OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 02, 2014, 05:19:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bishop Hilarion on Liberal Christianity  (Read 11743 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« on: February 15, 2008, 01:02:04 PM »

Fr. John posted this on his Orthodixie site and it's great.  I hope this speech made every WCC religious liberal in that room squrm in their seats.  But I certainly don't think they're about to repent and see the error of their ways.  It is now more than ever that we need our hierarchs and clergy to shout this message from the rooftops and belltowers. 

http://orthodoxeurope.org/#19-2-445
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2008, 01:22:39 PM »

A excellent post.


The thing about the Kingdom of Heaven is that it is not a constitutional monarchy.  HM Queen Elizabeth reads the speech the prime minister writes: Our Lord speaks His Word.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,848



« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2008, 01:29:14 PM »

Bravo, Bishop +HILARION!

I would like to see how the other WCC delegates react. I'm sure they'll just say that it is sad, but should not deter our cause for unity of all Christianity into one hodgepodge. 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2008, 02:32:54 PM »

Overall, bravo indeed.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,982


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2008, 03:25:07 PM »

Nice stuff.  It may not be a popular message, but it's right on.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,454


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2008, 03:33:06 PM »

A much needed speech indeed.

Taking away Christianity's exclusivity takes away the central identity of Christ as the exclusive way to the Father, making it no longer Christianity.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 03:33:38 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,995



« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2008, 02:00:04 AM »

Public forums are much in need of this type of genuine Christological commentary.  His Grace is to be commended and Orthodox Christians should take note; this is "speak[ing] the truth in love;"  and this commentary is what should characterize inter-Christian dialogue.  Christianity needs far, far, more of this type of behavior.  This commentary is what Orthodox Christianity is called to do in contemporary western society.  "Many Years," Your Grace.

(And this comes from someone who hasn't been able to get over His Grace's exit from the most recent Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological dialogue in Ravenna, Italy.)
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 02:03:21 AM by BTRAKAS » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2008, 05:42:48 PM »

Fr. John posted this on his Orthodixie site and it's great.  I hope this speech made every WCC religious liberal in that room squrm in their seats.  But I certainly don't think they're about to repent and see the error of their ways.  It is now more than ever that we need our hierarchs and clergy to shout this message from the rooftops and belltowers. 

http://orthodoxeurope.org/#19-2-445
I personally think your post should have been more judgmental.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2008, 08:06:49 PM »

I personally think your post should have been more judgmental.

Huh  Mr. Y???  Forgive me please if I don't quite understand your post or its meaning.  I did not say liberal Christians are going to burn in hell for eternity.  Or that their women clergy are all raving lesbian feminists that want to emasculate Jesus and make him weak and passive.  Or, even that liberal Christians are bad dressers (Birkenstocks with brown socks).   What I did imply was that many liberal Christians and their clergy do not hold to the traditional dogmas of Christianity and they are trying to impose those values on anyone who doesn't believe truth is relative.  I guess I'm a liberal - I drive a Volvo stationwagon, hug trees, wear Birkenstocks, and am waiting for a pro-life Democrat or Green Party president, but I still believe in a male priesthood, the dignity of women as mothers, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the Virgin Birth.  Basically whatever the Orthodox Church has professed for 1900 years.   I feel we need a smiley icon on a soapbox right about now.  I'm sure my post came off as judgmental but I think there are some things that demand speaking bluntly.  It was obviously on Bishop Hilarion's mind and he's certainly in a better position to judge these things than I am.

Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2008, 12:29:38 AM »

Oh, I didn't say you said any of those things; I said you judged these so-called "liberal Christians," wishing upon them squirming in their seats, and judging that they will not repent. You grouped everyone in the room together and passed judgment on them all--and from your wording I would venture that you do not personally know any one of them.

I'm sure my post came off as judgmental but I think there are some things that demand speaking bluntly.  It was obviously on Bishop Hilarion's mind and he's certainly in a better position to judge these things than I am.
Then let's let him say it. He does it quite well.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2008, 01:56:31 AM »

A lion for a bishop instead of a rabbit!
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2008, 09:56:02 AM »

Oh, I didn't say you said any of those things; I said you judged these so-called "liberal Christians," wishing upon them squirming in their seats, and judging that they will not repent. You grouped everyone in the room together and passed judgment on them all--and from your wording I would venture that you do not personally know any one of them.
Then let's let him say it. He does it quite well.

You are correct.  I do not know any at that meeting, but I know plenty like them in my own personal life, and while I can love them I do not have to agree, support, or somehow incorporate their beliefs into my view of traditional Christianity in order to make them feel like they are my friends.  Honest friends can and should do that. 

Now as to making people squirm, the Gospel has always had that effect on people - believers and non-believers alike.  I am sure those in the WCC, let's call them progressive Christians (liberal seems to be getting a bad rap here), believe they are interpreting the Gospel correctly.  Our Orthodox leaders and the laity (including me and you) have an obligation as 'right believers' to say "no" this is not correct, this is not what the Bible and Holy Tradition says, and we let everyone know we won't compromise the traditional message of the Gospel and our beliefs   

If it's judgmental to say I really don't believe they are going to see the errors of their ways, it is I believe, just a realistic assesment of where the WCC and its followers are going.  The history of the WCC has always been to move away from the traditional Christian view, not towards it, and I don't see them turning the ship around now.  I'd really rather believe Bishop Hilarion is right about the demise of liberal Christianity and a return to solid Christian belief. 

I'll work on the blanket statements, but sorry, I can't change my mind on the general nature of my original post. 
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2008, 05:21:20 PM »

Nektarios do you have something to say?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2008, 05:33:49 PM »

Nektarios do you have something to say?

I think the more progressive memebers of this board (or myself, at least) have been staying out of this thread so you all can continue your 'traditionalist-Christianity lovefest'. And I'm sure everyone posting here has been grateful for this...do you really want to try to pull us into this discussion?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 05:43:57 PM »

I think the more progressive memebers of this board (or myself, at least) have been staying out of this thread so you all can continue your 'traditionalist-Christianity lovefest'. And I'm sure everyone posting here has been grateful for this...do you really want to try to pull us into this discussion?

OK that is truly LMAO funny GiC (whether you intended it or not)!   Cheesy
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2008, 06:28:55 PM »

Nektarios do you have something to say?

The most shocking part of that website is apparently some people on it think that French is still an important enough language to bother publishing in it.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2008, 07:43:55 PM »

I think the more progressive memebers of this board (or myself, at least) have been staying out of this thread so you all can continue your 'traditionalist-Christianity lovefest'. And I'm sure everyone posting here has been grateful for this...do you really want to try to pull us into this discussion?

PURE GOLD FEARS NO FIRE
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2008, 08:41:52 PM »

The most shocking part of that website is apparently some people on it think that French is still an important enough language to bother publishing in it.

Well for all intents and purposes, France can surrender and the Moscow Patriarchate parishes situated in Germany can force their Local Synods to "speak the language of the Vikings", excuse me Nordic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3FMwNSHgFI
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2008, 08:51:00 PM »

Well for all intents and purposes, France can surrender and the Moscow Patriarchate parishes situated in Germany can force their Local Synods to "speak the language of the Vikings", excuse me Nordic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3FMwNSHgFI


And what, pray tell, does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2008, 08:53:03 PM »

But their must be a special convention held in Geneva rendering  Duetschland as its enemy laid to rest "To the Unknown Joke"


Adolf Hitler "My dog has no nose." "How does it smell?" "Awful!"
Logged
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2008, 08:58:08 PM »

I don't know you tell me. Your more traditionally minded than Nektarios. At least his two cents would be worth much to counter-balance His Eminence views on the subject.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2008, 10:10:59 PM »

I think the bigger issue is Christianity becoming irrelevant in most lands which have historically been Christian.  On the eve of the Revolution Russia was the most outwardly religious of any of the major Christian powers, yet a large enough part of the populace was willing to embrace the Bolsheviks (and all the silliness of Jewish conspiracies aside, the Bolsheviks simply could not have come to power unless there was some base within the population that was willing to support, even die for them in battle).  Even today, church attendance is very low in Russia, and since it seems to be a favorite litmus test of some people here, abortion is considerably more common in Russia than in Western Europe.  That is why I'd be hesitant to call the problem liberal Christianity vs. traditional Christianity - although I do agree with his eminence's point that in some communions the level of theological liberalism has gone so far that has hurt their relevance to society.  What is the point of being a Christian if one's Christianity is simply the Zeitgeist a couple of years removed?  While it is easy to sit back and cackle at the problem within the Anglican Communion, as so many Orthodox as very fond of doing, does anybody care about how increasingly irrelevant the Orthodox Church is becoming to many people in historically Orthodox lands?
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,408


« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2008, 11:42:22 PM »

Even today, church attendance is very low in Russia...

...does anybody care about how increasingly irrelevant the Orthodox Church is becoming to many people in historically Orthodox lands?

It is?  Compared to when?  It sounds all relative to me.  Are you saying that these many articles and information told from other Orthodox over the years about many churches being (re)built, attendance much fuller and such are inaccurate?  If attendance used to be at 2% back 20 years ago and is now at 10%, I'd say this 500% increase is quite impressive.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2008, 11:52:37 PM »

I've read Bishop Hilarion's speech a couple of times now and I still remain a little confused as to exactly what form our responses to "liberal" or "politically correct" Christianity should take.

He asks; "In the confusing and disoriented world in which we live, where is the prophetic voice of Christians? What can we offer, or can we offer anything at all to the secular world, apart from what the secular world will offer itself as a value system on which society should be built? Do we have our own value system which we should preach, or should we simply applaud every novelty in public moraltiy which becomes fashionable in the secular society?"

Some good questions.

I consider myself neither "liberal" nor "politically correct" when it comes to making my own moral decisions, but when it comes to other people, especally non-Christians, I would be very loathe to expect them to do as I do. Or maybe allowing people the freedom to do with their lives what they will is being "liberal" and "politically correct"?

It's all very well remonstrating against the evils of secular society, but we actually live in it; and our actions towards others are to show Christ's love.

For instance, how is Bishop Hilarion suggesting we inter-relate, as Christians, with Wiccan neighbours (hypothetical), who are living in a lesbian relationship? Let's say they have a couple of children who want to play with our children and, being friendly sorts, they have invited us over for coffee and cake.






Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2008, 01:16:56 AM »

Or maybe allowing people the freedom to do with their lives what they will is being "liberal" and "politically correct"?

That is, traditionally, what 'liberal' means.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2008, 01:59:41 AM »

It is?  Compared to when?  It sounds all relative to me.  Are you saying that these many articles and information told from other Orthodox over the years about many churches being (re)built, attendance much fuller and such are inaccurate?  If attendance used to be at 2% back 20 years ago and is now at 10%, I'd say this 500% increase is quite impressive.

One to two percent is about the standard figure given for church attendance in Russsia.  These data are rather dated, but it still gives an idea (and I've seen more up to date statistics given in presentations and it is still 1 - 2 % and nothing in my personal experiences contradict that).  I just roll my eyes every time I hear Americans converts talking about the Russian religious revival and wondering if they are talking about Islam.    According to this article there are 400 or so working Orthodox temples in Moscow - do the math and then ask if that is a religious revival.  The political status of the Russian Orthodox Church has definitely had nothing but a dramatic shift, but if we are speaking about actually religiosity in society.... other than people often exclaiming Боже, or a слава Богу here and there, your not going to find a religious society in the sense that a high percentage of individuals are themselves deeply committed to their religion.  Based on some of the statistics I've seen and my own impressions of living in a Russian dorm, I think it is safe to say that the Russian Orthodox Church is in no position to gloat over churches in the evil West for their declining membership and influence over average people in their societies.  If Heorhij is reading this thread, I'd be curious if the situation with religion is about the same in Ukraine.   
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 02:00:32 AM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2008, 02:01:25 AM »

That is, traditionally, what 'liberal' means.

Thanks, GIC. I've always been confused by that. So..... I'm liberal! Well, that's not likely to change. Grin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2008, 07:58:34 AM »

I've read Bishop Hilarion's speech a couple of times now and I still remain a little confused as to exactly what form our responses to "liberal" or "politically correct" Christianity should take.

He asks; "In the confusing and disoriented world in which we live, where is the prophetic voice of Christians? What can we offer, or can we offer anything at all to the secular world, apart from what the secular world will offer itself as a value system on which society should be built? Do we have our own value system which we should preach, or should we simply applaud every novelty in public moraltiy which becomes fashionable in the secular society?"

Some good questions.

I consider myself neither "liberal" nor "politically correct" when it comes to making my own moral decisions, but when it comes to other people, especally non-Christians, I would be very loathe to expect them to do as I do. Or maybe allowing people the freedom to do with their lives what they will is being "liberal" and "politically correct"?

It's all very well remonstrating against the evils of secular society, but we actually live in it; and our actions towards others are to show Christ's love.

For instance, how is Bishop Hilarion suggesting we inter-relate, as Christians, with Wiccan neighbours (hypothetical), who are living in a lesbian relationship? Let's say they have a couple of children who want to play with our children and, being friendly sorts, they have invited us over for coffee and cake.

We of course rush out and get "Heather has two mommies," and demand our local school incorporates it into the curriculum. Roll Eyes police Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2008, 09:17:08 AM »

We of course rush out and get "Heather has two mommies," and demand our local school incorporates it into the curriculum. Roll Eyes police Roll Eyes

Very comical, I'm sure, but how does your sardonic response to my question address the issue of how we as followers of Christ inter-relate with people of differing beliefs and lifestyles? It might pay to remember that Christianity is on the back foot; perhaps on the slippery slope of being a minority religion in a lot of places; places where it once held a lot of sway. Perhaps it's on its way to being as it was in it's early days; a scorned religion with no voice. Legislation is no longer on our side, we actually have to deal (and lovingly) with people who openly do things we might disagree with.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 09:27:48 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2008, 09:41:50 AM »

Very comical, I'm sure, but how does your sardonic response to my question address the issue of how we as followers of Christ inter-relate with people of differing beliefs and lifestyles? It might pay to remember that Christianity is on the back foot; perhaps on the slippery slope of being a minority religion in a lot of places; places where it once held a lot of sway. Perhaps it's on its way to being as it was in it's early days; a scorned religion with no voice. Legislation is no longer on our side, we actually have to deal (and lovingly) with people who openly do things we might disagree with.

I've grown up in the US, where Orthodoxy has never held sway, and in Egypt, where the Muslims have run things for over a millenium.

It's not like this is a situation we haven't faced before.

But we didn't face it with accepting the unacceptable.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2008, 09:44:44 AM »

I've grown up in the US, where Orthodoxy has never held sway, and in Egypt, where the Muslims have run things for over a millenium.

It's not like this is a situation we haven't faced before.

But we didn't face it with accepting the unacceptable.

Again, you don't address my concerns. I didn't say we had to accept it for ourselves, but asked how do we inter-relate with others who do?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 09:46:21 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
TinaG
I am not a pessimist - I'm just grimly realistic!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 870


If only my family were this normal !


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2008, 10:25:50 AM »

Again, you don't address my concerns. I didn't say we had to accept it for ourselves, but asked how do we inter-relate with others who do?

Riddikulus has a very valid question and hasn't gotten a straight answer yet, but it's probably something that isn't answered with black and white statements.  I think there are 2 arguments going on here.  BIshop Hilarion is addressing the "Church's" position in the world and this thread is also about how individual Christians face the same challenges of liberal christianity in personal day-to-day situations.   I guess we do it with love but with a firmness of our convictions.  Though what often happens, at least with women my age because we were raised to be nice to everyone and to seek approval, is that we often just smile and try to placate the situation.  For instance, in a casual conversation at one of my kid's baseball events recently, a father was going on and on about how his daughter was being left out of her Catholic faith and it was unfair because she couldn't be ordained a priest, etc...  I said something lame and non-committal and it was only afterwards I thought of some good responses, loving but grounded in traditional RC/Orthodox POV.  Some witness I am.   Embarrassed

In another example, I have always found the study of different religions fascinating, so when I meet someone of another faith I ask them about it because I am genuinely interested.  This has the effect of making them feel comfortable and like I'm not going to immediately come down on them with the "Jesus" talk.  But it does give me an opportunity to talk about my faith in relation to theirs.   

These are individual interactions, and yes, it is far harder to be judgmental (as I have been found out to be) of others one-on-one.  Would I let my kids play with the kids of a pagan lesbian couple?  They probably already have in school or at the playground.  Would I let them spend go to a sleepover and participate in whatever prayers/blessings they say at meals?  I doubt it.  It's a situation that would be less likely to come up, since our kids are more exposed to Christians of some variety in my town.  That is why I have frequent conversations with them about their faith.  I point out there are other faiths among their friends, why we believe differently, and even use my own conversion as an example.

I hope I didn't ramble too much, but I don't feel like I've really given a clear response yet.   Our Lord and Saviour never flinched from speaking the truth and challenging the misconceptions of his day, and his world was as divided religiously as ours is, but I'd say even more rigidly so.  I'd say I agree with Ridikulus, that in some places traditional Christianity is scorned already, and it may get worse.  That's why there is no time to lose and we shouldn't give up the fight.  Isn't that why some feel we are in the Last Days? 
Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2008, 02:28:30 PM »

Tina,

Where I live there is tolerance for any point of view except a traditional Christian one. Very ironic, since many of these supposed tolerant individuals pretend to be open to hearing any perspective. Not so in real life. If you mention you are pro-life get ready to be verbally attacked for having that belief. It happened to me on various occasions in my life.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 02:29:39 PM by Tamara » Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2008, 03:48:15 PM »

Tina,

Where I live there is tolerance for any point of view except a traditional Christian one. Very ironic, since many of these supposed tolerant individuals pretend to be open to hearing any perspective. Not so in real life. If you mention you are pro-life get ready to be verbally attacked for having that belief. It happened to me on various occasions in my life.


Bingo. I think Liberals dont even mind listening to a centre-right or even right wing voice, as long as religion doesn't get involved. You mention that you're a practising Christian and all of a sudden they don't want to hear you.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2008, 08:22:30 PM »

Where I live there is tolerance for any point of view except a traditional Christian one. Very ironic, since many of these supposed tolerant individuals pretend to be open to hearing any perspective. Not so in real life. If you mention you are pro-life get ready to be verbally attacked for having that belief. It happened to me on various occasions in my life.

Quote
Bingo. I think Liberals dont even mind listening to a centre-right or even right wing voice, as long as religion doesn't get involved. You mention that you're a practising Christian and all of a sudden they don't want to hear you.

But what does any of this matter? If others are hypocritical, we are called to "suffer" for our faith, to be reviled for the sake of Christ. Christians have and probably will suffer much more in the way of persecution than disregard and verbal abuse. These slights might be hurtful, but they seem very insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Politically, Christ left this world the way he found it; it is the inner change of individuals that matters and only those who are enlightened wish to turn from sin. Is it then the task of the enlightened to impose moral restrictions on non-believers? (And I'm not suggesting that either of you are saying that). But many Christians do wish to manage the moral behaviour of outsiders. As I understand St Paul, that's a no go area.

1Corinthians 5:9-13.
"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - not even to eat with such a person. For what have I do do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore, put away from yourselves the evil person."


« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 08:24:57 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2008, 08:47:29 PM »

But what does any of this matter? If others are hypocritical, we are called to "suffer" for our faith, to be reviled for the sake of Christ. Christians have and probably will suffer much more in the way of persecution than disregard and verbal abuse. These slights might be hurtful, but they seem very insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Politically, Christ left this world the way he found it; it is the inner change of individuals that matters and only those who are enlightened wish to turn from sin. Is it then the task of the enlightened to impose moral restrictions on non-believers? (And I'm not suggesting that either of you are saying that). But many Christians do wish to manage the moral behaviour of outsiders. As I understand St Paul, that's a no go area.

1Corinthians 5:9-13.
"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner - not even to eat with such a person. For what have I do do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore, put away from yourselves the evil person."


It did not hurt my feelings when they disagreed with me. I just found it ironic that they considered themselves enlightened and yet were not even willing to hear a different point of view. And by the way, I don't consider these folks evil. I think they are good souls who have been misinformed and misguided due to heavy propaganda. I feel sorry for them.
Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2008, 01:43:44 PM »

But what does any of this matter? If others are hypocritical, we are called to "suffer" for our faith, to be reviled for the sake of Christ. Christians have and probably will suffer much more in the way of persecution than disregard and verbal abuse. These slights might be hurtful, but they seem very insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Politically, Christ left this world the way he found it; it is the inner change of individuals that matters and only those who are enlightened wish to turn from sin. Is it then the task of the enlightened to impose moral restrictions on non-believers? (And I'm not suggesting that either of you are saying that). But many Christians do wish to manage the moral behaviour of outsiders. As I understand St Paul, that's a no go area.




So basically Liberal Christians are traitors since they do not endure the suffering Conservative/Traditionalist Christians don't, but rather find a way to avoid it?

I understand you completely, and it is something I often think about. You cannot, and you shouldn't force your morals on other people, especially if they do not recieve their guidance from the same source as you. However, I believe secular society is forcing its morals (or lack of) onto us traditional Christians. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is hypocrisy, because I am pressured to give up my "conservative" views and accept "liberal" ideals, which is very ironic. As a result, It only forces me to become more and more conservative.
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2008, 09:53:00 PM »

However, I believe secular society is forcing its morals (or lack of) onto us traditional Christians. 

Living in the SF Bay Area, I would agree with this statement. In some areas of the country, people are being forced to conform out of fear. I don't know anyone in my neighborhood or community who is willing to challenge the very liberal status quo. The fear of being ostracized or being labeled a "fundamentalist" is too great. Most just keep their mouths shut in public. In private you will hear parents complain. Even parents who give the appearance of being  secular and liberal are a part of these discussions. I realized how bad it was when one secular, fairly liberal parent complained in private about the sex ed. curriculum at our middle school because it encouraged middle schoolers to experiment with their sexuality. But this mother was afraid to speak out in the public school forum which presented this information for fear of being labeled a fundy. 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 12:14:28 AM by Tamara » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2008, 05:40:16 AM »

So basically Liberal Christians are traitors since they do not endure the suffering Conservative/Traditionalist Christians don't, but rather find a way to avoid it?

I'm probably tired, but I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote
I understand you completely, and it is something I often think about. You cannot, and you shouldn't force your morals on other people, especially if they do not recieve their guidance from the same source as you. However, I believe secular society is forcing its morals (or lack of) onto us traditional Christians. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is hypocrisy, because I am pressured to give up my "conservative" views and accept "liberal" ideals, which is very ironic. As a result, It only forces me to become more and more conservative.

I hardly think our society is worse than the one of early Christians. And how are you being pressured to give up your conservatieve views and accept liberal ideals? Is it because you won't adopt a "live and let live" philosophy towards those outside the Church? And how does this relate to my original question of how Bishop Hilarion would suggest we deal with those outside the Church?  Shocked Grin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2008, 01:21:30 PM »

I'm really curious as to how people are being "pressured" to adopt liberal views.  I spend all day at the heart of a liberal university and simply have no idea what is meant by people saying they are pressured.  I've never experienced a situation akin to "if you don't hold view X, you'll fail this class / face other troubles."  Of course you might not be "cool" or in the "in crowd", but if that is the biggest problem one faces...   
Logged
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2008, 02:05:28 PM »

I'm really curious as to how people are being "pressured" to adopt liberal views.  I spend all day at the heart of a liberal university and simply have no idea what is meant by people saying they are pressured.  I've never experienced a situation akin to "if you don't hold view X, you'll fail this class / face other troubles."  Of course you might not be "cool" or in the "in crowd", but if that is the biggest problem one faces...   

I hardly think our society is worse than the one of early Christians. And how are you being pressured to give up your conservatieve views and accept liberal ideals? Is it because you won't adopt a "live and let live" philosophy towards those outside the Church? And how does this relate to my original question of how Bishop Hilarion would suggest we deal with those outside the Church?  Shocked Grin

Here's the thing. These people aren't actually liberal. The meaning of Liberalism has obviously changed over time but its original adherents believed in open-mindedness and liberty. Liberalism today is basically (Atleast here in southern Ontario) a form hardcore secular and anti-christian progressiveness. Now, the irony behind all this is the "Liberalism" I encounter every day, for the most part, is that it interacts negatively only to conservative christians, where as conservative Muslims are to be tolerated and understood (as they should). But then why not offer the same thing to us Christians? or is it because theyre sick of us, and will eventually get sick of Islam?

I remember in Highschool, multiple times, (especially during my philosophy course), when we would have debates and because in some of my positions I would use a Christian point to back my opinion up, Its like I would be dismissed. For example, whenever debating freewill vs fate, I would obviously take the side of free will through religious reasons and I would sufficiently back them up with logical points. But since I am literally the only practising Christian in the class, the 20 or so of them vs me would result in an automatic loss (in the teachers eyes). If you profess your faith in Christ, you get attacked and pounded on by other people, going off topic from the debate and actually having people attack your religion. So much for open-mindedness liberalism.

Then on a funny note, I remember doing a Universal Declaration of Human Rights debate, and one of the main points as to why it should not be implemented is because it does not take into account Shari'ah law in muslim countries. Nobody atacked Islam or bother to debate against the point...
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2008, 02:45:51 PM »

Here's the thing. These people aren't actually liberal. The meaning of Liberalism has obviously changed over time but its original adherents believed in open-mindedness and liberty. Liberalism today is basically (Atleast here in southern Ontario) a form hardcore secular and anti-christian progressiveness.

Yeah, there is pretty much no rhyme or reason as to how these terms are used in which locales.  By the real definition, I'd be a liberal since I'm a firm believer in neo-liberal economic policies.  So in the US that makes me a conservative, but if I say that I'm a conservative in parts of Eastern Europe that basically makes me an updated communist.  Any why neo-liberal economics is connected to various social positions in the US baffles me... so the actual definition of what a person means when they say liberal can be quite enigmatic.  But, I think you guys in the frozen tundra to the north use liberal and conservative in about the same way us as yanks, from what you said.

Quote
Now, the irony behind all this is the "Liberalism" I encounter every day, for the most part, is that it interacts negatively only to conservative christians, where as conservative Muslims are to be tolerated and understood (as they should). But then why not offer the same thing to us Christians? or is it because theyre sick of us, and will eventually get sick of Islam?

I think they become pro-Islamic just to grate conservative Christians.  That is why I find all the current liberal uproar over Darfur to be ironic, as the darfurian culture practices just about everything liberals hate in conservatives times 100. 

Quote
I remember in Highschool, multiple times, (especially during my philosophy course), when we would have debates and because in some of my positions I would use a Christian point to back my opinion up, Its like I would be dismissed. For example, whenever debating freewill vs fate, I would obviously take the side of free will through religious reasons and I would sufficiently back them up with logical points. But since I am literally the only practising Christian in the class, the 20 or so of them vs me would result in an automatic loss (in the teachers eyes).

Part of a debate is making a point which your audience can relate to. 

Quote
If you profess your faith in Christ, you get attacked and pounded on by other people, going off topic from the debate and actually having people attack your religion. So much for open-mindedness liberalism.

It's not like conservatives are all warm and cuddly either, scan some right wing blogs about US politics and it won't take long before people start throwing out words like godless - which is pretty much a religious attack when used in that manner.   

Quote
Then on a funny note, I remember doing a Universal Declaration of Human Rights debate, and one of the main points as to why it should not be implemented is because it does not take into account Shari'ah law in muslim countries. Nobody atacked Islam or bother to debate against the point...

And that is just plain stupidity.  Islamism is one of the major forces impeding the spread of liberty in the world.  Where I differ from conservatives though is that I think a gradual change is going to be the most stable and presents the best prospect at establishing long term social change.  That is why I believe in not taking an anti-Islamic political stance. 

In high school a good deal of my friends were Mormons as we really had the most in common socially.  We definitely did not agree on the particulars of religion, but on a lot of the basics of morality we did.  At university I'll also become friends with a lot of moderate Muslims for the same reason.  I think that sort of approach works best in pacifying radical leftists / secularists. 
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2008, 08:05:36 PM »

Here's the thing. These people aren't actually liberal. The meaning of Liberalism has obviously changed over time but its original adherents believed in open-mindedness and liberty. Liberalism today is basically (Atleast here in southern Ontario) a form hardcore secular and anti-christian progressiveness. Now, the irony behind all this is the "Liberalism" I encounter every day, for the most part, is that it interacts negatively only to conservative christians, where as conservative Muslims are to be tolerated and understood (as they should). But then why not offer the same thing to us Christians? or is it because theyre sick of us, and will eventually get sick of Islam?

But the objective of Bishop Hilarion's speech is a remonstation against Christian libralism. And that is the point of my question. It seems to be established that a liberal Christian is one who accepts that people outside the Church are free to make whatever moral choices they so choose (freewill and all that); a decision that St Paul seems to advocate. A liberal Christian's conduct with such people is to accept them and love them unconditional to the fact that they are living in lifestyles that Christianity does not condone; without trying to change them; just showing them Christ (and thus preaching the Gospel) in their attitudes.

Quote
So much for open-mindedness liberalism.

Again, the hypocrisy of those outside the Church isn't our concern, and it doesn't appear to be the thrust of Bishop's Hilarion's speech.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 08:06:25 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2008, 08:34:21 PM »

But the objective of Bishop Hilarion's speech is a remonstation against Christian libralism. And that is the point of my question. It seems to be established that a liberal Christian is one who accepts that people outside the Church are free to make whatever moral choices they so choose (freewill and all that); a decision that St Paul seems to advocate. A liberal Christian's conduct with such people is to accept them and love them unconditional to the fact that they are living in lifestyles that Christianity does not condone; without trying to change them; just showing them Christ (and thus preaching the Gospel) in their attitudes.

Again, the hypocrisy of those outside the Church isn't our concern, and it doesn't appear to be the thrust of Bishop's Hilarion's speech.



Of course they/we are to try to change them.


"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you...."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2008, 09:36:33 PM »

I thought His Grace's speech was right on the money.

To answer your question, Riddikulus...

I think there's a difference between loving people no matter what they're sin, and condoning the sin itself.  What Bishop Hilarion was saying was not that we shouldn't love them, but rather that we shouldn't be condoning the sins.  It's the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin."

For example, say I, as an Orthodox Christian, have a neighbor/friend who is a lesbian in a long-term relationship.  I think he's saying, as Christians, we of course welcome them into our homes, show them love (absent of judgement), and if the subject comes up, yes, we tell them honestly what we believe-- we don't say "you're going to hell for what you're doing," or "the Church says you are wrong..."  What we say is, "we believe X..."-- we say the truth in love absent of judgement.  And we make it clear that they are, of COURSE, welcome into our Churches.  Just because the Church doesn't condone the lifestyle doesn't mean we don't love the sinner and welcome them.  The Church is a hospital for sinners, and their sin is no worse than any of ours.  Fornication is just as sinful when done heterosexually, and we should proclaim that JUST as loudly as we proclaim it as sinful within homosexuality.

What he's saying the liberal Christian camp does is welcome them into their churches with the understanding that their church allows, condones, blesses, and encourages their sins.  This is where the problem is.  Struggling with homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, I don't think.  I had a homosexual Orthodox friend who suffered constantly with his sexuality because it meant that he was alone, but thank God, he did so without being ashamed of the suffering.  He was ashamed for ALL of his sins, none more than any other.  If one is struggling for Christ, then that is nothing to be ashamed of.  The point is to struggle, to continue to seek perfection in Christ, no matter what your sin.  The problem with the liberal Christian camp is that it encourages succumbing to the temptation, it encourages the person to live by their own will, rather than admit humility and live by the will of God.  This is a problem.

As far as political liberal Christianity... I have been rethinking this and praying about it a lot, during this election season.  Honestly, I've been thinking about it because of the discussion I had way back with GiC and Nektarios about the candidates.  They enlightened me a lot to the thinking behind being Orthodox but being politically liberal.  Of course I am pro-life, but the fact is that there is virtually no candidate out there who truly understands the sanctity of life, such that they apply it to ALL of the big three (abortion, death penalty, war).  Anyway... If I understand correctly from them (guys, feel free to correct me), it's not about your personal morals, it's about forcing others to live by them by LEGISLATING morals (legislating against abortion, legislating against gay marriage, etc.).  To be honest, I haven't changed my mind about being pro-life, but I HAVE changed my mind about legislating against gay marriage.  I think it's clear that, as Christians, we shouldn't force our morals on other people, we should only love them and try to minister to them without judgement.  And as long as the government is not able to force the Orthodox Church to perform a gay marriage, I have no problem with people of a homosexual persuasion doing whatever they want with their own lives.  Of course I don't condone the sin, but I can't force them to live by my morals.  I can only love them, pray for them (without judgement), and show them by my example what Christianity is about, and that Christ is WORTH the struggle.  And, God willing, if they ask for help, I will be thrilled and praise God, and direct them straight to my husband (who is a priest), as he is more able to minister to them in a confessional manner than I am (obviously).

Sorry that's so long, but I hope it's clear.  Forgive me if I have offended...
In Christ,
Presbytera Mari
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2008, 10:03:12 PM »

Of course they/we are to try to change them.

I disagree. The willingness of the individual to cooperate with the Holy Spirit is what does the changing. We are the messangers; and the Christian on a moral high-horse doesn't seem to be the ideal messenger, but the one who places a stumbling block before the non-believer.  And we may deliver to gospel message in many ways; verbally to those who wish to hear and silently by our loving attitudes to all people including (and perhaps, especially) to those who do not wish to hear; directly by the written word (theological books, etc) to those who wish to read and indirectly in the written word (Christian fantasy) to those who do not. The same goes for the media of cinematography.  

Quote
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you...."

Certainly we are to make disciples of all nations, but what of those who don't wish to be disciples? Christ isn't speaking of a political broad-sweep or forcing those who don't wish to be disciples into living by Christian morality.

Getting back to Bishop Hilarion's remarks concerning Christian Liberals; I repeat; a liberal Christian's conduct with such people is to accept them and love them unconditional to the fact that they are living in lifestyles that Christianity does not condone; without trying to change them; just showing them Christ (and thus preaching the Gospel) in their attitudes.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 10:03:56 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2008, 10:11:41 PM »

I disagree. The willingness of the individual to cooperate with the Holy Spirit is what does the changing. We are the messangers; and the Christian on a moral high-horse doesn't seem to be the ideal messenger, but the one who places a stumbling block before the non-believer.  And we may deliver to gospel message in many ways; verbally to those who wish to hear and silently by our loving attitudes to all people including (and perhaps, especially) to those who do not wish to hear; directly by the written word (theological books, etc) to those who wish to read and indirectly in the written word (Christian fantasy) to those who do not. The same goes for the media of cinematography.  

Certainly we are to make disciples of all nations, but what of those who don't wish to be disciples? Christ isn't speaking of a political broad-sweep or forcing those who don't wish to be disciples into living by Christian morality.

Getting back to Bishop Hilarion's remarks concerning Christian Liberals; I repeat; a liberal Christian's conduct with such people is to accept them and love them unconditional to the fact that they are living in lifestyles that Christianity does not condone; without trying to change them; just showing them Christ (and thus preaching the Gospel) in their attitudes.


Yes, just like the Gospel [of John 2]
13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade." 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." 18 The Jews then said to him, "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2008, 10:30:32 PM »

I think there's a difference between loving people no matter what they're sin, and condoning the sin itself.  What Bishop Hilarion was saying was not that we shouldn't love them, but rather that we shouldn't be condoning the sins.  It's the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Presbytera Maria,

My comments have never included condoning sin.  Smiley

Quote
For example, say I, as an Orthodox Christian, have a neighbor/friend who is a lesbian in a long-term relationship.  I think he's saying, as Christians, we of course welcome them into our homes, show them love (absent of judgement), and if the subject comes up, yes, we tell them honestly what we believe-- we don't say "you're going to hell for what you're doing," or "the Church says you are wrong..."  What we say is, "we believe X..."-- we say the truth in love absent of judgement. 

I don't believe we say anything regarding their situation, unless they directly ask us. An unsolicited comment on someone else's personal business is over-stepping our authority. Do Christians feel the need to inform every overweight person they meet that they are guilty of the sin of gluttony?  Wink

Quote
And we make it clear that they are, of COURSE, welcome into our Churches.  Just because the Church doesn't condone the lifestyle doesn't mean we don't love the sinner and welcome them.  The Church is a hospital for sinners, and their sin is no worse than any of ours.  Fornication is just as sinful when done heterosexually, and we should proclaim that JUST as loudly as we proclaim it as sinful within homosexuality.

Probably just as sinful as gluttony. Smiley

Quote
What he's saying the liberal Christian camp does is welcome them into their churches with the understanding that their church allows, condones, blesses, and encourages their sins.

Then he has painted the liberal Christian with too broad a sweep.

Quote
This is where the problem is.  Struggling with homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, I don't think.  I had a homosexual Orthodox friend who suffered constantly with his sexuality because it meant that he was alone, but thank God, he did so without being ashamed of the suffering.  He was ashamed for ALL of his sins, none more than any other.  If one is struggling for Christ, then that is nothing to be ashamed of.  The point is to struggle, to continue to seek perfection in Christ, no matter what your sin. 

Again, my question is concerned with our attitudes to those outside the Church. A struggling/sinning Christian within Orthodoxy is conselled/discipled by their spritual father. (Hopefully)

Quote
The problem with the liberal Christian camp is that it encourages succumbing to the temptation, it encourages the person to live by their own will, rather than admit humility and live by the will of God. This is a problem.

Is this a problem within Orthodoxy?

Quote
As far as political liberal Christianity... I have been rethinking this and praying about it a lot, during this election season.  Honestly, I've been thinking about it because of the discussion I had way back with GiC and Nektarios about the candidates.  They enlightened me a lot to the thinking behind being Orthodox but being politically liberal.  Of course I am pro-life, but the fact is that there is virtually no candidate out there who truly understands the sanctity of life, such that they apply it to ALL of the big three (abortion, death penalty, war).

I agree, though I have little knowledge of your elections. GIC and Nektarios seem very sensible lads. Smiley 

Quote
Anyway... If I understand correctly from them (guys, feel free to correct me), it's not about your personal morals, it's about forcing others to live by them by LEGISLATING morals (legislating against abortion, legislating against gay marriage, etc.). To be honest, I haven't changed my mind about being pro-life, but I HAVE changed my mind about legislating against gay marriage.

God be praised!

Quote
I think it's clear that, as Christians, we shouldn't force our morals on other people, we should only love them and try to minister to them without judgement.  And as long as the government is not able to force the Orthodox Church to perform a gay marriage, I have no problem with people of a homosexual persuasion doing whatever they want with their own lives.  Of course I don't condone the sin, but I can't force them to live by my morals.  I can only love them, pray for them (without judgement), and show them by my example what Christianity is about, and that Christ is WORTH the struggle.  And, God willing, if they ask for help, I will be thrilled and praise God, and direct them straight to my husband (who is a priest), as he is more able to minister to them in a confessional manner than I am (obviously).

You are preaching to the choir.  Grin

Quote
Sorry that's so long, but I hope it's clear.  Forgive me if I have offended...

You haven't offended me, dear Presbytera. A: we seem to be in agreement, and B: I'm all for freedom of thought and speech and there's no way that I would be offended by your opinion if it opposed mine. You and I don't have to agree (though it's nice that we do). That is, in fact, the point of my posts. Smiley

 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 11:18:07 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2008, 10:32:54 PM »

Yes, just like the Gospel [of John 2]
13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade." 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." 18 The Jews then said to him, "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

<sigh>
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2008, 10:41:59 PM »

<sigh>

Yeah, there isn't much else you can say.  It's a lost cause  Roll Eyes   
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,632


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2008, 12:23:50 AM »

Yes, just like the Gospel [of John 2]
13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade." 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." 18 The Jews then said to him, "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

What I think you're missing in the above, though, is this:  Jesus lived and preached in a society that was essentially a theocracy founded on the all-encompassing spiritual and civil laws revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, laws that Jesus revealed Himself as the pre-incarnate and eternally begotten Son of God.  And, just as God chastised His people, the people of Israel, time and time again for their sins, so the Son of God, Jesus Christ, chastised His people in the Temple, the Temple whose rituals Christ Himself commanded.

We can't get away with this today, since we don't live in a theocracy.  As much as we in the USA may like to pay lip service to Judaeo-Christian ideals, we need to recognize that our society was NEVER intended to be a theocracy whose every law was revealed by God Himself.  The foundation of civil law in the U.S. is really Enlightenment philosophy for the most part, and what Christian ideals were incorporated into our society were filtered through the phenomena of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment.  The ideals by which we govern ourselves were never revealed to us directly by God as was the Law of Moses, so we have no authority to chastise the people of our society as Christ did the people of His Mosaic Covenant.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2008, 12:24:27 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2008, 03:38:13 AM »

What I think you're missing in the above, though, is this:  Jesus lived and preached in a society that was essentially a theocracy founded on the all-encompassing spiritual and civil laws revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, laws that Jesus revealed Himself as the pre-incarnate and eternally begotten Son of God.  And, just as God chastised His people, the people of Israel, time and time again for their sins, so the Son of God, Jesus Christ, chastised His people in the Temple, the Temple whose rituals Christ Himself commanded.

We can't get away with this today, since we don't live in a theocracy.  As much as we in the USA may like to pay lip service to Judaeo-Christian ideals, we need to recognize that our society was NEVER intended to be a theocracy whose every law was revealed by God Himself.  The foundation of civil law in the U.S. is really Enlightenment philosophy for the most part, and what Christian ideals were incorporated into our society were filtered through the phenomena of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment.  The ideals by which we govern ourselves were never revealed to us directly by God as was the Law of Moses, so we have no authority to chastise the people of our society as Christ did the people of His Mosaic Covenant.

You're confusing the issue of "authority."

The argument was similarly made by the enlightened to those religious zealots, the Abolitionists, who also were told to keep their morality to themselves and keep their hands off other people's property: property being a major preoccupation of the "Enlightenment."

You are right as to the nature of the contract we are ruled by, but nothing in its terms prevents its terms from being changed.  That includes a communist who wants to reformulate society, the fascist who wants to regulate it, or the religious zealot who wants to go behind the Common Law to the Divine Law at the basis of society.

Men wrote the Constitution.  Men (or should I say humans?) can change it, whether from the right or left.

Now the question of whether Christianity demands that, as say opposed to the demands of Islam in the similar situation, that's another question, which the Enlightenment has no authority to answer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2008, 04:17:54 AM »

What I think you're missing in the above, though, is this:  Jesus lived and preached in a society that was essentially a theocracy founded on the all-encompassing spiritual and civil laws revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, laws that Jesus revealed Himself as the pre-incarnate and eternally begotten Son of God.  And, just as God chastised His people, the people of Israel, time and time again for their sins, so the Son of God, Jesus Christ, chastised His people in the Temple, the Temple whose rituals Christ Himself commanded.

While the Jews of Christ's law were able had a certain amount of self governance using the Mosaic Law, they were essentially under a military occupation by a pagan empire.  I think it is significant that in light of this context the message of the Gospel is remarkably apolitical and personal. 

Thinking about early Christian literature, the Apology of St. Justin Martyr is about the most directly political text that comes to mind - and that was really nothing more than stating that Christians were not violating imperial laws and therefore should not be persecuted.  My memory is fuzzy so I'll have to pull it out, but when St. Augustine was talking about the games in his Confessions I think his point was that it would be immoral for a Christian to attend rather than attempting to have the games closed through political ends.

You're confusing the issue of "authority."

The argument was similarly made by the enlightened to those religious zealots, the Abolitionists, who also were told to keep their morality to themselves and keep their hands off other people's property: property being a major preoccupation of the "Enlightenment."

You are right as to the nature of the contract we are ruled by, but nothing in its terms prevents its terms from being changed.  That includes a communist who wants to reformulate society, the fascist who wants to regulate it, or the religious zealot who wants to go behind the Common Law to the Divine Law at the basis of society.

Men wrote the Constitution.  Men (or should I say humans?) can change it, whether from the right or left.

Now the question of whether Christianity demands that, as say opposed to the demands of Islam in the similar situation, that's another question, which the Enlightenment has no authority to answer.

19-century American history is definitely not my forte, but I don't remember the slavery debate being framed as a non-religious group vs. a religious group.  While many of the of the abolitionists drew inspiration for their ideology from Christianity, I think it would be a hard argument to make that the ante-bellum South was a hotbed of radical secularism and non-religion. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #53 on: February 23, 2008, 07:57:02 AM »

While the Jews of Christ's law were able had a certain amount of self governance using the Mosaic Law, they were essentially under a military occupation by a pagan empire.  I think it is significant that in light of this context the message of the Gospel is remarkably apolitical and personal. 

Thinking about early Christian literature, the Apology of St. Justin Martyr is about the most directly political text that comes to mind - and that was really nothing more than stating that Christians were not violating imperial laws and therefore should not be persecuted.  My memory is fuzzy so I'll have to pull it out, but when St. Augustine was talking about the games in his Confessions I think his point was that it would be immoral for a Christian to attend rather than attempting to have the games closed through political ends.

19-century American history is definitely not my forte, but I don't remember the slavery debate being framed as a non-religious group vs. a religious group.  While many of the of the abolitionists drew inspiration for their ideology from Christianity, I think it would be a hard argument to make that the ante-bellum South was a hotbed of radical secularism and non-religion. 
Chief Justice Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision, stated that although his personal religious views (he was Catholic) were against slavery (he freed all those he had inherited, and gave the old ones pensions), he couldn't impose those views on everyone.
Shouldn't be hard at all.  Thomas Jefferson was a son of the South, the father of secularism here, and quite the Renaissance thinker where he wrote that blacks were naturally inferior  to whites (an Enlightenment idea, btw), and smelt bad.
As for the non-religious vs. religious, the original and uncompromising Abolititionist movements all grew out of churches.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: February 23, 2008, 03:35:51 PM »

Chief Justice Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision, stated that although his personal religious views (he was Catholic) were against slavery (he freed all those he had inherited, and gave the old ones pensions), he couldn't impose those views on everyone.

This is an issue of Constitutional Law and should be reserved for the politics forum.

Quote
Shouldn't be hard at all.  Thomas Jefferson was a son of the South, the father of secularism here, and quite the Renaissance thinker where he wrote that blacks were naturally inferior  to whites (an Enlightenment idea, btw), and smelt bad.

The issue with Thomas Jefferson is MUCH more complex than the simplistic picture you are trying to paing. While he continued to hold slaves but never supported the institution, his acts and views may have been a bit hypocritical, but he did, at least, understand the ideals of the Enlightenment in theory. This hypocracy troubled him all his life and the pains of his conscience can clearly be seen in his writings, he wanted to free his slaves but was deeply in debt and could not do so as they were named as collateral for notes and mortgages, he desired to free his slaves once he had paid these notes, but with the decrease of land values in 1819 this would never be possible for him.

In 1769 he drafted legislation that was presented to the Virgina House of Burgesses to emancipate all slaves, but it was ultimately defeated. In his original draft of the declaration of independence he included words of condemnation for the Crown saying, 'charging that the crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.' But these words were removed at the insistence of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia. Due to his political activities, Virgina, whose economy was heavily dependent on slavery, became the first American state to ban the importing of slaves into the state, commenting on the legislation he said that it 'stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication.' In 1807, when it became constitutionally premissible to pass such a law, he signed the bill that outlawed the importing of slaves into the United States.

In his September 10, 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper he clearly laid out his political and philosophical views on the institution of slavery, when he said 'There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.'

In his well-known work, Notes on the State of Virginia, he said, 'There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.'

And while he did not view whites and blacks to be equals in matters of intelligence or capability (and, thus, did not believe that they could peacefully live together as equals in a common society), he did believe that they were equal in nature and that slavery was immoral.

What we see in Jefferson is not a condoning of slavery by enlightenment ideology, but rather the epitome of the traditional conflict between philosophical ideals and practical economics.

Quote
As for the non-religious vs. religious, the original and uncompromising Abolititionist movements all grew out of churches.

Actually the divide was between liberal and conservative Christianity. Liberal Christianity, which had been heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, had become anti-slavery; conservative Christianity condemned these liberals for incorporating secular ideals into their theology and going directly against both the Old and New Testaments as well as Christian tradition. I would recommend Dr. Dabney's A Defence of Virginia and the South if you actually want to read about this theological controversy, though the book is clearly from the conservative side of the debate.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #55 on: February 23, 2008, 06:25:50 PM »

To add to GiC's excellent post, I find it highly ironic to cite Christianity as this wonderful and positive force in the liberation of the slaves when it was in fact the Christian colonization of the New World that lead to the explosion of the slave trade - a trade that often justified the taking of Africans and American Indigenous peoples as slaves because they were non-Christians.  So all you can really conclude is that liberal Christians helped begin the process of righting the wrongs inflicted for centuries by other Christians. 
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #56 on: February 24, 2008, 01:31:03 AM »

Just a note from the other side...



John Henry Cardinal Newman, May 12, 1879


For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of Liberalism in religion....

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy.

... Hitherto, it has been considered that religion alone, with its supernatural sanctions, was strong enough to secure submission of the masses of our population to law and order; now the Philosophers and Politicians are bent on satisfying this problem without the aid of Christianity. Instead of the Church's authority and teaching, they would substitute first of all a universal and thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, industrious, and sober is his personal interest....

There never was a device of the Enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of success. And already it has answered to the expectations which have been formed of it. It is sweeping into its own ranks great numbers of able, earnest, virtuous men, elderly men of approved antecedents, young men with a career before them.

... I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls; but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Faithful and True, or to His Vicar on earth.

Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear for it any new trial now....

[From Rorate Caeli Blog]

pax
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #57 on: February 24, 2008, 05:21:06 AM »

I think many are missing the point on Bishop Hilarion's speech. The context is within the WCC. He is not speaking about those outside christianity but the various christianities themselves.  He is speaking about christians and their mentality. When he says liberal christianity he is speaking if those churches and christians who believe Jesus condones abortion, homosexuality euthanasia etc. Another words the liberal christian is the one who adopts the whims of popular culture as gospel then goes out and preaches it. The speech isnt about how christians should react towards non christians, but how christians now believe that Jesus preached the virtues of same sex marriage, syncretism, and democratic ideals. He is saying how the gulf has spread between liberal christianity and traditional christianity (each group in the WCC will recognize itself as belonging to one of these camps) and they can no longer speak in unision about christian ideals since there is no such thing. One church's virtue is another church's heresy.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #58 on: February 24, 2008, 09:19:12 AM »

This is an issue of Constitutional Law and should be reserved for the politics forum.

Taney is dead and the 13th Amendment passed.  The politics of it are closed.

Quote
The issue with Thomas Jefferson is MUCH more complex than the simplistic picture you are trying to paing. While he continued to hold slaves but never supported the institution, his acts and views may have been a bit hypocritical, but he did, at least, understand the ideals of the Enlightenment in theory. This hypocracy troubled him all his life and the pains of his conscience can clearly be seen in his writings, he wanted to free his slaves but was deeply in debt and could not do so as they were named as collateral for notes and mortgages, he desired to free his slaves once he had paid these notes, but with the decrease of land values in 1819 this would never be possible for him.

In 1769 he drafted legislation that was presented to the Virgina House of Burgesses to emancipate all slaves, but it was ultimately defeated. In his original draft of the declaration of independence he included words of condemnation for the Crown saying, 'charging that the crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.' But these words were removed at the insistence of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia. Due to his political activities, Virgina, whose economy was heavily dependent on slavery, became the first American state to ban the importing of slaves into the state, commenting on the legislation he said that it 'stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication.' In 1807, when it became constitutionally premissible to pass such a law, he signed the bill that outlawed the importing of slaves into the United States.

In his September 10, 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper he clearly laid out his political and philosophical views on the institution of slavery, when he said 'There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.'

In his well-known work, Notes on the State of Virginia, he said, 'There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.'

And while he did not view whites and blacks to be equals in matters of intelligence or capability (and, thus, did not believe that they could peacefully live together as equals in a common society), he did believe that they were equal in nature and that slavery was immoral.

What we see in Jefferson is not a condoning of slavery by enlightenment ideology, but rather the epitome of the traditional conflict between philosophical ideals and practical economics.

Sally Hemings.

Quote
Actually the divide was between liberal and conservative Christianity. Liberal Christianity, which had been heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, had become anti-slavery; conservative Christianity condemned these liberals for incorporating secular ideals into their theology and going directly against both the Old and New Testaments as well as Christian tradition. I would recommend Dr. Dabney's A Defence of Virginia and the South if you actually want to read about this theological controversy, though the book is clearly from the conservative side of the debate.

The problem is you are talking about Protestantism, the Enlightenment's sibling, which incorporated secular ideals (like the church as a department of the state, and the theory of races) into their eisogesis of both OT and NT.

For instance, the Orthodox Church forbade dividing up the families of slaves and the empires under Rome had laws (until the Enlightened officials removed them) that a baptized slave was free.  But for those heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, this was all superstition, and they removed it from the books.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2008, 09:34:46 AM »

To add to GiC's excellent post, I find it highly ironic to cite Christianity as this wonderful and positive force in the liberation of the slaves when it was in fact the Christian colonization of the New World that lead to the explosion of the slave trade - a trade that often justified the taking of Africans and American Indigenous peoples as slaves because they were non-Christians.  So all you can really conclude is that liberal Christians helped begin the process of righting the wrongs inflicted for centuries by other Christians. 

Do you mean the Christian colonization, or the colonization by "Christians."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2008, 09:38:04 AM »

I think many are missing the point on Bishop Hilarion's speech. The context is within the WCC. He is not speaking about those outside christianity but the various christianities themselves.  He is speaking about christians and their mentality. When he says liberal christianity he is speaking if those churches and christians who believe Jesus condones abortion, homosexuality euthanasia etc. Another words the liberal christian is the one who adopts the whims of popular culture as gospel then goes out and preaches it. The speech isnt about how christians should react towards non christians, but how christians now believe that Jesus preached the virtues of same sex marriage, syncretism, and democratic ideals. He is saying how the gulf has spread between liberal christianity and traditional christianity (each group in the WCC will recognize itself as belonging to one of these camps) and they can no longer speak in unision about christian ideals since there is no such thing. One church's virtue is another church's heresy.
Liberal Christian doesn't see the difference.  The Church is to bow to the world, and that's that.  How dare the Church resist their "reasoning." Roll Eyes police

You are right.  Taught of being yoked in such a "supra" Church is showing its cracks.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2008, 12:37:19 PM »

Do you mean the Christian colonization, or the colonization by "Christians."

Last I checked, most conquistadors carried around a priest with them.  The ideas behind the line of demarcation came right from the Papacy itself, i.e the concept that if one isn't a Christian they have no right to live on their land.  And of course the actual role of the priest was to certify that the natives had been made aware of this by the conquistador reading through some document in court Spanish. 

It is very disingenuous to cherry pick a few stellar examples of Christianity and say that represents Christianity and compare it against the worst examples of non-Christians.   
Logged
BraydenAmanda
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2008, 02:06:45 PM »

hi LINK REMOVED



I'm placing you on post moderation for spamming OC.net.  If you feel this is in error, PM me or Fr. Chris.

-- Cleveland, Global Moderator
« Last Edit: February 24, 2008, 02:16:32 PM by cleveland » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2008, 07:11:00 PM »

Sally Hemings.

Relevance? I should have expected that things like facts would be lost on you.

Quote
The problem is you are talking about Protestantism, the Enlightenment's sibling, which incorporated secular ideals (like the church as a department of the state, and the theory of races) into their eisogesis of both OT and NT.

For instance, the Orthodox Church forbade dividing up the families of slaves and the empires under Rome had laws (until the Enlightened officials removed them) that a baptized slave was free.  But for those heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, this was all superstition, and they removed it from the books.

And, yet, the Orthodox Church still failed to eliminate slavery. While Liberal Christianity, influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, did remove it from all the regions of the world where it held sway.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2008, 09:43:00 PM »

Last I checked, most conquistadors carried around a priest with them.

I know that Pizarro did.  I'm not sure about Cortez.  Are you?

One can call the sending of St. Herman, or SS Cyril and Methodius, and even Francis Xavier Christian missions.  Was that part of the conquistadores charter?

Quote
The ideas behind the line of demarcation came right from the Papacy itself,

I have only a passing interest in what Rome does, until she returns to the Orthodox Faith.

Did the idea come from the pope of Rome? My understanding it was a mediation between Spain and Portugal.

Quote
i.e the concept that if one isn't a Christian they have no right to live on their land.


Notice the line ignored Protestant England, the Netherslands and Sweden, Orthodox Russia, let alone Latin France.

 
Quote
And of course the actual role of the priest was to certify that the natives had been made aware of this by the conquistador reading through some document in court Spanish.
 

Source?

Quote
It is very disingenuous to cherry pick a few stellar examples of Christianity and say that represents Christianity and compare it against the worst examples of non-Christians.   

In the original post I neither picked cherries nor compares the worst of non-Christians.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2008, 09:56:27 PM »

Relevance? I should have expected that things like facts would be lost on you.

Are you denying the facts of Sally's children, and their father?

To be honest, I'm more sickened by the fact that Sally was the half-sister of Tom's dead wife.  Even more objectification of a human being, supposedly an Enlightenment concern.

Quote
And, yet, the Orthodox Church still failed to eliminate slavery. While Liberal Christianity, influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, did remove it from all the regions of the world where it held sway.
After the Renaissance and Enlightenment spread it to new lows.

I've yet to see the evidence that John Newton and William Wilberforce were liberal Christians. Most see them as early Evangelicals (yes, those moral majority types: one of Wilburforce's children was the Society for the Suppression of Vice.  I don't think it had an Enlightenment agenda).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #66 on: February 25, 2008, 03:37:14 AM »

Source?

Pretty much everything I posted can be found in First Peoples : a Documentary Survey of American Indian History by Colin G. Galloway, second edition.  Since you specifically asked about my source for the Requerimento, that can be found pages 69-70. 

It is things like that which make the whole concept of Christian triumphalism utterly nauseating.  But, I don't simply think this way about Christianity: any religion, philosophy, political ideology etc. is going to stray from its core values when it becomes a group identity rather than a personal identity.  I really can't think of anything that really merits being triumphalistic over.  As Socrates is alleged to have said, "The unreflected life isn't worth living."
Logged
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2008, 11:08:45 AM »

"Our holy mission is to preach what Christ preached, to teach what the apostles taught and to propagate what the holy Fathers propagated."

Now this is what the world needs to hear! Wink
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2012, 10:33:30 PM »

I think the more progressive memebers of this board (or myself, at least) have been staying out of this thread so you all can continue your 'traditionalist-Christianity lovefest'. And I'm sure everyone posting here has been grateful for this...do you really want to try to pull us into this discussion?

PURE GOLD FEARS NO FIRE

indeed my friend.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 10:33:50 PM by tweety234 » Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,745



« Reply #69 on: December 05, 2012, 03:29:12 PM »

Help! I cannot find the article in the link!
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Luckster
Double Dipper
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 140



« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2012, 09:52:39 AM »

Help! I cannot find the article in the link!
It likely doesn't exist anymore. If you noticed, the OP is nearly five years old.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2012, 11:00:39 AM »

Help! I cannot find the article in the link!
It likely doesn't exist anymore. If you noticed, the OP is nearly five years old.
Is this it?
http://www.lee-burgin.com/ancientfaith/B814097505/C305433842/E20080222091544/index.html

His Eminence's words are immortal.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 11:14:40 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,995



« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2012, 07:31:27 PM »

"Dittos."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,745



« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2012, 10:07:06 AM »

Help! I cannot find the article in the link!
It likely doesn't exist anymore. If you noticed, the OP is nearly five years old.

oh... woops...
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.233 seconds with 100 queries.