OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 05:06:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
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 69825 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #900 on: November 16, 2009, 04:06:33 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.
Are counselors allowed to cause emotional harm in your world view?

Are they allowed to? As in should they be immune to threats of violence from the state for causing emotional harm? Of course. Is it professional and should a licensing body give its approval to such a counselor? Of course not. Do you honestly believe that we are incapable of functioning as human beings unless the state legislates every last detail of our daily existence?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #901 on: November 16, 2009, 04:07:48 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.
Are counselors allowed to cause emotional harm in your world view?

Are they allowed to? As in should they be immune to threats of violence from the state for causing emotional harm? Of course. Is it professional and should a licensing body give its approval to such a counselor? Of course not. Do you honestly believe that we are incapable of functioning as human beings unless the state legislates every last detail of our daily existence?
Of course not. I am just trying to determine what is and is not protected by your "secular state".
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 04:08:06 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #902 on: November 16, 2009, 04:09:02 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,088


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #903 on: November 16, 2009, 04:14:42 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
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: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #904 on: November 16, 2009, 04:17:19 PM »

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.
I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

I have no doubt that he has no trouble at all. 
Why?

Because I know quite a number of women who think like he does. 

To paraphrase a Mae West quote GiC used to use, if that shocks you, you really do need to get out more Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #905 on: November 16, 2009, 04:19:32 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,088


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #906 on: November 16, 2009, 04:54:31 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

Okay, story time:

Some many years ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant close to Capitol Hill. We noticed a woman's purse in the road just in front of our parked car. We took it off the road and looked around for the owner. Nobody, was there. So we looked inside of it and found the usual stuff incling a drivers Lic. and credentials for Montecello.

We eventually contacted the Woman who turned out to be one of the Curators of Jefferson's home outside of Charlettsville VA."Monticello"

She was very very thankful and said that if we got down that way she would take us on a private tour and even show us  stuff in storage that normal tourists never get to see.

To make a long story short, we went there and got to handle all kinds of President Jefferson's belongings ( we had to wear white gloves).. I held his razor and we saw all kinds of little Nick knack inventions.. He was quite a man. A genius in the way a nerdy Rocket Scientist Engineer is today, I believe.. I prefer John Adams myself, but Jefferson was quite the full package.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #907 on: November 16, 2009, 05:16:54 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.
So, if I reject Jesus' divinity, and yet follow Jesus' ethical code, I am a Christian?
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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #908 on: November 16, 2009, 05:24:22 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Do tell the courts that you have abolished distress from the common law. I guess duress has to go too: all contracts are valid, no matter the gun to your head.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 05:25:19 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #909 on: November 16, 2009, 05:36:06 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

Okay, story time:

Some many years ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant close to Capitol Hill. We noticed a woman's purse in the road just in front of our parked car. We took it off the road and looked around for the owner. Nobody, was there. So we looked inside of it and found the usual stuff incling a drivers Lic. and credentials for Montecello.

We eventually contacted the Woman who turned out to be one of the Curators of Jefferson's home outside of Charlettsville VA."Monticello"

She was very very thankful and said that if we got down that way she would take us on a private tour and even show us  stuff in storage that normal tourists never get to see.

To make a long story short, we went there and got to handle all kinds of President Jefferson's belongings ( we had to wear white gloves).. I held his razor and we saw all kinds of little Nick knack inventions.. He was quite a man. A genius in the way a nerdy Rocket Scientist Engineer is today, I believe.. I prefer John Adams myself, but Jefferson was quite the full package.

Well, I'm not going to impose my definitions of your religion on you. So if you insist that Jefferson was a Christian, ok. In that case, I just wish more Christians could be like him and that his form of Christianity rather than the more traditional forms would influence our political thought. He was certainly a deist and believed in some 'first cause' and he respected the teachings of Jesus, at least the ones he kept after going through and editing the gospels. He certainly didn't buy the virgin birth, resurrection, or even the divinity of Christ...though he thought Jesus was a great philosopher.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #910 on: November 16, 2009, 06:03:55 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.

Okay, story time:

Some many years ago my wife and I were leaving a restaurant close to Capitol Hill. We noticed a woman's purse in the road just in front of our parked car. We took it off the road and looked around for the owner. Nobody, was there. So we looked inside of it and found the usual stuff incling a drivers Lic. and credentials for Montecello.

We eventually contacted the Woman who turned out to be one of the Curators of Jefferson's home outside of Charlettsville VA."Monticello"

She was very very thankful and said that if we got down that way she would take us on a private tour and even show us  stuff in storage that normal tourists never get to see.

To make a long story short, we went there and got to handle all kinds of President Jefferson's belongings ( we had to wear white gloves).. I held his razor and we saw all kinds of little Nick knack inventions.. He was quite a man. A genius in the way a nerdy Rocket Scientist Engineer is today, I believe.. I prefer John Adams myself, but Jefferson was quite the full package.

Well, I'm not going to impose my definitions of your religion on you. So if you insist that Jefferson was a Christian, ok. In that case, I just wish more Christians could be like him and that his form of Christianity rather than the more traditional forms would influence our political thought. He was certainly a deist and believed in some 'first cause' and he respected the teachings of Jesus, at least the ones he kept after going through and editing the gospels. He certainly didn't buy the virgin birth, resurrection, or even the divinity of Christ...though he thought Jesus was a great philosopher.

To be honest, I care a great deal less about whether or not Jefferson were a Christian (and for once, it's me asking if we've not strayed off topic), than I do about this idea that emotional distress 'doesn't count'.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,088


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #911 on: November 16, 2009, 10:50:26 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.

We're not talking about the founding fathers here, we're talking about the tradition of English liberty. Yes, the American founding fathers borrowed them and one founding father (Thomas Paine) was a primary contributor to this school of thought, but while the groups may overlap in places they are not the same.

However, earlier you made the same claim about the founding fathers, that they were Diests trying to replace Christianity with these newer idea's of the "Enlightenment".

Thomas Jefferson:

 “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

You are familiar with Jefferson's theology, right?

Yes, that is why I chose quotes from him, he is closest to your idea's but yet still a Christian, as I have just shown.
So, if I reject Jesus' divinity, and yet follow Jesus' ethical code, I am a Christian?

It's better than a sharp stick in the eye...

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #912 on: December 21, 2009, 11:14:49 PM »

Any updates on the "Gay Conference"?

Have Moscow or Constantinople said anything?

"A REPORT ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY DEBATE
IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF FINLAND"


COMPILED IN AUTUMN 2009 AD BY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF SAINT KOSMAS OF AITOLIA, JOENSUU FINLAND


http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf

Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #913 on: December 22, 2009, 12:28:31 AM »

"A REPORT ON THE HOMOSEXUALITY DEBATE
IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF FINLAND"


COMPILED IN AUTUMN 2009 AD BY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF SAINT KOSMAS OF AITOLIA, JOENSUU FINLAND


http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf

Thanks for posting this.  I just read the whole thing.  May the Lord Jesus Christ guide the Church of Finland into truth.
Logged
Vlad
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox, Greek Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 405



« Reply #914 on: December 22, 2009, 01:28:43 AM »

Weird. May the Lord guide the Finnish Church back to Christianity.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 01:39:34 AM by Vlad » Logged
Vlad
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox, Greek Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 405



« Reply #915 on: December 22, 2009, 01:29:59 AM »

Looks like us Orthodox have our own weirdo Episcopal style Church. Is this normal for Orthodoxy? Since I am still rather new I really dont know.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 01:38:59 AM by Vlad » Logged
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #916 on: December 22, 2009, 01:53:15 AM »

May the Finnish Orthodox Church be placed under the guidance of a strong Patriarch.  (I know they are currently autocephalous.)
Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #917 on: December 22, 2009, 06:24:59 AM »

Thank you Irish Hermit for that link.

Vlad, I would urge you to keep in mind that the loud minority wishing to reinterpret historical teaching does not represent a majority consensus.

ms.hoorah, The Finnish Orthodox Church is not autocephalous it is autonomous under the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #918 on: December 22, 2009, 07:18:18 AM »

Looks like us Orthodox have our own weirdo Episcopal style Church.
Thanks for the inspiration.

Vlad, I would urge you to keep in mind that the loud minority wishing to reinterpret historical teaching does not represent a majority consensus.
Nah, facts are boring. It's much more satisfying to label things with groundless but arousing claims.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 07:32:07 AM by Alpo » 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 #919 on: December 22, 2009, 07:33:49 AM »

Thanks for the inspiration.
LOL! Cheesy I love the new jurisdiction!
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox, Greek Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 405



« Reply #920 on: December 22, 2009, 09:21:25 PM »


Nah, facts are boring. It's much more satisfying to label things with groundless but arousing claims.

You may note once you get over your condescension that in my post I asked if this was normal.
Logged
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #921 on: December 23, 2009, 12:19:18 AM »

I may have missed a post, but how is this conference/viewpoint being received in the Finnish Church among the clergy and laity in general? If it goes forward, might there be a major schism in Finland?
Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #922 on: December 23, 2009, 12:38:42 AM »

Irish Hermit - Fr. Bless, 
Being a member of the clergy, you would be the person to ask...So when and where does the line in the sand get drawn? How can Orthodoxy seperate Herself from this scurge?
I mean, does the EP need to write an official document stating seperation and Anathemas against certain persons and heresies, or what's the official red-tape we're waiting for?

sorry - it's like I just found a termite infestation in my house. Just want it gone.
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #923 on: December 23, 2009, 12:53:05 AM »

Irish Hermit - Fr. Bless, 
Being a member of the clergy, you would be the person to ask...So when and where does the line in the sand get drawn? How can Orthodoxy seperate Herself from this scurge?
I mean, does the EP need to write an official document stating seperation and Anathemas against certain persons and heresies, or what's the official red-tape we're waiting for?

I would think that Robert expresses it well, "... keep in mind that the loud minority wishing to reinterpret historical teaching does not represent a majority consensus."

So we may hope that the majority of the Church in Finland, probably allied with a few nudges from other Orthodox Churches especially the Russian, will be sufficient to keep the Church of Finland on an even keel morally.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #924 on: December 23, 2009, 12:58:02 AM »

Looks like us Orthodox have our own weirdo Episcopal style Church. Is this normal for Orthodoxy? Since I am still rather new I really dont know.

Sigh.  They're still human beings and is it necessary to introduce cracks about other Churches, please?   Sad

And just as Robert W wrote about the EO in Finland, Anglicans aren't all the same.  Going by who is reported on in the news doesn't cover much of the people in a Church. 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
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 #925 on: December 23, 2009, 01:03:44 AM »

Going by who is reported on in the news doesn't cover much of the people in a Church. 
But it makes good gossip.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #926 on: December 23, 2009, 01:10:38 AM »

Going by who is reported on in the news doesn't cover much of the people in a Church. 
But it makes good gossip.

Is there ever such a thing as "good" gossip? 

 Undecided

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #927 on: December 23, 2009, 06:54:04 AM »

You may note once you get over your condescension that in my post I asked if this was normal.
And before asking you compared my Church with a denomination whose bishops are rejecting resurrection etc. and asked Lord to guide us back to Christianity. Yep, just an innocent question. That's pretty much like asking have you stopped beating your wife.

But I wouldn't like to argue about thist just before our wrong calendarist Feast of the Nativity. Sorry if I was being disrespectful. May Lord have mercy on the Finnish Church and on us all.
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 #928 on: December 23, 2009, 07:14:37 AM »

You may note once you get over your condescension that in my post I asked if this was normal.
And before asking you compared my Church with a denomination whose bishops are rejecting resurrection etc. and asked Lord to guide us back to Christianity. Yep, just an innocent question. That's pretty much like asking have you stopped beating your wife.

But I wouldn't like to argue about thist just before our wrong calendarist Feast of the Nativity. Sorry if I was being disrespectful. May Lord have mercy on the Finnish Church and on us all.
Never fear Alpo. The Russian Church will keep you guys on track.....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #929 on: December 23, 2009, 01:58:37 PM »

Irish Hermit - Fr. Bless, 
Being a member of the clergy, you would be the person to ask...So when and where does the line in the sand get drawn? How can Orthodoxy seperate Herself from this scurge?
I mean, does the EP need to write an official document stating seperation and Anathemas against certain persons and heresies, or what's the official red-tape we're waiting for?

sorry - it's like I just found a termite infestation in my house. Just want it gone.

Don't hold your breath...Constantinople hasn't issued an Anathema since 1872.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #930 on: December 23, 2009, 01:59:37 PM »

You may note once you get over your condescension that in my post I asked if this was normal.
And before asking you compared my Church with a denomination whose bishops are rejecting resurrection etc. and asked Lord to guide us back to Christianity. Yep, just an innocent question. That's pretty much like asking have you stopped beating your wife.

But I wouldn't like to argue about thist just before our wrong calendarist Feast of the Nativity. Sorry if I was being disrespectful. May Lord have mercy on the Finnish Church and on us all.
Never fear Alpo. The Russian Church will keep you guys on track.....

LMAO!
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Theoprovlitos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 94


« Reply #931 on: December 23, 2009, 02:06:03 PM »

At last, 7 months after the original post where I have been scorned, warned etc at last I am justified.

These documents have been sent to both EP and MP. So far we do not know their responce.

As to the Finnish Church they are sinking from bad to worse as long as bishop Ambrosius remains in his place.

His latest news (after the freemason-Orthodoxy approach conference, and the Christian gay conference now is Yoga seminary "The yoga of truth" from a gourou in the Orthodox Centre of Helsinki 'Sofia'!

http://www.lansirannikonjoogakerho.com/documents/Marchand-esite.pdf

What can one say? And OF COURSE they are in communion with the Swedish Lutheran church that now blesses gay marriages.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #932 on: December 23, 2009, 02:17:21 PM »

At last, 7 months after the original post where I have been scorned, warned etc at last I am justified.

Yes, you have been justified and when I posted this latest document I was thinking of you and all the scorn you had unjustly borne.

Fr Ambrose

Logged
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #933 on: December 23, 2009, 02:25:40 PM »

Irish Hermit - Fr. Bless, 
Being a member of the clergy, you would be the person to ask...So when and where does the line in the sand get drawn? How can Orthodoxy seperate Herself from this scurge?
I mean, does the EP need to write an official document stating seperation and Anathemas against certain persons and heresies, or what's the official red-tape we're waiting for?

sorry - it's like I just found a termite infestation in my house. Just want it gone.

Don't hold your breath...Constantinople hasn't issued an Anathema since 1872.
thanks for the reassurance GiC. I can always count on you buddy. Wink
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Theoprovlitos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 94


« Reply #934 on: December 23, 2009, 02:36:24 PM »

Thank you Fr Ambrose,

My point was not really to be justified after all, but when the church is at risk and somebody is calling for help you just hear what he has to say. Imagine if someone run away from an abusive  cult and turned to the police to ask for help and the police would call him a lier demanding him for more and more proofs so that they might intervene.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #935 on: December 23, 2009, 02:41:01 PM »

Irish Hermit - Fr. Bless, 
Being a member of the clergy, you would be the person to ask...So when and where does the line in the sand get drawn? How can Orthodoxy seperate Herself from this scurge?
I mean, does the EP need to write an official document stating seperation and Anathemas against certain persons and heresies, or what's the official red-tape we're waiting for?

sorry - it's like I just found a termite infestation in my house. Just want it gone.

Don't hold your breath...Constantinople hasn't issued an Anathema since 1872.
thanks for the reassurance GiC. I can always count on you buddy. Wink

Any time, glad I could help. Grin

And since I've been so helpful thus far, the Anathema issued in 1872 was in direct response to a threat against its territorial jurisdiction by the Church of Bulgaria. So, unless Finland sets up a parallel bishopric in Constantinople, they're probably safe. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #936 on: December 23, 2009, 02:50:02 PM »

Thank you Fr Ambrose,

My point was not really to be justified after all, but when the church is at risk and somebody is calling for help you just hear what he has to say. Imagine if someone run away from an abusive  cult and turned to the police to ask for help and the police would call him a lier demanding him for more and more proofs so that they might intervene.

Seriously? You're comparing the members of this forum to the police? Who here do you seriously think has any influence, much less, authority over the Archbishop of Karelia and the Oecumenical Patriarch in these matters?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #937 on: December 23, 2009, 03:24:15 PM »

And OF COURSE they are in communion with the Swedish Lutheran church that now blesses gay marriages.

Is this official?  Can you substantiate this?

Just to be clear, I do not necessarily think that you are lying, as much of this has been proven in the report, I was just looking for your source.

Alpo, I'm personally glad to have someone from the Finnish church on here.  It is one of my many travelling dreams to one day come to Finland and while there see some great Finnish metal and attend a liturgy.  Are your services is Finnish or Church Slavonic?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 03:25:14 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #938 on: December 23, 2009, 04:20:41 PM »

Alpo, I'm personally glad to have someone from the Finnish church on here.
Well I'm quite recent convert so I don't know much. Fortunately we have also Robert W, CRCulver, theoforos (and St. Kosmas' Brotherhood) even though they does not seem to be as addicted to OCnet as I. Tongue

Quote
It is one of my many travelling dreams to one day come to Finland and while there see some great Finnish metal and attend a liturgy.
Tervetuloa i.e. welcome! You might want to attend Tuska festival at some point.

Quote
Are your services is Finnish or Church Slavonic?
In Finnish normally but there are occasional services in Church Slavonic in many parishes. Furthermore there are three churches in Helsinki i.e. the capital of Finland whose services are always in Slavonic.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 04:21:14 PM by Alpo » Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #939 on: December 24, 2009, 01:38:34 AM »

Tervetuloa i.e. welcome!

I really want to see this in person:

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #940 on: December 24, 2009, 01:47:42 AM »

That's an awesome looking building  Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #941 on: December 24, 2009, 02:02:00 AM »

Tervetuloa i.e. welcome!

I really want to see this in person:



be in shape for the climb up. I seem to remember it being quite a few steps.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #942 on: December 24, 2009, 02:28:02 AM »

I just found this video of the cathedral done by some sort of Protestant pastor with plenty of his own negative commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWuaKMoawQ0&feature=related
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #943 on: December 24, 2009, 05:29:23 AM »

That's the first Orthodox church I've ever visited. The echo blurred singing of the choir and there didn't seem to be any logic in the order of the service. I recall being pleased though that nobody seemed to worship the Mother of God. Tongue
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 05:32:05 AM by Alpo » Logged

Theoprovlitos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 94


« Reply #944 on: December 24, 2009, 07:02:44 AM »

Inform the Archbishop about the bishop? You think he doesn't know? They got dozens of complaints and instead they were covering up the whole thing and sensored those who protest. The leader of the heresy send even the police to someone's home to threaten him for 'talking negatively against him.' They only thing that could make these guys slow down is global awareness. Not that they will feel any fear or shame but they will have to slow down.

When the orthodox priest Heikki Huttunen with the blessings of the Orthodox Church represents ALL churhces as the secretary of the Ecumenical Counsil in Finland and speaks on BEHALF of the Lutheran Church of Finland too which IS in communion with the Swedish church, and actually leaders of the Finnish Lutheran Church work with Huttunen so that ecclesiastical gay marriages will be introduced in the Finnsh churches obviously they are in communion.

One does not have to proof that they ARE but that they are NOT. Because their being in communion is an official and obvious fact that cannot be denied.

In Oulu they are doing a self made up Ecumenical Liturgy.

http://www.aamunkoitto.fi/pages/kirkon-kentaellae/ekumeenisia-palveluksia-oulussa.php

Thank God there is google translalte so that you can check yourself in case someone will call me a lier but I edited it a bit


______
Oulu Orthodox parish vicar Raimo Kiiskinen will retire early next year.

- The Church is active, viable and vibrant, "says Raimo father serving in Oulu, vicar for 17 years.

When he launched early next year moves to enjoy a well-deserved retirement dates, will mark the 40 years after he was ordained a priest.

- Church buildings are in good shape, as well as economic. Will be completed by the end of the year a new parish, the sum of the father Raimo situation.

The congregation also has a good relationship with the city and the university, the Reverend rejoices.

Except the services of a high number of Orthodox, Oulu has already been a dozen years to participate in ecumenical religious services, which are held alternately in the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran church premises. .

Ecumenical service at the features of each Church ritual. Prior to the gospel of incense, musical instruments are used. The framework for the three denominations is the fact that they accept each other's baptism, confession of faith: "I acknowledge one baptism." In the service always participate an the Orthodox, a Catholic and a Lutheran pastor.

Around fifty people loose community broaden the views of other churches and to remove the prejudices which still can occur.

By the way, the source is one of the official Orthodox magazines of Finland who till recently was the headquarters of the gay porpaganda.

Thanks to this awareness and my struggle (along with other people) the gay-married director was at last removed
Logged
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 0.204 seconds with 74 queries.