Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,804
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Clemente said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
We are not talking about homosexuals per se, but about the political pressure group which calls itself the 'gay rights movement'.

This movement calls right wrong and wrong right. This movement leads people astray. Why shouldn't it be denounced? Why should any deacon find fault with people denouncing this movement?
He did not say we could not denounce.......'demonize and attack' are not a denunciation.....they go further than that.
What's the difference between attacking and denouncing a movement?

I would say it involves rocks and protests....but that's just a personal opinion.
Ah, the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. If we don't want to submit to the gay lobby, we are throwing rocks.

He asked the difference between denunciation and attack. I gave a difference
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
DeniseDenise said:
Clemente said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
We are not talking about homosexuals per se, but about the political pressure group which calls itself the 'gay rights movement'.

This movement calls right wrong and wrong right. This movement leads people astray. Why shouldn't it be denounced? Why should any deacon find fault with people denouncing this movement?
He did not say we could not denounce.......'demonize and attack' are not a denunciation.....they go further than that.
What's the difference between attacking and denouncing a movement?

I would say it involves rocks and protests....but that's just a personal opinion.
Ah, the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. If we don't want to submit to the gay lobby, we are throwing rocks.

He asked the difference between denunciation and attack. I gave a difference
How silly. Attacking, as in attacking a movement or a political party, rarely means using literal, physical violence against it.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,143
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
We are not talking about homosexuals per se, but about the political pressure group which calls itself the 'gay rights movement'.

This movement calls right wrong and wrong right. This movement leads people astray. Why shouldn't it be denounced? Why should any deacon find fault with people denouncing this movement?
He did not say we could not denounce.......'demonize and attack' are not a denunciation.....they go further than that.
What's the difference between attacking and denouncing a movement?
I think you're hitting on something that deserves more attention.  It's easy to point to this or that tactic of Fr Josiah (or anyone similar) and condemn it as wrongheaded or unloving or what have you.  But what is the alternative?  How ought the Church respond to such societal movements?  Ought it respond at all? 
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Mor Ephrem said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
We are not talking about homosexuals per se, but about the political pressure group which calls itself the 'gay rights movement'.

This movement calls right wrong and wrong right. This movement leads people astray. Why shouldn't it be denounced? Why should any deacon find fault with people denouncing this movement?
He did not say we could not denounce.......'demonize and attack' are not a denunciation.....they go further than that.
What's the difference between attacking and denouncing a movement?
I think you're hitting on something that deserves more attention.  It's easy to point to this or that tactic of Fr Josiah (or anyone similar) and condemn it as wrongheaded or unloving or what have you.  But what is the alternative?  How ought the Church respond to such societal movements?  Ought it respond at all?
One alternative would be to form connections with the growing group of people that might be called "post-gay" (a term I coined, but which seems apt).

Essentially, these are people who aren't heterosexual, but also don't believe the gay rights movement or gay identity represents them. The "post-gay" phenomenon isn't an organized movement but a constellation of individuals with a similar critique of the gay identity and/or organized gay activism. As such it is extremely heterogeneous and manifests itself in various ways, ranging from Gay Shame (founded to oppose corporate "pinkwashing"), to libertarians (the founder of Antiwar.com is gay, but came out in opposition to gay marriage because it would mean more government involvement in personal lives, not less), to individualists who would prefer to identify as themselves rather than with identity-politics-based labels. And there are people like this who are too religious to identify with an increasingly secularist movement, but who also don't claim to have been "cured" the way the ex-gays do, they might not even believe that a cure is possible. There are even some longtime gay rights activists who believe their movement has become derailed and is no longer focused on freedom, but instead on enforcing P.C. and silencing dissent. They are starting to question whether they may have created a monster (For instance, Peter Tatchell, following the recent incident involving gay wedding cakes and Ashers Bakery).

From what I can gather, this movement actually seems to be quite large but doesn't really have a voice right now. Moral Majority-type puritan social conservatives wouldn't have given them the time of day (for obvious reasons), but they obviously don't have a home in the gay rights movement either, so they've essentially been homeless. But they seem like they could be allies on a lot of issues.

The focus shouldn't be on some Falwellian or SJW crusade to "purify" society from the right or left, but it should be on individual liberty. Both religious liberty, and the right not to be the target of vigilante violence based on one's actual or perceived orientation.

(I actually have never had any same-sex inclinations at all, I'm pretty much as straight as an arrow. So I'm not one of the people I'm talking about. But I can empathize with them).
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Mor Ephrem said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
We are not talking about homosexuals per se, but about the political pressure group which calls itself the 'gay rights movement'.

This movement calls right wrong and wrong right. This movement leads people astray. Why shouldn't it be denounced? Why should any deacon find fault with people denouncing this movement?
He did not say we could not denounce.......'demonize and attack' are not a denunciation.....they go further than that.
What's the difference between attacking and denouncing a movement?
I think you're hitting on something that deserves more attention.  It's easy to point to this or that tactic of Fr Josiah (or anyone similar) and condemn it as wrongheaded or unloving or what have you.  But what is the alternative?  How ought the Church respond to such societal movements?  Ought it respond at all?
A couple things need to be considered here, namely, what our priorities are, what is the most charitable way to pursue them, and what is the most effective way to pursue them. Fr. Josiah's antics fail on all three counts. Singling out these hot-button culture war issues mutilates the gospel. The Christian prohibition on homosexuality grows increasingly unintelligible throughout the world, because the worldview on which it is based has been so thoroughly eroded in society, even among Christians, for a variety of reasons for which gays can't be blamed.

As one of the primary modes of Christian engagement with wider society, the strident anti-LGBT agitation puts the cart way before the horse. It ignores some fundamental questions, as if the answers were self-evident for everyone. They're not. Why should someone give up the world for Christ? Why should someone deprive himself of any joy, for the sake of unintelligible injunctions? And why particularly should gays subject themselves to such rigors when heterosexual Christians commit so many sins with apparent impunity, and other things once deemed sinful for them no longer are? Why don't premarital sex, contraception, and divorce inspire such vitriol (sure, they may be denounced in general terms, but they are widespread in the parishes and routinely overlooked)? And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?

The rhetoric about "homofascists" is not only ridiculous, but represents a defensive mentality, an urge to cling to a fast-fading cultural and political hegemony. Instead of engaging the world with the gospel, we want to preserve our privileges or, if that's not possible, have the "religious freedom" to isolate ourselves in self-contained safe spaces ("the Benedict Option"). This strategy is failing and will continue to fail, because we continue to assume what we have not demonstrated, and demand respect where we have shown none and earned none.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Clemente said:
DeniseDenise said:
ialmisry said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
Either way, he's probably be a fine deacon. But he phrased his article in such a way that it can be easily misinterpreted.

How so?

'So, make no mistake fellow Christians, if you have made it your mission to attack and demonise gay or transgender people and the gay or transgender rights movement, if your primary concept of Christian morality revolves around sexual ethics, if for you the Church’s role in the public sphere is primarily to fight the so-called ‘culture war’, then you are doing far more damage than good for Christ. Try rereading the Gospels, and then be not only hearers, but doers of their words.'

seems pretty damn clear to me.....and granted that this was the last paragraph in a longer essay in which his position is crystal clear.......
The bolded part is easily misinterpreted.
if you have made it your mission to attack and demonise gay or transgender people and the gay or transgender rights movement


How is that unclear?  If someone has made it their mission to attack or demonise people......are they acting in love? 
the gay and transgender rights movement is demonic. Saying otherwise, leading people in the wrong direction and down a dead end is NOT acting in love.

"I'm OK. You're OK. It's all OK." Uh, no, it's not.

So how are -YOU- going to approach and talk to your gay neighbour to tell him about Christ?
Is my neighbour part of a political movement that is actively seeking to circumscribe religious liberty, including forcing churches to marry gays? Is he lobbying to pass laws that could limit Christian schools from any public funding if they teach traditional Christian morality regarding sex and marriage? Does he want to threaten the freedom of my priest to preach Orthodox teaching on homosexuality?

If so, sorry, he is part of an oppressive, bigoted, demonic movement that threatens the Church and is correctly described by Father Trenham as a "homofascist". Father Trenham did not use that term to describe all homosexuals, but rather those promulgating an agenda that threatens our liberty.

If, however, he is not part of such political movement, then  yes let's reach out to him with love, just as we would reach out to anybody.

Gays represent about 3% of the US population, so whilst we should want to reach them, we should keep such efforts in perspective. I wish the Pink Mafia here at OC.net were as interested in reaching other minority groups that are underrepresented in the Orthodox Church, such as African Americans, that make up over 10% of the population.
aren't you forgetting the gay African American community? :eek:
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
DeniseDenise said:
ialmisry said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
Either way, he's probably be a fine deacon. But he phrased his article in such a way that it can be easily misinterpreted.

How so?

'So, make no mistake fellow Christians, if you have made it your mission to attack and demonise gay or transgender people and the gay or transgender rights movement, if your primary concept of Christian morality revolves around sexual ethics, if for you the Church’s role in the public sphere is primarily to fight the so-called ‘culture war’, then you are doing far more damage than good for Christ. Try rereading the Gospels, and then be not only hearers, but doers of their words.'

seems pretty damn clear to me.....and granted that this was the last paragraph in a longer essay in which his position is crystal clear.......
The bolded part is easily misinterpreted.
if you have made it your mission to attack and demonise gay or transgender people and the gay or transgender rights movement


How is that unclear?  If someone has made it their mission to attack or demonise people......are they acting in love? 
the gay and transgender rights movement is demonic. Saying otherwise, leading people in the wrong direction and down a dead end is NOT acting in love.

"I'm OK. You're OK. It's all OK." Uh, no, it's not.

So how are -YOU- going to approach and talk to your gay neighbour to tell him about Christ?
don't you mean "how have - YOU - approached...."
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
A couple things need to be considered here, namely, what our priorities are, what is the most charitable way to pursue them, and what is the most effective way to pursue them. Fr. Josiah's antics fail on all three counts. Singling out these hot-button culture war issues mutilates the gospel. The Christian prohibition on homosexuality grows increasingly unintelligible throughout the world, because the worldview on which it is based has been so thoroughly eroded in society, even among Christians, for a variety of reasons for which gays can't be blamed.

As one of the primary modes of Christian engagement with wider society, the strident anti-LGBT agitation puts the cart way before the horse. It ignores some fundamental questions, as if the answers were self-evident for everyone. They're not. Why should someone give up the world for Christ? Why should someone deprive himself of any joy, for the sake of unintelligible injunctions? And why particularly should gays subject themselves to such rigors when heterosexual Christians commit so many sins with apparent impunity, and other things once deemed sinful for them no longer are? Why don't premarital sex, contraception, and divorce inspire such vitriol (sure, they may be denounced in general terms, but they are widespread in the parishes and routinely overlooked)? And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?

The rhetoric about "homofascists" is not only ridiculous, but represents a defensive mentality, an urge to cling to a fast-fading cultural and political hegemony. Instead of engaging the world with the gospel, we want to preserve our privileges or, if that's not possible, have the "religious freedom" to isolate ourselves in self-contained safe spaces ("the Benedict Option"). This strategy is failing and will continue to fail, because we continue to assume what we have not demonstrated, and demand respect where we have shown none and earned none.
No. You really don't get this, do you? Did you even watch the video of Father Trenham?

He is not addressing how we can change people to make Orthodox notions of family and sexuality more palatable. So you notion of "putting the cart before the horse" is non sequitur.

He is speaking about how we can ensure that we can still be Orthodox in the face of increasingly ominous legislative attacks by a radical gay lobby. This has been pointed out a number of times in this thread. You can ridicule the Benedict Option (which Father Trenham did not address) all you want, but the "safe space" of just being Orthodox and preaching Orthodoxy is very much under threat. If we are forced to marry gays and cannot teach publicly about Orthodox sexual morality, then our ability to be truly Orthodox is forfeited and we cease to enjoy religious freedom.

Perhaps you don't care; this comment suggests you don't hold traditional Orthodox sexual morality in very high esteem: "And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?"

What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?

Or should the Church continue to preach historic Orthodoxy? It is ironic that you accuse Father Trenham of "mutilating the Gospel", and then in the very next paragraph argue that we should do precisely that.
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Clemente said:
Iconodule said:
A couple things need to be considered here, namely, what our priorities are, what is the most charitable way to pursue them, and what is the most effective way to pursue them. Fr. Josiah's antics fail on all three counts. Singling out these hot-button culture war issues mutilates the gospel. The Christian prohibition on homosexuality grows increasingly unintelligible throughout the world, because the worldview on which it is based has been so thoroughly eroded in society, even among Christians, for a variety of reasons for which gays can't be blamed.

As one of the primary modes of Christian engagement with wider society, the strident anti-LGBT agitation puts the cart way before the horse. It ignores some fundamental questions, as if the answers were self-evident for everyone. They're not. Why should someone give up the world for Christ? Why should someone deprive himself of any joy, for the sake of unintelligible injunctions? And why particularly should gays subject themselves to such rigors when heterosexual Christians commit so many sins with apparent impunity, and other things once deemed sinful for them no longer are? Why don't premarital sex, contraception, and divorce inspire such vitriol (sure, they may be denounced in general terms, but they are widespread in the parishes and routinely overlooked)? And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?

The rhetoric about "homofascists" is not only ridiculous, but represents a defensive mentality, an urge to cling to a fast-fading cultural and political hegemony. Instead of engaging the world with the gospel, we want to preserve our privileges or, if that's not possible, have the "religious freedom" to isolate ourselves in self-contained safe spaces ("the Benedict Option"). This strategy is failing and will continue to fail, because we continue to assume what we have not demonstrated, and demand respect where we have shown none and earned none.
No. You really don't get this, do you? Did you even watch the video of Father Trenham?

He is not addressing how we can change people to make Orthodox notions of family and sexuality more palatable. So you notion of "putting the cart before the horse" is non sequitur.

He is speaking about how we can ensure that we can still be Orthodox in the face of increasingly ominous legislative attacks by a radical gay lobby. This has been pointed out a number of times in this thread. You can ridicule the Benedict Option (which Father Trenham did not address) all you want, but the "safe space" of just being Orthodox and preaching Orthodoxy is very much under threat. If we are forced to marry gays and cannot teach publicly about Orthodox sexual morality, then our ability to be truly Orthodox is forfeited and we cease to enjoy religious freedom.

Perhaps you don't care; this comment suggests you don't hold traditional Orthodox sexual morality in very high esteem: "And why, perhaps most importantly, are these sexual sins so emphasized, while graver injustices, doing far more damage to society, are ignored or even justified by our clergy?"

What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?

Or should the Church continue to preach historic Orthodoxy? It is ironic that you accuse Father Trenham of "mutilating the Gospel", and then in the very next paragraph argue that we should do precisely that.
Must have missed it but who'so forcing you to marry gays or forbids you to each your historical prejudices?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Clemente said:
He is speaking about how we can ensure that we can still be Orthodox in the face of increasingly ominous legislative attacks by a radical gay lobby.
Like I said, defensiveness. Impotent, doomed to fail, and beside the point entirely.

If we are forced to marry gays and cannot teach publicly about Orthodox sexual morality, then our ability to be truly Orthodox is forfeited and we cease to enjoy religious freedom.
No one can force us to marry anyone. If by "forcing" you mean removing tax-exempt status, the Church has endured far worse. Stop trying to claw out a safe space. Christianity is not a safe space religion.

What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?
You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.

Or should the Church continue to preach historic Orthodoxy?
By all means, show me Fr. Josiah's rants against usury, and his funeral liturgy for America due to prevalent contraception. Please, this "Orthodoxy" is just as much a modernist concoction as anything else.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Minnesotan said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Cyrillic said:
DeniseDenise said:
Cyrillic said:
We are not talking about homosexuals per se, but about the political pressure group which calls itself the 'gay rights movement'.

This movement calls right wrong and wrong right. This movement leads people astray. Why shouldn't it be denounced? Why should any deacon find fault with people denouncing this movement?
He did not say we could not denounce.......'demonize and attack' are not a denunciation.....they go further than that.
What's the difference between attacking and denouncing a movement?
I think you're hitting on something that deserves more attention.  It's easy to point to this or that tactic of Fr Josiah (or anyone similar) and condemn it as wrongheaded or unloving or what have you.  But what is the alternative?  How ought the Church respond to such societal movements?  Ought it respond at all?
One alternative would be to form connections with the growing group of people that might be called "post-gay" (a term I coined, but which seems apt).

Essentially, these are people who aren't heterosexual, but also don't believe the gay rights movement or gay identity represents them. The "post-gay" phenomenon isn't an organized movement but a constellation of individuals with a similar critique of the gay identity and/or organized gay activism. As such it is extremely heterogeneous and manifests itself in various ways, ranging from Gay Shame (founded to oppose corporate "pinkwashing"), to libertarians (the founder of Antiwar.com is gay, but came out in opposition to gay marriage because it would mean more government involvement in personal lives, not less), to individualists who would prefer to identify as themselves rather than with identity-politics-based labels. And there are people like this who are too religious to identify with an increasingly secularist movement, but who also don't claim to have been "cured" the way the ex-gays do, they might not even believe that a cure is possible. There are even some longtime gay rights activists who believe their movement has become derailed and is no longer focused on freedom, but instead on enforcing P.C. and silencing dissent. They are starting to question whether they may have created a monster (For instance, Peter Tatchell, following the recent incident involving gay wedding cakes and Ashers Bakery).

From what I can gather, this movement actually seems to be quite large but doesn't really have a voice right now. Moral Majority-type puritan social conservatives wouldn't have given them the time of day (for obvious reasons), but they obviously don't have a home in the gay rights movement either, so they've essentially been homeless. But they seem like they could be allies on a lot of issues.

The focus shouldn't be on some Falwellian or SJW crusade to "purify" society from the right or left, but it should be on individual liberty. Both religious liberty, and the right not to be the target of vigilante violence based on one's actual or perceived orientation.

(I actually have never had any same-sex inclinations at all, I'm pretty much as straight as an arrow. So I'm not one of the people I'm talking about. But I can empathize with them).
This is a sensible, nuanced view. I have long thought that traditional Christians and leaders of the gay community could reach a sort of Faustian bargain, where they both basically agree to let the other side get on with it. Gays can marry gays, but don't force us to marry them or bake cakes for them.

Neither Father Trenham nor Metr. Hilarion Alfeyev are calling for this, but it could be our best hope for maintaining our freedom to be Orthodox.

However, I am not hopeful. The gay lobby has achieved a number of legislative victories and are, if anything becoming more radical. And they are being encouraged by politicians such as President Obama and Secretary Clinton, both of whom, as Father Trenham has pointed out, have called on Christians to make their theology more "gay-friendly".
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Clemente said:
He is speaking about how we can ensure that we can still be Orthodox in the face of increasingly ominous legislative attacks by a radical gay lobby.
Like I said, defensiveness. Impotent, doomed to fail, and beside the point entirely.

If we are forced to marry gays and cannot teach publicly about Orthodox sexual morality, then our ability to be truly Orthodox is forfeited and we cease to enjoy religious freedom.
No one can force us to marry anyone. If by "forcing" you mean removing tax-exempt status, the Church has endured far worse. Stop trying to claw out a safe space. Christianity is not a safe space religion.

What graver injustices do you have in mind?  Should the Church only denounce those sins that are currently politically correct, i.e. racism, materialism, ecological damage to Mother Earth?
You don't think those are far more serious than gay marriage? Again, skewed priorities.

Or should the Church continue to preach historic Orthodoxy?
By all means, show me Fr. Josiah's rants against usury, and his funeral liturgy for America due to prevalent contraception. Please, this "Orthodoxy" is just as much a modernist concoction as anything else.
I get that you want to use this thread to advance a certain progressive, pink agenda, but you really should watch the video before you opine on what the point of this thread is. Yes, the gay lobby would like to force churches to marry gays. The Supreme Court discussed this in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, and the lawyers for plaintiffs admitted under questioning that this was a possibility. There are already legal cases in the UK challenging the right of the Catholic Church not to perform gay weddings. The UK government has declared that Christian adoption agencies must place children with gay couples.

By the way, removing tax exemptions from the Orthodox Church in the US would decimate American Orthodoxy (and would create overnight the Benedict Option of non complying churches which you ridicule).

How is acquiescing to the legislative demands of the gay lobby not creating "safe spaces"? If you want Orthodoxy to do something really unsafe, stand up to the gay lobby. Now, if your idea is that our parishes should reflect the morality of the world, then you have a rather twisted view of the Church. It hasn't worked for Episcopalianism, which is moribund and disappearing.

No, I don't think your politically correct sins are far more serious than other sins, nor is it my place to advocate truncating the Gospel. I am glad my own Russian Orthodox hierarchs haven't decided to "mutilate" the Gospel in favour of your politically correct list of priorities.

As for usury, I have heard Father Trenham rant elsewhere  against "big oil" and their oligopolistic pricing, which is a form of usury. So, done that. But since you obviously haven't listened to him, you wouldn't know.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,804
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Let me ask the 'but where would our legal rights go' folks something.

If the Church of God was not defeated by Emperors killing believers, and at that point it had no 'tax exemption status' freeing it from such things.....

if the Church of God was not defeated by Communists jailing and killing believers.....and the Church had no status other than as a cultural museum....

Why do we think the Gay rights movement, is that strong????  Strong enough to defeat the Church of God?


if its about how -we- are treated in society.....were we not taught that we would be persecuted? have no rights...etc...
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Clemente said:
I get that you want to use this thread to advance a certain progressive, pink agenda, but you really should watch the video before you opine on what the point of this thread is. Yes, the gay lobby would like to force churches to marry gays. The Supreme Court discussed this in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, and the lawyers for plaintiffs admitted under questioning that this was a possibility. There are already legal cases in the UK challenging the right of the Catholic Church not to perform gay weddings. The UK government has declared that Christian adoption agencies must place children with gay couples.
Again, clawing for receding privileges. Again, missing the point. But keep hyperventilating with that litany of fear.

By the way, removing tax exemptions from the Orthodox Church in the US would decimate American Orthodoxy and would create overnight the Benedict Option of non complying churches which you ridicule).
If that were really true then the Orthodox Church in the US is founded on sand. 

How is acquiescing to the legislative demands of the gay lobby not creating "safe spaces"? If you want Orthodoxy to do something really unsafe, stand up to the gay lobby. Now, if your idea is that our parishes should reflect the morality of the world, then you have a rather twisted view of the Church.
Our parishes already do reflect the morality of the world, hence our great comfort with bankers, politicians, industrialists, etc. Fr. Josiah Trenham's parish looks like a day spa.

No, I don't think your politically correct sins are far more serious than other sins, nor is it my place to advocate truncating the Gospel. I am glad my own Russian Orthodox hierarchs haven't decided to "mutilate" the Gospel in favour of your politically correct list of priorities.
Your Russian Orthodox hierarchs openly condone contraception, something considered equivalent to murder by Church fathers until the mid-20th century. So much for standing up for tradition. Not that I blame them- Russia is also a world leader in abortions, and  the prevalence of contraception has prevented this number from jumping even further.

As for usury, I have heard Father Trenham rant elsewhere  against "big oil" and their oligopolistic pricing,
Such a protest is quite wide of the fundamental problems of capitalism.
 

FinnJames

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
72
Location
Finland
Clemente said:
Now, if your idea is that our parishes should reflect the morality of the world, then you have a rather twisted view of the Church.
So am I right in thinking that no married couples were splitting up before the Orthodox church invented divorce?
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
These words from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment are relevant:

“At the last Judgment Christ will say to us, “Come, you also! Come, drunkards! Come, weaklings! Come, children of shame!” And he will say to us: “Vile beings, you who are in the image of the beast and bear his mark, but come all the same, you as well.” And the wise and prudent will say, “Lord, why do you welcome them?” And he will say: “If I welcome them, you wise men, if I welcome them, you prudent men, it is because not one of them has ever been judged worthy.” And he will stretch out his arms, and we will fall at his feet, and we will cry out sobbing, and then we will understand all, we will understand the Gospel of grace! Lord, your Kingdom come!”"
I first encountered this passage in Brennan Manning's Ragammufin Gospel, but it lead me to more study of Dostoevsky's writtings, something I haven't seriously looked into before.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Clemente said:
I get that you want to use this thread to advance a certain progressive, pink agenda, but you really should watch the video before you opine on what the point of this thread is. Yes, the gay lobby would like to force churches to marry gays. The Supreme Court discussed this in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, and the lawyers for plaintiffs admitted under questioning that this was a possibility. There are already legal cases in the UK challenging the right of the Catholic Church not to perform gay weddings. The UK government has declared that Christian adoption agencies must place children with gay couples.
Again, clawing for receding privileges. Again, missing the point. But keep hyperventilating with that litany of fear.

By the way, removing tax exemptions from the Orthodox Church in the US would decimate American Orthodoxy and would create overnight the Benedict Option of non complying churches which you ridicule).
If that were really true then the Orthodox Church in the US is founded on sand. 

How is acquiescing to the legislative demands of the gay lobby not creating "safe spaces"? If you want Orthodoxy to do something really unsafe, stand up to the gay lobby. Now, if your idea is that our parishes should reflect the morality of the world, then you have a rather twisted view of the Church.
Our parishes already do reflect the morality of the world, hence our great comfort with bankers, politicians, industrialists, etc. Fr. Josiah Trenham's parish looks like a day spa.

No, I don't think your politically correct sins are far more serious than other sins, nor is it my place to advocate truncating the Gospel. I am glad my own Russian Orthodox hierarchs haven't decided to "mutilate" the Gospel in favour of your politically correct list of priorities.
Your Russian Orthodox hierarchs openly condone contraception, something considered equivalent to murder by Church fathers until the mid-20th century. So much for standing up for tradition. Not that I blame them- Russia is also a world leader in abortions, and  the prevalence of contraception has prevented this number from jumping even further.

As for usury, I have heard Father Trenham rant elsewhere  against "big oil" and their oligopolistic pricing,
Such a protest is quite wide of the fundamental problems of capitalism.
I'm glad you've had the opportunity to rant against traditional Orthodox morality and promote your progressive agenda. Better you do so here than in church.  American Orthodoxy is still not Episcopalianism, so I understand you have a lot of work to do.

Fortunately, the pink mafia posters here are not reflective of our Church.

Watch the video and then you can opine with a modicum of knowledge about what "the point" is.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
I don't know why you keep asserting that I haven't watched the video. He indicated that homosexuality is the most dangerous phenomenon of our time ( an assertion he's made before) and spoke wistfully of the days of anti-sodomy laws. Meanwhile, I guess Jim Crow was fine with him. Disgusting idolatry.

As for "traditional morality" get back to me when your hierarchy rescind their endorsement of contraception.
 

Minnesotan

Archon
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Iconodule said:
Your Russian Orthodox hierarchs openly condone contraception, something considered equivalent to murder by Church fathers until the mid-20th century. So much for standing up for tradition. Not that I blame them- Russia is also a world leader in abortions, and  the prevalence of contraception has prevented this number from jumping even further.
Maybe they also don't want a repeat of what has happened in Roman Catholicism, too. While there are other reasons why Hispanic Catholics in the US and elsewhere are becoming Protestant in huge numbers, this is probably the biggest one.
 
Top