Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

[Mor Ephrem]

[quote author=Clemente link

Does your knowing him personally give you more credibility to critique him than someone who has listened to hours of his sermons?

More credibility?  No, not necessarily.  My point was not that I have more credibility to criticise him, but rather that for me he is a real person first, not some ideological hero or enemy that I'm reacting to.

What a ridiculous argument! Who here doesn't think he is a "real" person? Me? Who has made him out to be a hero? I haven't ever heard hours of lectures from a non-real person. I have already said in this thread that I disagree with him on certain matters, such as legalised SSM, but that I appreciate his perspective.

It must be an "ESL" issue.  The whole "person" thing was not meant literally.  Of course Fr Josiah is a real person.  But there's a difference between someone whom you only know through words, Youtube videos, podcasts, etc., and someone you know through face-to-face conversation, sharing, cooperation, etc. 

What about knowing him in real life now gives you more credibility to criticise him? Is there some personal foible? Are you peddling in innuendo?

I already addressed your point on credibility, explaining that that wasn't my intent.

It is easy to say you know him, but then you criticise him, "heart" prurient jokes about him (made by a priest, no less), and then hide behind your anonymous moniker. That is cowardice.

I didn't take Fr Giryus' comment the way you did, so I'm not bound to have your reaction to it. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

C'mon Mor.    Really?    I really like you and Mina, but you are becoming increasingly transparent in your biases and half of what you've just written seems to be intentionally disingenuous. 

Entertaining speculation that Fr. Josiah might have wanted to insight violence and not nipping that speculation in the bud, is not innocuous.

I only responded to the quote contained in the post by Clemente which I quoted in full.  I don't see where Mina is suggesting that Fr Josiah wanted to incite violence.  Where do you see it in that quote?

But if the accusation is that someone claimed that and Mina didn't denounce it immediately, make that accusation and provide the evidence.  Mina is not infallible, but he's basically a saint when it comes to assuming the best about someone in spite of that someone, so it wouldn't surprise me if such a comment didn't register to him the way it did to you. 

Anyway, what are my biases, Onesimus? 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

What I said was that he  and some others who post on here are encouraging sodomites who are hell bent in their rejection of official Church doctrine of it's rejection of the sin of sodomy when Mor and those I mentioned seem to go on the attack on those like myself who take a hard line backing Tradition and ORTHODOXY when it comes to the sin of Sodom and any other sins of the flesh.Maybe he doesn't see it that way, but from my vantage point, he always seems to want to out me as a hypocrite who has no right accusing others engaging, even trying to justify their obstinacy in the completely immoral act of sodomy.

At any rate, what I percieve here in your threat in moderation is a retaliation by you and mor against me for my refusal to go along with the program of "tolerance" of this sinful act or any of it's protagonists all in the name of "charity" and trying to evangelize them, when the both of you could care less how many of those you chase away from the Church and even Christianity who might view your soft stance and attack on traditionalists as typical of weak Christians who can't even back up something as simple as telling the unrepentant homosexual he is wrong and Christianity is incompatible with sodomy in any form.

But you go ahead and make special exceptions for the advocates of sodomy while you bring the hammer down on those who vehemently oppose it, just like in the secular world. Silence all oppostion. This is typical of all that is wrong with the Church today, there really is no difference in many instances between the world and it's political correctness or the approach and policies of many christians and clergy out there who actually attack people like Fr. Josiah or myself making a stand against sodomy.

I would like to elaborate more on this and my response to your request of substansiation, but due to time constraints in my work schedule, time is a luxury I do not have right now.So you go ahead and and moderate me for "ad hominem" when that is clearly not my intent. But my position on sodomy and Mor's intent remains the same.

So not even a single proof of any of the wild accusations made against me.  OK. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

By the way, I've had a fairly lengthy exchange of private posts with Mor Ephram about homosexuality. At no time did he deviate from Orthodox teaching on the subject. So if you want to fault him for pandering to sodomites, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks, but this will only confirm Charles Martel and Co. in their suspicions. 

 

[Onesimus]

C'mon Mor.    Really?    I really like you and Mina, but you are becoming increasingly transparent in your biases and half of what you've just written seems to be intentionally disingenuous. 

Entertaining speculation that Fr. Josiah might have wanted to insight violence and not nipping that speculation in the bud, is not innocuous.

I only responded to the quote contained in the post by Clemente which I quoted in full.  I don't see where Mina is suggesting that Fr Josiah wanted to incite violence.  Where do you see it in that quote?

But if the accusation is that someone claimed that and Mina didn't denounce it immediately, make that accusation and provide the evidence.  Mina is not infallible, but he's basically a saint when it comes to assuming the best about someone in spite of that someone, so it wouldn't surprise me if such a comment didn't register to him the way it did to you. 

Anyway, what are my biases, Onesimus?

Well, there's your bias right there.  You may very well know Mina and his heart much better than the rest of the rabble here, and no doubt what you say has merit.  I refer to bias towards individual posters.

Clemente has already provided you the quotes and the context.  Speculation is suggestive, whether you understand that or not.

I'm quite sure you do. 

And please, don't refer to such things as Charles Martel and Co.  I'm not "on his side."  Nor am I against you.  I'd like to not to be inadvertently placed in a Co.   

 

[Mor Ephrem]

C'mon Mor.    Really?    I really like you and Mina, but you are becoming increasingly transparent in your biases and half of what you've just written seems to be intentionally disingenuous. 

Entertaining speculation that Fr. Josiah might have wanted to insight violence and not nipping that speculation in the bud, is not innocuous.

I only responded to the quote contained in the post by Clemente which I quoted in full.  I don't see where Mina is suggesting that Fr Josiah wanted to incite violence.  Where do you see it in that quote?

But if the accusation is that someone claimed that and Mina didn't denounce it immediately, make that accusation and provide the evidence.  Mina is not infallible, but he's basically a saint when it comes to assuming the best about someone in spite of that someone, so it wouldn't surprise me if such a comment didn't register to him the way it did to you. 

Anyway, what are my biases, Onesimus?

Well, there's your bias right there.  You may very well know Mina and his heart much better than the rest of the rabble here, and no doubt what you say has merit.  I refer to bias towards individual posters.

That's just one bias.  You said "biases". 

Clemente has already provided you the quotes and the context. 

Where?

And please, don't refer to such things as Charles Martel and Co.  I'm not "on his side."  Nor am I against you.  I'd like to not to be inadvertently placed in a Co. 

I'd like to not be inadvertently placed in a Mafia.  But if there's no reason to assume the latter, there's no reason to assume the former. 

 

[Onesimus]

Sigh.

When have I ever said you were part of a mafia?

In fact, the only time I've ever referenced such a term is to denounce it.  And if my denunciation of such a moniker and grouping of people together was too soft...I denounce it here and now in no uncertain terms. 

I have my own thoughts - and am not in any way associated with Charles Martel, nor have I ever defended him or his points of view as expressed.

Conflating me with others is not helpful...and I seem to remember somebody warning about the unhelpful lumping of people into us vs. them categories.    I've never place you in any stupid "insert color here" mafia.  Don't confuse me with others.

I would argue that Fr. Josiah did not discern properly in his speech when he was in Georgia, as that form of rhetoric could encourage more violence.

Maybe he did and that's exactly what he wanted.

That's a scary thought.  It would be very sad if true.

Speculation is suggestive of the possibility that "violence is exactly what he wanted."  Does the maybe preceeding that somehow negate the suggestive affect? 

Speculating or entertaining such a "scary thought" as if it could be possibly true - is really only defamatory innuendo in that it has no basis in fact, is provably false in that Fr. Josiah upholds the teachings of the Church decrying violence.  Any suggestion otherwise is rank speculation which does not take the facts into account, but surmisses that it could be possible that his motives are directed towards actively encouraging violence.

The initial post by Mina is clearly not implying any intentional or covert intent by Fr. Josiah to foment discord, but the later engagement with Mike does imply that...  I am happy to presuppose, as you do, that Mina's support of such suggestive speculation is innocent.  This concession to the good motives of Mina, does not however negate the reality that it is easily perceived as sullying the character of a clergymember in our Church, without substantiation, against the facts, and in complete disregard of anything other than rank speculation.

 

[Porter ODoran]

There seems to be a persistent cultural shock here on the part of our Trad (I think that's their term) Catholic friends. Over and over in thread after thread I read posts I'd characterize as gibbering disbelief that their most volatile language is not greeted with cheers in a similar idiom. Perhaps it's time to step back and question if OC.net and, for that matter, Orthodoxy is what you thought -- perhaps you relied on the age-old syllogism, The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At any rate, this can't be good for your hearts -- this seemingly systemic shock over and over to learn you're in "a foreign land" that doesn't share the Trad lingo and presumptions.

 

[Porter ODoran]

Sigh.

When have I ever said you were part of a mafia?

In fact, the only time I've ever referenced such a term is to denounce it.  And if my denunciation of such a moniker and grouping of people together was too soft...I denounce it here and now in no uncertain terms. 

I have my own thoughts - and am not in any way associated with Charles Martel, nor have I ever defended him or his points of view as expressed.

Conflating me with others is not helpful...and I seem to remember somebody warning about the unhelpful lumping of people into us vs. them categories.    I've never place you in any stupid "insert color here" mafia.  Don't confuse me with others.

I would argue that Fr. Josiah did not discern properly in his speech when he was in Georgia, as that form of rhetoric could encourage more violence.

Maybe he did and that's exactly what he wanted.

That's a scary thought.  It would be very sad if true.

Speculation is suggestive of the possibility that "violence is exactly what he wanted."  Does the maybe preceeding that somehow negate the suggestive affect? 

Speculating or entertaining such a "scary thought" as if it could be possibly true - is really only defamatory innuendo in that it has no basis in fact, is provably false in that Fr. Josiah upholds the teachings of the Church decrying violence.  Any suggestion otherwise is rank speculation which does not take the facts into account, but surmisses that it could be possible that his motives are directed towards actively encouraging violence.

The initial post by Mina is clearly not implying any intentional or covert intent by Fr. Josiah to foment discord, but the later engagement with Mike does imply that...  I am happy to presuppose, as you do, that Mina's support of such suggestive speculation is innocent.  This concession to the good motives of Mina, does not however negate the reality that it is easily perceived as sullying the character of a clergymember in our Church, without substantiation, against the facts, and in complete disregard of anything other than rank speculation.

Yet Fr. Trenham chose inciteful terms and inflammatory statements, and before an audience specifically composed of anti-"gay rights" activists. It is not as tho an unassuming priest spoke up one day to say "Orthodoxy and homosexuality are incompmatible" or some other measured statement of fact, and then OC.net took up stones to stone him. (Altho if that is what we are doing, then the sheer amount of straw men we are also erecting should protect anybody from getting hurt.)

 

[Clemente]

I would argue that Fr. Josiah did not discern properly in his speech when he was in Georgia, as that form of rhetoric could encourage more violence.

Maybe he did and that's exactly what he wanted.

That's a scary thought.  It would be very sad if true.

I don't want to enter into a debate with the Moderators here. However, upon re-reading this thread, I observe a few things:

1. Father Josiah does not often get the benefit of the doubt, even from the Moderators. In the quote above, the Moderator ruminates about how perhaps Father Josiah wanted to incite violence. Um, no, Orthodox priests don't generally want to incite violence. Is it too much just to assume that?

That's not what Mina said.  He basically said "I would suggest that Fr Josiah may not have realised how his words might be understood and applied in a context like Georgia, where there have been problems with violence in response to homosexuality".  There's nothing in Mina's statement that, in English, would suggest that he believes Fr Josiah may have intended to incite violence. 

2. Pro-gay posters get lots of support, even from the Moderators. Even when a poster admits that he no longer finds the traditional Orthodox teaching on homosexuality "tenable" (#229), the Moderator chooses to overlook his heterodoxy (#313), instead imputing traditional Orthodox motives to him.

I think your choice of words--in this case, "imputing...motives"--is telling.  There is no way to read no. 313 and conclude what you did without imputing a motive that's not there. 

Please don't lecture me on the subtleties of the English language, my native tongue.

I won't respond to your comment regarding point #1.--your not giving Father Trenham the benefit of the doubt--since Onesimus responded much more eloquently than I might.

Regarding your comment in response to my point #2--giving pro-gay posters the benefit of the doubt--you have given a non-answer. You seem fond of making sort of hubristic non-responses like this one or "that tells me all I need to know". Saying something is "telling" without saying what it is telling is either cowardice or hubris.

Again, you are showing wilful bias. Iconodule clearly doubts Church teaching on homosexuality:

The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful...

However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am beginning to think this position too is untenable.

I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.

Those "historically hazy precepts" are the traditional Orthodox teachings on homosexuality.

To this Mina responds:

I think Iconodule is searching (as I am as well) for an alternative to what is perceived as the "fire and brimstone" approach to bring LGBT people to the Church and to repentance.

No, Iconodule rejects Church teaching on homosexuality as "untenable". He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits". This is not Orthodox teaching.

Now, you and Mina can treat heterodox views as Orthodox all you want. You afford great charity to pro-gay posters as they explore innovative approaches to sexuality.

Yet you don't extend the same charity to an Orthodox priest in good standing when accused of knowingly inciting violence.

Your approach is very good for generating traffic--look at this thread of 13 pages.

Yet I question whether that bias serves to strengthen the Church.

 

[FinnJames]

To calm discussion down a bit, here's a video with Fr Trenham and Robert Spencer I think we can all agree is good: 'Jihad Exposed in America':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDz7o6nPFDI&list=WL&index=39

 

[Cognomen]

here's a video with Fr Trenham and Robert Spencer I think we can all agree is good: 'Jihad Exposed in America':

Unfortunately, nope. At least Fr. Trenham isn't the offending party, in this case though. But many of Spencer's arguments, such as arguing against the historical figure of Muhammad and the Caliph Omar, are pretty ridiculous. And for a Christian to make these type of arguments is, in my opinion, even worse.

 

[primuspilus]

I'm not at all sure about this - surely homosexual acts are particularly sinful because they are such a revolution against  the Natural Law - or are you saying that "all sins are the same", so theft, adultery, pedophilia etc are all the same?

no, they're not the same. They stem from the same thing, the passions. However, I DO think there are some sins that e more destructive than others.

The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful...

This is always what I've beenaught.

He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits"

They actually dont produce anything. Thats the issue. Its like buying scuba gear when you liven a desert.

There's no reason to fire up the pitchforks when someone says hey're gay.

PP

 

[FinnJames]

He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits"

They actually dont produce anything. Thats the issue. Its like buying scuba gear when you liven a desert.

OK, I'm going to give an example, and then you can leap in and say it's only anecdotal so doesn't prove anything:

A former colleague of mine died from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) a few years ago. His male partner gave up a good job (head of a university branch library) to look after him until my former colleague died. But perhaps this is not 'productive'. After all, none of my former colleague's relatives lifted a finger to help, so they must not have felt it was. And my former colleague's male partner could just have dumped him into the government health system and moved on with his life. But he didn't.

(The librarian is now working at another university library, so is once again 'productive' to society though no longer in a same-sex relationship.)

Now of course if by 'produce' you only mean giving birth to children, then of course gays/lesbian relationships have no productive worth.  But there are other ways to be productive in society.

 

[primuspilus]

He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits"

They actually dont produce anything. Thats the issue. Its like buying scuba gear when you liven a desert.

OK, I'm going to give an example, and then you can leap in and say it's only anecdotal so doesn't prove anything:

A former colleague of mine died from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) a few years ago. His male partner gave up a good job (head of a university branch library) to look after him until my former colleague died. But perhaps this is not 'productive'. After all, none of my former colleague's relatives lifted a finger to help, so they must not have felt it was. And my former colleague's male partner could just have dumped him into the government health system and moved on with his life. But he didn't.

(The librarian is now working at another university library, so is once again 'productive' to society though no longer in a same-sex relationship.)

Now of course if by 'produce' you only mean giving birth to children, then of course gays/lesbian relationships have no productive worth.  But there are other ways to be productive in society.

An admirable thing, he should be commended. However, you're comparing Apples to Oranges.

PP

 

[FinnJames]

He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits"

They actually dont produce anything. Thats the issue. Its like buying scuba gear when you liven a desert.

OK, I'm going to give an example, and then you can leap in and say it's only anecdotal so doesn't prove anything:

A former colleague of mine died from ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) a few years ago. His male partner gave up a good job (head of a university branch library) to look after him until my former colleague died. But perhaps this is not 'productive'. After all, none of my former colleague's relatives lifted a finger to help, so they must not have felt it was. And my former colleague's male partner could just have dumped him into the government health system and moved on with his life. But he didn't.

(The librarian is now working at another university library, so is once again 'productive' to society though no longer in a same-sex relationship.)

Now of course if by 'produce' you only mean giving birth to children, then of course gays/lesbian relationships have no productive worth.  But there are other ways to be productive in society.

An admirable thing, he should be commended. However, you're comparing Apples to Oranges.

PP

You're the one who moved from Apples to Oranges when you changed 'produce "good fruits"' into 'don't "produce" anything'.

I've lived in a same-sex relationship for over 40 years, so I have a good deal more knowledge of what good and what bad can come from having a homosexual having a steady same-sex partner than I imagine most here do. But I've learned that if I post anything at all positive here I'll be accused of special pleading, being biased, lacking humility, being unrepentant, spouting heresy or the like.

But many ears are closed anyway.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Sigh.

When have I ever said you were part of a mafia?

I didn't say you did.  But I think the suspicion which abounds in this thread is a big problem.  You think I am lumping you in a group, others think they are being lumped into a group, direct questions about who is included in a certain group are met with "Do you want me to attack other members?" and "You're an observant dude", etc.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  But suspicion is basically the topic, so it's not surprising. 

In fact, the only time I've ever referenced such a term is to denounce it.  And if my denunciation of such a moniker and grouping of people together was too soft...I denounce it here and now in no uncertain terms. 

I have my own thoughts - and am not in any way associated with Charles Martel, nor have I ever defended him or his points of view as expressed.

Conflating me with others is not helpful...and I seem to remember somebody warning about the unhelpful lumping of people into us vs. them categories.    I've never place you in any stupid "insert color here" mafia.  Don't confuse me with others.

That's fair.  I didn't specifically intend to include you with Charles Martel (he himself referred to himself saying something like "those of us like myself", so I just went with the plural), so I apologise for the confusion. 

I would argue that Fr. Josiah did not discern properly in his speech when he was in Georgia, as that form of rhetoric could encourage more violence.

Maybe he did and that's exactly what he wanted.

That's a scary thought.  It would be very sad if true.

Speculation is suggestive of the possibility that "violence is exactly what he wanted."  Does the maybe preceeding that somehow negate the suggestive affect? 

I only interpreted Mina's comment because that's who Clemente was talking about. 

Speculating or entertaining such a "scary thought" as if it could be possibly true - is really only defamatory innuendo in that it has no basis in fact, is provably false in that Fr. Josiah upholds the teachings of the Church decrying violence.  Any suggestion otherwise is rank speculation which does not take the facts into account, but surmisses that it could be possible that his motives are directed towards actively encouraging violence.

What evidence do you have that "Fr Josiah upholds the teachings of the Church decrying violence"?  Are there statements you can point to, or is it more of a "because Orthodoxy teaches X, and Fr Josiah is Orthodox, Fr Josiah believes and teaches X"?  I will accept the latter, of course, I just wish that presumption would be extended to others unless there is evidence to the contrary. 

The initial post by Mina is clearly not implying any intentional or covert intent by Fr. Josiah to foment discord, but the later engagement with Mike does imply that...  I am happy to presuppose, as you do, that Mina's support of such suggestive speculation is innocent.  This concession to the good motives of Mina, does not however negate the reality that it is easily perceived as sullying the character of a clergymember in our Church, without substantiation, against the facts, and in complete disregard of anything other than rank speculation.

I do not agree.  I don't think such a comment as Mina made, in its context, has nearly the kind of destructive power you are ascribing to it. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Please don't lecture me on the subtleties of the English language, my native tongue.

OK. 

Regarding your comment in response to my point #2--giving pro-gay posters the benefit of the doubt--you have given a non-answer. You seem fond of making sort of hubristic non-responses like this one or "that tells me all I need to know". Saying something is "telling" without saying what it is telling is either cowardice or hubris.

LOL.  "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 

Again, you are showing wilful bias. Iconodule clearly doubts Church teaching on homosexuality:

The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful...

However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am beginning to think this position too is untenable.

I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.

Those "historically hazy precepts" are the traditional Orthodox teachings on homosexuality.

To this Mina responds:

I think Iconodule is searching (as I am as well) for an alternative to what is perceived as the "fire and brimstone" approach to bring LGBT people to the Church and to repentance.

No, Iconodule rejects Church teaching on homosexuality as "untenable". He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits". This is not Orthodox teaching.

"Doubts" need not mean "rejects".  If I had to conclude that every Orthodox Christian who ever struggled with a teaching or practice actually rejected it by virtue of their doubt, we'd all be disqualified. 

If, by "historically hazy precepts", Iconodule means "the traditional Orthodox teachings on homosexuality", he still modified it with "inflict my understanding of" (my emphasis).  I don't think Iconodule speaks for anyone but himself when he pretty much says so. 

If Iconodule in fact "rejects Church teaching on homosexuality as 'untenable'", as you claim, then I would disagree with him.  Since you claimed to have never doubted my commitment to Church teaching, I assumed that would be clear.  I hope it is now.   

Now, you and Mina can treat heterodox views as Orthodox all you want. You afford great charity to pro-gay posters as they explore innovative approaches to sexuality.

So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching. 

I won't speak for Mina, but for myself, I will say that I see a difference between someone who knows the traditional teaching of the Church and struggles with it in light of some personal experiences and someone who is actively working to change Church teaching and practice because they believe it is false as it exists.  I understand Iconodule to be the former.  He can correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not going to take your word for it. 

Yet you don't extend the same charity to an Orthodox priest in good standing when accused of knowingly inciting violence.

If you have in mind the exchange between mike and Mina which Onesimus, I have already addressed that. 

As for extending charity to an Orthodox priest in good standing, it's not like I haven't done that.  I have taken at least one other member to task for his criticism of Fr Josiah and his involvement in some campaign to save a cross monument.  IMO, that poster was starting from a position that isn't Orthodox, I said as much, and I suggested that his other criticisms may come from a similar place.  I may not have addressed what you think I ought to have addressed.  So be it.  I'm under no obligation to see and address things the way you do.     

Your approach is very good for generating traffic--look at this thread of 13 pages.

Yet I question whether that bias serves to strengthen the Church.

I'm not posting in this thread to generate traffic.  If I had never once posted in this thread, it would've gotten to thirteen pages just fine by now. 

 

[Clemente]

Please don't lecture me on the subtleties of the English language, my native tongue.

OK. 

Regarding your comment in response to my point #2--giving pro-gay posters the benefit of the doubt--you have given a non-answer. You seem fond of making sort of hubristic non-responses like this one or "that tells me all I need to know". Saying something is "telling" without saying what it is telling is either cowardice or hubris.

LOL.  "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 

Again, you are showing wilful bias. Iconodule clearly doubts Church teaching on homosexuality:

The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful...

However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am beginning to think this position too is untenable.

I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.

Those "historically hazy precepts" are the traditional Orthodox teachings on homosexuality.

To this Mina responds:

I think Iconodule is searching (as I am as well) for an alternative to what is perceived as the "fire and brimstone" approach to bring LGBT people to the Church and to repentance.

No, Iconodule rejects Church teaching on homosexuality as "untenable". He thinks gay relationships produce "good fruits". This is not Orthodox teaching.

"Doubts" need not mean "rejects".  If I had to conclude that every Orthodox Christian who ever struggled with a teaching or practice actually rejected it by virtue of their doubt, we'd all be disqualified. 

If, by "historically hazy precepts", Iconodule means "the traditional Orthodox teachings on homosexuality", he still modified it with "inflict my understanding of" (my emphasis).  I don't think Iconodule speaks for anyone but himself when he pretty much says so. 

If Iconodule in fact "rejects Church teaching on homosexuality as 'untenable'", as you claim, then I would disagree with him.  Since you claimed to have never doubted my commitment to Church teaching, I assumed that would be clear.  I hope it is now.   

Now, you and Mina can treat heterodox views as Orthodox all you want. You afford great charity to pro-gay posters as they explore innovative approaches to sexuality.

So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching. 

I won't speak for Mina, but for myself, I will say that I see a difference between someone who knows the traditional teaching of the Church and struggles with it in light of some personal experiences and someone who is actively working to change Church teaching and practice because they believe it is false as it exists.  I understand Iconodule to be the former.  He can correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not going to take your word for it. 

Yet you don't extend the same charity to an Orthodox priest in good standing when accused of knowingly inciting violence.

If you have in mind the exchange between mike and Mina which Onesimus, I have already addressed that. 

As for extending charity to an Orthodox priest in good standing, it's not like I haven't done that.  I have taken at least one other member to task for his criticism of Fr Josiah and his involvement in some campaign to save a cross monument.  IMO, that poster was starting from a position that isn't Orthodox, I said as much, and I suggested that his other criticisms may come from a similar place.  I may not have addressed what you think I ought to have addressed.  So be it.  I'm under no obligation to see and address things the way you do.     

Your approach is very good for generating traffic--look at this thread of 13 pages.

Yet I question whether that bias serves to strengthen the Church.

I'm not posting in this thread to generate traffic.  If I had never once posted in this thread, it would've gotten to thirteen pages just fine by now.

Mor,

What "good fruit" comes from homosexual relationships?

You seem to have gone all in to defend Iconodule and his traditional Orthodoxy at all cost, using the most convoluted logical contortions which defy an honest reading of his posts. This, in spite of his saying that the idea that homosexual acts are sinful was no longer "tenable".

You have sought to portray, what most of us understand as a pro-gay argument, rather as Orthodox.

So Iconodule is a traditional Orthodox. I shall put on my vail of ignorance, dismissing the common sense of the English language, and assume for a minute that you are right.

What are the "good fruits" of sodomy? Since we are all presumed to be super Orthodox, please help me to understand these good fruits that our traditional Orthodox brother Iconodule has expressed?

No good fruits from sodomy? That is very "telling". "That is all I need to know"!

(Just kidding).

You extend Orthodox charity and impute Orthodoxy into rather unorthodox opinions. Iconodule, whom you don't know, is by any honest reading, pro-gay, but is assumed to be Orthodox.

Fair enough. Rosy Orthodoxy for everybody!

How sad then that you don't extend the same charity to Father Trenham, who is an Orthodox priest in good standing and whom you know! You criticise him on numerous occasions in this thread.

You don't criticise Iconodule at all.

What is the difference? Why the double standard?

I know your posturing has been good for generating theatre and hence the popularity of this thread. But can you honesty say that Christ's bride has been honoured in this thread?

And please, I don't doubt your faithfulness to Orthodoxy personally so enough of that silly canard of "So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching". You even seem to be almost convinced that homosexuality is condemned by Scripture although you leave that somewhat open for discussion: "Scripture seems to uphold a positive view of childbearing and childrearing.  It doesn't seem to hold a similar view about homosexuality."

 

[NicholasMyra]

argument

Where is your argument?

 

[Clemente]

argument

Where is your argument?

That is fabulous. Thank you for coming! More ad hominems.

As usual, we need to use our two-pronged strategy for whenever any priest speaks ill of homosexuality: attack and redefine.

1. Attack the person. We need to inundate this thread with personal attacks on the character of Father Trenham. No need to provide any fact-base for our assertions. Don't worry: we've got some of the cops on our payroll. The point here is to cast aspersions on the character of anybody that teaches traditional Orthodox sexuality. It will be insane!;

2. Redefine the subject.  Remember what Saul Alinsky has taught us:
I. Phase I. Change the subject. Complain about how the Church talks too much about sex.
II. Phase II. "Deemphasise" the subject. We acknowledge the sin of homosexuality, but talk about how it shouldn't be a priority of the Church.
III. Phase III. Redefine the subject. We reject the notion that homosexuality should be condemned. We refer a lot to how the Early Church condemned contraception and divorce as well. We talk from experience how homosexuality is actually a blessed thing.

Now go phase III: talk from personal experience. It will be fabulous.

Bring the other boys!

 

[hecma925]

Bring the other boys!

This only applies if they're homosexuals.

 

[NicholasMyra]

argument

Where is your argument?

That is fabulous. Thank you for coming! More ad hominems.

Uh...

 

[NicholasMyra]

As usual, we need to use our two-pronged strategy for whenever any priest speaks ill of homosexuality: attack and redefine.

1. Attack the person. We need to inundate this thread with personal attacks on the character of Father Trenham. No need to provide any fact-base for our assertions. Don't worry: we've got some of the cops on our payroll. The point here is to cast aspersions on the character of anybody that teaches traditional Orthodox sexuality. It will be insane!;

2. Redefine the subject.  Remember what Saul Alinsky has taught us:
I. Phase I. Change the subject. Complain about how the Church talks too much about sex.
II. Phase II. "Deemphasise" the subject. We acknowledge the sin of homosexuality, but talk about how it shouldn't be a priority of the Church.
III. Phase III. Redefine the subject. We reject the notion that homosexuality should be condemned. We refer a lot to how the Early Church condemned contraception and divorce as well. We talk from experience how homosexuality is actually a blessed thing.

Now go phase III: talk from personal experience. It will be fabulous.

June 5 (Day 157, Zebulun): The Sun's corona was darkened by a massive hole between May 17 and 19, 2016.  Coronal holes are low-density regions in the Sun's atmosphere (the corona).  Coronal holes, which are detected by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, are visible in extreme ultraviolet light (shown in purple in the image)

.  Coronal holes cause solar winds of particles that can affect satellites around the Earth and cause auroras, or Northern and Southern Lights.

Although the dark hole on the Sun was not visible to the eye, it did darken a large part of the corona.  This is a spiritual sign of doom, like the Sun being darkened prior to the Second Advent (Is 13:10; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24, Rev 6:12).  The Second Advent will be doomsday.  Most of the Earth's population will be destroyed.  Then the Earth will be purged with fire to prepare it for the Millennium.

Conclusion
The massive hole in the Sun's corona symbolized doom although not likely on the massive scale of the Second Advent.  It was, however, a sign of doom in that Satan had engineered a major disaster by destroying the US military with the Prostitute of Babylon.  The dark hole in the Sun's corona symbolized the curse of the US military after Satan's attack on it.

Satan has attacked the US military with the same method as Balaam with the Prostitute of Babylon.  Satan sent the Midianite women into the camp of Israel to lure the men into idolatry with the Prostitute of Babylon (Baal).  Satan sent women into the US military with the full support of the women in Congress for the same reason.  Then Satan sent homosexuals into the military with support from their friends in government.  Satan secured the appointment and confirmation of Eric Fanning as Secretary of the Army to destroy the military, not by war but by sexual perversion.

http://biblenews1.com/history16/20160605sun.htm

 

[biro]

Sunspots - so that's what they do.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Mor,

What "good fruit" comes from homosexual relationships?

Why are you asking me?  It wasn't my claim. 

You seem to have gone all in to defend Iconodule and his traditional Orthodoxy at all cost, using the most convoluted logical contortions which defy an honest reading of his posts. This, in spite of his saying that the idea that homosexual acts are sinful was no longer "tenable".

Not true. 

You have sought to portray, what most of us understand as a pro-gay argument, rather as Orthodox.

Not true. 

How sad then that you don't extend the same charity to Father Trenham, who is an Orthodox priest in good standing and whom you know! You criticise him on numerous occasions in this thread.

What comments of mine do you have in mind?  Maybe we can let Iconodule answer for himself and I will answer for myself. 

You don't criticise Iconodule at all.

Not true. 

What is the difference? Why the double standard?

There is none. 

I know your posturing has been good for generating theatre and hence the popularity of this thread. But can you honesty say that Christ's bride has been honoured in this thread?

I think some have honoured her, and some have not.  In the latter group, there are both "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" persons. 

And please, I don't doubt your faithfulness to Orthodoxy personally so enough of that silly canard of "So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching".

How is it a canard?  It's the plain sense of your native English words.

You even seem to be almost convinced that homosexuality is condemned by Scripture although you leave that somewhat open for discussion: "Scripture seems to uphold a positive view of childbearing and childrearing.  It doesn't seem to hold a similar view about homosexuality."

It would be fairly stupid for anyone to claim that homosexual activity is "open for discussion" according to Scripture.  I have never suggested it was "open for discussion".  Not in this thread.  Not in any other thread.  That much is a settled matter and has been for a few thousand years. 

So what exactly about those two sentences is it that makes you think I believe the clear Scriptural condemnation of homosexual activity is open for discussion? 

 

[Cognomen]

But I think the suspicion which abounds in this thread is a big problem.  You think I am lumping you in a group, others think they are being lumped into a group, direct questions about who is included in a certain group are met with "Do you want me to attack other members?" and "You're an observant dude", etc.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  But suspicion is basically the topic, so it's not surprising.

 

olice:

Seriously, it was more of an expression of surprise than an accusation, Mr. Suspiciony... if that's even really your name.

 

[Opus118]

1. Father Josiah does not often get the benefit of the doubt, even from the Moderators. In the quote above, the Moderator ruminates about how perhaps Father Josiah wanted to incite violence. Um, no, Orthodox priests don't generally want to incite violence. Is it too much just to assume that?

Did you give Father Robert Arida the benefit of the doubt? I do not recall it. A tiny little statement that you posted to that effect will do. I would like some reassurance that this is so.

 

[Clemente]

1. Father Josiah does not often get the benefit of the doubt, even from the Moderators. In the quote above, the Moderator ruminates about how perhaps Father Josiah wanted to incite violence. Um, no, Orthodox priests don't generally want to incite violence. Is it too much just to assume that?

Did you give Father Robert Arida the benefit of the doubt? I do not recall it. A tiny little statement that you posted to that effect will do. I would like some reassurance that this is so.

Absolutely. I assume all Orthodox and especially priests are Orthodox. When they give us reason to think they are not, especially in plain English, we should call them out.

 

[ialmisry]

Words mean things.  How you string your words together means things.  You've used the word "hate" - "self-absorbed" in contradiction to "sympathetic" and followed that up with an aspersion of enmity. 

You're psychoanalyzing and projecting.

Perhaps enmity is a poor choice of words.  It sure seems like you have many misgivings of the LGBT movement and choose to see the movement in somewhat adversarial terms.

Having seen how you interpret Scriptural passages - it is indeed likely that you are suffering from some sort of significant impairment in this regard, only potentiated by your involvement in the ELCA. 

I reached my own resolution a long time ago. The ELCA has nothing to do with it.  I was just looking for a sacramental, liturgical church.  Despite all that has happened in my life, I still think Jesus matters.  Which is a miracle in its own right.

Struggle and failure and temptation and falling into the sin of sodomy out of human weakness is not a grounds for exclusion, if one is struggling and fighting the fight.  But active intent (overt, covert or subvert) to participate in a lifestyle and to encourage the Church to embrace active homosexuality is. 

You seem to be focused on what people do an awful lot, rather than focusing on what they are. 

This entire discussion between two opposing sides is often unable to distinguish between working and dealing with persons and loving them in their particular circumstances

Exactly... being gay is part of some peoples "particular circumstances".  I will be frank, some of the Fathers, when they are speaking of acts interpreted as "homosexuality" do not seem to be speaking of an awareness of issues that affect the 21st century context of this discussion, the "particular circumstances" of actual gay people. 

  intent upon "normalizing" promoting and teaching homosexuality 

Are most gay rights advocates actually doing this?  I think they are saying being gay is normal for gay people, not that being gay should be "promoted" to those who are not gay.  That's frankly a talking point of the culture wars that doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny.

  Sometimes LOVE and compassion involves clear and open communication, including the open communication of defining sin as sin and proposing that repentance is necessary for communion. 

To which I can only think of the stern warning that Jesus gave in Matthew 18:6.  We are not talking about axe murderers here, and I find the comparison with heterosexual adultery incredible.  Especially in a Church that permits contraception and remarriage with economia.  What exactly is so hideous about gays that they don't deserve the same economia?
Why impose this austere monastic ideal on people least able to carry it?

The entire Protestant Reformation was made a reality through this very process of division and internal warfare that it finally sought the semblance of peace and the normalization of division and doctrinal and practical incoherence that is a faith without FULLNESS and content. 

Does anybody really have a perfect understanding of the Faith?

Its fruit becomes obvious...and its fruit is a continued acquiescence to active division and the scattering of the flock to be picked off by wolves who wish for both soul and body to be destroyed. 

I don't see unwavering traditionalism and triumphalism as a good response to western modernity.  We are all Protestants now, at least in the western world.  Nobody holds a gun to our head and tells us what to believe.  And we all have to give an account to God for our actions in this world.  "My pastor/priest said it was good" is not going to be a very good response.  God gave us individual minds and hearts for a reason.

AND as part of that love PREACH AND EXPECT REPENTANCE (as a form of mutual edification) rather than simply drink in the lie that you cannot oppose a sinful lifestyle and also love a person. 

"Hey friend, let me help you remove that speck from your own eye", indeed.

In the west we had centuries of hellfire preachers and mendicant orders of all sorts doing the exact same thing you advise- preaching repentance in a legalistic fashion.  (And I really see the Orthodox "therapeutic" approach as potentially even more insidious if misused, for the worst things could be justified in the name of "doing this for your own good.  For many centuries serfs were also told that economic slavery was "for their own good" and that such a state of affairs was the "natural order").  This approach hasn't seen to make a dent in stemming the long-term tide of secularization.  Quite the opposite.  Now you think maybe the western experience might actually have some insight on this matter? 

Preaching repentance as a condition of grace is a heavy burden upon those who are wounded.  And many gay people are especially wounded (I don't live in San Francisco, I live in the Bible Belt where people are still kicked out on the street and bullied for being gay or transgender).  I think it is rather a matter of many people that need to first approach gays and ask the gay brother to remove the speck from their eyes.  Pope Francis is at least starting to do the right thing in this matter by apologizing to the gay community.

they myth of progress and the promise of modernity went up in smoke in the chimneys of Auschwitz.

 

[Clemente]

As usual, we need to use our two-pronged strategy for whenever any priest speaks ill of homosexuality: attack and redefine.

1. Attack the person. We need to inundate this thread with personal attacks on the character of Father Trenham. No need to provide any fact-base for our assertions. Don't worry: we've got some of the cops on our payroll. The point here is to cast aspersions on the character of anybody that teaches traditional Orthodox sexuality. It will be insane!;

2. Redefine the subject.  Remember what Saul Alinsky has taught us:
I. Phase I. Change the subject. Complain about how the Church talks too much about sex.
II. Phase II. "Deemphasise" the subject. We acknowledge the sin of homosexuality, but talk about how it shouldn't be a priority of the Church.
III. Phase III. Redefine the subject. We reject the notion that homosexuality should be condemned. We refer a lot to how the Early Church condemned contraception and divorce as well. We talk from experience how homosexuality is actually a blessed thing.

Now go phase III: talk from personal experience. It will be fabulous.

June 5 (Day 157, Zebulun): The Sun's corona was darkened by a massive hole between May 17 and 19, 2016.  Coronal holes are low-density regions in the Sun's atmosphere (the corona).  Coronal holes, which are detected by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, are visible in extreme ultraviolet light (shown in purple in the image)

.  Coronal holes cause solar winds of particles that can affect satellites around the Earth and cause auroras, or Northern and Southern Lights.

Although the dark hole on the Sun was not visible to the eye, it did darken a large part of the corona.  This is a spiritual sign of doom, like the Sun being darkened prior to the Second Advent (Is 13:10; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24, Rev 6:12).  The Second Advent will be doomsday.  Most of the Earth's population will be destroyed.  Then the Earth will be purged with fire to prepare it for the Millennium.

Conclusion
The massive hole in the Sun's corona symbolized doom although not likely on the massive scale of the Second Advent.  It was, however, a sign of doom in that Satan had engineered a major disaster by destroying the US military with the Prostitute of Babylon.  The dark hole in the Sun's corona symbolized the curse of the US military after Satan's attack on it.

Satan has attacked the US military with the same method as Balaam with the Prostitute of Babylon.  Satan sent the Midianite women into the camp of Israel to lure the men into idolatry with the Prostitute of Babylon (Baal).  Satan sent women into the US military with the full support of the women in Congress for the same reason.  Then Satan sent homosexuals into the military with support from their friends in government.  Satan secured the appointment and confirmation of Eric Fanning as Secretary of the Army to destroy the military, not by war but by sexual perversion.

http://biblenews1.com/history16/20160605sun.htm

Fabulous!

Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!

 

[NicholasMyra]

Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!

Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.

 

[Clemente]

Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!

Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.

Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming. We need to trivialise the so-called "sin" of sodomy.

 

[Clemente]

Mor,

What "good fruit" comes from homosexual relationships?

Why are you asking me?  It wasn't my claim. 

You seem to have gone all in to defend Iconodule and his traditional Orthodoxy at all cost, using the most convoluted logical contortions which defy an honest reading of his posts. This, in spite of his saying that the idea that homosexual acts are sinful was no longer "tenable".

Not true. 

You have sought to portray, what most of us understand as a pro-gay argument, rather as Orthodox.

Not true. 

How sad then that you don't extend the same charity to Father Trenham, who is an Orthodox priest in good standing and whom you know! You criticise him on numerous occasions in this thread.

What comments of mine do you have in mind?  Maybe we can let Iconodule answer for himself and I will answer for myself. 

You don't criticise Iconodule at all.

Not true. 

What is the difference? Why the double standard?

There is none. 

I know your posturing has been good for generating theatre and hence the popularity of this thread. But can you honesty say that Christ's bride has been honoured in this thread?

I think some have honoured her, and some have not.  In the latter group, there are both "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" persons. 

And please, I don't doubt your faithfulness to Orthodoxy personally so enough of that silly canard of "So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching".

How is it a canard?  It's the plain sense of your native English words.

You even seem to be almost convinced that homosexuality is condemned by Scripture although you leave that somewhat open for discussion: "Scripture seems to uphold a positive view of childbearing and childrearing.  It doesn't seem to hold a similar view about homosexuality."

It would be fairly stupid for anyone to claim that homosexual activity is "open for discussion" according to Scripture.  I have never suggested it was "open for discussion".  Not in this thread.  Not in any other thread.  That much is a settled matter and has been for a few thousand years. 

So what exactly about those two sentences is it that makes you think I believe the clear Scriptural condemnation of homosexual activity is open for discussion?

That was another "telling" non-response. Do you think yelling "not true" makes it thus?

Why do you want to walk away from the implications of the charity that you are extending to Iconodule (yet ironically fail to extend to Father Trenham, a priest in good standing)?

It's rather simple so let me spell it out again.

1. You have affirmed that Icondule is Orthodox in his understanding of homosexuality.
2. Iconodule believes homosexual relationships produce "good fruit".

Now unless you want to deny #1, or want Iconodule to deny #2, you should be able to answer the following question: what are the good fruits of homosexuality?

Take your time.

 

[NicholasMyra]

Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!

Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.

Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming.

You are truly our buzzfeed listmaster.

 

[Clemente]

Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!

Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.

Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming.

You are truly our buzzfeed listmaster.

Oh fabulous! Lovely ad hominems! Keep OC.net queer-friendly!

 

[Charles Martel]

What I said was that he  and some others who post on here are encouraging sodomites who are hell bent in their rejection of official Church doctrine of it's rejection of the sin of sodomy when Mor and those I mentioned seem to go on the attack on those like myself who take a hard line backing Tradition and ORTHODOXY when it comes to the sin of Sodom and any other sins of the flesh.Maybe he doesn't see it that way, but from my vantage point, he always seems to want to out me as a hypocrite who has no right accusing others engaging, even trying to justify their obstinacy in the completely immoral act of sodomy.

At any rate, what I percieve here in your threat in moderation is a retaliation by you and mor against me for my refusal to go along with the program of "tolerance" of this sinful act or any of it's protagonists all in the name of "charity" and trying to evangelize them, when the both of you could care less how many of those you chase away from the Church and even Christianity who might view your soft stance and attack on traditionalists as typical of weak Christians who can't even back up something as simple as telling the unrepentant homosexual he is wrong and Christianity is incompatible with sodomy in any form.

But you go ahead and make special exceptions for the advocates of sodomy while you bring the hammer down on those who vehemently oppose it, just like in the secular world. Silence all oppostion. This is typical of all that is wrong with the Church today, there really is no difference in many instances between the world and it's political correctness or the approach and policies of many christians and clergy out there who actually attack people like Fr. Josiah or myself making a stand against sodomy.

I would like to elaborate more on this and my response to your request of substansiation, but due to time constraints in my work schedule, time is a luxury I do not have right now.So you go ahead and and moderate me for "ad hominem" when that is clearly not my intent. But my position on sodomy and Mor's intent remains the same.

So not even a single proof of any of the wild accusations made against me.  OK.

The proof to me is the mere fact of page after page after page of the pro-sodomy posts questioning the "tactics" of the good Fr. Trenham, questioning his integrity and maligning the supporters of true Orthodoxy on the thread.

All the while you continue with the banter about some certain, clearly anti-sodomy posters on here and  their "motivations" for being firmly established on the Church's (yes, mine as well as "yours") teaching condemning sodomy in any shape or form.

You even alluded to the fact that my religion "sucks" where all I see is the sin and not the sinner. Which is totally bogus.

The real problem is that I look at "homosexuals" or "sodomites" or "LGBT people" or whatever you want to call them and I see people, whereas you see only incarnate sins, abominations, false dogmas, and corruption.  The instinct to reject those things, to say that there can be no good relationship with them, is good, but your equation is bad. You have to see people.  People created in the image of God.  People for whom Christ died.  People like us, all of whom are called to much more and much better than we want.  If you only see the sin and not the person, your "religion" sucks, your "faith" is invalid, and "the measure you give will be the measure you get".

And yet, do the proponents of sodomy see me as a "person", created in the image of God and a sinner as well?

Do you use that same high depth spiriutal perception on yourself when it comes to someone like myself?

 

[Charles Martel]

Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!

Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.

Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming.

You are truly our buzzfeed listmaster.

Oh fabulous! Lovely ad hominems! Keep OC.net queer-friendly!

  I like you Clemente, but you really have to stop using the word "fabulous" in your attempt to expose the pro-sodomy, anticlerical agenda on here. It's not very becoming of a straight man to keep using that word. At least not where I come from.

Nothing personal. 8)

 

[mike]

Words mean things.  How you string your words together means things.  You've used the word "hate" - "self-absorbed" in contradiction to "sympathetic" and followed that up with an aspersion of enmity. 

You're psychoanalyzing and projecting.

Perhaps enmity is a poor choice of words.  It sure seems like you have many misgivings of the LGBT movement and choose to see the movement in somewhat adversarial terms.

Having seen how you interpret Scriptural passages - it is indeed likely that you are suffering from some sort of significant impairment in this regard, only potentiated by your involvement in the ELCA. 

I reached my own resolution a long time ago. The ELCA has nothing to do with it.  I was just looking for a sacramental, liturgical church.  Despite all that has happened in my life, I still think Jesus matters.  Which is a miracle in its own right.

Struggle and failure and temptation and falling into the sin of sodomy out of human weakness is not a grounds for exclusion, if one is struggling and fighting the fight.  But active intent (overt, covert or subvert) to participate in a lifestyle and to encourage the Church to embrace active homosexuality is. 

You seem to be focused on what people do an awful lot, rather than focusing on what they are. 

This entire discussion between two opposing sides is often unable to distinguish between working and dealing with persons and loving them in their particular circumstances

Exactly... being gay is part of some peoples "particular circumstances".  I will be frank, some of the Fathers, when they are speaking of acts interpreted as "homosexuality" do not seem to be speaking of an awareness of issues that affect the 21st century context of this discussion, the "particular circumstances" of actual gay people. 

  intent upon "normalizing" promoting and teaching homosexuality 

Are most gay rights advocates actually doing this?  I think they are saying being gay is normal for gay people, not that being gay should be "promoted" to those who are not gay.  That's frankly a talking point of the culture wars that doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny.

  Sometimes LOVE and compassion involves clear and open communication, including the open communication of defining sin as sin and proposing that repentance is necessary for communion. 

To which I can only think of the stern warning that Jesus gave in Matthew 18:6.  We are not talking about axe murderers here, and I find the comparison with heterosexual adultery incredible.  Especially in a Church that permits contraception and remarriage with economia.  What exactly is so hideous about gays that they don't deserve the same economia?
Why impose this austere monastic ideal on people least able to carry it?

The entire Protestant Reformation was made a reality through this very process of division and internal warfare that it finally sought the semblance of peace and the normalization of division and doctrinal and practical incoherence that is a faith without FULLNESS and content. 

Does anybody really have a perfect understanding of the Faith?

Its fruit becomes obvious...and its fruit is a continued acquiescence to active division and the scattering of the flock to be picked off by wolves who wish for both soul and body to be destroyed. 

I don't see unwavering traditionalism and triumphalism as a good response to western modernity.  We are all Protestants now, at least in the western world.  Nobody holds a gun to our head and tells us what to believe.  And we all have to give an account to God for our actions in this world.  "My pastor/priest said it was good" is not going to be a very good response.  God gave us individual minds and hearts for a reason.

AND as part of that love PREACH AND EXPECT REPENTANCE (as a form of mutual edification) rather than simply drink in the lie that you cannot oppose a sinful lifestyle and also love a person. 

"Hey friend, let me help you remove that speck from your own eye", indeed.

In the west we had centuries of hellfire preachers and mendicant orders of all sorts doing the exact same thing you advise- preaching repentance in a legalistic fashion.  (And I really see the Orthodox "therapeutic" approach as potentially even more insidious if misused, for the worst things could be justified in the name of "doing this for your own good.  For many centuries serfs were also told that economic slavery was "for their own good" and that such a state of affairs was the "natural order").  This approach hasn't seen to make a dent in stemming the long-term tide of secularization.  Quite the opposite.  Now you think maybe the western experience might actually have some insight on this matter? 

Preaching repentance as a condition of grace is a heavy burden upon those who are wounded.  And many gay people are especially wounded (I don't live in San Francisco, I live in the Bible Belt where people are still kicked out on the street and bullied for being gay or transgender).  I think it is rather a matter of many people that need to first approach gays and ask the gay brother to remove the speck from their eyes.  Pope Francis is at least starting to do the right thing in this matter by apologizing to the gay community.

they myth of progress and the promise of modernity went up in smoke in the chimneys of Auschwitz.

Well, Germans were burning gays in Auschwitz too. They liked them as much as some Orthodox do (and people of other religions).

 

[Daedelus1138]

the myth of progress and the promise of modernity went up in smoke in the chimneys of Auschwitz.

So what's your solution?  An uncritical acceptance of premodern ways of thinking and being?  In western culture that would amount to contempt for all things western.  I don't see the love in that.