OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 10:47:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 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 20114 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #450 on: August 17, 2011, 12:53:15 PM »

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."

There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Thanks for this. Lol moment.
Logged

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

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #451 on: August 17, 2011, 12:58:42 PM »

I'll always look up at my grandparents and most of their generation: they indeed lived, as married, quite close to the ideal of the Euchologion. They did it in an  unconscious way, because they came from a peasant/patriarchal world. Well, I do not think that can be replicated in Chicago, but what do I know?
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: 37,473



« Reply #452 on: August 17, 2011, 01:10:30 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.
I don't recall any specificiation as to mode, method, position or frequency being delineated in the service. Can you quote it for me?

For instance, as to position, women who have a tipped uterus can have difficulty conceiving except for dorsal (i.e. from behind) sexual intercourse.  So in that case, for her to be popping out the aforementioned kiddies, she's going to have to assume the man's position (the canonical tradition that condemns "doggie style" as sodomy gives that as the reason: the woman is usurping the "man's position" i.e. in homosexual anal sex (the same canonical tradition doesn't distinguish beteen vaginal and anal entry from behind).  Pretty kinky, maybe they shouldn't baptize the children so conceived.

LOL.  There is more than enough evidence that "kinky" isn't new, it was around the time of the Fathers, most of whom so no reason to delve into such intimate matters.  I see no reason to change that.
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: 37,473



« Reply #453 on: August 17, 2011, 01:12:50 PM »

I'll always look up at my grandparents and most of their generation: they indeed lived, as married, quite close to the ideal of the Euchologion. They did it in an  unconscious way, because they came from a peasant/patriarchal world. Well, I do not think that can be replicated in Chicago, but what do I know?
Can't tell how you see them, but since my grandparents didn't share their sex lives with me, I just assUme that most don't.  I do know that looking though many diaries, letters, personal effects etc. that the Victorians weren't as Victorian as they are made out to be.
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: 5,632



« Reply #454 on: August 17, 2011, 01:14:02 PM »

Just for the sake of consistency. Otherwise i'm with you: I see no reason to pry into someone's bedroom like that.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #455 on: August 17, 2011, 01:15:50 PM »

I'll always look up at my grandparents and most of their generation: they indeed lived, as married, quite close to the ideal of the Euchologion. They did it in an  unconscious way, because they came from a peasant/patriarchal world. Well, I do not think that can be replicated in Chicago, but what do I know?

This I think is the beginning of making your general "critique" of the possibility of a convert Orthodoxy in America a bit more clear outside wisecracks, which I have zero problem with and enjoy, and I am interested hearing more about your scepticsm, which I don't think is mere dismissive cynicism.

Was speaking at lunch with a woman whose grandmother is turning 100 this week. She lives in a house she has lived in for more than 60 years. Was married once. Her furnishings haven't changed much in those 60 years either, even though she could afford to "renovate" she doesn't see the point and rebuffs most gifts of TVs, cellphones and the like.

Her biggest complaint about getting older is bothering those around her more with her increasing yet mild health problems.

Post industrial capitalism may never allow us the possibility of living such a life.

Is Orthdoxy and its fullness possible in contemporary America?

Is a certain "nominalism" or naivete beneficial and perhaps neccessary to live a non-apocolyptic style of Orthodox?

Read a recent Desert Father saying which relates to this. Will post it when I have a chance.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 37,473



« Reply #456 on: August 17, 2011, 01:19:36 PM »

Just for the sake of consistency. Otherwise i'm with you: I see no reason to pry into someone's bedroom like that.
What consistency?

If you have anything on which to hang a homosexual hat on, let's see it.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 01:24:46 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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #457 on: August 17, 2011, 01:30:55 PM »

Just for the sake of consistency. Otherwise i'm with you: I see no reason to pry into someone's bedroom like that.
What consistency?

If you have anything on which to hang a homosexual hat on, let's see it.

"That hat is so gay."
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.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #458 on: August 17, 2011, 02:14:39 PM »

Isa,
You have a habit of dismissing everything inconvenient to your ideas about Orthodoxy as "scholastic', "western" etc. I do not pretend my ideas have much support in the past. But neither have yours. That's the point. The past was more like that priest at least on the level of the official  discourse, although , I suspect, way more lax in practice. Now both of us want to move away from that past.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #459 on: August 17, 2011, 02:19:58 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.

Well...the day has arrived: I wholeheartedly agree with you!
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: 37,473



« Reply #460 on: August 17, 2011, 03:10:29 PM »

Isa,
You have a habit of dismissing everything inconvenient to your ideas about Orthodoxy as "scholastic', "western" etc. I do not pretend my ideas have much support in the past. But neither have yours. That's the point.

Your ideas have no support in the past.  None that I've seen, but feel free to come up with some.

You do make your point
Quote
augustine717 http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8898.msg117733/topicseen.html#msg117733
Consider that you are supposed to recieve the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in your mouth. Isn't this a satisfactory argument against oral sex?
but I've never seen it argued that way.  Before I would think of buying it, I'd first have to see why it took 2,000 years to come up with it.  Of course, kissing would be off limits with your argument.  How romantic.

My ideas (though I'm not quite sure what you are including under that rubric) are a different story.  

One thing is that much of our literature and documents, in the Middle East, aren't confined to monasteries.  Alls sorts of things lying about, going back millenia, showing that none of these "kinky" matters are new under the sun.

For the first few centuries of the Church we have an indication of that from the pagan literature and also from the Jewish: the Talmud goes into some detail on these matters because their rabbis, unlike the monks, were married. And even amongst the monks: we had a canonical letter posted a short while back, from Pope St. Athanasius, which ridiculed the idea that semen was defiling and unclean.

Since many, many Fathers speak out at homosexuality but pass over what you consider kinky (and they may well have too, but since it didn't invovle there lives, it was a moot point, to be passed over in silence) without comment.  And we know it wasn't because it hadn't been invented yet.

There is a streak that you are holding onto, but its roots in pagan Platonism and Stoicism are in plain view, having been taken in wholesale into the Church without any basis in it.  Such tares are not fruit.

The past was more like that priest at least on the level of the official  discourse, although , I suspect, way more lax in practice. Now both of us want to move away from that past.
Whose past?  Take for instance his insistance of abstinence during fasting periods.  That was adopted by the Slavic Church when it had not been in the Empire of the Romans and other Apstolic lands (though it had been discussed there).  IOW the practice might not go back even a millenium.  And even in Russia, with its introduction, there were hierarchs who balked at it.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 03:14:16 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
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #461 on: August 17, 2011, 03:39:46 PM »

Let me repeat: you are an innovator. marriage wasn't seen as "anything goes" in the canonical tradition of the church. It still isn't in many circles. Fr. Cleopa and others would make my point.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #462 on: August 17, 2011, 03:52:37 PM »

Is a certain "nominalism" or naivete beneficial and perhaps neccessary to live a non-apocolyptic style of Orthodox?

I think so. I have had bad experiences with hyper-judgmental converts who could use a little naïveté. The problem as I see it is when a convert such as myself desires to be more unconscious or naive, he must needs do so consciously. For a convert, even nominalism is a consciously assumed pretense. I'm not sure converts can ever "acquire" the natural, organic, unconscious mode of someone from the "old country", except perhaps over a long long time.
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.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #463 on: August 17, 2011, 03:56:54 PM »

Is a certain "nominalism" or naivete beneficial and perhaps neccessary to live a non-apocolyptic style of Orthodox?

I think so. I have had bad experiences with hyper-judgmental converts who could use a little naïveté. The problem as I see it is when a convert such as myself desires to be more unconscious or naive, he must needs do so consciously. For a convert, even nominalism is a consciously assumed pretense. I'm not sure converts can ever "acquire" the natural, organic, unconscious mode of someone from the "old country", except perhaps over a long long time.

Wow. Thanks for your frankness.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 37,473



« Reply #464 on: August 17, 2011, 03:58:21 PM »

Let me repeat: you are an innovator. marriage wasn't seen as "anything goes" in the canonical tradition of the church. It still isn't in many circles. Fr. Cleopa and others would make my point.
That's nice but the Church neither began nor is limited to Fr. Cleopa nor even Mt. Athos.

So what's Fr. Cleopa's take on homosexuality? Anal sex?  Doggy style?....
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
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #465 on: August 17, 2011, 04:13:31 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.

Well...the day has arrived: I wholeheartedly agree with you!

As do I. IMO, sex for the ancients was not just about procreation, as the Roman Catholics tend to see it, nor just about pleasure, intimacy, love, etc., as post-moderns tend to see it. Sex/Eros was about, to paraphrase Aristophanes in the Symposium, healing human nature. It's a serious affair with far-reaching consequences outside the sphere of the two "consenting adults" involved. That doesn't mean we should be prying into people's bedrooms, but on the other hand the idea that whatever people do inside their bedrooms has no significance, it's all the same -- that is absurd.

And if we say, 'no homosexual acts'? Why do we say that? Is it because 'God said so' or 'the church said so'? Or did they say so for a reason? If for a reason, I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with human beings, human nature as God-imaging, than it does with STIs. And if that's the case, then heterosexual intercourse will probably have some standards as well. Not to be graphic, but I just don't think a man dressing up in a full body leather suit and being dragged around on a chain by his wife is iconic of Christ and the Church.
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: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #466 on: August 17, 2011, 04:18:45 PM »

Hm, I thought GJason sounded familiar, then I looked up his previous posts- ah, right, he's the latest SaintIaint clone.
Iconodule, what I've told you before, I will tell you again, though more formally this time. If you believe GJason or any other poster has violated forum rules--for instance, by setting up a duplicate account--we need you to use the "Report to Moderator" function to report the poster you deem suspicious. Otherwise, you risk derailing threads with your vigilante behavior. Derailing threads with off-topic posts is itself a violation of forum rules and will be dealt with accordingly.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #467 on: August 17, 2011, 04:21:17 PM »

Sex/Eros was about, to paraphrase Aristophanes in the Symposium, healing human nature.

Ain't read the Symposium in a long time, but I do recall nearly gagging on my vomit in laughter by Aristophanes' eulogy.

You sure you want to be using him as your source?

Sold that text a long time ago. Will revisit it sometime in the future, unless you or Isa throw up that excerpt. (Unintended.)

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 04:22:36 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 37,473



« Reply #468 on: August 17, 2011, 04:34:43 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.

Well...the day has arrived: I wholeheartedly agree with you!

As do I. IMO, sex for the ancients was not just about procreation, as the Roman Catholics tend to see it, nor just about pleasure, intimacy, love, etc., as post-moderns tend to see it. Sex/Eros was about, to paraphrase Aristophanes in the Symposium, healing human nature. It's a serious affair with far-reaching consequences outside the sphere of the two "consenting adults" involved. That doesn't mean we should be prying into people's bedrooms, but on the other hand the idea that whatever people do inside their bedrooms has no significance, it's all the same -- that is absurd.

And if we say, 'no homosexual acts'? Why do we say that? Is it because 'God said so' or 'the church said so'? Or did they say so for a reason? If for a reason, I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with human beings, human nature as God-imaging, than it does with STIs. And if that's the case, then heterosexual intercourse will probably have some standards as well. Not to be graphic, but I just don't think a man dressing up in a full body leather suit and being dragged around on a chain by his wife is iconic of Christ and the Church.
Don't know about that:much of the Church is/has been chained and dragged around.  Take the Bolshevik yoke....
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
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #469 on: August 17, 2011, 04:49:58 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.

Well...the day has arrived: I wholeheartedly agree with you!

As do I. IMO, sex for the ancients was not just about procreation, as the Roman Catholics tend to see it, nor just about pleasure, intimacy, love, etc., as post-moderns tend to see it. Sex/Eros was about, to paraphrase Aristophanes in the Symposium, healing human nature. It's a serious affair with far-reaching consequences outside the sphere of the two "consenting adults" involved. That doesn't mean we should be prying into people's bedrooms, but on the other hand the idea that whatever people do inside their bedrooms has no significance, it's all the same -- that is absurd.

And if we say, 'no homosexual acts'? Why do we say that? Is it because 'God said so' or 'the church said so'? Or did they say so for a reason? If for a reason, I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with human beings, human nature as God-imaging, than it does with STIs. And if that's the case, then heterosexual intercourse will probably have some standards as well. Not to be graphic, but I just don't think a man dressing up in a full body leather suit and being dragged around on a chain by his wife is iconic of Christ and the Church.
Don't know about that:much of the Church is/has been chained and dragged around.  Take the Bolshevik yoke....

I figured you wouldn't be able to resist making a joke about that. But if that's all you got, I think my point is still valid.
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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #470 on: August 17, 2011, 06:20:14 PM »

Let me repeat: you are an innovator. marriage wasn't seen as "anything goes" in the canonical tradition of the church. It still isn't in many circles. Fr. Cleopa and others would make my point.
That's nice but the Church neither began nor is limited to Fr. Cleopa nor even Mt. Athos.

So what's Fr. Cleopa's take on homosexuality? Anal sex?  Doggy style?....
Consistent, unlike yours. So, I can respect that.
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: 37,473



« Reply #471 on: August 17, 2011, 08:59:43 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.

Well...the day has arrived: I wholeheartedly agree with you!

As do I. IMO, sex for the ancients was not just about procreation, as the Roman Catholics tend to see it, nor just about pleasure, intimacy, love, etc., as post-moderns tend to see it. Sex/Eros was about, to paraphrase Aristophanes in the Symposium, healing human nature. It's a serious affair with far-reaching consequences outside the sphere of the two "consenting adults" involved. That doesn't mean we should be prying into people's bedrooms, but on the other hand the idea that whatever people do inside their bedrooms has no significance, it's all the same -- that is absurd.

And if we say, 'no homosexual acts'? Why do we say that? Is it because 'God said so' or 'the church said so'? Or did they say so for a reason? If for a reason, I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with human beings, human nature as God-imaging, than it does with STIs. And if that's the case, then heterosexual intercourse will probably have some standards as well. Not to be graphic, but I just don't think a man dressing up in a full body leather suit and being dragged around on a chain by his wife is iconic of Christ and the Church.
Don't know about that:much of the Church is/has been chained and dragged around.  Take the Bolshevik yoke....

I figured you wouldn't be able to resist making a joke about that. But if that's all you got, I think my point is still valid.
Who's joking?  Think what you like.  As long as it's with their spouse wedded in the Church and no one is being abused/used, and children baptized and being raised in the Church are in the picture and divorce is not, I don't care what they do in leather and with chains.
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: 37,473



« Reply #472 on: August 17, 2011, 09:02:00 PM »

Let me repeat: you are an innovator. marriage wasn't seen as "anything goes" in the canonical tradition of the church. It still isn't in many circles. Fr. Cleopa and others would make my point.
That's nice but the Church neither began nor is limited to Fr. Cleopa nor even Mt. Athos.

So what's Fr. Cleopa's take on homosexuality? Anal sex?  Doggy style?....
Consistent, unlike yours. So, I can respect that.
Fr. Cleopa was consistent on homosexuality, anal sex, doggy style....what exactly does he have to say about all of the above?  I'm suprised he had to say anything.  You keep insisting that no one from an Orthodox country goes running to their spiritual father about everything in their lives, and I serious doubt he had any reason to think of, for instance, married couples engaged in dorsal intercourse unless they brought it up to him.  Of course, the modern age would have given him plenty of reason to speak out on (and I presume against) homosexual activities.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 09:16:01 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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #473 on: August 17, 2011, 10:56:01 PM »

Hm, I thought GJason sounded familiar, then I looked up his previous posts- ah, right, he's the latest SaintIaint clone.
Iconodule, what I've told you before, I will tell you again, though more formally this time. If you believe GJason or any other poster has violated forum rules--for instance, by setting up a duplicate account--we need you to use the "Report to Moderator" function to report the poster you deem suspicious. Otherwise, you risk derailing threads with your vigilante behavior. Derailing threads with off-topic posts is itself a violation of forum rules and will be dealt with accordingly.

*yawn*
 
For this brazen show of public contempt for a moderator's directive, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 60 days. If you choose to complain publicly about this warning, you will be placed on post moderation, a status where every one of your posts will need to be screened by a moderator before it will appear on the forum. If you think this action wrong, feel free to appeal it via private message to Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut
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.
GJason
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic becoming Orthodox
Posts: 12



« Reply #474 on: August 17, 2011, 11:54:52 PM »


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

So Orthobore was ON topic when he mentioned "The Jewish Barber", but when I reply to his ridiculosity - it becomes off topic. Got it.

I've also seen many others 'arguing' with him here. I thought it was only his 'moderatorial decrees' that I was not allowed to argue with?

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

When you looked up my previous posts, did you happen to notice my earlier reply to your accusations Sir Finger-Pointer?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37755.msg609005.html#msg609005

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

Well, here I am 'arguing' with another prestigious moderator.

Orthoflame brought up the "Jewish Barber" - not I.

I was merely setting him straight; a little dose of reality to counter his fairy-tales.

If nobody says stupid things - then I won't have to respond to them.
 You seem to know that arguing with the moderators' decisions in public is not allowed there so there is no reason to be lenient torwards you. 40 days of warning, if you don't agree appeal to Fr. George - Michał Kalina.
Logged

"Merely to hear the word of God saves no one and is instead a condemnation. After hearing, one must do." - Blessed Theophylact
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 #475 on: August 18, 2011, 12:24:24 AM »

Look for a thread using the words "contest" and "$20" (That's all I remember of the thread, anyway. I have such a great memory.)

He was just making a weird reference to one of his smiley faces (because he's too hipster to use those provided by the admins). He wasn't trying to derail the thread and making it about the Jewish Barber. It's a matter of context here. Instead of addressing him by PM, you decided to derail the thread further.

Listen, although I think othornorm is the bomb diggity sometimes, believe me, he has a whole range of posts I'm sure you can find some issue with. Calling him out on that one was weird and just showcases that you didn't even absorb anything in the entire thread. You just happened to see the word "Jew" and leapt on it.


And yes, I know that I'm running this thread off the tracks. But at least I am admitting it.
 As you yourself admitted, you have indeed veered off topic. Therefore, you are warned for 7 days. You may appeal to Father George if you wish. Second Chance
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
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,594



WWW
« Reply #476 on: August 18, 2011, 02:13:43 AM »

Look for a thread using the words "contest" and "$20" (That's all I remember of the thread, anyway. I have such a great memory.)

And yes, I know that I'm running this thread off the tracks. But at least I am admitting it.
that was one of my threads. it was about monarchy. but i had bet a friend $20 that in any given week someone would post something blatantly anti-semetic and/or glorifying the Holocaust. She didn't believe that her fellow Christinians would do that.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38431.0.html
 As you yourself admitted, you have indeed veered off topic. Therefore, you are warned for 7 days. You may appeal to Father George if you wish. Second Chance
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,495



« Reply #477 on: August 18, 2011, 10:41:47 AM »

I watched the video(s).

I must say, I will never understand the whole "homosexual marriage undermines/obliterates/weakens/destroys/explodes/&c. the entire institution" argument.

Surely de facto marriage, no-fault divorce and rampant fornication rendered the martial institutions of the unbelievers pretty meaningless a long time ago?
Quote
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?page=1

Thank you Isa. The article was eye-opening to say the least. I hope some others on this thread take the time to read it especially if they are assuming gay marriage will have no effect on the institution of marriage. Easy to ignore what one doesn't want to here if one is only listening to what our secular world tells us is correct.

Tamara, the weekly standard is a neoconservative, political, news opinion rag, unworthy of even being placed at the bottom of a bird cage. Beware of the truthfulness of its opinions and,  really, you should have noticed the leap of faith required to agree with the quote. Of course, just my opinion.


 

I must say that I am totally of a different opinion. BTW, the bottom of the bird cage has been reserved for the New York Times, Newsweek, etc...for a long time now for many reasons, to include propagating the corrosive influence of modern liberalism on faith and culture. It does not take a leap of faith to grasp the truth of that quotation or article.
A clarification, my opinion about The Weekly Standard is based on their role in the lead up to the war in Iraq. For a non-"liberal" perspective on this issue see "The Weekly Standard's War" In "The American Conservative" magazine:
http://amconmag.com/article/2005/nov/21/00018/

Conservative commentator David Frum's opinion of Stanley Kurtz "Who’s Policing Stanley Kurtz?" is here:
http://www.frumforum.com/whos-policing-stanley-kurtz

The New York Times, Newsweek, etc, do deserve to be at the bottom of a bird cage because they bear some responsibility as well.

My point was that a large part of the Kurtz quote was hype and deserved a short comment for the uninformed.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #478 on: August 18, 2011, 12:38:39 PM »

Emphasis mine.
I'll never understand why some straight men are more obsessed with the possibility of anal sex than most homosexual men.
I know some straight men. Do you know most homosexual men?
Guess I am going to have to get the studies. Isa might have them, as he has referenced this before.

And I have known a lot of gay men. Most don't really get into anal.

If you wan't to get more graphic about my knowledge, I can. But since we ain't private and I am not sure what adult behaviors are kosher to discuss graphically in an open forum, I leave it for now. 

Wise decision, especially considering how this thread has "progressed" after this point!
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 12:38:49 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,672



« Reply #479 on: August 18, 2011, 05:38:43 PM »

I think this is the longest stretch of "warnings" given in a row that I have ever seen!  I guess a topic as controversial as homosexulaity is likely to spark some disagreements.  That's actually something I have never really understood - why Christians argue about what seems to me to be a black and white issue.  Is anyone really arguing that homosexuality is considered to be moral by the Church?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #480 on: August 18, 2011, 06:12:54 PM »

I think this is the longest stretch of "warnings" given in a row that I have ever seen!  I guess a topic as controversial as homosexulaity is likely to spark some disagreements.  That's actually something I have never really understood - why Christians argue about what seems to me to be a black and white issue.  Is anyone really arguing that homosexuality is considered to be moral by the Church?
Actually, none of the four warnings has anything to do with the subject of this thread.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #481 on: August 18, 2011, 06:21:43 PM »

I think this is the longest stretch of "warnings" given in a row that I have ever seen!  I guess a topic as controversial as homosexulaity is likely to spark some disagreements.  That's actually something I have never really understood - why Christians argue about what seems to me to be a black and white issue.  Is anyone really arguing that homosexuality is considered to be moral by the Church?
There are other issues, as it has been pointed out, which have been traditionally considered "black and white" issues towards which the attitude of the church has changed either officially or unofficially. My bet is that ultimately, it's what gonna happen here to. The church will come to grips with the scientific understanding of the issue, with the new, egalitarian, non-patriarchal society we live in etc.
Monasteries and other church institutions held slaves and traded slaves well into the second half of the 19th century, in some places of the Orthodox world. But that has irreversibly changed just because the larger society has irreversibly changed.
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: 37,473



« Reply #482 on: August 18, 2011, 06:36:22 PM »

I think this is the longest stretch of "warnings" given in a row that I have ever seen!  I guess a topic as controversial as homosexulaity is likely to spark some disagreements.  That's actually something I have never really understood - why Christians argue about what seems to me to be a black and white issue.  Is anyone really arguing that homosexuality is considered to be moral by the Church?
There are other issues, as it has been pointed out, which have been traditionally considered "black and white" issues towards which the attitude of the church has changed either officially or unofficially. My bet is that ultimately, it's what gonna happen here to. The church will come to grips with the scientific understanding of the issue, with the new, egalitarian, non-patriarchal society we live in etc.
Monasteries and other church institutions held slaves and traded slaves well into the second half of the 19th century, in some places of the Orthodox world. But that has irreversibly changed just because the larger society has irreversibly changed.
Yes, the new, egalitarian, non-patriarchal society came in the second half of the 20th century

yeah, no slaves there.

Btw, never say never, nor "irrevesibly."  Slavery, for instance, had basically died out as an institution in late antiquity (peasants are cheaper), but was revived by the "enlightenment," and reintroduced.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:38:40 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
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #483 on: August 18, 2011, 06:52:39 PM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?
Logged

signature
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #484 on: August 19, 2011, 12:34:40 AM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?

Yeah... uh... we don't have saints that burned heretics. But I'm sure you're just being sarcastic...
Logged
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #485 on: August 19, 2011, 12:46:28 AM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?

Yeah... uh... we don't have saints that burned heretics. But I'm sure you're just being sarcastic...
We do have several saints that burned heretics: St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Gennady of Novgorod. But since society seems to have become the correct judge on the Churches' morality, burning heretics was certainly acceptable for that time.
Logged

signature
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #486 on: August 19, 2011, 01:05:53 AM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?

Yeah... uh... we don't have saints that burned heretics. But I'm sure you're just being sarcastic...
We do have several saints that burned heretics: St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Gennady of Novgorod. But since society seems to have become the correct judge on the Churches' morality, burning heretics was certainly acceptable for that time.
only 2... dang, ok, while it is unfortunate that they held those opinions, I have to say that is incomparable to the RCC.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,672



« Reply #487 on: August 19, 2011, 01:08:46 AM »

I think this is the longest stretch of "warnings" given in a row that I have ever seen!  I guess a topic as controversial as homosexulaity is likely to spark some disagreements.  That's actually something I have never really understood - why Christians argue about what seems to me to be a black and white issue.  Is anyone really arguing that homosexuality is considered to be moral by the Church?
Actually, none of the four warnings has anything to do with the subject of this thread.

Yeah, I saw that.  It's just the controversilaity was getting to everyone, I am sure.   Grin
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #488 on: August 19, 2011, 03:30:15 AM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?

Yeah... uh... we don't have saints that burned heretics. But I'm sure you're just being sarcastic...
We do have several saints that burned heretics: St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Gennady of Novgorod. But since society seems to have become the correct judge on the Churches' morality, burning heretics was certainly acceptable for that time.
I do not get what you want to say? That larger social mores do not/should not influence the Church's take on certain issues? It has always happened. To pretend otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #489 on: August 19, 2011, 10:38:30 AM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?

Yeah... uh... we don't have saints that burned heretics. But I'm sure you're just being sarcastic...
We do have several saints that burned heretics: St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Gennady of Novgorod. But since society seems to have become the correct judge on the Churches' morality, burning heretics was certainly acceptable for that time.
only 2... dang, ok, while it is unfortunate that they held those opinions, I have to say that is incomparable to the RCC.

Are you capable of uttering this string of letters: Sorry, I was wrong.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #490 on: August 19, 2011, 11:33:44 AM »

I think burning heretics should be ok. We even have saints that did it. Let's just add a canon for its official recognition. And besides, society found it perfectly acceptable just a few centuries back. If society recognized it, what more could you want?

Yeah... uh... we don't have saints that burned heretics. But I'm sure you're just being sarcastic...
We do have several saints that burned heretics: St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Gennady of Novgorod. But since society seems to have become the correct judge on the Churches' morality, burning heretics was certainly acceptable for that time.
I do not get what you want to say? That larger social mores do not/should not influence the Church's take on certain issues? It has always happened. To pretend otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand.
Can you prove this at a canonical/official level? Of course the Church didn't speak out as it was burning people, but that doesn't equate to official recognition. The Church has changed how it has dealt with sin, but I can't think of an instance where it changed to condoning a sin.
Logged

signature
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #491 on: August 19, 2011, 11:46:25 AM »

This topic has been exhausted to the point of repeatedly veering off topic. Now the latest topic is burning of heretics! I am therefore terminating this thread. Those posters who want to discuss politics can do so in Politics. Those posters who want to talk about burning heretics can start a separate thread here or Faith Issues. Second Chance
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
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 0.175 seconds with 69 queries.