Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

[Porter ODoran]

Iconodule is writing within a particular Internet forum medium. His summaries and examples do not purport to be exhaustive sourced proofs of his conclusions. Rather, they appeal to our educated sense of correctness and bid us investigate further. The context, non-polemical tone and intellectual humility of his posts are sufficient for conveying this.

No, his post and his later appeals to his own post presume enough authority for the very positive conclusions it makes. There isn't nuance or restraint there. The post makes very sweeping judgments and paints a very specific picture.

 

[Charles Martel]

You're going to have to be a bit clearer.  I have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate here.

I can't be any more clearer, if you can't get the gist of my posts, which are probably the most blunt and straightfoward on the forum, then there is no hope in any further communiacation on this issue;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ

I have no depth of spirituality.

Oh, I beg to differ Mr. Orthodox Maximus. you are much more spiritual being than I, a simple trad Catholic homophobe. Which, I never understood that slanderous slur against people who don't accept sodomy. We don't accept it because it is wrong, illogical and a distortion of nature. Not because we're "afraid" of sodomy.( Another classic fail by the PC left.)

That said, I've never denied that you are a man created in the image of God.

I'm sure to some on here I'm the devil incarnate.I'm ok with that.. Hell, if God is pro-sodomy, I might as well be.

  As for whether or not you're a sinner, that's for you to say.

Which one of you convicts me of being in error on the Church's postion on the sin  sodomy? Then cast the first stone.

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

This is a joke right? Or, are you really that oblivious?

 

[Iconodule]

Iconodule is writing within a particular Internet forum medium. His summaries and examples do not purport to be exhaustive sourced proofs of his conclusions. Rather, they appeal to our educated sense of correctness and bid us investigate further. The context, non-polemical tone and intellectual humility of his posts are sufficient for conveying this.

No, his post and his later appeals to his own post presume enough authority for the very positive conclusions it makes. There isn't nuance or restraint there. The post makes very sweeping judgments and paints a very specific picture.

One more time Porter...

Some of the material I'm referring to is here, btw, for anyone curious: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26032.msg411397.html#msg411397

This one too http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26032.msg411718.html#msg411718

 

[Porter ODoran]

Why have you posted the same link four times?

 

[ialmisry]

I can't speak for every orthodox society obviously although my hunch is a have somehow more informed instincts having experienced one natively. When it comes to sex  advice  -but not only-the crazy stuff that comes  from elders , priests etc rarely gets translated into English . So Englush speaking orthodoxy is insulated from the nuttier bits.

because the Anglophone world is nut free?

 

[ialmisry]

I'm with you. It's nuts. And yet... Who are you and I to know better about this than Sts Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, John Damascene, Gregory Palamas, etc. ? And when we question this we are really questioning the entire patristic way of thinking about sex.

I don't know about you, but besides St. Gregory of Nyssa I am one who shared a marital bed.

As for your quote from the great saint:

Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were "made a little lower than the angels ," to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker.

A couple of problems:

Since God is now one of us as He was not in paradise, it is a lot more than a restoration. Were it not for reproduction, the Incarnation would not have happened.

We do not return to the first life: in Paradise we were naked, in the Resurrection (hopefully) we wear pure white linen.

We had bodies and ate in paradise, the angels never had bodies nor ate. So it was not kind of angelic life.

We are only for a little while made lower than the angels. They surround God's throne, with the Son we sit on it.

We do NOT "assuredly know" angelic reproduction exists. In fact, we have no assurance or assertion of it whatsoever.  Creation fell with man, not with the fall of Lucifer and his angels which happened before.

The Father begot the Son, the Spirit proceeds out of the Father like Eve out of Adam, and the same term "yoke" is used for the union of marriage and the union of the Persons.

St. Gregory seems to have speculated beyond the facts.

 

[Iconodule]

Why have you posted the same link four times?

Because you ignored it three times.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

At the request of this section's moderator, I am temporarily locking this thread for review. 

Mor Ephrem, section moderator

 

[minasoliman]

Forgive me for taking more than a month getting back to this situation.  Better now than never addressing a lot of the nuisances that went around in this thread.  There is a terrible miscommunication error in this thread.  Here are a few pointers:

1.  If you're going to accuse someone of being something (like a sodomite-encourager), back it up.  If you can't back it up, but just argue that there are implications, I cannot let that one go, and will rule it as an ad hom.

2.  This is the Free-For-All section.  In other words, people who take heretical views can still argue and participate in their views, so long as they understand they are not pretending this is Orthodox teaching or that they are promoting a change in Orthodox doctrine. 

3.  This section does not mean the mod team encourages sodomy or homosexual teaching.  To hammer this point over and over again poisons the well of discussion, and does not show forth a true Christian character of preaching the faith to others who are struggling with this issue.

4.  There are those, like myself and Mor, who are trying to understand the other side with sympathy and trying to bring them to a moment in which we can preach the faith.  The fact that we can identify certain "good points" made by those struggling with the issue of homosexuality does not equate an endorsement of heterodox views.

5.  If you feel there is a rule violation, such as an ad hom made against you, then rather than crying foul in this thread, there is a "report to moderator" function.  Use it or you will be penalized if you continue to be a nuisance in the discussion pointing out your grievances.

With that said, I'm going to start giving penalties for some of the problematic posts.  In the meantime, I'd like to take your attention to this old post I made:

Based on what I wrote here:

Enough with the tit-for-tat crap here, and this is for the last three replies here.  One of you have to be adult enough not to continue with this garbage.

Here's how adults should discuss:

Reply #33.  I disagree with your teaching
Reply #34.  Why?
Reply #35.  He mentioned it already in reply #6, the idea of not defending God, but doing good.

Now, I get it.  This may be dull and boring, and not lively.  But apparently, either we become too forward and hurtful or we become reactive to hurtful comments.  I'm not going to go through the whole spiel of "well, this is the internet, he didn't mean it that way, bla bla bla." Or in the case of this section, "This is the FFA, it has some lax rules, bla bla bla" 

No!  It seems like you guys don't seem to get it.  No matter how many times it's said.  So I'm going to give a different standard.

In every thread that becomes this contentious or this edgy, if I am able to catch you before you start throwing ad hominems at each other, I will ask for a "boring and dull" professional discussion.  Anyone who crosses the line over my directive will get a penalty, even by standards of snark that do not break the letter of the rules in the forum.  I will start doing so very soon in another thread I locked.  Every single FFA thread that have some childish behavior of either those who are baiters or baited, I will put in the "boring and dull" directive until people grow up.

I'm sick and tired of this crap.  Enough is enough!  We all have lives, and we can't babysit you 24 hours.  Be adults!

Thread unlocked.

Mina

I'm initiating the "boring and dull" directive.  Answer the questions of the OP professionally without snark, without disrespect, without inappropriateness.  These are very broad terms, and it is in your favor to be very strict with yourself in the broadness of these terms.  Otherwise, I will penalize you for disrespecting my directive, even if you did not break the letter of the rules.  The rules also state to respect moderator directives.  So you will respect this one.

Also, I want to add, just because I make these directives does not mean I will accept any member in the forum to make any report to the forum and ask me make these directives.  Your reports or pm's can be subject to being ignored by me, especially if you are someone who has a history of being acquainted with the rules and continue to make unnecessary reports.

God bless.

Mina

thread unlocked

Thread will remain locked until further notice, but keep in mind, once it will be unlocked, a few stricter rules for this thread will be followed.  I will not tolerate the smallest nonsense.

Mina

 

[minasoliman]

Mina, I really don't choose to get into an open debate against you on this thread or challenge your authority as a moderator, since I do believe that you are probably the most reasonable and fair out of the bunch. However, since you have  openly taken me to task on my comments about Mor's motivations behind some of his posts directed at my integrity, I will oblige accordingly.

1.  I called Mor a sodomite-encourager in that he encourages sodomites to further their cause in this thread.

Yes, I did and I qualified above why I made this statement. Maybe this is not a general statement, but when it comes to myself or anyone that takes a hard line with sodomy. he will go on some type of passive-agressive attack on your character or about your own "sinfulness" or about your "denomination", even if it's in line with his own brand of "orthodoxy". So, when he engages in these kind of tactics in his attempt, IMO, to demoralize your vantage point, he either enables or encourages the unrepentant, open sodomites on here to further spew their posion, not only against the good name of principled men like Fr. Josiah, but the doctrines and teaching of the Church herself. And I for one will not stand for it and will call him out on it, at the risk of moderation or even worse. Because the cause is that important to me. I stand firm in what the Church teaches, I'm not some fickle, meely-mouthed  hipster doofus "christian" that wants to be like the Jesus "dude" and go along with the system because I want to get along everybody and be "kewl" and not judge anyone, regardless of their defiance on certain sins of commandments that they don't agree with. Maybe you're Ok with this modernist crap in order to be the "nice" guy, but I come from the school where I'm not going to be told what I want to hear, but what I need to hear. And I'm the better man for it.

At any rate, I'm not going to keep on expalining on why I said what I said. I called it the way I seen it and I'm prepared to take part in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in good concscience today without hesitation. So you go ahead and push that button and silence me as you see fit and I will stand like a man in my principles and belief in the Faith of my fathers. But I will not apologize or retract one iota of what I believe is the truth. Unlike many christians, I will not stand down in the face of this unseemingly political correctness. and I'm prepared to take the consequences.

This is the last I'm going to say about this.

You, Mina, don't really like me and try to trap me anyway.

I just call it the way I see it. After about a dozen pages of knocking an Orthodox priest or trying to legitimize sodomy, it's time to put the moderators hat on and put a stop to evil ol Charles and his firebrand style of traditionalism. I get it.

I really have no time to clarify calling Mor this.

No, I don't. But I did.

Go ahead and moderate me, I don't care.

The former is true. The latter isn't. But it is what it is and I'll deal with it.

Charles, you are an excellent example of a manner in which your belligerent posting will cause you to slip.  Words matter. 

It's been my expierence they only matter when someone's offended by something they don't want to hear.

Then they matter.


BTW, as for "words", you never addressed my statement that I never stated that Mor "encouraged" sodomy.  His actions, might have encouraged or enabled sodomites to blather on, but he never formally comes out speaking heresy on Church doctrine.So, I would like that stricken from the record counselor. Much appreciated.

If you can't back it up, and you are giving me this attitude that I am out to get you, what choice do I have?

I answered as truthfuuly and accurately as I could, you might not agree with it, but at least i'm being genuine and not beating around the bush or "skirting" the issue as you accused me of doing. As for if you're out to get me, well, only you can answer that. I can't do nothing about it either way.

In my dealings with you when I moderated you, and you appealed to me, did I deal with you unfairly?

IMO, never. But it seems i'm moderated quite often for the most trivial nonsense about how someone percieves my "belligerence" and goes whining to you for one reason or another. That's why I say, they want to shut down any debate and silence all opposition. I never suggest anything of the sort, I'm willing for healthy debate on any issue, they want a room full of "ditto-heads" when it comes to the sin of sodom. Any form of opposition is seen as "persecution" or "ad hominem".

I'm giving you another chance.  If you really don't have enough time, then I can give you another 24 hours.

thank you.

You even have the chance to take back what you said.

Why would I? I'm not a politician or criminal. If I said something , nine out of ten, i meant it. No, I'm from the belief that you can't take back what you said, either you believe it or whatever else comes out of your mouth is a bunch of nonsense and your not to be taken seriously at all. and would really respect me if I did? you know I'm more principled than that.

But don't you again give me that adolescent complaint that I am out to get you or pick on you.  It is your problem, not mine that you skirt around the rules like this.

I believe this direct response eliminates any "end-around" on the rules you might accuse me of in this situation. Whether you moderate me or not at this point because I'm a target is really irrelevant.

I believe this is it on  our issues with each other in this thread.

Thanks for your time.

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?

Dear Charles,

Based on my previous post, I will rule your characterization of Mor Ephrem as an ad hominem.  Because there is no explicit proof in which you can find that Mor is a "sodomite-encourager", I will penalize you 45% as promised.  I simply cannot let this one go.  Mor has proven that he upholds the traditional views of the Church.  For him to actually be listening to those who struggle with the same view and acknowledging their points does not equate an endorsement of heterodox views, but a sympathetic approach towards understanding what the other side is portraying and trying to meet at where they are at to engage in the discussion.  Therefore, even if I was to grant that you meant it as implicitly, I find no reason that even an implicit charge of "sodomite-encourager", as if he was unintentionally encouraging it, is to be allowed in this case.  If you were a bit more articulate and gentler in your discussion on how his arguments may have inadvertently encouraged heterodoxy and sin, then that is a different story.  But your direct attack on the person leads me to no choice.

Mina

 

[minasoliman]

Dear NicholasMyra and Onesimus:

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.

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!

Because a public accusation has been leveled, I try to find to find two ways in which an ad hominem is made.  One:  is this an argument made based on a damaging characterization of a person making the argument?  I don't see anything here.  Two:  is it an insult?  Not really.

It seems to me Nicholas is making a joke based on the "three phases" Clemente makes use of in the argument.  As soon as someone makes a post characteristic of one of the phases, Clemente will then proceed to choose to ridicule that post into that phase.  Nicholas responds with a similar ridicule by showing how the "three phases" as lists, and how one is pretty much becoming a buzzfeed listmaster.  I do not see Nicholas making an argument nor being insulting.

Nevertheless, after my "boring and dull" directive, I would rather not see anything like this again.

Similar instances of this that gave me pause to think were also the following posts by Onesimus:

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Western culture is capable of being self-critical, and often is.  The problem is not that westerners are not critical (if anything, perhaps we are too critical), it's that Orthodox Christian leaders and intellectuals often only reserve criticism for the "heterodox".

You really don't understand the post-Enlightenment west.  It's not uncritical acceptance of every idea, it's looking for a new ground besides the tired dogmatism of cherished, but ultimately vain certainties.  As much as certain Orthodox choose to attack this project uncritically, they make themselves enemies of a project to better the human condition.  Surely that is a noble intention.

MY DEAR...(Daedelus)

"Our business is to get them away from the eternal, and from the Present. With this in view, we sometimes tempt a human (say a widow or a scholar) to live in the Past. But this is of limited value, for they have some real knowledge of the past and it has a determinate nature and, to that extent, resembles eternity.  It is far better to make them live in the Future. Biological necessity makes all their passions point in that direction already, so that thought about the Future inflames hope and fear. Also, it is unknown to them, so that in making them think about it we make them think of unrealities. In a word, the Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought such as Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism, or Communism, which fix men's affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality. Hence nearly all vices are rooted in the future. Gratitude looks to the past and love to the present; fear, avarice, lust, and ambition look ahead.

We want a man hag-ridden by the Future—haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth—ready to break the Enemy's commands in the present if by so doing we make him think he can attain the one or avert the other—dependent for his faith on the success or failure of schemes whose end he will not live to see.

We want a whole race perpetually in pursuit of the rainbow's end, never honest, nor kind, nor happy now, but always using as mere fuel wherewith to heap the altar of the future every real gift which is offered them in the Present.

It follows then, in general, and other things being equal, that it is better for your patient to be filled with anxiety or hope (it doesn't much matter which) ... than for him to be living in the present.

As long as (the future) is the real course of his tranquillity, his tranquillity will do us good, because it is only piling up more disappointment, and therefore more impatience, for him when his false hopes are dashed. If, on the other hand, he is aware that horrors may be in store for him and is praying for the virtues, wherewith to meet them, and meanwhile concerning himself with the Present because there, and there alone, all duty, all grace, all knowledge, and all pleasure dwell, his state is very undesirable and should be attacked at once."

Your affectionate uncle ~  Screwtape.

CS Lewis Screwtape Letters

Yours is nothing but cannabalism, feeding on the faith of those weighed down with sins...

..."Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these! They are the kind who worm their way into households and captivate vulnerable women who are weighed down with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.…just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth. They are depraved in mind and disqualified from the faith.…"

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.

I was taken aback a bit at the style of arguing made here.  The first post was a response to Daedulus1138.  What alarmed me was the replacement of the word "Wormwood" with the screen name of Daedulus.  I am not particularly comfortable with this.  I understand the technique, and I do not think you intended to characterize Daedulus as a character who is trying to learn how to subvert virtue and cause sin to everyone.  In your second post, you seem to be skirting this way again, making it seem like you were calling Iconodule a "hartikon anthropon", although it could be argued that you were merely calling his argument this, and not Iconodule directly.

So in the same vein as NicholasMyra, after my "boring and dull" directive, I would rather not see anything like this again.  Otherwise, I feel you could also be a vital part to this discussion, in a much better way than Charles or Clemente brought into this thread.  So I ask you to use your words carefully from now on in this thread.

God bless.

Mina

 

[minasoliman]

Finally, Dear Clemente,

You have truly given me a hard time in this thread.  And given your recent problems with ALL THE MODERATOR STAFF on board, I think it says more about you than about your characterization of OC.net, which frankly I find is filled with unnecessary paranoia and delusion.

First of all, if you feel an ad hominem has been made, don't complain here.  Report to the moderators.  If you are given a chance to post here, I will not let you off the hook again on this issue.  This post:

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!

...is unacceptable.  There was no ad hominem here very clearly.  This didn't even give me a pause to think.  If you repeat this, you will get penalized.

Next, your continued accusations of the moderators:

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?

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.

Why do traditional Orthodox priests get treated here at OC.net with blind suspicion, whilst pro-gay posters get treated with blind charity? Sorry, but doesn't that seem odd on a site called OC.net?

One poster noted that whilst OC.net ostensibly affirms traditional Orthodox teaching on homosexuality, Lord help the poster who actually expresses traditional Orthodox teaching on sexuality here. I think I can understand that comment after reviewing this thread.

Even the affirmations of Orthodox teaching on homosexuality, such as this one by Mor, are rather tepid and leave some opening for debate:

Scripture seems to uphold a positive view of childbearing and childrearing. It doesn't seem to hold a similar view about homosexuality.

Would we say the Scripture "doesn't seem to hold a positive view about blasphemy" or some other grave sin?

I guess my epiphany in this debate has been that OC.net exists not to affirm Orthodoxy, but to affirm those who would debate Orthodoxy. That is my interpretation, not any official statement. But that is why it is entirely correct to say that OC.net is the most queer-friendly Orthodox site around. Not that homosexuality is affirmed; officially it is not. But debate about it-absolutely!

Which is fine, as long as people don't come here looking for clear affirmations of the Orthodox faith. Yes, there are many fine Orthodox posters here in this thread (whose sandals I am unfit to untie), but their views are juxtaposed against the heterodox, who are given the benefit of the doubt as they defame an Orthodox priest in good standing. That debate is entertaining drama. It generates great traffic and views for OC.net--just look at this thread.

But I question whether threads such as this actually benefit the faithful or the Church.

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%.

No Mor didn't see where you were going, did he? He has a lot of egg on his face after your posts, which he'll have to clean off somehow.

I appreciate that you have courageously expanded on your heterodox views about homosexuality, your rejection of Orthodox traditional teaching on homosexuality and indeed, Orthodox epistemology based on Tradition, and your desire that the Church change her view about homosexuality.

I have a lot of respect for you. You, and your like-minded posters here, have achieved really extraordinary results and you should be proud:

- an Orthodox priest who opposes the LGBT political agenda is summarily defamed and slandered and innuendo is spread about him by a broad section of posters, including the moderators, on OC.net, the most popular Orthodox website in the world;
-heterodox views about homosexuality such as the notion that sodomy produces "good fruits" are seriously considered and debated by apparently Orthodox posters on OC.net;
-a sizeable contingency of pro-gay and openly gay posters express themselves essentially unhindered by any official statement about homosexuality;
-the official OC.net statement in favour of a traditional understanding of homosexuality is essentially forgotten by most posters;
-the moderators at OC.net believe that the expression of heterodox views about homosexuality is a valuable addition and service that the site provides.

Congratulations! You and others here have enabled OC.net to become the most queer-friendly site on the Internet. The moderators don't like to admit that still, but we both know it is true. So well done.

Perhaps your greatest achievement is that OC.net has become a "safe space" for Orthodox to express heterodox views on sexuality. The moderators have come to believe that they are actually serving the Church by providing a venue for Orthodox to sound like heterodox, especially with respect to homosexuality.

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.

I thank God that the Orthodox Church does not have an active Progressive wing, which would necessitate our having "traditionalist Orthodox" like in the Roman Catholic Church. Glory to God that Orthodox priests, seminarians and laymen do not generally have pro-gay views. Unlike here at OC.net, the Church does not defame priests who oppose the gay political agenda. Aside from a few deviant priests in places such as Boston, Orthodox priests really do not entertain ideas such as if sodomy produces "good fruit".

So, well done! You have my complete respect and I take your views seriously. I believe your pro-gay view are diabolical, a view which I know here at OC.net will be mocked by quite a few. We are on opposite sides of a battle which will continue for the foreseeable future. I pray that the Church will not change, as you would like, to accommodate sodomy.

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.

Given that you love to repeat the "battle cries" of "Pink Mafia", it seems to me you are really itching to call out the mod team as the Pink Mafia.  I do not think there is a need to entertain your accusation, as people who read my posts will find that I do not ignore wrong teaching nor do I cease to preach the gospel.  Iconodule's posting history is clear that he is struggling with the issue and is trying to search for the answers, not having an "agenda" to change anything.  But MORE IMPORTANTLY for the sake of my moderator duties, he conducted himself quite professionally in this discussion trying to have an honest and mature talk.  Instead you keep blasting him with the same tired rant that truly does poison the atmosphere here.  Frankly it makes people like me who try to defend an Orthodox view look like fear-mongers and filled with hate.  It is posts like your's that make this discussion incredibly difficult to have and to try to win souls.  If you can't see that, then you can take your rants elsewhere.

Your next post is "fabulous"-laden:

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)

I like you too, Charles, though mind you not in the OC.net Pink Mafia sort of way.

Agree completely with your post. Occasionally a member of the OC.net Pink Mafia hacks my PC and sends out these "fabulous"-laden messages. I find them not very becoming as well.

We banned a person partially for making a disturbance in the OC.net community as sending signals that he "knows" thing about people.  Your claim that your PC is hacked is a serious one, and that your claim that it comes from one of us I put it on an equal footing with the disturbance caused by someone who does blackmails.  I will not take these accusations lightly.  Right now, you have a certain paranoia against the Mod team.  But I am going to take this opportunity that we are actually here to help you.  If you feel you got hacked, you can send us PM's about this situation.  You don't have to make a public spectacle as if you are suffering some sort of internet martyrdom.  It is this latter feeling we as the mod team get from you that makes you so off-putting and quite disturbing.  You need to stop and reassess yourself.

Finally, you are another example, far worse than Charles, who cracks under enormous anger in your heart to finally do the one thing you cry foul about:

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. 

I encourage readers to review for themselves.

Liar. LIAR. LIAR! 

You must be, what, 14 years old? You need to give the keyboard back to Mother Mor.

"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."

I know you like to bully some of your fan boys here on OC.net, but I cannot see the point of responding to some of your points, since your responses rely heavily on the fallacy of a distinction without a difference. I can quote heavily for all to see your criticism of Father Trenham and anyone doubting can just re-read this thread. Its "existence" does not depend on whether it is harsh or not, so stop with your silly, fallacious denials.

Liar. LIAR. LIAR!

You have consistently shown bias in this thread. You have "hearted" prurient jokes about Father Trenham, an Orthodox priest in good standing. Meanwhile, a poster who longs for a change in Church teaching on homosexuality gets praised as "awesome".

And, whilst paying fealty to the inchoate OC.net statement about homosexuality, you seem to invite debate about it and provide tepid justification. "Scripture doesn't seem to hold a [positive] view about homosexuality" but hey, maybe we don't understand Scripture well enough, eh?

Liar. LIAR. LIAR!

But wait. Iconodule is not "actively working to change Church teaching and practice".

This is a laughable distinction without a difference, again. If I want the Church to change its view on homosexuality and I spend pages and pages on the most popular Orthodox website in the world explaining why that makes sense--why, it's just like contraception, you know--I am actively working to change Church teaching and practice.

Now, I know you like to shout "Liar. LIAR. LIAR!" when anybody here even questions the sagacity of the mighty Mor (as you love to think of yourself, "Mor is always the best"). You may discount me as a liar--your perception of me matters very little. However, if I am a just a bad poster, you have a bad fact in this thread:

A number of posters, such as Charles Martel, have shared the same perception about your bias. So, by your logic, there are a lot of liars here (basically anybody who disagrees with you). So you are either a magnet for liars, or perhaps the perception that we have of you is true.

I agree with almost nothing that you have written in this thread. But perhaps my greatest disagreement with you is that this thread is somehow edifying to God. You have given a platform to Orthodox posters to express their heterodoxy. You have provided the most flaccid, disengenuous justification for this: "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."

Is that what you have achieved? Do you really think that this thread has served to win over the pro-gay side to Orthodox teaching on homosexuality?

That is laughable, and you know it. You have "enabled" the Pink Mafia to spread its heterodoxy by giving them pages and pages of "safe space" to express their heterodoxy. Well done!

Can you point to even one formerly pro-gay poster, who as a result of this thread, is now won "over to the side of Orthodox teaching on homosexuality"? Just one? Anyone?

Of course you cannot. Because what is more important to you than promoting "Orthodox teaching on homosexuality" is promoting OC.net. Page views, baby!

If I am wrong, I would happily apologise and rejoice that a prodigal son has returned. Unlike you, I am not afraid to admit I am wrong in the face of contrary evidence.

PS. I love that you quote me in your sig line.  I pray that many Orthodox here will spend time listening to AFR and visiting other parishes rather than viewing threads like this in the surreal bubble that is OC.net. Please, please, don't ever remove that quote! It is a badge of honour.

...an ad hominem.  I do not need to explain more on this one.

To summarize:

1.  Do not level rule-breaking accusations without reporting to a moderator and letting the moderator handle it.  Furthermore, familiarize yourself with what an "ad hominem" is.  In fact, why don't you just read the OC.net rules?

2.  If you must make an argument against someone who happens to be a moderator, do not use his/her status as a moderator to make a point.  This becomes somewhat of an ad hominem.  At the same time, you are also attacking OC.net and moderators as moderators without even a moderator put a mod-hat on, and I will not allow it.

3.  In the same vein, usually, when a moderator does make a mod directive, you are not allowed to answer back or publicly challenge the moderator.  You are challenging the mod-team without even a directive made!

4.  Do not make accusations you cannot back up.  I will treat those as ad hominems.

5.  Do not make false claims about what is happening to you or your PC about others without proof.  If you are having technical problems, send a PM to one of the moderators.

6.  Don't call someone a liar.  Once again, this is an ad hominem.

You are already at maximum muting.  There is no point in me adding more penalty or waiting for the penalty to go down so that I can add more, but I will record this in your user log.  I think you are receiving the message loud and clear at this point.  If the mod team, along with the guidance of the global moderators and the admin Fr. George decide to give you another chance at posting, it is in your best interest that you ruminate on these words I have written for you.  But if you still perceive yourself as a cyber victim fighting for the cyber martyrdom of Cyber Orthodoxy, then your case becomes hopeless.  Your choice.

God bless you.

Mina

 

[minasoliman]

Based on what I wrote here:

Enough with the tit-for-tat crap here, and this is for the last three replies here.  One of you have to be adult enough not to continue with this garbage.

Here's how adults should discuss:

Reply #33.  I disagree with your teaching
Reply #34.  Why?
Reply #35.  He mentioned it already in reply #6, the idea of not defending God, but doing good.

Now, I get it.  This may be dull and boring, and not lively.  But apparently, either we become too forward and hurtful or we become reactive to hurtful comments.  I'm not going to go through the whole spiel of "well, this is the internet, he didn't mean it that way, bla bla bla." Or in the case of this section, "This is the FFA, it has some lax rules, bla bla bla" 

No!  It seems like you guys don't seem to get it.  No matter how many times it's said.  So I'm going to give a different standard.

In every thread that becomes this contentious or this edgy, if I am able to catch you before you start throwing ad hominems at each other, I will ask for a "boring and dull" professional discussion.  Anyone who crosses the line over my directive will get a penalty, even by standards of snark that do not break the letter of the rules in the forum.  I will start doing so very soon in another thread I locked.  Every single FFA thread that have some childish behavior of either those who are baiters or baited, I will put in the "boring and dull" directive until people grow up.

I'm sick and tired of this crap.  Enough is enough!  We all have lives, and we can't babysit you 24 hours.  Be adults!

Thread unlocked.

Mina

I'm initiating the "boring and dull" directive.  Answer the questions of the OP professionally without snark, without disrespect, without inappropriateness.  These are very broad terms, and it is in your favor to be very strict with yourself in the broadness of these terms.  Otherwise, I will penalize you for disrespecting my directive, even if you did not break the letter of the rules.  The rules also state to respect moderator directives.  So you will respect this one.

Also, I want to add, just because I make these directives does not mean I will accept any member in the forum to make any report to the forum and ask me make these directives.  Your reports or pm's can be subject to being ignored by me, especially if you are someone who has a history of being acquainted with the rules and continue to make unnecessary reports.

God bless.

Mina

thread unlocked

In addition to the above, open accusations like "pink mafia" I will penalize.  Vague condemnations and characterizations that make me pause and think, I will penalize.  Sarcasm, I will also penalize.

In other words, you are now in an academic setting.  Treat it as such.  Compassion is encouraged.

God bless.

Mina

Thread unlocked.

 

[primuspilus]

"pink mafia"

Although a strange connotation, I do think there is a group in the Church who would like to see homosexuality normalized. However, they are a far cry from the organized cabal that those on the other side make them out to be.

PP

 

[Porter ODoran]

"pink mafia"

Although a strange connotation, I do think there is a group in the Church who would like to see homosexuality normalized. However, they are a far cry from the organized cabal that those on the other side make them out to be.

PP

Can you characterize this group in more detail? Including what about them amounts to "a group"? Further, what is meant here by "normalize"?

 

[primuspilus]

"pink mafia"

Although a strange connotation, I do think there is a group in the Church who would like to see homosexuality normalized. However, they are a far cry from the organized cabal that those on the other side make them out to be.

PP

Can you characterize this group in more detail? Including what about them amounts to "a group"? Further, what is meant here by "normalize"?

Well, the "pink mafia" thing was started by the Monomakhos blog (I might be wrong here) and basically, they are characterized as a group of orthodox priests, bishops, and lay people who quietly are pushing to have the Church be more accepting of gay relationships. Some supposedly want to have the Church bless gay "marriages" and some don't. However, they are all in agreement that the Church's teachings on homosexuality are outdated and wrong.

These folks are usually equated with being members of the OCA and the GOA usually. They are also characterized as being this secretive cabal who openly follow the church, but in secret coordinate to change the Church's teachings, and work to get folks ordained who believe what they do.....basically its a rehashing of the Freemason scare....but with a better taste in food items.

PP

 

[Porter ODoran]

Do you have any sense of the size or demographics who perpetuate and who digest this hearsay? Are you aware of any well-known figures or highly-positioned persons that participate?

 

[mike]

Do you have any sense of the size or demographics who perpetuate and who digest this hearsay? Are you aware of any well-known figures or highly-positioned persons that participate?

Check my profile info.

 

[Porter ODoran]

Do you have any sense of the size or demographics who perpetuate and who digest this hearsay? Are you aware of any well-known figures or highly-positioned persons that participate?

Check my profile info.

I'd welcome a little more detailed citation.

 

[mike]

Do you have any sense of the size or demographics who perpetuate and who digest this hearsay? Are you aware of any well-known figures or highly-positioned persons that participate?

Check my profile info.

I'd welcome a little more detailed citation.

Dc. Kurayev likes to blog about us. Check his lj or whatever he uses.

 

[minasoliman]

"pink mafia"

Although a strange connotation, I do think there is a group in the Church who would like to see homosexuality normalized. However, they are a far cry from the organized cabal that those on the other side make them out to be.

PP

I don't deny this.  But then there are those "in between", those who want to uphold Church teaching, but due to their own research of this subject, or experience with those of same-sex relationships, have been shaken and struggled to make sense of the Church's moral theology.  Rather than assume they have an agenda, perhaps we can try to reach out to them, and understand where they're coming from.

What amazes me in this whole discussion is that everything is assumed as black and white.  The gay agenda is reining in and destroying the Church, and if anyone is struggling with the question, or for those who are not struggling with the question but wants to genuinely try to have a good conversation with those who are struggling with this issue are automatically part of an agenda.

As I said earlier, Fr. Josiah, God bless him, great priest and speaker and I really admire his knowledge, especially in areas that have to do with his Protestant upbringing, I think does not fully understand the struggle of LGBT people in areas of the world where they are truly persecuted.  It puts one in a very difficult situation because what you are fighting against (among other sins in this world that actually become more neglected in the same parts of that world) also are subject to violence.  It is almost as if everything you preach becomes null and void due to anger and quick judgment of an agenda.

If however Fr. Josiah in Georgia said, "now with all that is being said, I do have to warn against something.  We need to warn against the use of violence against sinners, for we also are sinners.  We need to preach the gospel to them accepting what may come, but never to harm them physically or verbally," I would laud him.  But he didn't. Hence my criticism.

And let us hypothetically suppose that we might live in a world where now we are the ones being persecuted by pro-LGBT movements.  Then as St. Isaac the Syrian writes: "Let them push you, but do not push; Let them crucify you, but do not crucify. Let them insult, but do not insult. Let them slander, but do not slander. Be meek, and do not be zealous in evil." 

Recently, Fr. Josiah gave a good talk on the crazy political environment we are in and how all this and other governments are to naught except the government that truly matters, our heavenly citizenship.  I also believe that, but if one does truly believe this, why the doom and gloom and throwing verbal stones at anyone you feel has an agenda if true victory and joy does not lie in what is in this world, no matter what the government may be (even Georgia and Russia), but above?  The Apostles already knew there was an agenda from this world of death from the very beginning.  That did not make them lose their peace in the middle of a crazy immoral world they lived in.  Therefore, in this discussion, let us keep our mind in peace, even when we may clearly disagree with someone.

 

[minasoliman]

Do you have any sense of the size or demographics who perpetuate and who digest this hearsay? Are you aware of any well-known figures or highly-positioned persons that participate?

Check my profile info.

I'd welcome a little more detailed citation.

Dc. Kurayev likes to blog about us. Check his lj or whatever he uses.

I'm going to ask you to stop being vague and stop pushing buttons.  Let's be mature.  You are warned.

Mina

 

[RaphaCam]

nvm

 

[primuspilus]

But then there are those "in between", those who want to uphold Church teaching, but due to their own research of this subject, or experience with those of same-sex relationships, have been shaken and struggled to make sense of the Church's moral theology.

The problem is, they are trying to make the Church bend to what they believe is correct, instead of the other way around. I personally struggled with this during my conversion. I held a belief that is counter to the Church, and in the end I had to say that I was wrong because the Church can't be.

What amazes me in this whole discussion is that everything is assumed as black and white.  The gay agenda is reining in and destroying the Church, and if anyone is struggling with the question, or for those who are not struggling with the question but wants to genuinely try to have a good conversation with those who are struggling with this issue are automatically part of an agenda

Agreed. I think there are far greater problems than homosexuality in the Church. Namely, bishops cuddling up to politicians and praising them, despite the same politicians holding views antithetical to the Church.

As I said earlier, Fr. Josiah, God bless him, great priest and speaker and I really admire his knowledge, especially in areas that have to do with his Protestant upbringing, I think does not fully understand the struggle of LGBT people in areas of the world where they are truly persecuted

I can agree with this.

If however Fr. Josiah in Georgia said, "now with all that is being said, I do have to warn against something.  We need to warn against the use of violence against sinners, for we also are sinners.  We need to preach the gospel to them accepting what may come, but never to harm them physically or verbally," I would laud him.  But he didn't.

I can also agree with this.

At the same time, we are very much in the age where if "you don't believe what I believe 100% in every fine detail, you hate me and you're Hitler." So no real discourse can take place. Also, both sides are so inflamed with emotion they adopt ridiculous ideas about the other side (ie. A guy woke up one morning and decided he wanted to have sex with men, or a gay woman saying that Christians want to execute all homosexuals, or make them illegal).

A famous Christian phrase is hate the sin, but love the sinner. However, with the same breath, they call them sodomites and shake their fingers at them about Gomorrah and all.

PP

 

[JamesRottnek]

At least when gay people think that Christians actually do hate and want to kill gays, it's because there are literally 'Christian' pastors living in America today, who have said as much.  Not to mention the actual physical violence towards gays conducted by 'Christian' clergy abroad.

Don't pretend that the deluded lie that gay people just wake up one day and choose to abandon God and become gay, is anywhere near the same as the misguided belief that all Christians hate gays and want to do them harm.  The first is rooted in nothing.  The second is rooted in the actual words and behaviors of many self-professed Christians.

 

[Cavaradossi]

[quote author=FatherGiryus]

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

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.

I don't think you are aware of the full picture of "who we are to be" in the mind of the Fathers, and particularly in their treatment of sexual questions.

First question: Why is there sex? Because of man's disobedience, he is no longer able to reproduce in the angelic, asexual manner, but must rather procreate in the manner proper to irrational beasts. Only in prevision of this did God divide man into male and female and implant this impulse to procreate which, in the words of Saint Gregory Palamas, "is not subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not entirely without sin." Saint Gregory of Nyssa infers that Adam and Eve were originally intended to be sexless, as in the resurrection there is no marriage. This might seem to some like a rather strained reading of the Genesis narrative, though it does conform pretty well with Platonic cosmology. In any case, in the view of these fathers (including also Chrysostom, Maximus, and John Damascene) sex is not essential to human nature; it was alien to Adam and Eve before their fall, will be alien to our resurrected bodies, and therefore can only be regarded as an accidental attribute in the interim. Which pretty much answers the next question:

What is sex for? It's for procreation. That's it. In his Centuries on Love, Saint Maximus says, "In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her." Married couples should come together to make babies, and spend the rest of their time like monks/ angels. Saint John Chrysostom notably also stresses the importance of reinforcing/ strengthening the bond between man and wife, but this is not something separate from the procreative function.

What is fornication? Any sexual act or thought without the purpose of begetting children misses the mark- this is a consistent position of the ancient Church. The sin of fornication is understood to extend so far as to include having "impure thoughts" about one's own wife. And it wasn't enough for a couple to restrict themselves to procreative acts on non-fasting, non-feast days- the wrong position, the wrong attitude, the wrong place, could render one guilty of the sin of Sodom. And- sorry Mor- but that Rachel Weisz thread? Everyone participating in it, and possibly even looking at it, is guilty of fornication. By such deeds, we succumb to our animalistic urges, implanted as a result of the Fall, and unworthy of our true calling. The fact that any of us talk about these matters on a public forum says a lot about how far away we are from this aspect of the patristic worldview.

Needless to say, in such a worldview, contraception is out of question, which is why I am continually bringing up the Russian Orthodox Church's official allowance for it (and other jurisdictions, such as the OCA, have followed suit). This represents a big shift in the Christian view of sexuality, something the Roman Catholics recognize, though even with their strident anti-contraceptive stance, they too have hammered a significant gap in the edifice by advocating "natural family planning." Pleasure and procreation are now quite separated as purposes for intercourse, even if the latter is still upheld as the prominent end of marriage.

We can bring up any number of convincing reasons why this change was made- pastoral, biological, historical- but nevertheless the fact remains that acts considered damnable fornication throughout the history of the Church are now considered acceptable (with, of course, appropriate consultation with your spiritual father). We could also point to the absence of strict separation of the sexes in many churches, loosening standards of dress, significantly changed attitudes toward dating, premarital (and marital) sex, menstruation etc. Something big happened here, and it's not just about contraception, and not even just about sex. This is a churchwide revision of a traditional teaching and a traditional anthropology. Those who maintain a fiery intransigence on homosexuality while ignoring or  condoning these other changes are fooling themselves if they think they are protecting the traditional Christian sexual ideals. The special, overriding horror of one particular brand of fornication over all the others is something not shared by the Fathers. It is an expression of modernity, something none of us can escape, and we are all alike strangers to the cosmology of Byzantium and medieval Rus'.

My point is not to say, "We're all sinners, so sin is okay" or "There's no such thing as sin anymore." But if we're going to relax some parts and not others, there needs to be some coherent, articulated reason for it, with careful consideration both of tradition and contemporary situations. Acting like nothing has really changed won't accomplish that. A Church that strains out the gnat of homosexuality and swallows the camel of porneia isn't accomplishing that.
[/quote]

This is an excellent summary of the patristic doctrine on human sexuality. It is a shame that so many here are unwilling to accept it or engage it. Don't shoot the messenger folks, just because his message you find unpalatable.

I should add as well that if anybody is interested in a rather lengthy treatment of this topic, Panagiotis Nellas has an excellent summary of this patristic theme in his book Deification in Christ

 

[Porter ODoran]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

 

[JamesRottnek]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

And who has actually offered a better argument on this thread?

 

[Porter ODoran]

At least when gay people think that Christians actually do hate and want to kill gays, it's because there are literally 'Christian' pastors living in America today, who have said as much.  Not to mention the actual physical violence towards gays conducted by 'Christian' clergy abroad.

Don't pretend that the deluded lie that gay people just wake up one day and choose to abandon God and become gay, is anywhere near the same as the misguided belief that all Christians hate gays and want to do them harm.  The first is rooted in nothing.  The second is rooted in the actual words and behaviors of many self-professed Christians.

This is a mischaracterization of even the fundamentalist understanding. The concept is instead one of an individual's volition being corrupted, in spite of the mercy of God. Yes, the term "choice" would be heard in fundamentalist circles some time ago, but your post is grossly caricaturing what that meant, altho I grant that you may have had rhetorical reasons.

 

[minasoliman]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

There's a book citation earlier. I believe a summary of that book is quite acceptable in this discussion.  Perhaps we can read the book to see if it agrees with his summary.  Is there anything specific you would like him to quote?

 

[Porter ODoran]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

And who has actually offered a better argument on this thread?

How is that post an argument? It's an assertion of various negative qualities in the Fathers and a further, balder assertion that this is a fair estimate of them all.

 

[Porter ODoran]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

There's a book citation earlier. I believe a summary of that book is quite acceptable in this discussion.  Perhaps we can read the book to see if it agrees with his summary.  Is there anything specific you would like him to quote?

He is at the least attributing to certain Fathers what he then does not bother to cite in their works. This is thwarting responses that do not first scour the corpus of, for example, Gregory of Nyssa.

Further, the post is not at all presented as a review of a particular secondary literature, but straightforwardly as the truth about all the Fathers, and then uses that "truth" as evidence of the invalidity of the Fathers to pronounce upon morals. This is rather a lot to excuse with the comfort that I can now read a new book.

 

[Cavaradossi]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

The arguments against it weren't even worth the bytes of storage they took up on the servers.

 

[Cavaradossi]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

There's a book citation earlier. I believe a summary of that book is quite acceptable in this discussion.  Perhaps we can read the book to see if it agrees with his summary.  Is there anything specific you would like him to quote?

He is at the least attributing to certain Fathers what he then does not bother to cite in their works. This is thwarting responses that do not first scour the corpus of, for example, Gregory of Nyssa.

Further, the post is not at all presented as a review of a particular secondary literature, but straightforwardly as the truth about all the Fathers, and then uses that "truth" as evidence of the invalidity of the Fathers to pronounce upon morals. This is rather a lot to excuse with the comfort that I can now read a new book.

Iconodule gave links to a number of citations from patristic works in other threads. Would you perhaps like to tackle those at the very least?

 

[JamesRottnek]

At least when gay people think that Christians actually do hate and want to kill gays, it's because there are literally 'Christian' pastors living in America today, who have said as much.  Not to mention the actual physical violence towards gays conducted by 'Christian' clergy abroad.

Don't pretend that the deluded lie that gay people just wake up one day and choose to abandon God and become gay, is anywhere near the same as the misguided belief that all Christians hate gays and want to do them harm.  The first is rooted in nothing.  The second is rooted in the actual words and behaviors of many self-professed Christians.

This is a mischaracterization of even the fundamentalist understanding. The concept is instead one of an individual's volition being corrupted, in spite of the mercy of God. Yes, the term "choice" would be heard in fundamentalist circles some time ago, but your post is grossly caricaturing what that meant, altho I grant that you may have had rhetorical reasons.

"[T]he term 'choice'" wasn't just "heard in fundamentalist circles some time ago."  It's an active viewpoint today.  And such people may mean 'choice' in the sense of 'a man choosing to have sex with a man.'  But they've also confused choice and person: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/rev-graham-you-cannot-stay-gay-and-call-yourself-christian-gays-must-leave

 

[Porter ODoran]

At least when gay people think that Christians actually do hate and want to kill gays, it's because there are literally 'Christian' pastors living in America today, who have said as much.  Not to mention the actual physical violence towards gays conducted by 'Christian' clergy abroad.

Don't pretend that the deluded lie that gay people just wake up one day and choose to abandon God and become gay, is anywhere near the same as the misguided belief that all Christians hate gays and want to do them harm.  The first is rooted in nothing.  The second is rooted in the actual words and behaviors of many self-professed Christians.

This is a mischaracterization of even the fundamentalist understanding. The concept is instead one of an individual's volition being corrupted, in spite of the mercy of God. Yes, the term "choice" would be heard in fundamentalist circles some time ago, but your post is grossly caricaturing what that meant, altho I grant that you may have had rhetorical reasons.

"[T]he term 'choice'" wasn't just "heard in fundamentalist circles some time ago."  It's an active viewpoint today.  And such people may mean 'choice' in the sense of 'a man choosing to have sex with a man.'  But they've also confused choice and person: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/rev-graham-you-cannot-stay-gay-and-call-yourself-christian-gays-must-leave

My reaction was to your "gay people just wake up one day" &c. Thank you for linking to an example of what fundamentalists actually say.

 

[Porter ODoran]

By the way, I think Rev. Graham's assessment may not be invalid on its face. It depends on what he understands the church on earth to be: Few would insist it is identical in extent to God's mercy. However, considering that he elsewhere has seemed to liberally apply hellfire to humankind, I can't categorically defend his assessment here as a Christian one.

 

[Rohzek]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

The arguments against it weren't even worth the bytes of storage they took up on the servers.

There are a number of other interpretations of sexuality on Genesis, especially in the Latin tradition. Some explicitly state that sexuality of both Adam and Eve preexisted the Fall. Angelomus of Luxeuil argues, for example, that Adam did so without concupiscence. That is to say, in a manner that was different from the rest of animals. It is important to acknowledge the various traditions in Orthodox Christian thought.

 

[JamesRottnek]

By the way, I think Rev. Graham's assessment may not be invalid on its face. It depends on what he understands the church on earth to be: Few would insist it is identical in extent to God's mercy. However, considering that he elsewhere has seemed to liberally apply hellfire to humankind, I can't categorically defend his assessment here as a Christian one.

He seems to actually think one shouldn't step into A church, as in a church building, or even a person's home, if one is 'gay' (and, here, he seems to be confusing person and action - as he does over and over again everywhere; though, in either case, it's an absurd and dehumanizing proposition).

 

[JamesRottnek]

On the contrary, it's already been called out upthread for being clumsy and tendentious, and it certainly doesn't amount to a substantive survey of the Fathers academically, and in fact lacks any direct citations even if they were only of its own side.

The arguments against it weren't even worth the bytes of storage they took up on the servers.

There are a number of other interpretations of sexuality on Genesis, especially in the Latin tradition. Some explicitly state that sexuality of both Adam and Eve preexisted the Fall. Angelomus of Luxeuil argues, for example, that Adam did so without concupiscence. That is to say, in a manner that was different from the rest of animals. It is important to acknowledge the various traditions in Orthodox Christian thought.

But isn't the more telling point: No one objects to the claim that in the Resurrection, there won't be sexual activity?  I've always understood the Orthodox understanding of humanity in the age to come as being that humanity will be most truly human.  If that's the case (and if one accepts that there is no sexual activity in the age to come), then it follows that to be most-human, or truly-human, one shouldn't have sex.