OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 20, 2014, 10:50:39 PM *
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 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 21163 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #405 on: August 16, 2011, 10:01:09 AM »

Just because there is one bad egg (that Priest) out there doesn't mean the whole crowd is bad...

Frederica Matthews Green:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/gay_marriage

Fr. Joseph Honeycutt:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodixie/im_not_gay_i_was_drawn_this_way

Orthodox Church in America, 1992:
Quote
Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings...Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.
Assistance is to be given to those who deal with persons of homosexual orientation in order to help them with their thoughts, feelings and actions in regard to homosexuality. Such assistance is especially necessary for parents, relatives and friends of persons with homosexual tendencies and feelings. It is certainly necessary for pastors and church workers.

Clark Carlton:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/the_naked_public_square_part_one_dont_ask_dont_tell

Steve Robinson:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/orthodoxy_and_homosexuality_part_one
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/orthodoxy_and_homosexuality_part_two

I could go on... But just because a minority of Orthodox treat homosexual-leaning people like crap doesn't mean that everyone who is openly opposed to it does the same.

As I once recently heard in a podcast, nowhere in the Bible, and nowhere in our faith do you hear tolerance preached. But love is most certainly preached. We cannot, and we should not "tolerate" homosexuality. But we must love them, and "speak the truth in love", and help to show them the ascetical struggle they must undergo to battle their temptations.

Why did this post go ignored, and yet everyone seems to be stuck on a Priest who is clearly treating it the wrong way?

Do Orthodox who speak the truth (NOT referring to myself, but to those in the post i quoted) just get ignored because what they are saying is status quo, and those that are extreme get all the discussion because they are fringe and controversial?

Because some folks are more interested in the more sensational aspects? They dislike the Church and take every opportunity to criticize Her? They want the Church to accommodate their own personal beliefs and predilections?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #406 on: August 16, 2011, 10:23:07 AM »


I was waiting for attribution for the stuff you posted.


Here are links, provided on another e-list....

"On public and easily accessible Internet postings, Orthodox clergymen --
including OCA priests --

repeat disgusting and discredited theories about
the etiology of same-sex attraction
http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/06/time-out-reset-and-reboot/#comment-7901

liken gay people to "old perverted men who love little boys"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LThOe7HBOM&feature=related

tell Orthodox Christians that homosexuality "should make our stomachs turn and make us vomit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT3Nh7muQpE&feature=related

call for "spiritual warfare" against those in the Church who advocate a more
restrained pastoral approach
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/07/fr-alexander-f-c-webster-a-gauntlet-from-archpriest-alexis-vinogradov-wappingers-falls-ny/

and accuse those who speak up for gay people of being "homosexual
activists," publicly expressing hope that they will leave the Orthodox faith"
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/08/oca-bishop-matthias-reaffirms-orthodox-teaching-on-homosexuality/#comments




I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #407 on: August 16, 2011, 02:44:23 PM »


Quote
I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.

The same vehemence and hatred was extended to Metropolitan Jonah by the other side as they tried to force him out. The OCA is in the midst of a spiritual battle. The war within itself is not over yet. And don't forget, the OCA and AOCA have many who have converted from the Anglican Church. They have already been down this path so they know how it ends up.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 02:44:51 PM by Tamara » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #408 on: August 16, 2011, 02:57:59 PM »


I was waiting for attribution for the stuff you posted.


Here are links, provided on another e-list....

"On public and easily accessible Internet postings, Orthodox clergymen --
including OCA priests --

repeat disgusting and discredited theories about
the etiology of same-sex attraction
http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/06/time-out-reset-and-reboot/#comment-7901

liken gay people to "old perverted men who love little boys"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LThOe7HBOM&feature=related

tell Orthodox Christians that homosexuality "should make our stomachs turn and make us vomit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT3Nh7muQpE&feature=related

call for "spiritual warfare" against those in the Church who advocate a more
restrained pastoral approach
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/07/fr-alexander-f-c-webster-a-gauntlet-from-archpriest-alexis-vinogradov-wappingers-falls-ny/

and accuse those who speak up for gay people of being "homosexual
activists," publicly expressing hope that they will leave the Orthodox faith"
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/08/oca-bishop-matthias-reaffirms-orthodox-teaching-on-homosexuality/#comments




What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.

It's a typical response when people are presented with heresy or something bordering thereon. Church history is full of such examples. The devil did not cease attacking the Church through heresies when the seventh ecumenical council was over.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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: 37,963



« Reply #409 on: August 16, 2011, 03:06:35 PM »


I was waiting for attribution for the stuff you posted.


Here are links, provided on another e-list....

"On public and easily accessible Internet postings, Orthodox clergymen --
including OCA priests --

repeat disgusting and discredited theories about
the etiology of same-sex attraction
http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/06/time-out-reset-and-reboot/#comment-7901

liken gay people to "old perverted men who love little boys"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LThOe7HBOM&feature=related

tell Orthodox Christians that homosexuality "should make our stomachs turn and make us vomit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT3Nh7muQpE&feature=related

call for "spiritual warfare" against those in the Church who advocate a more
restrained pastoral approach
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/07/fr-alexander-f-c-webster-a-gauntlet-from-archpriest-alexis-vinogradov-wappingers-falls-ny/

and accuse those who speak up for gay people of being "homosexual
activists," publicly expressing hope that they will leave the Orthodox faith"
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/08/oca-bishop-matthias-reaffirms-orthodox-teaching-on-homosexuality/#comments




I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.
Having now heard the videos, I'm not sure if this isn't what is going on here.

One thing that must be conceded to Fr. Trenham:you will hardly ever see such moral indignation than what you see from the supporters of "gay marriage" when you tell them you are opposed.  It is not a question of "live and let live" versus "imposing your morality on everyone."  The first legal gay couple in America (who married after 14 years together IIRC, and divorced in a year or so, with Orders of Protection and everything) were asked, right after getting the license, if they would accept civil unions. "No," they replied "marriage says that society and everyone accepts us as a couple." For them to say they are not trying to impose their morality on us is disingenuous.  They're free to try to do so, but it's mano a mano, and that's no place for whining.  The judges have lost their minds, and mostly the people, by and large, have kept their sanity and accept morality as a rational basis of law.  He does not, however, demonstrate that rational basis.

I have to try to disentangle what Fr. Trenham actually says here, from what I have seen him write elsewhere, to get an accurate picture.  He does have a rather prescriptive, narrow, definition of "civilized."  I don't care for such assertions from the Left, and I'm not much fonder of them from the Right.  He does have a rather broad definition of perversion (he writes, for instance, that "sexual toys are sexual perversions and are always sinful, even for married Christians." He doesn't say, but I wonder, does he include lingerie among "sexual toys" let alone, for instance, body paint  Shocked?  Why or why not?).  Well, one issue that he doesn't address is many civilized societies have been quite fine with polygamy: is that not a perversion of the created order?

He is quite wrong that the Church has never dealt with this, and that the Greeks abhorred anal intercourse (to be fair, Fr. Trenham explicitely teaches "Anal and oral intercourse...are sexual perversions and are always sinful, even for married Christians," to which he means, of course, heterosexuals.  He also states that rather ex cathedra, giving no rational nor reason for his position).  For proof of that:
WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF ANCIENT GREEKS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY FR. TRENHAM CLAIMS THEY ABHORRED.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiki_anal_sex.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg
Quote
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles. It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases). Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her." Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage#Ancient
The issue of Roman law not recognizing marriage with non-citizens (Julius Caesar's son Caesarion, for instance, could not inherit because his mother, Cleopatra, wasn't a Roman citizen and therefore ipso facto she and Julius could not be married) is the equivalent of the oft brought up issue of anti-miscegenation laws.  As the Theodosian Code (Theodosius II) shows
Quote
Impp. Constantius et Constans aa. ad populum. Cum vir nubit in feminam, femina viros proiectura quid cupiat, ubi sexus perdidit locum, ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, ubi venus mutatur in alteram formam, ubi amor quaeritur nec videtur, iubemus insurgere leges, armari iura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt vel qui futuri sunt rei. Dat. prid. non. dec. Mediolano, proposita Romae XVII kal. ianuar. Constantio III et Constante II aa. conss. (342 dec. 4).
Emperors Constantius and Constance [the former Arian, the latter Orthodox btw] to the archives, to the people.
When a man marries as though he were the woman, [as] the woman offering to men what he desires, where sex/gender loses [its] place, where the crime is such that it is better not to know it, where Venus is changed into a different form, where love is sought but not seen, we order laws to arise, justice to be armed with an avenging sword, so that the disgraced who are or in future shall be guilty may be subjected to exquisite penalties.
http://ancientrome.ru/ius/library/codex/theod/liber09.htm
the Church has dealt with this before.  Of course, the Church only had to reiterate the proper context of sex being marriage and refuse to marry same sex couples. She had no power to influence the powers that be/were until perhaps 244 (the crypto-Christian Emperor Philip the Arab), perhaps 313, but most definitely after 381. And of course she did exercise that influence, and rightly so.  There is no reason why she shouldn't do so today (the Orthodox should vote, IMHO).

It's rather odd Fr. Trenham brings the Greco-Romans up both admitting that they praised homosexuality (yes, a literature exists) and claiming that "even they didn't accept it."  Some obviously did, and some obviously did not.  As Solomon said in scripture, "nothing is new under the sun."

Father also doesn't see the distinction when he claims that the Greco-Romans would never imagine calling homosexual relations "marriage" (although they did) because they were not so "opposed to children."  The problem he has here is that he sees marriage as a means to an end, i.e. propogation of the race
Quote
Sexual relations are also designed to serve as marital glue. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh." The physical union of intercourse is designed to strengthen the marital bond by both enacting a very real physical unity and by producing a child, who is a creation not from only husband or wife alone, but from both the husband and wife together.
....Sexual relations are also designed to bring forth children. For the married sexual relations are not only an unspeakable blessing but one of the main ways to fulfill God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply." The procreation of children is the duty of Christian spouses, and can no more be avoided or tampered with than can the other purposes of sexual relations.

Those not prepared to assume the responsibility of sexual relations ought not engage in them. The intense pleasure of sexual relations are designed by God to promote the procreation of children, since the difficulties inherent in childbearing and Christian parenting might otherwise tempt spouses to avoid this solemn responsibility.

Today's contraception culture strikes at the heart of the God-designed unity of pleasure and responsibility, opting to embrace pleasure while avoiding the responsibility of childbearing and calling it "family planning." Such planned parenthood and family planning is in reality planned barrenhood and family banning, and as such has been vigorously forbidden by the Holy Fathers throughout the history of the Church. St. Paul teaches that married women find their salvation in and through childbearing
which dovetails with the Greco-Roman view that saw marriage as duty to the state, who had a claim on the children as creatures of the state. Hence the fines and penalties the Empire levied against the unmarried and childless (which the holy Emperor Constantine had to remove to allow monasticism to legally flourish (interestingly, Czar Peter, Czarina Catherine etc. reimposed such notions and restricted the monastic profession in Holy Mother Russia).  Such views, however, are not in accord with marriage as Christ elevated it to a mystery and returned it to its original institution. (Note: the Lord says "cleave." He says nothing about being fruitful and multiplying, which is the basis the Saduccees were using to bring marriage down).

He is correct about those preaching "tolerance." As a group, they have no interest in marriage as an institution.  He touches on, but only in passing, however, that there the homosexual lobby is not alone in this: many feminists denounce marriage as patriarchal and stiffling, and have no interest in building it up, or motherhood or fatherhood.  To that he could have, and should have, added the advocates of 'no fault divorce,' which more than any other thing has brought us to the point where gay marriage is a possibility.

It is obvious that Fr. Trenham has a dislike of anal sex, even to the absurd assertion that the Greco-Romans didn't indulge in it, and hence the Fathers never had to deal with the issue.  When he says "perverted/perversion," I have to admit I get the impression that he is trying to draw on/exploit some nausea that we are all supposed to have, the "ick factor" that even the homosexual lobby admit is their biggest problem in promoting their agenda.  Well, some of us don't have an "ick factor" on that (at leat the basic anal sex, variation on that theme such as gerbils may be a different story), especially when it is a married heterosexual couple engaged in such activity (which, I'm sure, would turn Fr. Trenham's stomach just as fast as two men in a bath house), and he hasn't explained why we should.  One can argue against gay marriage without such pandering to personal dislikes.  In the context of a Sunday sermon, one should.

If he had left it to the first half of the sermon, it wouldn't be bad.  His real troubles start in the second half: I'd love to know how parents explained what Father was talking about "that violent interchange of blood" (it would be more amusing if, in defending his read on the Greco-Romans and anal sex, he got into frottage, intercrural sex, oral sex etc. which-if Fr. Trenham knows anything of what he talking about about that segment that did abhore anal sex what sex they got into-would make up what he referred to and admitted in his reference to Classical Pedestry. Btw, up until the 60's at least, studies/anecdotes show homosexual men prefered frottate, oral sex etc. over anal sex, and even now only about half engage in anal sex regularly and about a quarter never engaging in it).

Also, I don't have any evidence that Father Trenham acknowledges the existence of Lesbians.

He doesn't say that homosexuals are all dirty old men seeking boys-in fact he is saying somewhat the opposite-but I can see how that is easily confused.  What he posits is that the N.A.M.B.L.A folks' moral argument is immoral, and then likens the homosexual argument to that.  He doesn't think homosexuality=pedophilia.

The study he cites on homosexual marraige being the equal to heterosexual marriage is corrobrated elsewhere: in Scandinavia few gays take advantage of the ability to get a license, and the studies show do not value fidelity as a basis of it (but then that implicates no fault heteresexual divorce too, though I'm sure Father Trenham is against that too).  He is also correct that the children being raised in a "gay marriage," if they are heard, will and already have things to say.  But then the children of divorce have lots to say too.  It would have been better served if Father Trenham linked gay marriage more with the problems with easy divorce, as they are aspects of the same problem:moving away from the norm of one man, one woman united in marriage for life, raising the children their love brings.

As for the complaints

Open letter to the Holy Synod from 15 college students and young adults

August 12, 2011 -- Martyr Anicetus of Nicomedia

To: Holy Synod of Bishops, Orthodox Church in America
From: 15 Orthodox college students and young adults
(Letter to follow in hard copy)

<..........>
Your Beatitude, Your Eminence, Your Graces,

Though our Lord never condoned sin, He nonetheless ministered to the
most vulnerable and marginal, reserving His public condemnations for
those who victimized them. As Orthodox college students and young
adults, we are writing to express our grave concerns about the state of
public Orthodox discourse on a highly sensitive pastoral issue that
especially affects young people in our Church. In the wake of a string
of suicides by American students persecuted for their homosexuality -- a
tragic trend which has not left our Church untouched -- our consciences
do not permit us to ignore the language of revilement directed by some
in the Church towards gay people.

On public and easily accessible Internet postings, Orthodox clergymen --
including OCA priests -- repeat disgusting and discredited theories
about the etiology of same-sex attraction; liken gay people to “old
perverted men who love little boys”; tell Orthodox Christians that
homosexuality “should make our stomachs turn and make us vomit”; call
for “spiritual warfare” against those in the Church who advocate a more
restrained pastoral approach; and accuse those who speak up for gay
people of being “homosexual activists,” publicly expressing hope that
they will leave the Orthodox faith.
<..........>
[/quote]
not all those hagiographies of martyrs to the homosexual cause turned out to be what they were made out to be; at least in the case of Fr. Trenham in this sermon his accusers accuse him of "liken[ing] gay people to “old perverted men who love little boys”" when he likens their moral reasoning to those who "justify" the actions of such “old perverted men who love little boys” in an effort to discredit Fr. Trenham and disgust their target audience of him (something that he helps along with his rhetoric in several places), etc.  My question to our 15 college students and young adults, can they seperate a sinner from his sin, or must you condone the sin to save the sinner?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 03:17:25 PM 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
gzt
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, then GOA, now OCA
Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #410 on: August 16, 2011, 03:11:12 PM »

As much as I dislike the website I'm about to link to, here it is: http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/08/a-new-day-dawning/#comment-9558
Metropolitan Jonah apparently laid out a bunch of his thoughts about pastoral responses to homosexuality, apparently to the dismay of some "culture warriors". Here are a couple of his points:

4. Everybody struggles with their sexuality, so it doesn’t make any difference whether the temptation is homosexual or heterosexual.
5. Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce.
7. The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.)


I think those sound very reasonable.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #411 on: August 16, 2011, 03:23:26 PM »

As much as I dislike the website I'm about to link to, here it is: http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/08/a-new-day-dawning/#comment-9558
Metropolitan Jonah apparently laid out a bunch of his thoughts about pastoral responses to homosexuality, apparently to the dismay of some "culture warriors". Here are a couple of his points:

4. Everybody struggles with their sexuality, so it doesn’t make any difference whether the temptation is homosexual or heterosexual.
5. Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce.
7. The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.)


I think those sound very reasonable.


Good point gzt, and you beat me to posting the remarkable points that the Metropolitan made. If you don't mind, I will post the entire report so that it will have a context.

" Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell says:
August 16, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Here’s basically what he said at Sunday’s parish meeting:

After summarizing his fight with the Synod and the events leading up to Fr. Joseph Fester’s firing and talking briefly about the search for a new dean, he raised the issue of homosexuality and made the following points:

1. He’s not interested in fighting any culture wars.
2. We are obliged as Orthodox Christians to open our doors to everyone.
3. Sexual relations are only appropriate within marriage; otherwise we are to remain celibate.
4. Everybody struggles with their sexuality, so it doesn’t make any difference whether the temptation is homosexual or heterosexual.
5. Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce.
6. Our personal struggle is strictly a matter for confession.
7. The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.)
8. We all just need to get along and accept each other despite our faults.

He did not elaborate on the nature of marriage or condemn homosexuality per se.

When a parishioner complained that someone had been turned away from the chalice, causing great pain to the parish, he said that turning away someone in that way was “inappropriate,” that deacons have no business turning people away, and that the matter should have been handled by a priest in confession. He did not draw a distinction between public and private sins. Neither did he mention that the woman was turned away for the very public sin of marrying another woman and telling everybody about it in coffee hour for many months. Nor did he mention that both he and every priest in charge had been told of what she had done and was doing, yet had made no effort to contact her and set her straight. He did admit that the OCA in general does not handle confession well and has disconnected confession from communion.

One person asked if a period of excommunication was not appropriate for serious sexual sins, mentioning early Church practice. He said we haven’t done things like that for “a thousand years” and can’t do it now because faith is so weak. He said that disciplining people is a very delicate matter that must be handled only by confessors and always case by case, because what will turn one person toward repentance will turn another away.

Another person asked whether he supported the parish’s five resolutions, including the Sanctity of Marriage resolution; he said he did but did not elaborate."
http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/08/a-new-day-dawning/#comment-9558
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 03:28:28 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #412 on: August 16, 2011, 03:24:45 PM »


.  My question to our 15 college students and young adults, can they seperate a sinner from his sin, or must you condone the sin to save the sinner?

Excellent!!! A related question: I have chosen to interpret in a very benign way the OCA News reflections of Fathers Arida and Vonogradov, quite unlike many folks who are up in arms about them. Do you think that my glasses are too rosy?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 03:28:00 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,601



« Reply #413 on: August 16, 2011, 05:26:27 PM »

As much as I dislike the website I'm about to link to, here it is: http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/08/a-new-day-dawning/#comment-9558
Metropolitan Jonah apparently laid out a bunch of his thoughts about pastoral responses to homosexuality, apparently to the dismay of some "culture warriors". Here are a couple of his points:

4. Everybody struggles with their sexuality, so it doesn’t make any difference whether the temptation is homosexual or heterosexual.
5. Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce.
7. The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.)


I think those sound very reasonable.


Good point gzt, and you beat me to posting the remarkable points that the Metropolitan made. If you don't mind, I will post the entire report so that it will have a context.

" Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell says:
August 16, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Here’s basically what he said at Sunday’s parish meeting:

After summarizing his fight with the Synod and the events leading up to Fr. Joseph Fester’s firing and talking briefly about the search for a new dean, he raised the issue of homosexuality and made the following points:

1. He’s not interested in fighting any culture wars.
2. We are obliged as Orthodox Christians to open our doors to everyone.
3. Sexual relations are only appropriate within marriage; otherwise we are to remain celibate.
4. Everybody struggles with their sexuality, so it doesn’t make any difference whether the temptation is homosexual or heterosexual.
5. Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce.
6. Our personal struggle is strictly a matter for confession.
7. The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.)
8. We all just need to get along and accept each other despite our faults.

He did not elaborate on the nature of marriage or condemn homosexuality per se.

When a parishioner complained that someone had been turned away from the chalice, causing great pain to the parish, he said that turning away someone in that way was “inappropriate,” that deacons have no business turning people away, and that the matter should have been handled by a priest in confession. He did not draw a distinction between public and private sins. Neither did he mention that the woman was turned away for the very public sin of marrying another woman and telling everybody about it in coffee hour for many months. Nor did he mention that both he and every priest in charge had been told of what she had done and was doing, yet had made no effort to contact her and set her straight. He did admit that the OCA in general does not handle confession well and has disconnected confession from communion.

One person asked if a period of excommunication was not appropriate for serious sexual sins, mentioning early Church practice. He said we haven’t done things like that for “a thousand years” and can’t do it now because faith is so weak. He said that disciplining people is a very delicate matter that must be handled only by confessors and always case by case, because what will turn one person toward repentance will turn another away.

Another person asked whether he supported the parish’s five resolutions, including the Sanctity of Marriage resolution; he said he did but did not elaborate."
http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/08/a-new-day-dawning/#comment-9558


Thank you for posting this, on the run so I can't make any sarcastic cracks.

Excellent. Clear. Reasonable. Caring. Provoking. Statement.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #414 on: August 16, 2011, 05:33:43 PM »

Well, that priest is to be admired at least on account of his consistency: he cries 'perversion" wherever the canonical tradition of our Church calls for it (like sodomy within a married heterosexual couple). Now others, like Isa, want to have their cake and eat it too. Like  freedom for all sorts of kinky stuff in a married couple (not the traditional Orthodox stance)  while denying all indulgence to homosexuals.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 05:34:39 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #415 on: August 16, 2011, 05:39:28 PM »

Well, that priest is to be admired at least on account of his consistency: he cries 'perversion" wherever the canonical tradition of our Church calls for it (like sodomy within a married heterosexual couple). Now others, like Isa, want to have their cake and eat it too. Like  freedom for all sorts of kinky stuff in a married couple (not the traditional Orthodox stance)  while denying all indulgence to homosexuals.

Augustin, I agree. There is a reason why our bodies weren't made for unnatural sexual behavior. From what I have read, reports have indicated due to HPV, oral and anal cancers will skyrocket regardless of sexual orientation. There are very real health consequences we all face. True love would never want to inflict disease on our beloved.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 05:39:56 PM by Tamara » Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #416 on: August 16, 2011, 06:31:53 PM »


Quote
I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.

The same vehemence and hatred was extended to Metropolitan Jonah by the other side as they tried to force him out. The OCA is in the midst of a spiritual battle. The war within itself is not over yet. And don't forget, the OCA and AOCA have many who have converted from the Anglican Church. They have already been down this path so they know how it ends up.

You are entirely right about this, Tamara.  Also, people are reading things into the minutes that aren't there, because Mark Stokoe said they were there in the minutes (when they clearly are not).  Also, look at the power that Mark Stokoe has given to the Holy Synod.  Evidently, they are the real power and the Metropolitan has to ask their permission to do anything.  Evidently, the Metropolitan has to ask their permission to even go to the restroom or buy supplies.  Of course, that has never been the case, but if Mark says that this is the case, then he cannot be wrong. 
Logged
Gay4XC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 3


« Reply #417 on: August 16, 2011, 06:48:37 PM »

You think what that priest says is a big deal? You should see what they're doing in the Coptic Orthodox churches in Toronto, ON, Canada!

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1035965--canadian-egyptian-congress-urges-parents-to-reject-call-to-pull-kids-from-catholic-schools

And the today's update:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/coptics-renew-threat-to-remove-4000-families-from-catholic-schools-over-equ/
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: 37,963



« Reply #418 on: August 16, 2011, 06:55:20 PM »

Well, that priest is to be admired at least on account of his consistency: he cries 'perversion" wherever the canonical tradition of our Church calls for it (like sodomy within a married heterosexual couple). Now others, like Isa, want to have their cake and eat it too. Like  freedom for all sorts of kinky stuff in a married couple (not the traditional Orthodox stance)  while denying all indulgence to homosexuals.
Well, I'm not so envious of the Vatican that I yearn for the Western Captivity of the Church and would adopt wholescale its take on things in emulation.

Fr. Trenham would like to have his cake and eat it too, or should say so: in the video he talks about marriage as something sacred and beautify.  The "canonical tradition" to which you which you refer is askance at the very thought of sex, a dirty vile job that should be done only to conceive, if then, the very opposite of the sacred and beautiful. As someone very aptly put it why-soil-yourself-with-a-daughter-of-Eve-when-you-can-live-the-life-of-angels.  Said person also wondered out loud why God didn't make us procreate out of sand, IIRC.

And even then, as they allow intercourse for conception-kinky enough to their mind-they denied all indulgence to homosexuals (who of course, can't conceive, at least with each other), so even there your analogy fails.

It is my contention that the traditional Orthodox stance is to leave the married couple's intimate life to themselves and their confessors.  So penances for "sodomy" (i.e. dorsal/doggy style intercourse: the "canonical tradition" to which you refer doesn't distinquish what oriface is entered, nor the sex of who is penetrated) make up aberrations rather than the rule.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #419 on: August 16, 2011, 06:59:46 PM »


Quote
I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.

The same vehemence and hatred was extended to Metropolitan Jonah by the other side as they tried to force him out. The OCA is in the midst of a spiritual battle. The war within itself is not over yet. And don't forget, the OCA and AOCA have many who have converted from the Anglican Church. They have already been down this path so they know how it ends up.

You are entirely right about this, Tamara.  Also, people are reading things into the minutes that aren't there, because Mark Stokoe said they were there in the minutes (when they clearly are not).  Also, look at the power that Mark Stokoe has given to the Holy Synod.  Evidently, they are the real power and the Metropolitan has to ask their permission to do anything.  Evidently, the Metropolitan has to ask their permission to even go to the restroom or buy supplies.  Of course, that has never been the case, but if Mark says that this is the case, then he cannot be wrong.  

If you believe in orderly governance, that is, in accordance with Canons and the OCA Statute (you know those pesky things that nobody reads) Mark and others (to include all of the other bishops of the Holy Synod) do think that there must be consensus on matters that affect the entire OCA. In fact, they all have taken an oath to that effect. In fact, even the provision that gives the Metropolitan the right of pastoral intervention is qualified with the phrase "within the framework of the holy canons."

I understand you you are a fan of the Metropolitan and/or dislike Mark Stokoe, but please do not belittle the process with cheap jokes.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 07:06:43 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
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: 37,963



« Reply #420 on: August 16, 2011, 07:00:36 PM »

Glory to God! Many years!
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: 37,963



« Reply #421 on: August 16, 2011, 07:02:36 PM »

Well, that priest is to be admired at least on account of his consistency: he cries 'perversion" wherever the canonical tradition of our Church calls for it (like sodomy within a married heterosexual couple). Now others, like Isa, want to have their cake and eat it too. Like  freedom for all sorts of kinky stuff in a married couple (not the traditional Orthodox stance)  while denying all indulgence to homosexuals.

Augustin, I agree. There is a reason why our bodies weren't made for unnatural sexual behavior. From what I have read, reports have indicated due to HPV, oral and anal cancers will skyrocket regardless of sexual orientation.
but not regardless of promiscuity.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #422 on: August 16, 2011, 07:05:30 PM »


Quote
I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.

The same vehemence and hatred was extended to Metropolitan Jonah by the other side as they tried to force him out. The OCA is in the midst of a spiritual battle. The war within itself is not over yet. And don't forget, the OCA and AOCA have many who have converted from the Anglican Church. They have already been down this path so they know how it ends up.

To this day, I m not convinced that the battle was over homosexuality in the Church. I will concede that it may have played a part but I think the main reasons was the dysfunctional relationship within the Holy Synod between its first-among-equals and the other bishops on a variety of issues. I do not want to rehash them but feel compelled to object to the obfuscation of the truth by this single issue. As I said before, I have no problem with folks being concerned about repeating the errors of the past, that is, by the Anglicans. I do have a problem with such folks when they use this issue in unwarranted and hateful ways.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 07:08:13 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #423 on: August 16, 2011, 09:04:19 PM »

I will certainly agree that the wholesale rejection, both in and out of the Church, and many other churches, of the idea that premarital sex is a sin, is a MUCH bigger, and much more destructive problem than the gay issue.

Any instance, really, where sin is justified by "love", is really disturbing, even when it's very understandable, i.e., premarital sex, etc.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #424 on: August 16, 2011, 10:52:23 PM »


Quote
I noticed the same phenomenon too. When OCA News published the reflection of Father Arida, which was a musing about the pastoral issues that would arise when/if a same-sex couple comes to one of churches, it seemed that some folks' minds shut down and they started talking about the implication of the reflection rather than what was actually written. Same thing with Father Vinogradov's reflection. I can understand and accept that in the Anglican communion, it started with questions and reflections about pastoral concerns. What I could not understand was the vehemence, the fear and even hatred.

The same vehemence and hatred was extended to Metropolitan Jonah by the other side as they tried to force him out. The OCA is in the midst of a spiritual battle. The war within itself is not over yet. And don't forget, the OCA and AOCA have many who have converted from the Anglican Church. They have already been down this path so they know how it ends up.

To this day, I m not convinced that the battle was over homosexuality in the Church. I will concede that it may have played a part but I think the main reasons was the dysfunctional relationship within the Holy Synod between its first-among-equals and the other bishops on a variety of issues. I do not want to rehash them but feel compelled to object to the obfuscation of the truth by this single issue. As I said before, I have no problem with folks being concerned about repeating the errors of the past, that is, by the Anglicans. I do have a problem with such folks when they use this issue in unwarranted and hateful ways.

It would seem that any "issue" that leads a congregation astray is hardly ever wrapped up in the issue itself, but in a disconnect from the Holy Spirit. I see the same thing with the Anglicans - it wasn't one issue that led to a split, but a spiritual state that existed long before the issue of homosexuality ever arose.
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
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #425 on: August 16, 2011, 11:37:46 PM »

It kind of seems to me, the Anglican fracas began when both sides during the debate on women priests began to accept the assumption that gender/sex is theologically insignificant. If men and women have no differences, then why should they have different roles?
Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #426 on: August 17, 2011, 12:31:35 AM »

It kind of seems to me, the Anglican fracas began when both sides during the debate on women priests began to accept the assumption that gender/sex is theologically insignificant. If men and women have no differences, then why should they have different roles?

They also had issues with whether or not to believe in the Incarnation and even the Resurrection. They questioned everything.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #427 on: August 17, 2011, 12:37:57 AM »

Any instance, really, where sin is justified by "love", is really disturbing, even when it's very understandable, i.e., premarital sex, etc.

You bring up a good point, with this statement. If I remember correctly, C.S. Lewis once wrote something to the same effect. He wrote something alone the lines of, "how often do you hear a man who has had an affair say, 'I betrayed my wife and children for love.'" The problem is that in this modern society the concept of righteous love is either diluted or completely lost upon the masses (and unfortunately, even upon many Christians). If you go back to ancient times, you will see that even the pagan Romans had a similar concept. Cicero, in his treatise on friendship, for example, writes that friendship can only be experienced by virtuous men. The instant that one of them falls out of virtue, the virtuous friend will, out of love, be willing to attempt to correct his wayward friend even under the possibility of losing the friendship over such a matter. Should the other remain out of virtue, then the friendship will be broken.

St. Maximos the Confessor wrote something similar:
Quote
Only those who scrupulously keep the commandments, and are true initiates into divine judgments, do not abandon their friends when God permits these friends to be put to the test. Those who scorn the commandments and who are ignorant about divine judgments rejoice with their friend in the times of his prosperity; but when in times of trial he suffers hardships, they abandon him and sometimes even side with those who attack him.

I think the ancients (whether pagan or Christian) had an entirely different outlook on love than we do today. For them, love was not some mere feeling, love was synonymous with righteousness and goodness (which also provides good context for the idea that God is love). Love for them was not an experience, love was a conscious choice and a state of being. For the pagans, the source of righteousness could vary, but for the Christians, I think that it was easy for them to draw the conclusion that God, being the source of all that is good and righteous would also be the source of all love. When we look back on Christian writers making the claim that all love originates from God, those with a more modern outlook are more prone to overlooking such passages as being somehow metaphorical, not understanding that true love, grounded in righteousness, can indeed only come from the Lord. For what it's worth, I don't think that love can lead people to sin.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #428 on: August 17, 2011, 12:45:27 AM »

It kind of seems to me, the Anglican fracas began when both sides during the debate on women priests began to accept the assumption that gender/sex is theologically insignificant. If men and women have no differences, then why should they have different roles?

They also had issues with whether or not to believe in the Incarnation and even the Resurrection. They questioned everything.
Yeah.
Logged
GJason
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic becoming Orthodox
Posts: 12



« Reply #429 on: August 17, 2011, 02:06:00 AM »


//:=)

The Jewish Barber means it is in jest. More of a dream than a reality.

"The Jewish Barber"?

Could you be any more highfalutin? I doubt it.

The Jews (and the other inmates - the majority were not Jews) all received haircuts because they were LOUSY and there was rampant typhus...

IE - It was an effort to SAVE their lives.


 Have fun, but do remember that this still on the Public Forum, where personal attacks are forbidden.[/color]

Yes, we can't have the public seeing us as we truly are!

There is someone calling themselves 'Gay4XC' reading this thread right now...

Are you for real?!?

Logged

"Merely to hear the word of God saves no one and is instead a condemnation. After hearing, one must do." - Blessed Theophylact
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,601



« Reply #430 on: August 17, 2011, 04:03:54 AM »


//:=)

The Jewish Barber means it is in jest. More of a dream than a reality.

"The Jewish Barber"?

Could you be any more highfalutin? I doubt it.

The Jews (and the other inmates - the majority were not Jews) all received haircuts because they were LOUSY and there was rampant typhus...

IE - It was an effort to SAVE their lives.



Ok this is the most presumptuous post of the month.

You really have no clue what you are talking about.

Context much?

Welcome, thanks for stopping by to knock the china cabinet down.

Introduce yourself and attempt to understand that which you don't.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #431 on: August 17, 2011, 05:01:36 AM »

I don't understand why one tries to justify sexual taboos on the basis of fear of disease. Certainly, violating traditional sexual taboos can make one much more susceptible to disease than respecting the taboos. I doubt there would be any venereal disease if everyone were strictly monogamous, for example. But what if such diseases could be easily cured or prevented? Does that make it OK to violate the taboos? So to object to oral and anal sex on the grounds that you could get cancer implies that such behaviors are immoral only so long as such cancers are incurable or unpreventable.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #432 on: August 17, 2011, 05:38:02 AM »

I don't understand why one tries to justify sexual taboos on the basis of fear of disease. Certainly, violating traditional sexual taboos can make one much more susceptible to disease than respecting the taboos. I doubt there would be any venereal disease if everyone were strictly monogamous, for example. But what if such diseases could be easily cured or prevented? Does that make it OK to violate the taboos? So to object to oral and anal sex on the grounds that you could get cancer implies that such behaviors are immoral only so long as such cancers are incurable or unpreventable.
It can be one reason without being the only one. The advent of the condom didn't stop those opposed to artificial birth control.
Logged
GJason
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic becoming Orthodox
Posts: 12



« Reply #433 on: August 17, 2011, 06:42:42 AM »


//:=)

The Jewish Barber means it is in jest. More of a dream than a reality.

"The Jewish Barber"?

Could you be any more highfalutin? I doubt it.

The Jews (and the other inmates - the majority were not Jews) all received haircuts because they were LOUSY and there was rampant typhus...

IE - It was an effort to SAVE their lives.



Ok this is the most presumptuous post of the month.

You really have no clue what you are talking about.

Context much?

Welcome, thanks for stopping by to knock the china cabinet down.

Introduce yourself and attempt to understand that which you don't.


OK, I'll play along. Let's pretend you weren't referring to your little mini-mustachioed companion.

Who is the 'Jewish Barber' then? Clue me up Snotty.

I didn't mean to knock you down though... sorry 'bout that.

When did you start calling yourself "the china cabinet"?

Name's Jason. GJason.
Logged

"Merely to hear the word of God saves no one and is instead a condemnation. After hearing, one must do." - Blessed Theophylact
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #434 on: August 17, 2011, 08:08:40 AM »


//:=)

The Jewish Barber means it is in jest. More of a dream than a reality.

"The Jewish Barber"?

Could you be any more highfalutin? I doubt it.

The Jews (and the other inmates - the majority were not Jews) all received haircuts because they were LOUSY and there was rampant typhus...

IE - It was an effort to SAVE their lives.


 Have fun, but do remember that this still on the Public Forum, where personal attacks are forbidden.[/color]

Yes, we can't have the public seeing us as we truly are!

There is someone calling themselves 'Gay4XC' reading this thread right now...

Are you for real?!?



I welcome you to this section of the forum and ask you to please read the rules, two of which you are getting close to violating. The first one is not staying on topic and the second one concerns arguing with moderatos in public. Thanks, Second Chance, Section Moderator
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,068


"My god is greater."


« Reply #435 on: August 17, 2011, 08:16:13 AM »

Hm, I thought GJason sounded familiar, then I looked up his previous posts- ah, right, he's the latest SaintIaint clone.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #436 on: August 17, 2011, 08:31:35 AM »

I shoulda known when he had started talking about Jews in the homosexuality thread!  Cheesy Do not derail the madness, sir!
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,068


"My god is greater."


« Reply #437 on: August 17, 2011, 08:33:20 AM »

I shoulda known when he had started talking about Jews in the homosexuality thread!  Cheesy Do not derail the madness, sir!

There was a time when Cato the Elder, whenever he made a speech, no matter what the topic was, always had to end it with the phrase "Carthage must be destroyed."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #438 on: August 17, 2011, 08:54:52 AM »

I just noticed the mildly amusing typo in the thread name: "homosexu-laity".

Or was that on purpose? Clever!
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 08:56:29 AM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 997


« Reply #439 on: August 17, 2011, 10:01:01 AM »



Actually, there is another thread on this topic.  I live in Ontario and there is little evidence that there are in fact 4,000 students who belong to the Coptic Church in Catholic Schools.  There are some but not 4,000.
Fr. Attaalla wrote a letter which he signed to the Catholic Board of Education.  The parsih councils of the 4 Coptic parishes did not send letters etc.The first article you cited has a picture and quotes from the lay leader of a Coptic Organization who is also an active Coptic parish member.
Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #440 on: August 17, 2011, 11:50:09 AM »

I don't understand why one tries to justify sexual taboos on the basis of fear of disease. Certainly, violating traditional sexual taboos can make one much more susceptible to disease than respecting the taboos. I doubt there would be any venereal disease if everyone were strictly monogamous, for example. But what if such diseases could be easily cured or prevented? Does that make it OK to violate the taboos? So to object to oral and anal sex on the grounds that you could get cancer implies that such behaviors are immoral only so long as such cancers are incurable or unpreventable.
It all depends on perspective. Even without cures some still see nothing wrong with these behaviors. They push the medical community to find cures or ways to prevent the diseases. But viruses and bacteria seem to outsmart us over time.
Gonorrhea was once considered easily cured but now seems to have evolved into a superbug. AIDS wasn't even a disease known to man 2000 years ago and yet many suffer from it today. Constant sexual promiscuity is likely to always introduce new diseases unknown to man in the future.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36229547/ns/health-sexual_health/t/incurable-gonorrhea-may-be-next-superbug/#.TkvoWs16wrg
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: 37,963



« Reply #441 on: August 17, 2011, 12:12:47 PM »

I don't understand why one tries to justify sexual taboos on the basis of fear of disease. Certainly, violating traditional sexual taboos can make one much more susceptible to disease than respecting the taboos. I doubt there would be any venereal disease if everyone were strictly monogamous, for example. But what if such diseases could be easily cured or prevented? Does that make it OK to violate the taboos? So to object to oral and anal sex on the grounds that you could get cancer implies that such behaviors are immoral only so long as such cancers are incurable or unpreventable.
Why limit yourself to anal and oral sex?  Cervical or penile cancer, for instance, can kill you just as well.
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
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #442 on: August 17, 2011, 12:15:41 PM »

The traditional arguments against kinky sex were not based on evaluating health risks and all that, but on some idea of human nature and dignity, no longer obvious, to most of us today, I guess.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #443 on: August 17, 2011, 12:19:56 PM »

The traditional arguments against kinky sex were not based on evaluating health risks and all that, but on some idea of human nature and dignity, no longer obvious, to most of us today, I guess.

Interesting. Which idea? Why is it no longer obvious?
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: 37,963



« Reply #444 on: August 17, 2011, 12:26:08 PM »

The traditional arguments against kinky sex were not based on evaluating health risks and all that, but on some idea of human nature and dignity, no longer obvious, to most of us today, I guess.
Yes, and it would have been more convincing if those with such definite ideas about things they didn't know about thought sex was dignified human behavior. but they didn't, not even for man on top, lights out, woman thinking of England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_back_and_think_of_England
doing it just long enough to accomplish insemenation.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:28:03 PM 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
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,209


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #445 on: August 17, 2011, 12:27:29 PM »

The traditional arguments against kinky sex were not based on evaluating health risks and all that, but on some idea of human nature and dignity, no longer obvious, to most of us today, I guess.

Those in the past didn't know the health risks but dignity is still important to people who have found ways to avoid the onslaught of sexual imagery and mores shoved down most of society's throat. Those in the past weren't constantly bombarded by sexual images thrown at them by the media. The bombardment was purposeful so that society wouldn't be shocked or humiliated by anything anymore.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #446 on: August 17, 2011, 12:30:17 PM »

The traditional arguments against kinky sex were not based on evaluating health risks and all that, but on some idea of human nature and dignity, no longer obvious, to most of us today, I guess.
Yes, and it would have been more convincing if those with such definite ideas about things they didn't know about thought sex was dignified human behavior. but they didn't, not even for man on top, lights out, woman thinking of England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_back_and_think_of_England
doing it just long enough to accomplish insemenation.
That's what I want to prove/deconstruct: that even the so-called conservatives/traditionalists/pick your word are picking and choosing from tradition as much as the liberals/progressives etc.
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: 37,963



« Reply #447 on: August 17, 2011, 12:46:28 PM »

The traditional arguments against kinky sex were not based on evaluating health risks and all that, but on some idea of human nature and dignity, no longer obvious, to most of us today, I guess.
Yes, and it would have been more convincing if those with such definite ideas about things they didn't know about thought sex was dignified human behavior. but they didn't, not even for man on top, lights out, woman thinking of England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_back_and_think_of_England
doing it just long enough to accomplish insemenation.
That's what I want to prove/deconstruct: that even the so-called conservatives/traditionalists/pick your word are picking and choosing from tradition as much as the liberals/progressives etc.
Well, good luck: while Tradition is choke filled with nuptial images, there are Father such as St. John Chrysostom who do praise marriage (though not as much as monasticism) without regard to the command "to be fruitful and multiply" (he says that isn't necessary anymore, but marriage is), even the most sexophobic have to admit that the Church counts marriage among the Holy Mysteries and has a service to honor it, etc., I'm curious to where you are going to find homoerotic images and references in the Tradition, a single Father who doesn't condemn homosexuality as soon as it comes up, and, despite Boswell's claims to the contrary, a service to celebrate homosexuality.
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
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #448 on: August 17, 2011, 12:51:07 PM »

There is no blessings in the marriage rite for kinky stuff, if we wanna stick to what's there. It talks  a lot about  popping out kiddies, being fruitful as the wives of some patriarchs, obedient as some other wives etc.  Your ideas/ideals are as novel as mine.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,068


"My god is greater."


« Reply #449 on: August 17, 2011, 12:52:18 PM »

There is no blessings in the marriage rite for kinky stuff, if we wanna stick to what's there. It talks  a lot about  popping out kiddies, being fruitful as the wives of some patriarchs, obedient as some other wives etc.  Your ideas/ideals are as novel as mine.

Augustin actually has a point here.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
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 0.197 seconds with 73 queries.