Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests

[augustin717]

Just for context-in IL "domestic partnership" is not just restricted to gays.  You can put that legal veneer on shacking up as well, which I find an even bigger abomination against marriage.

I know for a fact that shacking up was so common among the poor Romanian peasants that many-at least in my region- wouldn't even bother to get the church crowning done before they had their first child baptized. Then they did it as a prerequisite formality for their offspring's baptism. Was it an abomination? to  I hardly think so.

[ialmisry]

Just for context-in IL "domestic partnership" is not just restricted to gays.  You can put that legal veneer on shacking up as well, which I find an even bigger abomination against marriage.

I know for a fact that shacking up was so common among the poor Romanian peasants that many-at least in my region- wouldn't even bother to get the church crowning done before they had their first child baptized. Then they did it as a prerequisite formality for their offspring's baptism. Was it an abomination? to  I hardly think so.

but then they weren't claiming the benefits of marriage (like inheritance, for instance), or even claiming to be married, now, were they?

For a variety of reasons, I'd have to see some substantiation of your claim.

[augustin717]

What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for?

They do.  I realize it’s a difficult concept to accept, but some of us actually do listen and interact with homosexuals enough to know what they do, when they do it, and why they do it, which in turn helps confirm what we are saying. 

Of course, this doesn’t apply to ALL homosexuals, but to the majority (overwhelmingly) it does apply.  Some of us even get inside scoop from the few homosexuals who can’t stand the way other homosexuals act (always looking for sex, drugs, new partners, sugar daddy, etc. instead of looking for “real” relationships).  We are not ignorant.

Neither am I . Ignorant I mean. You just look to have your prejudices/stereotypes confirmed. I too started adult life with prejudices like yours. But somehow managed to get past them. Hope you'll do too. Homosexuals, like all other human groups whatever come in all sorts of forms. But this is so trite to say that I'll stop here.

[augustin717]

For a variety of reasons, I'd have to see some substantiation of your claim.

Then, I'm afraid, you'll have to go to the villages strewn along the valley of the White Cris (Crisul Alb) and conduct investigations on the ground. I know that area pretty well.

[JamesRottnek]

Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Evidently "we all" don't know that.  There was just a conference of sorts of psychologists meeting on whether to remove pedophilia,oops! "minor attraction" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).  We know who blazed that trail.

But nice try to slip your redefinition of choice by!

Of course, the issue stands on the insistence of your protected perversion to not only drop our stones rather than cast them on their pride parade, but their insistence that we must embrace and celebrate it as "normal."

Adultery is consenting adults having relationships.  Society celebrating that

pushed us down this slope to the abyss.

Actually being attracted to a minor has never been considered a mental disorder.  Nor does pedophilia mean "sexual attraction to a minor."  Pedophilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children in persons aged 16 or older, hebephilia refers to those whose primary or exclusive attraction is to pubescent individuals, ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive attraction to individuals in mid-late adolescence.  The last of these has never been seriously considered by the psychiatric/psychological community for possible inclusion as a mental disorder, and the second has some notable individuals opposed to the idea of it as a pathology, based (largely) on evolutionary and biological bases.  And, no Isa, no serious psychologists or psychiatrists have ever considered actual pedophilia to be normal, in any sense of the term.

[dzheremi]

Sometimes I wonder about people here (and elsewhere in the world) making distinctions because they can and not because they're useful to the discussion. It seems to provide an awful lot of wiggle room in the minds of those who do it.

[ialmisry]

Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Evidently "we all" don't know that.  There was just a conference of sorts of psychologists meeting on whether to remove pedophilia,oops! "minor attraction" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).  We know who blazed that trail.

But nice try to slip your redefinition of choice by!

Of course, the issue stands on the insistence of your protected perversion to not only drop our stones rather than cast them on their pride parade, but their insistence that we must embrace and celebrate it as "normal."

Adultery is consenting adults having relationships.  Society celebrating that

pushed us down this slope to the abyss.

Actually being attracted to a minor has never been considered a mental disorder.  Nor does pedophilia mean "sexual attraction to a minor."  Pedophilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children in persons aged 16 or older, hebephilia refers to those whose primary or exclusive attraction is to pubescent individuals, ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive attraction to individuals in mid-late adolescence.  The last of these has never been seriously considered by the psychiatric/psychological community for possible inclusion as a mental disorder, and the second has some notable individuals opposed to the idea of it as a pathology, based (largely) on evolutionary and biological bases.  And, no Isa, no serious psychologists or psychiatrists have ever considered actual pedophilia to be normal, in any sense of the term.

Haven't work or dealt with a lot of psychologists or psychiatrists I see. For some review:The DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia
Ray Blanchard
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Sex%20and%20GID%20Lit%20Reviews/Paraphilias/DSMV.PEDO.pdf

For a synopsis of DSM and ICD diagnostic criteria (i.e. diagnosis as a mental disorder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Diagnostic_criteria

From the ICD:

F65  DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
G1. Recurrent intense sexual urges and fantasies involving unusual objects or activities.
G2. Acts on the urges or is markedly distressed by them.
G3. The preference has been present for at least six months.
F65.4  Paedophilia 
A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
 
B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a  prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the  child or children in B.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

All the prepubescent children I've known were minors.  "Minor-attraction" was the term of the psychiatrists/psychologists, not mine. Pedophilia works as the term for me.

[JamesRottnek]

I am fairly familiar with the literature on the subject; I'm not at all convinced you are.

[ialmisry]

I am fairly familiar with the literature on the subject; I'm not at all convinced you are.

you seem quite convinced.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Either stay on topic, or start another one please. If we have exhausted the topic, I am going to lock it. Thanks, Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

[Kerdy]

Must be parody. Anyway, we all know that man and little boy love is much, much different than consenting adults having relationships. But nice try!

Perhaps you could explain, in a Christian way, not secular, how they are different.  Secular we all understand, but "biblically" (for lack of a better word), how is it any different than the other? 

Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.  All are sexual sins are perversions and performed by sexual deviants, to include adultery and fornication, for which many of us at one time have fallen into this category.  The only way to shed the stain of this fact is to take up a godly walk, resist the sin, and BE a Christian rather than go through the motions.  Sin is sin, wrong is wrong, evil is evil…period.  I understand each person must battle with their own sins, but battle they must.  I sometimes wonder if the “thorn in the side” was not a sexual, fleshly desire, thus producing the statement men are better off without a woman (unmarried). 

NAMBLA (and its “sister” organization) is a very real and very dangerous organization taking the same steps of the homosexual organizations and using the same arguments.  If society remains unchecked, they also will gain normality in society.  I have been around long enough to remember when people said the same things about homosexuality and were assured of how we were overreacting and it would never get to where it is today.  It is a slow progression.  Even now we have a television show with multiple wives.  Step, by teensy step, they march toward their end goal.  Are we really so blind as not to see this?  The advocates pull at the emotions and heart strings, pleading the case of the down trodden and rejected, but ignored is the fact these same people will speak out against the Charismatics and their emotional cults revealing emotions are not true Christianity. 

I will stop here and step down from my soap box.  The current human condition saddens be greatly.  Those who appease and advocate for sin are held in high regard.  Those who rally against this are deemed haters.  I will never understand.

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?

Before you reply, I ask you to consider all of the arguments made in favor of homosexuality (they have always been here and doing this, etc.) and ask if the same arguments can be made for child molestation (well, the Greeks and Romans did it, etc.).  I say it is no different.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias. Many of the arguments for gay rights also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights. There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.

What else needs to be explained? The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them. I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them. They DO know. Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides. Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.

I'll get back to you, busy right now.

[Andrew Crook]

If I find a woman other than my wife sexually appealing, does this automatically make me an adulterer?  What if I find several women this way, am I an adulterer?  No, not until I entertain these thoughts resulting in an overt action on my part. 

Actually, yes.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If Christians would stop pressuring Congress into making abortions and gay marriage illegal, then they wouldn't be considered hate organizations.  This nation was founded upon secular principles, heavily influenced by both the Church of England and the writings of men such as Thomas Paine who was a Deist.  I'm not calling anyone a "hate group", but I'm just saying -- there's a way to avoid that label.

And why should Christians care what libertine apostates and heathens think of them?

With that "Us vs. Them" mentality, there is no room for conversation.  Stay on topic please..

[Andrew Crook]

Psalm 2, to me at least, seems like a warning to Leaders of nations to conform the law of the land to Gods teachings.

In that case we would all be Torah-observant.  But then that's where you might step in and say, "That was the Old Testament.. this is the New"

[Kerdy]

With that "Us vs. Them" mentality, there is no room for conversation.  

I agree 100%.  This mentality is all sorts of wrong.  I will be glad when "they" stop, lest they pave the path for persecution.

[Shiny]

if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with),

Orthodox imperialism eh?

[Kerdy]

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?
 

Absolutely, but you must promise not to quote scripture out of context without reference, like you did here, first.  Otherwise, it will be fruitless.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias.

They are the same, regardless of any bias.  Justifying sinful action and demonizing those who are against this.

Many of the arguments for gay homosexual rights allowances also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights.

Except for the abolition of slavery wasn’t about sexual preference.  And this, although used regularly, is a hideous example.  The women’s rights movement, and its subscribers, know almost nothing of real history (EX: women voted in the 1700’s) and the truth of the matter is, women (and families) have suffered as a result more than people care to admit.  

There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.
 

What you fail to understand, and I could talk for days on this subject but I will not, is the end goal not the small steps, is what is envisioned by the proponents.  Small steps, like former VP’s telling kids they have to educate their parents, making children sexualized in the public square (television) ever so slightly, little by little, giving children more and more authority over themselves, etc.  Big picture stuff you will never see until to step back and look at the…big picture.

What else needs to be explained?

Nothing for me, I know what I see.  Besides, the explanations excuses I have seen don’t stand up to the test of reality.

The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them.

And that would be our fault, yes?  In the same way as not telling a person(s) else any other type of sin is wrong because it may hurt their feelings in some small way.

I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them.

No, you are apparently hearing incorrectly.  We are saying they need to know how God feels about what they are doing.  Apparently you missed who I said was deviant.  I invite you to go back and read it again.

They DO know.

They THINK they know.  What they know is propaganda for the most part and like so many others, they fall for it hook, line and sinker.  Usually the result of liking what they hear and feeling better about what they are doing.

Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides.

Or just teens in general.  Most of the problems are family related, not homosexual.  Kids, unfortunately, are pretty dumb overall and don’t understand a lot (how to deal with life and the increasing pressures placed on them), which is why we see kids take their lives early over Facebook posts.  Anything can be the trigger, there is a deeper seeded issue at fault here.

Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.

Or anyone else for that matter.  For example, Christians.  Clubs being shut down in schools, teachers being fired, students being threatened, all targeted without any other group being targeted.  Holidays under attack, churches and Christian symbols being vandalized or destroyed by militant “victims” because they don’t approve of what Christians SAY.  It goes on and on, but of course some people will not see this and understand it for what it is or where it all grows and gets its strength from.  Christianity has a cancer which is eating it from the inside.  It’s called “modernized” Christianity with its “modernized” views.  Political correctness has found a home in the churches.  Folks, in their attempt to appease and make friendly fail to see they set up their own persecution down the road.  It’s all connected.  Cause and effect type stuff, and the only people we have to blame for this predicament is ourselves.  So yes, persecution is coming.  When it arrives, please don't be surprised.

[Kerdy]

if the Church has no right to tell non-Christians what to do (which I disagree with),

Orthodox imperialism eh?

No.  Cherry picking out of context, eh?

[stavros_388]

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

Are you sure you want to bring the Bible into the sphere of secular human rights?
 

Absolutely, but you must promise not to quote scripture out of context without reference, like you did here, first.  Otherwise, it will be fruitless.

Many of the arguments may look similar, depending on one's bias.

They are the same, regardless of any bias.  Justifying sinful action and demonizing those who are against this.

Many of the arguments for gay homosexual rights allowances also resemble those used in the abolishment of slavery and the fight for women's rights.

Except for the abolition of slavery wasn’t about sexual preference.  And this, although used regularly, is a hideous example.  The women’s rights movement, and its subscribers, know almost nothing of real history (EX: women voted in the 1700’s) and the truth of the matter is, women (and families) have suffered as a result more than people care to admit.  

There is a very obvious difference which I fail to understand how people overlook. Homosexuality involves consenting adults. The other (pedophilia) involves sex with minors. Minors are protected by law. Minors are deemed to be too underdeveloped to make informed decisions regarding sex, and rightfully so! Thankfully, our secular laws (unlike Mosaic laws) prevent children from being victimized. You can call this strictly secular, or even unbiblical, if you want to, but I much prefer this to laws that would make kids available to pedophiles.
 

What you fail to understand, and I could talk for days on this subject but I will not, is the end goal not the small steps, is what is envisioned by the proponents.  Small steps, like former VP’s telling kids they have to educate their parents, making children sexualized in the public square (television) ever so slightly, little by little, giving children more and more authority over themselves, etc.  Big picture stuff you will never see until to step back and look at the…big picture.

What else needs to be explained?

Nothing for me, I know what I see.  Besides, the explanations excuses I have seen don’t stand up to the test of reality.

The vast majority of homosexuals probably do not believe that they are being sinful whatsoever for seeking out companionship with another consenting adult in a way that feels natural to them.

And that would be our fault, yes?  In the same way as not telling a person(s) else any other type of sin is wrong because it may hurt their feelings in some small way.

I hear again and again here about how we need these "deviants" to know how we feel about them.

No, you are apparently hearing incorrectly.  We are saying they need to know how God feels about what they are doing.  Apparently you missed who I said was deviant.  I invite you to go back and read it again.

They DO know.

They THINK they know.  What they know is propaganda for the most part and like so many others, they fall for it hook, line and sinker.  Usually the result of liking what they hear and feeling better about what they are doing.

Just look at the statistics of homosexual teen suicides.

Or just teens in general.  Most of the problems are family related, not homosexual.  Kids, unfortunately, are pretty dumb overall and don’t understand a lot (how to deal with life and the increasing pressures placed on them), which is why we see kids take their lives early over Facebook posts.  Anything can be the trigger, there is a deeper seeded issue at fault here.

Familial and societal rejection is nothing new to these people.

Or anyone else for that matter.  For example, Christians.  Clubs being shut down in schools, teachers being fired, students being threatened, all targeted without any other group being targeted.  Holidays under attack, churches and Christian symbols being vandalized or destroyed by militant “victims” because they don’t approve of what Christians SAY.  It goes on and on, but of course some people will not see this and understand it for what it is or where it all grows and gets its strength from.  Christianity has a cancer which is eating it from the inside.  It’s called “modernized” Christianity with its “modernized” views.  Political correctness has found a home in the churches.  Folks, in their attempt to appease and make friendly fail to see they set up their own persecution down the road.  It’s all connected.  Cause and effect type stuff, and the only people we have to blame for this predicament is ourselves.  So yes, persecution is coming.  When it arrives, please don't be surprised.

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

[Kerdy]

Understand, I did not pick this battlefield and a battlefield it is.  Others picked it for us; however, this is where the war is being waged and we either fight or we acquiesce.  There are several other fields of conflict that could have been chosen, yet they were not for any unknown number of reasons.  With this understanding…

Has the Church ever approved of homosexual relations/activities/marriage, etc.?  It has not, so there must be a reason after 2000 years it has been unwavering in its stance.  Now, we are expected and instructed to encourage, reassure, and embolden those who struggle with this burden instead of attempt to lead them to seek the face of God.  Rather than provide them with Christian support, love and encouragement, we are coached to provide worldly support, the same worldly support of which we have been taught as children to be guarded against.  I have heard the various and continuous drum beat of all the reasons we should do as asked, but if we pause, for just a moment, to actually considered what is asked of us and if it is beneficial to them, to us, to the Church, to God for that matter, I feel we would come to a different conclusion.  At least if we would, during that time, leave our own views at bay. 

If the Church as never accepted, or even fought against, homosexuality in the past, and the reason was just, as it was, and the Orthodox Church doesn’t waiver, how are we expected to revise our view?  Modernization?  Of what?  Changing times?  Is that a good thing?  Look at the state of the world, I conclude it is not.  Is God different today than He was yesterday?  So, homosexuals get a “protected class” status to prevent them from all sorts of bad folks who say unpleasant things.  Then, they begin their fight for social acceptance, and get it.  Then, they begin their fight to adopt children, against the entire family structure created by God, and get it.  Now, they are fighting to change the very definition of holy matrimony, and they are winning.  And while this is taking place, while we rejoice in their new, modern, enlightened and tolerant victories, we are too busy to see the secret battle being waged simultaneously.  We are too being in opposition to our own Church to take notice others are fighting the Church as well.  We pay no attention to major denominations being torn apart as a result and chalk it up to “those crazy Protestants”.  We fail to realize what has historically protected us from the problems of Protestants no longer exists, geography, as we are now in the very same towns and cities as they reside.  We have fallen, and I believe partly the result of converts joining the Church, victim to their views, which are ripping their churches to shreds.

Let’s take a look at our recent history.  The murder of unborn, innocent children has been legalized.  Casual sexual practices have been normalized as we now do not expect anyone to remain a virgin until marriage as the Church teaches.  Monogamy in marriage has all but been eradicated.  Demented sexual encounters are expected and encouraged (swingers, multiple partners, sometimes at the same time, etc.).  Homosexuality has been normalized.  The entire family structure has been propelled into tiny fragments.  All of this in done in opposition to the Church as none of these things are supported by the Church.  These are attacks on the Church and victories against the Church.  When those of us who see these things for what they are vocalize and speak, we are, without a second thought and through muscle memory, immediately called homophobes, bigots, haters, and any other vile title someone can conjure up.  The Church, our Holy Church, our Apostolic Church, is being attacked daily.  The Theotokos, mother of Christ, is called a whore by the very same people we are asked to lift up and embrace with open arms.  We are too busy attempting to join in the PC band wagon we forget the holy war we already sworn allegiance to with Jesus and we, again, are too blind to see the vitriol and hate in the eyes of those we embrace while they plot against us.  This is all done as a result of our apathy, our fear of not being “nice”, our laziness, and our foolishness.  We are under siege and persecution and oppression is just around the corner.  We have already seen its hallmarks.  What are we to do?  Continue on the same path or set our destination to return where we should be?  Do we continue to invite, into our Church, the evils which scheme against her or do we say enough and “close the doors” to protect her?  Which is more important, making people feel better or preparing them for judgment?  Understand, as we have been told, if we stand for the Church, for God, we will be persecuted.  I tell you, open your eyes, that day is soon coming.

[Kerdy]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

[Michał Kalina]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

[stavros_388]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all. 

[Kerdy]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

“Forgive my harsh words. I speak them because I really love you and do not wish you to be lost. I do not cease to pray for my erring child.… I will gladly suffer with you and for you, but it will do you no good unless you give up your own understanding of how to live.”

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/fsr_84.aspx

Fr. Seraphim’s Patristic understanding of the place of sex in the creation, which we have discussed earlier, enabled him to help others put sex in the proper perspective. To one of his spiritual children, who was married and had children, he wrote:

The widespread confusion on this whole issue seems to come from a failure to understand the real Orthodox teaching on sexuality—it is not “holy,” but neither is it evil. The Lives of Saints alone, without any Patristic treatises, should teach us the Orthodox position: that sexual union, while blessed by the Church and fulfilling a commandment of the Creator, is still a part of man’s animal nature and is, in fallen humanity, inevitably bound up with sin. This should not shock us if we stop to think that such a necessary thing as eating is also almost invariably bound up with sin—who of us is perfectly continent in food and drink, the thorough master of his belly? Sin is not a category of specific acts such that, if we refrain from them, we become “sinless”—but rather a kind of web which ensnares us and from which we can never really get free in this life. The more deeply one lives Orthodoxy, the more sinful he feels himself to be—because he sees more clearly this web with which his life is intertwined; the person, thus, who commits fewer sins feels himself to be more sinful than one who commits more!

The Fathers state specifically, by the way, that Adam and Eve did not have sexual union (nor, of course, eat meat) in Paradise. I believe Thomas Aquinas says that they did—which would accord with the Roman Catholic doctrine of human nature.

All of this should one day be written out and printed, with abundant illustrations from the Holy Fathers and Lives of Saints—together with the whole question of sexuality—abortion, natural and unnatural sins, pornography, homosexuality, etc. With Scriptural and Patristic sources, this could be done carefully and without offensiveness, but clearly.…

Enough on this subject; you are correct, by the way, that it is better for such things to be printed by laymen than monks! [22]

[Michał Kalina]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

[Kerdy]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

I realize English isn’t your first language, but if you actually take the time to understand and give consideration to what I am writing, you may no longer be confused.

[primuspilus]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

[Michał Kalina]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

[primuspilus]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that. Then again, contrary to some belief, not every homosexual is a rampaging sex addict.

[Kerdy]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

I wonder, does it take a lot of hard work to completely ignore what is actually being said or does it come naturally?

But in an effort to answer your question, I imagine he more deeply lived Orthodoxy.

[Michał Kalina]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

[stavros_388]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all.  

Nevermind 

[jmbejdl]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James

[Kerdy]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James

The problem here is, the only one talking about this is Michał.  He is ignoring what everyone is actually saying and seeing what he wants to see to win a debate which isn't taking place, apparently.  He is responding to things not said with snarky one liners which do nothing for the discussion.

[Kerdy]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

Your honor, the defense rests.

More seriously, though, lately it seems that my struggles are actually with many of the dogmas of the Church, and so if it seems I am overly antagonistic on here lately, please know that it isn't personal. As much as I love The Church and had yearned for Her for years before my Baptism, I think I just need to be honest with myself. My beliefs regarding homosexuality are just the tip of the iceberg. You're right that the Church is unwavering in many of its views. If one fundamentally disagrees with the Church on too many things, something has to give eventually. Believe it or not, I trust that it is my conscience I am listening to regarding the acceptance of homosexuals. I believe in a love that is unconditional; people - homosexuals included - cannot love others if they can't love and accept themselves. Religious condemnation of homosexuality does far more harm than good, in my opinion. The idea that God would roast in hell a kind and generous homosexual because he accepted himself and didn't war against himself for his entire earthly life seems cruel and backwards to my sensibilities.

Perhaps I cannot fit the Orthodox mold after all. 

I must go for now, but I do want to respond to this post.  Take peace knowing I realize it isn't personal.

[primuspilus]

I just think that if I acknowledge that The Church is indeed, the true Church of God, but I disagree with what she teaches, then I am the one with the problem, not her.

For reference, see my very early posts about Israel before I became a catechumen.

[LizaSymonenko]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?

[Michał Kalina]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?

I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

[Hiwot]

Homosexuality is taken into account and dealt with by monastic rules of all sorts. Hence the prohibition against beardless fellows/children being accepted around monasteries, younger disciples as cell mates and so forth. The Church deals with it on its own terms. It doesn't need preachers to teach it what's acceptable and what is not.

I had no time to address this the other day, so I let it go,I post this now not to get an answer, but to point out few things you might give a thought to Romaios, obviously you know that the monastic community is only too well aware of this issue and takes precautionary measures so they may not be practiced among them as well as when incidents do occur have a wise and  compassionate way of handling them for the betterment of everyone. now as a reasonable man, think of to what extent and detail the desert fathers went into to handle this issue in a very practical manner, not only in theological assertions. it dealt with not only prevention of practice but how to deal pastoraly with those that are directly affected by it. no need to go any further relating to the monastics.

now where is the same awareness among the laity? where is the education of the public when it comes to dealing with same sex attraction? how is an orthodox young man or woman who find themselves attracted to the same gender,equipped with the necessary coping mechanism that comes with being aware of the issue in detail as well as finding the necessary pastoral and spiritual community support in  the struggle that ensues. besides the obvious theological assertions of what  sin is and what it is not, how is a person educated to deal with a specific sin one has to struggle with. how is that education even possible when the Faithful public is allowed to continue unchallenged in its unwillingness to tolerate even the very idea of the existence of homosexuality among certain regions , ethnicity's etc.. let alone have a positive responsible discussion of how to help those within the Church that suffer under this cross. in some cases the level of antagonism is such that it is as if the perceived patriotic affront weighs higher than the brotherhood in Christ.yet we see even the desert fathers were humble enough to recognise and admit the possibility of its existence among themselves and their brothers. if Christ can stand between the Pharisees who spoke for the law, their stones and the adulterous woman to save her Physically and Spiritually, what  then is the role of the Church in educating the faithful public in the practical,and spiritual ways of dealing with the issue of homosexuality that employs compassion and wisdom when She says go sin no more? again besides saying it is a sin  what should Christians who are the Lights of the World and Salts of the Earth do to guide those who are despairing in darkness,how can they sweeten the lives of these that must drink from that bitter cup of finding themselves unable to be sexually attracted to the opposite gender like the rest of society? what should be the education, and the supprot of the church to the suicidal youth who gives in to the hopelessness that is in the inside of him or her and also the hate and victimisation from others on the outside.

the World has its diverse way of dealing with these issues , the most important question now is how is the church dealing with it when she cares for those within her.perhaps its convenient for some, to say all homosexuals are attacking and victimising the Church then say we too are justified and must retaliate in kind, perhaps this point will allow them to ignore those within the Church that actively suffer on this Cross as if they do not exist,or  refrain from dealing with the issue with the depth it requires  and even  if they were to find those that are  falling and rising again , well as things stand at present, may the Lord deliver the dry trees from thier hands.

peace to you.

[LizaSymonenko]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?

I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 

[Michał Kalina]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

Are you saying that people are incapable of living celibate lives?

I'm saying that most* people are incapable of turning off their libido.

*I'm aware of asexualism.

Single people are hardly all "asexual", however, until marriage they seem to be able to control themselves.  No?

We are humans after all, not animals.  Our goal in life is greater than mere procreation.
 

Wikipedia quotes some polls there is only 1% of asexual people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

[Shanghaiski]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts, words, deeds) which are sins.

[Shanghaiski]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

I wouldn't be so fast to make this proclamation.  Look at Father Seraphim Rose, who once lived as a homosexual, but turned away from that life.

Did he become heterosexual? Really?

Dont really know, but he turned away from it. Im not sure if he "switched sides".

Turned away? How did he manage to nullify his libido? Did he take bromine?

You'd have to ask monks how they deal with that.

I thought monks control their libido instead of magically nullifying them. There woudn't be any struggle in that.

You're absolutely right. Celibate homosexuals don't cease to be homosexual any more than celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual. There's a definite difference between homosexuality - the attraction to the same sex - which the Church does not condemn, and taking part in homosexual acts, which is condemned. Not sure if the others genuinely misunderstood what you were saying or would likewise disagree with me on this.

James

"Sexual orientation" is a concept which does not fit into Orthodox psychology, AFAIK.

[Jetavan]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.

Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.

[Shanghaiski]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.

Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.

True. It's sort of complicated, so I didn't go into it. Also, I'm not all that sure how to put it. But yes, merely having a thought--it could be just a logismos, a suggestion. And there are stages in interacting with the suggestion which come before acting on it. Some of the latter stages are considered sins--that is, they sear the conscience. If you happen to just have a thought and reject it, there is no sin.

[orthonorm]

All of this is in fact fruitless because I believe that both you and the Church are mistaken about homosexuality. As far as I'm concerned, it's as sinful as being red-headed or having a heart murmur.

So go ahead and respond if you wish, but since we appear to disagree at a very fundamental level, I doubt it will serve much of a purpose.

The Church does not say homosexuality is sinful.

True. It is the acts (thoughts...) which are sins.

Or, to be more precise, it is the assenting to the thoughts that is the sin.

True. It's sort of complicated, so I didn't go into it. Also, I'm not all that sure how to put it. But yes, merely having a thought--it could be just a logismos, a suggestion. And there are stages in interacting with the suggestion which come before acting on it. Some of the latter stages are considered sins--that is, they sear the conscience. If you happen to just have a thought and reject it, there is no sin.

You sure about that? I haven't read this thread in a day or so, I just looked at this post. I sorta find it odd to place sin within some reflexive cognitive act.

The Church would certainly hold that homosexuality as such is sinful. How could it be otherwise? People are just too often too thick to understand just because something is sinful doesn't mean the person in whom such sin is expressed (note the use of the passive) is "guilty" in our legal sense of the term.

Cancer is sin. Earthquakes are sin. Probably using oc.net is sin, well 99.999999999999% percent of the time here is.

The radical message to remove the stigma of homosexuality is not to try to reform the actions or thoughts of homosexuals into some sort of calculation where people (the homosexual, priests, oc.net members) can judge to what degree someone is sinning, now that is a serious and complicit sin, rather to push forward the notion that nearly everything is a function of sin. Everything. To whatever degree sin from the past has caused or conditioned anything is to the degree it is sinful (a silly word IMHO).

Feeling like garbage, might not be able to write much more since they expect me to work and be ill, and I might not see any of the replies to this.

That sickness by the way: sin. My response just now: sin.

It seems to me some people want to rehabilitate this less than positive view of the world by putting to much importance on something like subjectivity, but hey, that's modernity for you.

Christ the only sinless one became sin. In virtue of what did He become sin? Not why. How? People would do well to table why questions and think in terms of how.

Cognitive consent? Divine plan?

The folks who preach utter depravity are not too far from the truth, they just don't properly see it as part of the good news. They see it as a problem instead.

Have a nice time.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, say RCC priests