I have been agnostic for quite a while, it is only recently that I've been honest with myself and others
When you truly convince yourself, then try and convince me.
I'm not sure who is using false anologies... er, I'm not sure who is using analogies at all. Could you tell me the definition of the word analogy, and explain in what way I used one?
I intend the plain and general definition of “analogy”; there is nothing special or peculiar about how I use the term. Apparent ambiguity may lie in the manner you have employed it, as you have done so implicitly and indirectly; nonetheless you have surely employed a false analogy. It’s a rare occasion when one has to explain to another his or her own argument, but in this case, since you have asked so kindly, I shall.
You are attempting to argue that those ridiculing, mocking, and criticising the Muhammedians upon the basis of the case narrated in the article of the OP, are in fact being hypocrites. However, one may only qualify as a hypocrite if the facts or issues of the case being ridiculed, mocked and critisised, are analogous to the facts or issues of their own situation. If you admit to there being no implicit analogy at all, then you admit to there being no basis to your hypocrisy charge; you in fact refute your own argument. However, clearly there is an underlying analogy which you attempt to purport in support of your hypocrisy charge; it is simply a false one. The analogy in question is between divorce in the West and divorce in Islam. In case the structure of your own argument isn’t clear to you yet, allow me to break it down in simple terms:
“An Orthodox Christian is being hypocritical in mocking Islam for the fact that (X) the Islamic faith compels a man who utters ‘talaq’ three times unconsciously and without intention, to divorce his wife, since in (Y) the Orthodox Christian’s socio-cultural setting, divorce occurs frequently.”
Implicit analogy is between:
(X) Islamic faith compelling a man to divorce his wife on absurd grounds, and (Y) western society allowing for frequent divorce.
Relevant and significant dissimilarity:
(X) Relates to the values of a faith/religion, (Y) relates to society/culture irrelevant to the Orthodox Christian’s faith/religious values.
When an analogy is made between two objects for the purpose of supporting a particular argument, yet those two objects are dismilar in ways relevant and significant to the argument being made, then the analogy so attempted, is a false analogy.
I very seriously doubt that any priest today would condemn a woman as having committed a serious sin (which divorce is if not justified), for divorcing a man who is beating her and molesting their children. Of course, you could argue that such a man has apostacized from the faith, but that merely begs the question, who gets to decide how immoral one has to be to have apostacized? Can a man who spends half the income of the family and hours a day on gambling or booze or internet porn be considered an apostate and therefore potentially divorcable? You see, no one today follows this strict Biblical view that you seem to be asserting that the Orthodox Church follows.
All you have proven via the examples you have mentioned, is that no one follows a legalistic
view of Biblical regulations. That is a different thing to saying that the Church does not take the regulations as being seriously significant or relevant to the day; if exceptions are made in circumstances where such regulations would be to the detriment of the spiritual life of a particular spouse, or child, then that is a prudent and wise choice on behalf of the Church; a godly choice based upon a principle with Biblical precedent.
So let’s see where your logic leads us on this point:
“The Church of the Orthodox Christian makes wise and prudent exceptions to Biblical regulations, based upon principles grounded in Biblical precedent, for the sake of avoiding a legalistic application of such regulations that may, in those circumstances for which the exception is called, cause much harm and injustice to the parties in question, therefore
, an Orthodox Christian is hypocritical in mocking a Muslim’s legalistic application to a regulation of the Islamic faith, which undoubtedly leads to evident absurdity, and in turn causes harm and injustice to the parties in question.”RiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦..
Don't believe me? Call 10 priests in your area, and ask them if they would grant a divorce for something other than adultery and apostasy.
I don’t know how relaxed the EO Church is about divorce; but I challenge you to call any and every priest or Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and I will guarantee you that they will make no general exceptions to divorce unless it be upon those that are Biblically regulated. If you try to posit hypothetical circumstances of an extremely special or peculiar nature (like the one’s you mentioned above) where our common sense of justice compels us to strongly consider making an exception, you will probably get a mix of answers, because such issues are simply not black and white. The fact of the matter is, however, that no general exception may be derived from such cases, since they are of such a peculiarly complex nature, and the Church will certainly not grant divorce for reasons like: "we've grown out of love", "we don't get along anymore, we argue all the time", "there's no chemistry between us, we have grown to hate eachother's personalities" etc. etc.