Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
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!
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Clemente said:
As usual, we need to use our two-pronged strategy for whenever any priest speaks ill of homosexuality: attack and redefine.

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

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

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


June 5 (Day 157, Zebulun): The Sun's corona was darkened by a massive hole between May 17 and 19, 2016.  Coronal holes are low-density regions in the Sun's atmosphere (the corona).  Coronal holes, which are detected by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, are visible in extreme ultraviolet light (shown in purple in the image)
.  Coronal holes cause solar winds of particles that can affect satellites around the Earth and cause auroras, or Northern and Southern Lights.

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

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

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

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

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,146
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Clemente said:
Mor,

What "good fruit" comes from homosexual relationships?
Why are you asking me?  It wasn't my claim. 

You seem to have gone all in to defend Iconodule and his traditional Orthodoxy at all cost, using the most convoluted logical contortions which defy an honest reading of his posts. This, in spite of his saying that the idea that homosexual acts are sinful was no longer "tenable".
Not true. 

You have sought to portray, what most of us understand as a pro-gay argument, rather as Orthodox.
Not true. 

How sad then that you don't extend the same charity to Father Trenham, who is an Orthodox priest in good standing and whom you know! You criticise him on numerous occasions in this thread.
What comments of mine do you have in mind?  Maybe we can let Iconodule answer for himself and I will answer for myself. 

You don't criticise Iconodule at all.
Not true. 

What is the difference? Why the double standard?
There is none. 

I know your posturing has been good for generating theatre and hence the popularity of this thread. But can you honesty say that Christ's bride has been honoured in this thread?
I think some have honoured her, and some have not.  In the latter group, there are both "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" persons. 

And please, I don't doubt your faithfulness to Orthodoxy personally so enough of that silly canard of "So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching".
How is it a canard?  It's the plain sense of your native English words.

You even seem to be almost convinced that homosexuality is condemned by Scripture although you leave that somewhat open for discussion: "Scripture seems to uphold a positive view of childbearing and childrearing.  It doesn't seem to hold a similar view about homosexuality."
It would be fairly stupid for anyone to claim that homosexual activity is "open for discussion" according to Scripture.  I have never suggested it was "open for discussion".  Not in this thread.  Not in any other thread.  That much is a settled matter and has been for a few thousand years. 

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

Cognomen

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Archdiocese of Baghdad, Kuwait and Dependencies
Mor Ephrem said:
But I think the suspicion which abounds in this thread is a big problem.  You think I am lumping you in a group, others think they are being lumped into a group, direct questions about who is included in a certain group are met with "Do you want me to attack other members?" and "You're an observant dude", etc.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  But suspicion is basically the topic, so it's not surprising.
 

:police:

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

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,939
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Clemente said:
1. Father Josiah does not often get the benefit of the doubt, even from the Moderators. In the quote above, the Moderator ruminates about how perhaps Father Josiah wanted to incite violence. Um, no, Orthodox priests don't generally want to incite violence. Is it too much just to assume that?
Did you give Father Robert Arida the benefit of the doubt? I do not recall it. A tiny little statement that you posted to that effect will do. I would like some reassurance that this is so.

 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
Clemente said:
1. Father Josiah does not often get the benefit of the doubt, even from the Moderators. In the quote above, the Moderator ruminates about how perhaps Father Josiah wanted to incite violence. Um, no, Orthodox priests don't generally want to incite violence. Is it too much just to assume that?
Did you give Father Robert Arida the benefit of the doubt? I do not recall it. A tiny little statement that you posted to that effect will do. I would like some reassurance that this is so.
Absolutely. I assume all Orthodox and especially priests are Orthodox. When they give us reason to think they are not, especially in plain English, we should call them out.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Daedelus1138 said:
Onesimus said:
Words mean things.  How you string your words together means things.  You've used the word "hate" - "self-absorbed" in contradiction to "sympathetic" and followed that up with an aspersion of enmity. 
You're psychoanalyzing and projecting.

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

Having seen how you interpret Scriptural passages - it is indeed likely that you are suffering from some sort of significant impairment in this regard, only potentiated by your involvement in the ELCA. 
I reached my own resolution a long time ago. The ELCA has nothing to do with it.  I was just looking for a sacramental, liturgical church.  Despite all that has happened in my life, I still think Jesus matters.  Which is a miracle in its own right.

Struggle and failure and temptation and falling into the sin of sodomy out of human weakness is not a grounds for exclusion, if one is struggling and fighting the fight.  But active intent (overt, covert or subvert) to participate in a lifestyle and to encourage the Church to embrace active homosexuality is. 
You seem to be focused on what people do an awful lot, rather than focusing on what they are

This entire discussion between two opposing sides is often unable to distinguish between working and dealing with persons and loving them in their particular circumstances
Exactly... being gay is part of some peoples "particular circumstances".  I will be frank, some of the Fathers, when they are speaking of acts interpreted as "homosexuality" do not seem to be speaking of an awareness of issues that affect the 21st century context of this discussion, the "particular circumstances" of actual gay people. 

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

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

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

Its fruit becomes obvious...and its fruit is a continued acquiescence to active division and the scattering of the flock to be picked off by wolves who wish for both soul and body to be destroyed. 
I don't see unwavering traditionalism and triumphalism as a good response to western modernity.  We are all Protestants now, at least in the western world.  Nobody holds a gun to our head and tells us what to believe.  And we all have to give an account to God for our actions in this world.  "My pastor/priest said it was good" is not going to be a very good response.  God gave us individual minds and hearts for a reason.

AND as part of that love PREACH AND EXPECT REPENTANCE (as a form of mutual edification) rather than simply drink in the lie that you cannot oppose a sinful lifestyle and also love a person. 
"Hey friend, let me help you remove that speck from your own eye", indeed.

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

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

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
As usual, we need to use our two-pronged strategy for whenever any priest speaks ill of homosexuality: attack and redefine.

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

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

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


June 5 (Day 157, Zebulun): The Sun's corona was darkened by a massive hole between May 17 and 19, 2016.  Coronal holes are low-density regions in the Sun's atmosphere (the corona).  Coronal holes, which are detected by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, are visible in extreme ultraviolet light (shown in purple in the image)
.  Coronal holes cause solar winds of particles that can affect satellites around the Earth and cause auroras, or Northern and Southern Lights.

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

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

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

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

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

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!
Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.
Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming. We need to trivialise the so-called "sin" of sodomy.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Clemente said:
Mor,

What "good fruit" comes from homosexual relationships?
Why are you asking me?  It wasn't my claim. 

You seem to have gone all in to defend Iconodule and his traditional Orthodoxy at all cost, using the most convoluted logical contortions which defy an honest reading of his posts. This, in spite of his saying that the idea that homosexual acts are sinful was no longer "tenable".
Not true. 

You have sought to portray, what most of us understand as a pro-gay argument, rather as Orthodox.
Not true. 

How sad then that you don't extend the same charity to Father Trenham, who is an Orthodox priest in good standing and whom you know! You criticise him on numerous occasions in this thread.
What comments of mine do you have in mind?  Maybe we can let Iconodule answer for himself and I will answer for myself. 

You don't criticise Iconodule at all.
Not true. 

What is the difference? Why the double standard?
There is none. 

I know your posturing has been good for generating theatre and hence the popularity of this thread. But can you honesty say that Christ's bride has been honoured in this thread?
I think some have honoured her, and some have not.  In the latter group, there are both "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" persons. 

And please, I don't doubt your faithfulness to Orthodoxy personally so enough of that silly canard of "So much for never having doubted my commitment to Church teaching".
How is it a canard?  It's the plain sense of your native English words.

You even seem to be almost convinced that homosexuality is condemned by Scripture although you leave that somewhat open for discussion: "Scripture seems to uphold a positive view of childbearing and childrearing.  It doesn't seem to hold a similar view about homosexuality."
It would be fairly stupid for anyone to claim that homosexual activity is "open for discussion" according to Scripture.  I have never suggested it was "open for discussion".  Not in this thread.  Not in any other thread.  That much is a settled matter and has been for a few thousand years. 

So what exactly about those two sentences is it that makes you think I believe the clear Scriptural condemnation of homosexual activity is open for discussion?
That was another "telling" non-response. Do you think yelling "not true" makes it thus?

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

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

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

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

Take your time.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Clemente said:
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!
Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.
Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming.
You are truly our buzzfeed listmaster.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!
Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.
Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming.
You are truly our buzzfeed listmaster.
Oh fabulous! Lovely ad hominems! Keep OC.net queer-friendly!
 

Charles Martel

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.

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

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


 

Charles Martel

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Clemente said:
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
NicholasMyra said:
Clemente said:
Keep it coming! We must make those who believe in traditional Orthodox sexuality look like Flat-Earthers!!
Nobody is talking about flat earths. But plans and tactics have been brought to light.
Good show! Phase III boys! Keep it coming.
You are truly our buzzfeed listmaster.
Oh fabulous! Lovely ad hominems! Keep OC.net queer-friendly!
  I like you Clemente, but you really have to stop using the word "fabulous" in your attempt to expose the pro-sodomy, anticlerical agenda on here. It's not very becoming of a straight man to keep using that word. At least not where I come from.

Nothing personal. 8)
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
ialmisry said:
Daedelus1138 said:
Onesimus said:
Words mean things.  How you string your words together means things.  You've used the word "hate" - "self-absorbed" in contradiction to "sympathetic" and followed that up with an aspersion of enmity. 
You're psychoanalyzing and projecting.

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

Having seen how you interpret Scriptural passages - it is indeed likely that you are suffering from some sort of significant impairment in this regard, only potentiated by your involvement in the ELCA. 
I reached my own resolution a long time ago. The ELCA has nothing to do with it.  I was just looking for a sacramental, liturgical church.  Despite all that has happened in my life, I still think Jesus matters.  Which is a miracle in its own right.

Struggle and failure and temptation and falling into the sin of sodomy out of human weakness is not a grounds for exclusion, if one is struggling and fighting the fight.  But active intent (overt, covert or subvert) to participate in a lifestyle and to encourage the Church to embrace active homosexuality is. 
You seem to be focused on what people do an awful lot, rather than focusing on what they are

This entire discussion between two opposing sides is often unable to distinguish between working and dealing with persons and loving them in their particular circumstances
Exactly... being gay is part of some peoples "particular circumstances".  I will be frank, some of the Fathers, when they are speaking of acts interpreted as "homosexuality" do not seem to be speaking of an awareness of issues that affect the 21st century context of this discussion, the "particular circumstances" of actual gay people. 

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

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

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

Its fruit becomes obvious...and its fruit is a continued acquiescence to active division and the scattering of the flock to be picked off by wolves who wish for both soul and body to be destroyed. 
I don't see unwavering traditionalism and triumphalism as a good response to western modernity.  We are all Protestants now, at least in the western world.  Nobody holds a gun to our head and tells us what to believe.  And we all have to give an account to God for our actions in this world.  "My pastor/priest said it was good" is not going to be a very good response.  God gave us individual minds and hearts for a reason.

AND as part of that love PREACH AND EXPECT REPENTANCE (as a form of mutual edification) rather than simply drink in the lie that you cannot oppose a sinful lifestyle and also love a person. 
"Hey friend, let me help you remove that speck from your own eye", indeed.

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

Preaching repentance as a condition of grace is a heavy burden upon those who are wounded.  And many gay people are especially wounded (I don't live in San Francisco, I live in the Bible Belt where people are still kicked out on the street and bullied for being gay or transgender).  I think it is rather a matter of many people that need to first approach gays and ask the gay brother to remove the speck from their eyes.  Pope Francis is at least starting to do the right thing in this matter by apologizing to the gay community.
they myth of progress and the promise of modernity went up in smoke in the chimneys of Auschwitz.
Well, Germans were burning gays in Auschwitz too. They liked them as much as some Orthodox do (and people of other religions).
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
ialmisry said:
the myth of progress and the promise of modernity went up in smoke in the chimneys of Auschwitz.
So what's your solution?  An uncritical acceptance of premodern ways of thinking and being?  In western culture that would amount to contempt for all things western.  I don't see the love in that.
 
Top