Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
mike said:
ialmisry said:
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).
Missing the point-or rather, looking away from it-won't help your case.
 

gavaisky

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Clemente said:
It's rather simple so let me spell it out again.

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

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

Take your time.
For #1, Mor Ephrem does not necessarily agree with Iconodule 100%.

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

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

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Daedelus1138 said:
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.
Who asks for sight from a blind man?

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance. Most Western culture-at least not yet-does not consist of that cesspool where everything vile and foul collects and becomes fashionable.

I know what problem Fr. Trenham is trying to solve. What "problem" are you claiming is in need of solution?
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
ialmisry said:
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. 
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Daedelus1138 said:
ialmisry said:
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.…"
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
I don't see romanticism as comporting in the least bit with the virtue of temperance.  On this point, Lewis is either wrong or being read out of context.

Lewis says the past has a determinate nature- an assumption that sounds far too romantic.  I'd argued much of the past is just as unreal as the future he scorns as well.  History is often read through ideology, we see in it what we want to see, as George Tyrrell pointed out over a century ago.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
By all means, Keep changing the "gospel" then.

Preach another Christ.   

The future is read through ideology much more readily my friend. 

Your sect's fruits are the proof. 

We always stand ready to take you back in to the Faith, and the freedom from sin that Christ offers.  You don't have to be a slave...
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
gavaisky said:
As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.
Sure. Here is the post which I believe is in question:

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

However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am  beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.


I'm guessing that Mor and Mina would agree more or less with the first paragraph but not the second. I don't think there is any grounds of accusing them of siding with me on that part. I think what basically unites us is the general principle of "don't be a jerk" on this issue, but for the second paragraph, I am only speaking for myself.

My experience with family members, acquaintances, and generally listening to gay couples, whether childless or with adopted children, tells me that it is possible for such relationships to produce "good fruit," most especially love.

Of course I am aware of the usual scriptural texts invoked on this question, from Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc. I call them "historically hazy" because of the numerous linguistic, historical, and cultural issues raised in various debates by scholars as to the precise way to understand these passages. They seem to be bound up with polytheism, pederasty, and other things which do not seem to be inherently bound up in modern gay relationships.

For instance, if we follow Saint Paul's reasoning in Romans, we are looking at an unnatural lust which is introduced as a result of deifying created things. It's a punishment for idolatry, and in this Paul is really reproducing standard Jewish polemics against gentiles. This doesn't apply to those Christians, whether born into the Church or entering it voluntarily, who struggle with same-sex desire, and, no matter how fervently they worship the true God, do not acquire "natural" heterosexual urges. Even many of those who think of homosexuality as inherently sinful have acknowledged the failure of conversion therapy and "pray the gay away" and frame it more in terms of a lifelong cross to be carried, which brings it well outside of what Saint Paul is talking about.

So this is why I say that, when I am confronted with a loving gay couple- particularly a Christian one- I cannot in good conscience say, "You're sinning, your relationship is unwholesome" because the evidence before my eyes tells me that is not true, and the evidence from Church tradition is quite murky as to how and where the famous injunctions really apply.


 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Daedelus1138 said:
ialmisry said:
Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.
Western culture is capable of being self-critical, and often is.
 
You're confusing the scapegoating by the sanctimonious as being "self-critical."

Daedelus1138 said:
The problem is not that westerners are not critical (if anything, perhaps we are too critical),
:eek:
self own horn trumpeting noted.
Daedelus1138 said:
it's that Orthodox Christian leaders and intellectuals often only reserve criticism for the "heterodox".
Often? How often?
Daedelus1138 said:
You really don't understand the post-Enlightenment west.
 
LOL. That ol' Leftist self-assured smugness "If you could but understand (i.e. if you weren't so stupid), you'd agree..."

Daedelus1138 said:
It's not uncritical acceptance of every idea
of course not: the tried and true are tossed aside
Daedelus1138 said:
it's looking for a new ground
because the grass is always greener

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rqEjboP5g50/VLN9UthcEXI/AAAAAAAASEc/vF2l8WrVj3U/s1600/grass%2Bgreener.jpg
[WARNING: language]
Daedelus1138 said:
besides the tired dogmatism of cherished, but ultimately vain certainties.
 
except of one's own ego, of course
Daedelus1138 said:
As much as certain Orthodox choose to attack this project uncritically
did you assUme uncritically, or are you assERting that?
Daedelus1138 said:
they make themselves enemies of a project to better the human condition.  Surely that is a noble intention.
Ah, yes, the high road
 

gavaisky

Jr. Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Iconodule said:
gavaisky said:
As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.
Sure. Here is the post which I believe is in question:

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

However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am  beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.


I'm guessing that Mor and Mina would agree more or less with the first paragraph but not the second. I don't think there is any grounds of accusing them of siding with me on that part. I think what basically unites us is the general principle of "don't be a jerk" on this issue, but for the second paragraph, I am only speaking for myself.

My experience with family members, acquaintances, and generally listening to gay couples, whether childless or with adopted children, tells me that it is possible for such relationships to produce "good fruit," most especially love.

Of course I am aware of the usual scriptural texts invoked on this question, from Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc. I call them "historically hazy" because of the numerous linguistic, historical, and cultural issues raised in various debates by scholars as to the precise way to understand these passages. They seem to be bound up with polytheism, pederasty, and other things which do not seem to be inherently bound up in modern gay relationships.

For instance, if we follow Saint Paul's reasoning in Romans, we are looking at an unnatural lust which is introduced as a result of deifying created things. It's a punishment for idolatry, and in this Paul is really reproducing standard Jewish polemics against gentiles. This doesn't apply to those Christians, whether born into the Church or entering it voluntarily, who struggle with same-sex desire, and, no matter how fervently they worship the true God, do not acquire "natural" heterosexual urges. Even many of those who think of homosexuality as inherently sinful have acknowledged the failure of conversion therapy and "pray the gay away" and frame it more in terms of a lifelong cross to be carried, which brings it well outside of what Saint Paul is talking about.

So this is why I say that, when I am confronted with a loving gay couple- particularly a Christian one- I cannot in good conscience say, "You're sinning, your relationship is unwholesome" because the evidence before my eyes tells me that is not true, and the evidence from Church tradition is quite murky as to how and where the famous injunctions really apply.
Thank you for your polite and thorough explanation. I understand your point of view now, though I think I probably agree more with Mor and Mina on this issue.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Iconodule said:
gavaisky said:
As for #2, it would be nice if Iconodule explained himself.
Sure. Here is the post which I believe is in question:

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

However, as I witness the pain and exclusion which this teaching- however gently expressed- has brought to gay people trying to navigate their way into and in the Church, and when I see the good fruits that can be borne of these relationships, I am  beginning to think this position too is untenable. I cannot, in good conscience, stand before friends and acquaintances in such loving relationships and inflict my understanding of a few historically hazy precepts on them, convincing myself that I am somehow speaking the truth in love.


I'm guessing that Mor and Mina would agree more or less with the first paragraph but not the second. I don't think there is any grounds of accusing them of siding with me on that part. I think what basically unites us is the general principle of "don't be a jerk" on this issue, but for the second paragraph, I am only speaking for myself.

My experience with family members, acquaintances, and generally listening to gay couples, whether childless or with adopted children, tells me that it is possible for such relationships to produce "good fruit," most especially love.
If that's your yardstick, then why not bless adultery as well? Or, better yet, the first spouse is killed off so that the lovers can let their relationship blossom to produce "good fruit" (children, etc.).

Did Ahab and Jezebel produce "love"? Did Henry and Anne? Did Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn?

Does co-dependence count as "love"?

And-now that the "Sister Wives" and others are coming before Injustice Kennedy on the basis of Obergefell-do we have to recognize multiple "love"? Does that include bigamy?

A little while back this year, the local radio station had a thing where they called up for people dates that haven't answered their calls. They called one such guy who called in, who had talked about how they hit it off, how well they got along, how great the date went etc. When they called the woman, she asked "Is this for real?"  The disk jockeys went on repeating how the guy characterized the date, etc. asking what was wrong and why she didn't answer his calls until she said "He's MARRIED." When the jockey asked the first caller if this was true, he said "Yes, but that's OK." When they asked him why he didn't say that in his original call in, he said it "wasn't important" as his wife was "fully on board with this" as he was man who had "so much love to give." As things progressed the caller got more and more judgmental, calling the woman "narrow minded," "behind the times," and a lot of other things.  When the disc jockeys overcame their shock-at least the general public is still capable of shock at such things-and pointed out that just because his wife was OK does not mean the woman has to be "into this," the man replied "well, if she doesn't want to find happiness and love..."

No doubt in time "experience with family members, acquaintances, and generally listening" that rationalization will tell people that it is possible for such relationships to produce "good fruit,"" to the point that the option of "not being into it" will evaporate.
Iconodule said:
Of course I am aware of the usual scriptural texts invoked on this question
obviously you are not. But you do have the rationalizing of them away down pat.
Iconodule said:
from Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc. I call them "historically hazy" because of the numerous linguistic, historical, and cultural issues raised in various debates by scholars as to the precise way to understand these passages. They seem to be bound up with polytheism, pederasty, and other things which do not seem to be inherently bound up in modern gay relationships.


Is incest OK now too? Abortion-child sacrifice without Molek?

Iconodule said:
For instance, if we follow Saint Paul's reasoning in Romans, we are looking at an unnatural lust which is introduced as a result of deifying created things. It's a punishment for idolatry, and in this Paul is really reproducing standard Jewish polemics against gentiles. This doesn't apply to those Christians, whether born into the Church or entering it voluntarily, who struggle with same-sex desire, and, no matter how fervently they worship the true God, do not acquire "natural" heterosexual urges.
Your quotation marks make St. Paul (and God)'s point. IOW, yes, it applies.

Iconodule said:
Even many of those who think of homosexuality as inherently sinful have acknowledged the failure of conversion therapy and "pray the gay away" and frame it more in terms of a lifelong cross to be carried, which brings it well outside of what Saint Paul is talking about.
No, it does not, any more than an alcoholic's cravings void the need for detox.
Iconodule said:
So this is why I say that, when I am confronted with a loving gay couple- particularly a Christian one- I cannot in good conscience say, "You're sinning, your relationship is unwholesome" because the evidence before my eyes tells me that is not true,
Would you have said that if you confronted Amy and Joey before she went after Mary Jo?

Iconodule said:
and the evidence from Church tradition is quite murky as to how and where the famous injunctions really apply.
only to those whose vision is clouded.

Now, what to do with/to/for such people is another question.....But the injunctions-i.e. the facts, those are crystal clear.

Same sex sexual activity was not invented in the 20th century. It was well known in the 1st century, and the Apostles called it for what it is. Move not the landmark your Fathers have set up, nor add nor subtract the words from those they spake by the Holy Spirit.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Disgust with and villainizing of the human being is contrary to the spirit of Orthodoxy. Who is the sinner and sick? I am the sinner and sick. Who is the healer? Christ is the only way in which anyone is saved and healed.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
RaphaCam said:
"Scholars" can build up linguistic baloney as much as they want, arsenokoites will still be one who takes a man to bed.
If any man perform arsenocoetia upon his wife, he shall be penanced for eight years, faring the while with xerophagy after the ninth hour and doing two hundred metanies daily.
- canon of Saint John the Faster

It's interesting. When Orthodox encounter many passages that seem difficult for us- "Call no man father," "It is shameful for a man to have long hair," "No man knows the day, nor the Son, but the Father alone" etc, we scramble to explain why the words should not be taken at face value.
 

Onesimus

Elder
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
This doesn't really help your cause Iconodule. 

You may think you're onto something, but this actually works against you.
 
Top