tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post5316785166826511537..comments2024-03-22T11:37:52.668-05:00Comments on Byzantine, Texas: ROCOR Synod of Bishops responds to Sr. Vassa's letterByzantine, TXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17845681957622343484noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-89157292489120012102018-03-04T04:49:57.537-06:002018-03-04T04:49:57.537-06:00"russians in waffen-SS" are not the syno..."russians in waffen-SS" are not the synod of the ROCOR.BadScientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602219263018563565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-38027754649087430912017-07-31T16:04:47.533-05:002017-07-31T16:04:47.533-05:00Then please stop. This conversation has run its co...Then please stop. This conversation has run its course.Byzantine, TXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17845681957622343484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-62621678537884132022017-07-31T15:51:36.132-05:002017-07-31T15:51:36.132-05:00Yet again, instead of paying attention to what I w...Yet again, instead of paying attention to what I wrote you talk right past it. I didn't compare you to Arius. There is no discussion with someone so entirely unwilling to even read what the other person writes. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-26762430723903050052017-07-31T06:55:50.071-05:002017-07-31T06:55:50.071-05:00The problem with your logic, "Hugh", is ...The problem with your logic, "Hugh", is that unlike Arius, I am defending the long standing teachings of the Church, and your are trying to undermine them. You are the closest thing to Arius in this discussion.Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-28505543196668048852017-07-30T22:21:02.849-05:002017-07-30T22:21:02.849-05:00Arius was a priest of the Church as well. Or wait,...Arius was a priest of the Church as well. Or wait, would that be a bad way to make my point? Insinuating one group/person is somehow associated with a universally despised group/person? Hmmmmmm I wonder. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-23699986484028185352017-07-29T14:03:43.866-05:002017-07-29T14:03:43.866-05:00Hugh, since you obviously think there is a case to...Hugh, since you obviously think there is a case to be made for traditional marriage, and you keep insulting a priest of the church, demeaning his intelligence, and questioning his good faith, is there any reason you keep going on this thread? You either believe what the church teaches, or you don't. You either try to be obedient or you don't. You admit the case for traditional sexual ethics can and is made. So, other than making an ass of yourself by being rude to clergy in public, while proclaiming your own intelligence and good faith (the latter at least, apparently in short supply), what exactly are you trying to prove? Photinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10505997738940883648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-66737445520127469482017-07-29T12:28:36.635-05:002017-07-29T12:28:36.635-05:00You made lots of assertions. You have never demons...You made lots of assertions. You have never demonstrated how I used any sources erroneously. The texts say what they say. If you want to dispute what they say, feel free, but the Fathers and the Church to the present day are on my side of the question. I did not suggest that you should be an Episcopalian. I said if you want to engage in Sodomy, you are barking up the wrong tree. And if you are looking for a Church which does not believe in truth or non-negotiable teachings, then the Episcopalian Church awaits you. I would hope you not choose to be an Episcopalian -- just don't try to make the Orthodox Church into the Episcopal Church.Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-50655460138456070452017-07-29T11:52:40.635-05:002017-07-29T11:52:40.635-05:00Again you fail to read. I called you a fundamental...Again you fail to read. I called you a fundamentalist due to the form of your argument and your either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty in the use of sources. I said, more than once, that there are plenty of people who make the case for traditional marriage and sexual ethics in an intelligent manner, but that isn't what you're doing. Now you as a priest, without knowing me at all, insinuate that I should be an Episcopalian with a downright childish meme. It is really embarrassing for a priest representing the Church to behave in this manner. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-60778288342191213342017-07-28T19:32:58.515-05:002017-07-28T19:32:58.515-05:00"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out ..."Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth...." -a well known "Fundamentalist," St. Paul (2 Timothy 4:2-4).Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-11289654602683273902017-07-28T19:29:42.732-05:002017-07-28T19:29:42.732-05:00"Hugh," if you think fundamentalism is b..."Hugh," if you think fundamentalism is believing that there is such a thing as truth, and that there are teachings that are non-negotiable, then you think the Fathers and saints of the Church were all fundamentalists. You have the wrong Church in mind. http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/4931/4355/400/337030/The%20Episcopal%20Church.pngFr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-29907608730400291862017-07-28T19:16:06.536-05:002017-07-28T19:16:06.536-05:00Fr. John, you're really incredible. To think I...Fr. John, you're really incredible. To think I actually once defended you to people because I didn't want to think such poisonous fundamentalism existed within the Church. Thank you for entirely disabusing me of that and everyone who reads this thread, which I can assure you will be many.<br /><br />Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-45176628846624466882017-07-28T19:12:23.100-05:002017-07-28T19:12:23.100-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-32854700038815829792017-07-28T19:10:48.669-05:002017-07-28T19:10:48.669-05:00Hugh says:
"Jake, you have a lot of nerve. Y...Hugh says:<br /><br />"Jake, you have a lot of nerve. Your hatred is obvious. I try to share honestly about the difficulties and challenges and you seize upon one phrase in order to assail me...(followed by more nonsense)"<br /><br />Hugh, the silly histrionic narcissism your showing here is not really part of the romantic ideal... ;)Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-71821080447523577492017-07-28T19:07:45.428-05:002017-07-28T19:07:45.428-05:00The more you refuse to answer the basic question h...The more you refuse to answer the basic question here, the more you make my case. If you want to engage in Sodomy, the Orthodox Church is not for you. Sorry. If you want to live a Christian life, and struggle against sin, you are welcome, along with the rest of us who are struggling against sin too.Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-56637317091765961512017-07-28T18:55:23.341-05:002017-07-28T18:55:23.341-05:00Fr. John, there is no point discussing anything wi...Fr. John, there is no point discussing anything with someone who neither reads nor listens. You're a broken record. The more you speak the more it helps my case. Stop pretending to have interest in conversation.Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-26705594694425923682017-07-28T18:46:47.536-05:002017-07-28T18:46:47.536-05:00"Hugh," it is nonsense that heterosexual..."Hugh," it is nonsense that heterosexual fornication is ignored in the Orthodox Church. It is not. Homosexual sex is clearly a violation of Scripture and the canons. That someone has a temptation to commit such a sin may or may not be sinful, depending on the degree to which someone embraces that temptation. If you want a conversation, let's begin with you answering the question of whether or not you accept the teachings of the Church on homosexual sex.Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-32601801004746693582017-07-28T18:10:18.728-05:002017-07-28T18:10:18.728-05:00Jake, you have a lot of nerve. Your hatred is obvi...Jake, you have a lot of nerve. Your hatred is obvious. I try to share honestly about the difficulties and challenges and you seize upon one phrase in order to assail me. I'm not ignorant of Christian anthropology and I'd bet I've educated myself on it far more than you ever have. If you actually have read the Fathers at any length, clearly none of their charity rubbed off on you. For you to lecture me about sacrifice and suffering is a joke. You have no idea what I've been through and how dare you call my relationship with the Church shallow. Of course the gay person is just ignorant and doesn't understand! He just needs to "bone up" on what Christianity actually is! Your contempt is so transparent. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-46144598004792471692017-07-28T17:51:31.454-05:002017-07-28T17:51:31.454-05:00Hugh says:
"I desire to have a romantic rela...Hugh says:<br /><br />"I desire to have a romantic relationship with someone..."<br /><br />Hugh, you seem entirely unaware ("ignorant" is the technical term) that Christianity is not only NOT the romantic ideal, but that it entirely rejects it (as do most religions and philosophies known to man). Christianity does not understand man or God in light of a romantic ideal and does not put love (either eros or agape) or relationships under this light either. Christianity does not recognize as "true" the metaphysical presuppositions of "natural" man or the Good for humanity/community in terms of these categories. <br /><br />Indeed, the philosophy that leads to the recognition of man (anthropos) as a "natural" and romantic phenomenon falls under "the world" and "the authority of darkness" (of principalities and powers) and Christianities whole reason for existence is to call us out of our fallen, natural state of being into a transformed and transforming state of being (the technical term is "ontology") such that both our desires (and will) and our "nature" are trans-formed, that is changed from one kind of being into another (formed from one thing into another like a lump of clay).<br /><br />I say all this to point out that while you claim you want to "have a conversation" you in fact either do not know or you rationally (probably just emotionally) reject basic Christian anthropology. What is there to talk about? Nothing really.<br /><br />I will say this as a married man of 20 years now: My marriage would not survive the next 24 hours if it was based on my "desires" and the romantic ideal. It is a sacrament, which is to say it is fundamentally a s-a-c-r-i-f-c-e which is another word for suffering. You do not appear to have even a clue about this. This indicates to me that your relationship with the community of the Church is in an important sense shallow (even if you attend liturgy every week). <br /><br />You should start with the basics - you need to "bone up" on what Christianity actually says about man, love, and life. Until you do that, a conversation is unfruitful because you will be continually perplexed why Christian men and women do not entertain the romantic ideal... Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16152024447008244670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-18767963590382012282017-07-28T15:10:48.645-05:002017-07-28T15:10:48.645-05:00This is what makes the reduction of sexuality to m...This is what makes the reduction of sexuality to mere sex so grievous. I don't wake up every day wishing I could have sex. I desire to have a romantic relationship with someone, to love and care for them, to not be utterly alone in life. Not only this, but every day I have to try to kill every ounce of hope in me that I would ever have these things. Every normal thing to a straight person, that they never even pay attention to, I'm painfully aware of. I have to decide who I tell and who I don't about my sexuality. If I'm friends with women I have to be sure I don't lead them on. If I'm friends with men I have to worry about how they'd react if they knew I was gay. If I'm friends with gay people, who can actually understand this aspect of my life, I have to worry that I don't grow romantically attached to them. In church it obviously isn't okay to be open about it. Then if you are you practically have to take a public pledge of celibacy or people will assume you're out living a "homosexual lifestyle." Better still, some will chastise you for calling yourself gay because "you shouldn't identify yourself with your sin." If you're not open about it and in your early 30's all of the women of the church start to play match-maker, which must be politely refused. When they ask why it becomes difficult to know what to say. <br /><br />One thing I've always appreciated in the Orthodox Church is that marriage is not upheld as the only option, at least theologically. Surely monasticism is important but I've never felt called to be a monastic. The truth is that in parishes it is little different from the rest of the world. Marriage is the only real option and life is not easy for single people, much less so if you're gay and doomed to be perpetually single. Straight people are given a huge amount of leeway by the Church (which I don't necessarily disagree with). It is very common for Orthodox to fall away from the Church in college, no doubt be sexually transgressive, and then return with their marriage to have a family. I think in practice this is because people anticipate youths going through a wild phase before settling down for marriage. I'm certainly not saying the Church should be okay with licentiousness, but it can be rather painful to see how hyper-focused clergy can be on homosexuality while other obvious realities are hardly ever mentioned. <br /><br />I could go on much longer but hopefully that gives you some idea of what I mean. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-71682876536114347792017-07-28T15:10:38.246-05:002017-07-28T15:10:38.246-05:00Finally someone who can have reasonable discussion...Finally someone who can have reasonable discussion! Thank you for the thoughtful questions. <br /><br />It is important to distinguish between sex and sexuality in this discussion because for a long time many have tried to reduce homosexuality to a sex act. If the sex act is wrong then we can just keep it in a catalogue of sins and imagine it goes no further. Elsewhere on this page I had someone tell me that homosexuality is equivalent to their propensity to anger because they're both sins we have to daily struggle against. I would argue that this is obviously absurd to anyone who takes the time to think through it. <br /><br />So what do I mean by sexuality? I was never trying to suggest sexuality is wholly independent from sexual attraction, only that sexuality is not reducible to a sex act because it actually influences many different aspects of life. Most straight people are incapable of seeing this simply because they have no reason to.These realities are not made manifest to them in their daily life. The world is heteronormative, which I don't object to at all, but heterosexuals should at least be aware how that can limit their perception of how this impacts people's lives. <br /><br />To give you some examples of what I mean.... Often times people who write on this issue seem to look back on their youth and remember what it was like to be single, thinking 'Well that wasn't so bad.' Then the instruction ends up being something like 'Just be single, be faithful, and don't have sex,' as if those things are straightforward. Most of these writers are either married or widowed. They seem to entirely miss the fact that when they were single they were able to look forward to marriage, to date, to pursue relationships etc. Or if they are widowed they have those times to fondly look back on. I have no such luxury. <br /><br />Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-51175605868148585332017-07-27T22:28:58.684-05:002017-07-27T22:28:58.684-05:00Not to intrude on your debate, but Hugh maybe you ...Not to intrude on your debate, but Hugh maybe you could elaborate on how you conceive of 'sexuality' versus 'sex'. This seems to be part of the contention you are raising, and it might make things clearer. By sexuality do you mean "the sexual habits and desires of a person," (Merriam-Webster) i.e., a person's sexual attraction to others/another? Do you conceive of sexuality in the sense of one's inclination of attraction or as something more? Does sexuality involve attraction generally, or to a member of one or another gender, i.e., male or female or both? And do you conceive of there being two or more sexualities, i.e., 'heterosexual sexuality' and 'homosexual sexuality', etc., or is there simply human sexuality with different sexual "habits and desires"? You seem to favour the former, though I am just inferring it from what you write. If yes, then what distinguishes the 'heterosexual sexuality' from the 'homosexual sexuality' other than same-sex attraction or hetero-sex attraction? I suppose the same question might apply if you answer no as well. What distinction exists in human sexuality that accounts for homosexuals and heterosexuals beyond sexual attraction? I mean no disrespect if this sounds trite, but is there some sort of 'straightness' or 'gayness' in human sexuality that exceeds or transcends the type of sexual attraction one evinces, whether hetero or homo or bi? I think an answer to this might add a great deal of clarity to the discussion, especially if by sexuality what you might really be suggesting is gender and maleness or femaleness, rather than 'straightness' or 'gayness'--which would seem to contain by definition some inherent notion of "sexual attraction." What would gay sexuality actually mean if attraction to the opposite sex were not part of the definition? Or sexuality in general for that matter? This is an honest question. I just wonder if you are presupposing (whether rightly or wrongly) something by the term sexuality that Fr John (or myself) might not be grasping when we read it. For Fr John it seems that he understands that sex (or at least sexual attraction) and sexuality are fundamentally connected, but that you are suggesting something beyond that connection if sex (or sexual attraction??) is removed from the equation? Do I have this right?<br /><br />Fr MRev Dr Matthew Penneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08541047643803418515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-62103144502770962192017-07-27T21:51:31.740-05:002017-07-27T21:51:31.740-05:00You've refused to address the main point, and ...You've refused to address the main point, and made no honest ones. I'm disappointed. Had hoped you make be enticed into actually making an argument on substance.Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-11869734300147555202017-07-27T20:19:44.229-05:002017-07-27T20:19:44.229-05:00And I've made a number of points along the way...And I've made a number of points along the way, all of which you've plainly ignored. You hoped for a scholarly discussion? Now who is pretending. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-18448478197281868142017-07-27T19:29:16.160-05:002017-07-27T19:29:16.160-05:00I have only been arguing for one point here: homos...I have only been arguing for one point here: homosexual sex is inherently sinful. You want to take issue with that and still feny that you are taking a position. I had hoped we could have a scholarly discussion, but I am disappointed. You are not interested.Fr. John Whitefordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455863282054302939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-51051954468965823982017-07-27T19:14:03.411-05:002017-07-27T19:14:03.411-05:00You've already illustrated my point perfectly....You've already illustrated my point perfectly. Another sign of the fundamentalism: the fortress mentality. Everyone must be an enemy. If you'd actually heed my points you'd have a better case. Even most conservative/traditionalist Christians have had the sense to drop the old rhetoric of trying to associate gays with pedophiles, that gays can change, and the refusal to acknowledge sexuality as a real thing. They recognized it hurt their cause more than it helped it. If you wish to actually sway people you'd be wise to do likewise. Hugh_Of_Balmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09771649115063029182noreply@blogger.com