OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 12:41:48 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  
Poll
Question: Homosexuality comes up frequenbtly on Orthodox forums because..
Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet. - 19 (26.8%)
Since drunkeness, adultery, theft and dishonesty have been eradicated it's the only sin left to fight - 10 (14.1%)
Apparently most Orthodox Christians have lots of gay family, friends and associates - 7 (9.9%)
Orthodox forums attract a lot of self torturing closet cases and men with doubts about thier own masculinity - 20 (28.2%)
Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet. - 15 (21.1%)
Total Voters: 71

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread  (Read 71679 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #630 on: November 05, 2009, 06:02:07 PM »

There's the tradition that Jesus wrote specific sins (including sodomy) in the dust, and then erased them. Does anyone know how far back this tradition goes?
Quote
Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6). What did the Lord write in the dust? The Evangelist maintains silence concerning this and does not write of it. It was too repulsive and vile to be written in the Book of Joy. However, this has been present in tradition, and it is horrible. The Lord wrote something unexpected and startling for the elders, the accusers of the sinful woman. With His finger He disclosed their secret iniquities. For these pointers-out of the sins of others were experts in concealing their own sins. But it is pointless to try to hide anything from the eyes of One Who sees all.

"M (eshulam) has stolen treasures from the temple," wrote the Lord's finger in the dust.
"A (sher) has committed adultery with his brother's wife;
"S (halum) has committed perjury;
"E (led) has struck his own father;
"A (marich) has committed sodomy;
"J (oel) has worshipped idols."

And so one statement after another was written in the dust by the awesome finger of the righteous Judge. And those to whom these words referred, bending down, read what was written, with inexpressible horror. They trembled from fright, and dared not look one another in the eye. They gave no further thought to the sinful woman. They thought only of themselves and of their own death, which was written in the dust. Not a single tongue was able to move, to pronounce that troublesome and evil question, "What sayest Thou?" The Lord said nothing. That which is so filthy is fit to be written only in filthy dust. Another reason why the Lord wrote on the ground is even greater and more wonderful. That which is written in the dust is easily erased and removed. Christ did not want their sins to be made known to everyone. Had He desired this, He would have announced them before all the people, and would have accused them and had them stoned to death, in accordance with the law. But He, the innocent Lamb of God, did not contemplate revenge or death for those who had prepared for Him a thousand deaths, who desired His death more than everlasting life for themselves. The Lord wanted only to correct them, to make them think of themselves and their own sins. He wanted to remind them that while they carried the burden of their own transgressions, they shouldn't be strict judges of the transgressions of others. This alone did the Lord desire. And when this was done, the dust was again smoothed over, and that which was written disappeared.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #631 on: November 05, 2009, 06:08:15 PM »

There's the tradition that Jesus wrote specific sins (including sodomy) in the dust, and then erased them. Does anyone know how far back this tradition goes?
Quote
Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6). What did the Lord write in the dust? The Evangelist maintains silence concerning this and does not write of it. It was too repulsive and vile to be written in the Book of Joy. However, this has been present in tradition, and it is horrible. The Lord wrote something unexpected and startling for the elders, the accusers of the sinful woman. With His finger He disclosed their secret iniquities. For these pointers-out of the sins of others were experts in concealing their own sins. But it is pointless to try to hide anything from the eyes of One Who sees all.

"M (eshulam) has stolen treasures from the temple," wrote the Lord's finger in the dust.
"A (sher) has committed adultery with his brother's wife;
"S (halum) has committed perjury;
"E (led) has struck his own father;
"A (marich) has committed sodomy;
"J (oel) has worshipped idols."

And so one statement after another was written in the dust by the awesome finger of the righteous Judge. And those to whom these words referred, bending down, read what was written, with inexpressible horror. They trembled from fright, and dared not look one another in the eye. They gave no further thought to the sinful woman. They thought only of themselves and of their own death, which was written in the dust. Not a single tongue was able to move, to pronounce that troublesome and evil question, "What sayest Thou?" The Lord said nothing. That which is so filthy is fit to be written only in filthy dust. Another reason why the Lord wrote on the ground is even greater and more wonderful. That which is written in the dust is easily erased and removed. Christ did not want their sins to be made known to everyone. Had He desired this, He would have announced them before all the people, and would have accused them and had them stoned to death, in accordance with the law. But He, the innocent Lamb of God, did not contemplate revenge or death for those who had prepared for Him a thousand deaths, who desired His death more than everlasting life for themselves. The Lord wanted only to correct them, to make them think of themselves and their own sins. He wanted to remind them that while they carried the burden of their own transgressions, they shouldn't be strict judges of the transgressions of others. This alone did the Lord desire. And when this was done, the dust was again smoothed over, and that which was written disappeared.


Jetavan,

What is the Buddhist view of Homosexuality? I understand the Buddha scolded a monk for returning to his wife and was equally strict to other who followed him. Do you know any details that might aid us in understand the Christian teaching on this topic?

Thanks.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,623



WWW
« Reply #632 on: November 05, 2009, 06:15:25 PM »

There's the tradition that Jesus wrote specific sins (including sodomy) in the dust, and then erased them. Does anyone know how far back this tradition goes?
Quote
Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6). What did the Lord write in the dust? The Evangelist maintains silence concerning this and does not write of it. It was too repulsive and vile to be written in the Book of Joy. However, this has been present in tradition, and it is horrible. The Lord wrote something unexpected and startling for the elders, the accusers of the sinful woman. With His finger He disclosed their secret iniquities. For these pointers-out of the sins of others were experts in concealing their own sins. But it is pointless to try to hide anything from the eyes of One Who sees all.

"M (eshulam) has stolen treasures from the temple," wrote the Lord's finger in the dust.
"A (sher) has committed adultery with his brother's wife;
"S (halum) has committed perjury;
"E (led) has struck his own father;
"A (marich) has committed sodomy;
"J (oel) has worshipped idols."

And so one statement after another was written in the dust by the awesome finger of the righteous Judge. And those to whom these words referred, bending down, read what was written, with inexpressible horror. They trembled from fright, and dared not look one another in the eye. They gave no further thought to the sinful woman. They thought only of themselves and of their own death, which was written in the dust. Not a single tongue was able to move, to pronounce that troublesome and evil question, "What sayest Thou?" The Lord said nothing. That which is so filthy is fit to be written only in filthy dust. Another reason why the Lord wrote on the ground is even greater and more wonderful. That which is written in the dust is easily erased and removed. Christ did not want their sins to be made known to everyone. Had He desired this, He would have announced them before all the people, and would have accused them and had them stoned to death, in accordance with the law. But He, the innocent Lamb of God, did not contemplate revenge or death for those who had prepared for Him a thousand deaths, who desired His death more than everlasting life for themselves. The Lord wanted only to correct them, to make them think of themselves and their own sins. He wanted to remind them that while they carried the burden of their own transgressions, they shouldn't be strict judges of the transgressions of others. This alone did the Lord desire. And when this was done, the dust was again smoothed over, and that which was written disappeared.


I had always wondered about what He wrote in the dust...and why it wasn't revealed ...and yet was mentioned.

I've never heard this before....but, it is truly wonderful and symbolic in so many ways!

Thanks for sharing.


Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #633 on: November 05, 2009, 06:34:20 PM »

There's the tradition that Jesus wrote specific sins (including sodomy) in the dust, and then erased them. Does anyone know how far back this tradition goes?
Quote
Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6).
....
And when this was done, the dust was again smoothed over, and that which was written disappeared.


Jetavan,

What is the Buddhist view of Homosexuality? I understand the Buddha scolded a monk for returning to his wife and was equally strict to other who followed him. Do you know any details that might aid us in understand the Christian teaching on this topic?

Thanks.
The texts say that if you're a Buddhist monastic, then any sort of sexual activity is forbidden.

As a lay-person, one is encouraged to not engage in what is called "sensual misconduct". In general, this means faithfulness towards one's spouse. It can also mean a general renunciation of sensual indulgence (such as oversleeping, or too much SEC football watching).

The Buddha did not make marriage into a "sacrament", so there is no textual basis for rejecting "same-sex union" or "same-sex marriage".

However, my understanding is that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition does explicitly prohibit certain forms of intercourse that are deemed "unnatural". Other Buddhist traditions may or may not have similar textual prohibitions; if they do, they haven't reached the ears of North American Buddhists.

Having said that, much of Southeast Asian Buddhist culture sees having homosexual desires as not an ideal condition in which to live.

The framework of rebirth/reincarnation offers a way for Buddhists (and Hindus) to explain homosexuality as a transitional phase between a lifetime as one gender and a lifetime as the other gender. Such a notion might lead to a fairly "tolerant" perspective on homosexual persons.

The Buddhist ideal is to see and understand the dissatisfactory nature of all craving; that is, craving produces dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction can cause craving. From my understanding of the Buddhist perspective, sexual activity, no matter how sublime, still contains an element of craving. There's nothing wrong with a little craving, if one is fairly happy with one's life. But, as monastics of any tradition, Buddhist or Christian, will tell you, another possibility is offered, if one so chooses.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 06:36:02 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #634 on: November 05, 2009, 07:25:32 PM »

What's the difference between how RC's and EO's view homosexual marriage?
Probably no difference at all.  But that's not the point of my issue with Papist. Wink
And your point is ridiculous. I am defending your Church here buddy.

Papist, if you are defending my Church and the Church of most of this forum's posters, then you need to say so from the start.  When you say such things as the following:
No one is prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Everyone is prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. There is no unfair standard here.
; without clarifying explicitly that you are trying to encourage us to look at our Orthodox faith tradition or that you represent the doctrinal traditions that we Orthodox and Catholics share, one is left to conclude from your profile that you are most likely arguing solely from the doctrines of your Roman Catholic Church.  This is something I generally try to discourage in the Faith Issues section, since it distracts from the mission of this board.  You're most certainly free to present the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in other sections of the OC.net forum, but I really need to keep this in check here on Faith Issues to allow for "discussion of issues and inquiries related to the Orthodox Christian faith", as this section's mission is stated on the forum index under the link to the Faith Issues board.

If you have problem with that then you are strange strange little man.  Wink
Ad hominem noted and not appreciated.  It's not necessary to belittle someone else simply because he has a problem with your rhetorical tactics.  I'm pretty sure you've been warned about this before.

Anyway, is this silliness come from a person who has an ax to grind or from a moderator?
From a moderator.  If you have any questions about my decision in this matter, please feel free to send me a PM.

- PeterTheAleut
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #635 on: November 05, 2009, 07:34:53 PM »

No one is prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Everyone is prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. There is no unfair standard here.
Maybe by your church, but I think we're talking about the authority of our Church here, bud.
Wait. How is the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the prohibition of same sex marriage any different from other Churches which teach the prohibition of same sex marriage?

PtA does not argue with that. He just points out that when Papist says, "the Church teaches this or that," he should make some "qualifying remarks," because otherwise it sounds like he (Papist, a Roman Catholic) speaks on behalf of the Orthodox Church.
I don't think so. Papist has identified himself as a Roman Catholic and everyone knows it. So all these comments by Peter the Aleut are petty. 
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #636 on: November 05, 2009, 07:37:21 PM »

Witega, I noticed that you begin every response to my posts with very scornful, harsh, despising remarks like this one above, and it seems to me - maybe that's just my subjective feeling - that you are deliberately trying to cause me pain. I actually like your erudition and logic and I enjoy conversing with you, but you do cause me pain (I don't know, maybe because I imagine too much or because English is not my first language). May I suggest that that causing me pain is hardly necessary?

It is not my intention to cause you pain. I apologize for doing so.
I have attempted to restrict my part in this discussion to addressing facts, principles, and actual arguments. To whatever extent I have failed in that and made you feel like I'm attacking or impugning you or your motives (rather than your argument), I apologize for that as well.

I *am* feeling some frustration that
a) You seem unwilling to directly address the fundamental point. If the universal witness of the Church is authoritative, then you have to accept that homosexual acts are a sin and then we can how one integrates pastoral concerns and modern thoughts and discoveries with that authoriy; or you have to demonstrate that this is not the universal witness of the Church. You have not done either--you started by arguing scientific advancement as a criterion by which to judge the Tradition. Then later focused on an argument that seems to sum up as 'this part of Tradition (the teachings on love or monasticism) contradict that part of Tradition (the moral teaching on homosexuality) so 'that part' of Tradition needs to be discarded'--without addressing what criterion you use to decide which parts of Tradition you'll accept and which you won't. It feels somewhat like trying to discuss whether the sky is blue or green with pink polka dots with someone who refuses to open his eyes--but also insists that visual evidence is the criterion by which to determine the color of the sky.
b) You have several times seriously mischaracterized the teaching of the Fathers on such relevant subjects as fallen human nature, the nature of temptation, the nature of desire, and the nature of will. Even once this was pointed out, you did not appear to even pause to consider that since one of your premises was wrong, perhaps your overall argument needed to be reconsidered.

However, I did not want, and should not have, allowed that frustration to creep into my posts, and I apologize that I have done so.


A final thought--as I have said, I have tried to maintain this discussion on the merits. But consider this--if you are right, then I am 'oppressing' gays, in the sense of depriving them of a good. Since I have and want no authority, I am not the same as the judge upholding a miscegenation law or a communist censer preventing freedom of the press, but I am the same the individuals who approved and 'carried water' for such behavior. On the other hand, if I am right, then you are encouraging gays to indulge a sinful proclivity. You may not be the guy waving a shot under the nose of a recovering alcoholic, but you are the guy going, 'drink it up! a little alcohol never hurt anyone'. I bring this up not to accuse you of being 'that guy' (or to admit to being 'that guy') but to point out that as much as either of us may wish to keep the discussion respectively academic and objective, the fact is that either I am a supporter of oppression or you are encouraging homosexuals to damn themselves. Given that context, I do not how know to continue this discussion without being hurtful which is why I am trying to disengage now.

Again, forgive me.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #637 on: November 05, 2009, 07:42:04 PM »

No one is prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Everyone is prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. There is no unfair standard here.
Maybe by your church, but I think we're talking about the authority of our Church here, bud.
Wait. How is the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the prohibition of same sex marriage any different from other Churches which teach the prohibition of same sex marriage?

PtA does not argue with that. He just points out that when Papist says, "the Church teaches this or that," he should make some "qualifying remarks," because otherwise it sounds like he (Papist, a Roman Catholic) speaks on behalf of the Orthodox Church.
I don't think so. Papist has identified himself as a Roman Catholic and everyone knows it. So all these comments by Peter the Aleut are petty. 
Stanley, as you can see from the post immediately preceding yours, I have addressed this issue in a formal, moderatorial fashion.  If you would like to complain about it, please do so via a PM to me or to Fr. George.  Please refrain from saying anything more on this thread about how I have acted toward Papist.  Thank you.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #638 on: November 05, 2009, 07:45:07 PM »

No one is prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Everyone is prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. There is no unfair standard here.
Maybe by your church, but I think we're talking about the authority of our Church here, bud.
Wait. How is the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the prohibition of same sex marriage any different from other Churches which teach the prohibition of same sex marriage?

PtA does not argue with that. He just points out that when Papist says, "the Church teaches this or that," he should make some "qualifying remarks," because otherwise it sounds like he (Papist, a Roman Catholic) speaks on behalf of the Orthodox Church.
I don't think so. Papist has identified himself as a Roman Catholic and everyone knows it. So all these comments by Peter the Aleut are petty. 
Stanley, as you can see from the post immediately preceding yours, I have addressed this issue in a formal, moderatorial fashion.  If you would like to complain about it, please do so via a PM to me or to Fr. George.  Please refrain from saying anything more on this thread about how I have acted toward Papist.  Thank you.
I agree with Papist on this particular point and I stand by what I have said here about your pettiness. 
 You can defend Papist and question my "pettiness" all you want, but I asked you formally to do so via PM.  For choosing to question my moderatorial decision publicly, and to do so by quoting the very moderatorial post wherein which I instructed you to not say anything more on this thread about my decision, I am placing you on warned status for the next three days.  If you think I'm being unfair, feel free to appeal my decision to Fr. George or to Fr. Chris.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 07:47:39 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #639 on: November 05, 2009, 07:52:16 PM »

It is not my intention to cause you pain. I apologize for doing so.

Thank you so much for this, accepted, forgiven and forgotten. Please forgive me if I hurt you in any way, too.

you seem unwilling to directly address the fundamental point. If the universal witness of the Church is authoritative, then you have to accept that homosexual acts are a sin and then we can how one integrates pastoral concerns and modern thoughts and discoveries with that authoriy; or you have to demonstrate that this is not the universal witness of the Church.

Wasn't it, practically at least if not doctrinally-declaratively, a universal witness of the Church that people who committed suicide should not be given Orthodox burial? Weren't priests refusing this burial under the pain of being defrocked? I KNOW for a fact that it was a universal practice in Ukraine and perhaps in other parts of the former Russian Empire for many centuries. But it is gone now, no?


b) You have several times seriously mischaracterized the teaching of the Fathers on such relevant subjects as fallen human nature, the nature of temptation, the nature of desire, and the nature of will. Even once this was pointed out, you did not appear to even pause to consider that since one of your premises was wrong, perhaps your overall argument needed to be reconsidered.

I corrected myself in that I agreed with you (because you seem to be really knowledgeable in this area) that Fathers did not insist that being homosexual is a choice, but, rather, considered it an innate "appetite." But, as I said, I heard many times, from many people who are homosexual, that it is something much bigger than just an appetite or desire or "animal attraction."

consider this--if you are right, then I am 'oppressing' gays, in the sense of depriving them of a good.

Yes.

On the other hand, if I am right,

I don't think you are, otherwise I would not continue this conversation.

then you are encouraging gays to indulge a sinful proclivity.

NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 07:53:45 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #640 on: November 05, 2009, 08:40:27 PM »

Funerals in the case of suicide are based on economia. Bishops are able to authorize funerals in certain cases, often in order to aid the family in the grieving process. That is an issue entirely from samesex marriage.

And that said, gay individuals are more than capable of working out their own salvation as celibate individuals. It's a cross to bear, that is all. We all have crosses, life is rough.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Michael L
Priest Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 240



« Reply #641 on: November 05, 2009, 11:57:46 PM »

NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.

IMHO, I do not know how you can think that the Church will change Her teaching on this topic. Scripture and Tradition are clearly in conflict with your OPINION.

Also, I think that you sre looking for earthly justice in you argumentation for Gays. Christ did not come to give earthly justice but of Hope in the next life; see the Beattitudes.  Instead of seeking justice, accept God's will that Gays are perhaps called to endure and stuggle more for salvation. It may seem unfair but God gives to who He wants and how He wants: See the below parable about the Kingdom of Heaven and the housholder.

Quote
1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

 2And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

 3And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

 4And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

 5Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

 6And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

 7They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

 8So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

 9And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

 10But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

 11And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

 12Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

 13But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

 14Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

 16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #642 on: November 06, 2009, 12:18:11 AM »

Grace and Peace,

Iam writing from my iPhone so I will be brief. I hold our brothers struggle on this matter with great care and much sympathy. I know my own sad state will never secure me the Kingdom of God nor our Heavenly Father's approval. I am a sinner. I have not be profitable with what God has given me. In knowing my own sad state I can only hope that our God is a merciful God. It that I hope the very best for everyone especially those bond in the sins of the flesh. I would humbly ask that our brother not be too hasty in reaching his conclusion on this matter. As I said I hope for the vey best for everyone but I would caution anyone from such an lifestyle.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #643 on: November 06, 2009, 12:34:41 AM »


NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.


Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

I don't use the strong words to hurt you. But while I've argued here and elsewhere the individual engaging homosexual sex is no worse a sinner than my friend who hooks up with a different girl every weekend or with my own slothful self, the corrollary to that is that if homosexual sex is no worse than lieing, its no better than murder and pedophilia. All sin is spiritual poison, a drawing away of the soul from it's one true source.

However, I suspect that you'll again reject this attempt to explain what you sound like to someone who does embrace the teaching of the Church, because at this point it certainly seems that you are so emotionally committed to the rightness of your cause that you can't imagine that you might be wrong. Which would also explain why you still haven't addressed the criterion issue--because your criterion is your inability to conceive you're wrong.

...
See, I told you that it had reached the point that there was no productive way forward. Seriously, I am trying to just shut up here.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #644 on: November 06, 2009, 08:48:25 AM »


NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.


Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Logged

Love never fails.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #645 on: November 06, 2009, 10:28:56 AM »

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.


But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #646 on: November 06, 2009, 11:10:40 AM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 11:24:21 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #647 on: November 06, 2009, 11:27:22 AM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #648 on: November 06, 2009, 11:28:25 AM »

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.


But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?
Logged

Love never fails.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #649 on: November 06, 2009, 11:30:28 AM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?
Indeed yes, but what we are talking about is the moral teaching of the Church about marriage, which isn't actually Dogma.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #650 on: November 06, 2009, 11:31:54 AM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

George, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the moral teachings of the Church are without mistake per se, but we, the people, reinterpret them according to our convenience?

Indeed, the issue of usury is as alive today as it was alive when the Canons prohibiting it were written. And yet Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, are constantly involved in usury, on a daily basis, and, moreover, sometimes write long passages justifying it...
Logged

Love never fails.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #651 on: November 06, 2009, 11:42:49 AM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?
Indeed yes, but what we are talking about is the moral teaching of the Church about marriage, which isn't actually Dogma.

Thank you for the clarification. So, which moral teachings do you believe to be valid? And why?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #652 on: November 06, 2009, 11:44:52 AM »

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.


But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

I'm sure you've noticed quite a few yourself.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #653 on: November 06, 2009, 12:04:55 PM »

Although I'm sure that one could nitpick the canons, along with Scripture and dogma and the teachings of the Church, taken as a whole, neither the canons, nor Scripture nor Holy Tradition sanctions marriage between persons of the same sex.

In Genesis, God creates man and woman in His own image and
likeness, and their union creates "a new reality of "one flesh."
I think I remember reading (and I can look for it if you wish) that this union can only involve a relationship based on gender complementarity. "God made them male and female... So they are no longer two but one flesh" (Mark 10:6-8).

So that a union between persons of the same sex is not and never can be "the same."
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #654 on: November 06, 2009, 12:14:35 PM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

George, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the moral teachings of the Church are without mistake per se, but we, the people, reinterpret them according to our convenience?

Indeed, the issue of usury is as alive today as it was alive when the Canons prohibiting it were written. And yet Orthodox Christians, laity and clergy alike, are constantly involved in usury, on a daily basis, and, moreover, sometimes write long passages justifying it...
What I mean is that the Church in her moral teaching sets ideals to strive to. Ideally, we should not be in the stock market (Canon XVII of the First Ecumenical Council), ideally we should receive Communion separately and directly receiving the Body in our hand and the Blood directly from the Chalice (Canon CI of the Qintisext), ideally Orthodox Christians should not marry non-Orthodox (Canon LXXII of Trullo). These are the ideals, but in the Church also recognises human frailty and the human condition. Orthodox Christians do fall in love with heretics and want to marry them, receiving Communion by intinction and with a Spoon has become a standard practice, our economy does now depend on interest bearing loans of money and unbacked currency, Orthodox Christians do divorce and remarry......etc...
Having ideals is not wrong or a mistake, but firstly, we actually have no Canons about this issue which set the ideal in the first place. What we have about this issue is the teaching of a some Fathers- far less than we have about usury which is actually a Canon of an Ecumenical Council.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #655 on: November 06, 2009, 12:23:05 PM »

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?
It may not be that the Church has made a "mistake" in her moral teaching.
Have a look at the first 17th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxv.html
Does this Canon mean that any Priest who has a share portfolio which gives interest of 50% should be deposed?
Did the Church make a "mistake" in proclaiming this Canon?

I'm sure that you know more about this than I do, but isn't dogma different from canons?
Indeed yes, but what we are talking about is the moral teaching of the Church about marriage, which isn't actually Dogma.

Thank you for the clarification. So, which moral teachings do you believe to be valid? And why?
One example of a moral teaching I believe to be valid is that marriages between Orthodox Christians and non-Orthodox are null and void and anyone who enters such a heinous marriage should be cut off from the Church. I believe this because it is the teaching of an Ecumenical Council of the Church. Anathema to all who are in love with heretics! Fie upon the outrage!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #656 on: November 06, 2009, 12:29:27 PM »

So that a union between persons of the same sex is not and never can be "the same."
That is true, but then a second or third marriage of an Orthodox Christian is not the "same" either- and there is no crowning.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #657 on: November 06, 2009, 12:49:24 PM »

So that a union between persons of the same sex is not and never can be "the same."
That is true, but then a second or third marriage of an Orthodox Christian is not the "same" either- and there is no crowning.


Hardly equivalent, as I suspect you already know.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,613


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #658 on: November 06, 2009, 12:54:17 PM »

That is true, but then a second or third marriage of an Orthodox Christian is not the "same" either- and there is no crowning.


Incorrect, ozgeorge. The second marriage does indeed feature crowning of the couple.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/shann/needs.iv.xiv.html
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,494


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #659 on: November 06, 2009, 12:55:42 PM »


NO! I am not. A while ago I had an exchange with Fr. George on this issue (he was "Cleveland" back then), and I stated very strongly that I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANYONE TO DISOBEY THE CHURCH. Rather, I am encouraging the Church (of which I am a part, too), to change Her position and grant homosexual people the opportunity to proceed in their theosis, being in a monogamous, committed, responsible, loving, sacramental marriage blessed by the Church. Not ONE MOMENT before the Church changes Her mind will I encourage any gay individual to have sex with a person of their own gender. But She WILL change Her mind. I KNOW it will happen.


Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.



But...What if it really is like a poison? And how do you know that it isn't?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #660 on: November 06, 2009, 01:05:02 PM »

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.
[/quote]

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,494


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #661 on: November 06, 2009, 01:07:42 PM »

There's the tradition that Jesus wrote specific sins (including sodomy) in the dust, and then erased them. Does anyone know how far back this tradition goes?
Quote
Then the legislator of morality and human conduct stooped down to the ground, smoothed out the dust with the palm of His hand, and began to write (John 8:6).
....
And when this was done, the dust was again smoothed over, and that which was written disappeared.


Jetavan,

What is the Buddhist view of Homosexuality? I understand the Buddha scolded a monk for returning to his wife and was equally strict to other who followed him. Do you know any details that might aid us in understand the Christian teaching on this topic?

Thanks.
The texts say that if you're a Buddhist monastic, then any sort of sexual activity is forbidden.

As a lay-person, one is encouraged to not engage in what is called "sensual misconduct". In general, this means faithfulness towards one's spouse. It can also mean a general renunciation of sensual indulgence (such as oversleeping, or too much SEC football watching).

The Buddha did not make marriage into a "sacrament", so there is no textual basis for rejecting "same-sex union" or "same-sex marriage".

However, my understanding is that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition does explicitly prohibit certain forms of intercourse that are deemed "unnatural". Other Buddhist traditions may or may not have similar textual prohibitions; if they do, they haven't reached the ears of North American Buddhists.

Having said that, much of Southeast Asian Buddhist culture sees having homosexual desires as not an ideal condition in which to live.

The framework of rebirth/reincarnation offers a way for Buddhistswrongly believe that Homosexuality is sanctioned or at least not directly addressed within Buddhism. (and Hindus) to explain homosexuality as a transitional phase between a lifetime as one gender and a lifetime as the other gender. Such a notion might lead to a fairly "tolerant" perspective on homosexual persons.

The Buddhist ideal is to see and understand the dissatisfactory nature of all craving; that is, craving produces dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction can cause craving. From my understanding of the Buddhist perspective, sexual activity, no matter how sublime, still contains an element of craving. There's nothing wrong with a little craving, if one is fairly happy with one's life. But, as monastics of any tradition, Buddhist or Christian, will tell you, another possibility is offered, if one so chooses.


Many Buddhist groups in the US are filled with Homosexuals who wrongly think that Buddhism sanctions Homosexuality or at least doesn't care about it. I know of a few titanic struggles within Buddhist Temples between those who wished to establish a Gay agenda and traditionalists. Many say they are running away from Christianity and are very bitter ( sometimes with good reason)

In fact, you may find yourself in deep trouble in certain Buddhist quarters if you dare mention accurate teachings concerning disapproval of Homosexuality. My own Buddhist teacher was an Academic and translator with considerable credentials. He was harassed, hounded and maligned when he dared to point out the truth..
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #662 on: November 06, 2009, 01:21:29 PM »


Many Buddhist groups in the US are filled with Homosexuals who wrongly think that Buddhism sanctions Homosexuality or at least doesn't care about it. I know of a few titanic struggles within Buddhist Temples between those who wished to establish a Gay agenda and traditionalists. Many say they are running away from Christianity and are very bitter ( sometimes with good reason)

In fact, you may find yourself in deep trouble in certain Buddhist quarters if you dare mention accurate teachings concerning disapproval of Homosexuality. My own Buddhist teacher was an Academic and translator with considerable credentials. He was harassed, hounded and maligned when he dared to point out the truth..

Grace and Peace,

But this is the case because Buddhism, in the west, is seen largely as an 'alternative' faith and thus tends to attract fringe elements of the culture, correct?

PS: Do you know of any explicit teachings of the Buddha concerning sexual sin that would shed light on this topic?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #663 on: November 06, 2009, 02:08:06 PM »

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.


But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

I'm sure you've noticed quite a few yourself.

Not really. I'm serious. Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #664 on: November 06, 2009, 02:09:14 PM »

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 02:09:45 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,494


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #665 on: November 06, 2009, 02:15:06 PM »


Many Buddhist groups in the US are filled with Homosexuals who wrongly think that Buddhism sanctions Homosexuality or at least doesn't care about it. I know of a few titanic struggles within Buddhist Temples between those who wished to establish a Gay agenda and traditionalists. Many say they are running away from Christianity and are very bitter ( sometimes with good reason)

In fact, you may find yourself in deep trouble in certain Buddhist quarters if you dare mention accurate teachings concerning disapproval of Homosexuality. My own Buddhist teacher was an Academic and translator with considerable credentials. He was harassed, hounded and maligned when he dared to point out the truth..

Grace and Peace,

But this is the case because Buddhism, in the west, is seen largely as an 'alternative' faith and thus tends to attract fringe elements of the culture, correct?

PS: Do you know of any explicit teachings of the Buddha concerning sexual sin that would shed light on this topic?

Sorry, I am waaay out of practice and got rid of most of my Buddhist books. My teacher could rattle off chapter and verse about this subject so I am sure such teachings exist. You also have to understand that Buddhism is not only about the Buddha Shakyamuni but also the teachings of various Patriarchs and Masters such as Kobo Daishi, Sinran, Haikunin and Nichiren Daishi ..etc.

These guys were all celibate btw.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,494


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #666 on: November 06, 2009, 02:26:48 PM »

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.


But from where do you derive the idea that committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, marital unions are a good thing?

Perhaps from the teachings of the Church?

So what is your criteria for deciding some of the teaching is true and other parts are mistaken?

And the unions of man and man or woman and woman are, no matter how faithful or committed or loving, not the exactly the same as yours with your wife or mine with my husband. To say that they are is choosing to ignore very real differences.

Which ones?

I'm sure you've noticed quite a few yourself.

Not really. I'm serious. Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

So can a Cowboy and his Horse...Five men and Five Women altogether..ummm.. One man three wives.... What makes two Men together so special?

Once you break the mold it's a slippery slope..
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #667 on: November 06, 2009, 02:37:14 PM »

Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

So can a Cowboy and his Horse...

Copulate? Yes. Nurture each other intelectually, emotionally and physically? No.

Five men and Five Women altogether..ummm.. One man three wives.... What makes two Men together so special?

Each other.

Once you break the mold it's a slippery slope..

I will wear good shoes that create friction and won't let me slide.Smiley
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 02:39:35 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #668 on: November 06, 2009, 02:47:15 PM »

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #669 on: November 06, 2009, 02:48:44 PM »

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

Not you personally, but perhaps a heterosexual majority in each of these so-called "major religions."
Logged

Love never fails.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #670 on: November 06, 2009, 02:54:43 PM »

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

Not you personally, but perhaps a heterosexual majority in each of these so-called "major religions."

Why should we accept your categorization of human beings as heterosexual and homosexual? Why is this an essential distinction? If I only wanted to have anal sex for another. If that is all that I like, why should this act define me as essentially different than someone else who wants to have normal sexual relations? Why is it that this one distinction in 'sexual preference' makes such a distinction between men? A understand if you have been taught in modern parlance this distinction and from that you have to desire to defend an individuals 'right' to be loved but before we get that that a priori presumption convince me that it is right.

Thank you Brother.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #671 on: November 06, 2009, 03:04:37 PM »

Perhaps you see an important distinction here, but I'm afraid I see, "I don't encourage anyone to take poison, I just encourage the Church to tell them to take poison." as a distinction without a difference.

No. I just encourage the Church to stop looking at a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong marital union of two men or two women as a poison, because it is the same as your union with your wife or my union with mine. That's all.

Brother,

Perhaps the Church looks and sees attached, lusting, monogamous, lifelong bondage to sin between two men or two women that foreshadows moral decline and social illness? Is that possible?

If you are a priori convinced that it is, then it is, according to you.

So, if I could show you that 'every' major religion saw such behavior as perverse and unnatural you would still argue that it is an a priori presumption according to 'me'?

Not you personally, but perhaps a heterosexual majority in each of these so-called "major religions."

Why should we accept your categorization of human beings as heterosexual and homosexual? Why is this an essential distinction?

Ask homosexual people - they will say, yes, it is an essential distinction.

If I only wanted to have anal sex for another. If that is all that I like, why should this act define me as essentially different than someone else who wants to have normal sexual relations?

I don't know, but again, according to homosexual people, what makes them different from heterosexuals is a lot more than their desire to have anal sex (which quite a lot of them do not wish and do not practice, as far as I understand, especially women).

Why is it that this one distinction in 'sexual preference' makes such a distinction between men? A understand if you have been taught in modern parlance this distinction and from that you have to desire to defend an individuals 'right' to be loved but before we get that that a priori presumption convince me that it is right.

I am not actually defending anyone's rights. I am simply for such a situation where homosexual men and women are treated exactly like heterosexual men and women and are given an OPPORTUNITY to live together in the state of monogamous, committed, lifelong union, intellectual, emotional, and physical, and this union is blessed by the Church.

Thank you Brother.

You are very welcome, thank you.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 03:05:52 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,623



WWW
« Reply #672 on: November 06, 2009, 03:24:17 PM »


This whole "sex" thing has gotten way out of hand.  I'm sorry for all who have to carry a burden which seems "impossibly" hard and heavy for them....be they straight, crooked, or curved.

If they "love" each other so much then let them go get a civil marriage.  There are places that do this.

Leave the Church out of it.

Don't expect the Church to "change" to fit people's caprices. 


Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #673 on: November 06, 2009, 03:30:51 PM »

Heorhij,  I've been trying to stay out of this discussion since we certainly don't need yet one more yahoo like myself offering his opinion--if you really want to know, send me a PM--to the already boiling mix.  I would like to ask you a question, though.  What are your criteria for determining that gay marriage and straight marriage are really no different from each other?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« Reply #674 on: November 06, 2009, 03:42:46 PM »

Not really. I'm serious. Unless we accept that THE purpose of marriage is to procreate, there is no principal difference in marriage between two members of the same gender and marriage between a man and a woman. Two men can complement each other psychologically and nurture each other in an intimate intellectual, emotional and physical union. So can two women. So can a man and a woman.

No. They can't, as Genesis, among others, shows. Now that is not to say that theoretically a same sex union cannot be mutually supportive and all the rest. Perhaps some are. But it cannot, by definition, be complementarian.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Tags: homosexuality 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   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 0.209 seconds with 74 queries.