OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: Ioannes on August 23, 2013, 09:25:28 PM

Title: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 23, 2013, 09:25:28 PM
Since Gebre frequents here, I am sure he is going to reply with something (if he replies) like I am trying to malign his character or persecuting him for his beliefs. Just so he and everyone knows, its not against his pacifist stance, its the way he tries to justify it as if the church teaches this. For a long while I have tried to nudge Gebre in the right way, and he has resisted and refused to understand me and many others, including clergy. So I am posting this everywhere so people know that he is incorrect.

+++

This letter is a response to the teaching of my friend Gebre Menfes Kidus (Name removed). He teaches a pacifist stance and that this is the “true Christian teaching.” Even going as far as stating: “If the Orthodox Church were to ever condemn pacifism or officially declare that Christians cannot condemn all war and killing in this day and age, then the Church would cease to be Orthodox and I would cease to be a part of it. That's why I fight so hard to promote the Orthodox values of peace and respect for life. I won't let others misrepresent my beloved Faith by justifying violence.” (from a facebook status update) I think my dear friend Gebre has a few misunderstandings about war, violence, and murder and how it relates to the Orthodox Church. So I will quote a few things Gebre has stated and then explain them further.

Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil has no issue with soldiering, as his canons show (188th letter). He accepts that people will be soldiers and does not class killing in war as anything close to murder. To quote him here shows lack of knowledge on the matter. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.” Clearly St. Basil is not condemning war and in fact says “Our fathers” in terms of those church fathers existing prior to him. I cannot find the quote that Gebre posted above.
Also, our holy father St. Athanasius said: “Although one is not supposed to kill, the killing of the enemy in time of war is both a lawful and praiseworthy thing. This is why we consider individuals who have distinguished themselves in war as being worthy of great honors, and indeed public monuments are set up to celebrate their achievements. It is evident, therefore, that at one particular time, and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permissible, but when time and circumstances are right, it is both allowed and condoned.” (http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/)


Gebre said:
I believe with Father Stanley Harakas that: “There is no ethical reasoning for war in the writings of the Greek Fathers. The Fathers wrote that only negative impacts arise from war. Even in unavoidable circumstances, the Fathers thought of war as the lesser of greater evils, but nonetheless evil. The term "just war" is not found in the writings of the Greek

Fathers. The stance of the Fathers on war is pro-peace and an Orthodox "just war" theory does not exist.”
This is taken out of context, Fr. Harakas said: “"I found an amazing consistency in the almost totally negative moral assessment of war coupled with an admission that war may be necessary under certain circumstances to protect the innocent and to limit even greater evils. In this framework, war may be an unavoidable alternative, but it nevertheless remains an evil. Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. The tradition also precludes the possibility of a crusade. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries."
thus it accepts that there is " an admission that war may be necessary under certain circumstances to protect the innocent and to limit even greater evils." So it is pretty clearly that Gebre has not only taken Fr. Harakas out of context, he selectively embraced what worked for him, while ignoring the
bulk of what he said. The full article can be found here “https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.incommunion.org%2F2005%2F08%2F02%2Fno- just-war-in-the-fathers%2F&h=mAQHXS20e)

Gebre said:
“I believe in the admonition of St. Hippolytus: “A Christian is not to become a soldier. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God.”
Gebre openly admitted to me that he does not understand the writings of St. Hippolytus, which I personally gave to him. So I find it odd that he even bothers to quote him. However, St.
Hippolytus was referring to the fact that the Roman Army was massacring Christians, so it would not be a good idea for a Christian to put themselves in that situation and possibly lose their faith by killing Christians or perhaps making an offering to the Roman gods. For St. Hippolytus an outright refusal of military service to the Roman Empire is a much better idea than joining it, mainly because of the persecutions. So this is another instance in which writings were taken out of their context, in this case their historical context.

Gebre said:
“I believe with St. John Chrysostom that, “Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. In our case, the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. The Christian’s labor is to make the dead live, not to make the living dead.”
This quote is taken from St John speaking on capital punishment, not war, he does not write the same when speaking about war. We again must take this in its context, St. John is not advocating pacifism in any way in this verse, nor in his other writings. He is clearly saying that we should not force our teachings on to those with incorrect beliefs that we should not forcibly correct people as there are other ways of correction without force.

What it seems that Gebre misunderstands is that this issue is not black and white and because I feel he views it that way and cannot reconcile violence and Christianity, he takes a pacifist stance. However if he had read these church fathers, that he quotes, in depth I truly believe he would understand this issue. Violence is not a Christian virtue, but that does not automatically mean that violence is never a necessity. War, as terrible as it is, is unfortunately necessary in some occasions and this is clearly taught by the very fathers Gebre quotes. A great example of Gebres lack of understanding on this issue and his black and white stance is him telling me that if violence and murder are acceptable then it should be acceptable to kill in order to save the victims of abortion.

What Gebre does not seem to understand is that while abortion is horrible and unacceptable, we do know the fate of the souls of these helpless victims and therefore it would be unacceptable to kill those performing abortions because their fate is not known, obviously. Its similar to the issue of martyrdom, when being martyred for your faith, it is unacceptable to fight back as a willful acceptance of martyrdom is displaying the highest form of love in Christ and trust in Him.

When we defend our family or others from harm, we should never seek to purposely kill, but to disarm or otherwise disable the person we are defending others against. It may so happen that in defense of others we may accidentally kill the person or persons, this is very unfortunate but again spoken of by the fathers. Once again, violence is not a virtue and we should not rely on it and or seek to use it in every instance but logically in defense of those who are being victimized and even then we should only be using the proper force required to subdue the person or persons. I think that this is the real issue with Gebres thinking, to him if violence is acceptable, then it is acceptable in every situation and if murder is acceptable, then it is acceptable in every situation, same as war. He is unable, or unwilling, to look at things in a logical and rational way. Instead he has selectively embraced quotes from the church fathers which seem to be supporting his view. I have personally advised him to study the church father in the context of their time or era, then study their writings individually and try to read them in the context with which they were written.
I have no doubt that Gebre loves Christ and our Church and this may seem a bit extreme but this is purely out of love. I seek only to correct my brother who has resisted the advice of myself and others much wiser than myself. I have privately consulted him for some time now and as HH Pope Shenouda taught us, "The sin that is done in public, punish in public. And the theological error which is broadcast openly in public, should be publicly refuted... ...But what is the wisdom in all this? Why punish in public, and why correct in public? This is because something that happens in public has an effect on others, or might cause them to stumble... So we must take those other people into account." ( So many years with problems of people, vol.3, pg. 82) As much as it pains me, I feel a public admonishment of Gebres erroneous view on this particular church teaching, I feel it is necessary in correcting him as well as others who may feel this same way.

Now I must stress one more thing, if Gebre personally wishes to adhere to a pacifist point of view, as I have told him, that is his view and it his certainly his right to exercise this. But, as I and others have tried to explain to him, you cannot pass this off as a church teaching because it simply is not taught by the church.
Again this is an effort done in love for a brother and for any brother and sister who may also believe this or came to believe this through Gebre. It is done with the utmost sincerity and desire for him to correct his teaching.

In Christ, Ioa

(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) I take very seriously the issue of any private information about the person being used.  If he does not want to use his real name in public, it is something I feel obliged to warn against.

Please do not share private information about someone, or private messages, unless permission was granted.

Warned for 10 days.

If you have a problem with this warning, you may appeal it to Fr. George.

Mina

Just a slight correction.  You may appeal to me first, and then if I reject the appeal, you may appeal to the global mod LizaSymonenko

Mina

8/30/2013
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 23, 2013, 09:48:42 PM
You should change the title of the thread at least, because it sounds like a personal attack, using his full name instead of his username, for example.

(http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/assets/jpg/swords-into-plowshares1.jpg)

Micah 4:3
And he will judge between many people
and reprove the mighty nations far away;
and they will beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Neither will a nation lift up a sword against nation,
nor will they learn anymore war.

(http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/thumbs/la/stories/prophecy/isaiah/They%20shall%20beat%20their%20swords%20into%20plow%20shares%20and.jpg)

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

There were many famous early martyrs for Christ who were Roman soldiers and decided they would no longer fight when they became Christian. They were martyred as a result.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 23, 2013, 10:27:12 PM
You should change the title of the thread at least, because it sounds like a personal attack, using his full name instead of his username, for example.

(http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/assets/jpg/swords-into-plowshares1.jpg)

Micah 4:3
And he will judge between many people
and reprove the mighty nations far away;
and they will beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Neither will a nation lift up a sword against nation,
nor will they learn anymore war.

(http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/thumbs/la/stories/prophecy/isaiah/They%20shall%20beat%20their%20swords%20into%20plow%20shares%20and.jpg)

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

There were many famous early martyrs for Christ who were Roman soldiers and decided they would no longer fight when they became Christian. They were martyred as a result.

I will consider that certainly, but, I did that to make a distinction between him and the saint of the same name.

quoting tags editted - MK
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 24, 2013, 09:47:00 AM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 24, 2013, 09:59:22 AM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.

+1

Poor form, Ionnes.  There are better ways to debate this topic than this.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: genesisone on August 24, 2013, 10:12:23 AM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.

+2

I may not always agree with GMK, but I appreciate his gentleness and sincerity.

Undoubtedly anyone of us here who posts regularly has said things that others believe to be wrong and we could be subject to another's cry of "nameodoxy".
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 24, 2013, 10:17:09 AM
Actually, it's one of the very few things I agree with him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 24, 2013, 10:29:38 AM
I think there is a discussion to be had here, though perhaps it got off on the wrong foot. Naming names is... well St. Paul and St. John do it in the Bible, as do the Church Fathers... yet was it the best course here? Perhaps. I don't know. Judging by my initial reaction and that of others, it seems to be a misfire... but now we are focused on something besides the main point. I think? I assume the point was to critique the position itself. Anyway...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Luke on August 24, 2013, 10:31:37 AM
Can the moderators remove the name and just leave the post as a "whether pacifism and absolutely no violence is the teaching of the Church?"
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Iconodule on August 24, 2013, 10:32:37 AM
If it could be demonstrated that pacifism was the Orthodox Christian position, I would be delighted, as I am sympathetic to such a position. However, I cannot find in history and church tradition any justification for such an assertion, and I haven't seen Gebre or other proponents of it produce such evidence.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 24, 2013, 11:16:43 AM
If it could be demonstrated that pacifism was the Orthodox Christian position, I would be delighted, as I am sympathetic to such a position. However, I cannot find in history and church tradition any justification for such an assertion, and I haven't seen Gebre or other proponents of it produce such evidence.
My understanding is that Gebre is talking about the Church banning pacifism. I don't know the answer, but I sympathize with his position. Monks and priests I think are not allowed to fight in wars, although some of them have encouraged it. I could easily see someone saying that based on the prohibition on (or discouragement of) fighting monks, this avoidance is inspiring and they believed it would be good if no one fought, even if attacked. Although pasicifism is not the only Orthodox opinion, I don't think the church should ban it- and in its thousand year history the church hasn't banned pacifism nor made it obligatory, and there is something to be said for that I think.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 24, 2013, 11:23:18 AM
How exactly would one ban pacifism?  Make it mandatory for all Christians to start wars?  ???
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Iconodule on August 24, 2013, 11:27:48 AM
If it could be demonstrated that pacifism was the Orthodox Christian position, I would be delighted, as I am sympathetic to such a position. However, I cannot find in history and church tradition any justification for such an assertion, and I haven't seen Gebre or other proponents of it produce such evidence.
My understanding is that Gebre is talking about the Church banning pacifism. I don't know the answer, but I sympathize with his position. Monks and priests I think are not allowed to fight in wars, although some of them have encouraged it. I could easily see someone saying that based on the prohibition on (or discouragement of) fighting monks, this avoidance is inspiring and they believed it would be good if no one fought, even if attacked. Although pasicifism is not the only Orthodox opinion, I don't think the church should ban it- and in its thousand year history the church hasn't banned pacifism nor made it obligatory, and there is something to be said for that I think.

It seems like a false dichotomy. It's not like the only alternative to making pacifism mandatory is to ban it. Pacifism has been an option in the Church, as has been (defensive) war. What I have seen Gebre and others suggest is that pacifism is the only consistently Christian stance on the matter. The implication seems to be that certain saints who fought (e.g. Saint Tsar Lazar of Serbia) thereby fell short of the Gospel.

Re: the ban on clergy and monks fighting, even there, there have been exceptions, as when St. Sergius of Radonezh blessed one of his schemamonks (Alexander Peresvet) to fight at the battle of Kulikovo (he fought one-on-one with the Mongol champion, and they killed each other).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Punch on August 24, 2013, 11:36:34 AM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.


George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."  I do not mind those that pretend to be peaceful, as long as they do not criticise and make life difficult for those of us who allow them the luxury of their beliefs.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 24, 2013, 11:43:00 AM
its the way he tries to justify it as if the church teaches this.  
He teaches a pacifist stance and that this is the “true Christian teaching.”
The point is arguable.

Quote
Even going as far as stating: “If the Orthodox Church were to ever condemn pacifism or officially declare that Christians cannot condemn all war and killing in this day and age, then the Church would cease to be Orthodox and I would cease to be a part of it."
This is arguable based on the fact that Orthodoxy has not banned pacifism in its history, and there were martyred Christian soldiers who put down weapons when they became Christian.

Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil has no issue with soldiering, as his canons show (188th letter). He accepts that people will be soldiers and does not class killing in war as anything close to murder. To quote him here shows lack of knowledge on the matter. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”

Clearly St. Basil is not condemning war and in fact says “Our fathers” in terms of those church fathers existing prior to him.
Likewise, the topic is arguable either way. St. Basil says violence is never justifiable, killing in war isn't murder and is pardonable, but warriors' hands are not clean.

Perhaps in Greek justifiable means righteous. In English it means "make just". So while he is not condemning war as murder, he sees a problem with it. In his opinion killing in war is not itself a righteous act, ie a "good work"), and it is unclean.

Perhaps you would be able to find a way to refute St. Basil's position, and it isn't clear to me St. Basil considers it sinful, but there is also a basis in it to support Gebre's position, eg. you should be able to oppose wars as unclean.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 24, 2013, 11:51:06 AM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.
Do people really talk down to Gebre for his pacifist views? I don't. I once spent four years taking classes at a Quaker college and attending a Quaker church (not of the silent worship variety), though without ever becoming a Quaker myself, so I've come to appreciate the pacifism Quakers and Gebre share. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. Where I challenge Gebre is on his repeated assertion that pacifism is the authoritative teaching of the Gospel and the Fathers and that one cannot live an authentic Christian life without being a pacifist. Though I think Ioannes's decision to reveal GMK's legal name was in bad form, I agree with Ioannes that the intellectual dishonesty and dogmaticism by which GMK presents his pacifist views merit a public rebuke.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: augustin717 on August 24, 2013, 11:52:25 AM
So now I understand who the narcissist brother from a couple of weeks ago was. Not that I disagree but really publishing someone's name for expressing private opinions on FB or here is even worse I think than being a narcissist. We all are anyways.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Iconodule on August 24, 2013, 11:52:53 AM
Regardless of St. Basil's actual position, it's not enough to say, "these saints said x, therefore that is the Church's stance." One also needs to consider the universal practice and teaching of the Church, keeping in mind whom she has canonized and for what reasons, as well as the various wars in which the Church has involved herself spiritually, such as the struggle of the Russians against the Mongols or the Greeks and Serbs against the Turks. The Battle of Kosovo, for instance, is such a central, pivotal event in the Serbian church's tradition that it would be impossible for a Serbian Orthodox to assert absolute pacifism without alienating himself from his own tradition.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 24, 2013, 11:55:57 AM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

That being the case, it doesn't count to say that the army is protecting them so they can be pacifist, and that otherwise the enemy would come in and abuse them- after all, the pacifists have shown themselves willing to be abused by a militarized society, so why wouldn't they be willing to be abused by the enemy for their beliefs?

Quote
I do not mind those that pretend to be peaceful, as long as they do not criticise and make life difficult for those of us who allow them the luxury of their beliefs.
I'm not sure what you mean about "pretend to be peaceful", but maybe it depends on the situation. Even in "good" wars, like the Civil War that freed the slaves, perhaps it is still beneficial to have the voice of people who are against all violence, in order to avoid going overboard, and in order to be realistic about the situation. WWI was pretty needless and more pacifist voices would have helped, even if the pacifists were not making an in-depth anti-imperialist analysis, etc., of the war.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Romaios on August 24, 2013, 11:58:37 AM
I remember reading a letter by one of the Elders of Optina once where he clearly argued against pacifism (someone refusing to take up arms or enroll in the Russian imperial army because of Christian scruples). If only I knew where to find it again...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Putnik Namernik on August 24, 2013, 12:12:46 PM
Without stating my personal opinion about it for a moment, I will just mention the fact that during Turkish occupation of the Balkans , the Church (or perhaps better said its representatives) were supporters and organizers of defensive wars against the enemy...Many times such meeting have been organized in monasteries...I remember reading such cases in Serbia and Greece...there are such cases in even more recent history...but there are also cases of Saints letting the enemy butcher them in peaces and while doing so he said to the killer "you just keep doing your job..." The killer of course wen mad as in crazy....
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Severian on August 24, 2013, 12:26:59 PM
--Subscribed--
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 24, 2013, 12:44:06 PM
I am double minded on this subject.

I believe that the peaceful way ought to be employed, if at all possible. Negotiate and communicate.

However, I also believe that there are times when this is not possible and violence is called for.
After all, we live in the fallen world, and things are not always as they should be.

I would, right or wrong, be the first one to protect Church, family and loved ones.


I have a great modern example of pacifism working.

The fall if one of histories most brutal regimes towards people and Church.

In Ukraine, Communism fell, it simply melted away, without a drop of blood being spilled in the process.

The public gathered in Kyiv, in what is known as the Orange Revolution. People who formally hid behind drawn curtains, came out and gathered. They didn't shoot anyone, beat anyone, they just pitched tents, in the freezing Ukrainian winter and made their final stand.

I can only believe that it was God's hand that brought down the soviet yoke so peacefully. Those who slaughtered thousands upon thousands, who set son against father, who made everyone's skin crawl, slinked away in to the darkness.  How was that possible?  It was a true miracle.

Glory and all thanks be to God!

By the way,  happy Ukrainian Independence Day!  22 years!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: minasoliman on August 24, 2013, 01:08:39 PM
Gebre shares a position that I have thought about endlessly, and still do think about.  A Pacifist position is something I admire. In fact, I've even seen extremist Pacifist positions that I think even church fathers wouldn't hold, but still if held by others, would lead to sympathy and great admiration and love for such people. I have a Quaker friend who I admire and I enjoy having long discussions with, and I see in him great qualities I wish I had for myself. Like Kerdy, if everyone was like Gebre, the world would be a better place, and then, it would be much easier to advocate seeing war as not just an evil, but it was necessary in the past, and now, it is heretical and to be condemned at all costs.  Gebre's position as I see it is an eschatological position, where the second coming of Christ demands it, and where we should at least try our very best to encourage it despite how difficult it may be and how necessary and even encouraging war or killing may be as well.  Case in point: the situation in Egypt.  I as a Copt have never had so much spite as I did when Mohamed Badie was arrested, and I was pleased to see so many protestors die.  My weaknesses are indeed my spite and my pleasure in the deaths of violent criminals, and it is an evil I should repent from, despite how necessary the arrests and killings were.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Santagranddad on August 24, 2013, 01:08:54 PM
Not in favour of what appears to be a topic approached in a singularly personal way.

War is bloody and awful in every way imaginable, and then some. This bought home every time I go to hospital and see the young amputee service men and women or talk to those with combat stress. So jaw, jaw rather than war if possible but at times evil does have to be confronted, I believe. This though is not the same as furthering national aims and foreign policy goals. Which is what most conflict is about regardless of the spin doctors' and politicians' pious outpourings.

As to the falling away of the hold of the Soviets, I do not share the joy expressed by some here because I think the Communist ideologues, realising they couldn't sustain the military arms race switched to an altogether different strategy, undermining the West's morale and social values aided as ever by what Lenin vulgarly called the useful fools. In this they have had far more success and pacifism is no defence here either.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 24, 2013, 01:25:27 PM

As to the falling away of the hold of the Soviets, I do not share the joy expressed by some here because I think the Communist ideologues, realising they couldn't sustain the military arms race switched to an altogether different strategy, undermining the West's morale and social values aided as ever by what Lenin vulgarly called the useful fools. In this they have had far more success and pacifism is no defence here either.

So, are you stating that people's strangled lives, persecuted, and tortured for belief in God, is a better way to live, than what they have now?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: biro on August 24, 2013, 01:55:15 PM
I am double minded on this subject.

I believe that the peaceful way ought to be employed, if at all possible. Negotiate and communicate.

However, I also believe that there are times when this is not possible and violence is called for.
After all, we live in the fallen world, and things are not always as they should be.

I would, right or wrong, be the first one to protect Church, family and loved ones.


I have a great modern example of pacifism working.

The fall if one of histories most brutal regimes towards people and Church.

In Ukraine, Communism fell, it simply melted away, without a drop of blood being spilled in the process.

The public gathered in Kyiv, in what is known as the Orange Revolution. People who formally hid behind drawn curtains, came out and gathered. They didn't shoot anyone, beat anyone, they just pitched tents, in the freezing Ukrainian winter and made their final stand.

I can only believe that it was God's hand that brought down the soviet yoke so peacefully. Those who slaughtered thousands upon thousands, who set son against father, who made everyone's skin crawl, skinned away in to the darkness.  How was that possible?  It was a true miracle.

Glory and all thanks be to God!

By the way,  happy Ukrainian Independence Day!  22 years!


Amen! :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Punch on August 24, 2013, 02:58:45 PM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: William on August 24, 2013, 04:00:17 PM
I'm sure that Punch could probably give more details, but the OP is wrong on one account. If someone is threatening you or your family with deadly force, you kill them. Pussyfooting around will only cost you your life and the life of your loved ones.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: JamesR on August 24, 2013, 04:29:45 PM
I've always seen it as one of those things that is strongly recommended and praised, although not required. Similarly, monasticism is recommended by St. Paul and considered a higher calling, however, it is not required. With pacifism, I imagine that a pacifist way of life is recommended, but, if a person cannot adopt one, then they can use violence provided it meets certain standards.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Punch on August 24, 2013, 04:53:44 PM
I've always seen it as one of those things that is strongly recommended and praised, although not required. Similarly, monasticism is recommended by St. Paul and considered a higher calling, however, it is not required. With pacifism, I imagine that a pacifist way of life is recommended, but, if a person cannot adopt one, then they can use violence provided it meets certain standards.

Very well put.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: livefreeordie on August 24, 2013, 06:18:16 PM
The original post takes a difference of opinion and makes it way too personal. It made me uncomfortable reading it, especially publishing his legal name when it's obvious Gebre uses his church name here and on Facebook, etc. out of sincere faith. The author just came across as demeaning and very, very, very, petty and mean spirited.

I don't agree with some of Gerbre's opinions here and on Facebook , but good lord, he is sincere, willing to engage in debates on what can be very hard subjects to talk about, and whether you agree with him or not, he consistently stands up for life.

My first reaction when I read the post, "with friends like these, who needs enemies."
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Santagranddad on August 24, 2013, 06:29:06 PM

As to the falling away of the hold of the Soviets, I do not share the joy expressed by some here because I think the Communist ideologues, realising they couldn't sustain the military arms race switched to an altogether different strategy, undermining the West's morale and social values aided as ever by what Lenin vulgarly called the useful fools. In this they have had far more success and pacifism is no defence here either.

So, are you stating that people's strangled lives, persecuted, and tortured for belief in God, is a better way to live, than what they have now?


No.

Simply that the "fall of the Soviet monolith" is not the simple cause for celebration, and in writing thus I am very well aware of Soviet crimes against humanity exceeding as they do even the infamy of the Third Reich.

If you attack sections of or whole communities as the Soviets did the results are unspeakable and I have said so many times and been shouted down by disingenuous 'useful idiots' for my pains.

But what I find strange is that the threat hasn't gone, the KGB is now the FSB and rather than the crude iron fist of the past threatening free society we have their ideologues successfully working within these free societies to destroy the very fabric of our society. And just as when Hitler was quietly building his armed forces and the appeasers insisted on looking the other way, so today some seem intent on seeing all is well while those intent on the destruction of the values, mores and structures such as family are increasingly successful.

So, I repeat in answer to your question, no. And even today religious freedom in Ukraine appears to be attacked from time to time by the clonking fist of Moscow.

My apologies for wandering off topic...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: 88Devin12 on August 24, 2013, 06:33:38 PM
Relevant Podcast: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/orthodoxy_and_war
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: NicholasMyra on August 24, 2013, 07:27:05 PM
This thread was in bad form, and I lean more toward gebres stance than that of his opponent.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Putnik Namernik on August 24, 2013, 07:38:43 PM
I do have to agree that attact appears to be personal and distasteful. I am torn. I think in a ideal world that is how we should act, but if Heavens have waged a war (ie Archangel Michael leading the army again you know whom) then unfortunately sometimes there is no alternative I am afraid...Violence, especially war is a terrible thing...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: biro on August 24, 2013, 07:42:22 PM
I do have to agree that attact appears to be personal and distasteful. I am torn. I think in a ideal world that is how we should act, but if Heavens have waged a war (ie Archangel Michael leading the army again you know whom) then unfortunately sometimes there is no alternative I am afraid...Violence, especially war is a terrible thing...

I agree. I believe we should avoid war if we can, but if there is no alternative, we must do it.

There are several saints who were in the military.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: livefreeordie on August 24, 2013, 07:43:07 PM
And whether Gebre is right or wrong, I can't imagine Gebre meeting Christ in Heaven and Jesus saying to him, "You know Gebre, you got everything right except for war. I don't mind war if it's for a good cause."

Stand for what you believe in Gebre.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 24, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Perhaps the OP was not clear enough. I am not against Gebres choice to be a pacifist, what I am against is his dishonesty in consistently misquoting church fathers to prove his stance. I apologize as I thought that I mentioned this in the OP. I have personally told him that its not his stance on war and violence but that teaching it as if the church takes this stance is incorrect. That makes people think that they have to be pacifist in order to be Orthodox. It is extremely dishonest and distasteful to take church fathers out of context, and in some cases he has made quotes up. So I apologize for not making that more clear. I am not against his decision to be a pacifist, I am against him being dishonest about the church teachings on the matter.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 24, 2013, 07:50:44 PM
The original post takes a difference of opinion and makes it way too personal. It made me uncomfortable reading it, especially publishing his legal name when it's obvious Gebre uses his church name here and on Facebook, etc. out of sincere faith. The author just came across as demeaning and very, very, very, petty and mean spirited.

I don't agree with some of Gerbre's opinions here and on Facebook , but good lord, he is sincere, willing to engage in debates on what can be very hard subjects to talk about, and whether you agree with him or not, he consistently stands up for life.

My first reaction when I read the post, "with friends like these, who needs enemies."

Sorry you feel this way, but I do not find misquoting church fathers, taking them out of context, and teaching others that the churchs stance is pacifist, to be a petty thing whatsoever. I have to disagree, Gebre is anything but willing to engage, any dissenting opinion on his facebook and he deletes the comments. I must reiterate, I do not take issue with Gebres personal position on pacifism, I have a problem when he teaches, as some authority on the matter, that the church takes this stance. I apologize for not being more clear in the original post.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 24, 2013, 07:53:16 PM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.

+1

Poor form, Ionnes.  There are better ways to debate this topic than this.

The issue is not the topic of pacifism, the issue is his means of justifying his position by being dishonest about what church fathers have said on the matter. That is the real issue.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ionnis on August 24, 2013, 08:01:10 PM
Ioannes, what were you hoping to accomplish here?  Whatever it was, you fell for the devil's trick.  Lord have mercy. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: lovesupreme on August 24, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Man, what do I have to do around here to get a whole thread devoted to me?

Seriously, couldn't Private Messages have sufficed?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 24, 2013, 08:21:16 PM
I and several others have addressed this matter privately with Gebre, on several occasions. I have told him that an error taught publicly must be corrected publicly, if not for him for those who may think that the church fathers DO teach pacifism or that the church requires one to be pacifist. Gebre has been unwilling to hear me, and I have spoken with him personally on a number of occasions. He has resisted to advice of several clergy members and has instead opted to interpret what we are saying as us persecuting him for his beliefs. I spoke to him on the phone and told him directly that we are trying to tell him that he cannot take church fathers out of context, or make up quotes even, to support his view, that is dishonest. In fact I made sure that Gebre had a bulk of the early church fathers writings, which I sent to his kindle. He told me that he does not understand them, so why does he quote those very same fathers that he does not understand?

Again, my issue is not with his pacifist stance, it is him passing it off as a church requirement or teaching. Is that acceptable to misuse the church fathers writings, as I demonstrated in the OP, he clearly does.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: livefreeordie on August 24, 2013, 09:16:51 PM
Private messages and phone calls should stay private. Are you trying to shame him into shutting up?

We live in a wicked world. War is hell. It is the smell of burning flesh. It is young men and women turned to pink mist. It is innocent women and children caught in the politics of war and blown into bloody stumps of human flesh. It is the nightmare of the faces of people you have killed that wakes you from sleep and leaves your bed soaked in sweat. It is trying to itch a leg that is missing. It is one minute talking to your best friend about home, and the next second seeing his skull blown apart and the taste of his brains resting on your lips.

I'm no pacifist, but if Gebre's exhuberance to keep war from happening sometimes results in misplaced quotes of Church Fathers, so be it. God bless him for his consistent preaching of life.

It is easy for people to talk about "just" war. It is hard to call any war just when you face the reality of what war is. Even when I disagree with you Gebre, keep preaching.

On a side note, show me a Bishop justifying the jurisdictionalism of American Orthodoxy and I'll show you someone misquoting a Church Father for no other reason than to hold onto power. I'll take Gebre's desire to find peace in our Church Fathers over this any day of the weak.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 24, 2013, 09:38:20 PM
Private messages and phone calls should stay private. Are you trying to shame him into shutting up?

We live in a wicked world. War is hell. It is the smell of burning flesh. It is young men and women turned to pink mist. It is innocent women and children caught in the politics of war and blown into bloody stumps of human flesh. It is the nightmare of the faces of people you have killed that wakes you from sleep and leaves your bed soaked in sweat. It is trying to itch a leg that is missing. It is one minute talking to your best friend about home, and the next second seeing his skull blown apart and the taste of his brains resting on your lips.

I'm no pacifist, but if Gebre's exhuberance to keep war from happening sometimes results in misplaced quotes of Church Fathers, so be it. God bless him for his consistent preaching of life.

It is easy for people to talk about "just" war. It is hard to call any war just when you face the reality of what war is. Even when I disagree with you Gebre, keep preaching.

On a side note, show me a Bishop justifying the jurisdictionalism of American Orthodoxy and I'll show you someone misquoting a Church Father for no other reason than to hold onto power. I'll take Gebre's desire to find peace in our Church Fathers over this any day of the weak.

Error taught in public should be corrected in public. If not for his sake, for the sake of others.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 24, 2013, 09:53:56 PM
Lets he honest here, ask any ten people on this site any question and you'll get eleven different answers.  I have seen some abominably twisted evils proclaimed here which have nothing to do with the source quoted.  So, are we really going to say its ok to get high and have sex with anyone we want, but knock around a guy who promotes peace?  Really?  This place is insane!  If its ok for others to see differences in the EFC's, why not Gebre?  How is he different?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 24, 2013, 10:14:05 PM
Lets he honest here, ask any ten people on this site any question and you'll get eleven different answers.  I have seen some abominably twisted evils proclaimed here which have nothing to do with the source quoted.  So, are we really going to say its ok to get high and have sex with anyone we want, but knock around a guy who promotes peace?  Really?  This place is insane!  If its ok for others to see differences in the EFC's, why not Gebre?  How is he different?
+1

Every once in a blue moon, I agree with Kerdy.  This is one of those times.  Mark your calendar.  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 24, 2013, 10:27:34 PM
You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.
The point I made about the monks is that people can be very set in their beliefs. In this case the pacifists are very set in their beliefs and if the enemy overwhelmed them, they would probably be willing to stand by those beliefs even then, come what may.

It is not really the army that allows the pacifists to practice their beliefs- even without the army's protection, and even if conquered by the enemy they would still practice the pacifism.

There are plenty of cases throughout history when pacifists were severely persecuted for their beliefs, and much of the persecution came from the militaristic society that is supposedly "protecting" them.

Let's test the claim
that the army is protecting them and allowing them to be pacifist. Suppose that protection is no longer there. What would happen?

A) Societies could get along fine because they would put their efforts into diplomacy and friendship (unlikely, maybe). OR:

B) The enemy could override and conquer them easily. When that happens:
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 24, 2013, 10:39:11 PM
If pacifism is good enough for St. Seraphim of Sarov...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 24, 2013, 10:44:34 PM
Lets he honest here, ask any ten people on this site any question and you'll get eleven different answers.  I have seen some abominably twisted evils proclaimed here which have nothing to do with the source quoted.  So, are we really going to say its ok to get high and have sex with anyone we want, but knock around a guy who promotes peace?  Really?  This place is insane!  If its ok for others to see differences in the EFC's, why not Gebre?  How is he different?
WE are not saying it's okay to get high, and WE are not saying its okay to have sex with anyone we want. Individuals have said both on this forum, but they represent only themselves. They don't represent some nebulous WE.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 24, 2013, 10:45:31 PM
If pacifism is good enough for St. Seraphim of Sarov...
If blessing those who go to war is good enough for St. Sergius of Rhadonezh... ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Maria on August 24, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.


Great post, Kerdy.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Maria on August 24, 2013, 11:02:30 PM
Lets he honest here, ask any ten people on this site any question and you'll get eleven different answers.  I have seen some abominably twisted evils proclaimed here which have nothing to do with the source quoted.  So, are we really going to say its ok to get high and have sex with anyone we want, but knock around a guy who promotes peace?  Really?  This place is insane!  If its ok for others to see differences in the EFC's, why not Gebre?  How is he different?

+4
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 24, 2013, 11:33:18 PM
The original post takes a difference of opinion and makes it way too personal. It made me uncomfortable reading it, especially publishing his legal name when it's obvious Gebre uses his church name here and on Facebook, etc. out of sincere faith. The author just came across as demeaning and very, very, very, petty and mean spirited.

I don't agree with some of Gerbre's opinions here and on Facebook , but good lord, he is sincere, willing to engage in debates on what can be very hard subjects to talk about, and whether you agree with him or not, he consistently stands up for life.

My first reaction when I read the post, "with friends like these, who needs enemies."

Sorry you feel this way, but I do not find misquoting church fathers, taking them out of context, and teaching others that the churchs stance is pacifist, to be a petty thing whatsoever. I have to disagree, Gebre is anything but willing to engage, any dissenting opinion on his facebook and he deletes the comments. I must reiterate, I do not take issue with Gebres personal position on pacifism, I have a problem when he teaches, as some authority on the matter, that the church takes this stance. I apologize for not being more clear in the original post.
I agree with what you're trying to accomplish on this thread, Ioannes (though I do believe it was very bad form for you to reveal Gebre's legal name), for I have run into the same stubborn dogmatism time and time again with Gebre.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 24, 2013, 11:47:38 PM
You guys really get bent out of shape on Gebre's one note pacifism. Sure he doesn't see all the nuances with violence nor the inherent contradictions with pacificsm, but I respect how well he argues his views.

Me personally I am much too open minded and consider a wide variety of opposing beliefs. I don't necessarily think that it is a good thing. If something gives me pause and makes me think, then its done its job for me.

I couldn't imagine living in a world where you don't read stuff that doesn't cause abrasion to some degree, would be boring.

I'm sure that Punch could probably give more details, but the OP is wrong on one account. If someone is threatening you or your family with deadly force, you kill them. Pussyfooting around will only cost you your life and the life of your loved ones.
Or you could just pull the marry card out if your family is going to be killed.

Would Gebre allow a racist to come into his house and rape his wife while he does nothing?

A lot of the pacifism stuff is nice in theory, but that stuff doesn't matter in the spur of the moment when your are reacting more on instinct than thought.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 24, 2013, 11:47:38 PM
Ioannes, what were you hoping to accomplish here?  Whatever it was, you fell for the devil's trick.  Lord have mercy. 
Yup.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 24, 2013, 11:47:38 PM
Error taught in public should be corrected in public. If not for his sake, for the sake of others.

You hardly even post and apparently have a personal grudge against Gebre. Not only that, but this is nothing more than an exhibition in audacious false piety.

Cue the shameless members to inject some value into this thread but this thread has zero.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 24, 2013, 11:48:48 PM
Error taught in public should be corrected in public. If not for his sake, for the sake of others.

You hardly even post and apparently have a personal grudge against Gebre. Not only that, but this is nothing more than an exhibition in audacious false piety.
What do you know of personal grudges and false piety, Achronos?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 24, 2013, 11:54:58 PM
Lets he honest here, ask any ten people on this site any question and you'll get eleven different answers.  I have seen some abominably twisted evils proclaimed here which have nothing to do with the source quoted.  So, are we really going to say its ok to get high and have sex with anyone we want, but knock around a guy who promotes peace?  Really?  This place is insane!  If its ok for others to see differences in the EFC's, why not Gebre?  How is he different?
+1

Every once in a blue moon, I agree with Kerdy.  This is one of those times.  Mark your calendar.  ;D
The blue moon was a few days ago. You missed it, buddy. ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: lovesupreme on August 24, 2013, 11:59:03 PM
Ioannes, what were you hoping to accomplish here?  Whatever it was, you fell for the devil's trick.  Lord have mercy. 
Yup.

LOL, look who you quoted.  ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 25, 2013, 02:31:39 AM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.

It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 25, 2013, 02:39:09 AM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.

It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.
It's also possible for one to argue that Christianity didn't remain stuck in the third century.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 25, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.

It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.

It is very possible, even probable.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 25, 2013, 04:36:28 AM

So, just a few questions.

Is Gebre a priest?  Is he a hierarch?  Perhaps a patriarch?

No. No. No.

Then, please explain to me why anyone would think his words represent the stance of the Church? 

What he states, is his own opinion and interpretation...even his interpretations of the Church Fathers.
Nobody should take, as Gospel truth, something a mere layperson states without doing some of their own research, and asking for more information.

This Forum overflows with personal opinions and beliefs. That's why we are here. To discuss and interpolate...and learn from each other.

As for pacifism. I don't know if the Church makes a formal stance on this, or if it is case specific, and economia comes in to play.

I would love to say that I would never maim or injure someone; but, I know I've probably already done both in a spiritual sense....which is just as bad.

I would always look for the peaceful route first, but, I know that I would resort to violence to protect someone I love.  We all would. We are just fooling ourselves if we think we wouldn't. If someone were trying to harm our families or loved ones, or some innocent child or old person, wouldn't we simply "act" and come to their defense?  I fear that if we do not, then we are cowards, and don't deserve to call ourselves Christians.



Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Punch on August 25, 2013, 09:34:26 AM
Ioannes, what were you hoping to accomplish here?  Whatever it was, you fell for the devil's trick.  Lord have mercy. 

Actually not.  Granted, from some of the posts that I have read on this forum, I doubt many people on this forum even know what a Bible is, let alone have ever read one.  But the OP is doing exactly what the Scriptures tell us to do.  First, deal with the individual privately.  If no success, then bring others with you.  If that does not work, then bring it before the Church.  If the OP is in error, the error would be to assume that this forum in any way represents the Church, since open heretics are allowed the same freedom to post here as Orthodox Christians. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Punch on August 25, 2013, 09:39:30 AM
You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.
The point I made about the monks is that people can be very set in their beliefs. In this case the pacifists are very set in their beliefs and if the enemy overwhelmed them, they would probably be willing to stand by those beliefs even then, come what may.

It is not really the army that allows the pacifists to practice their beliefs- even without the army's protection, and even if conquered by the enemy they would still practice the pacifism.

There are plenty of cases throughout history when pacifists were severely persecuted for their beliefs, and much of the persecution came from the militaristic society that is supposedly "protecting" them.

Let's test the claim
that the army is protecting them and allowing them to be pacifist. Suppose that protection is no longer there. What would happen?

A) Societies could get along fine because they would put their efforts into diplomacy and friendship (unlikely, maybe). OR:

B) The enemy could override and conquer them easily. When that happens:
  • The enemy leaves the pacifists alone because the enemy realizes that pacifists are no threat. Gypsies, other nomadic peoples, or Mennonites might live in different countries without fighting in the armies. OR:

  • The enemy completely dislikes the conquered people and persecutes them severely. The pacifists are still willing to undergo that, because they are very dedicated and their dedication is shown by their severe persecution by their own military society. They withstand the persecution from either source and thus their beliefs are not really dependent on their ruler's leniency or protection after all.

So, instead of being a light on the top of a hill as the Scriptures command, they can worship in Caves and hide.  Yes, it has been done before, and still happens.  But it is not the norm nor is it to be sought.  As was said above, we are no longer in the third century.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 25, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Ioannes, what were you hoping to accomplish here?  Whatever it was, you fell for the devil's trick.  Lord have mercy. 
Yup.

LOL, look who you quoted.  ;)
Who?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 25, 2013, 10:19:41 AM
Not marry, marytr
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 25, 2013, 10:33:31 AM

So, just a few questions.

Is Gebre a priest?  Is he a hierarch?  Perhaps a patriarch?

No. No. No.

Then, please explain to me why anyone would think his words represent the stance of the Church?
Is the task of preaching and teaching the Faith solely the domain of priests, bishops, and patriarchs?

No! We are all, from the Patriarch all the way down to the laity in the nave, called to preach and teach the faith of the Church.

When someone claims to be doing so but cherry picks from the Scriptures and Fathers to preach what is really his own concoction, then we have the responsibility to call him on his BS. It doesn't matter who he is or what churchly office he holds or does not hold. It's very probable that Gebre will be the only contact some people ever have with the Orthodox Church, so we do have a vested interest in making sure he is teaching the Faith properly.

What he states, is his own opinion and interpretation...even his interpretations of the Church Fathers.
Nobody should take, as Gospel truth, something a mere layperson states without doing some of their own research, and asking for more information.
No one should be so credulous even about something stated by a Patriarch.

This Forum overflows with personal opinions and beliefs. That's why we are here. To discuss and interpolate...and learn from each other.
Then let the dogmatic own up to the fact that he's merely sharing his own opinions.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 25, 2013, 06:08:16 PM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.

It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.
It's also possible for one to argue that Christianity didn't remain stuck in the third century.
Kinda have to agree with this.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 25, 2013, 06:08:16 PM
Error taught in public should be corrected in public. If not for his sake, for the sake of others.

You hardly even post and apparently have a personal grudge against Gebre. Not only that, but this is nothing more than an exhibition in audacious false piety.
What do you know of personal grudges and false piety, Achronos?
That I don't hold any grudges.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 25, 2013, 06:42:05 PM
Apparently on oc.net, we can debate and agree to disagree on gay marriage, contraception, and a number of other controversial topics, but when the evils of pacifism are advocated, it must be countered by attempts at public shaming and personal attacks.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 25, 2013, 07:13:45 PM
Apparently on oc.net, we can debate and agree to disagree on gay marriage, contraception, and a number of other controversial topics, but when the evils of pacifism are advocated, it must be countered by attempts at public shaming and personal attacks.
If that's what was really going on...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 25, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
Apparently on oc.net, we can debate and agree to disagree on gay marriage, contraception, and a number of other controversial topics, but when the evils of pacifism are advocated, it must be countered by attempts at public shaming and personal attacks.

No, attempts at public shaming, personal attacks, (mis)use of sarcasm, etc. all occur when it comes to the topics you mentioned.  It's not just an allergy to pacifism. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 25, 2013, 08:39:39 PM
Apparently on oc.net, we can debate and agree to disagree on gay marriage, contraception, and a number of other controversial topics, but when the evils of pacifism are advocated, it must be countered by attempts at public shaming and personal attacks.

This will be the last time that I will try to clarify my OP. I am not attacking Gebres stance on pacifism, I am pointing out his errors in misusing church fathers, and contemporary sources, to prove his point. I have discussed this particular issue with him, and some others, over the past couple of years. I have spoken to him privately on many occasions, as have others, that he cannot misuse anyone, especially church fathers. This is misleading and very dishonest. It would not matter what topic it was, if he or anyone is misusing church fathers to try and justify their stance, they are wrong. Again, I thought I made clear that pacifism itself is not the issue.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 25, 2013, 09:11:40 PM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.

It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.
It's also possible for one to argue that Christianity didn't remain stuck in the third century.
Kinda have to agree with this.

Sure, but it seems to me a dislocated statement. I am not sure how it relates to my tit for tat. You can perhaps explain.

My post was based on my currently reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I think there is some element of truth in what I read. Until I reached Julian, Gibbon was putting me to sleep.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 25, 2013, 09:25:08 PM
It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.
It's also possible for one to argue that Christianity didn't remain stuck in the third century.
Kinda have to agree with this.
You don't have to argue with it. Orthodoxy sees itself as the ancient faith. Although things change with the times, and we are not completely stuck in the 3rd century (like giving up TV or something), important aspects of the church really are. We value beliefs and traditions of the third century and wish to continue them ourselves. Holding fast to important traditions from the third century is one of the things that makes us Orthodox.

If pacifism really was an important religious part of the 3rd century Church, then it is something that we as Orthodox would have respect for (although not necessarily be bound by it 100%)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 25, 2013, 11:38:12 PM
It is possible for one to argue that the rise and acceptance of Christianity rested on the shoulders of Christ-like pacifism during the first three centuries.
It's also possible for one to argue that Christianity didn't remain stuck in the third century.
Kinda have to agree with this.
You don't have to argue with it. Orthodoxy sees itself as the ancient faith. Although things change with the times, and we are not completely stuck in the 3rd century (like giving up TV or something), important aspects of the church really are. We value beliefs and traditions of the third century and wish to continue them ourselves. Holding fast to important traditions from the third century is one of the things that makes us Orthodox.

If pacifism really was an important religious part of the 3rd century Church, then it is something that we as Orthodox would have respect for (although not necessarily be bound by it 100%)
That's the key. This thread wasn't started as a condemnation of pacifism. Pacifism really isn't the issue at all. What is at issue is how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion into a dogma of the Church.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 25, 2013, 11:57:04 PM

I would think that if a poster posts an inaccuracy concerning Church teaching, he ought to be immediately corrected in that same post.  In that way, readers who are exposed to the misinformation, are also immediately exposed to the correction.

However, accumulating one's sins, and creating a special thread to correct them, seems wrong.

I understand the whole correct a public error, in public, but, doing it like this does nothing to correct the posts where the misinformation was posted. 

Correct the mistake when it is made. Don't keep track of a list and then publish it later, and reveal your friend's real identity while you do it.



Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 26, 2013, 12:05:00 AM
^And fwiw, I can remember at least one very involved thread in which there was a discussion on this back and forth, with Gebre as a central participant, for page upon page. I'd try to dig up the thread I am thinking of, except that I gave up access to the politics forum.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 12:06:48 AM

I would think that if a poster posts an inaccuracy concerning Church teaching, he ought to be immediately corrected in that same post.  In that way, readers who are exposed to the misinformation, are also immediately exposed to the correction.

However, accumulating one's sins, and creating a special thread to correct them, seems wrong.

I understand the whole correct a public error, in public, but, doing it like this does nothing to correct the posts where the misinformation was posted. 

Correct the mistake when it is made. Don't keep track of a list and then publish it later, and reveal your friend's real identity while you do it.





If that particular person refuses to listen over a long period of time, then what are we to do? Not inform people of some of the errors he has taught? That would be unfair to those who follow him and read his book, would it not? His identity is on his facebook writings (notes) as well as in his book. I had no idea he intended on keeping it secret and if that is the case then I do apologize. My intent is not malicious but informative, it is not to debate his personal stance, it is to demonstrate his error that he is well aware of. Several have spoken to him in private on many occasions. These particular remarks were made in discussions that took place elsewhere. I can assure you, this is my last resort, I have told him that this would happen too. I sent it to him in an email giving him ample time to respond, either by phone or email, or whichever way he decided.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 12:13:02 AM

What kind of a response from him were you waiting for?

Did you wish him to admit he was wrong, in which case this thread would never have been created?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 26, 2013, 12:15:44 AM
At a Protestant forum (theologyonline.com) I participated at long ago they had scheduled, monthly debates. Perhaps that doesn't fit the tone of this site, but it'd be perhaps a useful thing once in a while, and even interesting...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 12:24:49 AM
Monthly?!?  Aren't we debating here daily?

It's not enough?  ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 12:25:21 AM
Apparently on oc.net, we can debate and agree to disagree on gay marriage, contraception, and a number of other controversial topics, but when the evils of pacifism are advocated, it must be countered by attempts at public shaming and personal attacks.

This will be the last time that I will try to clarify my OP. I am not attacking Gebres stance on pacifism, I am pointing out his errors in misusing church fathers, and contemporary sources, to prove his point. I have discussed this particular issue with him, and some others, over the past couple of years. I have spoken to him privately on many occasions, as have others, that he cannot misuse anyone, especially church fathers. This is misleading and very dishonest. It would not matter what topic it was, if he or anyone is misusing church fathers to try and justify their stance, they are wrong. Again, I thought I made clear that pacifism itself is not the issue.

The only time I have a problem with pacifists is when they join the military or some other organization which organically requires the use of force at times, like law enforcement.  If they knew they couldn’t use violence, why join that organization.  I personally have a problem with them when they refuse to aid someone in dire need of assistance and that person ends up dead…or worse.  However, they must make the choices they make and if someone understands the ECF’s to teach a life without violence, then that is the way they see it and who are we to try and change their minds?  People see things differently and many times in direct conflict with Church teaching, but we make excuses and pacify (pun intended) them in their heretical views.  

Gebre doesn’t like violence, he sees the Church teaching peace and therefore he understands Church views as non-violent.  If he lives his life this way and isn’t a flip-flopper like some people are on their unstable faith, I take no issue.  

Why not simply try to understand his point of view rather than fight against it?  We have people here accepting all sorts of serious wrongs.  This is not the fight (pun intended again) to take up on OC.net.

What he does is in no way any different than what you are doing right now, in this thread, against a pacifistic view.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 12:28:55 AM

What kind of a response from him were you waiting for?

Did you wish him to admit he was wrong, in which case this thread would never have been created?


Well, I thought it would be right and just to give him an opportunity to directly address the letter before making it public. Like I said, I took every action I could before coming to this decision. Admit he was wrong? Not on his stance on pacifism as I had told him repeatedly that this was a non-issue, it was his means of going about proving it, misusing church fathers and thereby misleading people. Yes, I would hope that he would say "Oh, ok, now I understand what you mean." Or something along those lines.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 12:33:49 AM

You are both doing what you think is right.

I respect you both for being so adamant and loving your Church so much, as to actually take a stance one way or the other.

I do not agree with misrepresenting Church teachings, however, I also do not agree with ganging up on someone.

If he's done something wrong, why does his priest not intercede? 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 26, 2013, 12:36:58 AM
Monthly?!?  Aren't we debating here daily?

It's not enough?  ;)

 :D  Well these debates were under strict rules, which the mods controlled/regulated. Each side had a specific number of responses, who went first/last was predetermined, there were word limits (I think), you had time limits when you had to respond by, etc. And most importantly, it was just the two people involved; no outside intereference and muddying the water or diverting attention, or people going off topic. And since the people involved knew that they had limited time and space (=words) to make their case, they really worked on their arguments, and picked out what they considered the best evidence. They also had to carefully consider what the other side was saying, otherwise (in a separate discussion thread) they'd be torn apart for being unwilling or unable to engage with their opponent. I'm not sure if anything ever got resolved, but it did make for somewhat more structured and evidence-based back and forths.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 12:40:52 AM
Well, I thought it would be right and just to give him an opportunity to directly address the letter before making it public.

To ensure I understand, this letter is a correspondence between the two of you?

Like I said, I took every action I could before coming to this decision.

Instead of just accepting he believes the Church teaches to be non-violent?

Admit he was wrong? Not on his stance on pacifism as I had told him repeatedly that this was a non-issue, it was his means of going about proving it, misusing church fathers and thereby misleading people.

In your opinion, yes?

Yes, I would hope that he would say "Oh, ok, now I understand what you mean." Or something along those lines.

Why would he do this if he does not believe what you are saying?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 12:42:35 AM
Apparently on oc.net, we can debate and agree to disagree on gay marriage, contraception, and a number of other controversial topics, but when the evils of pacifism are advocated, it must be countered by attempts at public shaming and personal attacks.

This will be the last time that I will try to clarify my OP. I am not attacking Gebres stance on pacifism, I am pointing out his errors in misusing church fathers, and contemporary sources, to prove his point. I have discussed this particular issue with him, and some others, over the past couple of years. I have spoken to him privately on many occasions, as have others, that he cannot misuse anyone, especially church fathers. This is misleading and very dishonest. It would not matter what topic it was, if he or anyone is misusing church fathers to try and justify their stance, they are wrong. Again, I thought I made clear that pacifism itself is not the issue.

The only time I have a problem with pacifists is when they join the military or some other organization which organically requires the use of force at times, like law enforcement.  If they knew they couldn’t use violence, why join that organization.  I personally have a problem with them when they refuse to aid someone in dire need of assistance and that person ends up dead…or worse.  However, they must make the choices they make and if someone understands the ECF’s to teach a life without violence, then that is the way they see it and who are we to try and change their minds?  People see things differently and many times in direct conflict with Church teaching, but we make excuses and pacify (pun intended) them in their heretical views.  

Gebre doesn’t like violence, he sees the Church teaching peace and therefore he understands Church views as non-violent.  If he lives his life this way and isn’t a flip-flopper like some people are on their unstable faith, I take no issue.  

Why not simply try to understand his point of view rather than fight against it?  We have people here accepting all sorts of serious wrongs.  This is not the fight (pun intended again) to take up on OC.net.

What he does is in no way any different than what you are doing right now, in this thread, against a pacifistic view.
You just don't get it, do you? Ioannes has stated repeatedly that he's not arguing against Gebre's pacifism per se. Ioannes's big problem with Gebre, which he has stated very clearly many times, is the intellectual dishonesty Gebre employs in his work to make it appear as if his personal views are the universal teaching of the Gospel and the Church.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 12:45:27 AM

If he's done something wrong, why does his priest not intercede?  

If someone, particularly a layman, wishes to embark on writing a book where Orthodox teachings are presented, and presented as authoritative and definitive, then at the very least, he ask for a blessing from his priest or bishop to do so. Even better, the manuscript should also be vetted by a priest or bishop prior to publication.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 12:47:40 AM

I agree.

I assume Gebre's priest was aware, and has read his book.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 12:49:12 AM

I agree.

I assume Gebre's priest was aware, and has read his book.

Over to you, Gebre.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 12:53:53 AM

You are both doing what you think is right.

I respect you both for being so adamant and loving your Church so much, as to actually take a stance one way or the other.

I do not agree with misrepresenting Church teachings, however, I also do not agree with ganging up on someone.

If he's done something wrong, why does his priest not intercede? 

Honestly, I have no idea. I have asked him a number of times who his priest was. The website he had given me a while ago was either incorrect or something because I contacted the priest and he did not know who I was talking about. However, Gebre told me before that he is part of, what we consider a schismatic group, but later claimed he never said this. So I am currently speaking with EOTC clergy to try and get this matter cleared up.

I am sorry if you feel I am ganging up on him, one person is hardly a gang. I think this thread shows that the people are heavily in favor of Gebre. Again, my intent is not malicious in any way. Gebre had full knowledge of this prior to it happening and like I said, we have been discussing this issue for some time, this is not the only instance in which he has misused the writings of the fathers or just plain made up quotes.

Now, this is just speculation on my part but I am not so sure that his priest knows what is going on. And the reason I say this is because there are some inconsistencies in his book, not only that the picture he uses in his book shows him with a traditional Ethiopian head wrap on, the problem is that it is clearly a womans head wrap. A priest would have immediately noticed this and informed him. Look, Gebre is not a dumb guy by any means, he is very intelligent and he is certainly very kind and well mannered. But the simple fact is, he was well aware of this for some time.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 12:58:30 AM

If he's done something wrong, why does his priest not intercede?  

If someone, particularly a layman, wishes to embark on writing a book where Orthodox teachings are presented, and presented as authoritative and definitive, then at the very least, he ask for a blessing from his priest or bishop to do so. Even better, the manuscript should also be vetted by a priest or bishop prior to publication.

Exactly and I do not see this in his book. He does thank a couple of priests but has not been forthcoming about who actually approved the book itself. He also, as I just mentioned, has not been forthcoming as to which church he belongs to as I have gotten two different answers at two different times. At first, it was the schismatic group, when I questioned him on this his tune changed. I am not saying he is schismatic, I am just saying he has not been clear on the issue. But I do not think a priest actually read all 578 pages and approved it, and if so then he failed to catch a few things, including the picture and Gebre failed to clearly state who approved it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Salpy on August 26, 2013, 01:04:21 AM
Ioannes,

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that you have written a book.  Was it officially approved by your priest or bishop?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 01:07:14 AM
Ioannes,

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that you have written a book.  Was it officially approved by your priest or bishop?

Actually my first one was not, and I learned a very valuable lesson from that. I published a work about a year or so after I was baptized, and had no idea what I should have done. Have written a few after and those have all been cleared through a priest, and my newest one was cleared by a bishop. I also make sure that this is clearly stated in my books. I also submit my work for a sort of peer review, to believers and non-believers alike.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 01:07:59 AM
You are assuming he didn't get priestly approval, or his priest is unaware of the book's contents.

I'm almost certain he did get permission, and that his priest IS aware of the book.

Thereby, it is his priest's responsibility to correct him, if/when he had said something wrong.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 01:10:16 AM
You are assuming he didn't get priestly approval, or his priest is unaware of the book's contents.

I'm almost certain he did get permission, and that his priest IS aware of the book.

Thereby, it is his priest's responsibility to correct him, if/when he had said something wrong.



If his priest is unaware of the discussions and things he writes online, how can he correct what he does not see? I have his book, so perhaps you could direct me to the page which shows who approved it? Remember, I said I am assuming this for some specific reasons, I did not say "I KNOW it was not."
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 01:11:41 AM
You are assuming he didn't get priestly approval, or his priest is unaware of the book's contents.
Isn't this an assumption on your part, Liza?

I'm almost certain he did get permission, and that his priest IS aware of the book.
How are you so certain of this?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 01:12:21 AM
You are assuming he didn't get priestly approval, or his priest is unaware of the book's contents.

I'm almost certain he did get permission, and that his priest IS aware of the book.

Thereby, it is his priest's responsibility to correct him, if/when he had said something wrong.



Then why be cagey about who the priest is?  ??? This is what I can't understand.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 01:14:49 AM

I know this because he has told me so.

...and do we know every poster's priest and parish?

There's a reason so few posters, and most who are posting in this thread, do not use their real names.

So, why are you asking publicly which parish he belongs to?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 01:18:27 AM

I know this because he has told me so.

...and do we know every poster's priest and parish?

There's a reason so few posters, and most who are posting in this thread, do not use their real names.

So, why are you asking publicly which parish he belongs to?

If he did get approval, he failed to put it in his book. He thanks his priest amongst a large list of other people he thanked, but never states that the words contained therein are approved by either a bishop or priest. Just because he said it, does not mean it is true...as the OP demonstrates he has said many things, some of which were dishonest.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 01:21:52 AM

Perhaps he simply wasn't aware of proper authoring etiquette.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 01:26:27 AM

Perhaps he simply wasn't aware of proper authoring etiquette.



Well, that certainly could be true, I was also mistaken in not seeking approval with my first book. However, I did not tell people that it was in fact approved when it was not. But regardless, this thread was supposed to be addressing the specific issue that I spoke of, not if Gebres book was properly approved or not. If I had time to go through each of the 578 pages and find every error, I would, but I figure this would suffice as this is my major issue that I see with him, and see it consistently in many things he has written.

I am not sure what else I can tell you Liza.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 02:03:04 AM
I was able to get Gebre to sort of contradict himself regarding pacifism. As much as he promotes pacifism, he simply can't get past his extreme love of a certain Ethiopian that was indeed anything but a pacifist in defending his country.

When Gebre first was active on this site, he was already writing the aformentioned book. At that time my husband was deploying/deployed to Afghanistan. Many, many of his posts from around that time were militant pacifist posts. To the extent that he believes that those in the armed forces shouldn't be prayed for because they are sinful and wrong. He was most certainly informed that he should have it approved by his priest/bishop. People on this very board told him this before he self published.

If you want to be a pacifist, be a pacifist. But don't attempt to say you speak for all of Orthodoxy.

As I recall his priest is sort of an Ethiopian Orthodox priest. Sort of in the sense that he isn't exactly Ethiopian Orthodox. So getting it approved by a Bishop would be...er...challenging.

Unless things have distinctly changed, he is Ethiopian Orthodox but attends Eastern Orthodox churches. I believe at some point he attended our own Fr. Chris's parish?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 02:08:22 AM
I was able to get Gebre to sort of contradict himself regarding pacifism. As much as he promotes pacifism, he simply can't get past his extreme love of a certain Ethiopian that was indeed anything but a pacifist in defending his country.

When Gebre first was active on this site, he was already writing the aformentioned book. At that time my husband was deploying/deployed to Afghanistan. Many, many of his posts from around that time were militant pacifist posts. To the extent that he believes that those in the armed forces shouldn't be prayed for because they are sinful and wrong.

If you want to be a pacifist, be a pacifist. But don't attempt to say you speak for all of Orthodoxy.

As I recall his priest is sort of an Ethiopian Orthodox priest. Sort of in the sense that he isn't exactly Ethiopian Orthodox.

That is the problem, Gebre calls out all sorts of people, but when he himself is called out, he refuses to engage. I have asked him how he justifies the actions of Haile Selassie, and his patriarch at the time who is schismatic Abune Merkorios. He literally refused to discuss the matter, saying that he would not tolerate anyone speaking negatively of them.

I also pointed out that the same people he quotes, for instance St John Chrysostom, praise soldiers. St George was a soldier, so was St. Felix, St. Theodore, etc. I also asked him how he justifies his love of football, and to my knowledge he does enjoy boxing. Again, he dances around the issue. Even though the same writers he quotes, Tertullian, St John, speak very negatively of theater and the sports, at least of their day.

Despite is inconsistency, what I am addressing is that he stops misusing the writings of others to justify his stance.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 02:13:06 AM
Well, I thought it would be right and just to give him an opportunity to directly address the letter before making it public.

To ensure I understand, this letter is a correspondence between the two of you?

Like I said, I took every action I could before coming to this decision.

Instead of just accepting he believes the Church teaches to be non-violent?

Admit he was wrong? Not on his stance on pacifism as I had told him repeatedly that this was a non-issue, it was his means of going about proving it, misusing church fathers and thereby misleading people.

In your opinion, yes?

Yes, I would hope that he would say "Oh, ok, now I understand what you mean." Or something along those lines.

Why would he do this if he does not believe what you are saying?


So, no response?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 02:16:36 AM
Since the Church teachings on pacifism, or at least it is said to be, is the reason for this thread, what exactly is the Churches official teaching on pacifism and/or violence?  Do we have one?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 02:19:42 AM
It has been explained to me that pacifism is the preference, but not the rule.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 02:37:56 AM
Since the Church teachings on pacifism, or at least it is said to be, is the reason for this thread, what exactly is the Churches official teaching on pacifism and/or violence?  Do we have one?

To answer your first question, I would hope that this was nothing more than a misunderstanding, that he did not realize he was misusing the church fathers.

Yes, we have to take the fathers in context. St Hippolytus was speaking during a time when the Roman Military was being used to persecute Christians, so of course he is not going to say "go join the military." St Basil does speak of this that military is at times a necessary evil, which is spoke of in the OP. St John Chrysostom as well. The fact that Gebre cherry picks from their writings, as if the particular quotes he gives speak for all their teachings is dishonest and misleading.

Gebre consistently demeans the military and those that serve, even though many saints were soldiers. Please refer to the original post.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 02:52:51 AM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:
“Sometimes we just need to remain silent. This is very difficult when lies and false accusations about us are being proliferated by those who are either mentally disturbed or demonically driven. Or maybe they just have some sort of personal grudge against us. But it gets to the point where answering every attack and responding to every false accusation saps one’s energy and drains one’s soul. The truth will always prevail in the end, and our true friends and true brethren will not be swayed by the malicious opinions of those who falsely malign us. Sadly, not everyone who calls us ‘friend’ and ‘brother’ is truly a friend and a brother. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from their negativity and spite, and just let their vitriolic torches burn themselves out. Unfortunately, they may deceive a lot of people along the way, and they may even succeed in damaging our reputation and character. But when this happens, remember that Our Lord Himself was accused of gluttony and drunkenness. (St. Matthew 11:19) God knows our hearts, and when we are accused unjustly, unfairly, and untruthfully, the best response is to simply rest silently and peacefully in Our Lord’s unconditional love.” Selam, +GMK+ (https://www.facebook.com/gebre.menfeskidus?fref=ts)

Again, this is what I am talking about. Anytime any accusation or criticism is leveled against him, he fails to address it, then paints himself as a martyr of some kind. I am not sure exactly why he continues and does not just address why it is that he sees fit to misuse church fathers? And note, its never his fault or anything that he could be responsible for, there is always an excuse. I feel I have been consistent and very clear on the issue, apparently Gebre thinks this is a personal attack. How am I deceiving people in pointing out Gebre's clear misuse of others writings?

I can only hope that at the very least others see that he has been dishonest and entirely unwilling to admit it or at the very least address it. I accused him, but it was just, and fair, and truthful, as can clearly be seen in the OP. I quoted him directly and showed each point where he was incorrect. :(
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 02:55:22 AM
It's in the politics section, but here is a refresher:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19779.0.html

I think we can't quote from politics, but it is OK to link to a thread? If it isn't please delete this comment mods.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 02:59:54 AM
It's in the politics section, but here is a refresher:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19779.0.html

I think we can't quote from politics, but it is OK to link to a thread? If it isn't please delete this comment mods.

It doesnt work for me, but is it relevant to the OP at least?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 03:01:09 AM
Well, I thought it would be right and just to give him an opportunity to directly address the letter before making it public.

To ensure I understand, this letter is a correspondence between the two of you?

Like I said, I took every action I could before coming to this decision.

Instead of just accepting he believes the Church teaches to be non-violent?

Admit he was wrong? Not on his stance on pacifism as I had told him repeatedly that this was a non-issue, it was his means of going about proving it, misusing church fathers and thereby misleading people.

In your opinion, yes?

Yes, I would hope that he would say "Oh, ok, now I understand what you mean." Or something along those lines.

Why would he do this if he does not believe what you are saying?


So, no response?

I am unclear if you provided a response to this inquiry so I will say if the two of you were communicating in private, you should not have put any of that here.  I am not certain if it was private or not, but just in case it was.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 03:01:54 AM
If you don't have access to politics, you won't be able to see it. It is a thread he started that was about how one shouldn't pray for deployed troops because it is promoting or at the very least condoning war.

He implied that I was brainwashed...you know standard, loving, peaceful pacifist rhetoric ::)

I will confess to losing my cool and not being as polite as I could have been. I could point out that I was a pregnant, single mother of 3, and my husband was in Afghanistan, but that isn't a good excuse.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 03:04:46 AM
Since the Church teachings on pacifism, or at least it is said to be, is the reason for this thread, what exactly is the Churches official teaching on pacifism and/or violence?  Do we have one?

To answer your first question, I would hope that this was nothing more than a misunderstanding, that he did not realize he was misusing the church fathers.

Yes, we have to take the fathers in context. St Hippolytus was speaking during a time when the Roman Military was being used to persecute Christians, so of course he is not going to say "go join the military." St Basil does speak of this that military is at times a necessary evil, which is spoke of in the OP. St John Chrysostom as well. The fact that Gebre cherry picks from their writings, as if the particular quotes he gives speak for all their teachings is dishonest and misleading.

Gebre consistently demeans the military and those that serve, even though many saints were soldiers. Please refer to the original post.

What I am getting at here is, if there is an official Church view we should adhere to it but if there is not, as with so many other things (unfortunately), it is open for people to interpret as they think is correct.  Without an official teaching/view/stand by the Church, what purpose does it serve to say one person is reading the EFC's the wrong way and that other person saying the same thing about you?  

In reference to the cherry picking, I have seen A LOT of people do that here.  Unless they admit they are incorrect in doing so, they should not complain about it when others do the same thing, if they are doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 03:10:16 AM
Well, I thought it would be right and just to give him an opportunity to directly address the letter before making it public.

To ensure I understand, this letter is a correspondence between the two of you?

Like I said, I took every action I could before coming to this decision.

Instead of just accepting he believes the Church teaches to be non-violent?

Admit he was wrong? Not on his stance on pacifism as I had told him repeatedly that this was a non-issue, it was his means of going about proving it, misusing church fathers and thereby misleading people.

In your opinion, yes?

Yes, I would hope that he would say "Oh, ok, now I understand what you mean." Or something along those lines.

Why would he do this if he does not believe what you are saying?


So, no response?

I am unclear if you provided a response to this inquiry so I will say if the two of you were communicating in private, you should not have put any of that here.  I am not certain if it was private or not, but just in case it was.

What is spoken of in the OP is on his facebook and or in his book. Gebre and I have had many discussions and we both know many things about each other. I love the man as a brother and if I were being malicious I could certainly do so and get very personal, however, this is not malicious.

If Gebre were to read this letter I think he would understand that I am not against his personal belief in pacifism, and I have told him that several times, as have many others. As I clearly demonstrate the issue is him misusing, and in some cases making up quotes, from others, namely church fathers. I am not sure how many times I can explain that to him, but he always takes criticism personally and I cannot for the life of me understand why. I do not think this is a difficult issue to understand so I have to take it as being willfully ignorant, should I take it as anything else?

Kerdy, to teach that pacifism is the stance of the church is wrong. However, if someone wishes to take this stance personally, there is no issue in my opinion. But when St. Basil wrote canons describing justifiable uses of violence and war, I have an issue with someone saying they teach pacifism. Or taking a quote from St. John Chrysostom speaking on capitol punishment and apply it to pacifism, when St John Chrysostom did not teach that. That is where my issue lies, he is not taking teachings as a whole, just selectively embracing the ones which agree with him and misrepresenting them as being the teaching of the whole church. That is a serious issue.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 03:11:33 AM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:
“Sometimes we just need to remain silent. This is very difficult when lies and false accusations about us are being proliferated by those who are either mentally disturbed or demonically driven. Or maybe they just have some sort of personal grudge against us. But it gets to the point where answering every attack and responding to every false accusation saps one’s energy and drains one’s soul. The truth will always prevail in the end, and our true friends and true brethren will not be swayed by the malicious opinions of those who falsely malign us. Sadly, not everyone who calls us ‘friend’ and ‘brother’ is truly a friend and a brother. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from their negativity and spite, and just let their vitriolic torches burn themselves out. Unfortunately, they may deceive a lot of people along the way, and they may even succeed in damaging our reputation and character. But when this happens, remember that Our Lord Himself was accused of gluttony and drunkenness. (St. Matthew 11:19) God knows our hearts, and when we are accused unjustly, unfairly, and untruthfully, the best response is to simply rest silently and peacefully in Our Lord’s unconditional love.” Selam, +GMK+ (https://www.facebook.com/gebre.menfeskidus?fref=ts)

Again, this is what I am talking about. Anytime any accusation or criticism is leveled against him, he fails to address it, then paints himself as a martyr of some kind. I am not sure exactly why he continues and does not just address why it is that he sees fit to misuse church fathers? And note, its never his fault or anything that he could be responsible for, there is always an excuse. I feel I have been consistent and very clear on the issue, apparently Gebre thinks this is a personal attack. How am I deceiving people in pointing out Gebre's clear misuse of others writings?

I can only hope that at the very least others see that he has been dishonest and entirely unwilling to admit it or at the very least address it. I accused him, but it was just, and fair, and truthful, as can clearly be seen in the OP. I quoted him directly and showed each point where he was incorrect. :(

Where is the untruth in the quote?  I find his words wise.  I don't have Facebook so I cant look at it in detail, but the quote itself has no fault.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 03:12:29 AM
Well, I thought it would be right and just to give him an opportunity to directly address the letter before making it public.

To ensure I understand, this letter is a correspondence between the two of you?

Like I said, I took every action I could before coming to this decision.

Instead of just accepting he believes the Church teaches to be non-violent?

Admit he was wrong? Not on his stance on pacifism as I had told him repeatedly that this was a non-issue, it was his means of going about proving it, misusing church fathers and thereby misleading people.

In your opinion, yes?

Yes, I would hope that he would say "Oh, ok, now I understand what you mean." Or something along those lines.

Why would he do this if he does not believe what you are saying?


So, no response?

I am unclear if you provided a response to this inquiry so I will say if the two of you were communicating in private, you should not have put any of that here.  I am not certain if it was private or not, but just in case it was.

What is spoken of in the OP is on his facebook and or in his book.

Ok, just making sure so you don't get into any trouble.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 06:40:04 AM
There is untruth in the quote because he was saying that he is being accused unfairly and untruthfully. Yet, the OP shows that he was being dishonest, so the accusations are true.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 08:40:32 AM
I respect Gebre a lot for not responding to this trainwreck of a thread.  If someone decided to post my real name and go on a long diatribe about me while calling me his "friend", you can bet that I would be responding and not in the best of ways.  I find his self-control refreshing.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 08:44:34 AM
I respect Gebre a lot for not responding to this trainwreck of a thread.  If someone decided to post my real name and go on a long diatribe about me while calling me his "friend", you can bet that I would be responding and not in the best of ways.  I find his self-control refreshing.

... or he's gone to ground, not daring to admit his error ....
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 08:45:10 AM
I respect Gebre a lot for not responding to this trainwreck of a thread.  If someone decided to post my real name and go on a long diatribe about me while calling me his "friend", you can bet that I would be responding and not in the best of ways.  I find his self-control refreshing.

He likely does not respond because then he would have to explain why he has continually misquoted the church fathers to support his view. This is generally what Gebre does, he cannot delete this like he does unfavorable comments on his facebook, so he just chooses not to respond because then he would have to face facts. He seems to lack the ability to control what he says, unless he is put on the spot.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 08:51:00 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 08:59:06 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.

Once again, this issue had been privately discussed for some length of time a few years maybe. I told Gebre that by misusing quotes he is misleading people and therefore being dishonest. It is unacceptable to portray the church taking a position that it does not take. I informed Gebre that this would happen, he continued to interpret it as a personal attack, as he does most all criticism, and then refused to discuss it anymore. I explained to him that I would post this publicly. I gave him the letter and ample time to respond to it. Again, as I said repeatedly, it is not about his pacifist stance and I explained that to him on numerous occasions, it is the simple fact he is being dishonest and misusing other peoples writings, namely the church fathers as can clearly be seen in the OP. He refused to respond privately therefore I posted it publicly so people would not be misled. He has many people on his facebook and I would not want someone outside Orthodoxy to think that it is a requirement that they be pacifist to be Orthodox. Or that the military and all soldiers are evil, which is NOT the position of the church.

Mind reading? Nah, thankfully, which is why I said "likely" and made that assumption based on his inability to address criticism directed towards him. Which is odd for a guy that criticizes nearly everyone who does not agree with him. The simple fact is he has been dishonest, refused to acknowledge this, to me, clergy, and others and seems to take it as a personal attack against his character. It is an assumption based on my many discussions with him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 09:06:16 AM
(http://onesidedconversations.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/dedication-wrong-leave-internet-demotivational-poster-1272856078.jpg)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:07:24 AM
I respect Gebre a lot for not responding to this trainwreck of a thread.  If someone decided to post my real name and go on a long diatribe about me while calling me his "friend", you can bet that I would be responding and not in the best of ways.  I find his self-control refreshing.

He likely does not respond because then he would have to explain why he has continually misquoted the church fathers to support his view. This is generally what Gebre does, he cannot delete this like he does unfavorable comments on his facebook, so he just chooses not to respond because then he would have to face facts. He seems to lack the ability to control what he says, unless he is put on the spot.
Or, perhaps he considered you his friend and is not only confused, but hurt by your actions here. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:08:47 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.

Once again, this issue had been privately discussed for some length of time a few years maybe. I told Gebre that by misusing quotes he is misleading people and therefore being dishonest. It is unacceptable to portray the church taking a position that it does not take. I informed Gebre that this would happen, he continued to interpret it as a personal attack, as he does most all criticism, and then refused to discuss it anymore. I explained to him that I would post this publicly. I gave him the letter and ample time to respond to it. Again, as I said repeatedly, it is not about his pacifist stance and I explained that to him on numerous occasions, it is the simple fact he is being dishonest and misusing other peoples writings, namely the church fathers as can clearly be seen in the OP. He refused to respond privately therefore I posted it publicly so people would not be misled. He has many people on his facebook and I would not want someone outside Orthodoxy to think that it is a requirement that they be pacifist to be Orthodox. Or that the military and all soldiers are evil, which is NOT the position of the church.

Mind reading? Nah, thankfully, which is why I said "likely" and made that assumption based on his inability to address criticism directed towards him. Which is odd for a guy that criticizes nearly everyone who does not agree with him. The simple fact is he has been dishonest, refused to acknowledge this, to me, clergy, and others and seems to take it as a personal attack against his character. It is an assumption based on my many discussions with him.

If I may ask, if he spoke to his priest first and has maintained dialogue with his priest on this matter, would you then no longer take issue with his views and expressions?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 09:13:51 AM
I respect Gebre a lot for not responding to this trainwreck of a thread.  If someone decided to post my real name and go on a long diatribe about me while calling me his "friend", you can bet that I would be responding and not in the best of ways.  I find his self-control refreshing.

He likely does not respond because then he would have to explain why he has continually misquoted the church fathers to support his view. This is generally what Gebre does, he cannot delete this like he does unfavorable comments on his facebook, so he just chooses not to respond because then he would have to face facts. He seems to lack the ability to control what he says, unless he is put on the spot.
Or, perhaps he considered you his friend and is not only confused, but hurt by your actions here. 

I am sure he is. Which is exactly why I gave him ample time to respond privately. If he is confused then there is not much more I can do, I have told him exactly what he has done continually and he ignores it.

LOL the above picture is hilarious, however, I find this issue to be a serious one. Even when you read through his book you can see the exact same thing I am speaking of in the OP. How long should I consult with someone privately and with clergy, and friends before his error is brought public to keep others from being misled? Is it acceptable to allow people do do this? Especially those who teach?

Kerdy, it has nothing to do with his views or expressions, read the OP. His consistent abuse of others writings and misrepresentation of them that is unacceptable no matter what he is trying to prove. You cant say "St Basil teaches pacifism" but then ignore the bulk of his writings, canons even, that clearly state otherwise. That is dishonest.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 09:14:43 AM

Perhaps he simply wasn't aware of proper authoring etiquette.



Well, that certainly could be true, I was also mistaken in not seeking approval with my first book. However, I did not tell people that it was in fact approved when it was not. But regardless, this thread was supposed to be addressing the specific issue that I spoke of, not if Gebres book was properly approved or not. If I had time to go through each of the 578 pages and find every error, I would, but I figure this would suffice as this is my major issue that I see with him, and see it consistently in many things he has written.

I am not sure what else I can tell you Liza.

Actually, the fact that his book was approved, and his priests are aware of the writings is tantamount to this thread, and the OP.

It either shows that they do not care, do not find it so bad as to need correcting, or they are lazy and not doing their jobs.  Perhaps they will get a thread all their own in the future.

I can completely understand a public correction when necessary.  I can also totally defend the defense of the Church, her saints, and teachings.

However, how are your latest comments, besmirching his personal character, at all comparative to what you claim the goal of this thread to be....to publicly correct.

You are doing way more than mere correction.  You are actually tarnishing someone's reputation above and beyond what you claim he may, or may not have done to deserve it.

You are passing judgment that he willfully misquoted, that he did not get clergy approval, that he is acting badly, as always, and hiding in order not to confront you and provide you the answers you so desperately seek.

You have done your correction.  People who wish to, will read it.

People who happen upon his misquotes in other sections (which I believe is your impetus for this thread) will still read the misquotes and be none the wiser.

Your goal of this thread, to correct a misquote of the Church Fathers, has morphed.  You are no longer defending the Church Fathers, but, are attacking Gebre, personally.

You would have done well enough, just posting the correction and being done with it.



Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:19:59 AM
I respect Gebre a lot for not responding to this trainwreck of a thread.  If someone decided to post my real name and go on a long diatribe about me while calling me his "friend", you can bet that I would be responding and not in the best of ways.  I find his self-control refreshing.

He likely does not respond because then he would have to explain why he has continually misquoted the church fathers to support his view. This is generally what Gebre does, he cannot delete this like he does unfavorable comments on his facebook, so he just chooses not to respond because then he would have to face facts. He seems to lack the ability to control what he says, unless he is put on the spot.
Or, perhaps he considered you his friend and is not only confused, but hurt by your actions here. 

I am sure he is. Which is exactly why I gave him ample time to respond privately. If he is confused then there is not much more I can do, I have told him exactly what he has done continually and he ignores it.

LOL the above picture is hilarious, however, I find this issue to be a serious one. Even when you read through his book you can see the exact same thing I am speaking of in the OP. How long should I consult with someone privately and with clergy, and friends before his error is brought public to keep others from being misled? Is it acceptable to allow people do do this? Especially those who teach?

Kerdy, it has nothing to do with his views or expressions, read the OP. His consistent abuse of others writings and misrepresentation of them that is unacceptable no matter what he is trying to prove. You cant say "St Basil teaches pacifism" but then ignore the bulk of his writings, canons even, that clearly state otherwise. That is dishonest.

Ok, here is the bottom line and I am not saying either of you is right or wrong.  So, here is your chance, again, to provide official Orthodox dogma on the matter.  If you can't, then each person is allowed to interpret a persons writings as they see it.  If you cant, he is allowed to teach his understanding of the ECF's in the same manner as you are.  If you cant, between the two of you, if I had to choose who was in the wrong here, it would be you.  If you can, please present it here and I will take back everything I have said about the matter.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:28:37 AM

Perhaps he simply wasn't aware of proper authoring etiquette.



Well, that certainly could be true, I was also mistaken in not seeking approval with my first book. However, I did not tell people that it was in fact approved when it was not. But regardless, this thread was supposed to be addressing the specific issue that I spoke of, not if Gebres book was properly approved or not. If I had time to go through each of the 578 pages and find every error, I would, but I figure this would suffice as this is my major issue that I see with him, and see it consistently in many things he has written.

I am not sure what else I can tell you Liza.

Actually, the fact that his book was approved, and his priests are aware of the writings is tantamount to this thread, and the OP.

It either shows that they do not care, do not find it so bad as to need correcting, or they are lazy and not doing their jobs.  Perhaps they will get a thread all their own in the future.

I can completely understand a public correction when necessary.  I can also totally defend the defense of the Church, her saints, and teachings.

However, how are your latest comments, besmirching his personal character, at all comparative to what you claim the goal of this thread to be....to publicly correct.

You are doing way more than mere correction.  You are actually tarnishing someone's reputation above and beyond what you claim he may, or may not have done to deserve it.

You are passing judgment that he willfully misquoted, that he did not get clergy approval, that he is acting badly, as always, and hiding in order not to confront you and provide you the answers you so desperately seek.

You have done your correction.  People who wish to, will read it.

People who happen upon his misquotes in other sections (which I believe is your impetus for this thread) will still read the misquotes and be none the wiser.

Your goal of this thread, to correct a misquote of the Church Fathers, has morphed.  You are no longer defending the Church Fathers, but, are attacking Gebre, personally.

You would have done well enough, just posting the correction and being done with it.





What I find disturbing is the need to begin and continue an attack not because the person did not provide an answer, but rather the answer did not meet a personal approval of the one asking.  This in no way means the question(s) was not addressed, only the person asking did not like the answer; therefore, a mindless game of ego and hurt feelings gets started and the bullying begins.  It’s asinine.  If you (Ioannes) disagree, fine, but leave it there.  Maybe he stopped talking about the issue because he explained it as best as he could and you still disagreed, so he was done while you wanted to continue.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 09:33:03 AM

Perhaps he simply wasn't aware of proper authoring etiquette.



Well, that certainly could be true, I was also mistaken in not seeking approval with my first book. However, I did not tell people that it was in fact approved when it was not. But regardless, this thread was supposed to be addressing the specific issue that I spoke of, not if Gebres book was properly approved or not. If I had time to go through each of the 578 pages and find every error, I would, but I figure this would suffice as this is my major issue that I see with him, and see it consistently in many things he has written.

I am not sure what else I can tell you Liza.

Actually, the fact that his book was approved, and his priests are aware of the writings is tantamount to this thread, and the OP.

It either shows that they do not care, do not find it so bad as to need correcting, or they are lazy and not doing their jobs.  Perhaps they will get a thread all their own in the future.

I can completely understand a public correction when necessary.  I can also totally defend the defense of the Church, her saints, and teachings.

However, how are your latest comments, besmirching his personal character, at all comparative to what you claim the goal of this thread to be....to publicly correct.

You are doing way more than mere correction.  You are actually tarnishing someone's reputation above and beyond what you claim he may, or may not have done to deserve it.

You are passing judgment that he willfully misquoted, that he did not get clergy approval, that he is acting badly, as always, and hiding in order not to confront you and provide you the answers you so desperately seek.

You have done your correction.  People who wish to, will read it.

People who happen upon his misquotes in other sections (which I believe is your impetus for this thread) will still read the misquotes and be none the wiser.

Your goal of this thread, to correct a misquote of the Church Fathers, has morphed.  You are no longer defending the Church Fathers, but, are attacking Gebre, personally.

You would have done well enough, just posting the correction and being done with it.





Well, again I am being asked questions and I am trying to answer them and I am making clear with most statements that this is my assumption, however it is based on personal experience with Gebre. You say "The fact that his book is approved" but, you admitted you only know this is fact because Gebre told you. If you read through the book I think you would even begin to question that "fact."
I would have gladly posted this and thats that, however, many people seemed to think I was taking issue with his pacifist stance, and therefore I attempted to make clear what the OP was exactly about. I tried to answer questions, some of which I had no choice but to speculate. But again, these are not personal attacks, Gebre and I know enough about each other that we COULD make this very ugly, but neither of us have done that, and I do not see Gebre ever doing something like that.

The main goal, yes to hopefully correct him, but to keep others from being misled. And Liza, how else should I take it when I and others have explained that he has misquoted church fathers, and he continues to do so? Gebre is an intelligent man and unless that is untrue then I can only assume that he has willfully misquoted the church fathers. Why else would he continue to do so when told, even by members of clergy, that he is doing so and that he has even made up quotes? So, you are saying that I am bismirching him and tarnishing his reputation? I am exposing the things he consistently does, if that is tarnishing his reputation, then it is on him, not me. I did not make him misquote anyone, in fact I and others have tried for a few years to correct this and he has blatantly ignored every one of us. Am I to believe an intelligent man who wrote a 578 page book is completely confused by something as simple as "You are misquoting people and here is why..."? You really mean to tell me that Gebre cannot understand that?

He alone has tarnished himself by not being forthcoming about the priest or bishop who has allegedly approved his book, and if he is part of the schismatic Ethiopian Orthodox church or not, even though he originally told me he was, but later changed his tune.

If by pointing out his inconsistencies and dishonesty is tarnishing his reputation, then maybe he should think about addressing it.

Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 09:36:57 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.

Once again, this issue had been privately discussed for some length of time a few years maybe. I told Gebre that by misusing quotes he is misleading people and therefore being dishonest. It is unacceptable to portray the church taking a position that it does not take. I informed Gebre that this would happen, he continued to interpret it as a personal attack, as he does most all criticism, and then refused to discuss it anymore. I explained to him that I would post this publicly. I gave him the letter and ample time to respond to it. Again, as I said repeatedly, it is not about his pacifist stance and I explained that to him on numerous occasions, it is the simple fact he is being dishonest and misusing other peoples writings, namely the church fathers as can clearly be seen in the OP. He refused to respond privately therefore I posted it publicly so people would not be misled. He has many people on his facebook and I would not want someone outside Orthodoxy to think that it is a requirement that they be pacifist to be Orthodox. Or that the military and all soldiers are evil, which is NOT the position of the church.

Mind reading? Nah, thankfully, which is why I said "likely" and made that assumption based on his inability to address criticism directed towards him. Which is odd for a guy that criticizes nearly everyone who does not agree with him. The simple fact is he has been dishonest, refused to acknowledge this, to me, clergy, and others and seems to take it as a personal attack against his character. It is an assumption based on my many discussions with him.

If I may ask, if he spoke to his priest first and has maintained dialogue with his priest on this matter, would you then no longer take issue with his views and expressions?

The fact that Gebre is cagey about who his priest is raises a red flag with me. If anything, saying "this is what my priest teaches", and allowing people to confirm this lets Gebre off the hook to a great degree.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 09:41:26 AM

I know who his priest is.  I know who his bishop is.

No, I will not tell anyone.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:43:17 AM
... I am making clear with most statements that this is my assumption ...

Thank you for your humble honestly here.  It is most appreciated!

Having said that, I suppose the matter is settled.  You both have exchanged your understanding of the Church Fathers.  Each of you have taken the others words as honestly as possible.  Maintain the friendship and trust the other person.

For the record, my personal views are not the same as his, but I highly respect his views.  I would love for the world to hold true to his ideals, but I know the world never will and when push comes to shove, I will steamroll right over someone if I think it is required, without hesitation.  Gebre would not.  
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:43:40 AM

I know who his priest is.  I know who his bishop is.

No, I will not tell anyone.



And you shouldn't.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 09:45:24 AM

I know who his priest is.  I know who his bishop is.

No, I will not tell anyone.


AHA!  Someone who is complicit in Gebredoxy!  Next thread... "Against Lizadoxy, the error of Liza Symonenko aka Liza Symonenko"  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:46:29 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.

Once again, this issue had been privately discussed for some length of time a few years maybe. I told Gebre that by misusing quotes he is misleading people and therefore being dishonest. It is unacceptable to portray the church taking a position that it does not take. I informed Gebre that this would happen, he continued to interpret it as a personal attack, as he does most all criticism, and then refused to discuss it anymore. I explained to him that I would post this publicly. I gave him the letter and ample time to respond to it. Again, as I said repeatedly, it is not about his pacifist stance and I explained that to him on numerous occasions, it is the simple fact he is being dishonest and misusing other peoples writings, namely the church fathers as can clearly be seen in the OP. He refused to respond privately therefore I posted it publicly so people would not be misled. He has many people on his facebook and I would not want someone outside Orthodoxy to think that it is a requirement that they be pacifist to be Orthodox. Or that the military and all soldiers are evil, which is NOT the position of the church.

Mind reading? Nah, thankfully, which is why I said "likely" and made that assumption based on his inability to address criticism directed towards him. Which is odd for a guy that criticizes nearly everyone who does not agree with him. The simple fact is he has been dishonest, refused to acknowledge this, to me, clergy, and others and seems to take it as a personal attack against his character. It is an assumption based on my many discussions with him.

If I may ask, if he spoke to his priest first and has maintained dialogue with his priest on this matter, would you then no longer take issue with his views and expressions?

The fact that Gebre is cagey about who his priest is raises a red flag with me. If anything, saying "this is what my priest teaches", and allowing people to confirm this lets Gebre off the hook to a great degree.

I understand this, I really do, but I would also be hesitant to provide my priests information to be harassed by someone I hardly know from the internet.  If this is such a great issue, I would think the proper procedure would be to have Ioannes' priest run it up the chain and trust it would be corrected if it needed to be corrected.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:48:27 AM
Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.

In the event you haven't noticed, he is usually non-confrontational unless it’s about abortion and even then it’s limited.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 09:50:51 AM
... I am making clear with most statements that this is my assumption ...

Thank you for your humble honestly here.  It is most appreciated!

Having said that, I suppose the matter is settled.  You both have exchanged your understanding of the Church Fathers.  Each of you have taken the others words as honestly as possible.  Maintain the friendship and trust the other person.

For the record, my personal views are not the same as his, but I highly respect his views.  I would love for the world to hold true to his ideals, but I know the world never will and when push comes to shove, I will steamroll right over someone if I think it is required, without hesitation.  Gebre would not.  

Well, once again, it is not views. If you quote a father saying he supports your view on pacifism, but the man wrote canons speaking on when war is a necessary evil and even violence, that is not interpretation. When you completely misquote someone, or cherry pick and ignore the entirety of their writings, that is being dishonest, not interpretive.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Iconodule on August 26, 2013, 09:52:27 AM
Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.

In the event you haven't noticed, he is usually non-confrontational unless it’s about abortion and even then it’s limited.

See the Obama and Harry Potter thread and get back to us.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 09:52:43 AM
Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.

In the event you haven't noticed, he is usually non-confrontational unless it’s about abortion and even then it’s limited.

You haven't been on this forum long enough. Quinault's posts on this get to the heart of the matter.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 09:53:12 AM

I know who his priest is.  I know who his bishop is.

No, I will not tell anyone.


AHA!  Someone who is complicit in Gebredoxy!  Next thread... "Against Lizadoxy, the error of Liza Symonenko aka Liza Symonenko"  ;D

LOL!  Bring it on!

I certainly have mispoken more than once, and you probably have good reason to correct me.

My name is who I am, my jurisdiction is clearly stated, my parish website is in my profile.   In other words, I am an open book.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 09:55:03 AM
Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.

In the event you haven't noticed, he is usually non-confrontational unless it’s about abortion and even then it’s limited.

You haven't been on this forum long enough. Quinault's posts on this get to the heart of the matter.

I agree.  I feel her pain at the anti-soldier posts and while I would choose peace, I would always support those who sacrifice in order to allow me to live in peace....unless, they were blatantly and purposefully murdering, instead of killing.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 09:56:16 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.

Once again, this issue had been privately discussed for some length of time a few years maybe. I told Gebre that by misusing quotes he is misleading people and therefore being dishonest. It is unacceptable to portray the church taking a position that it does not take. I informed Gebre that this would happen, he continued to interpret it as a personal attack, as he does most all criticism, and then refused to discuss it anymore. I explained to him that I would post this publicly. I gave him the letter and ample time to respond to it. Again, as I said repeatedly, it is not about his pacifist stance and I explained that to him on numerous occasions, it is the simple fact he is being dishonest and misusing other peoples writings, namely the church fathers as can clearly be seen in the OP. He refused to respond privately therefore I posted it publicly so people would not be misled. He has many people on his facebook and I would not want someone outside Orthodoxy to think that it is a requirement that they be pacifist to be Orthodox. Or that the military and all soldiers are evil, which is NOT the position of the church.

Mind reading? Nah, thankfully, which is why I said "likely" and made that assumption based on his inability to address criticism directed towards him. Which is odd for a guy that criticizes nearly everyone who does not agree with him. The simple fact is he has been dishonest, refused to acknowledge this, to me, clergy, and others and seems to take it as a personal attack against his character. It is an assumption based on my many discussions with him.

If I may ask, if he spoke to his priest first and has maintained dialogue with his priest on this matter, would you then no longer take issue with his views and expressions?

The fact that Gebre is cagey about who his priest is raises a red flag with me. If anything, saying "this is what my priest teaches", and allowing people to confirm this lets Gebre off the hook to a great degree.

I understand this, I really do, but I would also be hesitant to provide my priests information to be harassed by someone I hardly know from the internet.  If this is such a great issue, I would think the proper procedure would be to have Ioannes' priest run it up the chain and trust it would be corrected if it needed to be corrected.

That is absolutely correct and I do not think anyone should. I know who Gebres priest is and I know what church he belongs to, however, he has not been forthcoming about this himself, at least towards me. But I have already been accused of attacking Gebres character, so would it do any good to speak about his church affiliation and wether it is schismatic or not?

It doesnt matter, he has proven himself to be dishonest, especially in light of the consultation of many others over the last few years or so. Despite Kerdy saying it is interpretive, it really isnt, especially when these people he quotes make definitive statements.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 09:57:11 AM
Well, once again, it is not views. If you quote a father saying he supports your view on pacifism, but the man wrote canons speaking on when war is a necessary evil and even violence, that is not interpretation. When you completely misquote someone, or cherry pick and ignore the entirety of their writings, that is being dishonest, not interpretive.



I also agree that he picks and chooses quotes to suit his needs....but, so does every other person.

We find a quote, a line of scripture, a saying...that fits our purpose and we use it.

Trying to make a point, enter blurb in Google...find accommodating quote, use it.

I could use a quote I find from St. John the Goldenmouth, and use it, without having read any other of his writings....and believe that it supports what I was thinking.

Where does it say that we need to read the entire works of a particular Saint, in order to use one of their quotes?

I will bet most of us have used a quote from a Saint at one time or another, without having read in entirety every word they have written.



Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:59:27 AM
Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.

In the event you haven't noticed, he is usually non-confrontational unless it’s about abortion and even then it’s limited.

You haven't been on this forum long enough. Quinault's posts on this get to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps, I will have to take your word for it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 10:00:28 AM
Kerdy, I am not sure how one can disagree about misquoting people, church fathers, and making up quotes. It is pretty cut and dry, as evidenced by the OP. He has never once explained why he has misused church fathers, he has never defended it, but avoided it entirely.

In the event you haven't noticed, he is usually non-confrontational unless it’s about abortion and even then it’s limited.

See the Obama and Harry Potter thread and get back to us.

I don't Politics and I was involved in the HP thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Iconodule on August 26, 2013, 10:02:03 AM
Gebre has kids. One day, they will be grown up, and they will tell him what he needs to hear, better than any of us can do on an internet forum.

As far as the putative topic of this thread, I think most of us agree that pacifism is a noble stance which has a place in the Church, but it is not an absolute prescription.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 10:03:12 AM
As far as the putative topic of this thread, I think most of us agree that pacifism is a noble stance which has a place in the Church, but it is not an absolute prescription.
+1
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 10:04:49 AM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)

There was a million ways to more constructively address this issue than this thread, and this is coming from a guy who is intimately acquainted with bad taste as you can see from my parody thread on abortionist whores/horses.

Once again, this issue had been privately discussed for some length of time a few years maybe. I told Gebre that by misusing quotes he is misleading people and therefore being dishonest. It is unacceptable to portray the church taking a position that it does not take. I informed Gebre that this would happen, he continued to interpret it as a personal attack, as he does most all criticism, and then refused to discuss it anymore. I explained to him that I would post this publicly. I gave him the letter and ample time to respond to it. Again, as I said repeatedly, it is not about his pacifist stance and I explained that to him on numerous occasions, it is the simple fact he is being dishonest and misusing other peoples writings, namely the church fathers as can clearly be seen in the OP. He refused to respond privately therefore I posted it publicly so people would not be misled. He has many people on his facebook and I would not want someone outside Orthodoxy to think that it is a requirement that they be pacifist to be Orthodox. Or that the military and all soldiers are evil, which is NOT the position of the church.

Mind reading? Nah, thankfully, which is why I said "likely" and made that assumption based on his inability to address criticism directed towards him. Which is odd for a guy that criticizes nearly everyone who does not agree with him. The simple fact is he has been dishonest, refused to acknowledge this, to me, clergy, and others and seems to take it as a personal attack against his character. It is an assumption based on my many discussions with him.

If I may ask, if he spoke to his priest first and has maintained dialogue with his priest on this matter, would you then no longer take issue with his views and expressions?

The fact that Gebre is cagey about who his priest is raises a red flag with me. If anything, saying "this is what my priest teaches", and allowing people to confirm this lets Gebre off the hook to a great degree.

I understand this, I really do, but I would also be hesitant to provide my priests information to be harassed by someone I hardly know from the internet.  If this is such a great issue, I would think the proper procedure would be to have Ioannes' priest run it up the chain and trust it would be corrected if it needed to be corrected.

That is absolutely correct and I do not think anyone should. I know who Gebres priest is and I know what church he belongs to, however, he has not been forthcoming about this himself, at least towards me. But I have already been accused of attacking Gebres character, so would it do any good to speak about his church affiliation and wether it is schismatic or not?

It doesnt matter, he has proven himself to be dishonest, especially in light of the consultation of many others over the last few years or so. Despite Kerdy saying it is interpretive, it really isnt, especially when these people he quotes make definitive statements.

People have taken quotes from Thomas Jefferson in support of and in opposition to Christianity, in support of and in opposition to separation of Church and State for the sake of the Church, not the State?  It happens all the time.  Look at how people misquote the Holy Scriptures.  If you know his priest, tell yours and let them hash it out if it means that much to you, but doing it here in this manner just isn't working.

Bolded Portion:
No, it wouldn't do any good.  We are all considered schismatic to someone and heretics to the rest.  In fact, this should actually work in his favor, not against him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 10:07:45 AM
Well, once again, it is not views. If you quote a father saying he supports your view on pacifism, but the man wrote canons speaking on when war is a necessary evil and even violence, that is not interpretation. When you completely misquote someone, or cherry pick and ignore the entirety of their writings, that is being dishonest, not interpretive.



I also agree that he picks and chooses quotes to suit his needs....but, so does every other person.

We find a quote, a line of scripture, a saying...that fits our purpose and we use it.

Trying to make a point, enter blurb in Google...find accommodating quote, use it.

I could use a quote I find from St. John the Goldenmouth, and use it, without having read any other of his writings....and believe that it supports what I was thinking.

Where does it say that we need to read the entire works of a particular Saint, in order to use one of their quotes?

I will bet most of us have used a quote from a Saint at one time or another, without having read in entirety every word they have written.






Liza, that is a good point. We often take church fathers and scripture and apply it to our life and in that instance it certainly can be interpretive and useful for our own good. This is different than using church fathers to pass off your own personal belief as a church teaching. You are then saying that this is what the church teaches and that this snippit is indicative of what that particular saint taught us. So, when you write a book or are teaching, you have to be careful of that, you must be critical of your own self and accept criticism of others. And you must fairly and accurately represent someone and their teachings, at least as best you can. So, the two instances are different because in one you are not telling everyone this is what the church says. For instance in Gebres book is a poem which is very demeaning to soldiers, essentially condemning them of being evil. This is not what the church teaches at all, in a different context it would be acceptable, but in the context of an Orthodox book of wisdom, it really makes the church look bad, as well as all the saints who were soldiers.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 10:31:12 AM
Also to quote Gebre "But silence about injustice is contempt for our neighbor, and apathy towards evil is certainly no virtue." So, clearly an injustice was committed by him and by his own teaching, I am justified in pointing this out. (Mystery and Meaning, Gebre Menfes Kidus, p. 141)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 10:38:06 AM
Also to quote Gebre "But silence about injustice is contempt for our neighbor, and apathy towards evil is certainly no virtue." So, clearly an injustice was committed by him and by his own teaching, I am justified in pointing this out. (Mystery and Meaning, Gebre Menfes Kidus, p. 141)
So instead of prooftexting Scripture, we have devolved into prooftexting Gebre?

(http://i.qkme.me/3r1w28.jpg)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
Just for my own personal knowledge, you didn't think blasting the snot out of him on Amazon for the entire world to see was enough, you decided it was needed to bring in here?  So, global blasting wasn't enough?  I am really trying hard to understand here.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 10:45:01 AM
For the record, he also stated:

Quote
It is my hope that the words of this book will help cultivate the authentic Christian values of true peace, unconditional love, and respect for all human life. I pray that my words will lead others to the Orthodox Christian Faith and bring glory to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not expect the reader to agree with all of the opinions and views contained within this book, but I hope that they will be challenged, edified, and inspired by its overall message. If everything within these pages is either pleasing to all or offensive to all, then I have failed both as a writer and as a Christian.

What I have written is to myself first and foremost. The ideals I espouse are hardly ideals that I claim to have mastered. It is much easier to write than to live an authentic life of ascetical prayer and true Christian devotion.

So, this book is the humble offering of a spiritual novice. May God forgive my presumption, may He erase my errors of pride, and may He magnify that which is truly from Him.

This author and sinner asks for your prayers.

"Lord have mercy."

Selam,
GEBRE MENFES KIDUS

Bolded portions for emphasis.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 11:23:52 AM
Just for my own personal knowledge, you didn't think blasting the snot out of him on Amazon for the entire world to see was enough, you decided it was needed to bring in here?  So, global blasting wasn't enough?  I am really trying hard to understand here.

At first it was on facebook, but, yes the book has some erroneous teachings as well, I think it would be fair to let people know that. I have brought those errors within his book to his attention, he has since written a second edition without correcting them. I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: dzheremi on August 26, 2013, 11:25:59 AM
I've got an idea: Don't read his stuff. :o Then you don't have to start bizarrely personal threads like this one.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Remnkemi on August 26, 2013, 11:29:53 AM
(http://onesidedconversations.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/dedication-wrong-leave-internet-demotivational-poster-1272856078.jpg)
I literally couldn't stop laughing. This weekend, I thought the same thing as this kid in the picture before I agreed to a spontaneous day trip to the Empire State building. Then I realized my new car is an internet hot spot and I responded on the drive down. Does this mean I still have a problem?  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 11:30:08 AM
I've got an idea: Don't read his stuff. :o Then you don't have to start bizarrely personal threads like this one.

Noted, do not start threads divulging the dishonest teachings of others as that is "personal." And apparently bizarre as well.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 11:31:44 AM
Just for my own personal knowledge, you didn't think blasting the snot out of him on Amazon for the entire world to see was enough, you decided it was needed to bring in here?  So, global blasting wasn't enough?  I am really trying hard to understand here.

At first it was on facebook, but, yes the book has some erroneous teachings as well, I think it would be fair to let people know that. I have brought those errors within his book to his attention, he has since written a second edition without correcting them. I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?

I've read some pretty pathetic straw man arguments on here, but this one ranks pretty high up there on the ridiculous scale.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 11:32:53 AM
Just for my own personal knowledge, you didn't think blasting the snot out of him on Amazon for the entire world to see was enough, you decided it was needed to bring in here?  So, global blasting wasn't enough?  I am really trying hard to understand here.

At first it was on facebook, but, yes the book has some erroneous teachings as well, I think it would be fair to let people know that. I have brought those errors within his book to his attention, he has since written a second edition without correcting them. I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?

I've read some pretty pathetic straw man arguments on here, but this one ranks pretty high up there on the ridiculous scale.

Its a logical question since many, including kerdy, have taking to debating pacifism and Gebres stance rather than what the OP actually addresses.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 11:42:39 AM
For the record, he also stated:

Quote
It is my hope that the words of this book will help cultivate the authentic Christian values of true peace, unconditional love, and respect for all human life. I pray that my words will lead others to the Orthodox Christian Faith and bring glory to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not expect the reader to agree with all of the opinions and views contained within this book, but I hope that they will be challenged, edified, and inspired by its overall message. If everything within these pages is either pleasing to all or offensive to all, then I have failed both as a writer and as a Christian.

What I have written is to myself first and foremost. The ideals I espouse are hardly ideals that I claim to have mastered. It is much easier to write than to live an authentic life of ascetical prayer and true Christian devotion.

So, this book is the humble offering of a spiritual novice. May God forgive my presumption, may He erase my errors of pride, and may He magnify that which is truly from Him.

This author and sinner asks for your prayers.

"Lord have mercy."

Selam,
GEBRE MENFES KIDUS

Bolded portions for emphasis.

So as long as I preface all my teachings with this "warning" then I can virtually say whatever I want, even emphatically saying "The church teaches this" and then say whatever? If this is opinion, then it should be worded as such, and it is not. When you say, "so and so teaches this" or that "The church says or teaches that" then you are not stating an opinion but a matter of fact. Pretty simple, no matter what kind of preface the books has, if you state things like that, they cease to be opinion.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: dzheremi on August 26, 2013, 11:44:28 AM
I've got an idea: Don't read his stuff. :o Then you don't have to start bizarrely personal threads like this one.

Noted, do not start threads divulging the dishonest teachings of others as that is "personal." And apparently bizarre as well.

It is of course traditional to the Church to identify heresies by their founders (e.g., Nestorianism, Arianism, etc.), so when I see a thread about "Gebredoxy", I expect something about heresies that he has founded. I think pointing out things you disagree with in his books that are (as far as I can tell from his posts about them) largely his personal ruminations as a convert falls well short of demonstrating that he is actually heretical in this manner, so yes, it does strike me as somewhat inappropriately personal (particularly as you had previously identified him by his real name). I am not aware of him having claimed to teach his personal opinions as the Orthodox faith in toto, as though there is no room to disagree and still be Orthodox (and I write this as another Orthodox convert who has disagreed with him many times in the past on many of the same issues raised in this thread).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 11:47:53 AM
Do you really have honest confusion over whether Kerdy/Gebre/others are openly advocating error and misrepresentation in the Orthodox Church?

I think most people have responded by taking you to task for the manner in which you have approached it. Certainly, given the manner in which oc.net goes off topic in just about every thread, there was certainly discussion about pacifism, but as as for it being a "logical question", that is just silly.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 11:53:28 AM
I've got an idea: Don't read his stuff. :o Then you don't have to start bizarrely personal threads like this one.

Noted, do not start threads divulging the dishonest teachings of others as that is "personal." And apparently bizarre as well.

It is of course traditional to the Church to identify heresies by their founders (e.g., Nestorianism, Arianism, etc.), so when I see a thread about "Gebredoxy", I expect something about heresies that he has founded. I think pointing out things you disagree with in his books that are (as far as I can tell from his posts about them) largely his personal ruminations as a convert falls well short of demonstrating that he is actually heretical in this manner, so yes, it does strike me as somewhat inappropriately personal (particularly as you had previously identified him by his real name). I am not aware of him having claimed to teach his personal opinions as the Orthodox faith in toto, as though there is no room to disagree and still be Orthodox (and I write this as another Orthodox convert who has disagreed with him many times in the past on many of the same issues raised in this thread).

Once again, I thought the OP was fairly clear on a few points, or enough points. My main point is not disagreeing with his position, which I again thought I made quite clear. The OP quite clearly demonstrates the abuse and misuse of fathers, and other writings even, to make it seem as if Orthodoxy teaches this. We could get into more of his teachings, like military and soldiers are evil, which again the church does not teach. So he is trying to pass of his personal belief as something taught by the church and church fathers, this is dishonest, is it not? If it is his personal view, fine, I have even told him that several times, but, you cannot misquote church fathers, or again make up quotes to try and make it seem as if the church teaches this. If I was unclear in the OP or in this thread, I apologize.

TheTrisagion, it is, because Kerdy, and others, were not even addressing what I have been addressing. It keeps coming back to pacifism and Gebre as a person, while completely ignoring the fact that Gebre has clearly been dishonest. So I ask this in an attempt to figure out why his dishonesty and misuse of the fathers and other writings being overlooked completely. So yes, very logical indeed. If everyone decides to focus on something that I am not even addressing, then am I not allowed to make the logical assumption that they agree with Gebres dishonesty?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 26, 2013, 12:05:59 PM
When you post a personal attack, you can expect people to turn around and examine your own curious motives.  Right now, people are focused on you, not on Gebre, not on his writings, on you. Therefore you can't make that logical assumption because everyone here has already acknowledged they disagree with what Gebre may have done.  What they disagree with even more is having some guy popping around every site on the internet where Gebre is and badmouthing and demonizing him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 12:09:03 PM
When you post a personal attack, you can expect people to turn around and examine your own curious motives.  Right now, people are focused on you, not on Gebre, not on his writings, on you. Therefore you can't make that logical assumption because everyone here has already acknowledged they disagree with what Gebre may have done.  What they disagree with even more is having some guy popping around every site on the internet where Gebre is and badmouthing and demonizing him.

Ok, well that is different. Then demonstrate what I have said which is a personal attack, badmouthing, and demonizing him? I used the term Gebredoxy because he is clearly attempting to try and pass his personal beliefs off as being Orthodox teaching. So, perhaps you could show me exactly what I said which was a direct personal attack, badmouthing, and demonizing, that would be much appreciated. If I have spoken something untrue or evil in nature, then certainly I would renounce this, but thus far nobody has show this.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 26, 2013, 12:09:48 PM
(http://onesidedconversations.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/dedication-wrong-leave-internet-demotivational-poster-1272856078.jpg)
I literally couldn't stop laughing.

Oh good, I wasn't alone!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: yeshuaisiam on August 26, 2013, 12:39:11 PM
Since Gebre frequents here, I am sure he is going to reply with something (if he replies) like I am trying to malign his character or persecuting him for his beliefs. Just so he and everyone knows, its not against his pacifist stance, its the way he tries to justify it as if the church teaches this. For a long while I have tried to nudge Gebre in the right way, and he has resisted and refused to understand me and many others, including clergy. So I am posting this everywhere so people know that he is incorrect.

+++

This letter is a response to the teaching of my friend Gebre Menfes Kidus (Name removed). He teaches a pacifist stance and that this is the “true Christian teaching.” Even going as far as stating: “If the Orthodox Church were to ever condemn pacifism or officially declare that Christians cannot condemn all war and killing in this day and age, then the Church would cease to be Orthodox and I would cease to be a part of it. That's why I fight so hard to promote the Orthodox values of peace and respect for life. I won't let others misrepresent my beloved Faith by justifying violence.” (from a facebook status update) I think my dear friend Gebre has a few misunderstandings about war, violence, and murder and how it relates to the Orthodox Church. So I will quote a few things Gebre has stated and then explain them further.

Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil has no issue with soldiering, as his canons show (188th letter). He accepts that people will be soldiers and does not class killing in war as anything close to murder. To quote him here shows lack of knowledge on the matter. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.” Clearly St. Basil is not condemning war and in fact says “Our fathers” in terms of those church fathers existing prior to him. I cannot find the quote that Gebre posted above.
Also, our holy father St. Athanasius said: “Although one is not supposed to kill, the killing of the enemy in time of war is both a lawful and praiseworthy thing. This is why we consider individuals who have distinguished themselves in war as being worthy of great honors, and indeed public monuments are set up to celebrate their achievements. It is evident, therefore, that at one particular time, and under one set of circumstances, an act is not permissible, but when time and circumstances are right, it is both allowed and condoned.” (http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/)


Gebre said:
I believe with Father Stanley Harakas that: “There is no ethical reasoning for war in the writings of the Greek Fathers. The Fathers wrote that only negative impacts arise from war. Even in unavoidable circumstances, the Fathers thought of war as the lesser of greater evils, but nonetheless evil. The term "just war" is not found in the writings of the Greek

Fathers. The stance of the Fathers on war is pro-peace and an Orthodox "just war" theory does not exist.”
This is taken out of context, Fr. Harakas said: “"I found an amazing consistency in the almost totally negative moral assessment of war coupled with an admission that war may be necessary under certain circumstances to protect the innocent and to limit even greater evils. In this framework, war may be an unavoidable alternative, but it nevertheless remains an evil. Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. The tradition also precludes the possibility of a crusade. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries."
thus it accepts that there is " an admission that war may be necessary under certain circumstances to protect the innocent and to limit even greater evils." So it is pretty clearly that Gebre has not only taken Fr. Harakas out of context, he selectively embraced what worked for him, while ignoring the
bulk of what he said. The full article can be found here “https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.incommunion.org%2F2005%2F08%2F02%2Fno- just-war-in-the-fathers%2F&h=mAQHXS20e)

Gebre said:
“I believe in the admonition of St. Hippolytus: “A Christian is not to become a soldier. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God.”
Gebre openly admitted to me that he does not understand the writings of St. Hippolytus, which I personally gave to him. So I find it odd that he even bothers to quote him. However, St.
Hippolytus was referring to the fact that the Roman Army was massacring Christians, so it would not be a good idea for a Christian to put themselves in that situation and possibly lose their faith by killing Christians or perhaps making an offering to the Roman gods. For St. Hippolytus an outright refusal of military service to the Roman Empire is a much better idea than joining it, mainly because of the persecutions. So this is another instance in which writings were taken out of their context, in this case their historical context.

Gebre said:
“I believe with St. John Chrysostom that, “Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. In our case, the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. The Christian’s labor is to make the dead live, not to make the living dead.”
This quote is taken from St John speaking on capital punishment, not war, he does not write the same when speaking about war. We again must take this in its context, St. John is not advocating pacifism in any way in this verse, nor in his other writings. He is clearly saying that we should not force our teachings on to those with incorrect beliefs that we should not forcibly correct people as there are other ways of correction without force.

What it seems that Gebre misunderstands is that this issue is not black and white and because I feel he views it that way and cannot reconcile violence and Christianity, he takes a pacifist stance. However if he had read these church fathers, that he quotes, in depth I truly believe he would understand this issue. Violence is not a Christian virtue, but that does not automatically mean that violence is never a necessity. War, as terrible as it is, is unfortunately necessary in some occasions and this is clearly taught by the very fathers Gebre quotes. A great example of Gebres lack of understanding on this issue and his black and white stance is him telling me that if violence and murder are acceptable then it should be acceptable to kill in order to save the victims of abortion.

What Gebre does not seem to understand is that while abortion is horrible and unacceptable, we do know the fate of the souls of these helpless victims and therefore it would be unacceptable to kill those performing abortions because their fate is not known, obviously. Its similar to the issue of martyrdom, when being martyred for your faith, it is unacceptable to fight back as a willful acceptance of martyrdom is displaying the highest form of love in Christ and trust in Him.

When we defend our family or others from harm, we should never seek to purposely kill, but to disarm or otherwise disable the person we are defending others against. It may so happen that in defense of others we may accidentally kill the person or persons, this is very unfortunate but again spoken of by the fathers. Once again, violence is not a virtue and we should not rely on it and or seek to use it in every instance but logically in defense of those who are being victimized and even then we should only be using the proper force required to subdue the person or persons. I think that this is the real issue with Gebres thinking, to him if violence is acceptable, then it is acceptable in every situation and if murder is acceptable, then it is acceptable in every situation, same as war. He is unable, or unwilling, to look at things in a logical and rational way. Instead he has selectively embraced quotes from the church fathers which seem to be supporting his view. I have personally advised him to study the church father in the context of their time or era, then study their writings individually and try to read them in the context with which they were written.
I have no doubt that Gebre loves Christ and our Church and this may seem a bit extreme but this is purely out of love. I seek only to correct my brother who has resisted the advice of myself and others much wiser than myself. I have privately consulted him for some time now and as HH Pope Shenouda taught us, "The sin that is done in public, punish in public. And the theological error which is broadcast openly in public, should be publicly refuted... ...But what is the wisdom in all this? Why punish in public, and why correct in public? This is because something that happens in public has an effect on others, or might cause them to stumble... So we must take those other people into account." ( So many years with problems of people, vol.3, pg. 82) As much as it pains me, I feel a public admonishment of Gebres erroneous view on this particular church teaching, I feel it is necessary in correcting him as well as others who may feel this same way.

Now I must stress one more thing, if Gebre personally wishes to adhere to a pacifist point of view, as I have told him, that is his view and it his certainly his right to exercise this. But, as I and others have tried to explain to him, you cannot pass this off as a church teaching because it simply is not taught by the church.
Again this is an effort done in love for a brother and for any brother and sister who may also believe this or came to believe this through Gebre. It is done with the utmost sincerity and desire for him to correct his teaching.

In Christ, Ioa


God said:
"Love your enemies"

God said:
"Pray for those who persecute you"

God said:
"Resist not an evil person"

God said:
"If somebody smites you on one cheek turn to him the other also"

We were only authorized by God to defend our homes & families in the night.   Of course, this is the ploy people play on to justify full blown warfare, which is often about money and land (despite the other propaganda spewed out).

I fully disagree with wars for Christians, Christians in the military, etc.  But to directly defend your family in your home it's different and we were given direct permission from God to do so.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: yeshuaisiam on August 26, 2013, 12:49:43 PM
George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I can understand where he is coming from, and others share this belief about pacifists, but this is not the case. Monks for example are not supposed to fight in wars, even if it would be needed to protect them. Monks and some pacifists are so convinced in their beliefs that they are willing to go to jail or otherwise suffer for them- and sometimes they do, not regretting it.

You miss the point completely.  Monks did not have to fight because Christian Czars kept armies of Orthodox soldiers who did the killing for them.  And rather than scold those soldiers, they prayed for them.  One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies.

Are fighting/warring Czars Christian?
There's a lot more to Christianity than just being baptized, going to church, and receiving the Eucharist.

Read your last line "One even gave them his cloak so they could be victorious over their enemies"....

God told us to "Love our enemies and pray for those who persecute you"  NOT  "Here's my cloak, I'm going to pray that you kill our enemies".

You can't love your enemies with the sword, fist, or bullet.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: yeshuaisiam on August 26, 2013, 12:52:20 PM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.


George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."  I do not mind those that pretend to be peaceful, as long as they do not criticise and make life difficult for those of us who allow them the luxury of their beliefs.

George Orwell is a genius, but I disagree with him.

This is because there were martyrs, and nobody committed violence on their behalf.

I think this argument has more to do with the weakness of our faith, to justify war, rather than to accept martyrdom if God so wills it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 26, 2013, 12:53:54 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 01:09:47 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 26, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

Agreed.

So why have you done that?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

Agreed.

So why have you done that?

I am sorry could you be more specific?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Cyrillic on August 26, 2013, 02:04:06 PM
Are fighting/warring Czars Christian?

Yes.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 26, 2013, 02:09:11 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

Agreed.

So why have you done that?

I am sorry could you be more specific?

You wrote a book a year after your conversion.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 02:14:59 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

Agreed.

So why have you done that?

I am sorry could you be more specific?

You wrote a book a year after your conversion.

Yes indeed. The book was not teaching about Orthodox theology in the slightest, it was teaching about the error of protestantism. However I did not seek proper approval and was repremanded. Now I know. lol
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 26, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

Well there was Canon 64 of the Council of Trullo... though I'm not sure if that was ever really followed strictly (or, in more recent times, much at all).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 03:40:49 PM
It's in the politics section, but here is a refresher:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19779.0.html

I think we can't quote from politics, but it is OK to link to a thread? If it isn't please delete this comment mods.
You have acted properly within the rules of the forum.  -PtA :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 03:41:57 PM
It's in the politics section, but here is a refresher:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19779.0.html

I think we can't quote from politics, but it is OK to link to a thread? If it isn't please delete this comment mods.

It doesnt work for me, but is it relevant to the OP at least?
You'll need access to the Politics board, which only Fr. George can give you, to follow the link. If you want this access, then please send Fr. George a private message requesting this access.  -PtA
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: vamrat on August 26, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.


George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."  I do not mind those that pretend to be peaceful, as long as they do not criticise and make life difficult for those of us who allow them the luxury of their beliefs.

George Orwell is a genius, but I disagree with him.

This is because there were martyrs, and nobody committed violence on their behalf.

I think this argument has more to do with the weakness of our faith, to justify war, rather than to accept martyrdom if God so wills it.

If your family was being attacked by a wolf, would you shoot it or let it have it's din-din? 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 03:45:29 PM
I was not aware that you were granted the gift of mind reading.  ::)
Ioannes is not the only one who has had such dealings with Gebre.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: vamrat on August 26, 2013, 03:51:11 PM
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 03:56:50 PM
I've got an idea: Don't read his stuff. :o Then you don't have to start bizarrely personal threads like this one.

Noted, do not start threads divulging the dishonest teachings of others as that is "personal." And apparently bizarre as well.

It is of course traditional to the Church to identify heresies by their founders (e.g., Nestorianism, Arianism, etc.), so when I see a thread about "Gebredoxy", I expect something about heresies that he has founded. I think pointing out things you disagree with in his books that are (as far as I can tell from his posts about them) largely his personal ruminations as a convert falls well short of demonstrating that he is actually heretical in this manner, so yes, it does strike me as somewhat inappropriately personal (particularly as you had previously identified him by his real name). I am not aware of him having claimed to teach his personal opinions as the Orthodox faith in toto, as though there is no room to disagree and still be Orthodox (and I write this as another Orthodox convert who has disagreed with him many times in the past on many of the same issues raised in this thread).
I have seen Gebre do just that (of which you are not aware).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 04:02:08 PM
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  
Let's not engage yeshuaisiam's comments advocating pacifism, for the subject of pacifism in and of itself is not the focus of this thread. We have other threads where pacifism itself is the focus; let's take our tangent there.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: yeshuaisiam on August 26, 2013, 04:16:52 PM
I have been in "the fight" in some way all of my life.  I am a born fighter, it’s part of who I have always been, but if Gebre doesn't want to be involved in violence, he has that right and I will support his choice and defend his actions.  

Every man must live with his conscience and follow his path with Jesus.  Gebre feels his path is proper and for him it certainly is and for others who are struggling with certain issues he may be able to provide the information and guidance they need which will make it their path as well.  

I doubt there will ever be a point in my life I would not fight if it was required, but I can say in all honestly I wish I were more like Gebre when those moments arise and to be even more honest, I am a little tired of people talking down to him for his views.  If everyone acted like Gebre, do you not think the world would be a better place?  I do.  So, how about everyone get off his back.


George Orwell, in his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", wrote "(It is) grossly obvious (that) those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."  I do not mind those that pretend to be peaceful, as long as they do not criticise and make life difficult for those of us who allow them the luxury of their beliefs.

George Orwell is a genius, but I disagree with him.

This is because there were martyrs, and nobody committed violence on their behalf.

I think this argument has more to do with the weakness of our faith, to justify war, rather than to accept martyrdom if God so wills it.

If your family was being attacked by a wolf, would you shoot it or let it have it's din-din? 

I'd shoot it.

If my family was directly being attacked I would defend them, as God has stated we could.

If I was called to go to war, to fend off a bank robbery, etc., I would not. 

I agree with most of the views of Gabre on non-resistance.   I believe it is biblical, fits into the mold of early Christian mentality and faith, and honestly, it is a command of God.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: yeshuaisiam on August 26, 2013, 04:20:40 PM
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  

That was pretty much my point.

I believe it is our weakness of faith which makes us justify violence, unlike the martyrs.   I also agree that it is hypocrisy to call the police or have anybody do violence on your behalf.   I'm trying to find out where Gebre is incorrect about his stances on a biblical level.   

The only thing I can find in the bible where we are justified to use force is against people coming to cause harm to you or your family during the night.

There is a huge difference between suddenly finding yourself having to save the lives of your family suddenly and unexpectedly against allowing yourself to join the military, be put to war, flown to an area to fight, and the fighting itself.

Nothing wrong with guns and pacifism is awesome and fine.  I hunt all the time, in fact shot a skunk yesterday, and a deer 2.5 weeks ago (cleaned and ate it).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: vamrat on August 26, 2013, 04:36:35 PM
Yesh, I'll send a PM in a moment.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: vamrat on August 26, 2013, 04:45:15 PM
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  
Let's not engage yeshuaisiam's comments advocating pacifism, for the subject of pacifism in and of itself is not the focus of this thread. We have other threads where pacifism itself is the focus; let's take our tangent there.

Unless this should have been in Green (I did take it to PM, regardless) I would argue that Pacifism is the root of the issue, unless we are supposed to be limiting our responses to a hit-piece on Gebre.  If I am reading this right, the main thing that Gebre did wrong is that he is proclaiming Pacifism to be the authoritative position of the Church.  I would like to think that some time was spent at Nicea describing how Christ was the Son of God and equal and equally unoriginate with the Father, rather than just saying Arius is a giant poopsicle. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 04:45:38 PM

I know who his priest is.  I know who his bishop is.

No, I will not tell anyone.



He at least mentions who his priest is in his posting history. So if anyone has the time/inclination they could find it. I honestly don't remember the name of his priest. But I have looked at the website in the past. It is hardly a secret if he has posted it himself. But I completely understand not posting it again without his permission.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 04:54:43 PM
Gebre has matured in many ways on this site. His posts when he first started years ago were very reactionary and infuriating. He would write something very unkind, then end it with Selam like it made it turn into something kind/loving.

I hope that as the convert fervor dies that he looks back and regrets how dogmatic he was about theology he barely knew. His personal theological convictions are distinct from the theological view of the church at large.

The poster I learned the most from, and miss the most is ozgeorge :'( Fortunately we keep in contact some via facebook.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 05:06:23 PM

Yes, I miss OzGeorge, too!

He had returned for a bit, a while back.

You gotta love Facebook, no?  It's a great way to keep in touch and get to know folks.

OzGeorge has turned into quite the iconographer.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 26, 2013, 05:13:00 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: dzheremi on August 26, 2013, 05:27:30 PM
I've got an idea: Don't read his stuff. :o Then you don't have to start bizarrely personal threads like this one.

Noted, do not start threads divulging the dishonest teachings of others as that is "personal." And apparently bizarre as well.

It is of course traditional to the Church to identify heresies by their founders (e.g., Nestorianism, Arianism, etc.), so when I see a thread about "Gebredoxy", I expect something about heresies that he has founded. I think pointing out things you disagree with in his books that are (as far as I can tell from his posts about them) largely his personal ruminations as a convert falls well short of demonstrating that he is actually heretical in this manner, so yes, it does strike me as somewhat inappropriately personal (particularly as you had previously identified him by his real name). I am not aware of him having claimed to teach his personal opinions as the Orthodox faith in toto, as though there is no room to disagree and still be Orthodox (and I write this as another Orthodox convert who has disagreed with him many times in the past on many of the same issues raised in this thread).
I have seen Gebre do just that (of which you are not aware).

Hmm. Alright. That is a problem, then. I don't think anyone's personal opinion should stand in for the Orthodox faith, as though just because we can find a father (or, more often, a particular quote or a few quotes from a particular father) who seems to support our ideas, then we can say that the Church says X (whatever we happen to believe). Frankly, who can't find some father somewhere to do that with? That's precisely why our faith does not rest upon the ideas of one person, be they an Early Church Father, a later saint, a particular bishop, priest, etc. So...yeah, I'm disappointed. I guess I should've paid closer attention, but honestly the times I most directly engaged Gebre in the past I don't remember very many quotes from the Fathers at all (since they didn't write about Haile Selassie or Rastafarianism).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 26, 2013, 05:53:59 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:
“Sometimes we just need to remain silent. This is very difficult when lies and false accusations about us are being proliferated by those who are either mentally disturbed or demonically driven. Or maybe they just have some sort of personal grudge against us. But it gets to the point where answering every attack and responding to every false accusation saps one’s energy and drains one’s soul. The truth will always prevail in the end, and our true friends and true brethren will not be swayed by the malicious opinions of those who falsely malign us. Sadly, not everyone who calls us ‘friend’ and ‘brother’ is truly a friend and a brother. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from their negativity and spite, and just let their vitriolic torches burn themselves out. Unfortunately, they may deceive a lot of people along the way, and they may even succeed in damaging our reputation and character. But when this happens, remember that Our Lord Himself was accused of gluttony and drunkenness. (St. Matthew 11:19) God knows our hearts, and when we are accused unjustly, unfairly, and untruthfully, the best response is to simply rest silently and peacefully in Our Lord’s unconditional love.” Selam, +GMK+ (https://www.facebook.com/gebre.menfeskidus?fref=ts)

Again, this is what I am talking about. Anytime any accusation or criticism is leveled against him, he fails to address it, then paints himself as a martyr of some kind. I am not sure exactly why he continues and does not just address why it is that he sees fit to misuse church fathers? And note, its never his fault or anything that he could be responsible for, there is always an excuse. I feel I have been consistent and very clear on the issue, apparently Gebre thinks this is a personal attack. How am I deceiving people in pointing out Gebre's clear misuse of others writings?

I can only hope that at the very least others see that he has been dishonest and entirely unwilling to admit it or at the very least address it. I accused him, but it was just, and fair, and truthful, as can clearly be seen in the OP. I quoted him directly and showed each point where he was incorrect. :(
Your level of insincerity and hubristic narcissism is utterly disgusting and deplorable. You are doing nothing remotely positive to even slightly alter his views.

Shame on you.

And to think Trisagon's "whore/horses" thread plateaued the nastiness around here.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 26, 2013, 06:10:59 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

I'm not as concerned about this, but only because there is "a process" governing such things, even if it is not always followed or enforced properly.  Also, I really don't know of enough fresh converts who write books about Orthodox teaching to be concerned. 

Perhaps off topic, but what I'm actually rather disturbed by is the profusion of posts, in this and other threads, by (non-)Orthodox Christians containing phrases such as:

"God has commanded us..."
"God has stated..."
"The Bible says..."
"We are authorized..."
"We are given direct permission by God to..."
"God has told us what to do..."

and so on.  I understand that such people are or would claim to be speaking based on Scripture, which is full of "Thus says the LORD", but the Prophets don't come across as a (Orthodox) Christian Taliban.  I can't say the same for some of these posters, sadly, and that concerns me.  I'd love to be wrong, as it would be less frightening than being right.   
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: augustin717 on August 26, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.
Once in a blue moon I agree with PtheA . Ioannes needs to learn some basic social skills.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 26, 2013, 08:03:40 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

It's not often I agree with you, Michal, but you're 100% right on this.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 08:21:31 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.

Gebres page was public, anyone could see what he posted.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:
“Sometimes we just need to remain silent. This is very difficult when lies and false accusations about us are being proliferated by those who are either mentally disturbed or demonically driven. Or maybe they just have some sort of personal grudge against us. But it gets to the point where answering every attack and responding to every false accusation saps one’s energy and drains one’s soul. The truth will always prevail in the end, and our true friends and true brethren will not be swayed by the malicious opinions of those who falsely malign us. Sadly, not everyone who calls us ‘friend’ and ‘brother’ is truly a friend and a brother. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from their negativity and spite, and just let their vitriolic torches burn themselves out. Unfortunately, they may deceive a lot of people along the way, and they may even succeed in damaging our reputation and character. But when this happens, remember that Our Lord Himself was accused of gluttony and drunkenness. (St. Matthew 11:19) God knows our hearts, and when we are accused unjustly, unfairly, and untruthfully, the best response is to simply rest silently and peacefully in Our Lord’s unconditional love.” Selam, +GMK+ (https://www.facebook.com/gebre.menfeskidus?fref=ts)

Again, this is what I am talking about. Anytime any accusation or criticism is leveled against him, he fails to address it, then paints himself as a martyr of some kind. I am not sure exactly why he continues and does not just address why it is that he sees fit to misuse church fathers? And note, its never his fault or anything that he could be responsible for, there is always an excuse. I feel I have been consistent and very clear on the issue, apparently Gebre thinks this is a personal attack. How am I deceiving people in pointing out Gebre's clear misuse of others writings?

I can only hope that at the very least others see that he has been dishonest and entirely unwilling to admit it or at the very least address it. I accused him, but it was just, and fair, and truthful, as can clearly be seen in the OP. I quoted him directly and showed each point where he was incorrect. :(
Your level of insincerity and hubristic narcissism is utterly disgusting and deplorable. You are doing nothing remotely positive to even slightly alter his views.

Shame on you.

And to think Trisagon's "whore/horses" thread plateaued the nastiness around here.

I tried showing him the error of his certain teachings for two years or so, this is more to expose him to others. Despicable or not, it's pretty sad that someone would opt for a use if church writings rather than listen.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 08:26:46 PM
Am I the only one concerned that converts with chrism not dried yet start to write books about theology and spirituality and pretend to be teachers? There is a canon that fresh converts should not be ordained until some time. IMO this should also be applied to theological blog posts and books.

It's not often I agree with you, Michal, but you're 100% right on this.

Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.
Once in a blue moon I agree with PtheA . Ioannes needs to learn some basic social skills.

Just look at all the positives coming as a result of this thread.  ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 08:36:44 PM
For the record Gebre is still on facebook, he did not remove his profile, although he did remove several people.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?
Just how many people here do you want to stop posting?  Look, if he were deliberately trying to sabotage Orthodoxy then say something.  He interprets things one way, you another.  This is no different than people who misrepresent the Catholic Church or some Protestants on this site, but they interpret them differently.  I don't have to agree, but I'm not going to hunt them down either.  I'm actually studying Catholicism now because of misrepresentation by people here so I will know it when I see it, but what else can a person do but disagree (maybe with some sarcasm  ;) ), but that's about it.  You voiced your opposition, neither of you are clergy, let it rest.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 08:41:52 PM
Just for my own personal knowledge, you didn't think blasting the snot out of him on Amazon for the entire world to see was enough, you decided it was needed to bring in here?  So, global blasting wasn't enough?  I am really trying hard to understand here.

At first it was on facebook, but, yes the book has some erroneous teachings as well, I think it would be fair to let people know that. I have brought those errors within his book to his attention, he has since written a second edition without correcting them. I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?

I've read some pretty pathetic straw man arguments on here, but this one ranks pretty high up there on the ridiculous scale.

Its a logical question since many, including kerdy, have taking to debating pacifism and Gebres stance rather than what the OP actually addresses.
I addressed the OP already.  People have different views and understand teachings in a different way.  You can't change that and unless the Church has a clear dogma on the subject, you should get frustrated.  Look, I get it, people confuse me with the stuff they believe.  I don't understand, it's not just from left field but another ball park.  They think stuff that just blows me away and I will never get it because I don't think that way, but they do and all we can do is talk about it and eventually let it go.  Plenty of stuff here people believe I personally wouldn't even categorize as Christian, but what can I do about?  Say what I think and maybe change their mind.  That's all.  Just like you.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 08:46:55 PM
I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?
Just how many people here do you want to stop posting?  Look, if he were deliberately trying to sabotage Orthodoxy then say something.  He interprets things one way, you another.  This is no different than people who misrepresent the Catholic Church or some Protestants on this site, but they interpret them differently.  I don't have to agree, but I'm not going to hunt them down either.  I'm actually studying Catholicism now because of misrepresentation by people here so I will know it when I see it, but what else can a person do but disagree (maybe with some sarcasm  ;) ), but that's about it.  You voiced your opposition, neither of you are clergy, let it rest.

I am merely attempting to defend what I said, if you havent noticed I am not exactly very well liked for posting it. There are many instances in which differences do boil down to interpretation. Then, there are instances in which someone does not study the entirety of anothers work and selectively embraces what suits them, while ignoring the bulk of their work that clearly states the opposite. That is not interpretation. Then, when this is brought to this persons attention, he considers it "maligning" his character and a personal attack, even when clergy are the ones explaining that he is incorrect quoting them. So you are right in that often times it does come to interpretation, but not in this instance. The only thing I am doing is trying to make my point clear, it is not about his stance on pacifism, it is not a personal attack, this was not my first resort, etc. I never said you had to agree with me, however, writing it off as a matter of interpretation is obviously incorrect...had you read the OP you would see this.

Well, there are canons detailing the issue of war being a necessary evil, and even the use of violence, so, yes there are clear teachings on this. To state the Orthodox Church is pacifist is wrong and ignorant of the church itself.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 08:54:20 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:
“Sometimes we just need to remain silent. This is very difficult when lies and false accusations about us are being proliferated by those who are either mentally disturbed or demonically driven. Or maybe they just have some sort of personal grudge against us. But it gets to the point where answering every attack and responding to every false accusation saps one’s energy and drains one’s soul. The truth will always prevail in the end, and our true friends and true brethren will not be swayed by the malicious opinions of those who falsely malign us. Sadly, not everyone who calls us ‘friend’ and ‘brother’ is truly a friend and a brother. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from their negativity and spite, and just let their vitriolic torches burn themselves out. Unfortunately, they may deceive a lot of people along the way, and they may even succeed in damaging our reputation and character. But when this happens, remember that Our Lord Himself was accused of gluttony and drunkenness. (St. Matthew 11:19) God knows our hearts, and when we are accused unjustly, unfairly, and untruthfully, the best response is to simply rest silently and peacefully in Our Lord’s unconditional love.” Selam, +GMK+ (https://www.facebook.com/gebre.menfeskidus?fref=ts)

Again, this is what I am talking about. Anytime any accusation or criticism is leveled against him, he fails to address it, then paints himself as a martyr of some kind. I am not sure exactly why he continues and does not just address why it is that he sees fit to misuse church fathers? And note, its never his fault or anything that he could be responsible for, there is always an excuse. I feel I have been consistent and very clear on the issue, apparently Gebre thinks this is a personal attack. How am I deceiving people in pointing out Gebre's clear misuse of others writings?

I can only hope that at the very least others see that he has been dishonest and entirely unwilling to admit it or at the very least address it. I accused him, but it was just, and fair, and truthful, as can clearly be seen in the OP. I quoted him directly and showed each point where he was incorrect. :(
Your level of insincerity and hubristic narcissism is utterly disgusting and deplorable. You are doing nothing remotely positive to even slightly alter his views.

Shame on you.

And to think Trisagon's "whore/horses" thread plateaued the nastiness around here.

I tried showing him the error of his certain teachings for two years or so, this is more to expose him to others. Despicable or not, it's pretty sad that someone would opt for a use if church writings rather than listen.
To ensure I understand this clearly, you don't feel recent converts should be teaching others but you, a recent convert, are upset because Gebre hasn't agreed with your teachings to him.  Is that about right?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 08:55:52 PM
For the record Gebre is still on facebook, he did not remove his profile, although he did remove several people.
I don't blame him.  In fact, this sort of thing is why I no longer have FB.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 26, 2013, 09:03:14 PM
I am confused, are you for error and misrepresentation of the Orthodox Church?
Just how many people here do you want to stop posting?  Look, if he were deliberately trying to sabotage Orthodoxy then say something.  He interprets things one way, you another.  This is no different than people who misrepresent the Catholic Church or some Protestants on this site, but they interpret them differently.  I don't have to agree, but I'm not going to hunt them down either.  I'm actually studying Catholicism now because of misrepresentation by people here so I will know it when I see it, but what else can a person do but disagree (maybe with some sarcasm  ;) ), but that's about it.  You voiced your opposition, neither of you are clergy, let it rest.

I am merely attempting to defend what I said, if you havent noticed I am not exactly very well liked for posting it.
I thought I was clear but I'll say it again.  I personally agree with your perspective on fighting war.  Heck, I've been to war.  Sometimes it's necessary.  I carry a weapon on and off duty and have no problem using it if its needed and it wouldn't make things worse (proper training required).  Gebre feels differently and I respect that view.  I find nothing wrong in his quoting for support as I find nothing wrong with you quoting for your support. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 09:44:43 PM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:
“Sometimes we just need to remain silent. This is very difficult when lies and false accusations about us are being proliferated by those who are either mentally disturbed or demonically driven. Or maybe they just have some sort of personal grudge against us. But it gets to the point where answering every attack and responding to every false accusation saps one’s energy and drains one’s soul. The truth will always prevail in the end, and our true friends and true brethren will not be swayed by the malicious opinions of those who falsely malign us. Sadly, not everyone who calls us ‘friend’ and ‘brother’ is truly a friend and a brother. Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from their negativity and spite, and just let their vitriolic torches burn themselves out. Unfortunately, they may deceive a lot of people along the way, and they may even succeed in damaging our reputation and character. But when this happens, remember that Our Lord Himself was accused of gluttony and drunkenness. (St. Matthew 11:19) God knows our hearts, and when we are accused unjustly, unfairly, and untruthfully, the best response is to simply rest silently and peacefully in Our Lord’s unconditional love.” Selam, +GMK+ (https://www.facebook.com/gebre.menfeskidus?fref=ts)

Again, this is what I am talking about. Anytime any accusation or criticism is leveled against him, he fails to address it, then paints himself as a martyr of some kind. I am not sure exactly why he continues and does not just address why it is that he sees fit to misuse church fathers? And note, its never his fault or anything that he could be responsible for, there is always an excuse. I feel I have been consistent and very clear on the issue, apparently Gebre thinks this is a personal attack. How am I deceiving people in pointing out Gebre's clear misuse of others writings?

I can only hope that at the very least others see that he has been dishonest and entirely unwilling to admit it or at the very least address it. I accused him, but it was just, and fair, and truthful, as can clearly be seen in the OP. I quoted him directly and showed each point where he was incorrect. :(
Your level of insincerity and hubristic narcissism is utterly disgusting and deplorable. You are doing nothing remotely positive to even slightly alter his views.

Shame on you.

And to think Trisagon's "whore/horses" thread plateaued the nastiness around here.

I tried showing him the error of his certain teachings for two years or so, this is more to expose him to others. Despicable or not, it's pretty sad that someone would opt for a use if church writings rather than listen.
To ensure I understand this clearly, you don't feel recent converts should be teaching others but you, a recent convert, are upset because Gebre hasn't agreed with your teachings to him.  Is that about right?

No, I do not think people who have converted should immediately start teaching theology or Orthodox doctrine. Again, my problem did not have to do with interpretation or my teaching vs his teaching. His stance on pacifism was not the issue but that he was taking church fathers out of context to prove this, as the OP clearly shows.

My issue with him teaching goes deeper than his dishonesty but his inability to handle any sort of criticism whatsoever, even from clergy. He has clearly imposed his personal beliefs on that of the church and passes them off as church teachings. When I had privately confronted him, several times, he takes offense to this claiming that I am putting words in his mouth or maligning his character. Look, the OP is pretty clear that Gebre took these fathers out of context. Now, since I personally had sent writings of these church fathers to his kindle, he has no excuse. I did that over a year ago in hopes to get him on the proper path, again not to change his stance on pacifism but to show him that this is not something he can say is a church teaching. You cannot misrepresent church fathers, and in fact you should not misrepresent anyone for your own sake.

I think you are still not getting what I am trying to say Kerdy, this is NOT about Gebres stance on pacifism, it is him misquoting people that did not teach pacifism and in fact taught that war is a necessary evil as well as violence. My issue, as I have said several times IS NOT WITH HIS STANCE ON PACIFISM, it is him blatantly misrepresenting what the church teaches on this issue. He SHOULD say, "I believe in pacifism, however, the church does not teach this." Its that simple! But instead he selectively embraces quotes and even has made up quotes while ignoring the entirety of their work which clearly does NOT teach pacifism in any way. If he wants to be pacifist, as I have told him, that is fine you just cannot try to say the church teaches this!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 09:56:47 PM

Ioannes, I wish you would stop repeating yourself.  Everyone can read the OP....however, not everyone will agree with you, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

Perhaps it's not the message that went wrong, but, the delivery of the message.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 10:02:52 PM

Ioannes, I wish you would stop repeating yourself.  Everyone can read the OP....however, not everyone will agree with you, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

Perhaps it's not the message that went wrong, but, the delivery of the message.


That certainly could be the case, however, since so many seem to be focusing on the wrong issue, I feel the need to clear it up. Because I do think there is no issue with someone adhering to pacifism, that is not the focus of the OP, so I have to assume that others did not read it, or perhaps did not clearly understand. Although a few members of clergy read it and stated that it was clear, to the point, and that it was not personally attacking Gebre.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 26, 2013, 10:04:51 PM

It's too bad that the clergy didn't come here and correct him, and left the "dirty work" to a mere layperson.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 26, 2013, 10:07:57 PM

It's too bad that the clergy didn't come here and correct him, and left the "dirty work" to a mere layperson.

Why would they come here to correct him when they have already tried elsewhere? This is simply letting people know that this is what Gebre does to justify his stance on pacifism, and on other issues too.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 26, 2013, 10:46:14 PM
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  
What
Let's not engage yeshuaisiam's comments advocating pacifism, for the subject of pacifism in and of itself is not the focus of this thread. We have other threads where pacifism itself is the focus; let's take our tangent there.

I am catching up here, but if this is not the focus of this thread, then what is???? What other issue did the OP bring up that we should center ourselves. I happen to agree with Gebre on this issue. What is the thread that I should go to. What posts (nearly all of them) dealing with this issue will be transferred there.

Any complaint about Gebre should also apply to me at this point. It is a matter of belief.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: DeniseDenise on August 26, 2013, 11:12:23 PM

It's too bad that the clergy didn't come here and correct him, and left the "dirty work" to a mere layperson.

Why would they come here to correct him when they have already tried elsewhere? This is simply letting people know that this is what Gebre does to justify his stance on pacifism, and on other issues too.

Ahh more -selfless- community service.

I don't think that anyone here was out signing up for a cult started by anyone, so you could have spared the effort.

Even the newest and greenest(and not in the been moderated way!) amongst us knows the cardinal rule number one

If you are in doubt ask your priest


So just who are you aiming to help here???
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 26, 2013, 11:16:56 PM
Orthodoxy sees itself as the ancient faith. Although things change with the times, and we are not completely stuck in the 3rd century (like giving up TV or something), important aspects of the church really are. We value beliefs and traditions of the third century and wish to continue them ourselves. Holding fast to important traditions from the third century is one of the things that makes us Orthodox.

If pacifism really was an important religious part of the 3rd century Church, then it is something that we as Orthodox would have respect for (although not necessarily be bound by it 100%)
That's the key. This thread wasn't started as a condemnation of pacifism. Pacifism really isn't the issue at all. What is at issue is how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion into a dogma of the Church.
Pacifism is part of the issue, the other part being "how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion (Pacifism) into a dogma of the Church."

Anyway, I think it is arguably "a" dogma of the Church, but not necessarily "the" dogma of the Church. It looks like one of the beliefs that can be found in the lives, experiences, and writings of important saints. But it is not "the" only opinion in the Church on the topic.

As such, Gebre has a basis for claiming pacifism is "the" correct position- the basis being those saints favoring pacifism, and whatever inspiration and righteousness he finds in their examples. Further, he can claim that considering the important place of that belief in Church Tradition and what he sees as the correctness of the pacifism, that it is essential that the Church does not reject pacifism. In fact this claim is what Gebre is saying.

Granted, one can counterargue him on the correctness of pacifism, but in any case Gebre Menfes can make his claim about pacifism being correct without being "publicly put straight" or whatever suppression the OP has in mind. In fact, so far it seems Gebre's statements have been arguable, reasonable, debatable, etc. based on our traditions, just as one may also simply disagree with him in a normal way.

Regards.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 11:37:42 PM
For the record Gebre is still on facebook, he did not remove his profile, although he did remove several people.

Yep, he removed and blocked me. Which is fine, he has that right. I already had him removed from my feed because of some past very graphic anti-abortion photos he had posted, my kids use my FB to play games!! I didn't want to see it, so I made it so I wouldn't see it unless I specifically went to his page.

You see, I had the choice to look or not look at what he posted on FB, just like I have the choice to look or not look at his posts on here. I didn't agree with him. But I didn't think that I needed to personally call him out because I disagreed with him. He already *knew* I disagreed with him. He also knew that I thought quoting yourself in every post was asinine. There is no need to take a private disagreement and try to turn it into a lynch mob.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 26, 2013, 11:46:14 PM
I mean really, anyone that thinks that someone that wrote a "theological book" that is completely accurate and reflective of the Orthodox church right after converting needs to buy oceanfront property in Montana. ::)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: DeniseDenise on August 26, 2013, 11:49:50 PM
I mean really, anyone that thinks that someone that wrote a "theological book" that is completely accurate and reflective of the Orthodox church right after converting needs to buy oceanfront property in Montana. ::)

Hey. They do keep saying most of WA might slide off the continent some eon.

Does Idaho count?  And can we be neighbors?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 27, 2013, 12:01:22 AM
The creation of that book was and is hubris, pure hubris. But Gebre is hardly the first person that wrote and published a book for ego stroking.

Rule of thumb if you are new to Orthodoxy:
Unless the theological book in question has reviews by well known Orthodox theologians, it shouldn't be read. Better yet, run a book by your spiritual father, if he hasn't heard of it- DON'T READ IT. Theological reading is like music. You have to know all the rules before you try and break them. You will only get confused if you go off into theological tangents before you have the basics down. And anyone that has the basics down will see thru Gebre's book easily.

I am sure that if Gebre wanted to, he could ask someone to read and authorize/endorse it. The fact that he hasn't makes it clear that either he doesn't want to have someone that is an actual theologian read it, or he has already done so and didn't get the results he wanted. If he had such an endorsement it would be all over his author page. But I am also sure there are kernels here and there of value in his book. He is a nice well meaning, person.

And again, the above that I wrote shouldn't be anything new to Gebre. I have essentially said the same thing to him in the past on here.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 27, 2013, 12:33:00 AM
By "see thru" I mean be able to distinguish between Gebre's personal convictions and actual Orthodox theology. Because when it comes to pacifism, the theology of the church prefers peace, but certainly doesn't entirely condemn war.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 27, 2013, 12:35:53 AM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.

Gebres page was public, anyone could see what he posted.
You still quoted something from his Facebook page without his permission, which quite probably explains why he has since made his page private and therefore invisible to all but himself.

BTW, how do you know that anyone, even non-friends, could see what Gebre posted?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 27, 2013, 12:42:12 AM
For the record Gebre is still on facebook, he did not remove his profile, although he did remove several people.
For the record, when I run a FB search for other people who are no longer FB friends of mine, I'm able to find their profiles. Gebre's profile no longer appears on any FB searches I run. Even if he had unfriended me, this is not what I would expect to see.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 27, 2013, 12:43:27 AM
If someone blocks you the profile no longer exists to you. So when you run a search it will appear as if the page never existed. Or you can set your profile so it is unsearchable. If someone isn't friends with one of my friends, I won't exist on FB to you.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 27, 2013, 01:41:07 AM
A conceited attempt to slander Gebre...can we stop posting in this thread now?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 27, 2013, 01:47:17 AM
A conceited attempt to slander Gebre...can we stop posting in this thread now?
Chill out, Achronos. :police: You're not making anything better by combating nastiness with equally over-the-top nastiness.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 27, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
BTW, how do you know that anyone, even non-friends, could see what Gebre posted?

One can see how is the privacy set for messages. I also checked it myself. That post was set to be visible for all, even non-facebook users.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Iconodule on August 27, 2013, 07:19:15 AM
Uh oh, Peter. Looks like you're on the naughty list.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 27, 2013, 07:21:08 AM
Are we done here yet?   ???
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 27, 2013, 08:22:05 AM
Great news everyone!  I am now a catechumen in the Gebredox Church!  I am requesting the Moderation team open up a new sub-forum called "Gebredox-Other Christian Discussion"  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 27, 2013, 08:40:18 AM

We'll take it under advisement.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 27, 2013, 09:02:04 AM
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 27, 2013, 09:31:13 AM
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
Oh come now, Kerdy!  All the serious talk is down, now it is time for the standard frivolities and banalities that accompany the standard death of a thread.  It is tradition.  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: hecma925 on August 27, 2013, 09:48:18 AM
If every member on this board posted "Are we done here yet?" ten times, there would be almost 80,000 posts.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 27, 2013, 10:55:51 AM
Orthodoxy sees itself as the ancient faith. Although things change with the times, and we are not completely stuck in the 3rd century (like giving up TV or something), important aspects of the church really are. We value beliefs and traditions of the third century and wish to continue them ourselves. Holding fast to important traditions from the third century is one of the things that makes us Orthodox.

If pacifism really was an important religious part of the 3rd century Church, then it is something that we as Orthodox would have respect for (although not necessarily be bound by it 100%)
That's the key. This thread wasn't started as a condemnation of pacifism. Pacifism really isn't the issue at all. What is at issue is how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion into a dogma of the Church.
Pacifism is part of the issue, the other part being "how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion (Pacifism) into a dogma of the Church."

Anyway, I think it is arguably "a" dogma of the Church, but not necessarily "the" dogma of the Church. It looks like one of the beliefs that can be found in the lives, experiences, and writings of important saints. But it is not "the" only opinion in the Church on the topic.

As such, Gebre has a basis for claiming pacifism is "the" correct position- the basis being those saints favoring pacifism, and whatever inspiration and righteousness he finds in their examples. Further, he can claim that considering the important place of that belief in Church Tradition and what he sees as the correctness of the pacifism, that it is essential that the Church does not reject pacifism. In fact this claim is what Gebre is saying.

Granted, one can counterargue him on the correctness of pacifism, but in any case Gebre Menfes can make his claim about pacifism being correct without being "publicly put straight" or whatever suppression the OP has in mind. In fact, so far it seems Gebre's statements have been arguable, reasonable, debatable, etc. based on our traditions, just as one may also simply disagree with him in a normal way.

Regards.

The issue is that he is trying to say that every instance war and violence is wrong, which is not dogma. He can say that it is his personal philosophy, that I would accept. However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue. Many others he quotes do the same thing.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 27, 2013, 10:56:41 AM
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.

Gebres page was public, anyone could see what he posted.
You still quoted something from his Facebook page without his permission, which quite probably explains why he has since made his page private and therefore invisible to all but himself.

BTW, how do you know that anyone, even non-friends, could see what Gebre posted?

Yes. He may have since changed it, but yes the public was able to view, and even comment on his page.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: minasoliman on August 27, 2013, 12:33:52 PM
LOCKED for mod review.

Mina
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: minasoliman on August 27, 2013, 11:10:29 PM
Let us try refute (or defend if you so choose) the views shared by Gebre, but not attack him directly or reveal private info about or from him.  As a wise patriarch once said, "We refute the ideas, not the person."  If this gets out of hand, I will permanently lock this thread.

God bless.

Mina
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 27, 2013, 11:12:54 PM
However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue.
I discuss St. Basil on page 2 of the thread, where I focused on these quotes:
Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil... canons show (188th letter) [his opinion]. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”
Basil's Canon 188 to which you refer also says:
Quote
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents.
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time.

St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.

St. Basil obviously takes a very negative view of war, and his negative view can be used to support pacifism. One can reasonably claim that if war is unjustifiable and very negative, then it is not something holy people - Christians - should ever do. You do not have to agree with this explanation, but it is hardly absurd either.

Regards.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 28, 2013, 12:36:08 AM
However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue.
I discuss St. Basil on page 2 of the thread, where I focused on these quotes:
Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil... canons show (188th letter) [his opinion]. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”
Basil's Canon 188 to which you refer also says:
Quote
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents.
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time.

St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.

St. Basil obviously takes a very negative view of war, and his negative view can be used to support pacifism. One can reasonably claim that if war is unjustifiable and very negative, then it is not something holy people - Christians - should ever do. You do not have to agree with this explanation, but it is hardly absurd either.

Regards.

Well spoken. +1
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 28, 2013, 02:59:01 AM
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  
What
Let's not engage yeshuaisiam's comments advocating pacifism, for the subject of pacifism in and of itself is not the focus of this thread. We have other threads where pacifism itself is the focus; let's take our tangent there.

I am catching up here, but if this is not the focus of this thread, then what is???? What other issue did the OP bring up that we should center ourselves. I happen to agree with Gebre on this issue. What is the thread that I should go to. What posts (nearly all of them) dealing with this issue will be transferred there.

Any complaint about Gebre should also apply to me at this point. It is a matter of belief.
Do you believe that pacifism is a dogma of the Church and that one cannot be a Christian unless one is also a pacifist? Are you willing to commit yourself so unreservedly to preaching this belief that you will censor all voices to the contrary when you have the power to do so? Will you grossly misrepresent the positions of other people in the very act of scolding them for what you perceive to be a gross misrepresentation of your position? If not, then my complaints about Gebre do not apply to you.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 28, 2013, 04:21:07 AM
Way back when Bush was running against McCain in the primaries, I liked McCain significantly more than I liked Bush. My step-father, in an attempt to convince us that we needed to vote for Bush in the primaries, told my brothers and I that we weren't Christians unless we voted for Bush.

It is precisely that type of rhetoric that Gebre attempts to use regarding Orthodoxy and his pacifism. It is fine to be a pacifist. It is fine to discuss those beliefs. It is not acceptable to say that anyone that disagrees with you is in error bordering upon sin, and may not be Orthodox at all.

Many of those that can't understand the frustrations posted on this thread are a little more recent people on this site. Anyone that interacted with Gebre when he first registered on this site knows just how militant and downright offensive/abrasive he was about his beliefs. He still does a great deal of that now. But he tones it down. He also brings everything back to abortion to an extent bordering upon his own personal Godwin's law.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 28, 2013, 04:23:06 AM
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
*sigh*

The horse is dead.  Hitting it isn't going to do anything but make your arm tired.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 28, 2013, 04:24:57 AM
When you keep going, somehow it is righteous in your view. When ever anyone else does, it is beating a dead horse. If you are done with the topic, quit reading/posting in the thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 04:27:39 AM
Way back when Bush was running against McCain in the primaries, I liked McCain significantly more than I liked Bush. My step-father, in an attempt to convince us that we needed to vote for Bush in the primaries, told my brothers and I that we weren't Christians unless we voted for Bush.

It is precisely that type of rhetoric that Gebre attempts to use regarding Orthodoxy and his pacifism. It is fine to be a pacifist. It is fine to discuss those beliefs. It is not acceptable to say that anyone that disagrees with you is in error bordering upon sin, and may not be Orthodox at all.

Many of those that can't understand the frustrations posted on this thread are a little more recent people on this site. Anyone that interacted with Gebre when he first registered on this site knows just how militant and downright offensive/abrasive he was about his beliefs. He still does a great deal of that now. But he tones it down. He also brings everything back to abortion to an extent bordering upon his own personal Godwin's law.

THIS!!!!
Thank you again, Quinault.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 28, 2013, 04:39:47 AM
So toward the note by our mod Mina:

I do not believe that anyone can make an argument that pacifism is the concrete, unshakable, irrefutable, and ONLY stance of the Eastern Orthodox church. Can one argue that peace and non-violence is the preferred stance of the church? Absolutely, in all things we should avoid violence whenever possible. But no one can declare themselves the judge/jury/executioner of anyone that isn't pacifist.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Quinault on August 28, 2013, 05:02:00 AM
Opus, your logic doesn't entirely match up. Have you heard the prayers said over a mother right after childbirth? They are pretty darn harsh sounding. I've heard them 3 times now, and it hasn't lost the shock value for me just yet.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 28, 2013, 05:32:46 AM
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
*sigh*

The horse is dead.  Hitting it isn't going to do anything but make your arm tired.
People have opinions.  Live with it, unless you are willing to never form your own opinions based on your understanding of things.  But, by all means continue the uncivilized childishness already displayed here.  Why stop now?  It's what people do here.  I just wish people could take what they spew.

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  Because if we don't or there isn't, this entire thread is a waste of personal opinion being claimed right against another's personal opinions all based off of personal interpretation of another's personal opinion.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 05:44:25 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 28, 2013, 05:50:16 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 05:54:02 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 28, 2013, 06:22:17 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 06:28:42 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?



Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 28, 2013, 06:44:26 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?



Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
I suppose.  I won't debate the matter further.  I just see a saturation of hypocrisy in this thread and thought it should be addressed.  I'll try to stay away from this thread in the future. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 07:01:29 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

Gebre is stating this as if it is church dogma, unquestionably. He does it consistently. Its totally fine if he is a pacifist, it is misleading to make it seem as if this is a requirement to be Orthodox.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 07:03:29 AM
However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue.
I discuss St. Basil on page 2 of the thread, where I focused on these quotes:
Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil... canons show (188th letter) [his opinion]. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”
Basil's Canon 188 to which you refer also says:
Quote
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents.
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time.

St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.

St. Basil obviously takes a very negative view of war, and his negative view can be used to support pacifism. One can reasonably claim that if war is unjustifiable and very negative, then it is not something holy people - Christians - should ever do. You do not have to agree with this explanation, but it is hardly absurd either.

Regards.

St Basil clearly makes distinctions
Someone who kills willfully is a murderer, bus in self defence is not the same (Canon VIII)
Canon XIII, the fathers didn't see killing in war as Murder, but 3 years from communion should suffice.
go here http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/

Also, here are the canons http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 07:05:41 AM

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?



When the same fathers he quotes state the opposite of what he quotes, then it is not a matter of interpretation. The priest he quotes in the OP he completely takes out of context and misrepresents his stance, its pretty clear.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: livefreeordie on August 28, 2013, 09:55:01 AM
Gebre is a friend of mine. He knows I'm not a pacifist. He has never once suggested I'm not orthodox. He asks me to pray for him, and I ask him to pray for me.  I have corresponded with him for years. He has always been respectful to me and my views, while strongly defending his own views. Yes, he can argue his points energetically, but I really think a lot of people just have thin skin and take things way too personally. Never once have I ever felt Gebre was speaking for the church.

Can someone show me a quote of his where he actually says, "unless you are a pacifist, you are not Orthodox."

If someone can find that quote I will understand their anger better, but even then, based on my interaction with Gebre, I wouldn't take it personally.

If you don't want to argue with him, don't argue with him. To say "people might think he is speaking for the church" is just ridiculous. Who on here really is worried that Gebre is seen as a "spokesmen" of the church and leading people astray. He is just a dude voicing his opinion and that is how he comes across. Now if he self-proclaims himself Bishop Gebre of Mississippi and starts putting out epistles, then maybe we blacklist him! :)

The critics on here just come across as personally not liking him and his views. Subjects like pacifism can spark a ton of emotion. Whether someone thinks a war is just or not, war is an evil thing. Men, women, children, soldiers, priests, etc. will die today in a war. Some bombs will hit their target, others will miss the mark and errantly hit a wedding, or a funeral, or a child walking home too young to even know "just" or "unjust". That is war. It doesn't matter if it just or not. That is what happens in any war. This is why while I disagree with Gebre on being a total pacifist, I'm in general against war and I applaud his consistent commitment to "life".

And if we are honest, one of the main reasons we talk about pacifism here is because of Gebre's "extreme" opinions, and so regardless of what we think about him, a thread like this is getting his point of view out there as much as any of his own posts. So for you all who don't like Gebre's approach, you are really doing him a favor with this continuing thread. Heck, the original post has probably done more to keep "pacifism" on the home page list of top posts than any of Gebre's own posts!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 28, 2013, 10:16:38 AM
Opus, your logic doesn't entirely match up. Have you heard the prayers said over a mother right after childbirth? They are pretty darn harsh sounding. I've heard them 3 times now, and it hasn't lost the shock value for me just yet.

Hi Quinault.

I didn't understand this.

I looked up two versions of the prayers.
OCA: http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/prayer/information/priestprayerbook.cfm
GOA: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/birth

Maybe these are softened translations.

Can you point to me (via a link if necessary) what I should be reflecting on? There is no need to expound further, I should be able to figure it out once my assignment is clearer.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 28, 2013, 10:49:11 AM
LBK,

This sums up what I get from Gebre's writing that the Original Post above focuses on: Gebre (1) sees pacifism as a tradition in Orthodoxy, (2) sees pacifism as correct and important, and (3) thinks that Orthodox institutions cannot legitimately reject it.

So regarding your words:
Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
I would say that some doctrines or beliefs are sometimes espoused by important people in the Church, but they are not necessary beliefs.

For example, numerous theologians and saints espouse a belief about tollhouses or other things that could happen after death. Another belief I think in the church is that the Virgin Mary not only avoided death (the Dormition), but was physically assumed into heaven. Obviously, like Gebre they believe their concepts are correct, yet those beliefs are not mandatory for all Orthodox on pain of anathema.

I understand your concern about the Church imposing anathemas. But in this case, it is Gebre who is worried about anathemas being declared, as his third point is that Orthodox institutions shouldn't ban it.

All the best.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 28, 2013, 10:56:08 AM
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time. St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.
Someone who kills willfully is a murderer, bus in self defence is not the same (Canon VIII)
Canon XIII, the fathers didn't see killing in war as Murder, but 3 years from communion should suffice.
go here http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance
FYI Ioannes, what you have just posted does not contradict anything I said above.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 11:05:22 AM
LBK,

This sums up what I get from Gebre's post that the OP opposes. Gebre (1) sees pacifism as a tradition in Orthodoxy, (2) sees pacifism as correct and important, and (3) thinks that Orthodox institutions cannot legitimately reject it.

So regarding your words:
Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
Some doctrines or beliefs are sometimes espoused by important people in the Church, but they are not "necessary beliefs".

For example, numerous theologians and saints espouse a belief about tollhouses or other things that could happen after death. Another belief I think in the church is that the Virgin Mary not only avoided death (the Dormition), but was physically assumed into heaven. Obviously, like Gebre they believe their concepts are correct, yet those beliefs are not mandatory for all Orthodox on pain of anathema.

I understand your concern about the Church imposing anathemas. But in this case, it is Gebre who is worried about anathemas being declared: he said that Orthodox institutions could not anathematize pacifism.

You have completely misunderstood what I have said.

I have no concerns about anathemas.

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 11:14:14 AM
Gebre is a friend of mine. He knows I'm not a pacifist. He has never once suggested I'm not orthodox. He asks me to pray for him, and I ask him to pray for me.  I have corresponded with him for years. He has always been respectful to me and my views, while strongly defending his own views. Yes, he can argue his points energetically, but I really think a lot of people just have thin skin and take things way too personally. Never once have I ever felt Gebre was speaking for the church.

Can someone show me a quote of his where he actually says, "unless you are a pacifist, you are not Orthodox."

If someone can find that quote I will understand their anger better, but even then, based on my interaction with Gebre, I wouldn't take it personally.

If you don't want to argue with him, don't argue with him. To say "people might think he is speaking for the church" is just ridiculous. Who on here really is worried that Gebre is seen as a "spokesmen" of the church and leading people astray. He is just a dude voicing his opinion and that is how he comes across. Now if he self-proclaims himself Bishop Gebre of Mississippi and starts putting out epistles, then maybe we blacklist him! :)

The critics on here just come across as personally not liking him and his views. Subjects like pacifism can spark a ton of emotion. Whether someone thinks a war is just or not, war is an evil thing. Men, women, children, soldiers, priests, etc. will die today in a war. Some bombs will hit their target, others will miss the mark and errantly hit a wedding, or a funeral, or a child walking home too young to even know "just" or "unjust". That is war. It doesn't matter if it just or not. That is what happens in any war. This is why while I disagree with Gebre on being a total pacifist, I'm in general against war and I applaud his consistent commitment to "life".

And if we are honest, one of the main reasons we talk about pacifism here is because of Gebre's "extreme" opinions, and so regardless of what we think about him, a thread like this is getting his point of view out there as much as any of his own posts. So for you all who don't like Gebre's approach, you are really doing him a favor with this continuing thread. Heck, the original post has probably done more to keep "pacifism" on the home page list of top posts than any of Gebre's own posts!

I have explained this myself to Gebre because he thought I was putting words into his mouth, fair enough. Gebre has never emphatically stated "This is a teaching of the church" so I had to explain to him that the way in which he often speaks would suggest that this IS what the church teaches. Sure, you can preface your book with "This is my opinion" but when you turn around and say in that same book "The church teaches this or that" it ceases to be opinion. He has stated several times how pacifism is "true Christian teaching" or that any other view "contradicts the Gospel and teaching of Christ" or "contradicts Orthodox teaching."

Has he said "This is a teaching of the church?" no, he has not, but he has said other things that would indicate to others that it might be. When you do not, or cannot, differentiate between your opinion and what the church actually teaches, then it becomes confusing for others. I have no problem with him stating that this is his belief and or his opinion, but he consistently words things to make it seem like it is not an opinion or personally held view, but a teaching of the church like "War is heresy" that is pretty clear to me that he does not believe this to be opinion but fact.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 11:16:27 AM
LBK,

This sums up what I get from Gebre's post that the OP opposes. Gebre (1) sees pacifism as a tradition in Orthodoxy, (2) sees pacifism as correct and important, and (3) thinks that Orthodox institutions cannot legitimately reject it.

So regarding your words:
Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
Some doctrines or beliefs are sometimes espoused by important people in the Church, but they are not "necessary beliefs".

For example, numerous theologians and saints espouse a belief about tollhouses or other things that could happen after death. Another belief I think in the church is that the Virgin Mary not only avoided death (the Dormition), but was physically assumed into heaven. Obviously, like Gebre they believe their concepts are correct, yet those beliefs are not mandatory for all Orthodox on pain of anathema.

I understand your concern about the Church imposing anathemas. But in this case, it is Gebre who is worried about anathemas being declared: he said that Orthodox institutions could not anathematize pacifism.

You have completely misunderstood what I have said.

I have no concerns about anathemas.

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.

Exactly. Even though he prefaces his book with "This is my opinion" it is unacceptable to then say those things you mentioned. I even find his poetry denouncing soldiers to be a bit tactless. Was he also referring to St. George, St. Theodore, St. Felix, etc?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 28, 2013, 11:17:58 AM
Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 28, 2013, 11:25:36 AM
I have no concerns about anathemas.

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.
LBK,

I think it would be most helpful to see the actual quotes by Gebre that you most object to, since I can imagine things he said on the topic could be misinterpreted.

Quote
And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.
My point is that there can be a tradition in the church that you can disagree with and still be Orthodox. Another example is the Ring of Solomon. 4th and 6th century writers describe Jerusalem's Church leadership showing it to pilgrims on Good Friday next to the wood of the True Cross. At least one Orthodox moderator I talked with elsewhere proposed that it never happened, and many Orthodox think Solomon never even had a ring to control demons.

Apparently the Church of Jerusalem was promoting a belief in the ring and many people believed it, but it is hardly a required belief for Orthodox. Many, if not most, do not even know about it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 11:38:54 AM
I have no concerns about anathemas.

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.
LBK,

I think it would be most helpful to see the actual quotes by Gebre that you most object to, since I can imagine things he said on the topic could be misinterpreted.

Quote
And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.
My point is that there can be a tradition in the church that you can disagree with and still be Orthodox. Another example is the Ring of Solomon. 4th and 6th century writers describe Jerusalem's Church leadership showing it to pilgrims on Good Friday next to the wood of the True Cross. At least one Orthodox moderator I talked with elsewhere proposed that it never happened, and many Orthodox think Solomon never even had a ring to control demons.

Apparently the Church of Jerusalem was promoting a belief in the ring and many people believed it, but it is hardly a required belief for Orthodox. Many, if not most, do not even know about it.


Rakovsky, I think that is an excellent point. I may not agree with pacifism and another agree with it, I do not think it is right for someone, who admittedly has not studied the fathers in depth, to throw out quotes as if that quote demonstrates the entirety of their belief or teaching. Which is why my issue is not with Gebres actual stance, it is with his misuse of church fathers, and in the one case demonstrated, the priest whom he clearly selectively embraced to suit his view without considering the rest of the article.

But honestly, that is a great point. I do not think, from what I have read on the matter, that the fathers have ever condemned pacifism or military service, war, violence. They have elaborated on them, when they may be necessary and such, but they have not taken a firm stance either way.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 28, 2013, 12:03:35 PM
I had to explain to him that the way in which he often speaks would suggest that this IS what the church teaches.

Has he said "This is a teaching of the church?" no, he has not, but he has said other things that would indicate to others that it might be.
When you do not, or cannot, differentiate between your opinion and what the church actually teaches, then it becomes confusing for others. I have no problem with him stating that this is his belief and or his opinion, but he consistently words things to make it seem like it is not an opinion or personally held view
When those situations arise it is best to ask the person what he means.

Quote
"War is heresy" is pretty clear to me that he does not believe this to be opinion but fact.
Heresy means a false religious teaching. If war itself is taught as a religious teaching, then perhaps that is true.

Personally I wouldn't choose those words because it allows for (1) the interpretation that it is his belief that all wars are an immoral act against "the" one teaching of the church.

On the other hand, the phrase is open enough to allow for someone to propose that (2) it is just their own belief, expressed in aggressive religious rhetoric, that wars violate important religious principles.

To make a better decision, perhaps you can show me the one paragraph Gebre has written anywhere that you most disagree with.

Anyway, Gebre is Ethiopian Orthodox, so why get bent out of shape? Do you know how many things in the Oriental Churches we could disagree with? They don't even accept many of our infallible(?) ecumenical councils. One of the largest recent conversions to Oriental Orthodoxy was the Ras Tafari group, and in mentioning this I am not downgrading them, but my guess is that Oriental Orthodox are less strict about things.

How many times could we read books by an Oriental Orthodox writer talking about the "Orthodox Church" and disagree? You are very incisive in your thinking, and I would like to see you use your good energy, thinking, and dedication to focus on issues for canonical Churches, like whether our churches should be split over calendars, or whether we should have 8 or more canonical jurisdictions in the US in the first place?

Now if you want to talk about animal sacrifice, circumcision, or Christology in Oriental churches, that's a different story. In fact, you are tempting me to go into the CONTINUANCE OF THE PENTAGONAL RING OF SOLOMON IN ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOXY.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg/450px-Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg.png)
;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 28, 2013, 12:18:43 PM
But honestly, that is a great point. I do not think, from what I have read on the matter, that the fathers have ever condemned pacifism or military service, war, violence. They have elaborated on them, when they may be necessary and such, but they have not taken a firm stance either way.
Ioannes,

Maybe there is something to be said about negative views about war in Orthodoxy in general. The approval of wars you mentioned can be explained as fighting off nonChristian domination, while there are rules against clergy fighting in them.

Isn't this a contrast to the Crusades, where fighting in a non-Latin country on behalf of the Latin Church was seen as holy, and engaged in by a monastic order? The Crusaders, like Teutonic knights also sacked Constantinople and other Eastern cities in slavic lands. But Orthodox countries didn't launch "holy wars" against the west, as I understand it. The idea of "holy war" seems to be much more of a RC/protestant medieval idea.

So although the Church has even promoted wars (like against the Mongols and Turks) and the Byzantine emperor asked the canonical Roman church to intervene with a crusade, perhaps there is something valuable to be said about aversion to war or negative ideas about it in Orthodoxy in general.

Take care.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 28, 2013, 12:38:51 PM
Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?

Yes, but, not everyone accuses the apposing viewpoint of heresy.

LBK explains the symbolism and meaning of the icons, their canonicity or lack thereof, however, she never has accused someone who apposes her teaches of not being Orthodox because of their differing views.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 28, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?

Yes, but, not everyone accuses the apposing viewpoint of heresy.

LBK explains the symbolism and meaning of the icons, their canonicity or lack thereof, however, she never has accused someone who apposes her teaches of not being Orthodox because of their differing views.



Yeah, she only accuses icons of being not-Orthodox.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 28, 2013, 12:49:38 PM

...as some are not.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 28, 2013, 01:51:40 PM

...as some are not.

And is she an  ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 28, 2013, 01:55:52 PM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 28, 2013, 02:00:19 PM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 28, 2013, 02:01:09 PM

That would be true.

...as I am certain some priests considered Gebre's comments to be okay.

So, there you have it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 07:06:11 PM
Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?

Iconoclasm is a declared heresy, the Church has anathematized the iconoclasts, and continues to do so to this day at the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Many aspects of iconography I have written about over the years are in the light of formal and universal declarations by the Church.

Last time I checked, war was not a declared heresy.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 28, 2013, 07:13:45 PM
I don't really understand the "War is Heresy" statement.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief.  War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action.  There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another.  It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy".  It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 07:15:19 PM

...as some are not.

And is she an  ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

Supply proof that I have been in error when I post on iconography. As for the "heretic" label, yes, I have often called this or that "iconographic" image heretical in content, whether painted in honest ignorance or deliberately to promote a cause or ideology. Do you object to that?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 28, 2013, 07:19:08 PM
I don't really understand the "War is Heresy" statement.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief.  War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action.  There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another.  It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy".  It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

I believe it was St. Theodore the Studite that once argued that a divorce was heresy... (http://sisoffroad.com/forums/images/smilies/chin_scratch.gif)

Not that I'm saying it was in that situation. Maybe. Probably.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Fr. George on August 28, 2013, 07:20:05 PM

...as some are not.

And is she an  ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

I'm not sure that all authoritative issues need to rise to the level of Hierarch, Synod, or Ecumenical Council.  There are generally accepted principles and standards that can be applied by all - otherwise, we would be paralyzed waiting for each level of administration to address the myriad of questions and challenges that arise day-to-day.

Along these lines, I can understand why you would feel this way about LBK's participation in icon discussions as the tone may seem similar to Gebre's usual style.  However, I find that the great difference in substantive approach between the two negates any apparent similarity.  LBK speaks about icons from a researched and reasonable position that is in line with the overwhelming majority of Orthodox sources and tradition on the subject, and keeps responses only to discussions of the substance of the icons themselves and the underlying theological problems seen in them.  Gebre's approach to the pacifist issue is more problematic considering the history of the Church-state relationship and the willingness to bless the soldiers (even if we don't bless the plans, ideals, etc.).  I am sympathetic to his position - I believe that war is never justified from a Christian moral POV, that it always must be repented of (since the taking of a life is a traumatic event for the soul regardless of the justification for doing it), and that we don't do a good enough job of promoting a peaceful agenda.  But I would never take it to the level of implying (or openly stating) that it is a dogmatic truth of Christianity that we must always be pacifists.  It is an untenable position.

(p.s. I only highlighted the two individuals to contrast good and bad approaches to dogmatic questions, NOT to start a debate about either user personally.)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 28, 2013, 07:22:55 PM
Thank you Father, I think that was very well put.  :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Romaios on August 28, 2013, 07:29:44 PM
This is chanted daily at the beginning of Matins (together with the preceding Psalms 19 and 20 it's part of an old mini-service for the Orthodox Emperors):

Quote
Troparion of the Holy Cross, Tone I:

    O Lord, save your people,
    and bless your inheritance!
    Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians
    over their adversaries (literally: the barbarians),
    and by virtue of your cross,
    preserve your habitation.


And no, there's no allegory to be read into it (barbarians ≠ demons).
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 28, 2013, 08:17:26 PM
Anyway, Gebre is Ethiopian Orthodox, so why get bent out of shape? Do you know how many things in the Oriental Churches we could disagree with? They don't even accept many of our infallible(?) ecumenical councils. One of the largest recent conversions to Oriental Orthodoxy was the Ras Tafari group, and in mentioning this I am not downgrading them, but my guess is that Oriental Orthodox are less strict about things.

How many times could we read books by an Oriental Orthodox writer talking about the "Orthodox Church" and disagree? You are very incisive in your thinking, and I would like to see you use your good energy, thinking, and dedication to focus on issues for canonical Churches, like whether our churches should be split over calendars, or whether we should have 8 or more canonical jurisdictions in the US in the first place?

Now if you want to talk about animal sacrifice, circumcision, or Christology in Oriental churches, that's a different story. In fact, you are tempting me to go into the CONTINUANCE OF THE PENTAGONAL RING OF SOLOMON IN ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOXY.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg/450px-Flag_of_Ethiopia.svg.png)
;)

I'm surprised that it took 271 posts before we got to this strategy.  Afro-Caribbean Rasta Spirituality (© JamesR, 2013) strikes again!  Good grief...   
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 28, 2013, 08:51:23 PM
I don't really understand the "War is Heresy" statement.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief.  War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action.  There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another.  It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy".  It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 28, 2013, 10:49:42 PM
I don't really understand the "War is Heresy" statement.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief.  War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action.  There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another.  It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy".  It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!
I continue to be uncomfortable singling out one person.  I'm sure anyone could find what they perceive to be hypocrisies in any one of our lives.  I don't see liking boxing and football incompatible with pacifism unless they start having fights to the death.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 28, 2013, 11:39:05 PM
I'm surprised that it took 271 posts before we got to this strategy.  Afro-Caribbean Rasta Spirituality (© JamesR, 2013) strikes again!  Good grief...   

I know. Can't we all just go back to talking about the Ring of King Solomon in Ethiopian Orthodoxy?
Quote
Two of the symbols within Rastafarianism are the royal ring of Haille Selassie and the Rastafarianism bible, the Holy Piby.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church gave the ring to Haille Selassie when he pledged loyalty to the church. The ring was said to have belonged to King Solomon who had given it to the queen of Sheba so that she in turn could give it to their son prince Menelik I of Ethiopia. He became the first King in a dynasty that lasted for more than 3000 years and ended with the death of Haille Selassie. When he died in 1975 the ring disappeared.

Though it is said that Bob Marley later got the ring in his possession when he met with Prince Wossen in London in 1977. Even this time it disappeared with the death of Bob Marley.
http://paulboglejamaica.home.comcast.net/~PaulBogleJamaica/rasta.html
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 28, 2013, 11:41:19 PM
I'm surprised that it took 271 posts before we got to this strategy.  Afro-Caribbean Rasta Spirituality (© JamesR, 2013) strikes again!  Good grief...  

I know. Can't we all just go back to talking about the Ring of King Solomon in Ethiopian Orthodoxy?


You should take it up in the thread you started for that purpose, not derail this thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 29, 2013, 12:06:56 AM
I'm surprised that it took 271 posts before we got to this strategy.  Afro-Caribbean Rasta Spirituality (© JamesR, 2013) strikes again!  Good grief...  

I know. Can't we all just go back to talking about the Ring of King Solomon in Ethiopian Orthodoxy?


You should take it up in the thread you started for that purpose, not derail this thread.

This. 

Plus, as I recall, that had less to do with the Ring of Solomon and Ethiopian Orthodoxy in particular but with the Ring and Orthodoxy in general.  How important can this thing possibly be if almost no one has heard of it?  I have a graduate theological degree, and your post was the first time I ever heard of such a thing.  We have more collective awareness of digging up dead bishops and seating their vested bones on thrones in order to "preside" over synods, "ordain" people, etc. than we do about Solomon's Ghostbuster Ring.  It really does seem arcane even among the arcane.  Oh well.     
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 12:32:19 AM
I don't really understand the "War is Heresy" statement.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief.  War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action.  There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another.  It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy".  It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!
I continue to be uncomfortable singling out one person.  I'm sure anyone could find what they perceive to be hypocrisies in any one of our lives.  I don't see liking boxing and football incompatible with pacifism unless they start having fights to the death.

Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 12:37:11 AM
I don't really understand the "War is Heresy" statement.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief.  War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action.  There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another.  It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy".  It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!
I continue to be uncomfortable singling out one person.  I'm sure anyone could find what they perceive to be hypocrisies in any one of our lives.  I don't see liking boxing and football incompatible with pacifism unless they start having fights to the death.

Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.

Indeed. And if the object of a "sport" such as boxing is to knock the snot out of your opponent (if not knock him out entirely), how is this not violence?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 29, 2013, 12:52:54 AM
Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.
There's different definitions.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 01:00:12 AM
Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.
There's different definitions.

Such as?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 29, 2013, 01:33:16 AM
How important can this thing possibly be if almost no one has heard of it?  I have a graduate theological degree, and your post was the first time I ever heard of such a thing.  We have more collective awareness of digging up dead bishops and seating their vested bones on thrones in order to "preside" over synods, "ordain" people, etc. than we do about Solomon's Ghostbuster Ring.  It really does seem arcane even among the arcane.  Oh well.     
Funny. :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 29, 2013, 01:34:32 AM
Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.
There's different definitions.

Such as?

Quote
Definition of PACIFISM
1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifism
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 01:38:37 AM
Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.
There's different definitions.

Pacifism is opposition to war and violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud (1864–1921) and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901. (The Abolition of War: the Peace Movement in Britain, 1914-1919 by Keith Robbins. University of Wales Press, 1976. ISBN 978-0-7083-0622-2 (p.10)

So, perhaps it does not extend to bloody combat sports.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 03:46:32 AM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.

Which ones, Michal? Oh, wait, this "Mother of God, Patroness of Football"  was blessed by a Byzantine Catholic bishop, and a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/StNH7DSdpyI/AAAAAAAAPJ8/ZMFD1fIdI5c/s800/1.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=If_Ipj81kdY

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....  
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Santagranddad on August 29, 2013, 05:37:01 AM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.

Which ones, Michal? Oh, wait, this "Mother of God, Patroness of Football"  was blessed by a Byzantine Catholic bishop, and a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/StNH7DSdpyI/AAAAAAAAPJ8/ZMFD1fIdI5c/s800/1.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=If_Ipj81kdY

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....  

Oh, dear........ :(
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 29, 2013, 07:41:21 AM
Iconoclasm is a declared heresy, the Church has anathematized the iconoclasts, and continues to do so to this day at the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

We are not talking about iconoclasm. We are talking about saints directing hands in allegedly wrong (not-Orthodox) direction.

Quote
Many aspects of iconography I have written about over the years are in the light of formal and universal declarations by the Church.

Which of those you shared none. Gebre is better in this case than you since he tries to validate his claims somehow.

Quote
Last time I checked, war was not a declared heresy.

Icons without stars neither.

Supply proof that I have been in error when I post on iconography.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying you are authoritarian and do not validate your thesises.

Quote
Do you object to that?

No, neither I really object to what Gebre does.


LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.

Which ones, Michal? Oh, wait, this "Mother of God, Patroness of Football"  was blessed by a Byzantine Catholic bishop, and a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/StNH7DSdpyI/AAAAAAAAPJ8/ZMFD1fIdI5c/s800/1.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=If_Ipj81kdY

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....  

I neither consider Greek Catholics or Kiev Patriarchate to be my bishops. But if I found it in my church I would venerate it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 07:53:43 AM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.

Which ones, Michal? Oh, wait, this "Mother of God, Patroness of Football"  was blessed by a Byzantine Catholic bishop, and a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/StNH7DSdpyI/AAAAAAAAPJ8/ZMFD1fIdI5c/s800/1.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=If_Ipj81kdY

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....  

Oh, dear........ :(

Indeed. The image was commissioned for the then-upcoming soccer Euro 2012 tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine. It is a complete disgrace to the clergy who participated in the commissioning and blessing of this monstrosity, and to the iconographer who painted it.  >:( >:(

Much could be written about the iconographic nonsense present in this image, from the ball between Christ’s hands (looks like He’s just saved a goal – I can hear the stampede of team managers rushing to sign up the Holy Goalie – and what a great slogan: “We have GOD on our side!”), to the Mother of God pointing to the soccer pitch as the way to salvation.  :P  :P :P

All that’s needed now is for some clown to write an akathist to the Mother of God “Patroness of Soccer” …. Don't laugh, folks - akathists have been written for Rasputin.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 08:00:22 AM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.

Which ones, Michal? Oh, wait, this "Mother of God, Patroness of Football"  was blessed by a Byzantine Catholic bishop, and a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/StNH7DSdpyI/AAAAAAAAPJ8/ZMFD1fIdI5c/s800/1.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=If_Ipj81kdY

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....  

Oh, dear........ :(

Indeed. The image was commissioned for the then-upcoming soccer Euro 2012 tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine. It is a complete disgrace to the clergy who participated in the commissioning and blessing of this monstrosity, and to the iconographer who painted it.  >:( >:(

Much could be written about the iconographic nonsense present in this image, from the ball between Christ’s hands (looks like He’s just saved a goal – I can hear the stampede of team managers rushing to sign up the Holy Goalie – and what a great slogan: “We have GOD on our side!”), to the Mother of God pointing to the soccer pitch as the way to salvation.  :P  :P :P

All that’s needed now is for some clown to write an akathist to the Mother of God “Patroness of Soccer” …. Don't laugh, folks - akathists have been written for Rasputin.


Don't be ridiculous.  It would be the Patroness of Football.  Soccer is just a silly American word.  :P
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 08:09:40 AM
We are not talking about iconoclasm. We are talking about saints directing hands in allegedly wrong (not-Orthodox) direction.

What on earth are you talking about?  ???

Quote
Which of those you shared none. Gebre is better in this case than you since he tries to validate his claims somehow.

You've been reading my posts with your eyes firmly shut, then. Obviously my use of scripture, hymnography, conciliar rulings, history and patristic writings to support what I write isn't good enough for you.  ::)


Quote
Last time I checked, war was not a declared heresy.

Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the time of the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


Supply proof that I have been in error when I post on iconography.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying you are authoritarian and do not validate your thesises.

See above. And see Fr George's post # 285 in this thread. You might learn something if you condescend to do so.


I neither consider Greek Catholics or Kiev Patriarchate to be my bishops. But if I found it in my church I would venerate it.

Then you would be a fool for doing so, knowing how utterly unsuitable for veneration this image is.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 08:11:52 AM

Don't be ridiculous.  It would be the Patroness of Football.  Soccer is just a silly American word.  :P

I know. But the majority of readers here are Americans, where the dominant football code is not a game played with a round ball.  ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 08:20:54 AM
Quote
Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy.  Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ.  God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God.  If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 08:49:22 AM
Quote
Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy.  Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ.  God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God.  If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!  ;D

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates.  If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 08:59:39 AM
Quote
Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy.  Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ.  God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God.  If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!  ;D

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates.  If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.


HERETIC!

We should be annointing one another's feet with oil and cleaning them with our hair and tears in rememberance of the woman who came in penitence to Christ.  Do you now deny the necessity of repentance!?!

Cold feet is just part of the ascetical practice.  Do you now deny ascetical worship as well? You might as well go join Joel Osteen.

 :P
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 09:06:46 AM

Well....Joel does provide nice cushy seats, with individual arm rests.

As for anointing each other's feet with oil....don't get overly zealous.

Remember, she anointed Christ's feet, not Joe's or Sam's.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Mor Ephrem on August 29, 2013, 09:12:49 AM
I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

But do feet stink naturally, or only because we keep them covered with socks and shoes most of the time?  I am from a tradition where we never wear shoes inside the nave, and I haven't noticed any smell of stinking feet.  

One point of which shoe-wearers are not often cognizant is where their shoes have been before they enter the nave.  People step in mud, dirty water, animal feces, roads covered with oil from automobiles, etc.  And then, they come to church wearing those shoes.  They approach the chalice wearing those shoes.  If they are the priest or the bishop, they stand at the holy altar with those shoes.  I understand that shoe-wearers don't think of those things when they put their shoes on, but frankly I am scandalised every time I see it.  

There have been times where I visited EO churches and the priest allowed me to enter the altar area, or where I was even allowed to commune because economy was applied.  I always took off my shoes to approach the chalice or enter the altar, even if I kept them on otherwise so as not to look completely out of place.  I don't know how else to do it.  I don't know why you wouldn't take off your shoes...    

Quote
Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates.  If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.

...and there's at least one good reason.  :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 09:14:19 AM
Quote
Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy.  Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ.  God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God.  If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!  ;D

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates.  If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.


HERETIC!

We should be annointing one another's feet with oil and cleaning them with our hair and tears in rememberance of the woman who came in penitence to Christ.  Do you now deny the necessity of repentance!?!

Cold feet is just part of the ascetical practice.  Do you now deny ascetical worship as well? You might as well go join Joel Osteen.

 :P

TheTrisagion, are you channeling 88Devin12?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 09:18:18 AM

Well....Joel does provide nice cushy seats, with individual arm rests.

As for anointing each other's feet with oil....don't get overly zealous.

Remember, she anointed Christ's feet, not Joe's or Sam's.

Your heretical teachings just get worse and worse!  Did you not know that we are to see Christ in all who we come in contact with?  I see now that you are anti-Trinitarian and do not even believe in the existence of God the Son. May St. Matthew rebuke your sinfulness through his passage of the sheep and the goats.
Quote
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

I'm not sure if even Joel Osteen will accept you now.  Oh wait...as long as you send him a donation, he probably will.  ;D
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 09:19:46 AM
Quote
Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy.  Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ.  God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God.  If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!  ;D

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates.  If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.


HERETIC!

We should be annointing one another's feet with oil and cleaning them with our hair and tears in rememberance of the woman who came in penitence to Christ.  Do you now deny the necessity of repentance!?!

Cold feet is just part of the ascetical practice.  Do you now deny ascetical worship as well? You might as well go join Joel Osteen.

 :P

TheTrisagion, are you channeling 88Devin12?  :laugh:
ME?  :angel:

I would never use satire to give anyone a tweak.  I'm a very serious minded individual.  Everyone knows that.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 09:26:12 AM
I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

But do feet stink naturally, or only because we keep them covered with socks and shoes most of the time?  I am from a tradition where we never wear shoes inside the nave, and I haven't noticed any smell of stinking feet.  

One point of which shoe-wearers are not often cognizant is where their shoes have been before they enter the nave.  People step in mud, dirty water, animal feces, roads covered with oil from automobiles, etc.  And then, they come to church wearing those shoes.  They approach the chalice wearing those shoes.  If they are the priest or the bishop, they stand at the holy altar with those shoes.  I understand that shoe-wearers don't think of those things when they put their shoes on, but frankly I am scandalised every time I see it.  


As I said...I have often wondered about this.

We normally take our shoes off when we step in our homes, because we don't want to spread not only the mud and dirt, but, who-knows-what, onto our carpets and in to our rooms.

I know that you take of your shoes, as do the Muslims, Hindus, etc.

....and I always remember God's instructions to Moses.

I can only assume that we wear shoes out of Economia, due to most of us living in cold climates.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 29, 2013, 09:27:48 AM
What on earth are you talking about?  ???

Something like that for example: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg977540.html#msg977540

Quote
You've been reading my posts with your eyes firmly shut, then. Obviously my use of scripture, hymnography, conciliar rulings, history and patristic writings to support what I write isn't good enough for you.  ::)

Where do you do that? Show me a couple of examples.

Quote
The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the time of the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.

Says anonymous woman on the Internet. Not buying it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 09:29:57 AM
I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

But do feet stink naturally, or only because we keep them covered with socks and shoes most of the time?  I am from a tradition where we never wear shoes inside the nave, and I haven't noticed any smell of stinking feet.  

One point of which shoe-wearers are not often cognizant is where their shoes have been before they enter the nave.  People step in mud, dirty water, animal feces, roads covered with oil from automobiles, etc.  And then, they come to church wearing those shoes.  They approach the chalice wearing those shoes.  If they are the priest or the bishop, they stand at the holy altar with those shoes.  I understand that shoe-wearers don't think of those things when they put their shoes on, but frankly I am scandalised every time I see it.  


As I said...I have often wondered about this.

We normally take our shoes off when we step in our homes, because we don't want to spread not only the mud and dirt, but, who-knows-what, onto our carpets and in to our rooms.

I know that you take of your shoes, as do the Muslims, Hindus, etc.

....and I always remember God's instructions to Moses.

I can only assume that we wear shoes out of Economia, due to most of us living in cold climates.

There can be no economia when it comes to heresy.  >:(

 :-*
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: hecma925 on August 29, 2013, 09:32:42 AM
Quote
Icons without stars neither.


The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.


The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy.  Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ.  God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God.  If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!  ;D

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates.  If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.



There is a theological solution to this problem:

http://youtu.be/msQJyUfOTp0

Odor eaters!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 29, 2013, 09:40:25 AM
Quote
Something like that for example: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47878.msg977540.html#msg977540

Why does the Mother of God always point to her Son in icons, Michal? Why do martyr-saints point to the cross they are holding, or to a motif of Christ, or to Christ Himself in a supplicatory series? I have given the answer many a time on this forum. If you had paid attention to the answer, you would know why a saint pointing to an angel plowing his field is wrong.

Quote
Where do you do that? Show me a couple of examples.

Go back and read the Schlock Icons thread yourself. And any other thread on iconography I've contributed to, such as those on St Joseph the Betrothed, and, most recently, the Icons and the Old Testament thread.

I've done my homework, don't expect me to do yours.

Quote
Says anonymous woman on the Internet. Not buying it.

Who are you, again? Why should what you say matter, if what I say is worthless?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 29, 2013, 11:56:18 AM
Mike, this thread is about Gebre Menfes Kidus and his message. Please do not distract this thread from its intended purpose by launching one of your aggressive criticisms of LBK. If that's what you want to do, then take your campaign against LBK to another thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 12:37:58 PM
I guess this will stir up the pot a bit. Here is an example of how Gebre views himself, or at least viewed himself at one time, this site http://dingelmariam.01.free.bm/ was set up by Gebre Tsadik, who is his FB friend and whom he thanks in his book as "Abba Gebre Tsadik" a man, who I am told is a self appointed "priest" who mixes rastafarianism with Orthodoxy, this is what I have been told, I cannot substantiate these claims, although he has another site which looks the same but the church is allegedly based in L.A. and they meet in a Jamaican lounge.

I questioned Gebre about this before he removed and blocked me from facebook and severed all ties with me and he explained that this was set up a long time ago and was unaware that he was referred to as a "religious leader" on the site. I am thinking how long ago could this possibly have been? Gebre has been baptized for no more than 4 years or so. At what point was he appointed as a religious leader? Now, he said he was aware of the website and had seen it, but then denied knowing that he was referred to as a religious leader on it.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 12:41:02 PM

How do you know the GEBRE MENFES KIDUS listed there, is our Gebre?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 12:45:46 PM

How do you know the GEBRE MENFES KIDUS listed there, is our Gebre?


Same way you KNOW his book was authorized...I asked him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 12:49:10 PM

So, you asked him, if GEBRE MENFES KIDUS was him....and he said yes, but, neglected to read the phrase, "religious leader" that was associated with his name.

Is that what you are saying?

Also, per your argument....that Gebre has only been baptized Orthodox for no more than 4 years, stipulates that the label given him on that website, precedes his baptism.  Right?

If so, why are you punishing him for something that he was guilty of, prior to his conversion?

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 01:00:15 PM

So, you asked him, if GEBRE MENFES KIDUS was him....and he said yes, but, neglected to read the phrase, "religious leader" that was associated with his name.

Is that what you are saying?

Also, per your argument....that Gebre has only been baptized Orthodox for no more than 4 years, stipulates that the label given him on that website, precedes his baptism.  Right?

If so, why are you punishing him for something that he was guilty of, prior to his conversion?



You have to ask Gebre about this if you want to know more, asking me about what Gebre knows are does not know is only setting me up because I cannot know what Gebre thinks or knows concerning this, therefore I must assume based upon what I have to go on. So, instead of setting me up so you or others can accuse me of maligning his character, go ask him. I am merely presenting this to show some evidence to my assumption on why I think he has been dishonest, and he clearly has been. I have no idea when the site was made, or why, or even who made it. I am telling you what Gebre said to me concerning this. But, if he was considered a religious leader by someone, then this could explain the way he speaks and acts. Thinking he can quote fathers he knows nothing about, thereby misrepresenting their teachings as a sort of end justifies the means. Again, this is my assumption on the connection to this website and pseudo-church, ask him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 01:12:35 PM

So, you asked him, if GEBRE MENFES KIDUS was him....and he said yes, but, neglected to read the phrase, "religious leader" that was associated with his name.

Is that what you are saying?

Also, per your argument....that Gebre has only been baptized Orthodox for no more than 4 years, stipulates that the label given him on that website, precedes his baptism.  Right?

If so, why are you punishing him for something that he was guilty of, prior to his conversion?



You have to ask Gebre about this if you want to know more, asking me about what Gebre knows are does not know is only setting me up because I cannot know what Gebre thinks or knows concerning this, therefore I must assume based upon what I have to go on. So, instead of setting me up so you or others can accuse me of maligning his character, go ask him. I am merely presenting this to show some evidence to my assumption on why I think he has been dishonest, and he clearly has been. I have no idea when the site was made, or why, or even who made it. I am telling you what Gebre said to me concerning this. But, if he was considered a religious leader by someone, then this could explain the way he speaks and acts. Thinking he can quote fathers he knows nothing about, thereby misrepresenting their teachings as a sort of end justifies the means. Again, this is my assumption on the connection to this website and pseudo-church, ask him.

You looked it up, your brought it in to this conversation, and now you wish to appear innocent and direct us to go ask Gebre, lest we "set you up" as maligning his character.

Without asking him, let me speculate....the site has not had any updates since 2006.  This means it's not been updated for at least 6 years.  Per your own words, Gebre has only been Orthodox for four years.

Thereby, using your logic, the information entered predates his baptism.  Even if he was considered a "religious leader", that also predates his baptism.

I'm not saying that Gebre is correct in having misquoted the Church Fathers.  If he has done so intentionally to suit his personal agenda, that is between him, his priest and God.  His priest is aware of his writings.  If he wishes to correct him, he should do so.

Many people on this Forum and in the outside real world will misquote others.  It is the recipients duty to verify what they believe.   Why anyone would consider Gebre's words as doctrine is beyond me.  He is clearly a layperson, and never claimed otherwise...not in his books, nor on this Forum, nor on FB, etc.

You've made your public correction of his sins....now why must you keep trying to dig up additional dirt on him?

You've done your Christian duty....don't become Pharisaical in your judgment and actions towards him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on August 29, 2013, 01:19:54 PM
Mike, this thread is about Gebre Menfes Kidus and his message. Please do not distract this thread from its intended purpose by launching one of your aggressive criticisms of LBK. If that's what you want to do, then take your campaign against LBK to another thread.

 Thank you, Pta.  I'm glad another mod had the courage to say this.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 01:48:20 PM

So, you asked him, if GEBRE MENFES KIDUS was him....and he said yes, but, neglected to read the phrase, "religious leader" that was associated with his name.

Is that what you are saying?

Also, per your argument....that Gebre has only been baptized Orthodox for no more than 4 years, stipulates that the label given him on that website, precedes his baptism.  Right?

If so, why are you punishing him for something that he was guilty of, prior to his conversion?



You have to ask Gebre about this if you want to know more, asking me about what Gebre knows are does not know is only setting me up because I cannot know what Gebre thinks or knows concerning this, therefore I must assume based upon what I have to go on. So, instead of setting me up so you or others can accuse me of maligning his character, go ask him. I am merely presenting this to show some evidence to my assumption on why I think he has been dishonest, and he clearly has been. I have no idea when the site was made, or why, or even who made it. I am telling you what Gebre said to me concerning this. But, if he was considered a religious leader by someone, then this could explain the way he speaks and acts. Thinking he can quote fathers he knows nothing about, thereby misrepresenting their teachings as a sort of end justifies the means. Again, this is my assumption on the connection to this website and pseudo-church, ask him.

You looked it up, your brought it in to this conversation, and now you wish to appear innocent and direct us to go ask Gebre, lest we "set you up" as maligning his character.

Without asking him, let me speculate....the site has not had any updates since 2006.  This means it's not been updated for at least 6 years.  Per your own words, Gebre has only been Orthodox for four years.

Thereby, using your logic, the information entered predates his baptism.  Even if he was considered a "religious leader", that also predates his baptism.

I'm not saying that Gebre is correct in having misquoted the Church Fathers.  If he has done so intentionally to suit his personal agenda, that is between him, his priest and God.  His priest is aware of his writings.  If he wishes to correct him, he should do so.

Many people on this Forum and in the outside real world will misquote others.  It is the recipients duty to verify what they believe.   Why anyone would consider Gebre's words as doctrine is beyond me.  He is clearly a layperson, and never claimed otherwise...not in his books, nor on this Forum, nor on FB, etc.

You've made your public correction of his sins....now why must you keep trying to dig up additional dirt on him?

You've done your Christian duty....don't become Pharisaical in your judgment and actions towards him.


Look, I made it clear what the intention of showing that site was. If it predates his baptism then so be it.

Imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on his book and or his FB page, blog, etc. If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused or think he IS some sort of authority or religious leader. The way he present himself and his arguments would suggest to those who dont know better that he has some authority with which to teach. Now, imagine someone from the military reads his anti-military comments or the poem he wrote against soldiers.

I am not out to dig up dirt, but for a man who lacks tact and publicly denounces people on a consistent basis, why is it wrong for me to point out the error of his teachings? Why can he openly insult people for being part of "babylon system" and I, after numerous attempts at correcting him, am "digging up dirt" on him?

A fool seeks reassurance while the wise seek out criticism...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 01:49:56 PM
Also, Lyza, you are asking me Gebres intentions and what he knows, that is why I directed you to him, ask him. Me answering for him or what I think is not going to give you an answer as I cannot possibly know his intentions or what he is thinking, I can only assume. If you want to know, go ask him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 01:53:29 PM
Also, Lyza, you are asking me Gebres intentions and what he knows, that is why I directed you to him, ask him. Me answering for him or what I think is not going to give you an answer as I cannot possibly know his intentions or what he is thinking, I can only assume. If you want to know, go ask him.
Yet you seem to know that his intentions are to misuse patristic quotations to fit his belief in pacifism.   ::)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 02:00:42 PM
Also, Lyza, you are asking me Gebres intentions and what he knows, that is why I directed you to him, ask him. Me answering for him or what I think is not going to give you an answer as I cannot possibly know his intentions or what he is thinking, I can only assume. If you want to know, go ask him.
Yet you seem to know that his intentions are to misuse patristic quotations to fit his belief in pacifism.   ::)

What other possible reason would he misuse them? I made sure he had access to the writings, he acknowledged receiving the writings on his kindle and said to me that he does not understand them, at least referring to St Hippolytus and said he had not read St. Basil. And for the record that quote cited in the OP by St. Basil, I could not find. So either he quoted them being totally unaware of their canons or other teachings, or he did it purposely. His quotation of Father Stanley Harakas is a great example of this, did he read the whole article? If he did, why did he ignore the summary of Father Stanley Harakas and opt to make it seem as if Fr. Harakas was advocating pacifism? So either way he is to blame for pure ignorance or purposefully misusing the church fathers to suit his own agenda. The fact that he has outright refused to listen to several people tell him he should not do this, he continued. So, based on what we know, what am I supposed to think?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 29, 2013, 02:07:39 PM
Also, Lyza, you are asking me Gebres intentions and what he knows, that is why I directed you to him, ask him. Me answering for him or what I think is not going to give you an answer as I cannot possibly know his intentions or what he is thinking, I can only assume. If you want to know, go ask him.
Yet you seem to know that his intentions are to misuse patristic quotations to fit his belief in pacifism.   ::)

What other possible reason would he misuse them? I made sure he had access to the writings, he acknowledged receiving the writings on his kindle and said to me that he does not understand them, at least referring to St Hippolytus and said he had not read St. Basil. And for the record that quote cited in the OP by St. Basil, I could not find. So either he quoted them being totally unaware of their canons or other teachings, or he did it purposely. His quotation of Father Stanley Harakas is a great example of this, did he read the whole article? If he did, why did he ignore the summary of Father Stanley Harakas and opt to make it seem as if Fr. Harakas was advocating pacifism? So either way he is to blame for pure ignorance or purposefully misusing the church fathers to suit his own agenda. The fact that he has outright refused to listen to several people tell him he should not do this, he continued. So, based on what we know, what am I supposed to think?
Well, you could think, "Maybe I don't need to be the Gebre policeman and I will let this to be resolved between him and his priest"
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 02:09:24 PM
Also, Lyza, you are asking me Gebres intentions and what he knows, that is why I directed you to him, ask him. Me answering for him or what I think is not going to give you an answer as I cannot possibly know his intentions or what he is thinking, I can only assume. If you want to know, go ask him.
Yet you seem to know that his intentions are to misuse patristic quotations to fit his belief in pacifism.   ::)

What other possible reason would he misuse them? I made sure he had access to the writings, he acknowledged receiving the writings on his kindle and said to me that he does not understand them, at least referring to St Hippolytus and said he had not read St. Basil. And for the record that quote cited in the OP by St. Basil, I could not find. So either he quoted them being totally unaware of their canons or other teachings, or he did it purposely. His quotation of Father Stanley Harakas is a great example of this, did he read the whole article? If he did, why did he ignore the summary of Father Stanley Harakas and opt to make it seem as if Fr. Harakas was advocating pacifism? So either way he is to blame for pure ignorance or purposefully misusing the church fathers to suit his own agenda. The fact that he has outright refused to listen to several people tell him he should not do this, he continued. So, based on what we know, what am I supposed to think?
Well, you could think, "Maybe I don't need to be the Gebre policeman and I will let this to be resolved between him and his priest"

Hopefully it will be, and I am not attempting to police him. Just point out the errors he refuses to see, thats all. :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on August 29, 2013, 02:23:06 PM
Ioannes,

 Let's walk through this and see if it makes sense;  So just because somebody didn't change their mind after you talked to them, you're gonna take what's obviously a personal issue to a forum that has zero authority to make them change their mind to...  make them change their mind?  Assuming this isn't a pathetic bid for attention, why not just take the matter up with their priest or bishop?  Better yet, why not worry about your own problems?  

 I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 02:31:06 PM

Look, I made it clear what the intention of showing that site was. If it predates his baptism then so be it.

Imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on his book and or his FB page, blog, etc. If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused or think he IS some sort of authority or religious leader. The way he present himself and his arguments would suggest to those who dont know better that he has some authority with which to teach. Now, imagine someone from the military reads his anti-military comments or the poem he wrote against soldiers.


Really.  I think we could do worse if folks reading his posts, decided that "peace" is a good thing, and abortion is a bad thing.

I haven't read the poem, but, if I had I would have shaken my head sadly.

This is America.  We have freedom of speech here.  You don't have to agree with him.  In fact, you ought to stay away from him.  Stop reading what he posts on Facebook. 

Until or unless he states that he IS representing the Church is some capacity, he is free to write what he wishes.

As I said, you've done your Christian duty, in advising him of his mistakes, for the sake of his salvation.  Now, leave it up to him to either accept your correction or not.

You've already done it.

Now, just leave it alone, and focus on the next target.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 29, 2013, 06:36:52 PM
Also, Lyza, you are asking me Gebres intentions and what he knows, that is why I directed you to him, ask him. Me answering for him or what I think is not going to give you an answer as I cannot possibly know his intentions or what he is thinking, I can only assume. If you want to know, go ask him.
Yet you seem to know that his intentions are to misuse patristic quotations to fit his belief in pacifism.   ::)
That's what Gebre does. There's no need to discern his intent.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 29, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down. 
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 29, 2013, 06:49:24 PM
And Lizas point is further proven.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 09:08:04 PM
Ioannes,

 Let's walk through this and see if it makes sense;  So just because somebody didn't change their mind after you talked to them, you're gonna take what's obviously a personal issue to a forum that has zero authority to make them change their mind to...  make them change their mind?  Assuming this isn't a pathetic bid for attention, why not just take the matter up with their priest or bishop?  Better yet, why not worry about your own problems?  

 I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down. 

Nope, if that is a result of all this then hooray. But if you read through this you would see that I have explained this several times, maybe you should go through and read the several times I have explained this and then maybe that will explain it.

Lyza, thank you. I have not discussed anything with him since he removed me. The only reason I am posting here is to make sure that my intentions are clear, despite that they seem to remain unclear to some. Once again, I am not saying that I disagree and that is why I am doing this, I have stated clearly that is is not a personal matter nor a matter of disagreement. The OP is clear that I have an issue with him continually misusing fathers and others writings to justify his stance.

I know that some perhaps think this is a personal grudge, the fact is, Gebre and I know many personal things about each other, either of us could easily have turned this into a public mudslinging contest, but he remained silent and I did my best to stick to the issue that I have a problem with. I know Gebre seems to think I have betrayed him, and thats fine, and that I am maligning his character, again he is free to think whatever he wishes when it comes to people criticizing his methods or views, and like I said many of us have pointed this particular issue out to him on a number of occasions. This is his way of dealing with it, making me or others the "bad guy." I will tell you this, I would NOT have given my daughter his recently deceased daughters name if I did not feel some sort of connection with the guy. It truly is unfortunate that he uses dishonest methods to mislead people, wether he knows it or not. But him outright refusing to listen is a serious issue, in my opinion and others who are close to him. He flat out told me that he does not need me giving him any advice.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: podkarpatska on August 29, 2013, 09:11:07 PM

LOL!  I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.



Nevertheless, there were some people, priests or bishops who consider them OK. That means it's their opinion vs. LBK's opinion.

Which ones, Michal? Oh, wait, this "Mother of God, Patroness of Football"  was blessed by a Byzantine Catholic bishop, and a Ukrainian Orthodox priest.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_NfsdvUxYGkI/StNH7DSdpyI/AAAAAAAAPJ8/ZMFD1fIdI5c/s800/1.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=If_Ipj81kdY

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....  

Oh, dear........ :(


Of course this is wrong on many counts.  First, it's not even football......
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: DeniseDenise on August 29, 2013, 09:17:42 PM


...

Imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on his book and or his FB page, blog, etc. If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused or think he IS some sort of authority or religious leader. ...


and imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on this site and thread...etc.  If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused and think that numerous people here are some sort of authority, or that Orthodoxy cannot even agree with themselves...

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 29, 2013, 09:22:27 PM


...

Imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on his book and or his FB page, blog, etc. If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused or think he IS some sort of authority or religious leader. ...


and imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on this site and thread...etc.  If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused and think that numerous people here are some sort of authority, or that Orthodoxy cannot even agree with themselves...



Well, I would hope that the person would, if they had the misfortune of stumbling upon this site, read the OP first to see that this is not even an issue of two opposing views disagreeing, or even about religion, but about someone being dishonest. I would think that someone coming upon this site and seeing that it is filled with all sorts of religions, not just Orthodoxy, that would be odd for them as it was for me. Why is the name even OrthodoxChristianity.net if its for everyone? That in itself is confusing.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 29, 2013, 09:30:21 PM

Well, I would hope that the person would, if they had the misfortune of stumbling upon this site, read the OP first to see that this is not even an issue of two opposing views disagreeing, or even about religion, but about someone being dishonest. I would think that someone coming upon this site and seeing that it is filled with all sorts of religions, not just Orthodoxy, that would be odd for them as it was for me. Why is the name even OrthodoxChristianity.net if its for everyone? That in itself is confusing.

Misfortune to stumble upon this site?  Really?  You must be very unfortunate, because you stumbled upon it.

Why is it called Orthodox, and open to all?

How better to teach the non-Orthodox, then to allow them to freely come and ask questions, and discuss beliefs?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: DeniseDenise on August 29, 2013, 09:33:29 PM


...

Imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on his book and or his FB page, blog, etc. If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused or think he IS some sort of authority or religious leader. ...


and imagine someone looking to Orthodoxy and stumbles on this site and thread...etc.  If they have no understanding how Orthodoxy works then it would be very easy for them to be confused and think that numerous people here are some sort of authority, or that Orthodoxy cannot even agree with themselves...



Well, I would hope that the person would, if they had the misfortune of stumbling upon this site, read the OP first to see that this is not even an issue of two opposing views disagreeing, or even about religion, but about someone being dishonest. I would think that someone coming upon this site and seeing that it is filled with all sorts of religions, not just Orthodoxy, that would be odd for them as it was for me. Why is the name even OrthodoxChristianity.net if its for everyone? That in itself is confusing.


So.....you expect these folks to have some -discernment- about the content here....and be knowledgeable enough to know the differences between who is wise and who is full of horse pucky, considering almost everyone here postures at being wise and correct.

Yet you cannot see that these -same- folks, who would be likely to stumble on the other sites in question, would lose ALL that knowledge and discernment?

Do you see the issue with that logic?

So you are not -assisting- us poor confused inquirers either...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 29, 2013, 10:53:28 PM
Ioannes,

Maybe you already answered this, but what is the passage or paragraph Gebre wrote that disturbs you the most?

Generally the ones we discussed so far seem arguable.

Also, I don't know what Gebre's relations with Ras Tafarianism before becoming Oriental Orthodox have to do with the OP of this thread, which is supposed to be about his pacifism.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 30, 2013, 12:22:36 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down. 
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 30, 2013, 01:03:07 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.  
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
You do realize that I've also been just as outspoken in my criticism of Ioannes's deplorable tactics on this thread? I've been hard, but I've been fair.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 30, 2013, 01:04:52 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.  
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
You do realize that I've also been just as outspoken in my criticism of Ioannes's deplorable tactics on this thread?

NO

By that I am it appears that you have been supportive of this thread. I am not.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 30, 2013, 01:16:52 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.  
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
You do realize that I've also been just as outspoken in my criticism of Ioannes's deplorable tactics on this thread?

NO
Then please take the time to realize it. As I said, I've been hard, but I've been fair.

By that I am it appears that you have been supportive of this thread. I am not.
That's fine. I don't particularly like this thread, either, but I see no reason to override my colleague's decision to keep it open.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Shiny on August 30, 2013, 01:22:00 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down. 
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
Thank you Opus.

If there was ever a time to support abortion it would be for this thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 30, 2013, 01:31:10 AM
Maybe we should start another thread on this, but since it seems appropriate here.  I think everyone should be required to post their parish name and location, with priests name, email and phone number, as well as their Bishops corresponding information.  You know, just in case we need to contact them later based on what someone says here.  In the event they need to be punished corrected.   ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 30, 2013, 01:35:34 AM
Maybe we should start another thread on this, but since it seems appropriate here.  I think everyone should be required to post their parish name and location, with priests name, email and phone number, as well as their Bishops corresponding information.  You know, just in case we need to contact them later based on what someone says here.  In the event they need to be punished corrected.   ;)
You first. ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 30, 2013, 01:41:14 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.  
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
You do realize that I've also been just as outspoken in my criticism of Ioannes's deplorable tactics on this thread?

NO
Then please take the time to realize it. As I said, I've been hard, but I've been fair.

By that I am it appears that you have been supportive of this thread. I am not.
That's fine. I don't particularly like this thread, either, but I see no reason to override my colleague's decision to keep it open.

Thanks Peter. I think what disturbs me the most is that someone must confess to false OCnet Priests/Priestesses based on what they wrote or believed before they became Orthodox. This is what bothers me. It would be appropriate that I warn every potential covert of this abuse here. Does that make sense? Am I misreading this thread?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 30, 2013, 01:45:10 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.  
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
You do realize that I've also been just as outspoken in my criticism of Ioannes's deplorable tactics on this thread?

NO
Then please take the time to realize it. As I said, I've been hard, but I've been fair.

By that I am it appears that you have been supportive of this thread. I am not.
That's fine. I don't particularly like this thread, either, but I see no reason to override my colleague's decision to keep it open.

Thanks Peter. I think what disturbs me the most is that someone must confess to false OCnet Priests/Priestesses based on what they wrote or believed before they became Orthodox. This is what bothers me. It would be appropriate that I warn every potential covert of this abuse here. Does that make sense? Am I misreading this thread?
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. ??? Would you please enlighten me?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 30, 2013, 01:49:10 AM
Maybe we should start another thread on this, but since it seems appropriate here.  I think everyone should be required to post their parish name and location, with priests name, email and phone number, as well as their Bishops corresponding information.  You know, just in case we need to contact them later based on what someone says here.  In the event they need to be punished corrected.   ;)

Kerdy, I was only suggesting that they should consult as to whether they are on the right path. Don't lampoon me on something that I think is important.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 30, 2013, 01:51:51 AM
I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down.  
Why are you saying this publicly rather than use the "Report to Moderator" function?

 I will, this thread is an ABOMINATION!!!. You obviously have personal gripes. I do not, even though we disagree on many things. The similarity of what is going on here to bullying (primarily by you and Ioannes and LBK) is clear to me because I have been dealing with the after effects of this problem for a long time and at great cost. It seems to me that your view of the topic of this thread is about three members of this forum complaining about Gebre. It seems to me if  you have problems about his posts, you should deal with it in the thread that he posted. In reading this thread how many people are participating in your gripe? Not many. You are wrong about what this thread was about based on the initial post, you made it much more than that.

Peter tA, LBK, Ioannes, please post what your priests think about this thread.
You do realize that I've also been just as outspoken in my criticism of Ioannes's deplorable tactics on this thread?

NO
Then please take the time to realize it. As I said, I've been hard, but I've been fair.

By that I am it appears that you have been supportive of this thread. I am not.
That's fine. I don't particularly like this thread, either, but I see no reason to override my colleague's decision to keep it open.

Thanks Peter. I think what disturbs me the most is that someone must confess to false OCnet Priests/Priestesses based on what they wrote or believed before they became Orthodox. This is what bothers me. It would be appropriate that I warn every potential covert of this abuse here. Does that make sense? Am I misreading this thread?
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. ??? Would you please enlighten me?

I was referring to Liza's posts above. It is 11 pm and I have to wake up at 5 am so I will quit now.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Kerdy on August 30, 2013, 02:35:38 AM
Maybe we should start another thread on this, but since it seems appropriate here.  I think everyone should be required to post their parish name and location, with priests name, email and phone number, as well as their Bishops corresponding information.  You know, just in case we need to contact them later based on what someone says here.  In the event they need to be punished corrected.   ;)

Kerdy, I was only suggesting that they should consult as to whether they are on the right path. Don't lampoon me on something that I think is important.

It wasn't in response to your post, rather to Ioannes' demand to know Gebre's information and Gebre didn't give it to him.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: podkarpatska on August 30, 2013, 08:43:42 AM

...as some are not.

And is she an  ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

I'm not sure that all authoritative issues need to rise to the level of Hierarch, Synod, or Ecumenical Council.  There are generally accepted principles and standards that can be applied by all - otherwise, we would be paralyzed waiting for each level of administration to address the myriad of questions and challenges that arise day-to-day.

Along these lines, I can understand why you would feel this way about LBK's participation in icon discussions as the tone may seem similar to Gebre's usual style.  However, I find that the great difference in substantive approach between the two negates any apparent similarity.  LBK speaks about icons from a researched and reasonable position that is in line with the overwhelming majority of Orthodox sources and tradition on the subject, and keeps responses only to discussions of the substance of the icons themselves and the underlying theological problems seen in them.  Gebre's approach to the pacifist issue is more problematic considering the history of the Church-state relationship and the willingness to bless the soldiers (even if we don't bless the plans, ideals, etc.).  I am sympathetic to his position - I believe that war is never justified from a Christian moral POV, that it always must be repented of (since the taking of a life is a traumatic event for the soul regardless of the justification for doing it), and that we don't do a good enough job of promoting a peaceful agenda.  But I would never take it to the level of implying (or openly stating) that it is a dogmatic truth of Christianity that we must always be pacifists.  It is an untenable position.

(p.s. I only highlighted the two individuals to contrast good and bad approaches to dogmatic questions, NOT to start a debate about either user personally.)

Much of this thread is interesting, but I can not get past the fact that the title is directing it towards the point of view of one poster. I would hate to see us devolve to a series of posts doing just that. It would tend to stifle the expression of provocative or unpopular points of view and transform the board into a "Hallelujah Chorus" of self righteous triumphalism or a boring place of the repetitive self-evident. There is plenty of room to dispute or counter a post in the body of a thread with which we take issue.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 30, 2013, 10:26:55 AM
The only reason I am posting here is to make sure that my intentions are clear, despite that they seem to remain unclear to some.

Yes, you have some personal issues with Gebre. Everyone sees that.

Quote
I know that some perhaps think this is a personal grudge, the fact is, Gebre and I know many personal things about each other, either of us could easily have turned this into a public mudslinging contest, but he remained silent and I did my best to stick to the issue that I have a problem with.

You failed in the first post.

Quote
I know Gebre seems to think I have betrayed him, and thats fine,

And that's true.

This is America.  We have freedom of speech here.

Is this a serious argument?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on August 30, 2013, 10:29:10 AM

...as some are not.

And is she an  ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

I'm not sure that all authoritative issues need to rise to the level of Hierarch, Synod, or Ecumenical Council.  There are generally accepted principles and standards that can be applied by all - otherwise, we would be paralyzed waiting for each level of administration to address the myriad of questions and challenges that arise day-to-day.

Along these lines, I can understand why you would feel this way about LBK's participation in icon discussions as the tone may seem similar to Gebre's usual style.  However, I find that the great difference in substantive approach between the two negates any apparent similarity.  LBK speaks about icons from a researched and reasonable position that is in line with the overwhelming majority of Orthodox sources and tradition on the subject, and keeps responses only to discussions of the substance of the icons themselves and the underlying theological problems seen in them.  Gebre's approach to the pacifist issue is more problematic considering the history of the Church-state relationship and the willingness to bless the soldiers (even if we don't bless the plans, ideals, etc.).  I am sympathetic to his position - I believe that war is never justified from a Christian moral POV, that it always must be repented of (since the taking of a life is a traumatic event for the soul regardless of the justification for doing it), and that we don't do a good enough job of promoting a peaceful agenda.  But I would never take it to the level of implying (or openly stating) that it is a dogmatic truth of Christianity that we must always be pacifists.  It is an untenable position.

(p.s. I only highlighted the two individuals to contrast good and bad approaches to dogmatic questions, NOT to start a debate about either user personally.)

Much of this thread is interesting, but I can not get past the fact that the title is directing it towards the point of view of one poster. I would hate to see us devolve to a series of posts doing just that. It would tend to stifle the expression of provocative or unpopular points of view and transform the board into a "Hallelujah Chorus" of self righteous triumphalism or a boring place of the repetitive self-evident. There is plenty of room to dispute or counter a post in the body of a thread with which we take issue.

That is exactly what has been bothering me as well. Thanks for stating it so clearly.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 30, 2013, 10:34:18 AM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 30, 2013, 10:37:10 AM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on August 30, 2013, 10:39:08 AM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.
No, I assure you it was not.  Quite the opposite.  You have, quite reasonably, not made such a thread.  I am merely pointing out that we can disagree on issues and yet recognize that the disagreement does not have to desend into accusing each other of heresy.

My apologies if my attempt at humor was vague.  :-\
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 30, 2013, 10:41:37 AM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.
No, I assure you it was not.  Quite the opposite.  You have, quite reasonably, not made such a thread.  I am merely pointing out that we can disagree on issues and yet recognize that the disagreement does not have to desend into accusing each other of heresy.

My apologies if my attempt at humor was vague.  :-\

Thanks for the clarification. Apology accepted.  :)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LizaSymonenko on August 30, 2013, 10:51:23 AM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

I think he was just trying to be funny.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: LBK on August 30, 2013, 10:54:38 AM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.

I think he was just trying to be funny.


.... and he has explained himself, along with an apology.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 30, 2013, 11:39:21 AM
Ioannes,

 Let's walk through this and see if it makes sense;  So just because somebody didn't change their mind after you talked to them, you're gonna take what's obviously a personal issue to a forum that has zero authority to make them change their mind to...  make them change their mind?  Assuming this isn't a pathetic bid for attention, why not just take the matter up with their priest or bishop?  Better yet, why not worry about your own problems?  

 I vote the mods lock this embarrassing waste of bandwidth down. 

Nope, if that is a result of all this then hooray. But if you read through this you would see that I have explained this several times, maybe you should go through and read the several times I have explained this and then maybe that will explain it.

Lyza, thank you. I have not discussed anything with him since he removed me. The only reason I am posting here is to make sure that my intentions are clear, despite that they seem to remain unclear to some. Once again, I am not saying that I disagree and that is why I am doing this, I have stated clearly that is is not a personal matter nor a matter of disagreement. The OP is clear that I have an issue with him continually misusing fathers and others writings to justify his stance.

I know that some perhaps think this is a personal grudge, the fact is, Gebre and I know many personal things about each other, either of us could easily have turned this into a public mudslinging contest, but he remained silent and I did my best to stick to the issue that I have a problem with. I know Gebre seems to think I have betrayed him, and thats fine, and that I am maligning his character, again he is free to think whatever he wishes when it comes to people criticizing his methods or views, and like I said many of us have pointed this particular issue out to him on a number of occasions. This is his way of dealing with it, making me or others the "bad guy." I will tell you this, I would NOT have given my daughter his recently deceased daughters name if I did not feel some sort of connection with the guy. It truly is unfortunate that he uses dishonest methods to mislead people, wether he knows it or not. But him outright refusing to listen is a serious issue, in my opinion and others who are close to him. He flat out told me that he does not need me giving him any advice.
Ioannes, you have made your point. Some here, such as I, have even agreed with the substance of your complaints. What do you hope to accomplish by pushing your complaints to the extent that you're now harassing Gebre? Don't you think it's about time you stopped?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 30, 2013, 12:36:30 PM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.

If this is a swipe at me, I ask that you go back and read Fr George's post # 285. It's bad form to put words in other people's mouths.
No, I assure you it was not.  Quite the opposite.  You have, quite reasonably, not made such a thread.  I am merely pointing out that we can disagree on issues and yet recognize that the disagreement does not have to desend into accusing each other of heresy.

My apologies if my attempt at humor was vague.  :-\

For the record, I never accused Gebre of heresy. Gebredoxy is a term coined on FB. Simply because Gebre makes it seem as if some of his beliefs are taught by the church.

Peter, I am harassing Gebre here? I am merely making sure that my position is understood, and it still seems to be misunderstood by some. I take offense to the accusation of me harassing him, I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that. I have not contacted him since he completely blocked me on FB. So the allegation of harrassment is a bit extreme, am I not allowed to defend what I wrote here?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 30, 2013, 12:42:27 PM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.
I think he was just trying to be funny.
He was!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 30, 2013, 12:43:53 PM
I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 30, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.
Is this considered harassment?
It was funny how you said that.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 30, 2013, 12:57:01 PM
It is pretty obvious I have failed miserably in that some perceive this to be a personal grudge, and some that I am harassing Gebre. I cannot change how others perceive what I say, so I can only take everything that has been said to me and offer an apology to everyone here. My goal was not to harm, hurt, or malign anyones character but simply bring to light things which were said or taught in public forums and point them out in public forums. Again, I apologize to everyone as I have made an obvious mistake as every attempt to explain my position and my intentions have failed, I can only blame myself as having made an error. Forgive me.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 30, 2013, 01:08:50 PM
Anyway, the quotes you found most offensive were those in the original post. And they were arguable.

St. Basil takes a very negative view of war, although he says sometimes it can be pardonable (eg. doing something wrong and then being forgiven for it).

Then, Gebre wrote that he agreed with some words of Fr. Harakas and he quoted them. Gebre did not say he agreed with everything on the topic. I could find a quote from a Church father on the Psalms, say I agree with the church father who says "_____". Yet that would not mean I agree with everything he wrote on the subject. Here, Fr. Harakas wrote about the Church father's negative view on war, and Gebre agreed with that.

As you pointed out, Fr. Harakas went on to make a more positive assessment of war:  
Quote
Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries.
Yet even here, Fr. Harakas said war "can" be seen as necessary, not that it is necessary.

Plus, one can reasonably argue that holy people should not engage in a large evil, even if it is "necessary". Faced with an order by an inquisitor to convert from the faith, it becomes absolutely necessary to do so. And yet we are not to do it anyway. Granted, the Church takes a more positive view of war than of a forced apostasy, but my point is that something being necessary does not make it OK.

So when it comes to St. Basil and Gebre's discussion of Fr. Harakas, it is arguable.

One possible problem with the quote from Fr. Harakas could be if Gebre is paraphrasing his words, but then putting it in quotation marks. But anyway picking it apart seems to be way overblown. We are not talking about a work by a Harvard professor, but probably the commentary on peace and life by a down to earth convert to Oriental Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 30, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
Anyway, the quotes you found most offensive were those in the original post. And they were arguable.

St. Basil takes a very negative view of war, although he says sometimes it can be pardonable (eg. doing something wrong and then being forgiven for it).

Then, Gebre wrote that he agreed with some words of Fr. Harakas and he quoted them. Gebre did not say he agreed with everything on the topic. I could find a quote from a Church father on the Psalms, say I agree with the church father who says "_____". Yet that would not mean I agree with everything he wrote on the subject. Here, Fr. Harakas wrote about the Church father's negative view on war, and Gebre agreed with that.

As you pointed out, Fr. Harakas went on to make a more positive assessment of war:  
Quote
Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a “just” war, much less a “good” war. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I concluded, war can be seen only as a “necessary evil,” with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries.
Yet even here, Fr. Harakas said war "can" be seen as necessary, not that it is necessary.

Plus, one can reasonably argue that holy people should not engage in a large evil, even if it is "necessary". Faced with an order by an inquisitor to convert from the faith, it becomes absolutely necessary to do so. And yet we are not to do it anyway. Granted, the Church takes a more positive view of war than of a forced apostasy, but my point is that something being necessary does not make it OK.

So when it comes to St. Basil and Gebre's discussion of Fr. Harakas, it is arguable.

One possible problem with the quote from Fr. Harakas could be if Gebre is paraphrasing his words, but then putting it in quotation marks. But anyway picking it apart seems to be way overblown. We are not talking about a work by a Harvard professor, but probably the commentary on peace and life by a down to earth convert to Orthodoxy.

I would say it is arguable to an extent, however, the way Gebre presents it is as if St. Basil, and others, have that view, since he does not mention St. Basil does not take a pacifist stance then it should be noted. The OP was an example of what Gebre does do consistently, in hindsight I wish I would have opted to elaborate more on that and perhaps use a bit more tact, which I often admittedly lack.

I am sure if you did something similar and someone pointed it out to you, you would either elaborate on why you did it, perhaps elaborating more, or, just say, oh I did not notice that and correct it. As opposed to making disparaging comments against those trying to correct you, delete their comments, or accuse them of attacking and or maligning your character.

St. Hippolytus' quote that Gebre uses, which is not listed, IS an arguable one. Was it written because the military was used to persecute the Chrsitians or was St. Hippolytus saying in general no Christian ever should join the military? I give him that, I do not agree with his interpretation but I can see how he WOULD interpret  St. Hippolytus that way.

But again, I apologize for my lack of tact and lack of judgment in posting this issue, which seems to me to be a serious and consistent issue, but not to others. Thank you all.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: livefreeordie on August 30, 2013, 01:30:30 PM
I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 30, 2013, 01:49:39 PM
Next up:

Against Kalinadoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Michal Kalina)

We could then have 6 pages of arguments on why he is a heretic for saying he might venerate an icon of the Theotokos that does not have stars on it if it was in his parish. Of course, I would assure you that he is a good friend of mine and I have approached him about this, but he has refused to repent, so I have no choice but to bring it to the public in hopes that he will repent.
I think he was just trying to be funny.
He was!

Indeed.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Ioannes on August 30, 2013, 01:56:39 PM
I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.

To be honest, I did not expect the response here that I got. The only reason I continued was to try and clarify my OP, that it was not a disagreement about pacifism or just war. I tried to stay on topic but I am still a little unsure of how defending my OP is considered "harassment" and apparently I am now "creepy." But again I apologize for having given this impression.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 30, 2013, 02:05:10 PM
I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.

To be honest, I did not expect the response here that I got. The only reason I continued was to try and clarify my OP, that it was not a disagreement about pacifism or just war. I tried to stay on topic but I am still a little unsure of how defending my OP is considered "harassment" and apparently I am now "creepy." But again I apologize for having given this impression.

Instead of falsely apologising, just stop.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 30, 2013, 03:26:39 PM
I simply posted this on FB, here, and on Amazon.com and left it at that.

Is this considered harassment?

Harassment, and just plain creepy. And you didn't leave it at that until you apologized after a million follow up posts.

To be honest, I did not expect the response here that I got. The only reason I continued was to try and clarify my OP, that it was not a disagreement about pacifism or just war. I tried to stay on topic but I am still a little unsure of how defending my OP is considered "harassment" and apparently I am now "creepy." But again I apologize for having given this impression.
Ioannes, I think it safe to say that nobody really wants to hear you opine on this subject anymore.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on August 30, 2013, 10:59:59 PM
Maybe we should start another thread on this, but since it seems appropriate here.  I think everyone should be required to post their parish name and location, with priests name, email and phone number, as well as their Bishops corresponding information.  You know, just in case we need to contact them later based on what someone says here.  In the event they need to be punished corrected.   ;)

Kerdy, I was only suggesting that they should consult as to whether they are on the right path. Don't lampoon me on something that I think is important.

It wasn't in response to your post, rather to Ioannes' demand to know Gebre's information and Gebre didn't give it to him.

I apologize Kerdy, the similarity it the topic to mine, without reference, led me to the false supposition. I did appreciate your posts early on in this thread.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Punch on August 31, 2013, 12:13:52 PM

You can't love your enemies with the sword, fist, or bullet.

You can pray for their Salvation as you kill them. 
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: katherine 2001 on August 31, 2013, 01:54:21 PM
You'd better be praying for your own salvation if you are killing someone.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Cyrillic on August 31, 2013, 05:53:25 PM
Of course this is wrong on many counts.  First, it's not even football......

(http://www.augmentedplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/handegg.jpg)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: mike on August 31, 2013, 05:56:49 PM
More like a coconut.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Santagranddad on August 31, 2013, 06:04:00 PM
Of course this is wrong on many counts.  First, it's not even football......

(http://www.augmentedplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/handegg.jpg)

Football in UK is usually what our American cousins refer to as soccer, can also be Rugby Union or Rugby League and then there is Australian rules football, a game for real men with a patent disregard for their own or anyone else's safety. The former is often referred to as the beautiful game or, my favourite, a game for gentlemen played by thugs.

Quite what the heck is going on with guys in armour charging up and down with an egg is beyond me. But it's not football as we know it.  :-*

And the beautiful game is played all over the World but the American innovation which isn't has a World Series, which it isn't. I'm confused and need a glass of Black Bush.  ;)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on August 31, 2013, 09:46:02 PM
Of course this is wrong on many counts.  First, it's not even football......

(http://www.augmentedplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/handegg.jpg)
I konfuzed. What mean handegg? Men hold eggs wiz hands?
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on August 31, 2013, 10:23:03 PM
I find American football to be far more entertaining than competitive flopping soccer, but I don't mind piling onto handegg a bit sometimes as well. In particular: it's funny that while there are people who use their feet in American football, they are usually the least respected players on the team, usually drafted rather late (if at all), the lowest paid starters, etc...

Still, yeah, let's go handeggers football!
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 01, 2013, 09:25:11 PM
I find American football to be far more entertaining than competitive flopping soccer, but I don't mind piling onto handegg a bit sometimes as well. In particular: it's funny that while there are people who use their feet in American football, they are usually the least respected players on the team, usually drafted rather late (if at all), the lowest paid starters, etc...

Still, yeah, let's go handeggers football!
I am normally excited about "handegg" but with as bad as I expect the Steelers to do this year, it is more just dread for this season.  :(
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Gunnarr on September 04, 2013, 10:44:04 PM
I think it would have been fine if you wrote it as a book rather than a forum post, you would be following the saints then!

although....

I wonder if saints talked in real life forums about a certain heretic in the crowd... hmmm

oh well

Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on September 04, 2013, 10:45:46 PM
St. John fled the bathhouse when the heretic entered, does that count? There are plenty more stories I suppose...  :police:
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Gunnarr on September 04, 2013, 11:02:59 PM
What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on September 04, 2013, 11:34:27 PM
What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my  knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Gunnarr on September 04, 2013, 11:42:55 PM
What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my  knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.

no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.


Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense


I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Asteriktos on September 04, 2013, 11:49:25 PM
Just to clarify, it was St. John the Evangelist that the bathhouse story is about, coming through St. Polycarp and recorded by St. Irenaeus:

Quote
There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

-- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Gunnarr on September 04, 2013, 11:58:53 PM
Just to clarify, it was St. John the Evangelist that the bathhouse story is about, coming through St. Polycarp and recorded by St. Irenaeus:

Quote
There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

-- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)

oops

the so many different Ioannes in this thread must be confusing me ;p

(actually I had no clue of such a story, but assumed chrysostom!)

I should read this against heresies, I have never read any of St. Irenaeus maybe it is from not being able to pronounce his name
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Opus118 on September 05, 2013, 12:15:37 AM
What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my  knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.

no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.


Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense


I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

This is fine by me. However, how can I understand you if yo did not post your thoughts on this thread. I do not think I am capable of clairvoyance.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Gunnarr on September 05, 2013, 12:44:27 AM
What is wrong with him! Fundamentalist, not loving his brother he should have talked to him! ;p

but St. Gregory Palamas spoke of Barlaam by name in his treaties... ;p although I guess he was just trying to defend not attack :p

although it could be said the op is doing the same here, defend his view

in some way...

I do not understand a word that you are saying. You should remedy this.

If by him you are referring to Gebre, the fundamentalists are saying he loves his brother too much.

Everything else you stated is total gibberish, it would be best if you condescend to people equal of my  knowledge and intellect OR LESS!.

no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.


Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense


I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too

This is fine by me. However, how can I understand you if yo did not post your thoughts on this thread. I do not think I am capable of clairvoyance.

would it have made more sense if i quoted directly when the other talked about St. John and the bathhouse?? (i have a habit of not clicking the quote button...)

i assumed it would make sense, the second post, i was acting it like an addition to my first post two beforew where i wondered about how saints debated heretics



but anyway im sorry again im not very good at talking :p and i have a habit of putting too many breaks in my sentences and thoughts (i would have put one after that "and" bit there ;p ) I will try to make more sense in the future but i dont have much hope for it!!! And IF i said all my thoughts I would be banned really quickly :p
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on September 05, 2013, 11:23:34 AM
no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.


Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense


I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too
The "heresies", which typically deal with things like christology rather than politics or war, were usually isms named after the beliefs they described, like Bogo-milism or Monophysit-ism. In this case the topic would be Pacif-ism.

The OP should have titled his post asking if Pacifism was a heresy, not whether "Gebredoxy" was a heresy.
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Gunnarr on September 08, 2013, 02:15:19 AM
no no no,

by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.


Also, about St. Gregory PAlamas, I was debating with myself how Ioannes is going about in this thread, and trying to compare how saints have fought against heresies. One saint left the bathhouse when the heretic entered, another wrote books condemning heresies and naming the names of heretics. That means, in public.

Also, in previous post, thinking in a public ROMAN FORUM if a saint would condemn a person's beliefs who is in the crowd. Like Ioannes condemning a person in the crowd of this forum

sorry if i make no sense


I only thought of these things because people said he was doing this incorrectly, being harrassing. So I wondered in my head if any saints did things like this too
The "heresies", which typically deal with things like christology rather than politics or war, were usually isms named after the beliefs they described, like Bogo-milism or Monophysit-ism. In this case the topic would be Pacif-ism.

The OP should have titled his post asking if Pacifism was a heresy, not whether "Gebredoxy" was a heresy.

but but but Arianism ;p

(but but but, you are right I think he should have done it that way)
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: rakovsky on September 18, 2013, 03:08:47 AM
Quote
The Eastern Church does not embrace strict pacificism... However even when it becomes necessary to take up arms to defend one's nation and family, killing in war is still wrong. For that reason, every soldier who kills during war must undergo penance.
The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History
By Archpriest John W. Morris
p. 306
Title: Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 11:38:06 AM
by him i am refering to St. John Chrysostom for leaving the bathhouse when the heretic entered. I some people on this forum would call that fundamentalist and hateful behavior and condemn him for it! it was a joke.

No, that wasn't St. John Chrysostom, but St. John the Divine who fled from a public bath when Cerinthus entered. Chrysostom would only bathe in utter solitude, at least according to his opponents at the Synod of the Oak.