OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 11:20:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Homosexulaity and the Church--was part of Re: Interesting development in the OCA  (Read 18864 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #270 on: August 13, 2011, 10:42:36 PM »

I am pretty sure though, that within the freakangelical world, to which some would have as allied as closely as possible on "moral issues" this has never been a "moral issue". Oh well, but they are probably a bunch of repressed prudes anyways.
Shut up! That's enough!

You talk a lot about the bigotry of us Evangelicals, but you're one of the worst bigots on here. I'm so damn sick of your trash talk and broad brushing!  Angry Do us all a favor and get out of here! And while you're at it, get out of my country you piece of crap!
it's an Orthodox forum, man. That's how some Orthodox feel about you evangelicals. grow up. Get used to it. I personally rank your religion just a bit above satanism.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #271 on: August 13, 2011, 10:44:01 PM »

I am pretty sure though, that within the freakangelical world, to which some would have as allied as closely as possible on "moral issues" this has never been a "moral issue". Oh well, but they are probably a bunch of repressed prudes anyways.
Shut up! That's enough!

You talk a lot about the bigotry of us Evangelicals, but you're one of the worst bigots on here. I'm so damn sick of your trash talk and broad brushing!  Angry Do us all a favor and get out of here! And while you're at it, get out of my country you piece of crap!

Better keep the xenophobia under wraps while accusing someone else of bigotry. Just a suggestion.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #272 on: August 13, 2011, 10:45:55 PM »

In some respects satanism would be a better option. at least they get to have a bit of fun. You southern baptists et co don't even get that, you born again manicheans.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 10:47:59 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #273 on: August 13, 2011, 10:46:55 PM »

I am pretty sure though, that within the freakangelical world, to which some would have as allied as closely as possible on "moral issues" this has never been a "moral issue". Oh well, but they are probably a bunch of repressed prudes anyways.
Shut up! That's enough!

You talk a lot about the bigotry of us Evangelicals, but you're one of the worst bigots on here. I'm so damn sick of your trash talk and broad brushing!  Angry Do us all a favor and get out of here! And while you're at it, get out of my country you piece of crap!

Better keep the xenophobia under wraps while accusing someone else of bigotry. Just a suggestion.
Xenophobia's got nothing to do with it, I'm just tired of every other word out of his mouth being trash talk on my country or my religion. Just expressing my wish that he'd kindly shut up and go soak his head.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #274 on: August 13, 2011, 10:47:57 PM »

This forum has been quite rattled lately hasn't it?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #275 on: August 13, 2011, 10:54:05 PM »

In some respects satanism would be a better option. at least they get to have a bit of fun. You southern baptists et co don't even get that, you manicheans.
I'm not a baptist and I don't care if you dislike Evangelicalism, I've just had it up to here with you acting like none of us care about following God or have a problem with the deficiencies in many of our churches. This last comment is a prime example. I know plenty of Baptists who aren't legalistic and are great people to have around. That's nothing but a damn stereotype.

How would you like it if I used your posting history to call all Romanians a bunch of superstitious fornication-loving hillbillies. You're lucky I don't take one individual as an example of the whole like you seem to do.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #276 on: August 13, 2011, 10:57:29 PM »

In some respects satanism would be a better option. at least they get to have a bit of fun. You southern baptists et co don't even get that, you manicheans.
I'm not a baptist and I don't care if you dislike Evangelicalism, I've just had it up to here with you acting like none of us care about following God or have a problem with the deficiencies in many of our churches. This last comment is a prime example. I know plenty of Baptists who aren't legalistic and are great people to have around. That's nothing but a damn stereotype.

How would you like it if I used your posting history to call all Romanians a bunch of superstitious fornication-loving hillbillies. You're lucky I don't take one individual as an example of the whole like you seem to do.
You are on an Orthodox forum, not an evangelical one. Get that?
 I warned you already for veering off topic. Now, I find it necessary to warn you about trying to act as a moderator. Please let the moderators decide what is allowed on this forum or any of its sections. You may appeal via PM to our Global Moderator, Father George. Second Chance
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #277 on: August 13, 2011, 11:00:03 PM »

Y'all are just trading insults at this point. Can't we all just get along?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #278 on: August 13, 2011, 11:02:56 PM »

In some respects satanism would be a better option. at least they get to have a bit of fun. You southern baptists et co don't even get that, you manicheans.
I'm not a baptist and I don't care if you dislike Evangelicalism, I've just had it up to here with you acting like none of us care about following God or have a problem with the deficiencies in many of our churches. This last comment is a prime example. I know plenty of Baptists who aren't legalistic and are great people to have around. That's nothing but a damn stereotype.

How would you like it if I used your posting history to call all Romanians a bunch of superstitious fornication-loving hillbillies. You're lucky I don't take one individual as an example of the whole like you seem to do.
You are on an Orthodox forum, not an evangelical one. Get that?
I've literally spent years defending Orthodox from bigoted comments by Evangelicals on other boards. Is fairness and common decency too much to ask?
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,413


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #279 on: August 13, 2011, 11:03:16 PM »

Volnutt has been properly disciplined for his outburst. I advise you all, then, to drop your grievances against him and focus your attention on the OP of this thread.

Thank you.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #280 on: August 13, 2011, 11:26:56 PM »

Let me ask our evangelical-in-residence here: is having oral or anal sex with one's wife considered a grave moral problem/a "threat to the moral fabric of this country" in evangelicalism?
PS
 I would put it in more  colorful terms, but since evangelicals aren't supposed to use foul language, I hope I'll still get the message across
Logged
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #281 on: August 13, 2011, 11:47:00 PM »

Let me ask our evangelical-in-residence here: is having oral or anal sex with one's wife considered a grave moral problem/a "threat to the moral fabric of this country" in evangelicalism?
PS
 I would put it in more  colorful terms, but since evangelicals aren't supposed to use foul language, I hope I'll still get the message across

Ask five evangelicals that question and you'll end up with seven different opinions.

In short, it depends on which branch of evangelicalism you're dealing with. It's not a unified front at all, and even within denominations it's rare to find unity on issues such as this; consider the issue of drinking alcohol within the SBC. Some say it's okay, some say it's not, but there's no consensus on the issue.

Regardless, Bogdan brought up an extremely good point and a possible fallacy in your argumentation. One could say you're arguing ad hominem tu quoque in a sort of way, pointing out that because people ignore other commands, this must mean that sin is allowable. Yet, we see from the words of Christ in John 8 that hatred is akin to murder. People still have hatred and sometimes ignore Christ's command, but this doesn't mean we should in turn allow murder. Just because a command is difficult or because it is commonly violated doesn't mean that the moral code has changed (this too is a logical fallacy).
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #282 on: August 13, 2011, 11:50:18 PM »

So basically:

A, B, and C are sins.

A and B are now frequently practiced and are no longer considered sinful by many people, or are otherwise not penalized.

Therefore C should not be considered sinful or be penalized.

This is obviously fallacious reasoning.
Well we live in the real world, not within some freakin' sophism.

Do you care to address the point (that is, that your view is bad reasoning), instead of making more fallacious statements?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 11:50:49 PM by bogdan » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #283 on: August 14, 2011, 12:13:17 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,413


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #284 on: August 14, 2011, 12:14:50 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?
Why? That would be off topic.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 35,615



« Reply #285 on: August 14, 2011, 12:22:08 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?
I guess we could, if it did.
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
Warned
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: 35,615



« Reply #286 on: August 14, 2011, 12:29:57 AM »

I find them a pleasure to be around. 

Totally agree. I worked at a bank for 5 years and my best friend/confidant the whole time was gay. We knew where each other were on the spectrum but that had no weight on our friendship. He would often confide in me about his escapades and vice versa. But the more I got to know him the less I thought he was made a certain way and the more I thought he just chose a path like everyone else does.

I agree with a lot of this, but most gays I know didn't choose to be gay.  In fact, I just had one of them tell me a couple of weeks ago that he didn't choose to be gay and would never have chosen it.  Of course, his mother (who is Christian) treats him like garbage.  He gets a panic attack every time he has to go visit her.

It's attitudes like his mother's that I simply don't understand. For the sake of argument, if we assume that one chooses to have same-sex attraction and then engage in it, why should we treat that one like garbage? Don't some choose greed just as much?

It seems that we teach homosexuality as equal to other sexual sins, but in practice we treat it like it's the worst thing in the world.
Not sure the example proves it:a mother who doesn't approve of a opposite sex spouse can elicite the same dynamic expressed above.
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
Aaron M
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: nothing
Posts: 60


« Reply #287 on: August 14, 2011, 12:31:42 AM »

So basically:

A, B, and C are sins.

A and B are now frequently practiced and are no longer considered sinful by many people, or are otherwise not penalized.

Therefore C should not be considered sinful or be penalized.

This is obviously fallacious reasoning.

It might be "obvious" to some intellectuals and persons/group with a particular interest in C remaining not merely a sin and but a *penalized* one at that, but to less interested observers (and very many of those within who struggle with C), it might look like a kind of hypocrisy.  A way that the possibly charged hypocrisy could be dealt with is to strongly re-affirm that A and B are still sins worthy of penalty, and either start re-penalizing them - or let up on the constant reiteration about C, even in the face of rapid social change wanting to affirm it as not a sin.  As I said in one post long ago on this thread, I would actually prefer the former option, however since that is likely untenable in the society that we have today and at least a few generations back, I submit that the latter is better for saving face to the masses.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #288 on: August 14, 2011, 12:33:13 AM »

Let me ask our evangelical-in-residence here: is having oral or anal sex with one's wife considered a grave moral problem/a "threat to the moral fabric of this country" in evangelicalism?
PS
 I would put it in more  colorful terms, but since evangelicals aren't supposed to use foul language, I hope I'll still get the message across

Ask five evangelicals that question and you'll end up with seven different opinions.

In short, it depends on which branch of evangelicalism you're dealing with. It's not a unified front at all, and even within denominations it's rare to find unity on issues such as this; consider the issue of drinking alcohol within the SBC. Some say it's okay, some say it's not, but there's no consensus on the issue.
theo's right about this.


In my opinion it is sinful but not a threat.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #289 on: August 14, 2011, 12:34:00 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

So you admit you have no basis for you belief that the Church should change its stance on homosexuality, except that the Church often no longer penalizes other sins, and somehow it follows that the Church should do the same here?

Well, if it's now safe to jump off bridges and skyscrapers, it must also be safe to jump off cliffs. Good to know. Cheesy
Logged
Aaron M
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: nothing
Posts: 60


« Reply #290 on: August 14, 2011, 12:41:10 AM »

Let me ask our evangelical-in-residence here: is having oral or anal sex with one's wife considered a grave moral problem/a "threat to the moral fabric of this country" in evangelicalism?
PS
 I would put it in more  colorful terms, but since evangelicals aren't supposed to use foul language, I hope I'll still get the message across

Ask five evangelicals that question and you'll end up with seven different opinions.

In short, it depends on which branch of evangelicalism you're dealing with. It's not a unified front at all, and even within denominations it's rare to find unity on issues such as this; consider the issue of drinking alcohol within the SBC. Some say it's okay, some say it's not, but there's no consensus on the issue.
theo's right about this.


In my opinion it is sinful but not a threat.

How is anything that is sinful *not* a threat, at least to the sinner committing the sinful act?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 12:41:45 AM by Aaron M » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #291 on: August 14, 2011, 12:43:08 AM »

So basically:

A, B, and C are sins.

A and B are now frequently practiced and are no longer considered sinful by many people, or are otherwise not penalized.

Therefore C should not be considered sinful or be penalized.

This is obviously fallacious reasoning.

It might be "obvious" to some intellectuals and persons/group with a particular interest in C remaining not merely a sin and but a *penalized* one at that, but to less interested observers (and very many of those within who struggle with C), it might look like a kind of hypocrisy.  A way that the possibly charged hypocrisy could be dealt with is to strongly re-affirm that A and B are still sins worthy of penalty, and either start re-penalizing them - or let up on the constant reiteration about C, even in the face of rapid social change wanting to affirm it as not a sin.  As I said in one post long ago on this thread, I would actually prefer the former option, however since that is likely untenable in the society that we have today and at least a few generations back, I submit that the latter is better for saving face to the masses.

What about members who struggle with C and agree it's sinful? It would be hypocritical not to uphold the traditional stance and support them in struggling against their sin.

Indeed, it would be far worse to cause those little ones to stumble by giving in to cultural pressure. (Millstones around necks come to mind.)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 12:44:24 AM by bogdan » Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #292 on: August 14, 2011, 12:43:55 AM »

Let me ask our evangelical-in-residence here: is having oral or anal sex with one's wife considered a grave moral problem/a "threat to the moral fabric of this country" in evangelicalism?
PS
 I would put it in more  colorful terms, but since evangelicals aren't supposed to use foul language, I hope I'll still get the message across

Ask five evangelicals that question and you'll end up with seven different opinions.

In short, it depends on which branch of evangelicalism you're dealing with. It's not a unified front at all, and even within denominations it's rare to find unity on issues such as this; consider the issue of drinking alcohol within the SBC. Some say it's okay, some say it's not, but there's no consensus on the issue.
theo's right about this.


In my opinion it is sinful but not a threat.

How is anything that is sinful *not* a threat, at least the sinner committing the act?
To the sinner yes, I meant I don't consider anal sex in marriage to be the same threat to the family and society as acceptance of homosexuality (if homosexuality even is such a threat).
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #293 on: August 14, 2011, 12:45:49 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

So you admit you have no basis for you belief that the Church should change its stance on homosexuality, except that the Church often no longer penalizes other sins, and somehow it follows that the Church should do the same here?

Well, if it's now safe to jump off bridges and skyscrapers, it must also be safe to jump off cliffs. Good to know. Cheesy
Now why not extend the same indulgence to all sins, dammit? Makes you feel more traditional/patristic/whatever the buzzword was when you got hooked on ths orthodox thing if you can pick and choose which sins to penalize?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #294 on: August 14, 2011, 12:48:42 AM »

augustin is winning on points guys.

When folks start projecting emotions onto a poster, insulting a poster, using the law of non-excluded middle as if it is true, using Latin phrases to say something just as easily to say in English and actually explaining them in English, they are losing.

And then there is simply the ignoring of points being made.

And all the above are sophistic btw.

 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 01:07:30 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #295 on: August 14, 2011, 12:51:18 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

So you admit you have no basis for you belief that the Church should change its stance on homosexuality, except that the Church often no longer penalizes other sins, and somehow it follows that the Church should do the same here?

Well, if it's now safe to jump off bridges and skyscrapers, it must also be safe to jump off cliffs. Good to know. Cheesy
Now why not extend the same indulgence to all sins, dammit? Makes you feel more traditional/patristic/whatever the buzzword was when you got hooked on ths orthodox thing if you can pick and choose which sins to penalize?

Shopping is fun.

Giving to the poor is boring.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #296 on: August 14, 2011, 01:01:51 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

So you admit you have no basis for you belief that the Church should change its stance on homosexuality, except that the Church often no longer penalizes other sins, and somehow it follows that the Church should do the same here?

Well, if it's now safe to jump off bridges and skyscrapers, it must also be safe to jump off cliffs. Good to know. Cheesy
Now why not extend the same indulgence to all sins, dammit? Makes you feel more traditional/patristic/whatever the buzzword was when you got hooked on ths orthodox thing if you can pick and choose which sins to penalize?

What if homosexual Orthodox people don't want the Church's standards watered down? None of the ones I know do. I care about their opinion more than the bleeding hearts of those trying to "help" by making the Church into a free-for-all.

And quit ascribing motivations to people's conversions. It's getting on my nerves. The subject of homosexuality had no impact on that decision for me.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,364


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #297 on: August 14, 2011, 01:03:48 AM »

I mostly care about what happens in the concrete life of the church; I could care less for syllogisms. Because at the end of the day one side has it easier with getting absolution, because they are the majority, and another side has it tougher because they are a small minority (and a convenient scapegoat, at times).
Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

So you admit you have no basis for you belief that the Church should change its stance on homosexuality, except that the Church often no longer penalizes other sins, and somehow it follows that the Church should do the same here?

Well, if it's now safe to jump off bridges and skyscrapers, it must also be safe to jump off cliffs. Good to know. Cheesy
Now why not extend the same indulgence to all sins, dammit? Makes you feel more traditional/patristic/whatever the buzzword was when you got hooked on ths orthodox thing if you can pick and choose which sins to penalize?

Shopping is fun.

Giving to the poor is boring.

Touche.

Why not combine the two and go shopping for the homeless poor?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 01:04:14 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #298 on: August 14, 2011, 01:17:18 AM »


Shopping is fun.

Giving to the poor is boring.

Touche.

Why not combine the two and go shopping for the homeless poor?

That is exactly the sorta outta of the box thinking Madison Ave. has been looking for! The homeless are a nearly untouched market where a lot of revenue could be gained. Gotta start making people feel inadequate about themselves if they are not giving most their income
to the poor.

The sad thing is that Madison Ave. could probably pull off getting folks to give to the poor better than ANY Church has of late.

When I see another "old" RC parish turned into a high end retail store, it just seems right. Americans should face Madison Avenue when they pray.

God knows, that although I know all their tricks and it makes me sick the slick, but brilliant, psychology and art of advertising, give me a few minutes of watching a TV and I begin to feel I need to buy something to be a better person.

More commonly I just feel like a worse person cause I can't afford my solution.  

Oh, and I hear gays are over represented in the top marketing agencies. So maybe we should stone them or convert them upon threat of death if they don't market the Gospel in a more effective manner than it is being marketed now.

It would hard to do worse.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 01:18:26 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,520



« Reply #299 on: August 14, 2011, 01:17:34 AM »

Ok. Off for tonight and off to doing some sins the church kinda winks at.
And pray for me a sinner. Wink
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #300 on: August 14, 2011, 02:00:02 AM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 02:08:43 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



« Reply #301 on: August 14, 2011, 07:53:11 AM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.

As an online OC.net discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Arius approaches 1.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #302 on: August 14, 2011, 10:13:12 AM »

Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

Perhaps you should use the past tense "has destroyed".
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,413


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #303 on: August 14, 2011, 10:31:57 AM »

Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

Perhaps you should use the past tense "has destroyed".
Don't encourage him.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 10:32:16 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #304 on: August 14, 2011, 10:34:25 AM »

Now shall we move on and discuss how capitalism/free-market economy destroys the "traditional family"?

Perhaps you should use the past tense "has destroyed".
Don't encourage him.

I can't help myself. I love that topic.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #305 on: August 14, 2011, 02:16:38 PM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.

As an online OC.net discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Arius approaches 1.

Godwin's law is so stupid...
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #306 on: August 14, 2011, 03:10:20 PM »

Showing someone how his points are invalid doesn't mean anything if all he wants is attention.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #307 on: August 14, 2011, 03:49:40 PM »

Showing someone how his points are invalid doesn't mean anything if all he wants is attention.

Who or what is this directed to/for?
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,364


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #308 on: August 14, 2011, 05:23:30 PM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.

As an online OC.net discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Arius approaches 1.

Godwin rules again. Sad 
What a derail!
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 05:24:31 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,413


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #309 on: August 14, 2011, 06:07:31 PM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.

As an online OC.net discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Arius approaches 1.
The thing your observation misses is that Godwin's Law speaks only of irrelevant comparisons drawn only for their emotive value. Here, Devin makes a very relevant reference to the case of Arius, and you would dismiss it solely because it mentions the name of Arius.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #310 on: August 14, 2011, 06:35:21 PM »

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Nominal, lukewarm Orthodox don't bother to hang around Orthodox message boards and advertise their... lukewarmth. Augustin's "Hey everyone, look at me not caring!" posturing is something else. I don't think there's a name for it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



« Reply #311 on: August 14, 2011, 06:37:07 PM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.

As an online OC.net discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Arius approaches 1.
The thing your observation misses is that Godwin's Law speaks only of irrelevant comparisons drawn only for their emotive value. Here, Devin makes a very relevant reference to the case of Arius, and you would dismiss it solely because it mentions the name of Arius.

Really? Please, go on.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #312 on: August 14, 2011, 07:51:00 PM »

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Nominal, lukewarm Orthodox don't bother to hang around Orthodox message boards and advertise their... lukewarmth. Augustin's "Hey everyone, look at me not caring!" posturing is something else. I don't think there's a name for it.

Good point.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 07:51:56 PM by bogdan » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,413


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #313 on: August 14, 2011, 10:22:13 PM »

Orthonorm I'm sorry but that is not how discussions are lost... One wins a discussion by being RIGHT, not by refraining from insults, emotional outbursts, etc...

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Your Orthodox if you agree to her doctrines, dogmas and teachings. If you depart from these, even if you were baptized, chrismated and receive the Eucharist, then you have still departed from Orthodoxy...

Just ask Arius... According to your formula, he won the argument at Nicaea because St Nicholas slapped him across the face... Yet the Orthodox Church says that while St Nicholas was wrong in striking him, it was righteous anger and Arius was still in the wrong.

As an online OC.net discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler Arius approaches 1.
The thing your observation misses is that Godwin's Law speaks only of irrelevant comparisons drawn only for their emotive value. Here, Devin makes a very relevant reference to the case of Arius, and you would dismiss it solely because it mentions the name of Arius.

Really? Please, go on.
Why do you not like the reference to Arius?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #314 on: August 14, 2011, 10:27:17 PM »

A calm, but nominalistic, lukewarm Orthodox is still wrong when his/her beliefs and statements contradict Orthodox teachings...

Nominal, lukewarm Orthodox don't bother to hang around Orthodox message boards and advertise their... lukewarmth. Augustin's "Hey everyone, look at me not caring!" posturing is something else. I don't think there's a name for it.

Sorry guys, but this incredibly unfair, inaccurate, and unfortunate.

Yeah, we know what internetz is for what you are describing is an ugly description of someone.

Augustin, from my time here, rarely posts and when he does, it is well place one-liners tinged with irony. Anyone who doesn't get the joke, well it is too bad, cause it is funny and thought provoking. But the funny being more important.

But to accuse him of attention ****ing is unfounded.

In this thread, he has put forth more than just the Old World is right and you converts are crazy argument.

He, unlike most, has brought the issue to the personal level, even giving examples of anecdotes where folks were harmed by behavior he found objectionable.

In return, he gets at best arguments . . . wait for it . . .

"arguments" that are supposedly "Western".

His concerns are more pastoral and (I'll break out a big word for all you people using Latin and "logic" (Scholastic much?)) phenomenological.

He is highlighting the lived reality of the and consequences of the OBVIOUS focus, shown on this board in spades, of the near obsession with the pelvic position in America and how it has trumped any discussion about nearly another other "sin" and are the only long winding threads on anything else are why RCs and Protestants are bad.

He is curt. Abrasive. And correct.

In return, he gets the worst of internetz. It is really disappointing.

With the ultimate sign of losing: he is an attention ****.

When you start creating threads about yourself, see mine. You call someone that. You can call me that. Of course it is ironicals, but I've come to realize the silent majority get it, mosta loud minority don't.

He has raised numerous points which have merit and have yet to be addressed on the level of Christian charity.

Just some really poor critiques based on the logic of the schoolyard: two wrong don't make a right.

Or the "logic" of the A = B = C, thus A = C and whatever Scholastic conclusions follows from this "Western" non-phenomenological approach to harm done to real humans.

Then, oh he just wants attention, which is taking it to the man (ad hominem Jim, since you didn't understand it without the fancy Latin).
So again, if you are going to attack someone's perceived motives and "personality", which frankly the data doesn't bare out, you are reaching for straws.

Go back to his points. And truly ask yourself, if he just attention ****ing. This seems to me to be a subject he cares for.

He obviously can fight his own battles as he making nearly everyone twist in the wind on this one, but I don't care for piling on unfounded, irrelevant if it they were true, accusations.

The very thing he gets criticized for and obviously is not doing is used in exasperation by his opponents to write him off.

Well I learned something here. About another source of the sayings of the Desert Fathers, which might differ subtly from the texts I am working from.

Since that is majority of what I read outside of Scripture regarding Orthodoxy that is of great interest to me.

Attention ****ing indeed.



 


 

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.163 seconds with 72 queries.