OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 06:00:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Thank You TomS  (Read 3755 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« on: August 26, 2006, 07:44:09 PM »

When I read that TomS had been banned from this site I was most disappointed. In post after post he seemed to so often be a lone voice of common sense in a sea of absurdities. In the thread he was banned for posting in, his statement was far less offensive than others seen. The suggestion that women wearing pants is 'cross-dressing' is far more offensive than suggesting a bishop has heterosexual tendencies; considering the number of hierarchs that I could name (but won't), based on good sources, who have been engaged in homosexual activity, such an accusation as TomS gave could actually be considered a complement (infact, following the scandal of a certain Antiochian Bishop for groping a woman in a Casino, I had one person associated with said archdiocese essentially brag to me that at least they can prove they have one heterosexual bishop, essentially saying that it was one more than the Greek archdiocese could prove).

As for the complaint that TomS doesn't stick around to argue his posts, look at the absurdities that preceded his posts, men complaining about the immodesty of women and suggestions that pant-suits are cross-dressing, a reasonable person wouldn't even give them enough credence to argue against them; notice, I said reasonable person, I'll argue against such absurdities from time to time, not because I believe they deserve the time of day, but rather because I love a good heated argument even when unreasonable Wink (especially one that gets the blood boiling: the true measure of a one's humanity is whether they can overcome their animal insticts and use their reason in the midst of anger and unbridled emotion, or if they are completely taken over by said emotion and brought down to the level of an irrational beast; we have all experienced the latter, and must often work hard to reclaim our humanity, we have only been reasonable animals for a matter of millenia, 100 millenia at the most, not that long compared to the hundreds of millions of years we were irrational animals)

Furthermore, I dont know if anyone actually caught it, but TomS' statements were directed towards the episcopacy in general, not merely towards one person; and considering the history of the Church, it is revisionism to not, at the very least, acknowledge that what he accuses has long been a problem within the Church; and will continue to be as long as there are humans in the Church, or at least until humans evolve beyond their current state of evolution.

However, it seems as though the religious fundamentalists and idealists have got what they wanted, moving the site one step further from mainstream Orthodoxy (and it is already far to the right of mainstream Orthodoxy) towards the cult-like and fundamentalist, 'Internet Orthodoxy.'

And yes, lest I am accused of saying otherwise, of course the owners of this site have every right to do with it as they wish. That is the beauty of the internet, it can accommodate everything from Social Liberatrians and Marxists to Nazis and Moralists; and the great irony of the internet is while everyone is allowed this freedom on their site, to even be on the internet they are forced to participate in one of the highest of ideals, no matter how much they abhor it, that of the absolute and unrestricted freedom of Speech, Thought, and Expression.

However, though you are, of course, free to do as you wish with your site, I presume, since I have seen no rule to the contrary, that I am allowed to criticize poor decisions, at least I dont think that this site has gone to the extreme of prohibiting criticism? And even if I am mistaken, due to the vagueness with which the forum rules are often presented, I can at least say with certainty that I have done nothing illegal; furthermore, I believe that common decency dictates that someone ought to, at the very least, respond on TomS' behalf since he was denied the opportunity to defend himself.

So TomS, thank you for your participation in this site, and thanks for so often being a voice of reason and common sense in a sea of irrationality, fundamentalism, and absurdity.

P.S. Chris, please don't take this personally, first of all, if I had to guess I would say that you probably wern't directly responsible for this decision. Secondly, since I am not privy to the discussions behing the scene, I am only capable of making a general criticism against a Philosophical ideal that some advocate, rather than an attack against any actual person. (Truthfully, that's how I prefer to operate, attack a posistion and imply guilt by association, if you attack a person proper it can often be construed as mud-slinging, and if that rebuttal can be made to stick against your arguments, you tend to lose the debate and then your philosophical arguments are wrong, no matter how right.)
« Last Edit: August 26, 2006, 07:44:51 PM by greekischristian » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2006, 07:52:04 PM »

What is "mainstream Orthodoxy" for you, GiC? I've traveled and resided in countries where Orthodoxy is the norm, and there a) there is indeed a disapproval of women wearing such clothes to liturgy, and b) speaking about clergy's sexual cravings is considered rude.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2006, 07:53:17 PM »

Just for clarification---

Anyone who wants to can weigh in on this thread; as long as no ad hominem attacks are made or other site violations occur, it's fine by me.

Have fun!
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2006, 08:29:52 PM »

What is "mainstream Orthodoxy" for you, GiC? I've traveled and resided in countries where Orthodoxy is the norm, and there a) there is indeed a disapproval of women wearing such clothes to liturgy, and b) speaking about clergy's sexual cravings is considered rude.

While I will concede that you may be better traveled than myself, I doubt mainstream Orthodoxy is what you suggest. By 'mainstream Orthodoxy' I mean the mainstream of Orthodox Societies and people who regard themselves as Orthodoxy. Though mainstream Greek and Russian Society, for example, may be slightly behind that of the west (Greece less so than Russia, for obvious reasons), they are rather modern and enlightened societies. The percent of Greece that is Orthodox is in the High 90's, so I would say that mainstream of Greek Society is one fair consideration for the Mainstream of Orthodoxy. Likewise can be said about Russia. America is slightly different, but since this is primarially an American forum, perhaps some consideration should be given to the mainstream of Orthodoxy in this country, so perhaps the average Greek-American could be regarded as another consideration for what 'mainstream Orthodoxy' is, and I do have experience in Greek-American communities, and I can say with confidence that my posistions or TomS' posistions would hardly be considered way out of step.

As far as speaking about the sexuality of Clergy, or anyone for that matter, keeping it hidden and speaking only in whispers is so Victorian. Such an approach to sexuality is more likely to be a cause, rather than prevention, of perversity. Clergy are human just like everyone else, and if we fail to acknowledge their sexuality and try to hide it, it will only lead to problems down the line as the Latins in this country found out the hard way (rest assured, if they were more open about sexuality, the scandal would not have been nearly as far reaching).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2006, 09:31:31 PM »

Despite what appeared possibly as a contentious relationship, Tom is my friend. I will miss him and his parched humor here.  Sad
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2006, 12:01:52 AM »

We reap what we sow...

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2006, 12:03:55 AM »

Quote
However, it seems as though the religious fundamentalists and idealists have got what they wanted, moving the site one step further from mainstream Orthodoxy (and it is already far to the right of mainstream Orthodoxy) towards the cult-like and fundamentalist, 'Internet Orthodoxy.'

What a joke! Do you know how often people have accused me of being too liberal with this site?? LOL

Anastasios
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 12:04:19 AM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2006, 12:57:19 AM »

What a joke! Do you know how often people have accused me of being too liberal with this site?? LOL

Anastasios

LOL...in a way that's somewhat frightening, but I guess it's all relative.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2006, 06:35:51 AM »

This is the first I've heard about TomS being banned, so I probably haven't processed my thoughts about it completely.
GiC,
Personally, I like TomS, we've chatted privately a few times, and when OCNet was hacked the first time, I was probably the first to notice because of my time zone, and the first person I was able to contact was TomS who gave me a phone number for anastasios. I know that TomS did, in fact, respect this site (in his own peculiar way!). I am a bit surprised to see he has been banned, but I think, GiC, it is easy to whitewash someone when we feel they have been badly treated. For example, you said:
Quote
Furthermore, I dont know if anyone actually caught it, but TomS' statements were directed towards the episcopacy in general, not merely towards one person; and considering the history of the Church, it is revisionism to not, at the very least, acknowledge that what he accuses has long been a problem within the Church; and will continue to be as long as there are humans in the Church, or at least until humans evolve beyond their current state of evolution.
So I went back to see TomS' last posts, and when I found the one for which he was banned, it certainly does not come accross that his comment is directed to the "episcopacy in general". It was directed at a bishop in an Orthodox Church which he, officially, is not in Communion with. Just as there is no sport in shooting a caged animal which cannot speak, it is not good sportsmanship to take public potshots at someone you know will not respond. In fact, it is cowardly. So, as much as I like TomS and hope that he is permitted to once again post on the forum, I'm not going to turn him into a plaster Saint either.
As for the suggestion that this forum is shifting to the right, I, of all people, probably rank among the most "Leftish" here (just ask Nacho)! I certainly don't feel this forum is shifting to the right, if anything, it has been the most successful forum I have ever encountered at managing to be able to hold such a broad spectrum of views from the extreme right to the extreme left. And, I would also hasten to add that most of TomS' comments could hardly be termed "left" or "right". If anything, I found many of them to be extremely "right", and I have told him so on this forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8228.msg107872#msg107872.
So how about you give the moderators and admins a break....and a little credit?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 06:40:08 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2006, 12:02:12 PM »

One of the posts that actually was directly responsible for the ban (which btw, I did not decide, as I do not manage the forum day to day anymore and also given that I am Tom's friend I recused myself, although I will say I understand the reasoning and support my mod team members) was the one where he said/mused/joked/quipped that Jesus was the Gay of the Trinity on Aug 4.  The warn feature was broken then, or he probably would have been banned back then.

I personally appreciated Tom's wit and some of his criticisms were good. I just didn't like the over the top offensive things that occasionally peppered his otherwise interesting commentaries.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 12:02:52 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2006, 02:27:49 PM »

So I went back to see TomS' last posts, and when I found the one for which he was banned, it certainly does not come accross that his comment is directed to the "episcopacy in general". It was directed at a bishop in an Orthodox Church which he, officially, is not in Communion with. Just as there is no sport in shooting a caged animal which cannot speak, it is not good sportsmanship to take public potshots at someone you know will not respond. In fact, it is cowardly. So, as much as I like TomS and hope that he is permitted to once again post on the forum, I'm not going to turn him into a plaster Saint either.

I went back and read it again as well, and it should be noted that he didn't even mention the bishop by name and given the context of the rest of his posts, I believe he would have responded the same way regardless of what bishop was being talked about. Context, rather than specifics, reveals that it is a general criticism of the episcopacy. As far as the bishop in question not even being in communion with the Oecumenical Throne, I saw that and noted it, but decided against going down that path for reasons of civility, but now that you bring it up, it's a good point: he was technically banned for accusing a schismatic of a sin infinitely less serious than schism itself. Concerning criticizing public figures, that is hardly rude, by making the choice to enter into the public arena one makes the choice to be subject to public criticism. To suggest that a Bishop should be immune from criticism is the same as suggesting a President, Prime Minister, or Legislator should be immune from the public's criticism; it simply doesn't work that way, by accepting a public posistion one inherently opens themselves up to public criticism.

Quote
As for the suggestion that this forum is shifting to the right, I, of all people, probably rank among the most "Leftish" here (just ask Nacho)! I certainly don't feel this forum is shifting to the right, if anything, it has been the most successful forum I have ever encountered at managing to be able to hold such a broad spectrum of views from the extreme right to the extreme left. And, I would also hasten to add that most of TomS' comments could hardly be termed "left" or "right". If anything, I found many of them to be extremely "right", and I have told him so on this forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8228.msg107872#msg107872.

Politically, yes he is fairly far to the right, as am I in some of my views; but from a religious perspective TomS, like myself, is quite liberal, rejecting the arguments of the literalists, fundamentalists, misogynists, and anti-ecumenists (though TomS' rather extreme posistion on the Latins is a notable exception).

Quote
So how about you give the moderators and admins a break....and a little credit?

I will give them credit, especially Anastasios and Robert, for maintaining one of the freer religion forms on the internet. It seems that people, especially religious people, are uncomfortable around other opinions and objections to their beliefs, and many people out of a desire for security (which is probably the source of more evil than anything else in all of human history) wish to limit free speech and advocate censorship; however, Anastasios and Robert have done an exceptional job of trying to prevent this forum from going down that most unfortunate path...it is because of those efforts that I stick around, and because of that history that I am most disturbed when I see trends to the contrary. As is the case with the censorship of TomS.

One of the posts that actually was directly responsible for the ban (which btw, I did not decide, as I do not manage the forum day to day anymore and also given that I am Tom's friend I recused myself, although I will say I understand the reasoning and support my mod team members) was the one where he said/mused/joked/quipped that Jesus was the Gay of the Trinity on Aug 4.  The warn feature was broken then, or he probably would have been banned back then.

Much to my disappointment, the censors beat me to that post so I am unable to offer an apology for the post itself; however, I can consider the context of the post:

Quote
I really hope God brings judgement to the West real soon seeing that things have gone to hell here and immorality is the order of the day.

Considering TomS was responding to an absurd hope that God reign down fire and brimstone on the evil West for, presumably, the unforgivable sin of having sex; and beyond that suggesting that the solution to this problem (again, I presume having sex) is to make Christianity more like Islam...isn't it understandable that TomS strike out against religion in general. TomS did not turn Christianity into a vile thing, but rather the original post that suggested there were virtues in Islam not present in Christianity reduced the poster's view of Christianity to something not deserving of respect, and as Christianity was already reduced to something not deserving of respect by a previous post, TomS simply replied appropriately in that context...Is suggesting that Christ was gay any more offensive than suggesting that true Christians should follow Islamic social values? I think not. Both are offensive, but the former, which essentially is an argument that homosexuality isn't immoral, isn't even in the same class of offensiveness with the latter, which equates the Christian God of Love with the demonic demigod of Islam; of course, I don't suggest that even the latter be censored, all opinions no matter how offensive deserve to be heard.

Quote
I personally appreciated Tom's wit and some of his criticisms were good. I just didn't like the over the top offensive things that occasionally peppered his otherwise interesting commentaries.

So perhaps TomS' ban should be temporary...long enough to express the moderators' dissatisfaction with his posts, but not so long as to deprive this community of a valued member.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2006, 02:37:40 PM »

GisC,

If TomS was unbanned from the ECafe, it could happen here. But I'd rather not speculate on the future. The site did what it had to do at this point in time, but things could change. Still, the decision to even revisit this issue in the future will remain solely that of Fr Chris, Pedro, and Cleveland, who constitute the Forum administration.

Thank you btw for your kind words about Robert and me.  We have struggled with the proper balance for years and it appears that we have been quite successful. I am thankful to God that he has given us this opportunity to run such a successful forum and I am very thankful for all our supporters and participants.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2006, 08:40:29 PM »

was the one where he said/mused/joked/quipped that Jesus was the Gay of the Trinity on Aug 4.


I honestly dont care who says that...its not something Orthodox want to read on an Orthodox forum. Even if it was a joke...it's still over the top.
Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2006, 08:50:40 PM »


I honestly dont care who says that...its not something Orthodox want to read on an Orthodox forum. Even if it was a joke...it's still over the top.

Yeah, exactly.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2006, 10:12:55 PM »

I honestly dont care who says that...its not something Orthodox want to read on an Orthodox forum. Even if it was a joke...it's still over the top.

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' -- Voltare
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2006, 10:17:09 PM »

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' -- Voltare

So now you take your moral views from Deists and not from Christian teaching?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2006, 10:37:13 PM »

So now you take your moral views from Deists and not from Christian teaching?

God created men free, if Deists support this natural order of Creation and so-called 'Christian teaching' rejects it, then the views of the Deists are more moral and Godly than those of so-called Christians.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2006, 10:41:28 PM »

God created men free, if Deists support this natural order of Creation and so-called 'Christian teaching' rejects it, then the views of the Deists are more moral and Godly than those of so-called Christians.

So it's part of the natural order that Christians should cheer on blasphemers since we have to defend their free expression?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2006, 12:18:59 AM »

So it's part of the natural order that Christians should cheer on blasphemers since we have to defend their free expression?

If it is impossible for one to reject the Christian faith, then I submit to you that they have never truly accepted it. The great irony of this is that in America (and from what I know of the country's religious history, Finland as well) the only reason Orthodoxy is alowed to exist and you are alowed to express your religion is because of the Freedom of Religion. Orthodoxy was always the religion of an unwanted ethnic minority in this country, and is even less popular amongst many in Finland because of their history with Russia; if not for Freedom of Religion, Orthodoxy would probably not be free to exist in these Countries. And even in places like Russia and Greece, if they had to chose between outlawing Orthodoxy or Secularism...I wouldn't want to bet too much on Orthodoxy...heck, Russia was already asked to make that decision at one point about 90 years ago, and we all know how they decided. The fact of the matter is that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech probably benifits the Orthodoxy far more than it benifits advocates of Secularism, they're already in the Majority, they don't need Rights and Protections. Your arguments against freedom of expression ultimately do nothing for the Orthodox, there's no Chance at forming an Orthodox theocracy; your arguments are merely ammunition for the Secularists (including Communists) who view Religion as something that is Psychologically dangerous and needs to be regulated or outlawed for the well being of our youth. (and I believed that the totalitarian theocratic view you was actually representative of Religion, I would probably agree with them). Because, if anyone wins a battle against free speech, it will be that group that will come out on top, just like what happened in Russia 90 years ago.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2006, 03:26:15 AM »

If TomS wants to call Jesus the fag-bag of the Trinity, let him do that on his own time. Maybe in church if he's so confident. Forums are private, and thus, I agree with the decision to have his banz0r3d.
Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2006, 04:08:43 AM »

If TomS wants to call Jesus the fag-bag of the Trinity, let him do that on his own time. Maybe in church if he's so confident. Forums are private, and thus, I agree with the decision to have his banz0r3d.

'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.' -- Noam Chomsky

The problem with the offense principle is that offensiveness is relative, what is offensive to you may not be offensive to others, it is not an absolute and objective standards, and thus it is no standard at all. I pesonally find it absurd that anyone would be offended by an uncouth remark about God: to be offended by such is to suggest that a man could actually defame God, it is to set up the human community as peers of the Pre-Eternal God, it is to ignore who God is and to treat Him as though he was one of us -- no, not as one of us, as the weakest and most helpless amongst us because he does not actively stand up in his own defence. I submit to you that the reason God does not actively defend himself against such attacks is because he is far more concerned with the preservation of the freedom he gave us, that is to say the preservation of the Divine Image in humanity, than he is about preserving his honour and good name amongst men, who are his creation and not his peers.

The great irony of all this is while God seeks the preservation of human freedom at the expense of His 'honour amongst men,' many here would suggest that we should seek the preservation of God's 'honour amongst men' (or at least our perception of this honour, for treating God as a weakling in need of our defence ultimately does more to diminish God's name amongst men than it does to elevate it) at the expense of human freedom; ah, such pride men have felt throughout the ages believing themselves to be the defenders of the Pre-Eternal Originator of the Universe; what would God have done if not for the Jihadists, Crusaders, and Inquisitors fighting to uphold the dignity of his name amongst men.

Thus, perhaps one can understand why I would find posts suggesting that the limiting of human freedom is a positive thing to be substantially more offensive (and substantially less Christian, since the religious convictions of my sources have been called into question during the course of this thread) than the witty quips found in TomS' posts.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2006, 04:21:44 AM »

GiC, can you find any support from the witness of the Church that we should not only condone blasphemy, but that we should also smile on it as an "expression of freedom"?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2006, 04:37:12 AM »

'Yet, even in their reply to this, or the like, they are not at a loss for a contentious rejoinder. For they assert that God, if He had been so pleased, might have forcibly drawn those, who were not inclined to yield, to accept the Gospel message. But where then would have been their free will? Where their virtuous merit? Where their meed of praise from their moral directors? It belongs only to inanimate or irrational creatures to be brought round by the will of another to his purpose; whereas the reasoning and intelligent nature, if it lays aside its freedom of action, loses at the same time the gracious gift of intellect. For upon what is he to employ any faculty of thought, if his power of choosing anything according to his inclination lies in the will of another? But then, if the will remains without the capacity of action, virtue necessarily disappears, since it is shackled by the enforced quiescence of the will. Then, if virtue does not exist, life loses its value, reason moves in accordance with fatalism, the praise of moral guardians is gone, sin may be indulged in without risk, and the difference between the courses of life is obliterated. For who, henceforth, could with any reason condemn profligacy, or praise sobriety? since s every one would have this ready answer, that nothing of all the things we are inclined to is in our own power, but that by some superior and ruling influence the wills of men are brought round to the purpose of one who has the mastery over them. The conclusion, then is that it is not the goodness of God that is chargeable with the fact that the Faith is not engendered in all men, but rather the disposition of those by whom the preaching of the Word is received.'

-- St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, Chapter XXXI
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 04:37:26 AM by greekischristian » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2006, 07:52:28 AM »

Voltare? Chomsky? The least probable people I would use for support, GiC.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2006, 07:58:42 AM »

No, GiC, you didn't answer my question. It's not just a matter of not using violence to draw people to Christian. You said in quoting Voltaire (which quotation is an urban myth, BTW) Christians should actually fight, even die so that people can continue to speak blasphemy and worship false gods. By that logic, when pagan temples were torn down by righteous rulers, Christians should have thrown ourselves in front of them in protest at the cost of their lives, because "People should have a right to worship idols!" When we go to meet the Lord, do we really want to tell him that we spent our lives furthering demon-worship?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 07:59:21 AM by CRCulver » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2006, 08:17:11 AM »

Boy, GiC! I can't believe how open you've let yourself be this time!

it is to set up the human community as peers of the Pre-Eternal God, it is to ignore who God is and to treat Him as though he was one of us
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men."

-- no, not as one of us, as the weakest and most helpless amongst us because he does not actively stand up in his own defence.
"And being found in the form of man, He humbled Himself further and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

I submit to you that the reason God does not actively defend himself against such attacks is because he is far more concerned with the preservation of the freedom he gave us, that is to say the preservation of the Divine Image in humanity, than he is about preserving his honour and good name amongst men, who are his creation and not his peers.
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the Name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."




Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,395



« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2006, 08:47:33 AM »

I've tended to view a lot of Tom's postings in the "fool for Christ" category. All religious forums are prone to a certain pomposity, and certainly this one is no exception.

Of course, it's vitally important to take offense in the name of bishops everywhere; "turn the other cheek" doesn't seem to apply, especially when it isn't your cheek that was struck.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2006, 10:03:53 AM »

Tom asked me to post this farewell of sorts.  Since I regret that it came to him being banned, I am going to honor his request and then close the thread, giving him the last word since he no longer has a word.  If you want to continue any subthreads that will be fine elsewhere.


I want to clear some things up —

 

1) Everyone seems to be rabid about my post that implied that Jesus was gay. That is absolutely NOT what I posted. IIRC — and since the specific post has been deleted I do not know exactly what words I used. But I think it was something like:

 

“I wonder if Jesus is the “gay “of the Trinity? :0) “

 

And I believe that I DID put a smiley face after it. You absolutely HAVE to take the post IN CONTEXT. We were discussing the God of the OT as being strict and vengeful in many instances. My attempt at humor was to portray God and Jesus in a sitcom type human situation where you have the gruff, manly father in a family who has an effeminate son who cringes at the things the “gay” son does. I put “gay” in quotes because I did not LITERALLY mean homosexual — I meant “sissy”.

 

2) Relating to the post about a Priest or Bishop paying attention to a young woman in a low-cut top. Gimme a break. They are MEN and are tempted like all other men. And if you have not SEEN a Priest or a Bishop spend a little more time talking to a cute young woman then you are not paying attention! But you know what — it’s OKAY — it is natural.

 

4) Funny that I received no complaints when I was posting and making fun of the antics of Bishop Gregory. Interesting.

 

5) I thank all those who understand my posts and have provided a level of support.

 

6) Keble knows damn well that I am just a fool. ;0)

 

6) Finally. It is okay that I have been banned: Personally I cannot be part of a board that considers Non-Chalcedons Orthodox.

BTW - that is a JOKE!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 10:04:34 AM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 54 queries.