Fr Josiah Trenham in Tbilisi: Homofascists not Welcome

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
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.  When Christ did it, he did it to their faces (and not to the weak, but to the strong in society, the ones who were planning to kill Him).  So discernment is very important indeed when it comes to Fr. Josiah's actions.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,804
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Mor Ephrem said:
DeniseDenise said:
and I wouldn't disagree with that overall...but i would posit the notion that Jesus was not trying to convince the Moneychangers to follow him, give up their sin.
What was he doing, then?

Honestly, you know exactly what I mean, and because you enjoy having -smart theologian- discussions, you keep twisting back to get me to say what you want...and honestly.....I don't need to bother..

You win.  You are faster, smarter and <insert picture of degree here> just generally better at twisting everyones words to suit.


Take care
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,143
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
DeniseDenise said:
Mor Ephrem said:
DeniseDenise said:
and I wouldn't disagree with that overall...but i would posit the notion that Jesus was not trying to convince the Moneychangers to follow him, give up their sin.
What was he doing, then?

Honestly, you know exactly what I mean, and because you enjoy having -smart theologian- discussions, you keep twisting back to get me to say what you want...and honestly.....I don't need to bother..

You win.  You are faster, smarter and <insert picture of degree here> just generally better at twisting everyones words to suit.


Take care
No, I was curious.  I've never really considered an alternative understanding of driving out the moneychangers that didn't involve an at least implicit call to repentance. 
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
minasoliman said:
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.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Antonis said:
The images of Christ, the saints, and the instrument of our salvation are worthy to be displayed and ought to be displayed in public spaces. It is worth fighting for.
Antonis said:
Your talk of theological tension is unrelated.
Rather, it is quite related. You’re right to say the martyrs died to protect the icons and the statues, etc. But those who protect that particular icon, that particular cross, that particular relic, even, out of fear of great loss: This is not Christianity, Orthodox Christianity. We do not stand and fall on stones and dust, even while we affirm them as holy. If Christ did not command his followers to take up arms to defend his holy body from destruction because his kingdom is not of this order, how much more should we yield--- perhaps after temperate protest--- to those who would transport an instance from a single place? But no, this is not the message of the chains. The message of the chains is: Stand or fall here, this is a rolling back, this is a loss, if we fail.

Regard them as holy and worthy of preservation, but yield without grief because our kingdoms are not of this order. Here is the tension.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Mor Ephrem said:
I agree, which is why I find your calling it "stones and dust" to be rather disgusting for a professing Christian.
Mor Ephrem said:
John of Damascus, a highly regarded theologian of your tradition, cites St Basil among others in his treatises On the Divine Images.  Clearly he did not view his teaching on images as irreconcilably opposed to St Basil's teaching, but in continuity with it--indeed, established upon it.  To the Rich doesn't contradict such a view. 
You missed the "unless" in my post. I was saying: If you find referring to goods as they are in this age by "stones and dust" to be unacceptable via St. John Damascene, then you must hold that St. Basil and St. John contradict. But I do not believe they contradict on this point.

Mor Ephrem said:
Back on topic?  You were the one who, without prompting, posted reply no. 51.
I didn't say: You took the topic off topic, put it back on topic. Rather, I said: Back on topic.

Mor Ephrem said:
Even if I can agree with you on "the Tblisi event and speeches like it", you are not a reliable messenger. 
I'm far from the perfect messenger. But if I'm the B team, the Z team, what have you...where's the A team? I'll gladly tag out when they show up for battle. What of you, seminary graduate? Professed friend of bishops? Won’t you join the imperfect, the compromised? Or is impotent sniping from an ivory tower all we're going to see in the way of tangible acts?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
mike said:
minasoliman said:
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.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Cyrillic said:
What about calling people 'snakes' and 'children of vipers'? What about talking about the 'synagogue of Satan'?

Toughen up.
Those so called were the sons of Israel, members of the congregation of God. And authorities in it, too. Not heathen Romans or Samaritans.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
minasoliman said:
mike said:
minasoliman said:
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.
Let's assume he is not an idiot and he knows what he is doing.

He is fairly popular among the internets. He seems to stick to the old, simple, and true pr principle "it doesn't matter what they talk about you. it matters they do". All his public stunts attract people, again specific public as he clearly understands no one is able to please everyone. And his target is actually a fairly big one. It all looks as a thought-out strategy. And that strategy works as for now.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,143
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
NicholasMyra said:
Mor Ephrem said:
I agree, which is why I find your calling it "stones and dust" to be rather disgusting for a professing Christian.
Mor Ephrem said:
John of Damascus, a highly regarded theologian of your tradition, cites St Basil among others in his treatises On the Divine Images.  Clearly he did not view his teaching on images as irreconcilably opposed to St Basil's teaching, but in continuity with it--indeed, established upon it.  To the Rich doesn't contradict such a view. 
You missed the "unless" in my post. I was saying: If you find referring to goods as they are in this age by "stones and dust" to be unacceptable via St. John Damascene, then you must hold that St. Basil and St. John contradict. But I do not believe they contradict on this point.
St Basil was not talking about crosses.  Crosses made of "stones and dust", made of materials "as they are in this age", are not "stones and dust" of one type as opposed to "stones and dust" of another.  I'm confident John of Damascus and St Basil would agree on that.  By your own words, you don't. 

Mor Ephrem said:
Even if I can agree with you on "the Tblisi event and speeches like it", you are not a reliable messenger. 
I'm far from the perfect messenger. But if I'm the B team, the Z team, what have you...where's the A team? I'll gladly tag out when they show up for battle. What of you, seminary graduate? Professed friend of bishops? Won’t you join the imperfect, the compromised? Or is impotent sniping from an ivory tower all we're going to see in the way of tangible acts?
My tangible acts are done in the tangible world among tangible people. 
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Mor Ephrem said:
St Basil was not talking about crosses. 
He was talking about material goods, of which crosses are a sort. You only have to look on galleria byzantium to see some particularly stony examples.

Mor Ephrem said:
Crosses made of "stones and dust", made of materials "as they are in this age", are not "stones and dust" of one type as opposed to "stones and dust" of another.
What is the demonstration for this?

And do you or do you not acknowledge the tension I spoke of in my previous posts?

Mor Ephrem said:
My tangible acts are done in the tangible world among tangible people.
Go on. What's being done? Where do we join?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
mike said:
minasoliman said:
mike said:
minasoliman said:
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.
Let's assume he is not an idiot and he knows what he is doing.

He is fairly popular among the internets. He seems to stick to the old, simple, and true pr principle "it doesn't matter what they talk about you. it matters they do". All his public stunts attract people, again specific public as he clearly understands no one is able to please everyone. And his target is actually a fairly big one. It all looks as a thought-out strategy. And that strategy works as for now.
Well, before we assume he knows what he is doing, let's at least find that smoking gun.

Let me give you an example.  For some time, I defended a Coptic priest.  But one time, someone sent a video that forced me not to be able to defend the Coptic priest's actions as Orthodox.  That speaks louder than just pointing fingers.

If he is as smart as you think he is, he probably would make it very difficult for you to find that smoking gun.  So you need to find other and better ways to criticize him.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Mina, I would contend that inner intent isn't that important at this stage. I mean if someone is causing a lot of damage, the first priority is to get it shut down, intention analysis can come after if at all.

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
NicholasMyra said:
Mina, I would contend that inner intent isn't that important at this stage. I mean if someone is causing a lot of damage, the first priority is to get it shut down, intention analysis can come after if at all.
I don't disagree, and in this particular example of him in Georgia, it is something that requires a strong response from us.  But in the meantime, everything else you mentioned needs backing.  You can't convict the person unless you are able to show the damage it is causing and what exactly he is doing.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
NicholasMyra said:
Mina, I would contend that inner intent isn't that important at this stage. I mean if someone is causing a lot of damage, the first priority is to get it shut down, intention analysis can come after if at all.
I don't disagree, and in this particular example of him in Georgia, it is something that requires a strong response from us.  But in the meantime, everything else you mentioned needs backing.  You can't convict the person unless you are able to show the damage it is causing and what exactly he is doing.
Shut it down! A strong response! Kristallnacht!

Have you even watched the video? The whole video? He used the term "homofascist" a total of one time to describe legislative efforts on the part of the gay lobby to restrict religious freedom in California and in particular, Christian schools in California.

Although so far it hasn't passed, California Senate Bill 1146 would substantially interfere with the ability of faith-based colleges and universities to teach religion, hold chapel services, and maintain separate bathrooms based on sex. The provisions of the proposed bill represent a dramatic narrowing of religious freedom in California. http://www.opposesb1146.com

He is using the term "homofascist" to describe a well-organised LGBT lobby that is fighting to promulgate that agenda that would restrict freedom of religion. His speech to the World Congress on Families was very well received; this is the second time he has been invited to speak.

Now, I know there is a considerable contingent here at OC.net that is sympathetic to the homosexual lobby and would react at any public denunciation of their agenda. Orthodox priests like Father Trenham are always going to be their bête noire because he advocates a traditional Orthodox view of sex and marriage. However he says it, they are going to fulminate against him.

I don't agree with Father Trenham on everything and I am actually fine with legalised gay marriage. But I appreciate his perspective and he is right to use the term "homofascist" in this context to describe a well-organised lobby with a radical agenda that would circumscribe freedom.

And I would hope that more level-headed posters would actually consider the context of the comments before they start breaking glass.
 

Hinterlander

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
862
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Clemente said:
minasoliman said:
NicholasMyra said:
Mina, I would contend that inner intent isn't that important at this stage. I mean if someone is causing a lot of damage, the first priority is to get it shut down, intention analysis can come after if at all.
I don't disagree, and in this particular example of him in Georgia, it is something that requires a strong response from us.  But in the meantime, everything else you mentioned needs backing.  You can't convict the person unless you are able to show the damage it is causing and what exactly he is doing.
Shut it down! A strong response! Kristallnacht!

Have you even watched the video? The whole video? He used the term "homofascist" a total of one time to describe legislative efforts on the part of the gay lobby to restrict religious freedom in California and in particular, Christian schools in California.

Although so far it hasn't passed, California Senate Bill 1146 would substantially interfere with the ability of faith-based colleges and universities to teach religion, hold chapel services, and maintain separate bathrooms based on sex. The provisions of the proposed bill represent a dramatic narrowing of religious freedom in California. http://www.opposesb1146.com

He is using the term "homofascist" to describe a well-organised LGBT lobby that is fighting to promulgate that agenda that would restrict freedom of religion. His speech to the World Congress on Families was very well received; this is the second time he has been invited to speak.

Now, I know there is a considerable contingent here at OC.net that is sympathetic to the homosexual lobby and would react at any public denunciation of their agenda. Orthodox priests like Father Trenham are always going to be their bête noire because he advocates a traditional Orthodox view of sex and marriage. However he says it, they are going to fulminate against him.

I don't agree with Father Trenham on everything and I am actually fine with legalised gay marriage. But I appreciate his perspective and he is right to use the term "homofascist" in this context to describe a well-organised lobby with a radical agenda that would circumscribe freedom.

And I would hope that more level-headed posters would actually consider the context of the comments before they start breaking glass.
Thanks for taking the time to post this - I'm in agreement with your take on this situation.  I wouldn't recommend Fr. Josiah to everyone I might come across inquiring into Orthodoxy but he certainly isn't as "out there" as some here seem to be suggesting.
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hoping I won't earn any further demerits on this forum , I wanna ask : would a formula such as the one below been acceptable ?
" I don't know Fr Trentham personally , but his public  persona comes across as what is commonly called  a drama -queen, or histrionic in the medical literature ..."
 

Justin Kolodziej

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
I don't know. Is he saying heretical things? Then avoid him. If not, don't worry about it. All I know is that the command is to love your enemies, and further examples are contained in the lives of the Saints, and we all screw that up (me more than Fr. or the homofascists even) and all need forgiveness.
 
Top