OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 08:19:44 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 68947 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #720 on: November 08, 2009, 09:24:28 PM »

What is the difference between the gay Orthodox and the widowed priest or my fellow parishoner? None of them has a 'chance'. All they have is choice, a simple one for all its difficulty in practice--they can accept the teaching of the Church and work on embracing celibacy, or they can reject it and do what they want. That's not dehumanizing. That's the same choice that every human being since Adam has faced every moment of their life.


This is not an accurate comparison. First, the priest chose to become a priest. Not being allowed to remarry is part of the package. I have yet to meet any gay man or woman who chose to be gay.

Second, both the priest and the parishioner were allowed to marry (and did in this example) where the gay man or woman was forbidden.

That is simply not true.. Many women who find themselves single into middle age and beyond form lesbian relationships as a practical alternative.

There are also plenty of Gay men who decide to drop it and get married. I know a fellow who is a former "Mr.Gay  Maryland" who simply decided to make a change. He married a big beautiful Irish Woman and is happily ensconsed with kids and wife. Ive known several guys with similar stories.

These things are not as neat and tidy as the politically correct myths would dictate.

I was simply judging from the hundreds of gay men and women I know. I have yet to hear even a second hand account directly of any sort of successful transformation. I've known plenty who have tried. I don't understand why some think it is better for force someone through social pressures into marrying someone they are not compatible with. In the end, the relationship ends in divorce, lives are shattered, and frequently children are brought in to the marriage in some effort for someone to try and cure themselves of homosexuality.

Perhaps you have bought into the idea that being Gay makes you a different type of person instead of the matter being about sex. If it's just about sex, people can get creative and perhaps then have a family if they desire one..

The current Gay movement is about just one way of interpreting Homosexuality and one sort of life style and one sort of analysis of the situation.. It's simply not universally applicable.

I haven't "bought" into anything. I am gay and know first hand what it is like. Being gay is a small part of who I am as a person. Personally, I live a celibate life. It is not for everyone, and maybe not even for me. I'm sorry if this is TMI for some. I say it in order to give context to my statements. I do believe gays should be able to marry. Call it civil union if necessary (although that may lead to claims of separate but equal) but people should be able to marry the one they love and also receive the benefits of having their relationship recoHere ignized, such as tax breaks.

I don't mean to be flippent but as I said before, you are free to marry any woman who will have you. There are many examples of Gay men getting married and having a family. Here is a hint why. The blessing of having your own children far out weighs most anything else.


All the civil protections you are asking for are fair and I would be for them. Those protections come with Marriage but that is not the point. The union of two people of the same sex is not marriage. This is fast becoming nonnegotiable. The Gay movement may lose much of the progress it has fairly won over the years by insisting that society adopt a fiction.

I tell my Gay brother, "If you don't like having sex with women, just get married" Smiley

Um ... can I let you in on a secret, Marc? There are some gay couples who have children, and some straight couples who can't.

It's boring to repeat, I know, but 'sex with women' isn't the issue here: the issue is the whole relationship, and particularly the marriage aspect. That's why this thread refers to 'gay marriage', not 'sex'.

Um..yourself

Here is something well known.. Two men can't  give birth to a baby. It requires one man and one woman.. I can draw you a diagram if you PM me.  Is there no sex education in England at all ?

oh and, Marriage is not defined by how much people nurture each other.. If that is the new standard then we are opening a door that will lead to some unwholesome places.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #721 on: November 08, 2009, 09:31:50 PM »

Quote
Why would I want to marry someone I don't love? I'm free to marry any woman who will have me. It makes no sense to me. And it sure isn't fair to the innocent woman for me to use her in some experiment of attempted heterosexuality.

Exactly. If you aren't heterosexual, it's just not a good idea to marry someone of the opposite sex. This should be merely stating the obvious. Such a relationship will inevitably lead to problems, especially if children result from the experimental relationship. I know this from personal experience, and I can tell you that it's a strange situation to go through.

I want to make clear that I don't personally think this is the very best idea. Right at this moment my accountant is ending her marriage because her 70 year old husband wants to purse his Gayness after many years of marriage. But neither is that relationship "Experimental" . There is a problem with sex ( a big big problem) but they also shared a prosperous and happy life together and produced a daughter who is a wonderful person... Sometimes parental sacrifice is for your salvation.

But many women do get dumped by Gay husbands, so proceed with extreme caution . On the other hand, many straight men dump wives too when they grow bored or have an unquenchable sexual appetite.

The point is, Gay men can and do get married.. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not. But it happens all..the..time. 
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 09:39:55 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #722 on: November 08, 2009, 09:36:59 PM »

I am absolutely with you, but I am not satisfied by just "civil unions." I do very, very strongly believe that gay people who really believe that Orthodoxy is the true Christian faith must have the chance, the opportunity, the option to MARRY in the Orthodox Church, receive Her blessing to live the life of married people, with everything that applies to married people - monogamy, chastity (i.e. not extending one's sexual desires outside of one's only, one, lifelong partner), lifelong commitment, and, most importantly, the mutual assistance of the two married individuals in theosis.

There is NO WAY this will not happen. It WILL. People learn. The Church learns. May She be blessed forever and may She be as kind and understanding and generous and loving as I believe Her to be, ever.

(Respectfully) If the Church eventually recognizes gay marriage, will this force God to recognize gay marriage?   Why seek a homosexual marriage in the Orthodox Church if God will not recognize the marriage?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #723 on: November 08, 2009, 09:41:37 PM »

I suppose my issue is with the idea that people should try to be what they aren't. If we just let people be who they are, without trying to force them into what certain people consider to be a "normal relationship," there'd be less heart ache in the world. What I am specifically thinking of is that young men and women who grow up in Christian households are given this vision of a heterosexual marriage as their goal, and told that a homosexual relationship is sinful, or perhaps worth being thrown in hell over. So these homosexual kids grow up into adulthood trying to deny and suppress who they really are. They then get married to someone of the opposite sex, and eventually problems arise from their denying and suppressing who they really are. Though I don't claim that things always work out this way, this has been my painful experience, and I admit that it has had a large part in forming my own view on this issue.
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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 #724 on: November 08, 2009, 09:56:05 PM »

like I said, you've given us no reason to recognize the distinction outside of an individuals need to obfuscate an abnormal use of the sexual organs for self gratification
Oh I think he has. Heorhij is focusing on loving relationships- not what people's genitals are doing.

Yet their entire orientation is aimed at procuring a 'particular' relationship... one with the same sex. At odds with convention. At odds with the wisdom of our Faith. No, love has little to do with this I think.

Quote
and the mistaking after effect of pair-bonding of individuals of the same sex.
"Love is a fearsome thing.
It pays no mind to the colour of your skin
         or your gender,
Love is a power so fierce and tender,
Flies on its own sweet wing,
Oh Love is a fearsome thing!"
--Judy Small

Our Passions is a fearsome thing as well and so is the lust of the flesh and far too many mistake this or masquerade it in the name of love. I think it is far wiser to side with coupling as God has designed us, man with woman. It is the wiser choice and we you argue that we have no choice in this matter then we might as well disguard the idea of freewill altogether and be done with this silly Faith and it's silly little backward Saints.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 09:56:38 PM by ignatius » 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.”
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 #725 on: November 08, 2009, 09:58:49 PM »

I suppose my issue is with the idea that people should try to be what they aren't. If we just let people be who they are, without trying to force them into what certain people consider to be a "normal relationship," there'd be less heart ache in the world. What I am specifically thinking of is that young men and women who grow up in Christian households are given this vision of a heterosexual marriage as their goal, and told that a homosexual relationship is sinful, or perhaps worth being thrown in hell over. So these homosexual kids grow up into adulthood trying to deny and suppress who they really are. They then get married to someone of the opposite sex, and eventually problems arise from their denying and suppressing who they really are. Though I don't claim that things always work out this way, this has been my painful experience, and I admit that it has had a large part in forming my own view on this issue.

You mean like transcending our sinful nature and joining the Divine in Union with God? You mean we shouldn't try to be God or God-like because that is against our nature or should we say that it is against our fallen nature?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 10:26:48 PM by ignatius » 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: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #726 on: November 08, 2009, 10:15:05 PM »

Why would I want to marry someone I don't love? I'm free to marry any woman who will have me. It makes no sense to me. And it sure isn't fair to the innocent woman for me to use her in some experiment of attempted heterosexuality. As far as kids, I don't want any. I enjoy children but have absolutely no desire to have my own. That benefit does nothing for me.

I don't believe the gay movement (whatever that is) is going to lose this battle. It is simply a matter of time. The younger generation is rather supportive. As they age and people continue to become more accepting with each generation, full marriage rights will happen for homosexuals. It is inevitable. Vocally pressing for rights is the only way anything will be accomplished. People seem to think we should just sit on our hands and wait for someone to throw us a bone. Those bones are never coming.

Yes, please don't marry someone you don't love. But please be informed that it is possible for people to love each other no matter their sexual orientation. They have homes and children and go on vacations together and support each other through hardships.

But that is for someone who wants some things you don't which seems fine to me. I cant judge.


Yes, being a victim is no fun I'm sure. However I  think we should review:

At first Gays asked just to be left alone. No more raiding Gay Bars and that sort of thing

Done

Then.. Gays wanted protection against discrimination in public accommodation ( housing, employment, service etc.)

Done and Done

Then the Gay movement worked to educate people about physical violence against Gays and got special status under the Law for "Hate Crimes"

Good

Now Gays want to make sure that Gay  Partnerships have access to things like medical decisions for each other, Insurance rights and property rights.

Done or being done

But, feeling embolden, they now want society to alter a central  institution by making it into something it isn't. Marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. Anything else is something else. Perpetrating such a fiction is unacceptable to a broad range of people from every religion and every political wing, left and right. Even President Obama, the most liberal President we have ever had is not for it.  That should tell you something.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 10:16:04 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #727 on: November 08, 2009, 11:04:32 PM »

I suppose my issue is with the idea that people should try to be what they aren't.
Yes, people should try to just be what they "are" which is 99% non-genital. Sexuality is one of the basic human attributes but it is a small attribute.  Mentally healthy adults progress beyond believing that their sexual needs are their most important needs.  Mentally healthy adults have egos that practice sublimation. (They can take their sexual energy and use it for other purposes besides sex.) Mentally unhealthy adults experience a high degree of sexualization.  They feel deprived/unhappy if they cannot act on their sexual urges. They suffer with anger and depression.
If we just let people be who they are, without trying to force them into what certain people consider to be a "normal relationship," there'd be less heart ache in the world. What I am specifically thinking of is that young men and women who grow up in Christian households are given this vision of a heterosexual marriage as their goal,
You identified an important problem:  the idea that marriage is one of the most important goals in life. 
and told that a homosexual relationship is sinful, or perhaps worth being thrown in hell over. So these homosexual kids grow up into adulthood trying to deny and suppress who they really are.
Which could have been avoided if their family and secular society had told them that what they "are" could be much more than their sexual orientation.  Heterosexuals and asexuals children must also be given this knowledge.
They then get married to someone of the opposite sex, and eventually problems arise from their denying and suppressing who they really are.
 Though I don't claim that things always work out this way, this has been my painful experience, and I admit that it has had a large part in forming my own view on this issue.
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 #728 on: November 09, 2009, 12:45:04 AM »

I haven't "bought" into anything. I am gay and know first hand what it is like. Being gay is a small part of who I am as a person. Personally, I live a celibate life. It is not for everyone, and maybe not even for me. I'm sorry if this is TMI for some. I say it in order to give context to my statements. I do believe gays should be able to marry. Call it civil union if necessary (although that may lead to claims of separate but equal) but people should be able to marry the one they love and also receive the benefits of having their relationship recognized, such as tax breaks.

Grace and Peace,

I am, personally, disappointed that you view yourself with these worldly terms and categories but I am very encouraged that you live a chaste life. Truly I pray that your crosses are lightened and that your heart is filled with Christ's peace if not on this pilgrimage then on that far shore in due time. It is important that we remember we are first and foremost Children of God and nolonger Children of Wrath. No longer 'of this world' but citizens of that Holy Jerusalem that awaits us. If we yield to the ways of that carnal self which attaches us to 'things' and not to God we many loose our way along the journey. Whatever we have done is of little matter compared to what we do. We must transcend the bounds of the flesh. The Interior master must reign over the body and only then will we 'see' with spiritual eyes the wisdom of God. Whatever you are doing, it must be good and well for you as you are living in chastity. I can not offer anything to you, perhaps you can teach me how to live a chaste life?
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.”
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #729 on: November 09, 2009, 04:49:36 AM »


Um..yourself

Here is something well known.. Two men can't  give birth to a baby. It requires one man and one woman.. I can draw you a diagram if you PM me.  Is there no sex education in England at all ?

oh and, Marriage is not defined by how much people nurture each other.. If that is the new standard then we are opening a door that will lead to some unwholesome places.

Most interestingly (though it perhaps wasn't as widely reported in the press where you are), two women can produce an viable foetus, although obviously one only of them could carry it to term. But this is simply information about science, and something I wouldn't care to see happen (very expensive, and there are plenty of needy children in the world).

We all seem unclear on what, precisely, marriage is. You say it is not defined by how much people nurture; but apparently, gay men can marry women and the marriages 'work' because the couple nurture each other.

I don't know whose marriages look good in the eyes of God. Ms Hoorah's question is good:

Quote
If the Church eventually recognizes gay marriage, will this force God to recognize gay marriage?   Why seek a homosexual marriage in the Orthodox Church if God will not recognize the marriage?

I know not everyone on both sides of the debate would come close to agreeing, but I'd say, why not let God worry about this?
Logged
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 #730 on: November 09, 2009, 04:56:57 AM »

If the Church eventually recognizes gay marriage, will this force God to recognize gay marriage?   Why seek a homosexual marriage in the Orthodox Church if God will not recognize the marriage?

I know not everyone on both sides of the debate would come close to agreeing, but I'd say, why not let God worry about this?


Matthew 18:18 ?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #731 on: November 09, 2009, 04:59:16 AM »

If the Church eventually recognizes gay marriage, will this force God to recognize gay marriage?   Why seek a homosexual marriage in the Orthodox Church if God will not recognize the marriage?

I know not everyone on both sides of the debate would come close to agreeing, but I'd say, why not let God worry about this?


Matthew 18:18 ?


I think that text is in favour, yes? If the marriage-bond was bound on earth, it will remain in heaven?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #732 on: November 09, 2009, 05:09:43 AM »

But aren't you all speaking of a purely earthly happening? After all, the Christian Scripture seems to indicate that there will be no married people in heaven (Matt. 22:30) I guess the main question is, did God give the Church the authority to monkey around with the morality once delivered to the saints? Some, pointing to things like divorce and slavery, might argue yes. But it seems to me that homosexuality is a different animal, because in that case there are clear condemnations of it. I guess you could argue that the biblical writers such as Paul were just wrong in their condemnation of it, but that seems to be a slippery slope to me (I know the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy--nonetheless, I think in this case it is a valid concern).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not reversing my position, I'm still in favor of gay marriage. I just have a hard time understanding how a Christian could do that while simultaneously maintaining a generally traditional or orthodox outlook. I don't deny the orthodoxy of those who hold to such a position, I just haven't yet wrapped my head completely around it.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 05:12:17 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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 #733 on: November 09, 2009, 05:39:50 AM »

did God give the homosexuality is a different animal, because in that case there are clear condemnations of it.
I think there are pretty "clear" condemnations in the NT of women speaking in Church :
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
But the Orthodox Church is tonsuring female readers and ordaining Deaconesses.
The Church's authority to bind and loose seems to surpass even the moral teachings of the Scriptures (such as second and third marriages).
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 05:41:23 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #734 on: November 09, 2009, 05:41:16 AM »

A good point  Smiley but is that a cultural custom, or a point of morality? Is there a difference?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 05:42:55 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #735 on: November 09, 2009, 05:59:41 AM »

But aren't you all speaking of a purely earthly happening? After all, the Christian Scripture seems to indicate that there will be no married people in heaven (Matt. 22:30) I guess the main question is, did God give the Church the authority to monkey around with the morality once delivered to the saints? Some, pointing to things like divorce and slavery, might argue yes. But it seems to me that homosexuality is a different animal, because in that case there are clear condemnations of it. I guess you could argue that the biblical writers such as Paul were just wrong in their condemnation of it, but that seems to be a slippery slope to me (I know the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy--nonetheless, I think in this case it is a valid concern).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not reversing my position, I'm still in favor of gay marriage. I just have a hard time understanding how a Christian could do that while simultaneously maintaining a generally traditional or orthodox outlook. I don't deny the orthodoxy of those who hold to such a position, I just haven't yet wrapped my head completely around it.

My understanding is that there will be no giving in marriage in heaven - no weddings - but that those who were married on earth will still recognize the bond they had.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #736 on: November 09, 2009, 06:06:13 AM »

Liz,

But wouldn't the context in Matt. 22 seem to indicate that it also means that whatever earthly marital connections we had will no longer apply? That's the way I read it, anyway...

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." - Matt. 22:23-33

Isn't the issue that Jesus is addressing what relationship couples who were married in this life will have in the afterlife? Though I guess if we retain our identity/personality/memories in an afterlife, marriage would be a significant aspect to suddenly lose, so I dunno, maybe you're right. Smiley Anyway...
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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 #737 on: November 09, 2009, 06:13:54 AM »

A good point  Smiley but is that a cultural custom, or a point of morality? Is there a difference?
Some morality is cultural, and some is "absolute" I think. For instance, women covering their heads in worship is cultural, but bayoneting babies is wrong no matter what. How do we know that the Apostolic command that "women should keep silence in Church" is cultural or absolute? Ultimately, the Church is the one to decide, and I don't think that is about her authority to bind and loose, but rather, her authority to "rightly divide the word of Truth" under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Church could never say under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that bayoneting babies is perfectly good and acceptable behaviour even though there are Scripture passages which say things like "Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock." (Psalm 136:9 LXX) This is because, outside of the Church, Scripture is meaningless. Scripture came out of the Church, not the other way around.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #738 on: November 09, 2009, 06:18:51 AM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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 #739 on: November 09, 2009, 06:33:35 AM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"
Hasn't the Church, in a Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, already spoken about abstaining from eating blood and strangled animals?
What about blood sausage (or black pudding)? How do Christians know that the poultry they are eating was not killed by wringing its neck?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #740 on: November 09, 2009, 06:41:42 AM »

Quote
Hasn't the Church, in a Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, already spoken about abstaining from eating blood and strangled animals? What about blood sausage (or black pudding)? How do Christians know that the poultry they are eating was not killed by wringing its neck?

But I would think that such things are allowed by economia, and not as a matter of officially reversing a decision of the Apostles themselves. Though I could be wrong. In any event, I'm not sure that I see the connection between what you said and what I asked...?
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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 #741 on: November 09, 2009, 06:59:30 AM »

But I would think that such things are allowed by economia, and not as a matter of officially reversing a decision of the Apostles themselves.Though I could be wrong.
I'm not sure that even a decree of an Ecumenical Council on a moral issue or an issue of praxis is in fact "immutable". A council of equal authority could in fact reverse it- for example, an Ecumenical Council has the authority to permit Bishops to marry.

In any event, I'm not sure that I see the connection between what you said and what I asked...?
What I meant was that everyone is sure what the "Church teaches" about homosexuality, and all they quote is Scripture. We have quoted Scripture in this conversation, both Old & New Testament, and these quotes don't seem to have the authority of a decree or Canon of an Ecumenical Council. So where is this "official teaching of the Church" about homosexuality?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #742 on: November 09, 2009, 07:11:27 AM »

Liz,

But wouldn't the context in Matt. 22 seem to indicate that it also means that whatever earthly marital connections we had will no longer apply? That's the way I read it, anyway...

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." - Matt. 22:23-33

Isn't the issue that Jesus is addressing what relationship couples who were married in this life will have in the afterlife? Though I guess if we retain our identity/personality/memories in an afterlife, marriage would be a significant aspect to suddenly lose, so I dunno, maybe you're right. Smiley Anyway...

I think the point being made in the longer quotation is that we don't know the power of God, so we can't tell which (if any) of the hypothetical seven marriages was a true bond, or how we will understand this bond after death.

Personally, my impression would be that marriage on earth is a 'little church' that helps us to love each other in such a way that we become closer to God, so perhaps after resurrection we will simply be able to love all other resurrected souls with the same love that ends in God?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #743 on: November 09, 2009, 07:13:35 AM »

Quote
I'm not sure that even a decree of an Ecumenical Council on a moral issue or an issue of praxis is in fact "immutable". A council of equal authority could in fact reverse it- for example, an Ecumenical Council has the authority to permit Bishops to marry...

What I meant was that everyone is sure what the "Church teaches" about homosexuality, and all they quote is Scripture. We have quoted Scripture in this conversation, both Old & New Testament, and these quotes don't seem to have the authority of a decree or Canon of an Ecumenical Council. So where is this "official teaching of the Church" about homosexuality?

I'm not sure that most Orthodox would agree with you that you need a decree from an Ecumenical Council to verify that something is wrong. I think most would take the word of Scripture as verification enough, unless the Church decided to make a change to the apparent Scriptural view (as with divorce or slavery). As far as where the official teaching came from, don't Orthodox theologians often refer to the admittedly nebulous "mind of the Fathers"? Doesn't the condemnation in Scripture + the condemnation by early Church Fathers + the condemnation by more modern Saints = an official teaching? I mean, I'm not aware of any Orthodox voices through the centuries, prior to the very late 20th or early 21st century, who said "Hey, wait a second, maybe Paul was wrong about homosexuality".
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #744 on: November 09, 2009, 07:16:34 AM »

Liz,

Fair enough, that may very well be correct. I'm agnostic as to the existence of an afterlife, but the way you describe it sounds like it would be quite nice if it turns out to be like that. Well, maybe not for me, lol, I guess we'll see.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 07:17:16 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
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 #745 on: November 09, 2009, 07:23:25 AM »

I'm not aware of any Orthodox voices through the centuries, prior to the very late 20th or early 21st century, who said "Hey, wait a second, maybe Paul was wrong about homosexuality".
Which Orthodox voices condemned the practice of slavery prior to the 18th century?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #746 on: November 09, 2009, 07:34:41 AM »

I don't have their names at hand, but there were Christians who both bought slaves so as to free them, and also condemned the practice, in the early Church and middle ages. I remember reading about such Christians in the book A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan. That book was about, fittingly enough, the idea that Christian morality can evolve and change. And the main argument he uses to evidence the idea that morality can evolve is the way that the Christian views of slavery in general changed over the centuries. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview of the book, and I gave my copy away to a friend years ago. Certainly I would agree that the majority of Christians before the 18th/19th centuries were not opposed to slavery, or leastwise saw it as a necessary evil.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 07:37:25 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #747 on: November 09, 2009, 07:41:07 AM »

I don't have their names at hand, but there were Christians who both bought slaves so as to free them, and also condemned the practice, in the early Church and middle ages. I remember reading about such Christians in the book A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan. That book was about, fittingly enough, the idea that Christian morality can evolve and change. And the main argument he uses to evidence the idea that morality can evolve is the way that the Christian views of slavery in general changed over the centuries. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview of the book, and I gave my copy away to a friend years ago.

I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things.

I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #748 on: November 09, 2009, 07:59:53 AM »

Quote
I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things. I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.

You may be correct on what you are saying about the slavery example. I'm going to have to think that one over some more. However, with the suicide example, I'm not sure exactly how far attitudes have changed. My own position is that no suicide can possibly be considered a sin, because the very act of committing suicide indicates a high degree of mental instability. I say that not to ridicule, but as someone who has been in that position in his life, and someone who believes that for you to get worked up to that point that you'd kill yourself your mind has to be in a very unhealthy place. However, I have my doubts about how many Orthodox have changed their views of suicide compared to more traditional views. For example, on this board, even in the prayer forum, you can still see people asking God to forgive the sin of a suicide victim. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and many have a different view.
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,291



« Reply #749 on: November 09, 2009, 11:55:20 AM »

I suppose my issue is with the idea that people should try to be what they aren't.

I thought the whole point of theosis and indeed Christianity was that we should try to be what we aren't. We should strive to be better than we are.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,847



« Reply #750 on: November 09, 2009, 11:59:52 AM »

Quote
I thought the whole point of theosis and indeed Christianity was that we should try to be what we aren't. We should strive to be better than we are.

I'm sure that I would probably be more open to the transformative power of the Christian God if I were a Christian Smiley
Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #751 on: November 09, 2009, 12:56:10 PM »

Quote
I wonder if that isn't a different situation, though? I mean, consensus that slavery is perfectly acceptable isn't the same as a requirement that everyone must own slaves. You could argue that it's a bit like fasting laws: no one is likely to condemn you for eating fish on Friday, but nevertheless some people choose not to do so. In contrast, if there is a consensus that homosexual acts/marriage are wrong, it is tantamount to a requirement that no-one must engage in these things. I think the argument Heorhji usually puts forward re. the changing attitudes towards suicide are a better example.

You may be correct on what you are saying about the slavery example. I'm going to have to think that one over some more. However, with the suicide example, I'm not sure exactly how far attitudes have changed. My own position is that no suicide can possibly be considered a sin, because the very act of committing suicide indicates a high degree of mental instability. I say that not to ridicule, but as someone who has been in that position in his life, and someone who believes that for you to get worked up to that point that you'd kill yourself your mind has to be in a very unhealthy place. However, I have my doubts about how many Orthodox have changed their views of suicide compared to more traditional views. For example, on this board, even in the prayer forum, you can still see people asking God to forgive the sin of a suicide victim. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and many have a different view.

In Japan suicide is tied to personal honor. It has nothing to do with mental instability.

Or how about the person facing a slow degenerative death? They are making a rational choice that you may not agree with, but it is certainly is not the product of mental illness.

But on the other hand, there is far more mental illness om the population than people know about . The state of Mental Health Services in this country is practically criminal.. Mental illness is still taboo..Don't get me started.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #752 on: November 09, 2009, 01:07:52 PM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"

But the Church already accepts and does not condemn same sex attraction. My goodness, we are currently upholding Fr. Seraphim Rose as an example of piety and the Christian Life, a candidate for Sainthood whom we all know was a Homosexual... It doesn't matter one wit.

So the question really isn't about same sex attraction at all. It's about fornication and controlling the passions..

Nearly half of all Roman Catholic Priests are thought to be Gay. But the Gay Movement has no organic connection with these men because it is a strictly secular movement that seeks to legitimize one particular way of life, not Homosexuality itself.  
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 01:29:21 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #753 on: November 09, 2009, 01:09:16 PM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"

But the Church already accepts and does not condemn same sex attraction. My goodness, we are currently upholding Fr. Seraphim Rose as an example of piety and the Christian Life, a candidate for Sainthood whom we all know was a Homosexual... It doesn't matter one wit.

So the question really isn't about same sex attraction at all. It's about fornication and controlling the passions..

Nearly half of all Roman Catholic Priests are thought to bed Gay. But the Gay Movement has no organic connection with these men because it is a strictly secular movement that seeks to legitimize one particular way of life, not Homosexuality itself.  

Thought by whom? 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #754 on: November 09, 2009, 01:10:23 PM »

Can I ask a terminology question? Is the Gay Movement in the US something like Stonewall here in Britain?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,821


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #755 on: November 09, 2009, 01:27:47 PM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"

But the Church already accepts and does not condemn same sex attraction. My goodness, we are currently upholding Fr. Seraphim Rose as an example of piety and the Christian Life, a candidate for Sainthood whom we all know was a Homosexual... It doesn't matter one wit.

So the question really isn't about same sex attraction at all. It's about fornication and controlling the passions..

Nearly half of all Roman Catholic Priests are thought to bed Gay. But the Gay Movement has no organic connection with these men because it is a strictly secular movement that seeks to legitimize one particular way of life, not Homosexuality itself.  

Thought by whom? 


http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/dec/02121806.html


http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C5976
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #756 on: November 09, 2009, 01:37:04 PM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"

But the Church already accepts and does not condemn same sex attraction. My goodness, we are currently upholding Fr. Seraphim Rose as an example of piety and the Christian Life, a candidate for Sainthood whom we all know was a Homosexual... It doesn't matter one wit.

So the question really isn't about same sex attraction at all. It's about fornication and controlling the passions..

Nearly half of all Roman Catholic Priests are thought to be Gay. But the Gay Movement has no organic connection with these men because it is a strictly secular movement that seeks to legitimize one particular way of life, not Homosexuality itself. 

Ok, so, the first thing that came up when I searched for 'Gay Movement' was 'The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement', which is obviously not secular. Everything else seemed to be talking about gay rights in general. So I'm not sure if the capitals are merely for emphasis, to suggest a bogus solidarity of Gay People United Against Us?
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 #757 on: November 09, 2009, 02:13:59 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
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.”
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #758 on: November 09, 2009, 02:19:41 PM »

A good answer, I admit. However, hasn't the Church then already spoken regarding homosexuality? I mean, if it's going to change, how long will it take to get it right, in your opinion? I suppose you would consider it inevitable, but it's been nearly 2,000 years already. "How long, O Lord?"

But the Church already accepts and does not condemn same sex attraction. My goodness, we are currently upholding Fr. Seraphim Rose as an example of piety and the Christian Life, a candidate for Sainthood whom we all know was a Homosexual... It doesn't matter one wit.

So the question really isn't about same sex attraction at all. It's about fornication and controlling the passions..

Nearly half of all Roman Catholic Priests are thought to bed Gay. But the Gay Movement has no organic connection with these men because it is a strictly secular movement that seeks to legitimize one particular way of life, not Homosexuality itself.  

Thought by whom? 


http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/dec/02121806.html


http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C5976

Nice way to link to one source three different ways in order to make it seem like you actually had three sources.

I have not read Rose in full (I've read some excerpts) and, while I agree with his major premise that Roman Catholic seminaries have created a monster, it is my understanding that he relies more on anecdotal evidence than actual statistical analysis.  In short, this guy has an agenda and will use anecdotes as statistics to bolster his argument.  I have no doubt that there is a sizeable portion of the Roman Catholic priesthood that has homosexual tendencies.  I do, however, take umbrage with anyone saying "nearly half" and using one source to back up that claim.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #759 on: November 09, 2009, 02:20:24 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
DISCLAIMER: I AM DEFEDNIG THE EO Church on this matther.

I really don't think that the EO Church will go down the Anglican path on this matter. Opposing homosexual sex is very strongly entrenched in her Tradition.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #760 on: November 09, 2009, 02:21:47 PM »

I have no doubt that there is a sizeable portion of the Roman Catholic priesthood that has homosexual tendencies. 
Some have suggested that some homosexuals become priests because "the Church requires them to be celibate anyway, so why not become a priest?"
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,291



« Reply #761 on: November 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM »

And what will you do with the next group, Polygamists, that say their form of marriage is very nurturing, good for kids and part of their religion to boot.

Yes, where do we get the notion that monogamy is the best and only form of Christian marriage? Why not polygamy? Or better yet, polyandry! I could use a couple of more husbands myself, particularly a handyman and an auto mechanic.
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
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 #762 on: November 09, 2009, 02:31:05 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
DISCLAIMER: I AM DEFEDNIG THE EO Church on this matther.

I really don't think that the EO Church will go down the Anglican path on this matter. Opposing homosexual sex is very strongly entrenched in her Tradition.

Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'. This to me is a death sentence. Remember, in Orthodoxy if the 'people' reject the hierarchy then the hierarchy has no power.
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.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #763 on: November 09, 2009, 02:36:48 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
DISCLAIMER: I AM DEFEDNIG THE EO Church on this matther.

I really don't think that the EO Church will go down the Anglican path on this matter. Opposing homosexual sex is very strongly entrenched in her Tradition.

Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'. This to me is a death sentence. Remember, in Orthodoxy if the 'people' reject the hierarchy then the hierarchy has no power.
We have similar problems with liberal in our own communion. Yet our Church stands firm on the truth on this matter. Can the EO Church not do the same?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 #764 on: November 09, 2009, 02:40:11 PM »

Grace and Peace,

This thread is telling as to what will happen once Orthodoxy comes into direct contact with secular moral criticism... it will cave.

Not one seminarian, not one Priest on this site has stepped up to offer sound spiritual advice. Where is our Spiritual Fathers at when they are needed?

I can tell you if this is the direction Orthodoxy will take on this subject I foresee schisms just like is happening with the Anglican Communion and along similiar lines (active Gay and lesbian clergy).

Disappointing
DISCLAIMER: I AM DEFEDNIG THE EO Church on this matther.

I really don't think that the EO Church will go down the Anglican path on this matter. Opposing homosexual sex is very strongly entrenched in her Tradition.

Perhaps 'you' are defending the EO Church but it appears the 'actual' EO Church Laity are voicing quite another agenda. I don't see many here respecting her Traditions nor the Sacred Scriptures. I see very weak 'liberal' protexting for shaping the moral teachings of our Faith to the 'current of the day'. This to me is a death sentence. Remember, in Orthodoxy if the 'people' reject the hierarchy then the hierarchy has no power.
We have similar problems with liberal in our own communion. Yet our Church stands firm on the truth on this matter. Can the EO Church not do the same?

I'm not sure with their unique Ecclesiology (of the people).
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.”
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 0.167 seconds with 74 queries.