalism)-how did they differ from Tigani slaves?
You know, I can take a critical look at Romanian communism. The problem is that all over Eastern Europe communist had to do, or at least did, the job that capitalists did in the west: industrialization, transformation of peasants into factory workers etc. According to Marx that's not how things work. Communism will pick up after capitalism has thoroughly done their job.
LOL.  You just pointed out that Marx didn't know what he was talking about.

Capitalism did its job thoroughly in Germany. It is now being run by (according to reports) by the second most powerful person in the world, Angelika Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany.  She seems to have found it an "enlightening" experience.

As for the prospects of communism picking up, that might veer into politics.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 22, 2013, 04:43:54 PM
Quote
Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.
Like everyone on the South side can become president or a CEO if they only wanted. Yes sir.
Hope orthonorm will bother to break down for you this judgement fallacy.
he might be working on wrapping his cryptic post into an enigma even as we post.

Hopefully he might point out the fallacy you committed in your post.

But most like he will confirm you in your folly.

Btw, I guess you haven't heard.  Someone on the South Side has become president.
ROFL. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 04:44:25 PM
kadina-is that a word?

In Turkish it means woman - in Romanian, a certain kind of woman.
I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman").  I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word.  The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."

I don't know any Turkish, so I just spelled the word as I thought it might look like in the original without consulting a dictionary.

It doesn't necessarily have a pejorative connotation in Romanian - many of our young girls would have ended up in this condition through no fault of their own in the past. Alas, they still do!
They aren't the only ones.

Btw, neither kadin or odalik have a bad connotation at all in Turkish, as they don't imply any sexual use at all (the odalik was the servant of the concubines in the harem, not a member herself). Odalisque is just another Orientalist twist to what the Orient was actually doing.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: brastaseptim on January 22, 2013, 05:01:45 PM
....and this is what happens when I skip from the first to the last page of a thread. I have no idea what's going on.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 05:03:35 PM
Quote
Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.
Like everyone on the South side can become president or a CEO if they only wanted. Yes sir.
Hope orthonorm will bother to break down for you this judgement fallacy.
he might be working on wrapping his cryptic post into an enigma even as we post.

Hopefully he might point out the fallacy you committed in your post.

But most like he will confirm you in your folly.

Btw, I guess you haven't heard.  Someone on the South Side has become president.
ROFL. Brilliant.

Yeah, it's like people are making my points after I make them in the same day. By saying silly things.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 05:05:32 PM
Capitalism did its job thoroughly in Germany. It is now being run by (according to reports) by the second most powerful person in the world, Angelika Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany.  She seems to have found it an "enlightening" experience.

You have no idea how right you are for all the wrong reasons. I had a laugh cause I was sorta writing a reply while deciding when to freeze and you literally offered an example of one of my points.

Not sure if the draft was saved. I have a trouble with that feature around here for some reason.

Anyway, getting ready for the fun that is public transit.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 05:19:34 PM
Heck, in Romania I recall,  around the year 2000 or so many a religious organizations and clergy were on the streets protesting the de-criminalization of homosexual sex in a quite hysterical tone. IIRC even the patriarchate issued some encouragement to that.

Hmm, like most Romanians, I don't think I was paying much attention to the subject back then, but somehow I have to doubt the accuracy of your recollections (again).

The things referenced above happened around that time when the infamous article 200 was about to be struck down from the Penal Code as a requirement to join the EU. It was on TV, the press. I don't presume to know the things you were paying attention back then.
In the nineties there were cases of people imprisoned for having had sex with persons of the same sex. If you don't trust my recollections, you can always check.

So, to set the record straight (pun intended) - this is not why I said I mistrusted your recollections. What I was questioning was your assertion that the religious organizations (which ones? ASCOR, Isus Speranța României?) or the Patriarchate (Patriarch Teoctist?!) went out on the streets to ”hysterically” protest for LGBT rights (be it only the decriminalization of homosexuality).
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 05:23:47 PM
In Arad "0astea Domnului" among others took to the streets with the cross and the church banners to protest that. I vividly remember that . It appeared in "Adevarul".
And here:
http://teoctist.info/Articol.asp?ID=193 (http://teoctist.info/Articol.asp?ID=193)
Now that was truly rich on so many levels because besides IPS Bartolomeu who was rumored to have had fathered a couple of children, on the side, all other hierarchs mentioned could have run into problems were the said article to have been enforced zealously . According to what made it to the press.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 05:30:15 PM
In Arad "0astea Domnului" among others took to the streets with the cross and the church banners to protest that. I vividly remember that.
 

 :o Only if somebody got them drunk or told them they were marching against abortions. 

It appeared in "Adevarul".

That sure makes it true!  ::) (Adevărul = ”The Truth”)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 05:39:42 PM
In Arad "0astea Domnului" among others took to the streets with the cross and the church banners to protest that. I vividly remember that.
 

 :o Only if somebody got them drunk or told them they were marching against abortions. 

It appeared in "Adevarul".

That sure makes it true!  ::) (Adevărul = ”The Truth”)
I mean what are you even saying here?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 05:42:20 PM

http://teoctist.info/Articol.asp?ID=193 (http://teoctist.info/Articol.asp?ID=193)

Now that was truly rich on so many levels because besides IPS Bartolomeu who was rumored to have had fathered a couple of children, on the side, all other hierarchs mentioned could have run into problems were the said article to have been enforced zealously . According to what made it to the press.

That article proves just the opposite of what you are arguing. It says that the Patriarch and the Synod asked the Parliament not to sanction the abrogation of article 200, which still prohibited pro-gay propaganda and public manifestations (homosexual acts had been decriminalized since 1996). Should Parliament do away with it, they would appeal to the President for a veto.

Quote
Biserica, prin vocea P.F. Patriarh Teoctist, cere sanctionarea prin lege a propagandei homosexuale prin manifestatii publice, mass-media si institutii proprii * Capul BOR aminteste ca nu se doreste pedepsirea celor atinsi "de pacate contra firii" * Daca si Senatul elimina articolul 200, Biserica ii va cere lui Constantinescu sa nu promulge modificarile Codului Penal.

The Church, through the voice of His Beatitude Patriarch Teoctist, requires the legal prosecution of homosexual propaganda through public manifestations, the media and private organizations. The head of the Orthodox Romanian Church mentions that it is not desirable to punish those touched by 'sins against nature'. But if the Senate does away with article 200, the Church will ask President Constantinescu not to sanction the alterations to the Penal Code.


As for such petty gossip about the Hierarchs, it's below the dignity of any sort of Orthodox to lend an ear to it.  
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 05:44:02 PM
Yes the Church opposed the abrogation of article 200. That's what I am trying to say. I'm still not sure what you are talking about though.
And in the '90's this article made at least 3 victims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_200)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 05:54:30 PM
Even though in 1996 the article was amended so as to only punish "public acts" or those that produce "scandal" whatever that is ( a move unanimously opposed by the Romanian Churches consulted in advance , even then) it still denied homosexuals the right to assembly or of representation.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 05:56:30 PM
Yes the Church opposed the abrogation of article 200. That's what I am trying to say. I'm still not sure what you are talking about though.

Were you arguing that the Church and religious organizations protested in favour (that's what I understood) or against the decriminalization of homosexual acts & pro-gay propaganda? Because it approved the former and disapproved the latter, without any 'hysterical' street protests. It continues to do so to this day.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 05:59:23 PM
Yes the Church opposed the abrogation of article 200. That's what I am trying to say. I'm still not sure what you are talking about though.

Were you arguing that the Church and religious organizations protested in favour or against the decriminalization of homosexual acts & pro-gay propaganda? Because it approved the former and disapproved the latter, without any 'hysterical' street protests. It continues to do so to this day.
There were street protests that fall/ winter. Now I don't feel like roaming all over the internet to prove you I'm right. Maybe I'll do it some time.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 06:04:05 PM
That sure makes it true!  ::) (Adevărul = ”The Truth”)
I mean what are you even saying here?

That one shouldn't trust a newspaper to tell the truth just because it's called "The Truth".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Quote
Were you arguing that the Church and religious organizations protested in favour or against the decriminalization of homosexual acts & pro-gay propaganda? Because it approved the former and disapproved the latter, without any 'hysterical' street protests. It continues to do so to this day.
Here what it is, today, because Romania joined the EU you won't hear the Church officially asking that homosexuals be denied the right to assembly or have their NGO's.
Even more, in countries such as France Msgr. Iosif Pop talks as he wouldn't in Romania, I am sure. There they only oppose gay marriage, otherwise being all in favor of diversity, multiplicity,alterity all the pomo soup. they are even for domestic parttnerships etc:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeof.fr%2Fuploads%2Ffiles%2FTexte%2520Allocution%2520du%2520m%25C3%25A9tropolite%2520Joseph%2520-%2520Audition%2520Assembl%25C3%25A9e%2520Nationale%252029%2520nov%25202012%2520%25283%2529.pdf&h=MAQFDjyY7 (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeof.fr%2Fuploads%2Ffiles%2FTexte%2520Allocution%2520du%2520m%25C3%25A9tropolite%2520Joseph%2520-%2520Audition%2520Assembl%25C3%25A9e%2520Nationale%252029%2520nov%25202012%2520%25283%2529.pdf&h=MAQFDjyY7)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 06:23:26 PM
Here what it is, today, because Romania joined the EU you won't hear the Church officially asking that homosexuals be denied the right to assembly or have their NGO's.

Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"! 

Even more, in countries such as France Msgr. Iosif Pop talks as he wouldn't in Romania, I am sure. There they only oppose gay marriage, otherwise being all in favor of diversity, multiplicity,alterity all the pomo soup. they are even for domestic parttnerships etc:

I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 22, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".
Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?
It's your fierce "agree with me or don't call yourself Orthodox" dogmaticism I'm addressing, a dogmaticism that threatens to derail every thread you post on.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 06:45:45 PM
Quote
Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!  
Well, that's small beer.
Quote
I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.
Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities. Anyhow, I am quite optimistic attitudes will change and they do. With younger people being more accepting of difference.
My larger point however is that even the Church changes its discourse, as it is obvious it has softened at least rhetorically over the last 20 years.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 07:25:29 PM
Quote
Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"! 
Well, that's small beer.

I'm afraid there's nothing much bigger in store for us from the EU, as things seem to be going.
 
Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities. Anyhow, I am quite optimistic attitudes will change and they do. With younger people being more accepting of difference.

"And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring." (Mal 2, 15)

"Shun youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (2 Tim. 2, 22)

Can/should Church discourse do away with verses like these?

I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Well, perhaps not so much with the stranger, since many of them come from abroad...
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 07:34:10 PM
Quote
I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.
Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some. As for my passions they are quite mainstream and don't particularly flee them.One day they'll flee me, ins'allah.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 07:44:42 PM
Quote
I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy. 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 07:57:46 PM
Quote
I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy. 
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 08:16:18 PM
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?

If they are homeless, they need to look for a home, right? If they turn to their LGBT brethren for material/emotional support, what might they give in exchange besides 'themselves'? If you add a bit of "youthful passion" to altruistic sympathy, there you have it.

BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.

A lot of people can deduce a lot of things from a mere gesture of kindness. If a person is tolerated/shown acceptance by some community despite living in sin (if that's what the 'domestic partnership' amounts to in the end), it doesn't mean that they actually encourage or support their lifestyle or that they are even happy (ok) with it. If the LGBT community is capable of unconditional compassion, so should the Christians be.
       
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 08:18:34 PM
Quote
Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!  
Well, that's small beer.
Quote
I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.
Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities.
Indeed
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Canal_Mer_Blanche.jpg/220px-Canal_Mer_Blanche.jpg)
Building the Canal of the Dead (Canalul Mortii)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 08:28:36 PM
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?

If they are homeless, they need to look for a home, right? If they turn to their LGBT brethren for material/emotional support, what might they give in exchange besides 'themselves'? If you add a bit of "youthful passion" to altruistic sympathy, there you have it.

BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.

A lot of people can deduce a lot of things from a mere gesture of kindness. If a person is tolerated/shown acceptance by some community despite living in sin (if that's what the 'domestic partnership' amounts to in the end), it doesn't mean that they actually encourage or support their lifestyle or that they are even happy (ok) with it. If the LGBT community is capable of unconditional compassion, so should the Christians be.
       
Here I am talking of things I have seen over the last 6 years or so; you create scenarios.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 08:30:07 PM
Quote
Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!  
Well, that's small beer.
Quote
I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.
Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities.
Indeed
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Canal_Mer_Blanche.jpg/220px-Canal_Mer_Blanche.jpg)
Building the Canal of the Dead (Canalul Mortii)
The bourgeoisie is probably the one and only minority worth scapegoating 'cause in their case it's true.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 22, 2013, 08:43:52 PM
Hey Prof,

Is the Danube Canal a metaphor for anal sex?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 08:44:32 PM
Here I am talking of things I have seen over the last 6 years or so; you create scenarios.

Even if you knew for a fact that someone was received to communion after having slept with a person of the same sex, without showing any sign of repentance and the priest was fully aware as well (this going on for years), that doesn't prove any case for homosexuality being legit/acceptable in the Orthodox Church.

You cannot deduce what things should be like from what things are actually like. Practice conforms (or fails to conform) to ethics, not the other way around.

 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
What's unacknowledged by many is that ethics themselves ('what's legit") have changed and continue to change over time.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 22, 2013, 08:58:21 PM
What's unacknowledged by many is that ethics themselves ('what's legit") have changed and continue to change over time.

It depends on what sort of ethics one buys into.

For secular-humanist ethics, man (youthful passions and all included) is the measure of all things. Man changes.

For Christians, Christ (the God-Man) is the measure of all things. They claim he is 'the same yesterday and today and forever' (Heb. 13, 8 ).
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 22, 2013, 09:00:21 PM
What's unacknowledged by many is that ethics themselves ('what's legit") have changed and continue to change over time.

I swear I am leaving this board in a minute, but I wanted to say that I think rather than ethics, we should be describing such "rules" or as you say "what's legit" as morals.

These proscriptions certainly change.

But more interesting and a reason for the change in morals is a changing ethos or ethics. Here the Church is simply not hermetically sealed away from the world but is conditioned by it as it conditions the greater world.

Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

Ciao!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:01:29 PM
Quote
I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy. 
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.
Oh?  Which bishop do you fear?  None here that I know of.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:02:47 PM
What's unacknowledged by many is that ethics themselves ('what's legit") have changed and continue to change over time.

I swear I am leaving this board in a minute, but I wanted to say that I think rather than ethics, we should be describing such "rules" or as you say "what's legit" as morals.

These proscriptions certainly change.

But more interesting and a reason for the change in morals is a changing ethos or ethics. Here the Church is simply not hermetically sealed away from the world but is conditioned by it as it conditions the greater world.

Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

Ciao!
Is Romaios Amerodox?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:05:20 PM
What's unacknowledged by many is that ethics themselves ('what's legit") have changed and continue to change over time.
(http://www.fototime.com/8F8BF738D542B02/orig.jpg)
The wide gate to the Workers' Paradise. Quite a monument to the change in ethics.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:07:17 PM
Sarcozy is a reactionary. He lost.
It was just announced that he and the new model wife (not to be confused with a model new wife) are also leaving for London, rather than face his successor's policies in revenue.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:10:03 PM
Hey Prof,

Is the Danube Canal a metaphor for anal sex?
No. At least not with me.  Though it does go to the Black Sea.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 09:12:28 PM
Quote
I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy. 
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.
Oh?  Which bishop do you fear?  None here that I know of.
I don't fear any- and for that matter don't ask any clergy directions for life either and never have- but I won't give you names. I hate delators and spies.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:13:01 PM
Quote
Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!  
Well, that's small beer.
Quote
I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.
Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities.
Indeed
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Canal_Mer_Blanche.jpg/220px-Canal_Mer_Blanche.jpg)
Building the Canal of the Dead (Canalul Mortii)
The bourgeoisie is probably the one and only minority worth scapegoating 'cause in their case it's true.
So scapegoating is bad, except if augustine envies the target.  Got ya.

Talk about a rapid change in ethics, in so short a time.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:19:57 PM
Quote
I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy. 
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.
Oh?  Which bishop do you fear?  None here that I know of.
I don't fear any- and for that matter don't ask any clergy directions for life either and never have- but I won't give you names. I hate delators and spies.
how else does your workers' paradise work?

If it is not public knowledge, then your contention that "the Greek Churches around here" are "quite ok with domestic partnerships" is false, as they do not know.  And if you need spies and informants to find out public knowledge, well, that rather comments on your knowledge of the subject.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 09:21:48 PM
You ain't as cunning as the fox that made the raven sing
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:23:15 PM
You ain't as cunning as the fox that made the raven sing
What fox?  I only hear a dog barking at the moon.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 09:24:33 PM
It's a French fable. Repubs. Wouldn't have heard of it
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 22, 2013, 09:33:08 PM
It's a French fable. Repubs. Wouldn't have heard of it
You can read it in Arabic, and could before French existed
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Fox_and_crow.jpg)

It's Greek in origin, numbered 124 by Perry, who catalogued Aesop's fables.  Perry taught classics here in IL, back when it was the Republican heartland (it is the state which produced Ronald Reagan).  Btw, it's called a crow in English (we call it a raven too in Arabic).

Wrong yet again, augustine.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 09:35:50 PM
You r a smart guy. Next time I see you you'll get a beer from me
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 22, 2013, 10:23:37 PM
Hey Prof,

Is the Danube Canal a metaphor for anal sex?
No. At least not with me.  Though it does go to the Black Sea.
LMBO!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: William on January 22, 2013, 11:36:20 PM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 22, 2013, 11:46:41 PM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;

 quote tags fixed. -S1389
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 12:29:25 AM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;
a rather small and strictly defined group I'd imagine, chosen for said desired result.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 23, 2013, 12:35:32 AM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;
a rather small and strictly defined group I'd imagine, chosen for said desired result.

Not really. In my region and elsewhere is pretty normal. They would certainly laugh at you if you did prostrations for one thing.
Take my neighbor for instance, a truly colorful woman that I will ever remember. She got quite churchy when she was old. That doesn't mean though that she got interested in things most people on this board associate with Orthodoxy. But she took to going to church quite often, "giving akathists" for family and enemies ( it wasn't like she desired them good), continued to swear as colorfully as ever.  There is something deeply human and humane about people like these.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 23, 2013, 01:12:32 AM
"rarely attempted with tigers."


Unless you want to be inside the belly of a tiger!

Speaking of tigers, we have cougars, bobcats, bears, and coyotes who come roaming into our backyard.
Stay clear of them if you value your life.

Yesterday, we found a dead possum with a deep bite to his neck. Care to guess who killed it?
We quickly disposed of it in the garbage before the predator came back for lunch.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 01:17:48 AM
"rarely attempted with tigers."


Unless you want to be inside the belly of a tiger!

Speaking of tigers, we have cougars, bobcats, bears, and coyotes who come roaming into our backyard.
Stay clear of them if you value your life.
We have them too, in Chicago even!  I remember when they caught the mountain lion in the neighborhood where my ex wife works (!), I said "mountain lions?  We don't have any mountains!  Where are we going to put our mountain lions!?!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 23, 2013, 01:21:07 AM
"rarely attempted with tigers."


Unless you want to be inside the belly of a tiger!

Speaking of tigers, we have cougars, bobcats, bears, and coyotes who come roaming into our backyard.
Stay clear of them if you value your life.
We have them too, in Chicago even!  I remember when they caught the mountain lion in the neighborhood where my ex wife works (!), I said "mountain lions?  We don't have any mountains!  Where are we going to put our mountain lions!?!

If you have deer, rabbits, coyotes, or pets, then mountain lions will have plenty of their favorite food.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 23, 2013, 01:22:40 AM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;
a rather small and strictly defined group I'd imagine, chosen for said desired result.

Not really. In my region and elsewhere is pretty normal. They would certainly laugh at you if you did prostrations for one thing.
Take my neighbor for instance, a truly colorful woman that I will ever remember. She got quite churchy when she was old. That doesn't mean though that she got interested in things most people on this board associate with Orthodoxy. But she took to going to church quite often, "giving akathists" for family and enemies ( it wasn't like she desired them good), continued to swear as colorfully as ever.  There is something deeply human and humane about people like these.

Reminded me about a roaming story here about one women threatening another one that she knows an elder in Ukraine that can celebrate very powerful molebyens for "screwed life".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 23, 2013, 01:25:43 AM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;
a rather small and strictly defined group I'd imagine, chosen for said desired result.

Not really. In my region and elsewhere is pretty normal. They would certainly laugh at you if you did prostrations for one thing.
Take my neighbor for instance, a truly colorful woman that I will ever remember. She got quite churchy when she was old. That doesn't mean though that she got interested in things most people on this board associate with Orthodoxy. But she took to going to church quite often, "giving akathists" for family and enemies ( it wasn't like she desired them good), continued to swear as colorfully as ever.  There is something deeply human and humane about people like these.

Reminded me about a roaming story here about one women threatening another one that she knows an elder in Ukraine that can celebrate very powerful molebyens for "screwed life".

Ah, if only St. Seraphim of Sarov were still alive. However, he is still powerful among us and can effect a powerful heavenly cure for those who are addicted to alcohol, sex, or drugs.
People have received visits and/or dreams from St. Seraphim that have changed their lives.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 23, 2013, 01:27:20 AM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.

It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;
a rather small and strictly defined group I'd imagine, chosen for said desired result.

Not really. In my region and elsewhere is pretty normal. They would certainly laugh at you if you did prostrations for one thing.
Take my neighbor for instance, a truly colorful woman that I will ever remember. She got quite churchy when she was old. That doesn't mean though that she got interested in things most people on this board associate with Orthodoxy. But she took to going to church quite often, "giving akathists" for family and enemies ( it wasn't like she desired them good), continued to swear as colorfully as ever.  There is something deeply human and humane about people like these.

Reminded me about a roaming story here about one women threatening another one that she knows an elder in Ukraine that can celebrate very powerful molebyens for "screwed life".

Ah, if only St. Seraphim of Sarov were still alive. However, he is still powerful among us and can effect a powerful heavenly cure for those who are addicted to alcohol, sex, or drugs.
People have received visits and/or dreams from St. Seraphim that have changed their lives.

I'm not sure you understood me correctly. That elder is supposedly famous for making molebyens that screw lives of other people, not un-screw them.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 23, 2013, 01:34:22 AM
Maybe I'll get back to that other post, it takes this up in different language, but what you bother people with the most around here isn't the morals or behaviors of Grandpa Vlad, but of the ethos you suggest in which much of Orthodoxy lies is nearly contrary to the ethos of most of the board members and likely most Amerodox on a whole.



It's mostly the insistence or implication that that particular ethos is more legit than that of "Amerodox" and old country "churchy people" (to use one of augustin's terms).
Even if they are homophobic if pushed -those orthofolks that I truly like are still anywhere from pretty to extremely relaxed when it comes to churchy stuff;
a rather small and strictly defined group I'd imagine, chosen for said desired result.

Not really. In my region and elsewhere is pretty normal. They would certainly laugh at you if you did prostrations for one thing.
Take my neighbor for instance, a truly colorful woman that I will ever remember. She got quite churchy when she was old. That doesn't mean though that she got interested in things most people on this board associate with Orthodoxy. But she took to going to church quite often, "giving akathists" for family and enemies ( it wasn't like she desired them good), continued to swear as colorfully as ever.  There is something deeply human and humane about people like these.

Reminded me about a roaming story here about one women threatening another one that she knows an elder in Ukraine that can celebrate very powerful molebyens for "screwed life".

Ah, if only St. Seraphim of Sarov were still alive. However, he is still powerful among us and can effect a powerful heavenly cure for those who are addicted to alcohol, sex, or drugs.
People have received visits and/or dreams from St. Seraphim that have changed their lives.

I'm not sure you understood me correctly. That elder is supposedly famous for making molebyens that screw lives of other people, not un-screw them.

For shame. The both of you. That "screwed up" elder is under delusion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 23, 2013, 01:39:38 AM
Ah, if only St. Seraphim of Sarov were still alive. However, he is still powerful among us and can effect a powerful heavenly cure for those who are addicted to alcohol, sex, or drugs.
People have received visits and/or dreams from St. Seraphim that have changed their lives.

I'm not sure you understood me correctly. That elder is supposedly famous for making molebyens that screw lives of other people, not un-screw them.

"The turn of the screw"...  :o  :laugh:


Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Maria on January 23, 2013, 01:44:58 AM
Ah, if only St. Seraphim of Sarov were still alive. However, he is still powerful among us and can effect a powerful heavenly cure for those who are addicted to alcohol, sex, or drugs.
People have received visits and/or dreams from St. Seraphim that have changed their lives.

I'm not sure you understood me correctly. That elder is supposedly famous for making molebyens that screw lives of other people, not un-screw them.

"The turn of the screw"...  :o  :laugh


Especially if St. Seraphim were to appear to that screwed up elder.
Oh what a shock that would be.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 05:40:37 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.

I will speculate that they probably wouldn't be proudly marching in the first place if homosexuals hadn't been oppressed, shunned, bullied, reviled, correctively raped, and/or stoned to death throughout history.

Racial and gender equality movements also involved displays of public pride following years of oppression and injustice. Such is progress.

Or the other side of the pendulum swing.  I don’t fully understand why people don’t learn from history and instead of react in the opposite way in the same “in your face’ way, just balance it out and leave it alone.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

(But two Wrights do make an airplane)
 ;D
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 05:41:56 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.

Neonazis do.

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 05:44:22 AM
Quote
because the people are more uniformly homophobic


 ::)

Yep, all those homophobes out there.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 05:54:03 AM

Quote
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?


They do.  I realize it’s a difficult concept to accept, but some of us actually do listen and interact with homosexuals enough to know what they do, when they do it, and why they do it, which in turn helps confirm what we are saying. 

Of course, this doesn’t apply to ALL homosexuals, but to the majority (overwhelmingly) it does apply.  Some of us even get inside scoop from the few homosexuals who can’t stand the way other homosexuals act (always looking for sex, drugs, new partners, sugar daddy, etc. instead of looking for “real” relationships).  We are not ignorant.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 06:00:35 AM
What's unacknowledged by many is that ethics themselves ('what's legit") have changed and continue to change over time.

According to who?  The world?  This is no different than my children saying they can stay up past their bedtime.  No matter what they say, they are still wrong.  Just because the world says something is different, in no way makes it other than what God has provided.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 06:03:23 AM
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships.

I don’t know of any Greek clergy ok with homosexual relationships.  BTW - how many titles are we going to come up with to describe homosexuality?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 08:22:10 AM
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships.

I don’t know of any Greek clergy ok with homosexual relationships.  BTW - how many titles are we going to come up with to describe homosexuality?
as many as it takes, evidently.  Spades don't like being called that.

btw, you were quoting augustin.

Just for context-in IL "domestic partnership" is not just restricted to gays.  You can put that legal veneer on shacking up as well, which I find an even bigger abomination against marriage.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 08:30:42 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.

I will speculate that they probably wouldn't be proudly marching in the first place if homosexuals hadn't been oppressed, shunned, bullied, reviled, correctively raped, and/or stoned to death throughout history.

Racial and gender equality movements also involved displays of public pride following years of oppression and injustice. Such is progress.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rWv20AgRpfQ/TMyZKqsEpSI/AAAAAAAAE2o/NNAJLqTqLMY/s400/nambla.jpg)
For those who don't know what the organization stands for, I don't know if this is a real expression of public pride, or a parody (it's clean on the surface enough, but still disturbing.  At least for those of us who haven't "progressed" to the embrace of debauchery):
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/rave-if-you-believe-in-one-nation-under-god/question-3158557/?page=38&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=https://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/nambla.jpg
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 23, 2013, 08:40:31 AM
88Devin12 teaching a Jew about "true" modern Judaism.

<popcorn>

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I haven't written any of these. I only suppose Talilot is more knowledgeable than you about modern Judaism and its practices or teachings.

You mean throwing tomatoes and eggs at gay pride attendants?

They use firecrackers, smoke bombs and stones here.
Just speculating here, but maybe they shouldn’t make a spectacle of themselves and be “proud” in the same way the rest of the world is proud.  This does not suggest what people do in anger is ok, but if they didn’t prance up and down the public roadways, they wouldn’t make themselves a target for this sort of stuff.  I don’t know anyone else who holds pride parades.

I will speculate that they probably wouldn't be proudly marching in the first place if homosexuals hadn't been oppressed, shunned, bullied, reviled, correctively raped, and/or stoned to death throughout history.

Racial and gender equality movements also involved displays of public pride following years of oppression and injustice. Such is progress.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rWv20AgRpfQ/TMyZKqsEpSI/AAAAAAAAE2o/NNAJLqTqLMY/s400/nambla.jpg)
For those who don't know what the organization stands for, I don't know if this is a real expression of public pride, or a parody (it's clean on the surface enough, but still disturbing.  At least for those of us who haven't "progressed" to the embrace of debauchery):
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/rave-if-you-believe-in-one-nation-under-god/question-3158557/?page=38&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=https://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/nambla.jpg


Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 08:42:45 AM
BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships.

I don’t know of any Greek clergy ok with homosexual relationships.  BTW - how many titles are we going to come up with to describe homosexuality?
as many as it takes, evidently.  Spades don't like being called that.

btw, you were quoting augustin.

Just for context-in IL "domestic partnership" is not just restricted to gays.  You can put that legal veneer on shacking up as well, which I find an even bigger abomination against marriage.

My apologies for the misquote. :-[
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 09:02:20 AM


Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Perhaps you could explain, in a Christian way, not secular, how they are different.  Secular we all understand, but "biblically" (for lack of a better word), how is it any different than the other? 

Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.  All are sexual sins are perversions and performed by sexual deviants, to include adultery and fornication, for which many of us at one time have fallen into this category.  The only way to shed the stain of this fact is to take up a godly walk, resist the sin, and BE a Christian rather than go through the motions.  Sin is sin, wrong is wrong, evil is evil…period.  I understand each person must battle with their own sins, but battle they must.  I sometimes wonder if the “thorn in the side” was not a sexual, fleshly desire, thus producing the statement men are better off without a woman (unmarried). 

NAMBLA (and its “sister” organization) is a very real and very dangerous organization taking the same steps of the homosexual organizations and using the same arguments.  If society remains unchecked, they also will gain normality in society.  I have been around long enough to remember when people said the same things about homosexuality and were assured of how we were overreacting and it would never get to where it is today.  It is a slow progression.  Even now we have a television show with multiple wives.  Step, by teensy step, they march toward their end goal.  Are we really so blind as not to see this?  The advocates pull at the emotions and heart strings, pleading the case of the down trodden and rejected, but ignored is the fact these same people will speak out against the Charismatics and their emotional cults revealing emotions are not true Christianity. 

I will stop here and step down from my soap box.  The current human condition saddens be greatly.  Those who appease and advocate for sin are held in high regard.  Those who rally against this are deemed haters.  I will never understand.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 09:28:55 AM
Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!
Evidently "we all" don't know that.  There was just a conference of sorts of psychologists meeting on whether to remove pedophilia,oops! "minor attraction" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).  We know who blazed that trail.

But nice try to slip your redefinition of choice by!

Of course, the issue stands on the insistence of your protected perversion to not only drop our stones rather than cast them on their pride parade, but their insistence that we must embrace and celebrate it as "normal."

Adultery is consenting adults having relationships.  Society celebrating that
(http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/S/Wallis-Simpson-20836823-1-402.jpg)
pushed us down this slope to the abyss.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 23, 2013, 10:09:49 AM


Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Perhaps you could explain, in a Christian way, not secular, how they are different.  Secular we all understand, but "biblically" (for lack of a better word), how is it any different than the other? 

Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.  All are sexual sins are perversions and performed by sexual deviants, to include adultery and fornication, for which many of us at one time have fallen into this category.  The only way to shed the stain of this fact is to take up a godly walk, resist the sin, and BE a Christian rather than go through the motions.  Sin is sin, wrong is wrong, evil is evil…period.  I understand each person must battle with their own sins, but battle they must.  I sometimes wonder if the “thorn in the side” was not a sexual, fleshly desire, thus producing the statement men are better off without a woman (unmarried). 

NAMBLA (and its “sister” organization) is a very real and very dangerous organization taking the same steps of the homosexual organizations and using the same arguments.  If society remains unchecked, they also will gain normality in society.  I have been around long enough to remember when people said the same things about homosexuality and were assured of how we were overreacting and it would never get to where it is today.  It is a slow progression.  Even now we have a television show with multiple wives.  Step, by teensy step, they march toward their end goal.  Are we really so blind as not to see this?  The advocates pull at the emotions and heart strings, pleading the case of the down trodden and rejected, but ignored is the fact these same people will speak out against the Charismatics and their emotional cults revealing emotions are not true Christianity. 

I will stop here and step down from my soap box.  The current human condition saddens be greatly.  Those who appease and advocate for sin are held in high regard.  Those who rally against this are deemed haters.  I will never understand.


"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?

Quote
Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias. Many of the arguments for gay rights also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights. There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.

What else needs to be explained? The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them. I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them. They DO know. Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides. Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 10:43:24 AM


Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Perhaps you could explain, in a Christian way, not secular, how they are different.  Secular we all understand, but "biblically" (for lack of a better word), how is it any different than the other?  

Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.  All are sexual sins are perversions and performed by sexual deviants, to include adultery and fornication, for which many of us at one time have fallen into this category.  The only way to shed the stain of this fact is to take up a godly walk, resist the sin, and BE a Christian rather than go through the motions.  Sin is sin, wrong is wrong, evil is evil…period.  I understand each person must battle with their own sins, but battle they must.  I sometimes wonder if the “thorn in the side” was not a sexual, fleshly desire, thus producing the statement men are better off without a woman (unmarried).  

NAMBLA (and its “sister” organization) is a very real and very dangerous organization taking the same steps of the homosexual organizations and using the same arguments.  If society remains unchecked, they also will gain normality in society.  I have been around long enough to remember when people said the same things about homosexuality and were assured of how we were overreacting and it would never get to where it is today.  It is a slow progression.  Even now we have a television show with multiple wives.  Step, by teensy step, they march toward their end goal.  Are we really so blind as not to see this?  The advocates pull at the emotions and heart strings, pleading the case of the down trodden and rejected, but ignored is the fact these same people will speak out against the Charismatics and their emotional cults revealing emotions are not true Christianity.  

I will stop here and step down from my soap box.  The current human condition saddens be greatly.  Those who appease and advocate for sin are held in high regard.  Those who rally against this are deemed haters.  I will never understand.


"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?

Yep.

"Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13.

Just have no interest in secularists' interpretation of the Bible.

Quote
Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias. Many of the arguments for gay rights also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights. There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook.
because you are overlooking your bias.
Homosexuality involves consenting adults.
So did slavery-one could sell oneself into that estate.  So can women's rights-a lot of women voted for the Islamic Republic in Iran, for instance.  Female genital mutilation is overwhelming done and insisted on by other women.

Of course, you assume consent makes a difference, and that the attainment of majority/emancipation makes a difference.  A fan of Armin Meiwes the Rottenberg cannibal, I see.

The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors.
Yes. And?
Minors are protected by law.
change the law.  that's what a lot of your Pride Parades demand.

btw, they are not all that well protected by the law.

Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so!
That's your story.

Homosexuality was once deemed a mental illness according to the DSM.

Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized.
I take it you have no experience with the juvenile justice system, and divorce court.  Even SCOTUS called it as it is: a "kangaroo court."

You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.

Still doesn't tell us why we should adopt your bias, let alone justify it.

What else needs to be explained?
Evidently everything.  You seem to think we should accept it because you said it.

The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful
the vast majority of sinners don't.  Many collaborators with the Third Reich thought themselves as pure as the driven snow.  I'd guess that would include Ernst Röhm, the only one in Nazi Germany allowed to address Hitler as "Adolf."

whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them.
how about what is natural, rather than what "feels natural."  Otherwise, we will have the likes of Meiwes preparing the menu, more than already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mFte51aAds
Dutch celebrity mutual cannibalism.

I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them. They DO know. Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides.

the politically doctored ones?
Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.
if one decides to embrace and celebrate what family and society reject-let alone God-what does one expect?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 23, 2013, 03:22:24 PM
Quote
Just for context-in IL "domestic partnership" is not just restricted to gays.  You can put that legal veneer on shacking up as well, which I find an even bigger abomination against marriage.
I know for a fact that shacking up was so common among the poor Romanian peasants that many-at least in my region- wouldn't even bother to get the church crowning done before they had their first child baptized. Then they did it as a prerequisite formality for their offspring's baptism. Was it an abomination? to  I hardly think so.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 03:26:58 PM
Quote
Just for context-in IL "domestic partnership" is not just restricted to gays.  You can put that legal veneer on shacking up as well, which I find an even bigger abomination against marriage.
I know for a fact that shacking up was so common among the poor Romanian peasants that many-at least in my region- wouldn't even bother to get the church crowning done before they had their first child baptized. Then they did it as a prerequisite formality for their offspring's baptism. Was it an abomination? to  I hardly think so.
but then they weren't claiming the benefits of marriage (like inheritance, for instance), or even claiming to be married, now, were they?

For a variety of reasons, I'd have to see some substantiation of your claim.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 23, 2013, 03:29:08 PM

Quote
What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?


They do.  I realize it’s a difficult concept to accept, but some of us actually do listen and interact with homosexuals enough to know what they do, when they do it, and why they do it, which in turn helps confirm what we are saying. 

Of course, this doesn’t apply to ALL homosexuals, but to the majority (overwhelmingly) it does apply.  Some of us even get inside scoop from the few homosexuals who can’t stand the way other homosexuals act (always looking for sex, drugs, new partners, sugar daddy, etc. instead of looking for “real” relationships).  We are not ignorant.

Neither am I . Ignorant I mean. You just look to have your prejudices/stereotypes confirmed. I too started adult life with prejudices like yours. But somehow managed to get past them. Hope you'll do too. Homosexuals, like all other human groups whatever come in all sorts of forms. But this is so trite to say that I'll stop here.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 23, 2013, 03:33:16 PM
Quote
For a variety of reasons, I'd have to see some substantiation of your claim.
Then, I'm afraid, you'll have to go to the villages strewn along the valley of the White Cris (Crisul Alb) and conduct investigations on the ground. I know that area pretty well.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 23, 2013, 03:35:36 PM
Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!
Evidently "we all" don't know that.  There was just a conference of sorts of psychologists meeting on whether to remove pedophilia,oops! "minor attraction" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).  We know who blazed that trail.

But nice try to slip your redefinition of choice by!

Of course, the issue stands on the insistence of your protected perversion to not only drop our stones rather than cast them on their pride parade, but their insistence that we must embrace and celebrate it as "normal."

Adultery is consenting adults having relationships.  Society celebrating that
(http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/S/Wallis-Simpson-20836823-1-402.jpg)
pushed us down this slope to the abyss.

Actually being attracted to a minor has never been considered a mental disorder.  Nor does pedophilia mean "sexual attraction to a minor."  Pedophilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children in persons aged 16 or older, hebephilia refers to those whose primary or exclusive attraction is to pubescent individuals, ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive attraction to individuals in mid-late adolescence.  The last of these has never been seriously considered by the psychiatric/psychological community for possible inclusion as a mental disorder, and the second has some notable individuals opposed to the idea of it as a pathology, based (largely) on evolutionary and biological bases.  And, no Isa, no serious psychologists or psychiatrists have ever considered actual pedophilia to be normal, in any sense of the term.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: dzheremi on January 23, 2013, 03:41:34 PM
Sometimes I wonder about people here (and elsewhere in the world) making distinctions because they can and not because they're useful to the discussion. It seems to provide an awful lot of wiggle room in the minds of those who do it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 04:01:09 PM
Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!
Evidently "we all" don't know that.  There was just a conference of sorts of psychologists meeting on whether to remove pedophilia,oops! "minor attraction" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).  We know who blazed that trail.

But nice try to slip your redefinition of choice by!

Of course, the issue stands on the insistence of your protected perversion to not only drop our stones rather than cast them on their pride parade, but their insistence that we must embrace and celebrate it as "normal."

Adultery is consenting adults having relationships.  Society celebrating that
(http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/S/Wallis-Simpson-20836823-1-402.jpg)
pushed us down this slope to the abyss.

Actually being attracted to a minor has never been considered a mental disorder.  Nor does pedophilia mean "sexual attraction to a minor."  Pedophilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children in persons aged 16 or older, hebephilia refers to those whose primary or exclusive attraction is to pubescent individuals, ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive attraction to individuals in mid-late adolescence.  The last of these has never been seriously considered by the psychiatric/psychological community for possible inclusion as a mental disorder, and the second has some notable individuals opposed to the idea of it as a pathology, based (largely) on evolutionary and biological bases.  And, no Isa, no serious psychologists or psychiatrists have ever considered actual pedophilia to be normal, in any sense of the term.
Haven't work or dealt with a lot of psychologists or psychiatrists I see. For some review:The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia
Ray Blanchard
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Sex%20and%20GID%20Lit%20Reviews/Paraphilias/DSMV.PEDO.pdf

For a synopsis of DSM and ICD diagnostic criteria (i.e. diagnosis as a mental disorder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Diagnostic_criteria

From the ICD:
Quote
F65  DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
G1. Recurrent intense sexual urges and fantasies involving unusual objects or activities.
G2. Acts on the urges or is markedly distressed by them.
G3. The preference has been present for at least six months.
F65.4  Paedophilia 
A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
 
B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a  prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the  child or children in B.
http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

All the prepubescent children I've known were minors.  "Minor-attraction" was the term of the psychiatrists/psychologists, not mine. Pedophilia works as the term for me.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 23, 2013, 04:12:13 PM
I am fairly familiar with the literature on the subject; I'm not at all convinced you are.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2013, 04:19:07 PM
I am fairly familiar with the literature on the subject; I'm not at all convinced you are.
you seem quite convinced.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on January 23, 2013, 04:20:17 PM
Either stay on topic, or start another one please. If we have exhausted the topic, I am going to lock it. Thanks, Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 23, 2013, 11:13:24 PM


Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Perhaps you could explain, in a Christian way, not secular, how they are different.  Secular we all understand, but "biblically" (for lack of a better word), how is it any different than the other? 

Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.  All are sexual sins are perversions and performed by sexual deviants, to include adultery and fornication, for which many of us at one time have fallen into this category.  The only way to shed the stain of this fact is to take up a godly walk, resist the sin, and BE a Christian rather than go through the motions.  Sin is sin, wrong is wrong, evil is evil…period.  I understand each person must battle with their own sins, but battle they must.  I sometimes wonder if the “thorn in the side” was not a sexual, fleshly desire, thus producing the statement men are better off without a woman (unmarried). 

NAMBLA (and its “sister” organization) is a very real and very dangerous organization taking the same steps of the homosexual organizations and using the same arguments.  If society remains unchecked, they also will gain normality in society.  I have been around long enough to remember when people said the same things about homosexuality and were assured of how we were overreacting and it would never get to where it is today.  It is a slow progression.  Even now we have a television show with multiple wives.  Step, by teensy step, they march toward their end goal.  Are we really so blind as not to see this?  The advocates pull at the emotions and heart strings, pleading the case of the down trodden and rejected, but ignored is the fact these same people will speak out against the Charismatics and their emotional cults revealing emotions are not true Christianity. 

I will stop here and step down from my soap box.  The current human condition saddens be greatly.  Those who appease and advocate for sin are held in high regard.  Those who rally against this are deemed haters.  I will never understand.


"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?

Quote
Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias. Many of the arguments for gay rights also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights. There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.

What else needs to be explained? The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them. I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them. They DO know. Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides. Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.

I'll get back to you, busy right now.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 24, 2013, 04:57:59 AM
If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

And why should Christians care what libertine apostates and heathens think of them?

With that "Us vs. Them" mentality, there is no room for conversation.  Stay on topic please..
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Andrew Crook on January 24, 2013, 05:02:30 AM
Psalm 2, to me at least, seems like a warning to Leaders of nations to conform the law of the land to Gods teachings.

In that case we would all be Torah-observant.  But then that's where you might step in and say, "That was the Old Testament.. this is the New"
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 05:42:37 AM
With that "Us vs. Them" mentality, there is no room for conversation.  

I agree 100%.  This mentality is all sorts of wrong.  I will be glad when "they" stop, lest they pave the path for persecution.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 24, 2013, 05:56:52 AM
if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with),
Orthodox imperialism eh?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 06:32:01 AM
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?
 

Absolutely, but you must promise not to quote scripture out of context without reference, like you did here, first.  Otherwise, it will be fruitless.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias.

They are the same, regardless of any bias.  Justifying sinful action and demonizing those who are against this.

Many of the arguments for gay homosexual rights allowances also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights.

Except for the abolition of slavery wasn’t about sexual preference.  And this, although used regularly, is a hideous example.  The women’s rights movement, and its subscribers, know almost nothing of real history (EX: women voted in the 1700’s) and the truth of the matter is, women (and families) have suffered as a result more than people care to admit.  

There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.
 

What you fail to understand, and I could talk for days on this subject but I will not, is the end goal not the small steps, is what is envisioned by the proponents.  Small steps, like former VP’s telling kids they have to educate their parents, making children sexualized in the public square (television) ever so slightly, little by little, giving children more and more authority over themselves, etc.  Big picture stuff you will never see until to step back and look at the…big picture.

What else needs to be explained?

Nothing for me, I know what I see.  Besides, the explanations excuses I have seen don’t stand up to the test of reality.

The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them.

And that would be our fault, yes?  In the same way as not telling a person(s) else any other type of sin is wrong because it may hurt their feelings in some small way.

I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them.

No, you are apparently hearing incorrectly.  We are saying they need to know how God feels about what they are doing.  Apparently you missed who I said was deviant.  I invite you to go back and read it again.

They DO know.

They THINK they know.  What they know is propaganda for the most part and like so many others, they fall for it hook, line and sinker.  Usually the result of liking what they hear and feeling better about what they are doing.

Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides.

Or just teens in general.  Most of the problems are family related, not homosexual.  Kids, unfortunately, are pretty dumb overall and don’t understand a lot (how to deal with life and the increasing pressures placed on them), which is why we see kids take their lives early over Facebook posts.  Anything can be the trigger, there is a deeper seeded issue at fault here.

Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.

Or anyone else for that matter.  For example, Christians.  Clubs being shut down in schools, teachers being fired, students being threatened, all targeted without any other group being targeted.  Holidays under attack, churches and Christian symbols being vandalized or destroyed by militant “victims” because they don’t approve of what Christians SAY.  It goes on and on, but of course some people will not see this and understand it for what it is or where it all grows and gets its strength from.  Christianity has a cancer which is eating it from the inside.  It’s called “modernized” Christianity with its “modernized” views.  Political correctness has found a home in the churches.  Folks, in their attempt to appease and make friendly fail to see they set up their own persecution down the road.  It’s all connected.  Cause and effect type stuff, and the only people we have to blame for this predicament is ourselves.  So yes, persecution is coming.  When it arrives, please don't be surprised.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 06:32:25 AM
if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with),
Orthodox imperialism eh?
No.  Cherry picking out of context, eh?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 24, 2013, 07:57:50 AM
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?
 

Absolutely, but you must promise not to quote scripture out of context without reference, like you did here, first.  Otherwise, it will be fruitless.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias.

They are the same, regardless of any bias.  Justifying sinful action and demonizing those who are against this.

Many of the arguments for gay homosexual rights allowances also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights.

Except for the abolition of slavery wasn’t about sexual preference.  And this, although used regularly, is a hideous example.  The women’s rights movement, and its subscribers, know almost nothing of real history (EX: women voted in the 1700’s) and the truth of the matter is, women (and families) have suffered as a result more than people care to admit.  

There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.
 

What you fail to understand, and I could talk for days on this subject but I will not, is the end goal not the small steps, is what is envisioned by the proponents.  Small steps, like former VP’s telling kids they have to educate their parents, making children sexualized in the public square (television) ever so slightly, little by little, giving children more and more authority over themselves, etc.  Big picture stuff you will never see until to step back and look at the…big picture.

What else needs to be explained?

Nothing for me, I know what I see.  Besides, the explanations excuses I have seen don’t stand up to the test of reality.

The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them.

And that would be our fault, yes?  In the same way as not telling a person(s) else any other type of sin is wrong because it may hurt their feelings in some small way.

I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them.

No, you are apparently hearing incorrectly.  We are saying they need to know how God feels about what they are doing.  Apparently you missed who I said was deviant.  I invite you to go back and read it again.

They DO know.

They THINK they know.  What they know is propaganda for the most part and like so many others, they fall for it hook, line and sinker.  Usually the result of liking what they hear and feeling better about what they are doing.

Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides.

Or just teens in general.  Most of the problems are family related, not homosexual.  Kids, unfortunately, are pretty dumb overall and don’t understand a lot (how to deal with life and the increasing pressures placed on them), which is why we see kids take their lives early over Facebook posts.  Anything can be the trigger, there is a deeper seeded issue at fault here.

Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.

Or anyone else for that matter.  For example, Christians.  Clubs being shut down in schools, teachers being fired, students being threatened, all targeted without any other group being targeted.  Holidays under attack, churches and Christian symbols being vandalized or destroyed by militant “victims” because they don’t approve of what Christians SAY.  It goes on and on, but of course some people will not see this and understand it for what it is or where it all grows and gets its strength from.  Christianity has a cancer which is eating it from the inside.  It’s called “modernized” Christianity with its “modernized” views.  Political correctness has found a home in the churches.  Folks, in their attempt to appease and make friendly fail to see they set up their own persecution down the road.  It’s all connected.  Cause and effect type stuff, and the only people we have to blame for this predicament is ourselves.  So yes, persecution is coming.  When it arrives, please don't be surprised.

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 09:12:21 AM
Understand, I did not pick this battlefield and a battlefield it is.  Others picked it for us; however, this is where the war is being waged and we either fight or we acquiesce.  There are several other fields of conflict that could have been chosen, yet they were not for any unknown number of reasons.  With this understanding…

Has the Church ever approved of homosexual relations/activities/marriage, etc.?  It has not, so there must be a reason after 2000 years it has been unwavering in its stance.  Now, we are expected and instructed to encourage, reassure, and embolden those who struggle with this burden instead of attempt to lead them to seek the face of God.  Rather than provide them with Christian support, love and encouragement, we are coached to provide worldly support, the same worldly support of which we have been taught as children to be guarded against.  I have heard the various and continuous drum beat of all the reasons we should do as asked, but if we pause, for just a moment, to actually considered what is asked of us and if it is beneficial to them, to us, to the Church, to God for that matter, I feel we would come to a different conclusion.  At least if we would, during that time, leave our own views at bay. 

If the Church as never accepted, or even fought against, homosexuality in the past, and the reason was just, as it was, and the Orthodox Church doesn’t waiver, how are we expected to revise our view?  Modernization?  Of what?  Changing times?  Is that a good thing?  Look at the state of the world, I conclude it is not.  Is God different today than He was yesterday?  So, homosexuals get a “protected class” status to prevent them from all sorts of bad folks who say unpleasant things.  Then, they begin their fight for social acceptance, and get it.  Then, they begin their fight to adopt children, against the entire family structure created by God, and get it.  Now, they are fighting to change the very definition of holy matrimony, and they are winning.  And while this is taking place, while we rejoice in their new, modern, enlightened and tolerant victories, we are too busy to see the secret battle being waged simultaneously.  We are too being in opposition to our own Church to take notice others are fighting the Church as well.  We pay no attention to major denominations being torn apart as a result and chalk it up to “those crazy Protestants”.  We fail to realize what has historically protected us from the problems of Protestants no longer exists, geography, as we are now in the very same towns and cities as they reside.  We have fallen, and I believe partly the result of converts joining the Church, victim to their views, which are ripping their churches to shreds.

Let’s take a look at our recent history.  The murder of unborn, innocent children has been legalized.  Casual sexual practices have been normalized as we now do not expect anyone to remain a virgin until marriage as the Church teaches.  Monogamy in marriage has all but been eradicated.  Demented sexual encounters are expected and encouraged (swingers, multiple partners, sometimes at the same time, etc.).  Homosexuality has been normalized.  The entire family structure has been propelled into tiny fragments.  All of this in done in opposition to the Church as none of these things are supported by the Church.  These are attacks on the Church and victories against the Church.  When those of us who see these things for what they are vocalize and speak, we are, without a second thought and through muscle memory, immediately called homophobes, bigots, haters, and any other vile title someone can conjure up.  The Church, our Holy Church, our Apostolic Church, is being attacked daily.  The Theotokos, mother of Christ, is called a whore by the very same people we are asked to lift up and embrace with open arms.  We are too busy attempting to join in the PC band wagon we forget the holy war we already sworn allegiance to with Jesus and we, again, are too blind to see the vitriol and hate in the eyes of those we embrace while they plot against us.  This is all done as a result of our apathy, our fear of not being “nice”, our laziness, and our foolishness.  We are under siege and persecution and oppression is just around the corner.  We have already seen its hallmarks.  What are we to do?  Continue on the same path or set our destination to return where we should be?  Do we continue to invite, into our Church, the evils which scheme against her or do we say enough and “close the doors” to protect her?  Which is more important, making people feel better or preparing them for judgment?  Understand, as we have been told, if we stand for the Church, for God, we will be persecuted.  I tell you, open your eyes, that day is soon coming.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 09:13:38 AM

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 24, 2013, 09:27:09 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 24, 2013, 09:36:37 AM

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all.  :-\
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 09:38:15 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Forgive my harsh words. I speak them because I really love you and do not wish you to be lost. I do not cease to pray for my erring child.… I will gladly suffer with you and for you, but it will do you no good unless you give up your own understanding of how to live.”

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/fsr_84.aspx

Fr. Seraphim’s Patristic understanding of the place of sex in the creation, which we have discussed earlier, enabled him to help others put sex in the proper perspective. To one of his spiritual children, who was married and had children, he wrote:

The widespread confusion on this whole issue seems to come from a failure to understand the real Orthodox teaching on sexuality—it is not “holy,” but neither is it evil. The Lives of Saints alone, without any Patristic treatises, should teach us the Orthodox position: that sexual union, while blessed by the Church and fulfilling a commandment of the Creator, is still a part of man’s animal nature and is, in fallen humanity, inevitably bound up with sin. This should not shock us if we stop to think that such a necessary thing as eating is also almost invariably bound up with sin—who of us is perfectly continent in food and drink, the thorough master of his belly? Sin is not a category of specific acts such that, if we refrain from them, we become “sinless”—but rather a kind of web which ensnares us and from which we can never really get free in this life. The more deeply one lives Orthodoxy, the more sinful he feels himself to be—because he sees more clearly this web with which his life is intertwined; the person, thus, who commits fewer sins feels himself to be more sinful than one who commits more!

The Fathers state specifically, by the way, that Adam and Eve did not have sexual union (nor, of course, eat meat) in Paradise. I believe Thomas Aquinas says that they did—which would accord with the Roman Catholic doctrine of human nature.

All of this should one day be written out and printed, with abundant illustrations from the Holy Fathers and Lives of Saints—together with the whole question of sexuality—abortion, natural and unnatural sins, pornography, homosexuality, etc. With Scriptural and Patristic sources, this could be done carefully and without offensiveness, but clearly.…

Enough on this subject; you are correct, by the way, that it is better for such things to be printed by laymen than monks!
[22]
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 24, 2013, 09:45:57 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 09:52:14 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

I realize English isn’t your first language, but if you actually take the time to understand and give consideration to what I am writing, you may no longer be confused.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: primuspilus on January 24, 2013, 09:53:58 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 24, 2013, 09:58:54 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: primuspilus on January 24, 2013, 10:04:52 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that. Then again, contrary to some belief, not every homosexual is a rampaging sex addict.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
I wonder, does it take a lot of hard work to completely ignore what is actually being said or does it come naturally?

But in an effort to answer your question, I imagine he more deeply lived Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 24, 2013, 10:08:51 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: stavros_388 on January 24, 2013, 10:15:36 AM

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all.  :-\

Nevermind  :P
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: jmbejdl on January 24, 2013, 10:20:31 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James

The problem here is, the only one talking about this is Michał.  He is ignoring what everyone is actually saying and seeing what he wants to see to win a debate which isn't taking place, apparently.  He is responding to things not said with snarky one liners which do nothing for the discussion.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 24, 2013, 10:26:18 AM

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all.  :-\
I must go for now, but I do want to respond to this post.  Take peace knowing I realize it isn't personal. :)
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: primuspilus on January 24, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
I just think that if I acknowledge that The Church is indeed, the true Church of God, but I disagree with what she teaches, then I am the one with the problem, not her.

For reference, see my very early posts about Israel before I became a catechumen.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: LizaSymonenko on January 24, 2013, 10:54:27 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 24, 2013, 11:03:31 AM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Hiwot on January 24, 2013, 11:17:32 AM

Homosexuality is taken into account and dealt with by monastic rules of all sorts. Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. The Church deals with it on its own terms. It doesn't need preachers to teach it what's acceptable and what is not.


I had no time to address this the other day, so I let it go,I post this now not to get an answer, but to point out few things you might give a thought to Romaios, obviously you know that the monastic community is only too well aware of this issue and takes precautionary measures so they may not be practiced among them as well as when incidents do occur have a wise and  compassionate way of handling them for the betterment of everyone. now as a reasonable man, think of to what extent and detail the desert fathers went into to handle this issue in a very practical manner, not only in theological assertions. it dealt with not only prevention of practice but how to deal pastoraly with those that are directly affected by it. no need to go any further relating to the monastics.

now where is the same awareness among the laity? where is the education of the public when it comes to dealing with same sex attraction? how is an orthodox young man or woman who find themselves attracted to the same gender,equipped with the necessary coping mechanism that comes with being aware of the issue in detail as well as finding the necessary pastoral and spiritual community support in  the struggle that ensues. besides the obvious theological assertions of what  sin is and what it is not, how is a person educated to deal with a specific sin one has to struggle with. how is that education even possible when the Faithful public is allowed to continue unchallenged in its unwillingness to tolerate even the very idea of the existence of homosexuality among certain regions , ethnicity's etc.. let alone have a positive responsible discussion of how to help those within the Church that suffer under this cross. in some cases the level of antagonism is such that it is as if the perceived patriotic affront weighs higher than the brotherhood in Christ.yet we see even the desert fathers were humble enough to recognise and admit the possibility of its existence among themselves and their brothers. if Christ can stand between the Pharisees who spoke for the law, their stones and the adulterous woman to save her Physically and Spiritually, what  then is the role of the Church in educating the faithful public in the practical,and spiritual ways of dealing with the issue of homosexuality that employs compassion and wisdom when She says go sin no more? again besides saying it is a sin  what should Christians who are the Lights of the World and Salts of the Earth do to guide those who are despairing in darkness,how can they sweeten the lives of these that must drink from that bitter cup of finding themselves unable to be sexually attracted to the opposite gender like the rest of society? what should be the education, and the supprot of the church to the suicidal youth who gives in to the hopelessness that is in the inside of him or her and also the hate and victimisation from others on the outside.

the World has its diverse way of dealing with these issues , the most important question now is how is the church dealing with it when she cares for those within her.perhaps its convenient for some, to say all homosexuals are attacking and victimising the Church then say we too are justified and must retaliate in kind, perhaps this point will allow them to ignore those within the Church that actively suffer on this Cross as if they do not exist,or  refrain from dealing with the issue with the depth it requires  and even  if they were to find those that are  falling and rising again , well as things stand at present, may the Lord deliver the dry trees from thier hands.

peace to you.




Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: LizaSymonenko on January 24, 2013, 12:29:25 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: mike on January 24, 2013, 12:36:38 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


Wikipedia quotes some polls there is only 1% of asexual people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 24, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts, words, deeds) which are sins.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 24, 2013, 01:36:48 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James

"Sexual orientation" is a concept which does not fit into Orthodox psychology, AFAIK.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Jetavan on January 24, 2013, 01:52:40 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.
Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 24, 2013, 02:03:12 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.
Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.

True. It's sort of complicated, so I didn't go into it. Also, I'm not all that sure how to put it. But yes, merely having a thought--it could be just a logismos, a suggestion. And there are stages in interacting with the suggestion which come before acting on it. Some of the latter stages are considered sins--that is, they sear the conscience. If you happen to just have a thought and reject it, there is no sin.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 24, 2013, 02:26:53 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.
Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.

True. It's sort of complicated, so I didn't go into it. Also, I'm not all that sure how to put it. But yes, merely having a thought--it could be just a logismos, a suggestion. And there are stages in interacting with the suggestion which come before acting on it. Some of the latter stages are considered sins--that is, they sear the conscience. If you happen to just have a thought and reject it, there is no sin.

You sure about that? I haven't read this thread in a day or so, I just looked at this post. I sorta find it odd to place sin within some reflexive cognitive act.

The Church would certainly hold that homosexuality as such is sinful. How could it be otherwise? People are just too often too thick to understand just because something is sinful doesn't mean the person in whom such sin is expressed (note the use of the passive) is "guilty" in our legal sense of the term.

Cancer is sin. Earthquakes are sin. Probably using oc.net is sin, well 99.999999999999% percent of the time here is.

The radical message to remove the stigma of homosexuality is not to try to reform the actions or thoughts of homosexuals into some sort of calculation where people (the homosexual, priests, oc.net members) can judge to what degree someone is sinning, now that is a serious and complicit sin, rather to push forward the notion that nearly everything is a function of sin. Everything. To whatever degree sin from the past has caused or conditioned anything is to the degree it is sinful (a silly word IMHO).

Feeling like garbage, might not be able to write much more since they expect me to work and be ill, and I might not see any of the replies to this.

That sickness by the way: sin. My response just now: sin.

It seems to me some people want to rehabilitate this less than positive view of the world by putting to much importance on something like subjectivity, but hey, that's modernity for you.

Christ the only sinless one became sin. In virtue of what did He become sin? Not why. How? People would do well to table why questions and think in terms of how.

Cognitive consent? Divine plan?

The folks who preach utter depravity are not too far from the truth, they just don't properly see it as part of the good news. They see it as a problem instead.

Have a nice time.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 24, 2013, 02:29:37 PM
^That's a fresh perspective for sure. Will think about it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 24, 2013, 02:30:52 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

You said fruit . . .

And I will probably never agree with Kerdy on anything, he might be correct occasionally but it is like the proverbial clock, for the wrong reasons.

To point out what I going on a little about in my post above, I would say you are correct, homosexuality is as much a function of sin as a heart murmur. They both are caused and conditioned by sin.

Being a sometime red head (depending on age and who you ask), I can assure you nothing else could be responsible for such a terrible condition save unadulterated sin itself.  
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: LizaSymonenko on January 24, 2013, 02:56:14 PM

Christ the only sinless one became sin. In virtue of what did He become sin? Not why. How? People would do well to table why questions and think in terms of how.

Cognitive consent? Divine plan?


I hope you feel better soon, Orthonorm!

Question, though.  Could you explain how you understand the above statement, that "Christ became sin"?  I'd like to understand what you are trying to say, better.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 24, 2013, 03:26:34 PM

Christ the only sinless one became sin. In virtue of what did He become sin? Not why. How? People would do well to table why questions and think in terms of how.

Cognitive consent? Divine plan?


I hope you feel better soon, Orthonorm!

Question, though.  Could you explain how you understand the above statement, that "Christ became sin"?  I'd like to understand what you are trying to say, better.

Thanks.


I'll never feel better. I just seem to adjust to the new bad. Last year's sick is this year's healthy.

Anyway, I think that was my entire point, how does everyone understand Christ became sin? And I know I am drawing a thread into yet another Christological thread, but how else ought a Christian begin to understand something about man except for recourse to Christ?

And why not have another Christological thread rather than a homosexualogical one?

What would be awesome if people said that they believe rather than what they read some others write.

Maybe more to come later.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 24, 2013, 03:37:46 PM
To Liza's point, I would rather discuss the nature of sin and how Christ instructed how one ought to relate to the world and whether it has much to do with how we understand and attempt to deal with sin.

There is always one verse (actually more than a few) that I think Christians simply don't take too seriously and think Christ is speaking hyperbolically rather than literally.

Does self-reflexive cognitive acts have much to do with sin?

Is pursuing "virtue" appropriate?

Is not that pursuit itself tangled within the structure of sin as many monastics who people revere so much warn about? How could it not be otherwise?

People around here seem to want to suggest to homosexuals that they "struggle" with their "passion" like another person might with wanting a milk shake. This sorta talk (for those who can't understand rhetorical, I am bordering on the absurd) is loaded with many prejudices about sin, agency, identity, etc. And I would argue is radically compelling evidence for a very, very modern (to use the bogeyman around here) way to couch the problem.

I think augustin's post (in this thread?) about the normative manner in which things play out in the OW and will likely play out among the hyperverts and overly pious is very instructive as way of engaging the phenomenon we are discussing here. Really it was quite a fine post.

In short, choose Christology or the nature of sin, cause I think both are sorta awry in all this talk.

Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 24, 2013, 04:11:26 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 04:14:20 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".
since he became a monk, how would we know, and how would it matter?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: LizaSymonenko on January 24, 2013, 04:15:28 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.

...and yet, one might construe from his statement that most can control themselves.

 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 04:17:38 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.
Wouldn't help your case, as he specifically speaks of a man touching a woman.

And no, he says he think it better that those who could vow celibacy do so, but does not deny that they are free to marry.  Someone of the opposite sex, of course.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 24, 2013, 04:18:32 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.

...and yet, one might construe from his statement that most can control themselves.

 

Look at the unmarried woman going for the gold star!

Really though, most are getting married or having sexual relations or wishing they did.

In any case, I do mean that sincerely. It ain't easy being single in this world, hence the most, like nearly all doing otherwise.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: orthonorm on January 24, 2013, 04:19:53 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.

Isa will spin this to mean nothing relevant or thoughtful.

EDIT: Sigh, he already posted while I was writing this. I lost my chance to predict behavior.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 24, 2013, 04:20:39 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.
That he shared the same cell with fr. Gleb Podmoshensky should raise a few red flags, if it's a really important issue to you.
The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".
since he became a monk, how would we know, and how would it matter?
That he shared the same cell with Fr. Gleb Podmoshensky for years should raise a red flag or two if the issue is really important to you.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 04:24:13 PM

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all.  :-\
Well, are you willing to put the pedophile, the polygamist, the bestialist in the same mold of "unconditional love"?

Your "generous homosexual" accepted sin, not himself.  Not a sensible thing to do.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Romaios on January 24, 2013, 04:25:16 PM
I think I understand where orthonorm is coming from.

Quote
Are we any better off? No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written:“There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God. All have turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, there is not even one.

Their throats are opened graves; they use their tongues to deceive.
The venom of vipers is under their lips.
 Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
 Their feet are swift to shed blood - (That would be us, 'the righteous', bashing homosexuals or throwing stones at gay parades, or the crowds that shouted "Crucify him");
ruin and misery are in their paths,
and the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law ("pursuing virtue"), for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christd for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonemente by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles (homosexuals) also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.


Romans 3:9-30

A homosexual may be closer to the Kingdom of God, that is to realizing the power of sin in his very being, its inextricable hold on all of us. So are all those marginalized by the majority as public sinners: tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers in 1st century Palestine - alcoholics, drug addicts, and so on today. They do not sin because they want to, but because sin dictates what they do ("the other law in my flesh", as St. Paul calls it). Since they are judged and condemned by the world (righteous conservatives, the clergy, the law) and they have to put up with stigma all their lives, they are no longer condemned by God, because God doesn't judge twice. They will have a far easier time at the Last Judgement, because their sins are not hidden like ours.       

Christ himself was the victim of righteous and conservative religious authorities and the blind zeal of the mobs they easily manipulated: he was hung on the wood like an accursed sinner. He was declared an apostate, a seducer, a heretic and he genuinely felt separated from God. Because he put up with all this, no sinner is excluded from identifying with him and his community.

Yet what I find intriguing is that, at the end, Saint Paul maintains that the Law is not changed by all of this:

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)

 
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 04:26:35 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.
That he shared the same cell with fr. Gleb Podmoshensky should raise a few red flags, if it's a really important issue to you.
The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".
since he became a monk, how would we know, and how would it matter?
That he shared the same cell with Fr. Gleb Podmoshensky for years should raise a red flag or two if the issue is really important to you.
any point you raise is rarely of any importance, to me or anyone else.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: augustin717 on January 24, 2013, 04:28:37 PM
You can only talk for yourself, unless more people live up in your attic.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 24, 2013, 04:41:00 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 


According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.
Wouldn't help your case, as he specifically speaks of a man touching a woman.

And no, he says he think it better that those who could vow celibacy do so, but does not deny that they are free to marry.  Someone of the opposite sex, of course.

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

"7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

From 1 Corinthians 7.

St. Paul is clearly saying "Marry if you are unable to not fornicate as a celibate person.  However, if you can control yourself, do not marry."
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 04:53:24 PM
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

"7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

From 1 Corinthians 7.

St. Paul is clearly saying "Marry if you are unable to not fornicate as a celibate person.  However, if you can control yourself, do not marry."
I notice you skip over verse 6: "I say this as a concession, not as a command."

and later on, in the same chapter:
25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this...36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 04:54:56 PM
You can only talk for yourself, unless more people live up in your attic.
Oh? Is that an official diktat, Kommissar?  It seems you never tire of prattling on in the name of the people...
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: JamesRottnek on January 24, 2013, 04:55:19 PM
So we only need to pay attention to what the Saints said if they claimed to be speaking for God?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: ialmisry on January 24, 2013, 05:07:58 PM
So we only need to pay attention to what the Saints said if they claimed to be speaking for God?
pay attention to the distinctions the Saints say they make for God.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:44:06 PM
 
More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal.
I know.  Frustration manifests itself in all sorts of ways, but I appreciate your making sure I understand.

As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg.

This is only one topic, but understand none of us completely agree with EVERYTHING the Church teaches.  We are flawed and easily tempted/swayed.  The Church is steadfast, which is why we must give it the first option of explanation, and also the last.  I have personal feelings about certain things which are different ( or at least were different) from the Church, but I had to learn to give in to a Church created by Jesus, built by the Apostles and unwavering since its inception over my own limited understanding.

You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually.

I submit the thing which gives is the individual.  One of the problems I saw in Protestantism is the hundreds of denominations created based off of one’s personal feelings of how something should be rather than what it really was.


Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals.

You wouldn’t be the first.  In most cases, this is not usually a bad thing.

I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves.

This is where I believe most of the confusion is created.  Because we disagree with homosexuality in no way means we do not love the homosexual.  This is no different than a drug addict, drunk, or any other person dealing with sin which holds a powerful grip on their life.  The difference is, no one is attempting to say drug addiction is ok (except for the MJ legalization people), or being a drunkard is ok, or any other sin is ok.  Imagine your spouse has an affair.  Most people immediately say they would divorce, but in reality, they would still love this person and most people actually would not divorce.  You would NEVER attempt to reconcile their affair with normal and accepted behavior, you would absolutely explain how wrong they were and do whatever you could to help this person get their life on the right path…if they accepted  your help.  That is, to say, your spouse agrees their action was sinful and wrong, was sincerely apologetic to you and God, and wanted to live as they should.  It is an entirely different story if your spouse told you to pound sand, he or she was not going to change, it is who they were born to be and you either accept it or not, it was your problem.  This is basically what homsosexuals are telling the world.

Loving and accepting who you are has nothing to do with rationalizing sin away.  It is accepting your weaknesses, embracing your strengths and becoming a better person.

Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion

What good does it serve to pave the path of someone directly to eternal damnation? 

The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.
 
The first thing I want you to realize is we ALL war against our human nature our entire lives.  This suffering isn’t reserved for homosexuals.

As I have said before, being a nice person never got anyone into heaven, regardless of who they were.  Remember the rich young ruler?  He did everything the law required, but he didn’t give up himself (riches) to follow Christ.  This was more important to him than Jesus.  If being a homosexual is more important that being a Christian, that is the choice a person must live with, but it won’t turn out in the way they expect.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all.  :-\

Do any of us really “fit”, or do we accept what the Church teaches and live the best we can according to the Church’s teachings?  It takes a lifetime to be truly Orthodox.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:45:17 PM
I just think that if I acknowledge that The Church is indeed, the true Church of God, but I disagree with what she teaches, then I am the one with the problem, not her.

Absolutely correct!  If one is unable to live as the Church teaches, one must either change or leave.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:46:01 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?


I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.


This is not entirely true, but even if it was, it has NOTHING to do with what we were talking about...nothing.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:47:20 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?
You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James

"Sexual orientation" is a concept which does not fit into Orthodox psychology, AFAIK.

It doesn't fit into anything outside an ideology of secularism.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:48:23 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.
Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.

True. It's sort of complicated, so I didn't go into it. Also, I'm not all that sure how to put it. But yes, merely having a thought--it could be just a logismos, a suggestion. And there are stages in interacting with the suggestion which come before acting on it. Some of the latter stages are considered sins--that is, they sear the conscience. If you happen to just have a thought and reject it, there is no sin.

You guys have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:50:33 PM

According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.

This was his opinion, and I actually agree...to a limited degree; however, this in no way suggests people are unable to control their desires, only they are unwilling to control them.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Shiny on January 26, 2013, 09:51:37 PM

According to St. Paul, the only people who should be married are those who are incapable of controlling themselves - consequently, the Bible says that some people ARE unable to control their sexual desires.

This was his opinion, and I actually agree...to a limited degree; however, this in no way suggests people are unable to control their desires, only they are unwilling to control them.
So St. Paul only makes an opinion when it doesn't fit your ideology?

Got it.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:52:25 PM
All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.
That he shared the same cell with fr. Gleb Podmoshensky should raise a few red flags, if it's a really important issue to you.
The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?
Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".
since he became a monk, how would we know, and how would it matter?
That he shared the same cell with Fr. Gleb Podmoshensky for years should raise a red flag or two if the issue is really important to you.

Why should it do this?  Please explain.  Are you suggesting every monk in history which has shared a living space with someone is suspect?  Is this REALLY what you are suggesting?
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:54:03 PM

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."



James, you seem to have focused on the wrong part of this verse.
Title: Re: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests
Post by: Kerdy on January 26, 2013, 09:55:51 PM

According to