Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Clemente said:
But I tip my hat to you for this thread and in general. You have definitely won the battle for OC.net. You deserve kudos for your achievements and have my full respect.
Thanks Clemente for your encouraging words. Now that my mission to turn OC.net gay has succeeded, I can finally reveal my role as an agent of the Pink International (sorry, we expanded beyond "mafia" a while ago). I was schooled at a secret base on Fire Island where, just as you said, Saul Alinsky trained me in the methods of obfuscating, diverting, etc. to achieve my ends; I was also trained by the hologram of Antonio Gramsci on the methods of infiltrating institutions and subtly infusing revolutionary messages into official narratives. I am now living large on my pink yacht due to generous compensation by George Soros.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Clemente said:
That was another "telling" non-response. Do you think yelling "not true" makes it thus?
It is "not true" because it isn't. 

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)?
Where have I failed to extend any charity to Fr Josiah?  I've just re-read all of my posts in this thread and, if anything, I've gone out of my way to defend him.  But vilifying me is useful to your purposes.

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

1. You have affirmed that Icondule is Orthodox in his understanding of homosexuality.
I most certainly have not.  You're lying. 

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.
Since I've denied no. 1, I'm done with this post. 
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Charles Martel said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Charles Martel said:
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.
You're going to have to be a bit clearer.  I have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate here. 

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?
I have no depth of spirituality.  That said, I've never denied that you are a man created in the image of God.  As for whether or not you're a sinner, that's for you to say.  I certainly don't think I'll need two of my three guesses.  ;)

I can't really tell you how "proponents of sodomy" feel about you, not being one. 
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
gavaisky said:
Clemente said:
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.
For #1, Mor Ephrem does not necessarily agree with Iconodule 100%.

As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.

Accusations of ad hominem are a waste of time. If there are ad hominem attacks, I wish you would simply ignore them instead of complaining about them. It makes it harder for us lurkers to see the thread of discussion amidst all these memes and accusations and counter-accusations. But I guess that's what makes this part of the forum a "free-for-all".
Only fifteen posts to your name, and you get it.  Well done.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Clemente said:
That was another "telling" non-response. Do you think yelling "not true" makes it thus?
It is "not true" because it isn't. 

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)?
Where have I failed to extend any charity to Fr Josiah?  I've just re-read all of my posts in this thread and, if anything, I've gone out of my way to defend him.  But vilifying me is useful to your purposes.

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

1. You have affirmed that Icondule is Orthodox in his understanding of homosexuality.
I most certainly have not.  You're lying. 

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.
Since I've denied no. 1, I'm done with this post.
I won't repost this thread. I encourage readers to review for themselves. You have provided a lot of support and have continually given Iconodule the benefit of the doubt, whilst criticising harshly Father Trenham. Amongst other jewels in this thread:
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."
No, Mor, it was the latter. You had a 50/50 and you chose wrong. Every time.

I don't expect an apology from you calling me a liar, since I think you are good with bullying, but poor with admitting you were wrong.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,829
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Onesimus said:
No.  This is false.  All instances refer to sodomy.  The latter canon is not an oikonomia of a pre-existing canon, it is a new canon unique to St. John's (found only in certain codex manuscripts).  The latter is not an oikonmia of a pre-existing canon of St. Basil.  Only the former. 

The penance for male sodomy is 15 years.

The penance for male/female sodomy is 8 years.

The penance for male sodomy against family members ranges in time frame based on the degree of familial separation.

The penance for male sodomy at 3 years is only admitted IF the penitent chooses to do the "extra" penence.  Otherwise it remains 15 years, which is the actual penance. 

There is no equivalent oikonomia for male/female sodomy. 
 
You are reading what you want to read into this.  The fact that the Church interprets it differently than you - and always has - is what they call a clue.
It's kinda crazy to me that he felt the need to spell out all the different kinds of sodomy and rates them.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Iconodule said:
gavaisky said:
As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.
Sure. Here is the post which I believe is in question:

The general teaching is that it is the act, not the desire, which is sinful. I think Orthodox pastors are generally awakening to the understanding that it is not something to be switched on or off. We don't pick all our temptations, but we can choose how to respond to them. In this scenario, the Church is called to accept these people lovingly and aid them in their spiritual struggle, counseling them to celibacy. I think such an attitude is workable without the virulent homophobia that singles this sin out as the downfall of civilization. I myself have taken and struggled with this conception.

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.


I'm guessing that Mor and Mina would agree more or less with the first paragraph but not the second. I don't think there is any grounds of accusing them of siding with me on that part. I think what basically unites us is the general principle of "don't be a jerk" on this issue, but for the second paragraph, I am only speaking for myself.
I won't speak for Mina (after watching Clemente demonstrate in post after post how badly things can go when you presume to speak for another, I hesitate to imitate him). 

I agree with your first paragraph, both as written and as summarised. 

Regarding your second, I can agree with the problems you've noted (e.g., "pain and exclusion", "speaking the truth in love"), but I can't say they've led me to reconsider Christian teaching on sexuality as so many murky concepts that should be disregarded.  My personal take on the Church's teaching is that sexuality, far from being merely a matter of morality, extends to the realm of doctrine.  It has theological relevance.  Messing it up messes up a lot of other things.  As such, it really can't be ignored as an inconvenience.  It's a starting point and a foundation. 

Your approach has the benefit of more immediately overcoming some (a lot? most?) of the "pain and exclusion", but it does so, from my vantage point, at great cost.  Even if we wanted to pay that price, I don't think we have a right to do so. 

That doesn't mean I'm entirely satisfied with my alternative.  I think it maintains the Orthodox faith as we have received it better, but it can create an impasse because you can only go so far with it.  Also, it depends almost entirely on pastors and congregations to be able to accept all sorts of "sinners" into their midst with love.  My experience with Orthodoxy is largely in "ethnic" communities in America, and I can tell you from that experience that even repentant "sinners" have a hard time being accepted in the parishes.  More typically, people "drop out" for a time (e.g., several years) until their situations normalise according to some socially acceptable model, if they ever come back at all.  Priests may sometimes maintain a clandestine ministry to these "shut-ins" so that they have some connection to the Church, but they may not, or they might stop if it becomes known and causes "scandal".  I know, for example, "repentant" people who asked their priests if they could come back to church sometime, only to be turned away in the nicest way possible because of the danger of "scandal" in the parish.  So I struggle with the idea of churches maintaining a strict Orthodox theology but applying it like country club by-laws.  If "the Church is a hospital for sinners", and its local incarnations are turning away classes of sinners who want to repent and want the support of believers, it is basically a front for spiritually euthanising inconvenient people.  I don't see that as a fault of the theology, but rather of the people, but it's still a crappy situation.   

My experience with family members, acquaintances, and generally listening to gay couples, whether childless or with adopted children, tells me that it is possible for such relationships to produce "good fruit," most especially love.
My personal view is that wherever there is genuine love, it is related to God who is love.  But what are the criteria for evaluating the genuineness of love?  Are "gay couples" or "gay families" the only "theologically unsanctioned" groups among whom one can observe "love"?  I don't think so.  It seems to me, then, that there's more to "love" than "love". 
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Clemente said:
gavaisky said:
Clemente said:
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.
For #1, Mor Ephrem does not necessarily agree with Iconodule 100%.

As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.

Accusations of ad hominem are a waste of time. If there are ad hominem attacks, I wish you would simply ignore them instead of complaining about them. It makes it harder for us lurkers to see the thread of discussion amidst all these memes and accusations and counter-accusations. But I guess that's what makes this part of the forum a "free-for-all".
Now that Iconodule has courageously affirmed everything I said he believed (including his desire that the Church will adopt his heterodox views) I look forward to Mor explaining what the "good fruits" of sodomy are.

In the least, he should explain for all who have read this thread his pro-gay bias: why does he afford him the benefit of the doubt and assume his views were Orthodox when in fact, they were not (as Iconodule has readily admitted).

As for you point#1 above, he has already said that and that is irrelevant. He claimed Iconodule held Orthodox views on homosexuality. He does not.

I'm sure Mor will be quick to apologise for his error of judgement.
I stand by every single thing I wrote in this thread.  NB: what I wrote, not what you claim I wrote. 
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Clemente said:
I won't repost this thread. I encourage readers to review for themselves. You have provided a lot of support and have continually given Iconodule the benefit of the doubt, whilst criticising harshly Father Trenham. Amongst other jewels in this thread:
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."
No, Mor, it was the latter. You had a 50/50 and you chose wrong. Every time.

I don't expect an apology from you calling me a liar, since I think you are good with bullying, but poor with admitting you were wrong.
You either have truly the poorest grasp of written English of any native English speaker I've ever chanced upon, or you are willfully ignoring people's points in this thread to be hysterical about a "pink mafia." You are making yourself ridiculous.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Iconodule said:
The fact that I was unclear or that Mor didn't quite see where I was going really has no bearings on this discussion and is not his fault anyway. At no point did he indicate that he agreed with me 100%.
It's not about Mor.  It's about defending Christ's bride, no matter how many lies it takes. 
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Clemente said:
Of course, OC.net is not reflective of the Church, but is rather a surreal bubble. I have visited a lot of different parishes around the world and have listened to many hours of AFR from a wide variety of sources and I know that the Church is not pro-gay or its political agenda.
LOL, "I have listened to many hours of AFR". 
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Clemente (your username always reassures me when I am tempted to think you are inclement), I can't be the only one feeling jilted by your giving all your attention to Mor lately.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
TheTrisagion said:
Onesimus said:
No.  This is false.  All instances refer to sodomy.  The latter canon is not an oikonomia of a pre-existing canon, it is a new canon unique to St. John's (found only in certain codex manuscripts).  The latter is not an oikonmia of a pre-existing canon of St. Basil.  Only the former. 

The penance for male sodomy is 15 years.

The penance for male/female sodomy is 8 years.

The penance for male sodomy against family members ranges in time frame based on the degree of familial separation.

The penance for male sodomy at 3 years is only admitted IF the penitent chooses to do the "extra" penence.  Otherwise it remains 15 years, which is the actual penance. 

There is no equivalent oikonomia for male/female sodomy. 
 
You are reading what you want to read into this.  The fact that the Church interprets it differently than you - and always has - is what they call a clue.
It's kinda crazy to me that he felt the need to spell out all the different kinds of sodomy and rates them.
We can look at the canons as indication that homosexuality (or, I guess now it's just sodomy) is a special evil. On the other hand, it occurs to me that the canons are indications that homosexuality is worthy of grace -- and, further, not worthy of the treatment it gets from fundamentalists -- in four ways, some of which are I suppose closely related.

First, because under the old regimes (Roman, Hebrew), most of these canons would instead have been death sentences. Second, because it is an act, and a specific act that is against the canons. Third, because the sodomizer is not considered someone who has no place among human beings anymore. Fourth, because sodomy holds a place among other sins.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Clemente said:
I won't repost this thread. I encourage readers to review for themselves. You have provided a lot of support and have continually given Iconodule the benefit of the doubt, whilst criticising harshly Father Trenham.
You can't quote it because it doesn't exist.  I have not harshly criticised Fr Josiah in this thread.  I barely criticised him at all. 

Amongst other jewels in this thread:
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."
No, Mor, it was the latter. You had a 50/50 and you chose wrong. Every time.
Where did Iconodule say he was actively working to change Church teaching and practice?  In fact, he has said "I've changed my mind about this once, so perhaps I could change it again. I don't find the present arguments to be especially persuasive, however."  That's someone you can reach out to, someone you can work with, someone you can win over to the side of Orthodox teaching on homosexuality, because that's someone who is willing to listen.  Your problem is that you don't have anything to offer.

I don't expect an apology from you calling me a liar, since I think you are good with bullying, but poor with admitting you were wrong.
You were lying about my words and my beliefs.  I've challenged you on it before and you've come up with nothing. 

Clemente said:
I encourage readers to review for themselves.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Porter ODoran said:
Clemente (your username always reassures me when I am tempted to think you are inclement), I can't be the only one feeling jilted by your giving all your attention to Mor lately.
I'm surprised he's got any time for me at all, what with all the AFR podcasts he's digesting. 
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
TheTrisagion said:
It's kinda crazy to me that he felt the need to spell out all the different kinds of sodomy and rates them.
Well, someone did. Not necessarily the attributed author, especially in the case of John the Faster.

Pseudo-John has some real winner canons, including:

"A boy who has been ruined in front of any man cannot come into holy orders. For although on account of his immature age he did not sin himself, yet his vessel was rent and became useless in connection with sacred services. If, however, he received the ejaculation between his thighs, after being suitably penanced he shall not be barred from preferment to holy orders."
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Mor Ephrem said:
Iconodule said:
The fact that I was unclear or that Mor didn't quite see where I was going really has no bearings on this discussion and is not his fault anyway. At no point did he indicate that he agreed with me 100%.
It's not about Mor.  It's about defending Christ's bride, no matter how many lies it takes.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Taqiyya
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Onesimus said:
Iconodule said:
The point I am making with Saint John's canon is that, contrary to what RaphaCam suggests, arsenocoetia has been taken to mean something different than the bare etymology of "man-bedding" suggests. It is also possible that, between Saint John and Saint Paul, a different understanding of the term exists, or else we have to conclude that "arsenokoites" includes anyone engaging in anal or even just dorsal intercourse, regardless of the sex of the two people. And in fact, in elements of Orthodox tradition, sodomy was interpreted this way, going so far as to include the woman being on top of the man.
You really need to take more time to study this subject.  Arsenocoetia has its only usage in the Judeo-Christian Tradition until Christianity becomes dominant.  There is not Greco-Roman usage of this outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Lots of misinformation exists out there to argue for some kind of muddy the waters kind of agenda to legitimize sodomy, by saying one cannot see this word as a compound.  But they leave out the fact that the word was coined by the translators of the Hebrew texts into the LXX translation of Leviticus.  Arsenocoetia equates DIRECTLY to  the Hebrew word used in Lev 18 and 20.  The LXX uses this to translate "yiskab et zakar"  The Hebrew states ""lie with a male as one lies with a female."  The LXX translators took "lie with a male" and translated the Hebrew;  "yiskab et zakar" into "arsenoscoetin".  This is where the term has its origin and meaning grounded.  Nowhere else.
This isn't precisely true. "Arsenokoitis" is first attested in all of Greek literature in St. Paul. Yes, the Septuagint contains Greek for "masculine" and "coitus," as do a great many other Greek works, if not for the Septuagint's purpose or in the Septuagint passages' relationship -- but not  for "masculocoitus," a coinage of St. Paul's. Does this matter in the way post-modern progressive Evangelicals are trying to make it matter? Not at all, since the meaning of the compound is perfectly plain, and the allusion to the Septuagint is rather plain also.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
NicholasMyra said:
TheTrisagion said:
It's kinda crazy to me that he felt the need to spell out all the different kinds of sodomy and rates them.
Well, someone did. Not necessarily the attributed author, especially in the case of John the Faster.

Pseudo-John has some real winner canons, including:

"A boy who has been ruined in front of any man cannot come into holy orders. For although on account of his immature age he did not sin himself, yet his vessel was rent and became useless in connection with sacred services. If, however, he received the ejaculation between his thighs, after being suitably penanced he shall not be barred from preferment to holy orders."
This is particularly interesting when we consider the Levitical proscriptions on priests with flawed bodies did not include any deformities that result from behavior at all (correct me if I'm wrong). It makes me wonder if we've missed the point of Moses' Law, there.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Personally, I don't find it an affront to he Fathers to give their teachings some context (and I am quite the paleophile). What is needed, when doing so, however, is our own purity of belief, trust in God and the Fathers, and, perhaps most useful of all in exegesis, a sympathy born of love for them that enters with them in their creative act at the time they spoke or penned.

Anyway, I myself have wondered rather often how the Roman sex industries affected the Christians of the time, not to mention Roman society at large. Specifically, the slave population of Roman cities was huge, perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 the total population, and a likewise huge proportion of those slaves were the wares of the pornos, the whoremonger. Sex slaves were women, girls, and, yes, boys -- in fact the proportion of boys may have been a quarter or more.

Now, with this picture clearly in our minds, consider if our own city populations were half slaves, a quarter prostitutes in warehouses openly selling and renting them, and perhaps 1 in 8 of every person we could count a boy sex slave (how many more, previously used as such)?

To bring my speculations home:  What do we think our priests would say? our pamphleteers would write? What should they? What would be the conversations after divine liturgy on this subject, or on Christian webforums?
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
And then to move beyond the thought experiment to try to bring the subject into line with the topic of the thread:  Would it be better that the Apostle and the Fathers, when condemning sodomizers and effeminizers, had in mind the patrons of such houses of prostitution? Or would we rather they never spoke of or taught about this matter at all -- left the millions of boys trapped in lives of legal rape a subject not to be bothered about? I can sense my questions are becoming polemical, altho that wasn't really my intention.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
100
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
NicholasMyra said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Iconodule said:
The fact that I was unclear or that Mor didn't quite see where I was going really has no bearings on this discussion and is not his fault anyway. At no point did he indicate that he agreed with me 100%.
It's not about Mor.  It's about defending Christ's bride, no matter how many lies it takes.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Taqiyya
And thus we have come full circle:

Mor Ephrem said:
"Allahu akbar!"
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
TheTrisagion said:
It's kinda crazy to me that he felt the need to spell out all the different kinds of sodomy and rates them.
Well, someone did. Not necessarily the attributed author, especially in the case of John the Faster.

Pseudo-John has some real winner canons, including:

"A boy who has been ruined in front of any man cannot come into holy orders. For although on account of his immature age he did not sin himself, yet his vessel was rent and became useless in connection with sacred services. If, however, he received the ejaculation between his thighs, after being suitably penanced he shall not be barred from preferment to holy orders."
As I have said elsewhere, 'homosexuality' isn't an Orthodox concept.  St. John's canons are proof of that.  Look at the differences in penances that he suggests:

CANON VIII
Anyone having committed masturbation is penalized forty days,
during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do
one hundred metanies every day.

CANON IX
As for intercourse of men with one another, such as practicing
double masturbation, it received the stated penance of up to eighty
days.

CANON XI
But for women as well, if any of them has allowed herself to be
kissed and felt by man, without, however, being ravished by him, let
her receive the penalty provided for masturbation.

CANON XII
Upon every Monk or layman that has committed fornication we
impose exclusion from Communion for two years, provided he
consents to submit to xerophogy after the ninth hour and to do two
hundred and fifty metanies; but if he neglects to do so, let him fulfill
the whole term fixed by the Fathers.


Here, a woman in a make-out session receives more punishment than homosexual 'double masturbation.'  This goes against the modern narrative of sexuality being bandied about.  Until people get a firmer grasp of the subject, I think that the discuss will only devolve more and more.

Theses canons made sense at the time of their writing, but we can't see how they are interconnected now because our thinking has changed so much.  Trying to say that our modern view of sexuality is normative to the Church is patently ludicrous. 
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Iconodule said:
You know, Onesimus, from your previous warnings, I was expecting a magisterial refutation from you that actually moved the discussion forward. I am disappointed.
I wish I had the time to attend to it further.  But in the middle of all this I have full time work, a two year old child, and some other VERY big fish to fry.  I've seen that in your responses you will be intentionally disingenuous, even going so far as to misrepresent arguments I've presented.  Having a conversation with someone is not easy when they communicate in bad faith, and one cannot expect fruit from a dead tree.    The only thing you want moved forward are your false ideas, and you'll hang on any thread of doubt you can foment, Regardless of how untenable it is. 

I don't see how the church doesn't welcome homosexuals, but I'm sure it has a lot to do with location, demographics and local cultural taboos.  I have many in my congregation.  I assume they are working out their salvation in fear and trembling, and that they are struggling like we all are.  I also have a former sex offender there.  Should I apologize to him for our outdated stance on that person's sexuality?  But that's not what you want...you don't want people to heal. You want to bless their sin.  What other sins should we bless and sanctify?  Is a pornography addiction to be considered as bearing good fruit because our moral compass has apparently been askew for 2000 years, but now suddenly we have so much more insight into the faith and the world has changed?  Please.  I don't want to change our faith.  You do.

All this other obfuscation is just your attempt to justify something that hurts people.  I actually think that the church has not kept its integrity about enforcing alot of canons that should be...and in actuality, I think your point about usury is spot on, and should actually have more of a center stage than this issue.    But no one wants to talk about that.  It way less interesting and we're all so wrapped up in it we can't see straight.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
FatherGiryus said:
Here, a woman in a make-out session receives more punishment than homosexual 'double masturbation.'
Am I that bad at math? It looks like she get 40 days for make out and feel-up, but double gay masturbation gets 80 days?
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
FatherGiryus said:
Theses canons made sense at the time of their writing, but we can't see how they are interconnected now because our thinking has changed so much.  Trying to say that our modern view of sexuality is normative to the Church is patently ludicrous. 
Fr. good thing we aren't faced with a dilemma where modernism and the fashionably-stoic canons of pseudo-john are our only options.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
FatherGiryus said:
Theses canons made sense at the time of their writing, but we can't see how they are interconnected now because our thinking has changed so much.  Trying to say that our modern view of sexuality is normative to the Church is patently ludicrous. 
Fr. good thing we aren't faced with a dilemma where modernism and the fashionably-stoic canons of pseudo-john are our only options.
I'm not sure people could even tell what the dilemma would be.
 

hecma925

Stratopedarches
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
19,931
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Age
159
Location
The South
FatherGiryus said:
You all know where this is going...




I have lost all respect for you, Father.

Just kidding.  Is the offer to try home-cured meat still on the table?
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
FatherGiryus said:
NicholasMyra said:
FatherGiryus said:
Theses canons made sense at the time of their writing, but we can't see how they are interconnected now because our thinking has changed so much.  Trying to say that our modern view of sexuality is normative to the Church is patently ludicrous. 
Fr. good thing we aren't faced with a dilemma where modernism and the fashionably-stoic canons of pseudo-john are our only options.
I'm not sure people could even tell what the dilemma would be.
Well modernism is a slippery and vague term, after all.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Porter ODoran said:
This isn't precisely true. "Arsenokoitis" is first attested in all of Greek literature in St. Paul. Yes, the Septuagint contains Greek for "masculine" and "coitus," as do a great many other Greek works, if not for the Septuagint's purpose or in the Septuagint passages' relationship -- but not  for "masculocoitus," a coinage of St. Paul's. Does this matter in the way post-modern progressive Evangelicals are trying to make it matter? Not at all, since the meaning of the compound is perfectly plain, and the allusion to the Septuagint is rather plain also.

1.  Which "great many other Greek works?"  Name them.  Source?  Remember, these need to be prior to 1St C. CE.  You can produce maybe two sources and those are post 1 c. Works or compilations of works done in the Byzantine period. 

2. Arsenokoitis is simply a plural of the form rendered in the LXX of lev 20:13.  You may be only taking into account the formulation utilized in Lev 18.  Or you are not comparing the actual LXX rendering but some morphological /lemma database rendering.  The coinage Paul is using is only the plural form of the singular used in the LXX trans of 20:13.  The LXX is genitive case and accusative, Paul uses the two by putting them into one nominative case.

LXX of lev 20:13.  καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν....would have appeared in all capitals, with no spacing and would have appeared as ; κοιμηθῇμετὰἄρσενοςκοίτην

LXX =      ἄρσενοςκοίτηv
1 Cor 6 =  ἀρσενοκοῖται
1 Tim 1 =  ἀρσενοκοίταις

Those who want to pretend the compound is not relevant to the text and to be read as such must also explain how similar compounds are used in the same context of 1 Tim 1:10 ---

ἀνδραποδισταῖς = man-stealers,
ἐπίορκος = against-oath(s),
which give us three points of correspondence of form and style in the same text, side by side, doing the same thing.  It is beyond preposterous to contend that in the contexts given, these are not parallels with corresponding affect.



 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
hecma925 said:
I have lost all respect for you, Father.

Just kidding.  Is the offer to try home-cured meat still on the table?
There's club for that.  I especially like the hate mail I occasionally get:

Yesterday I listened to your lecture.  Two things struck me:

1. Your flippant and jokey manner.  This was highly distracting.  Please leave the funny voices for car time or shower time when you are alone and are not giving a serious lecture on death.  But you yourself said you did not wish to give a serious theological talk about death.  How shameful. Death is serious.  Death is theological.  You as a minister owe it to your hearers to give them the serious truths of the Bible. Instead you come off as a Patton Oswald wannabe...


That was from a guy who signs his emails as 'Emperor.'  I annoyed an Emperor.  Well, if I'm going to be disrespected, it is best to come from a higher class of people like royals.

Yes, PM me if you are going to be in the area.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
I'm sorry but as to your second point you're only demonstrating what I claimed, ar far as I can see. As to your first, do you really think words for masculine and sex act were extremely uncommon? My guess in both cases is that you did not read my post caredully, and that's okay.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
TheTrisagion on Yesterday at 06:07:17 PM
It's kinda crazy to me that he felt the need to spell out all the different kinds of sodomy and rates them.
I don't know if this is in reference to me or to the originators of the canons, but I'll respond...First off, I didn't bring the canons into this conversation Icondule did based on some faulty premises and intentions to hair split and distract and decieve others with a goal directed towards influencing others to his view, which is not a permissible view in the church....it is the epitome of a hartikon anthropon...a divisive man who  walks unruly.  I'm simply responding to false interpretations and usage of these points and in doing so I only list these things in order to give full context and full transparity.   

The fact that there are different degrees of sin based upon who the relations are between and the degree of departure from the intended "use" (what a description) is what you can't seem to get your mind around.
You're changing your argument here. Previously it was, "One canon was a mitigation from Basil, the other is new." Now you want to introduce something about "degree of departure from the intended use." And you call me scholastic. Huh.
No.  You've consistently changed the argument, broadening it to meet your own predilections and interpretive stance.  For my part, I made clear that there were two arguments...introducing nothing new, but referring to the point below which was in tandem with the other argument.

The penance for male sodomy against family members ranges in time frame based on the degree of familial separation.
I think you must have misunderstood the "use" to which I was referring, and if this was opaque to you, I apologize.  The "performance" of sodomy against one's wife  is "against the natural use" of her body and "against the natural use" of his body.  This is a reference to Romans 1 and the penances are based on "the degree of departure from the intended use" of the person being violated...meaning the degree of departure from the relational order and respect for inherent sanctity of person and their place in creation and the family.  Violations of people's anus is not the "natural use" of the anus.  Nor are violations of the mouth.  The penance is double the penance of other forms of sodomy with family members and is roughly equivalent to sodomy with one's natural brother. 

All the other canons speak of "committing" sodomy vs. the canons of sodomy regarding young boys and women in which it is "performed" on them indicating that they are being violated in some way.  Again, this is called a clue.  I know you'll say the violation must be something other than anal violation....but of course, you would.

In any case, my point is simply to respond to false use of information to make false claims and to offer a rebuttal with as much transparancy and contextual content as possible in my limited time available.  How these canons are implemented by the Church is above my pay grade.  You want me to tell you why we don't adhere to other canons, and my answer is we're lazy and are increasingly apostate people living in what Paul calls "terrible times"

the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,",
"the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires."
they said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow after their own ungodly desires.
Lord have mercy.

Romans 1:

Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves: or that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions:for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:[/b] and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they which practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them.

Just like all of our sins, this sin leads us to a darkened heart and mind and we are "given over" to those lusts without repentance. 

"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is intolerable even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been stricken with grief and removed from your fellowship the man who did this? Although I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit, and I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.…When you are gathered in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of the Lord Jesus, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, that you may be a new unleavened batch, as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  Therefore let us keep the festival, not with the old bread, leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and of truth.

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. I was not including the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a verbal abuser, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
There....is that magisterial enough for you?

Can we not love our homosexual brothers and sisters without encouraging their sin?

According to you....no.  According to the world....no.  I see where you're values come from and where they are directed...and it is the world...not the Kingdom.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Porter ODoran said:
I'm sorry but as to your second point you're only demonstrating what I claimed, ar far as I can see. As to your first, do you really think words for masculine and sex act were extremely uncommon? My guess in both cases is that you did not read my post caredully, and that's okay.
Perhaps there is some clarification of the second point I was trying to illustrate that you are not seeing, but yes I think we are on the same page generally. 

As to the second point, there were many terms in the greek to describe the masculine homosexual sex acts.  There was not however in the Greco-Roman language the common usage of this particular term.  It was pretty much a colloquialism of the Jews and then the Christians, and finally after the ascendancy of Christianity in the Empire, into common  Greek usage. 

And this is what Iconodule fails to understand about the usage of the word in the canons and their colloquial vernacular use.  He's bent on making hay out of a non-starter, unable to concede to any proper correction.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
[quote author=FatherGiryus]

Trying to say that our modern view of sexuality is normative to the Church is patently ludicrous.  [/quote]

Now this, depending on how one looks at it, I think is true.    But I'm not sure it is helpful in teasing out the whole picture. 

What were the intended goals of the canons?  Were they not to give people weak in faith and subject to deep seeded cultural sins and customs a framework from which to develop a catechetical compliment to repentance, not dissimilar to the orthopraxy of liturgy or the bodily ascesis of fasting, prayer, etc.?    What was the objective goal of directing the flow of people's consciousness other than to establish a set of pattern by which people would learn how to reorient their relationships and attitude away from sexual nihilism and all its associated aberrancies? 

The effect of these canons were the establishment of the family unit and sexuality as we know it modernity by channeling Christian behavior towards their telos in Christ.  The fact is that the modern notions of sexuality and homosexuality are a product of these very canons being ingrained into the consciousness of the Christian world...and the fact that they've always remained imperfect, does not mean they were not sanctifying for people, culture, etc.

The departure from relying on those canons and their strict implementation is, in my estimation, a result of the ubiquitous understanding of them as valued parts of identity in the church over time which had seeped into the fabric of Christian culture...and this was exactly the goal of the canons for a still pagan culture intent on sexual nihilism, objectification and violation of other human persons "against nature." (not nature as in mother nature - but nature as in logikos = i.e. conforming to the image of likeness of Christ.)  The fact that Iconodule points out is essentially correct; that we don't implement these anymore cause they don't apply to our modern context.  But he has this backwards.  They are becoming more relevant to us as we begin to recognize how much we don't live a truly Christian life and how much we are being conformed to the likeness of the world and becoming slaves to its modern trends and passions.  We are beginning to need these external catechetical practices in order to reign in our passions and help us become attentive to the Spirit.  What we are seeing in modernity is essentially a popular re-embrace of the kinds of sexual nihilism of the pagan world, complete with same sex-marriages (which they had).  As we slide back into paganism we probably need the canons just as the culture emerging from paganism did.    Times do change for the Church and it does need to adapt, but in precisely the opposite direction Iconodule proposes.  Our regression is not an indication that the canons are no longer helpful, but that they may have more value than we understand in transforming the lives of the spiritually immature.

I completely get your point, but this is essentially a statement offered that is "a mile wide and an inch deep" without giving any food for thought.  It seems that in the context of this ongoing discussion it could read uncritically to continue to push a certain desired outcome; i.e. the legitimization of sodomy.

Perhaps the canons do need to be rewritten for a new age...but they ought not be rewritten to embrace sodomy.    Perhaps they need to be rewritten to reign us back in and remind of us of who we are to be.
 

primuspilus

Taxiarches
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Location
A displaced Southerner in the Godless North
Website
www.saintgregorythetheologian.org
Can we not love our homosexual brothers and sisters without encouraging their sin?
Sure you can. However the problem is that nowadays, if you speak up about something you hate them. Like we're in kindergarten all over again.

I don't believe in gay "marriage". Such a thing can't really exist. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. What I do hate is people playing fast and loose with Scripture to try to say that these "relationships" are somehow ok in scripture. They're not.

PP

 
Top