Author Topic: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)  (Read 27963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,977
  • Resident breeder-8 kids
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #225 on: August 27, 2013, 12:33:00 AM »
By "see thru" I mean be able to distinguish between Gebre's personal convictions and actual Orthodox theology. Because when it comes to pacifism, the theology of the church prefers peace, but certainly doesn't entirely condemn war.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #226 on: August 27, 2013, 12:35:53 AM »
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.

Gebres page was public, anyone could see what he posted.
You still quoted something from his Facebook page without his permission, which quite probably explains why he has since made his page private and therefore invisible to all but himself.

BTW, how do you know that anyone, even non-friends, could see what Gebre posted?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 12:58:46 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #227 on: August 27, 2013, 12:42:12 AM »
For the record Gebre is still on facebook, he did not remove his profile, although he did remove several people.
For the record, when I run a FB search for other people who are no longer FB friends of mine, I'm able to find their profiles. Gebre's profile no longer appears on any FB searches I run. Even if he had unfriended me, this is not what I would expect to see.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,977
  • Resident breeder-8 kids
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #228 on: August 27, 2013, 12:43:27 AM »
If someone blocks you the profile no longer exists to you. So when you run a search it will appear as if the page never existed. Or you can set your profile so it is unsearchable. If someone isn't friends with one of my friends, I won't exist on FB to you.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 12:45:07 AM by Quinault »

Offline Shiny

  • Site Supporter
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,265
  • Paint It Red
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #229 on: August 27, 2013, 01:41:07 AM »
A conceited attempt to slander Gebre...can we stop posting in this thread now?
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #230 on: August 27, 2013, 01:47:17 AM »
A conceited attempt to slander Gebre...can we stop posting in this thread now?
Chill out, Achronos. :police: You're not making anything better by combating nastiness with equally over-the-top nastiness.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 02:05:01 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #231 on: August 27, 2013, 02:48:48 AM »
BTW, how do you know that anyone, even non-friends, could see what Gebre posted?

One can see how is the privacy set for messages. I also checked it myself. That post was set to be visible for all, even non-facebook users.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,493
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #232 on: August 27, 2013, 07:19:15 AM »
Uh oh, Peter. Looks like you're on the naughty list.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #233 on: August 27, 2013, 07:21:08 AM »
Are we done here yet?   ???

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #234 on: August 27, 2013, 08:22:05 AM »
Great news everyone!  I am now a catechumen in the Gebredox Church!  I am requesting the Moderation team open up a new sub-forum called "Gebredox-Other Christian Discussion"  ;D
God bless!

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,743
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #235 on: August 27, 2013, 08:40:18 AM »

We'll take it under advisement.
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #236 on: August 27, 2013, 09:02:04 AM »
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #237 on: August 27, 2013, 09:31:13 AM »
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
Oh come now, Kerdy!  All the serious talk is down, now it is time for the standard frivolities and banalities that accompany the standard death of a thread.  It is tradition.  ;D
God bless!

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,757
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Freemason Homo Church Infiltrator
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #238 on: August 27, 2013, 09:48:18 AM »
If every member on this board posted "Are we done here yet?" ten times, there would be almost 80,000 posts.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #239 on: August 27, 2013, 10:55:51 AM »
Orthodoxy sees itself as the ancient faith. Although things change with the times, and we are not completely stuck in the 3rd century (like giving up TV or something), important aspects of the church really are. We value beliefs and traditions of the third century and wish to continue them ourselves. Holding fast to important traditions from the third century is one of the things that makes us Orthodox.

If pacifism really was an important religious part of the 3rd century Church, then it is something that we as Orthodox would have respect for (although not necessarily be bound by it 100%)
That's the key. This thread wasn't started as a condemnation of pacifism. Pacifism really isn't the issue at all. What is at issue is how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion into a dogma of the Church.
Pacifism is part of the issue, the other part being "how far one person is willing to go to make his personal opinion (Pacifism) into a dogma of the Church."

Anyway, I think it is arguably "a" dogma of the Church, but not necessarily "the" dogma of the Church. It looks like one of the beliefs that can be found in the lives, experiences, and writings of important saints. But it is not "the" only opinion in the Church on the topic.

As such, Gebre has a basis for claiming pacifism is "the" correct position- the basis being those saints favoring pacifism, and whatever inspiration and righteousness he finds in their examples. Further, he can claim that considering the important place of that belief in Church Tradition and what he sees as the correctness of the pacifism, that it is essential that the Church does not reject pacifism. In fact this claim is what Gebre is saying.

Granted, one can counterargue him on the correctness of pacifism, but in any case Gebre Menfes can make his claim about pacifism being correct without being "publicly put straight" or whatever suppression the OP has in mind. In fact, so far it seems Gebre's statements have been arguable, reasonable, debatable, etc. based on our traditions, just as one may also simply disagree with him in a normal way.

Regards.

The issue is that he is trying to say that every instance war and violence is wrong, which is not dogma. He can say that it is his personal philosophy, that I would accept. However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue. Many others he quotes do the same thing.

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #240 on: August 27, 2013, 10:56:41 AM »
Here is Gebre, I assume, responding to me on his facebook:

...
Ioannes, I must state that it is also very bad form for you to reveal what someone else shares on his Facebook page without his permission. Whereas we have a rule forbidding the sharing of content written in an OC.net personal message without the sender's permission, we have no such rule forbidding you to share what one has posted on his Facebook page. Even so, only Gebre's FB friends are able to see what he posts on FB--it is not material published for the world to see--so for you to share it here without his permission is a betrayal of your FB friendship and should not be done, unless, of course, you want him to unfriend you.

BTW, it appears now that Gebre has totally removed himself from Facebook (except for the page he set up to advertise his books) and deleted his Facebook page.

Having said all this, I am constrained to say that, even though I agree with the content of your posts, I am starting to agree quite strongly with the others on this thread who have called your tactics despicable. You should think about this.

Gebres page was public, anyone could see what he posted.
You still quoted something from his Facebook page without his permission, which quite probably explains why he has since made his page private and therefore invisible to all but himself.

BTW, how do you know that anyone, even non-friends, could see what Gebre posted?

Yes. He may have since changed it, but yes the public was able to view, and even comment on his page.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #241 on: August 27, 2013, 12:33:52 PM »
LOCKED for mod review.

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #242 on: August 27, 2013, 11:10:29 PM »
Let us try refute (or defend if you so choose) the views shared by Gebre, but not attack him directly or reveal private info about or from him.  As a wise patriarch once said, "We refute the ideas, not the person."  If this gets out of hand, I will permanently lock this thread.

God bless.

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #243 on: August 27, 2013, 11:12:54 PM »
However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue.
I discuss St. Basil on page 2 of the thread, where I focused on these quotes:
Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil... canons show (188th letter) [his opinion]. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”
Basil's Canon 188 to which you refer also says:
Quote
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents.
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time.

St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.

St. Basil obviously takes a very negative view of war, and his negative view can be used to support pacifism. One can reasonably claim that if war is unjustifiable and very negative, then it is not something holy people - Christians - should ever do. You do not have to agree with this explanation, but it is hardly absurd either.

Regards.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 11:13:17 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,626
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #244 on: August 28, 2013, 12:36:08 AM »
However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue.
I discuss St. Basil on page 2 of the thread, where I focused on these quotes:
Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil... canons show (188th letter) [his opinion]. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”
Basil's Canon 188 to which you refer also says:
Quote
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents.
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time.

St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.

St. Basil obviously takes a very negative view of war, and his negative view can be used to support pacifism. One can reasonably claim that if war is unjustifiable and very negative, then it is not something holy people - Christians - should ever do. You do not have to agree with this explanation, but it is hardly absurd either.

Regards.

Well spoken. +1
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #245 on: August 28, 2013, 02:59:01 AM »
Calling the police is just subcontracting the violence.  Everyone who has ever called the police but condemn those who lift the sword (or the Glock) for their own defense or the defense of others is a hypocrite.  I think most pacifists would appreciate violence more if they had ever been subjected to it.  To believe in your heart that you could wear the martyr's crown until you have had it foisted upon you is hubris.  
What
Let's not engage yeshuaisiam's comments advocating pacifism, for the subject of pacifism in and of itself is not the focus of this thread. We have other threads where pacifism itself is the focus; let's take our tangent there.

I am catching up here, but if this is not the focus of this thread, then what is???? What other issue did the OP bring up that we should center ourselves. I happen to agree with Gebre on this issue. What is the thread that I should go to. What posts (nearly all of them) dealing with this issue will be transferred there.

Any complaint about Gebre should also apply to me at this point. It is a matter of belief.
Do you believe that pacifism is a dogma of the Church and that one cannot be a Christian unless one is also a pacifist? Are you willing to commit yourself so unreservedly to preaching this belief that you will censor all voices to the contrary when you have the power to do so? Will you grossly misrepresent the positions of other people in the very act of scolding them for what you perceive to be a gross misrepresentation of your position? If not, then my complaints about Gebre do not apply to you.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 03:17:32 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,977
  • Resident breeder-8 kids
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #246 on: August 28, 2013, 04:21:07 AM »
Way back when Bush was running against McCain in the primaries, I liked McCain significantly more than I liked Bush. My step-father, in an attempt to convince us that we needed to vote for Bush in the primaries, told my brothers and I that we weren't Christians unless we voted for Bush.

It is precisely that type of rhetoric that Gebre attempts to use regarding Orthodoxy and his pacifism. It is fine to be a pacifist. It is fine to discuss those beliefs. It is not acceptable to say that anyone that disagrees with you is in error bordering upon sin, and may not be Orthodox at all.

Many of those that can't understand the frustrations posted on this thread are a little more recent people on this site. Anyone that interacted with Gebre when he first registered on this site knows just how militant and downright offensive/abrasive he was about his beliefs. He still does a great deal of that now. But he tones it down. He also brings everything back to abortion to an extent bordering upon his own personal Godwin's law.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 04:23:19 AM by Quinault »

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #247 on: August 28, 2013, 04:23:06 AM »
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
*sigh*

The horse is dead.  Hitting it isn't going to do anything but make your arm tired.

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,977
  • Resident breeder-8 kids
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #248 on: August 28, 2013, 04:24:57 AM »
When you keep going, somehow it is righteous in your view. When ever anyone else does, it is beating a dead horse. If you are done with the topic, quit reading/posting in the thread.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 04:41:01 AM by Quinault »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #249 on: August 28, 2013, 04:27:39 AM »
Way back when Bush was running against McCain in the primaries, I liked McCain significantly more than I liked Bush. My step-father, in an attempt to convince us that we needed to vote for Bush in the primaries, told my brothers and I that we weren't Christians unless we voted for Bush.

It is precisely that type of rhetoric that Gebre attempts to use regarding Orthodoxy and his pacifism. It is fine to be a pacifist. It is fine to discuss those beliefs. It is not acceptable to say that anyone that disagrees with you is in error bordering upon sin, and may not be Orthodox at all.

Many of those that can't understand the frustrations posted on this thread are a little more recent people on this site. Anyone that interacted with Gebre when he first registered on this site knows just how militant and downright offensive/abrasive he was about his beliefs. He still does a great deal of that now. But he tones it down. He also brings everything back to abortion to an extent bordering upon his own personal Godwin's law.

THIS!!!!
Thank you again, Quinault.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 04:28:05 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,977
  • Resident breeder-8 kids
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #250 on: August 28, 2013, 04:39:47 AM »
So toward the note by our mod Mina:

I do not believe that anyone can make an argument that pacifism is the concrete, unshakable, irrefutable, and ONLY stance of the Eastern Orthodox church. Can one argue that peace and non-violence is the preferred stance of the church? Absolutely, in all things we should avoid violence whenever possible. But no one can declare themselves the judge/jury/executioner of anyone that isn't pacifist.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 04:42:26 AM by Quinault »

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,977
  • Resident breeder-8 kids
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #251 on: August 28, 2013, 05:02:00 AM »
Opus, your logic doesn't entirely match up. Have you heard the prayers said over a mother right after childbirth? They are pretty darn harsh sounding. I've heard them 3 times now, and it hasn't lost the shock value for me just yet.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #252 on: August 28, 2013, 05:32:46 AM »
Are we done here yet?   ???

Guess not.
*sigh*

The horse is dead.  Hitting it isn't going to do anything but make your arm tired.
People have opinions.  Live with it, unless you are willing to never form your own opinions based on your understanding of things.  But, by all means continue the uncivilized childishness already displayed here.  Why stop now?  It's what people do here.  I just wish people could take what they spew.

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  Because if we don't or there isn't, this entire thread is a waste of personal opinion being claimed right against another's personal opinions all based off of personal interpretation of another's personal opinion.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 05:43:46 AM by Kerdy »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #253 on: August 28, 2013, 05:44:25 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 05:44:45 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #254 on: August 28, 2013, 05:50:16 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #255 on: August 28, 2013, 05:54:02 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #256 on: August 28, 2013, 06:22:17 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 06:23:26 AM by Kerdy »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #257 on: August 28, 2013, 06:28:42 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?



Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 06:30:02 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #258 on: August 28, 2013, 06:44:26 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?



Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
I suppose.  I won't debate the matter further.  I just see a saturation of hypocrisy in this thread and thought it should be addressed.  I'll try to stay away from this thread in the future. 

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #259 on: August 28, 2013, 07:01:29 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

Gebre is stating this as if it is church dogma, unquestionably. He does it consistently. Its totally fine if he is a pacifist, it is misleading to make it seem as if this is a requirement to be Orthodox.

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #260 on: August 28, 2013, 07:03:29 AM »
However using St. Basil is absurd because he wrote canons discussing this very issue.
I discuss St. Basil on page 2 of the thread, where I focused on these quotes:
Quote
Gebre said:
“I believe with St. Basil the Great that, “Although the act of violence may seem required for the defense of the weak and innocent, it is never justifiable.”
Basil... canons show (188th letter) [his opinion]. For instance canon 13 of the 92 considers war: “Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.”
Basil's Canon 188 to which you refer also says:
Quote
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents.
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time.

St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.

St. Basil obviously takes a very negative view of war, and his negative view can be used to support pacifism. One can reasonably claim that if war is unjustifiable and very negative, then it is not something holy people - Christians - should ever do. You do not have to agree with this explanation, but it is hardly absurd either.

Regards.

St Basil clearly makes distinctions
Someone who kills willfully is a murderer, bus in self defence is not the same (Canon VIII)
Canon XIII, the fathers didn't see killing in war as Murder, but 3 years from communion should suffice.
go here http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance/

Also, here are the canons http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 07:06:11 AM by Ioannes »

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #261 on: August 28, 2013, 07:05:41 AM »

Still waiting for someone to reveal the official Church teaching which is accepted as dogma.  

There isn't one which has dogmatic status. The orthodox Church has declared dogmas on the Mother of God, Christology, the Holy Trinity, and a handful of other matters, but not this one.
Then it's all personal opinion based on personal interpretation.  I mean, I get it, attack and overwhelm the least desired opinion.  It's the bully mentality displayed here often by so many people, but my question is why no one sees the fault in claiming their opinion better than someone else's because they don't like it when it's done to them.  It's an idiotic exercise of "I know you are, but what am I?" or "He started it!"

You, like so many others on this thread, are missing the point: Gebre is making absolute pacifism a dogma of the Church, when the Church has declared no such thing. Pretty simple to understand what the OP is saying, at least to an old crock like me.  :)
Yes, I understand the OP, but that is Gebres understanding of the ECFs and the Church teachings and he stands by it.  Without clear guidance from the Church he is allowed to believe this in the same way many people post their beliefs here that make my head spin in circles.  People believe what they want to believe and find supporting evidence for it.  Many of the people here complaining about Gebres strong will for his opinion exhibit the exact same about their opinions, yet they complain about him doing it.  For them this is nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Without clear dogma, it all boils down to personal interpretation and whatever motivates that interpretation.  It's no different than someone saying its ok to smoke pot because Jesus turned water into wine (which was said).  I think it's ridiculous, but apparently it's ok to say that.  How is this different?



When the same fathers he quotes state the opposite of what he quotes, then it is not a matter of interpretation. The priest he quotes in the OP he completely takes out of context and misrepresents his stance, its pretty clear.

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #262 on: August 28, 2013, 09:55:01 AM »
Gebre is a friend of mine. He knows I'm not a pacifist. He has never once suggested I'm not orthodox. He asks me to pray for him, and I ask him to pray for me.  I have corresponded with him for years. He has always been respectful to me and my views, while strongly defending his own views. Yes, he can argue his points energetically, but I really think a lot of people just have thin skin and take things way too personally. Never once have I ever felt Gebre was speaking for the church.

Can someone show me a quote of his where he actually says, "unless you are a pacifist, you are not Orthodox."

If someone can find that quote I will understand their anger better, but even then, based on my interaction with Gebre, I wouldn't take it personally.

If you don't want to argue with him, don't argue with him. To say "people might think he is speaking for the church" is just ridiculous. Who on here really is worried that Gebre is seen as a "spokesmen" of the church and leading people astray. He is just a dude voicing his opinion and that is how he comes across. Now if he self-proclaims himself Bishop Gebre of Mississippi and starts putting out epistles, then maybe we blacklist him! :)

The critics on here just come across as personally not liking him and his views. Subjects like pacifism can spark a ton of emotion. Whether someone thinks a war is just or not, war is an evil thing. Men, women, children, soldiers, priests, etc. will die today in a war. Some bombs will hit their target, others will miss the mark and errantly hit a wedding, or a funeral, or a child walking home too young to even know "just" or "unjust". That is war. It doesn't matter if it just or not. That is what happens in any war. This is why while I disagree with Gebre on being a total pacifist, I'm in general against war and I applaud his consistent commitment to "life".

And if we are honest, one of the main reasons we talk about pacifism here is because of Gebre's "extreme" opinions, and so regardless of what we think about him, a thread like this is getting his point of view out there as much as any of his own posts. So for you all who don't like Gebre's approach, you are really doing him a favor with this continuing thread. Heck, the original post has probably done more to keep "pacifism" on the home page list of top posts than any of Gebre's own posts!

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,626
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #263 on: August 28, 2013, 10:16:38 AM »
Opus, your logic doesn't entirely match up. Have you heard the prayers said over a mother right after childbirth? They are pretty darn harsh sounding. I've heard them 3 times now, and it hasn't lost the shock value for me just yet.

Hi Quinault.

I didn't understand this.

I looked up two versions of the prayers.
OCA: http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/prayer/information/priestprayerbook.cfm
GOA: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/birth

Maybe these are softened translations.

Can you point to me (via a link if necessary) what I should be reflecting on? There is no need to expound further, I should be able to figure it out once my assignment is clearer.
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #264 on: August 28, 2013, 10:49:11 AM »
LBK,

This sums up what I get from Gebre's writing that the Original Post above focuses on: Gebre (1) sees pacifism as a tradition in Orthodoxy, (2) sees pacifism as correct and important, and (3) thinks that Orthodox institutions cannot legitimately reject it.

So regarding your words:
Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
I would say that some doctrines or beliefs are sometimes espoused by important people in the Church, but they are not necessary beliefs.

For example, numerous theologians and saints espouse a belief about tollhouses or other things that could happen after death. Another belief I think in the church is that the Virgin Mary not only avoided death (the Dormition), but was physically assumed into heaven. Obviously, like Gebre they believe their concepts are correct, yet those beliefs are not mandatory for all Orthodox on pain of anathema.

I understand your concern about the Church imposing anathemas. But in this case, it is Gebre who is worried about anathemas being declared, as his third point is that Orthodox institutions shouldn't ban it.

All the best.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:52:00 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #265 on: August 28, 2013, 10:56:08 AM »
Using St. Basil and his canons to support pacifism and avoidance of war is not absurd.
He says:
  • 1. Soldiers in war inflict death intentionally, as do robbers.
    2. Violence may sometimes seem required but it is never justifiable.
    3. The church fathers did not consider war murder.
    4. War is sometimes pardonable.
    5. Soldiers' hands are unclean.
    6. Maybe soldiers should be refused communion for three years

If you pardon someone it means they did something wrong, but you forgive them. The idea of something being ritually unclean means something is bad or very problematic about it. 3 years of uncleanness is a long time. St. Basil's canon does not say war is ever necessary. He says it is an unjustifiable and very unclean act of intentional killing and that it can be pardoned in some cases.
Someone who kills willfully is a murderer, bus in self defence is not the same (Canon VIII)
Canon XIII, the fathers didn't see killing in war as Murder, but 3 years from communion should suffice.
go here http://www.incommunion.org/2006/02/19/st-basil-on-war-and-repentance
FYI Ioannes, what you have just posted does not contradict anything I said above.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,602
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #266 on: August 28, 2013, 11:05:22 AM »
LBK,

This sums up what I get from Gebre's post that the OP opposes. Gebre (1) sees pacifism as a tradition in Orthodoxy, (2) sees pacifism as correct and important, and (3) thinks that Orthodox institutions cannot legitimately reject it.

So regarding your words:
Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
Some doctrines or beliefs are sometimes espoused by important people in the Church, but they are not "necessary beliefs".

For example, numerous theologians and saints espouse a belief about tollhouses or other things that could happen after death. Another belief I think in the church is that the Virgin Mary not only avoided death (the Dormition), but was physically assumed into heaven. Obviously, like Gebre they believe their concepts are correct, yet those beliefs are not mandatory for all Orthodox on pain of anathema.

I understand your concern about the Church imposing anathemas. But in this case, it is Gebre who is worried about anathemas being declared: he said that Orthodox institutions could not anathematize pacifism.

You have completely misunderstood what I have said.

I have no concerns about anathemas.

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #267 on: August 28, 2013, 11:14:14 AM »
Gebre is a friend of mine. He knows I'm not a pacifist. He has never once suggested I'm not orthodox. He asks me to pray for him, and I ask him to pray for me.  I have corresponded with him for years. He has always been respectful to me and my views, while strongly defending his own views. Yes, he can argue his points energetically, but I really think a lot of people just have thin skin and take things way too personally. Never once have I ever felt Gebre was speaking for the church.

Can someone show me a quote of his where he actually says, "unless you are a pacifist, you are not Orthodox."

If someone can find that quote I will understand their anger better, but even then, based on my interaction with Gebre, I wouldn't take it personally.

If you don't want to argue with him, don't argue with him. To say "people might think he is speaking for the church" is just ridiculous. Who on here really is worried that Gebre is seen as a "spokesmen" of the church and leading people astray. He is just a dude voicing his opinion and that is how he comes across. Now if he self-proclaims himself Bishop Gebre of Mississippi and starts putting out epistles, then maybe we blacklist him! :)

The critics on here just come across as personally not liking him and his views. Subjects like pacifism can spark a ton of emotion. Whether someone thinks a war is just or not, war is an evil thing. Men, women, children, soldiers, priests, etc. will die today in a war. Some bombs will hit their target, others will miss the mark and errantly hit a wedding, or a funeral, or a child walking home too young to even know "just" or "unjust". That is war. It doesn't matter if it just or not. That is what happens in any war. This is why while I disagree with Gebre on being a total pacifist, I'm in general against war and I applaud his consistent commitment to "life".

And if we are honest, one of the main reasons we talk about pacifism here is because of Gebre's "extreme" opinions, and so regardless of what we think about him, a thread like this is getting his point of view out there as much as any of his own posts. So for you all who don't like Gebre's approach, you are really doing him a favor with this continuing thread. Heck, the original post has probably done more to keep "pacifism" on the home page list of top posts than any of Gebre's own posts!

I have explained this myself to Gebre because he thought I was putting words into his mouth, fair enough. Gebre has never emphatically stated "This is a teaching of the church" so I had to explain to him that the way in which he often speaks would suggest that this IS what the church teaches. Sure, you can preface your book with "This is my opinion" but when you turn around and say in that same book "The church teaches this or that" it ceases to be opinion. He has stated several times how pacifism is "true Christian teaching" or that any other view "contradicts the Gospel and teaching of Christ" or "contradicts Orthodox teaching."

Has he said "This is a teaching of the church?" no, he has not, but he has said other things that would indicate to others that it might be. When you do not, or cannot, differentiate between your opinion and what the church actually teaches, then it becomes confusing for others. I have no problem with him stating that this is his belief and or his opinion, but he consistently words things to make it seem like it is not an opinion or personally held view, but a teaching of the church like "War is heresy" that is pretty clear to me that he does not believe this to be opinion but fact.

Offline Ioannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • The end is now.
    • My Bookstore
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #268 on: August 28, 2013, 11:16:27 AM »
LBK,

This sums up what I get from Gebre's post that the OP opposes. Gebre (1) sees pacifism as a tradition in Orthodoxy, (2) sees pacifism as correct and important, and (3) thinks that Orthodox institutions cannot legitimately reject it.

So regarding your words:
Let me put it another way: Dogmatic teachings are immutable and inviolable, and a necessary belief of those within the Church, on pain of anathema to those who teach or preach otherwise. Absolute pacifism is not one of the inviolable teachings of the Orthodox Church, and it is wrong and deceptive for anyone to insist that it is.
Some doctrines or beliefs are sometimes espoused by important people in the Church, but they are not "necessary beliefs".

For example, numerous theologians and saints espouse a belief about tollhouses or other things that could happen after death. Another belief I think in the church is that the Virgin Mary not only avoided death (the Dormition), but was physically assumed into heaven. Obviously, like Gebre they believe their concepts are correct, yet those beliefs are not mandatory for all Orthodox on pain of anathema.

I understand your concern about the Church imposing anathemas. But in this case, it is Gebre who is worried about anathemas being declared: he said that Orthodox institutions could not anathematize pacifism.

You have completely misunderstood what I have said.

I have no concerns about anathemas.

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.

Exactly. Even though he prefaces his book with "This is my opinion" it is unacceptable to then say those things you mentioned. I even find his poetry denouncing soldiers to be a bit tactless. Was he also referring to St. George, St. Theodore, St. Felix, etc?

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Against Gebredoxy, the error of (name removed) (AKA Gebre Menfes Kidus)
« Reply #269 on: August 28, 2013, 11:17:58 AM »
Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.