Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
Note 181-
As I said in note 179, yes.
Brent, your compassion doesn’t seem to extend to children
Brent, you don’t seem to get past the false idea that I what personal harm to come to people who engage in homosexual conduct. I have never advocated that, nor has anyone on this board. It is simply a false concept that you have lodged in your head.
You seem to think that there are two choices: agree to the entire gay agenda or agree to violence against gays. These are not the choices and you don’t seem to be willing to give any thought to anything else.
We are talking about two things: personal spiritual status and public policy.
I am not qualified to discuss personal spiritual status except to say that I am a Christian and I urge people to seek Christ. As to public policy I have stated repeatedly, which you didn’t seem to notice, that I would agree with the decriminalization of adult to adult homosexual conduct. This means that no one would have to worry about being arrested for gay conduct. However, I object to the official legalization and normalization of homosexual conduct through laws and social policy. I advocate a neutral policy
The entire quote was about social policy regarding the family. Homosexual conduct is one piece of the puzzle, not the entire topic and yes, they are involved in the controversy.
I never suggested anything about the frequency of homosexual conduct by homosexuals., it isn’t relevant to the debate. What I pointed out is that human beings have many forms of gratifying themselves sexually and we need to have a social policy that is consistent across the board. There does exist a group of people that want to legalize sex with children. My policy applies to all forms of human sexual activity. My policy is that the state should only endorse and support real marriage. I don’t why that is so hard to understand.
What you are engaging in is a logical fallacy. The fact that you can fine one successful single parent does not affect the decision on social policy. Social policy is about groups of people and choosing the policy that is best for society as a whole. There is no question that when large groups of people are looked at as a whole, children raised in a home with both parents do much, much better. You don’t seem to understand what it means to analyze a problem based on the behavior of large groups of people.
Actually, same-sex marriage has happened in Europe. Stanley Kurtz and Theodore Dalrymple are just two of the scholars who have taken a close look at what happened to society after same-sex marriage was legitimized. We need to look at that data. You need to read something substantive about the issue.
Well, Brent, as I have said many times. I support traditional marriage because it think it is not only desirable but absolutely necessary to perserve a civilized culture. The fact that marriage has been falling apart for a while now, is reason for concern, not reason to help it fall apart even more.
This is about social policy towards marriage in general and whether the government should endorse homosexual conduct as opposed to making it illegal as it has been in the past. It would help if you would try to stay on point. I am sorry if the only women you meet are “con-artists” This attitude is a post-Christian approach to marriage. Christianity teaches that men and women should form life-long bonds, for richer and for poorer, through sickness and health. Christian married couples pledge to love and serve each other for life. Perhaps you should consider the positive impact Christianity could have on your personal life I feel sorry for people who have no guidance in their personal life and flounder around in meaningless relationships, it is a hard life.
I don’t understand where you get all these negative ideas regarding my attitude toward people who engage in homosexual conduct. When have I suggested violence towards people who engage in homosexual conduct?
Christ stated that He came to heal sinners, nothing in the Bible suggests anything else, however, he stated to the women engaged in adultery that she should “go and sin no more.” Christ also stated that marriage was created by God to occur between and man and a womand that the act of marriage meant that “they became one.” Please pick up a New Testament and you will see that Christ does address marriage and he clearly states that it was a creation of God for one man and one woman.
I have noted many times that I am not qualified to provide spiritual guidance to any individual, I can only urge people to seek Christ and share my own experiences if an individual is interested in hearing them. I actually haven’t discussed my personal life at all in connection with this issue other than to state that I am a Christian.
Again, Brent, I don’t think that I have discussed my individual life very much.
What I am trying to do, without much success, is discuss social policy. This means that we look at the information that is available in Europe and Canada about the behavior of large groups of people over time in response to certain social policies.
I don’t think that you can find any references to my personal life except my statement that I am a Christian and those are short.
My discussion has been about social policy. As a citizen in a democracy we are called upon to debate and discuss these issues. Would you consider me selfish if I opposed the legalization of sex with children or a citizen that is involved with public debate as is my First Amendment right.
No, Christ was not selfish, and yes humanity is flawed, but Christ offered us a way to overcome our flaws.
).
The prohibition against murder is “old and archaic.” Should we get rid of that?
The current political push in America is less than 60 years old. Homosexual conduct is nothing new, societies have addressed it for many centuries.
The age of an idea has nothing to do with whether it is worthy or not. For someone working on their “second degree” it seems odd that you would state that since 90% of what you will be taught was developeed or determined prior to the 21st century.
The Nazis came to power, did God have something to do with that?
I am sure that America’s pets are grateful to you. You have never addressed any of the concerns about the welfare of children. If you are such a humantarian, you seem to have forgotten about a rather large group.
I would appreciate a reference to this program. This is simply false. I lived in several small towns and gays were not beaten. Someone has really convinced you to buy into the propaganda. Nearly every academic institution in America is actively and openly promoting homosexual conduct. Many “churches” are promoting homosexual conduct. The entire Democrat party are promoting homosexual conduct. Seems to contradict the claim the gays live in fear of violence.
No, and no Christian organization has ever promoted such conduct.
Try to stay on topic, Brent. We are citizens of a democracy and this is a debate that we have to address. Right now, I am addressing the question of whether the state should legitimize homosexual conduct. I have every right to discuss one topic at a time and I suggest you follow suit. The homosexual political organization have a very active list of changes that they want.
You seem to think that the choice between the violence against gays and nothing. First, you overstate and exaggerate violence against gays and secondly, you haven’t addressed the gay agenda.
Gays are not “down” they are politically powerful. They were able to get all of the candidates of the Democrat party to answer to them in a debate.
You are ignorant of what is happening in Canada and Europe where the religious freedom of those who believe homosexual conduct to be immoral is being restricted.
Do you have “compassion” for children? Do you care about how they are cared for? Do you care how the government provides for the care of children? Is the welfare of children more important than the sexual gratification of an adult?
Your concept of “compassion” is very limited Brent and very narrow.
Brent, my God is revealed by the Christian scriptures, those Scriptures teach that homosexual conduct is a grave sin and that sin separates us from God.
If I loved someone wouldn’t I want them to be close to God and not separated.
Where do you get your ideas of God, I tend to think it is a free floating idea not particularly anchored to anything in particular. My idea of God is that which is found in the Christian tradition which has been maintained over 20 centuries through great adversity. I invite you to look into it.
Nancy L. ,
You are one of the few on here that shows great knowledge in several areas.
You are right i search for truth, and i am not afraid of it, however what i am afraid of is peopel misinterpreting the lords gospel, and by doing that commiting acts of hate and hurting others.
In my generation violence is very real and it is all around (its really sad that it is this way), and i see alot of violence that arises out of disagreements, and the different religious beliefs. I think god created all of these different religious organizations, and different classifications of people as a test. In order for us to pass the test we have to not let other peoples choices get to us, and not let others change how we percieve things.
I think that homosexual marriage will not affect anything, unless we let it, and most people are doing that. I think that everyone can find someone and be with them, and not all relationships are going ot be quite precise as hoped, but that does not mean it is going ruin everything.
Their is enough room in this world for many things, and we shouldnt let certain change effect the way things are done.
Homosexual marriage will only then make marriage not so tightly defined, because remember at one point marriage was defined between a certain race of male and female.
What makes marriage being defined as two people whom want to share their lives together so bad, because even if they aren’t married they could still do it anyways.
If its the thought of same sex in action then that is an issue with the individual, because nobody should be wondering about someones sexual acts, because its behind closed doors.
Im looking through the window at the world, and with all evidence and words of wisdom i still cannot see how same sex marriage is ruining traditional marriage, because what i see is people are letting other ruin things, because of their inability to live and let live.
I tend to dance on the neutral field, and that doesnt mean i dont have any direction it just means i am not always going to pick the same side of the field everytime, because i want to see how it things are really affecting others then i can make my assertion.
They can always repeal gay marriage if it becomes a circus can’t they?
This world has always been trial and error its how we learn as people, and i cannot assume what people want, but only try to see both edges of the sword.
I like your blogs Nancy, because you show alot of knowledge, and that you may not always agree with one side on whim.
I dont agree with certain things like gay men being overly promiscious and a higher rate of drug use in the gay community i think that if they are wanting to fight for something they need to put a little effort, and be a better example to strengthened their stance that they really do love their same sex partner, and that isnt just about sexual gratification.
I think that more religious organizations should be a little more understanding that the sword always has two edges to it, and if anything dislike the sin, but not the sinner of it.
In my generation i see alot of violence by secular governments such as the muslims, and i see what they do to people, and it is just awful, and what is scarier is that we can end up like that one day.
I know most people dismiss people of my age group as that we are inexperience, but i can tell you something that you’d be surprised what we really see.
I see 12 years old that have more insight and knowledge than 45 year olds i really believe that age can be totally irrelevant to knowledge.
Eventually we are all going to have to come to a mutual agreement otherwise its going to start a battle of rights, and the only way to a mutual agreement is understanding to some level.
I am ready to be in mutual agreement, its just sad that alot of others want to keep fighting this instead of coming to some sort of arrangement
(this goes for gay people to).
Brent – you might actually try reading the Gospels. The actual Jesus may have saved the woman taken in adultry, but He also the one who condemned sin and called for repentance.
Helping homosexuals renounce their sin and live in accordance with God’s Law so as to attain salvation is love. It is the love of Christ.
Re-affirming homosexuals in their chosen lifestyle is not love. It is an uncaring attitude.
We care about the salvation of others because we love them. Salvation is re-unification with God. Salvation is life.
Christ does try to mend the broken hearts of the homosexuals, but he does not do that by being non-judgmental. Christ was, in fact, very judgmental. I’ve listened to more than one person who turned away from Christianity because Jesus was just too tough for them. They wanted a non-judgmental, feel good kind of Guru, and Christ wasn’t it.
Re-unification with God means turning from sin and embracing God’s love. You can’t do that if you are mired in sin.
Brent – you’ve asked me to put away Theology and argue on the basis of cause and effect. If you abandon first principles, then you can make a case for anything from the Holocaust to the Gulag.
Two things – abandoning capitalization doesn’t make you edgy or progressive. It just makes your writing hard to read.
Second thing, I’m only 37, so don’t give me the garbage about your generation versus mine. I’m Generation X, you’re Generation Y. I listened to Nirvana in high school, had friends into Gangsta’ Rap, got my first PC when I was 12, and lived through Baby Boomer parents with all their issues.
To make the case that those of us on this board in their lates 20’s through their 30’s are somehow so remote from your world as to be incapable of understanding your silly post-modern ideas is preposterous. We were around when they first hit the streets, and they haven’t gone away.
Yes, there was a huge gap between a 37 year old and a 17 year old in say – 1967. The difference (culturally) between a 37 year old and a 17 year old in 2007? About zilch. Look around – from rap, to Grunge, to body piercing, to tatoos, to Wicca, to homosexuals on Oprah, to Marxist world views, etc. It was all there youngster when I was a strapping young boy of 17, and hasn’t changed since.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
A large number of young people these days are actually going more conservative than the preceding two or three generations. They are more in search of the constant, the unchanging, the timeless than their own parents were.
Life is hard when everything is relative. Which is why replacement ideologies so readily appear.
Actually CFLConservative i am a Millenial i was born in 1985.
I drop alot of theology, because people pick and chose what they want, and interpret however they see fit (its human nature).
Your interpretation of jesus is very dark and Judgmental, however jesus was viewed by most as a very forgiving person who would help those willing to help themselves.
We are not all negative like your viewpoint is.
Furthermore your standpoint is pure theology, whereas mine is a mixture of some theology and some real life scenarios.
Sorry i am nothing like you in so many ways (Kurt Cobain killed himself when i was in like 2nd grade).
Furthermore if you have trouble reading what i type then don’t read it, or peer a bit closer to the screen.
Cause and Effect is what strengthens theology, without any inkling of cause and effect then the existence any form of god would be non-existent.
and i never said re-affirming gay marriage (being an advocate for gay marriage or something), but rather learn to deal with the change, and let God take the wheel and steer, and quite feeding us your interpretation, because like most the bible has its holes in it, and according to most sources jesus was kind the caring individual, which doesnt mean he didnt judge, but not how you make it out be.
Sorry but your interpretation is Negative, and the world does not need it right now.
You say you care that others find salvation, but yet your words speak of nothing of the sort when it comes to helping others.
Actions always speak more than words,
Why dont you actually get to know a gay person, and see the sin for what is the person for who they are, but apparently you would rahter just judge.
Im sorry to tell you but Homosexuals have been around since the dawn of time, so i dont think you seen them for the first time hit the streets, because they are all around everyone like aliens i mean your best friend could be one, so homosexuality is not a new thing, its only new because they have started to gain some freedom alot like other minorities groups.
Any other words of wisdom?
CFL writes: “We care about the salvation of others because we love them. Salvation is re-unification with God. Salvation is life.”
IF you don’t mind some personal questions: how long have you been a Christian? Have you ever met someone you’d consider a saint? If so, what were their qualities? In the years you’ve had your faith, have you noticed a change in yourself? Are you more virtuous? Less sinful? If so, by what degree? Do you wake up periodically and say, “Hey, that difficulty I had with x or y is no longer there.”? Do you feel that there is some effort on your part, or do these things just sort of “fall away”?
I know that, in theory, the Christian life is supposed to enable one to “grow in holiness”. However, I’m not sure what that means anymore, because the things I associate with holiness such as generosity, long-suffering, patience and forgiveness (and even a sense of humor?) seem to be denigrated as weaknesses here or, at the very least, deemed unimportant.
Note 205:
However, I’m not sure what that means anymore, because the things I associate with holiness such as generosity, long-suffering, patience and forgiveness (and even a sense of humor?) seem to be denigrated as weaknesses here or, at the very least, deemed unimportant.
What? Do you believe that because someone disagrees with you (almost always) liberal/materialistic position on X or Y, that “generosity” is unimportant?
Note 206: No, not at all. I’m not threatened by someone telling me my ideas are so much hot air.
It does seem, however, that the culmination of Christian virtue is in sexual self-restraint, as if nothing else matters. I hear almost nothing about any other virtue. Anger, hostility, downright venomous, boiling hatred? Hey, everyone’s got their flaws, right? Besides, “righteous outrage” is a healthy expression of Christianity. Wealthy and stingy? At least they’re not some slacker sucking off society’s social welfare programs (which is supposedly the case for everyone who needs assistance). Dishonest? Well, if it’s for the “right” ideology, facts don’t really matter, do they?
If I arrived here from outer space and read this blog, I would also be convinced that gays (who make up around 1-2% of the population, according to the Family Research Council) were the sole cause of every societal ill, from illiteracy and teen pregnancy to earthquakes.
Brent, you’ve got to stop the 60’s philosophy redux. After reading your posts its all I can do to keep from breaking out my tie-dyed T-shirts and matching headband, put on Bob Dylan singing “The Times They Are a-Changin’” and Barry McGuire about the “Eve of Destruction” then get all my neighbors together, build a camp fire and sing Kum Bai Ya with a little Groking on the side. Had I been into acid back then it would be enough to give me a flashback.
All I can say is, Peace man, be groovy.
Note 207:
It does seem, however, that the culmination of Christian virtue is in sexual self-restraint, as if nothing else matters.
What? Your kidding, right? Have you read the Gospels, the letters, have you availed your self of a basic catechism of any traditional body?
This blog is a discussion place for ‘Orthodoxy meets modern culture’, so of course (like this thread) are going to focus on certain aspects.
You know, when you say things like this, you really reveal yourself as either profoundly ignorant of Christianity or a Troll, who just does not like the fact we don’t approve of the “gay” agenda. It’s a lowball attempt to short circuit discussion. It won’t work.
Are you, JamesK, a homosexualist?
JamesK It is evident you don’t really read what is written here but since I”m just an ignorant, arrogant, judgemental, old crumudgeon who doesn’t give a damn about anyone else except to get them to stop having sex, I’ll take a stab at your questions from post #208:
IF you don’t mind some personal questions: how long have you been a Christian? 40 years, 20 as an Orthodox
Have you ever met someone you’d consider a saint? Yes although he would emphatically disagree as he sees himself a slave yet to sin.
If so, what were their qualities? Humility demonstrated by his unceasing efforts to conform his life in obedience to the life of the Church in prayer. He evidences an absolute condemnation of sin because it is what keeps us from being human.
In the years you’ve had your faith, have you noticed a change in yourself?
Yes
Are you more virtuous? Yes
Less sinful? Yes
If so, by what degree? Not enough
Do you wake up periodically and say, “Hey, that difficulty I had with x or y is no longer there.”?
Do you feel that there is some effort on your part, or do these things just sort of “fall away”?
These two questions are framed from a legalistic, almost magical mentality and reflect an ignorance of the traditional Christian approach to sin, repentance and communion with God. I’ll refer you back to my post #197 which you evidently did not read.
James further re Note 208: It is not that the culmination of Christian virtue is in sexual self-restraint, as if nothing else matters. It is the fact that the un-Christian posters want to make sexual license the cornerstone of freedom and compassion. That is a lie.
Christopher, I’m uncertain what you’re asking me, but I’ll attempt to answer. From my perspective, I think it should not be legal to fire someone or evict them because of an orientation. I oppose censorship of non-violent speech, whether it’s that of Howard Stern or Fred Phelps, so I thus would oppose any attempt to stifle religious opinions. I do not believe churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, but I find no valid reason why anyone should not be free to extend certain benefits to whomever they wish, whether it’s someone of the same gender or not. Is this all too radical, do you suppose? Well, I don’t support enacting divorce statues based on Scriptural standards, either. In other words, though physical abuse may not be an acceptable reason to divorce according to the Bible, I think it’s sufficient grounds for a civil separation. I’m a moderate, not a radical.
Are you asking me about my personal life? Not that it’s any of your business, but I’m sure it will greatly disappoint you to know that my personal life is rather dull. I go to work, go to the gym, have a glass of merlot while doing an online crossword puzzle and go to bed. I rarely even watch the television. Weekends consist of housework and a choir rehearsal and church (though they pay me for playing the piano so I suppose that doesn’t count). Is it as decadent as you assumed it would be? Besides, I thought we were supposed to be discussing ideas and refrain from bringing up personal details.
Do you really want to use this forum as a personal confessional?
Note 210. James writes:
Not true of course (James, have you ever taken a definitive stand on anything?). It’s just that sexual license has been the topic of discussion.
Having said that (not directing this to James), I’ve been working on an article for the Sept. issue of AGAIN, a section of which concerns the co-opting of the moral lexicon (the theme of the section is cultural deconstruction). I wanted to get away from gay marriage, abortion, etc., IOW, avoid the hot button issues for the most part since the theme of the issue is biotechnology, etc.
What I found is that it is almost impossible to talk about the reappropriation of the moral vocabularly apart from the sexual issues. It seems the sexual issues are both the source and driver of much of this coopting that results in the moral confusion about so many other things. On a deeper level it’s materialism of course (the dimming of man’s self-awareness of the spiritual dimension of his being), but trying to describe this the cultural ramifications is almost impossible apart from the hot button issues. I’m wondering if the moral questions surround the bioethical advancements can ever be benevolently resolved apart from resolving the sexual questions first.
In the end I had to retructure the entire piece. I used literature, primarily Solzhenitsyn (the Harvard address as moral exhortation, particularly the part on society on a new anthropological threshold), Orwell (language and cultural deconstruction), and Huxley (materialism expressed as physical pleasure (body as machine) as the final expression of that deconstruction).
There really is no way to address these issues without talking about sexuality. Put another way, in our culture, moral discourse seems captive to issues of sexuality — at least when discussing morality in broader terms.
I may have stumbled upon another essay here, but I’ve got to figure it all out first.
Brent –
Sure he did. Listen to Nirvana and then compare it to any of the psuedo-Grunge being played today. Or House, Hip Hop, Gangsta Rap, Ska, Death Metal, whatever.
Sorry. Been there and done that. What do you have there my Millenial friend that we didn’t already have in the 80’s? Body piercings? Same sex relationships in high school? Sex parties?
MTV? Video games? What on Earth is in the ‘youth’ culture of today that we hadn’t already seen? D&D?
Get a grip. You can’t be that ignorant. The number one tour in 2006 was Madonna for Pete’s sake.
We’ve reached cultural stability. Why don’t you just pick something, anything, that I might not have seen or dealt with at your age.
Do you think that the 80’s and 90’s were Leave it to Beaver reruns?
Like we all didn’t get drunk and go to Red Hot Chili Peppers concerts or Rage Against the Machine, or Porno for Pyros, all bands you’ve heard of I’m sure because they still have a following in your age group.
What about fiction? Ann Rice was already big. Vampire cults? Wicca? We had that already.
Politically Correct ideas about tolerance being the highest ideal in the world? Sorry, we had that also.
In fact, there isn’t one sentiment, not one, that you have expressed on this blog that couldn’t have come straight out of the mouth of one of my leftist classmates in 1988.
Not one. You could have stood in the hall in 1988, said exactly what you are saying now, and no one would have blinked.
Been there, heard that.
Think I’m kidding? Anyone under 40 on this blog will back me up on that.
You’re nothing new, kid. Sorry to break that to you.
Oh, I agree you and I aren’t that much alike, but the idea that there is some great cultural chasm between you ‘Millenials’ and us ancient Gen Xers is just so much bunk.
You are what we were, but may be a few more piercings and a few more Tats and your music is even more derivative.
Actually, I attempt to live exactly by the teachings of the Orthodox Church. I accept everything, even the hard things. To pick and choose is the essence of heresy, which is, of course, the opposite of Orthodoxy. I would think, given where you are, you would understand that standing on the side of several thousand years of teaching would hardly be considered ‘picking and choosing.’
Do you recognize the passage from Luke, my young Millenial friend? Christ died for those who would repent. For those who will not, they choose their own path.
What am I to do? Ignore the plain scriptures? The words of Christ, the words of the Apostles, of Paul, of the Church throughout all history?
No, I won’t. God is love. God is Father, and fathers in love chastise their children so as to teach them the right path. Being a father means loving your child even when they do the wrong thing, but it doesn’t mean accepting their bad actions.
You are free to reject the scriptures, the Orthodox Church, and the teachings of Christ. But what you are doing is trying to co-opt them into something else. You are trying to make of Jesus some New Age guru straight out of a campus philosophy department. That simply won’t do, and you should know better.
It is better for you to simply reject Christ, than to lie to yourself about his teachings.
There have been people who engage in homosexual activities for all time. There have been adulterers, murderers, rapists, gossips, men who hate, men who covet, misers, and all the like. Their persistance does not prove that they are right, or natural.
IF you don’t mind some personal questions: how long have you been a Christian?
I wouldn’t consider myself to have been a Christian prior to becoming Orthodox. I was raised Evangelical, but really didn’t pray or live by any of the teachings. I started drinking and fornicating as soon as the opportunity presented itself, and never looked back. A stint in the Marines only exacerbated what was already there. College didn’t help. I had flashes where I knew there was more to life than this, and would seek God momentarily, but then slip back into life as I knew it.
I became Orthodox in December 2000. I started to be serious about the faith about 9 months previous to that.
Have you ever met someone you’d consider a saint? If so, what were their qualities?
Absolutely. Earnest, humble, prayerful, sincere, honest, brave, forthright, faithful, compassionate, kind, and cheerful are all qualities I have learned to associate with the extremely holy.
I am not a saint.
In the years you’ve had your faith, have you noticed a change in yourself?
Yes. Evangelicalism expected you to go to the altar and come back changed. I never did. I came back and went right back to what I was doing. Orthodoxy is about process. You pray, even when you don’t want to. You face the icons, you face God, even when you prefer to hide. You pray, you partake of the Eucharist, you struggle on, even when you prefer to give up. Orthodoxy is a tool set to grow spiritually. I am different now than I was.
But as you grow, you understand better just how far you are from God. The most holy are the ones who best understand their sins. They are the clearest picture of their own imperfections. I now understand better how poor a specimen I really am. Would that I understood such things better.
Are you more virtuous? Less sinful? If so, by what degree? Do you wake up periodically and say, “Hey, that difficulty I had with x or y is no longer there.”? Do you feel that there is some effort on your part, or do these things just sort of “fall away”?
Nothing falls away by itself. It takes work. The holy fathers of the desert wouldn’t have abandoned everything to seek solitude if this was easy. Over time things do get easier to avoid.
I know that, in theory, the Christian life is supposed to enable one to “grow in holiness”. However, I’m not sure what that means anymore, because the things I associate with holiness such as generosity, long-suffering, patience and forgiveness (and even a sense of humor?) seem to be denigrated as weaknesses here or, at the very least, deemed unimportant.
I’m not sure who it is that denigrates such things as generosity. It is true that the Fundies are, by and large, a strange lot. But to think that the Orthodox Church is somehow disdainful of generosity, patience, etc. is simply not true. If you examine the lives of recently canonized saints, you will see all of those qualities in abundance.
I often feel like on this blog that no one is really arguing against Orthodoxy.
As Michael pointed out, the arguments seem to be directed at American fundamentalists. What applies to them, does not apply to us in many regards.
This was the crux of my priest’s last sermon:
“Whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Here is a powerful statement: that we learn humility by humbling ourselves. It is difficult, because it contradicts the spirit of our age. But we begin the journey by humbling ourselves before the Church’s Tradition and before God’s words. We can learn to humble ourselves before one another, and even before life’s irritations and bothersome events.There are many opportunities to learn humility, if we will only look for them!
We don’t get sermons on gays every Sunday. In fact, I’ve never heard one. We don’t get Hellfire and damnation either. In fact, the above is pretty much on par with the normal course of parish life.
Note 216. Glen writes:
True, but let me focus this even more. I get the feeling that many who argue against religion here are trying to come to some sort of resolution with their own religious past.
Glen writes: “To pick and choose is the essence of heresy, which is, of course, the opposite of Orthodoxy.”
Glen, I often respect your posts, and they’re always thoughtful. I certainly have agreed with many of your posts on the Bush administration. I also have a certain respect for Orthodoxy because it is not fundamentalism and it is not uncompromising. Unfortunately, because I have read the apologetics of many other Christian denominations, it seems that it is but one way of living out Scripture, and it’s a way that many have persuasively argued may not be completely valid. In its own modest way, it too picks and chooses how to live out what it sees as God’s truth.
What is the 2nd Commandment?
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Exodus 20:4
Any likeness. I’m not seeing how semi-flat portraits of saints and holy figures are somehow exempt. If we insist that an image of Christ is not sinful because it’s painted on plaster instead of carved out of marble, I might suggest that we’re missing both the letter and the spirit of the Law.
What is the 3rd Commandment?
“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates” Exodus 20:10
There is no exemption for people who are forced to work on Sunday. It doesn’t say “unless you are in an occupation that necessitates you be there on Sunday.” It doesn’t make exemptions for physicians or EMTs or law enforcement agents. Not practical? Maybe, but the Law has never been concerned about practicality or mercy. In the Old Testament, people were stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The Law is the Law is the Law. Unchangeable and uncompromising.
What is the 6th Commandment?
” Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Christ states: “‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.'” Mark 10:10-12
There is one exception: adultery. Not spousal abuse, not abandonment. What is the Orthodox position on marriage? Out of concession for human weakness, it will allow up to three marriages within a lifetime. Granted, it does with reluctance and reservation, but it does do so. “Despite the fact that the Church condemns sin, she also desires to be an aid to those who suffer and for whom she may allow a second marriage. This is certainly the case when the marriage has ceased to be a reality. A possible second marriage is therefore only permitted because of ‘human weakness’.”
This is the compassionate response, indeed, and I respect the Church’s positions, but there is no “compromise” in Scripture regarding these issues. I’m not accusing the Orthodox of heresy. I’m simply suggesting that the same accusations I see coming from here about “twisting Scripture” can be fairly leveled against the Orthodox as well.
Note 213:
From my perspective, I think it should not be legal to fire someone or evict them because of an orientation. I oppose censorship of non-violent speech, whether it’s that of Howard Stern or Fred Phelps, so I thus would oppose any attempt to stifle religious opinions. I do not believe churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, but I find no valid reason why anyone should not be free to extend certain benefits to whomever they wish, whether it’s someone of the same gender or not. Is this all too radical, do you suppose?
Radical? No. Just a bit incoherent however.
Do you really want to use this forum as a personal confessional?
I asked because you, incoherently, appear to support the homosexualists (those who believe there is nothing wrong with said behavior). You morally can’t oppose it, which reveals you to not be a traditional Christian. You claim a RC background, but I think your a radical, at least in Christian circles – one who would deconstruct Christianity based on your personal whims (even though those whims seem righteous to you).
So, what “church” do you play in? What is your denomination? Why do you hide it? Is that too “personal” for you?
note 218:
LOL!!!
What kind of “christian” are you James? You have been posting here how long, and still don’t have a clue about the 7th ecumenical council? Or that the Sabbath is on SATURDAY, not Sunday?
These are not arguments JamesK, these are you wearing a big poster board exclaiming “I’m ignorant”.
Sorry to be so forward, but really, get a clue. Not only will you be better for it, but we won’t have to suffer your ignorance. I recommend Clark Carlton’s “The Faith”. It’s a basic catechism. PLEASE pick one up, you REALLY need one.
Somewhere up stream you said you have “studied” various christian communions. I am wondering if you are not an outright liar! Really, get a clue before you post this stuff. If you are not going to simply ask questions, but actually allege error, and such hollers as “the essence of Christian ethics is sexual behavior” then you really need to know a small tiny of a fraction of what you are talking about. You don’t understand Christianity in the least – even non-Christian’s will agree with that. Before I was a Christian, I never caricatured it as badly as you have.
Again, sorry for being so forward, but I don’t know how else to say it – you have no idea what you are talking about. Please, get a catechism and READ it before posting on anything having to do with Christianity here again – you are playing a fool!!!
note 217:
True, but let me focus this even more. I get the feeling that many who argue against religion here are trying to come to some sort of resolution with their own religious past.
I have said it before – the UU “church” I grew up in was a sort of recovery group for real recovering “fundamentalists” and people who had convinced themselves that they had a fundamentalist past (when in fact they did not).
I find it somewhat fascinating that we have regular posters here, who insist on “debating” Christianity, when they themselves are explicit non-Christians or (like JamesK) apparently attend a “church” (probably Episcopalian) , so are nominally “Christian” but are so plainly not in any significant way Christian.
Why?
Perhaps I should ask the regular Orthodox contributors here: Do you regularly “debate” non-Christians on non-Christian blogs? If so, why?
note
There really is no way to address these issues without talking about sexuality. Put another way, in our culture, moral discourse seems captive to issues of sexuality — at least when discussing morality in broader terms.
I believe it has to do with the tenacity the culture wants to hold on to sexual “freedom”. It comes down to pain vs. pleasure and sexuality in our culture represents the highest form of pleasure. It also is so plainly and obviously opposed to our past, and the modern is always raising himself above the past. Other Idealists (like Dean) while not quite enraptured with sexuality, still cling to their superiority over the “old”, thus ferocity of his moral posturing and quaint liberal story about overcoming various “isms”…
To Christopher, Missourian, CFLConservative,
CC: Glen
You guys are very misinformed about the youth these days. When i was younger i wasn’t much different then you were i was boy breaking things and getting into occasional fights and what not. What makes me different than you is i would rather not harbor on the negative aspects of everything, and then pick and chose what i feel is acceptable and then preach it, and furthermore i don’t condone everything, but i let people chose their own posion as they let me chose mine. Does this saying mean much to you:
“Judge Not Less thee Be Judged”
Gay people have not judged me to any extent, so how dare i try to judge them or anyone else, so you can say i am a polymorphic identity disorder (that of which i am not i am a male and plan on staying that way), and that i have not a care in the world you are just trying to discredit me, so that my words mean nothing, while your words mean everything.
Sorry to break it to you, but the world would rather have homosexuals marrying then the constant yip yap of hatred being tossed around, because we all know most of you are like bandwagon members, and once gay marriage you will shut up move on.
All of you want to preach that you are following gods will, and what not, but i am sorry you can lie to people on here, but you cannot lie to others above and beyond.
I hope gay marriage passes, because then you can all see how it isn’t go to affect much of anything, except marriage rate might actually go up, and promisciousity will go down.
God would not distill such feelings into his fellow man/woman if it were such an abombination to his will, so therefore the very arguement of homosexual is somewhat flimsy, because pyschologicially speaking most homosexuals try to fight it and they cannot.
Gay marriage rights will eventually pass, so you are going to have to deal with it, or go away. Start learning how to worry about what you are doing, and not so much everyone around, because this isnt a power struggle and you cannot control everyone around you like a puppet master.
I’d rather focus on the fact that their is always light in even the darkest of places, and you just want to put more darkness into everything.
Its a shame that you guys/girls cannot be a little bit more positive, and i mean if it happens and things go to ruin you could always say “I told you so”
On another note i would have to say i agree with jacobse about the search for something.
We are all in search of something, however where people like me differ or search isn’t about whats wrong with everyone else, but rather whats wrong with ourselves, and if we could all just worry about ourselves the world would be such a better place, because half the worlds problem is everyone is worried about what everyone else is doing.
I am in search of the Real Bible (the one that isn’t edited for certain needs, and people cant just pick and chose certain statements out of it and run with it, the one that clearly states that it is a guide to life, not this is how you had better run your life or you will burn forever in a river of fire and Snakes).
The real untainted bible
Sadly it is probably nowhere to be found :0(
But faith always makes the pain go away, at least its what i used as a child my safety blanket from the pains of this world.
Christopher writes: “You claim a RC background, but I think your [sic] a radical, at least in Christian circles – one who would deconstruct Christianity based on your personal whims (even though those whims seem righteous to you).”
You know, it seems the core of your thought processes always involve circular logic. How do you know something is true? Because you say it is! It’s like talking to a fundie. (“How do I know the Bible is true? Because it says so! How do I know I’m among the elect? Because I believe I am!”)
I separate the morality of actions from how they are dealt with in a democratic, free-market society. I don’t want legislation that constructs marital laws based on Scriptural principles: as I’ve said (at least three times now), Scripture does not allow for divorce because of physical or mental abuse. If you want to advocate for such laws, you go right ahead. It may be “unethical” to work on Sunday, but I don’t want to mandate that no one be permitted to do so. Why is this so hard to understand?
Christopher writes: “Please, get a catechism and READ it before posting on anything having to do with Christianity here again”
As I’ve said, you operate from the presupposition that everything you believe is true. Why? Because you say it is. I know the Sabbath is “technically” a Saturday. So what? My point about working on the Sabbath stands. It’s forbidden. PERIOD. No loopholes, no exceptions. It’s Scripture, not an IRS tax form. I don’t care what you think the proper interpretation of that Commandment is. Besides, half of what you say is rejected by millions of other Christians who argue with the same certainty, arrogance and rudeness you do.
And why should take your word in the first place? Who are you?
Thank You James K.
Christopher uses the Because i said so tactic, and just because i interpret it that way then everyone else should, otherwise they are wrong tactic
Christopher might i ask? Are you God?
Because you seem to think you know what is the right meaning to all the scriptures and what not.
As i mentioned previously my views are collective from what has been happening with the world, not what some musty old scriptures that have been misinterpreted a billion times over.
Lets face it these musty old scriptures are good for only so far, and i am sure God did intend to put some expiration dates on them, but must have forgot.
We use the past to learn from our mistakes, not doom ourselves to continiously repeat it, and please don’t use soddom and Gemmorah as an example, because their where other things going on this citys besides “gayness”.
Why can’t religion focus more on the future, and not harbor on the past so much its get old fast, hence why the churches cant keep the attention spans of younger people as well as they use to.
In one hand we have the musty old scriptures, and on the other hand we have life and the future.
Both hands cannot hold musty old misinterpreted scriptures, otherwise this world is doomed
James says:
ou know, it seems the core of your thought processes always involve circular logic.
Wrong – I assume traditional Christianity, as does this spirit of this site (it’s called “OrthodoxyToday” if you have not noticed). Your the one who brings in different presuppositions. If you want to talk about the, that’s ok – but more often than not you don’t seem aware of them. Then you (foolishly, ignorantly) try to bring in a little Christianity (your “point” about the Sabbath for example) which is invariably plain wrong – it only makes sense from your (largely unexamined) presuppositions. You of course claim “privacy” when asked about your presuppositions. What church do you attend JamesK? What “christianity” do you profess? If none, what philosophy do you look to inform your morality and politics? By not answering these questions, and continuing to “debate” traditional Christians, your simply playing a Troll.
My point about working on the Sabbath stands.
It does not. It falls flat on it’s face, it never made it past the prone position – it’s not a point at all. If you understood anything about the Church & Christianity, anything at all, you would understand this. You are profoundly and deeply ignorant about this “point”. You should be a bit embarrassed about your ignorant “point“, and perhaps one day will be if you decide to really “study Christianity” as you claim you have. If you picked up a basic catechism, you could confirm this (don’t take it from me). But you won’t, I predict. Instead, you will continue to foolishly “debate”…
Christopher you keep trying to probe into James K’s personal life as a means of justifying that you are right, so therefore you are not a traditional christian, because a traditional wouldn’t sink so low.
Quit searching for personal weakness in people to justify your flimsy misinterpretations, and discuss fairly ;0)
And why should take your word in the first place? Who are you?
I am Christopher, grew up Unitarian, converted to Christianity in my early twenties. steped through a few protestant denominations, spending the most time in the Episcopalian sodimite sect, mostly because my wife and I felt it was the best “compromise”. Converted to Orthodoxy with my wife in the mid nineties in a GOARCH parish, spent about two years there. Have been mostly Antiochian sense then, OCA currently. Politically, was a “liberal”, even spending time supporting “abortion rights” in my early twenties. Mostly liberal anthropology did not make sense (it is materialistic, thus nihilistic, at bottom) so gradually became a ‘Kirkean’ conservative. Been a regular poster here for a while, and I am recognized by the other posters as “Orthodox”, but of course human and imperfect. Computer professional by trade. My hobbies include violent computer games, Jiu-Jitsu, and vainly trying to train my dog. Now that my better half informs me it’s time to have children, my hobbies are going to go away soon ;(
Who are you? What is your church? What is your moral and political philosophy?
Christopher, Brent debates gay issues based on the factual assumption that “gay marriage” hasn’t been “passed yet”
Christopher. I made the mistake of addressing Brent’s ideas on gay issues. He informed me that “gay marriage” hadn’t been passed yet.
As to the plain facts, he is unaware that gay marriage exists in the United States in Massachusetts created by judicial fiat, and, by some definitions it exists in Vermont. He is also clueless about the existence of gay marriage in Europe.
You may wish to consider classifying him as a troll but of course that is your decision
Christopher, JamesK and the constitution
About a year ago, I wasted keystrokes discussing constitutional issues with James K ( I am a lawyer). In the end, I was writing him notes asking him to actually read some standard sources on early American history and constitutional history. He didn’t. JamesK will hypothesize and pontificate in a total vacuum.
One of JamesK responses to a discussion of any law is to assert that if he can hypothesize one situation in which a law has negative effect that the law should not be passed but that matters should be decided on a case by case basis.
He fails to acknowledge that the rule of law is founded on the idea the people who are similarly situated are treated the same by the law. This requires a general rule. He also doesn’t recognize that someone has to be chosen to made decisions on a case-by-case basis and that someone has to have rules of decision. Courts decide matters on a case-by-case basis but the judges and juries need to have rules to follow to decide those cases.
So, most of the time I ignore JamesK although he is personable enough.
note 230:
🙂
As Fr. Jacobse said, Brent is young. God willing, he will get more “experience”, though I am not sure we should wish that on anyone 🙂 His behavior with those he disagrees with could be a little more respectful, considering the site is “orthodoxytoday”. Not sure how these non-Christian’s miss that! He is new, I want to see if he can narrow his posting down to one or two points, and actually begin a discussion about something substantive.
JamesK on the other hand has historically not waded neck deep into Troll waters as has Dean and Jim. Usually he gets a foot in, and then backs out. However, lately, he is getting deeper and deeper…
As Fr. Jacobse has noted, these sexuality issues really reveal the fault lines in our culture. I think what is frustrating to the Traditional Christian’s here at OT is the ignorance of the non-Christians, and their unwillingness to discuss their own presuppositions. We are open about who we are, what we believe, why we believe it. We even “get” their perspective/philosophy/worldview, describing it better than they do most of the time. Instead, they want to “debate” – which is a dishonest form of communication in that this site is explicitly Christian…
Your absolutely right Christopher and Missourian, although i always thought of the definition of a troll to be a creepy old man, or a monster that lives under a bridge and demands money from those who pass, but hey i will let all of my friends know that i must be one those two things.
And your right i am unexperienced and as i get older i become more bitter with alot of things, so that must be part of my growing up experience ;0).
I have been reading these blogs for a few months now and only recented decided to input something, but honestly i think this whole blog is the biggest waste of energy, and my reading of these blogs has only pulled me further away from god.
I take comfort in knowing the fact that everything you guys/girls are arguing about isnt working, because you are outruled by the majority (Snickers to self), so i think i am done, and i am going to go find a real cause.
God Bless
Note 233, Christopher, discussion require some common ground of
agreed upon facts
Christopher, discussions require some common ground of agreed upon facts. New facts can be brought into the discussion but they should be based on reputable sources. People also need to agree on what constitutes a reputable source, or least be able to defend the worth of the source that is cited.
Brent will undoubtedly acquire more experience as time passes but unless he starts reading something serious about Christianity and the moral and philosophical questions raised by the proposed legitimization of homosexual conduct, he will remain clueless. I reached the end of reasonable discussion with him pretty quickly. It was a bit tiresome to have him constantly accuse me of supporting Fred Phelps’ vicious attitude towards gays. I have expressly stated that I supported de-criminalization of homosexual conduct between adults but that I opposed the official support and recognition of homosexual conduct by the State, yet he wants to claim that my attitude is based on a desire to punish and torment people who engage in homosexual conduct. It isn’t. As they old saying goes, I have had at least three true friends who consider themselves gay. I don’t want them to be persecuted and harasssed, but, I don’t want homosexual conduct to be elevated to the level formerly held by marriage. Brent has not read this in my notes, or not absorbed it and he keeps repeating unfounded accusations against me.
Note 233, Brent, check your facts
Recent polls state that Americans in general oppose gay marriage by a factor of 60% nationwide.
Nineteen states have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
How do these facts square with the idea that the Christopher and I are “outruled by the majority.”
In fact, gay marriage has been imposed on Americans not by a democratic vote but by judicial fiat.
I like the “snickers to self” line I think I will use it myself.
re:
Good riddance! As they say, don’t let the Blog door hit you in the a$$… So long and thanks for all the immature posts to remind us how simplistic and uncritical some arguments are postured. Please do come back when you’re ready for some mature and intelligent discussion.
Missourian:
How do these facts square with the idea that the Christopher and I are “outruled by the majority.”
Brent is the new majority of one.
Note 127, Michael, Brent needs to brush up on political facts on the ground
Yes, Brent is not in touch with the political facts.
There are som savvy political analysts who, speaking solely from a secular viewpoint, are worried that the special gay debate held by the Democrat candidates for President was a mistake given the large, overall percentage of Americans who do not want gay marriage legitimized.
If I were the Republican candidate I would definitely highlight that debate. I think most Americans are “live and let live” and would accept de-criminalization of adult homosexual behavior but do not want the gay activists pushing their agenda in elementary schools.
Michael, overconfidence based on the “youth” vote
Every presidential election cycle, someone on the Left promotes the “youth vote.” It is always accompanied by pronouncements that young people embrace the “progressive agenda.” They cite polls on various issues. The problem has been getting those young voters to register and show up and vote.
One of the silliest lately, was the “VOTE OR DIE” campaign featuring Puffy Combs and Paris Hilton. Yes, they called on the heavyweights. Actually Paris herself never got around to voting.
Time after time after time, young voters have punched beneath their weight.
In every Presidential cycle, voter turn-out among the under 30 group has been the lowest by percentage and absolute numbers. So much for all their moral exhibitionism and moral superiority, these people can’t get off their futons to bicycle themselves to the ballot box. Every professional political adviser and activist knows these numbers have held true for 10 to 15 presidential elections and off-year elections, also.
Brent probably believes that his generation, what he perceives in his circle of friends, is the future. Everybody tells him he is the future, so how could it be otherwise?
But the future belongs to people who reproduce. Despite the political flurry about gay adoptions, very few gay couples will adopt children. The populations of groups that promote fertility (surprise) will increase, those who de-emphasize fertility will shrink, it was ever so.
JamesK: Do you not recall that one of the justifications for Jesus’ Crucifixion was that he worked on the Sabbath by healing people; that He and His disciples picked food to eat while walking on the Sabbath? He also said the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. “Come unto me all ye that labor, an I will give you rest”
Not that you care it is simply a debating technique that allows you not to take a stand on anything. In fact, in your criticism of the Orthodox approach to marriage you take a swing at us for being compassionate yet loudly wail, “where is your compassion” when we simply say homosexuality is a sin, a Scripturally incontrovertable fact.
The question of icons was settled in the Church 1400 years ago. If you really question it, it just goes to show how far from the Church you are. Iconoclasm is a heresy because it denies the reality and the effect of the Incarnation. It partakes of other heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism both of which had a strong influence on some protestant sects.
Let me say it again: The Orthodox Church is not the RCC nor is our theolgy in any way related to Reformed theology or fundamentalism. If you have problems with their theologies, that is wonderful, you should. But only confusion will result if you project your problems with western theology and praxis onto the Church. We preceeded all of them. To the extent that any of them hold truth, that truth is derived from the historic teachings of the Church revealed by the Holy Spirit that we have maintained for over 2000 years often in the face of immense trial and persecution. You are using the wrong end of the telescope trying to interpret Orthodox theology, praxis and herumetics from the POV of any western formulations. Such a method is not only bad historical method, it is bad theology.
Note 239:
Ah, Michael, you gave it away. I wanted to see JamesK dig up something, anything, to reveal that he has in fact some clue as to what Christianity is in fact is.
Not that it will matter, his eyes will gloss over at terms like “Crucifixion”, “Iconoclasm” and the rest….:)
Christopher
Actually some time ago, JamesK revealed that he had some Roman Catholic education, so these terms shouldn’t be alien to him. I fully grant that there exists significant differences between RC and Orthodoxy
note 241:
Actually some time ago, JamesK revealed that he had some Roman Catholic education, so these terms shouldn’t be alien to him.
Like I said upstream, I am beginning to question if he absorbed anything at all of this “education”. Based on his posts, the terms actual meaning are quite alien to him…
You guys are very misinformed about the youth these days.
Do tell? I asked our dear Millennial friend Brent to detail how the youth culture he grew up in differed from that which formed all of us under 40 Generation Xers.
I don’t believe he came up with anything. That’s because the youth culture is substantially the same today as in the 80’s. The same cultural influences were already at play, though perhaps they are slightly more widely accepted.
When I walk past groups of teens in the mall wearing black with green hair and pagan symbols, all I can do is roll my eyes and remember all the kids who did the same thing in 1985.
Of course, like Brent, these kids probably think they invented the whole dark, disaffected thing.
Yes, Brent, we get the youth of today. We went to high school with them. They are the same, with the tats and the hair, and the elevation of tolerance to the highest virtue.
When i was younger i wasn’t much different then you were i was boy breaking things and getting into occasional fights and what not.
I said we used to get drunk and go to Red Hot Chili Peppers concerts. Other than time in the Mosh Pit (gee, did you know that was so antiquated?), I didn’t care much for fights. As for breaking things, wasn’t my cup of tea, either. Okay, I joined the Marines which is breaking things writ large, but I confined breaking stuff to socially acceptable venues.
What makes me different than you is i would rather not harbor on the negative aspects of everything, and then pick and chose what i feel is acceptable and then preach it, and furthermore i don’t condone everything, but i let people chose their own posion as they let me chose mine. Does this saying mean much to you:
I don’t spend a lot of time on the negative aspects either. However, this is a discussion over something very negative, so that is bound to come up. I haven’t decided homosexuality is sinful and wrong. God did that for me. I merely accepted His judgment on the subject.
As for choosing their own poison, I lean to the Libertarian side of the spectrum. I’d prefer it is almost anyone’s poison were legal, be it cocaine or Mary Jane or homosexual sex.
No one here is talking about criminalizing homosexual relationships. I would never support that. We need fewer laws and less government, not more.
This isn’t about homosexuals going to jail for their sins. It’s about adoption, assisted reproduction, and government benefits all bound up with an immoral lifestyle.
The term “youth culture” is an oxymoron. It is largely a creation of the advertising community to help sell harmful and useless crap to those who have access to their parent’s money. One of the unfortunate side affects is to increase the natural tendancy to arrogance that young folks have and worse to trap them in a juvenile and self-destructive way of life with no way out. IMO it contributes heavily to the drug use, permissive sex and suicide of those under 20. We should do everything we can do blunt its effect on our own children. But what do I know?
As I pointed out, Brent’s missives sounded like he was caught in a 60’s time warp (shiver). 60’s or when ever, he is certainly not “new” There have been folks of his philosophy in every age since the rise of Christendom at least. But history is just another one of those “old-fashioned” and ignorant things that bitter old crumudgeon’s like me came up with to oppress the wunderkinds of his special generation.
I don’t suppose Brent’s read On the Incarnation? St. Athanasius was about 20 when he wrote it. Now there is a special 20 year old by whom I am willingly taught.
Christopher, what can I say, I’m just an ADOC (arrogant didactic old crumdgeon) could’nt help myself, I was overwhelmed by the temptation.
Here’s another term he might find interesting: Syncretism
CFLconservative writes: “No one here is talking about criminalizing homosexual relationships. I would never support that. We need fewer laws and less government, not more. This isn’t about homosexuals going to jail for their sins. It’s about adoption, assisted reproduction, and government benefits all bound up with an immoral lifestyle.”
But at that point, you’ve essentially conceded 95 percent of the issue. It’s like a football team saying “we’re not talking about scoring a goal. We’re talking about not having the other team move the ball past our five yard line.” It’s like a “pacifist” conceding that nuclear weapons are Ok, just nothing over 10 megatons.
Call me a secularist, materialist, or whatever, but the Orthodox home team and I are largely in agreement on this issue. Where we disagree are over issues that really are relatively marginal and tangential. And frankly, gay adoption is already happening, as is assisted reproduction, and gay marriage or some simulacrum of it. In a sense, the main disagreement is whether to feel peeved about all of that or not, since it is increasingly a done deal.
Christopher wrote that “As Fr. Jacobse has noted, these sexuality issues really reveal the fault lines in our culture.” Since everyone is on the same side of the most important issues related to homosexuality, I’m not sure what kind of fault line this is. Maybe a hairline crack.
Since everyone is on the same side of the most important issues related to homosexuality, I’m not sure what kind of fault line this is. Maybe a hairline crack.
Frankly, Jim, I have no idea what you are talking about. We’re not all on the same side of this issue. Conceding 95% of this?
Why? Because I don’t believe in the criminalization of sodomy? I don’t believe in the criminalization of cocaine, but ask me if I support it as a lifestyle choice.
Non-criminalization and support are two separate things.
Faultline.
The faultline is more Fundamentally — Philosophy of Law, isn’t it?
Jim, you can re-word this if you perceive what I’m trying to say better than I’m saying it. Not so much what law, and how to apply such-n-such law by case, and since subjectivity is part/parcel of what a “judge” does as he considers objective things – a good law begs a righteous judge. Not so much those things as — Whose Law? Whose Standard? By what measuring stick, does the righteous judge rule? I would say that I am waste-deep in my understanding of a Theonomic Republic, but I aspire to be fully immersed.
A personal note: We are in the midst of a Life Change; our kids have been ‘studying abroad’ in the great State of Virginia 3 years, and it is now time to go home.’ We’re in our last week in Virginia, sewing up.
But, I collect myself to try to say what I believe. Not what law, but whose Law? Is that philosophy of law? From our reading & listening we see a Theonomic-Republic. Theonomic, God’s Law. Republic, ‘not dictatorship’, not a pure democracy either, which is one-man, one-vote will-of-the-majority closer to pure communism — but Rule of Law, a Republic. What is left to decide. The big question: Whose law will it be? Man’s law? the State’s law? Or, God’s law?
Another thing about a Republic — calls for consent of the governed, doesn’t it? So what would have to come first? Revival. And the call to the nations has been ringing out for millenia, from Israel and from Abraham’s spiritual seed, both Jew & Gentile, in the Divine Liturgy:
God is with us! Understand this, O nations, and submit yourselves!
Recall, Israel was to be a Light to the other nations, they had a missionary mandate from Day One. But, other than the call going forth — part of what Brings Revival is for people to be INFORMED about what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps it’s the First Function of the Law: To INFORM the citizens what is right and what is wrong. I can only imagine the trauma of having had multiple abortions, etc, etc, if I were a young person taught exclusively the Eleventh Commandment: Tolerate everything, even your own nagging conscience. And taught none of the Ten Commandments.
Who is Sovereign in all forms of government?
Self-government? Answer: God is.
Family-government? Answer: God is.
Church-government? Answer: God is.
State-government? Answer: God is.
Why? Because each of these governments serve only one Master. Otherwise, let’s all commit suicide. Or, eat/drink/make merry, then die. Two opposing sovereigns cannot occupy the same Public Square at the same time. One sovereign is the only thing that can possibly give any part of life Sanity.
There is one King, Lord, and Sovereign in every inch of every corner of this planet and he is the Lord Jesus Christ. He has revealed his Law in the Living Breathing Unchanging Word of God. And the prophets declared: “The glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.”
Homosexuality is a crime in a Christian Nation. When the Christians came to America they found homosexuality practiced amonst Native Americans. Homosexuality is one of the sins of Porneia, the word Jesus speaks in the exception clause re: divorce. Excuse me, JamesK, “Porneia” does not mean adultery. It is broader. It has the function of destroying the marriage bed – there is zero tolerance for it. In Malachi when the prophet declares God HATES divorce, the sentence goes on……BECAUSE he hates those who deal “treacherously” with the wife of their youth. Implying that treachery=divorce. There is such a thing as an “innocent” party and I am thankful Missourian is speaking out against no-fault divorce. But by God’s will these “nations” in Open Treacheries (Porneia: Incest, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Adulteries, Immoralities) will not survive.
America as we know it is more like an Empire, now than the Republic she set out to be. Congress continually goes way beyond her “enumerated and delegated powers.” Where has a vision for Christendom disappeared to?
A Theocratic Republic has nothing more than the effect of legislating morality in this manner: It drives crime underground. If various crimes can be carried out in dark and secret ways, that is how they should be carried out. Open, flagrant, in-your-face challenges to the Written Law Code, preaching/teaching subversion to it are not tolerated by Righteous Judges.
Some things have changed with Christ’s First Advent. The power of the sword (carrying out those things worthy of death by stoning) is given to The State while The Church carries out sanctions concerning Fencing the Lord’s Table. God’s design is for a massive outgoing from Jerusalem unto the ends of the Earth. Christians taking dominion over every tongue, tribe and nation. But doing it by Baptizing (immersion 🙂 and Teaching to Observe everything Christ commanded. (does this sound like Shariah Law? No it does not.) And nations should be eager to want God’s Law for their own Law.
One other note, Marcionism [‘forget the Old Testament’] was an early heresy taken on by Irenaeus and Tertullian. So is Antinomianism [no law] a heresy. I regret to say, it’s everywhere.
Isaiah: “This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at My Word.” Does God mean this? “Cursed is he who does not continue in all that is written in the book of the law to do it.”
Jim, or CFLconservative – Christendom?
First words of the Divine Liturgy. Bless, Master +++ Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages +++ Amen
Thy Kingdom Come.
God-Centered. Man fits but he is not at the center.
2nd attempt, sorry if two comments are the same.
Faultline.
The faultline is more Fundamentally — Philosophy of Law, isn’t it?
Jim, you can re-word this if you perceive what I’m trying to say better than I’m saying it. Not so much what law, and how to apply such-n-such law by case, and since subjectivity is part/parcel of what a “judge” does as he considers objective things – a good law begs a righteous judge. Not so much those things as — Whose Law? Whose Standard? By what measuring stick, does the righteous judge rule? I would say that I am waste-deep in my understanding of a Theonomic Republic, but I aspire to be fully immersed.
A personal note: We are in the midst of a Life Change; our kids have been ‘studying abroad’ in the great State of Virginia 3 years, and it is now time to go home.’ We’re in our last week in Virginia, sewing up.
But, I collect myself to try to say what I believe. Not what law, but whose Law? Is that philosophy of law? From our reading & listening we see a Theonomic-Republic. Theonomic, God’s Law. Republic, ‘not dictatorship’, not a pure democracy either, which is one-man, one-vote will-of-the-majority closer to pure communism — but Rule of Law, a Republic. What is left to decide. The big question: Whose law will it be? Man’s law? the State’s law? Or, God’s law?
Another thing about a Republic — calls for consent of the governed, doesn’t it? So what would have to come first? Revival. And the call to the nations has been ringing out for millenia, from Israel and from Abraham’s spiritual seed, both Jew & Gentile, in the Divine Liturgy:
God is with us! Understand this, O nations, and submit yourselves!
Recall, Israel was to be a Light to the other nations, they had a missionary mandate from Day One. But, other than the call going forth — part of what Brings Revival is for people to be INFORMED about what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps it’s the First Function of the Law: To INFORM the citizens what is right and what is wrong. I can only imagine the trauma of having had multiple abortions, etc, etc, if I were a young person taught exclusively the Eleventh Commandment: Tolerate everything, even your own nagging conscience. And taught none of the Ten Commandments.
Who is Sovereign in all forms of government?
Self-government? Answer: God is.
Family-government? Answer: God is.
Church-government? Answer: God is.
State-government? Answer: God is.
Why? Because each of these governments serve only one Master. Otherwise, let’s all commit suicide. Or, eat/drink/make merry, then die. Two opposing sovereigns cannot occupy the same Public Square at the same time. One sovereign is the only thing that can possibly give any part of life Sanity.
There is one King, Lord, and Sovereign in every inch of every corner of this planet and he is the Lord Jesus Christ. He has revealed his Law in the Living Breathing Unchanging Word of God. And the prophets declared: “The glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.”
Homosexuality is a crime in a Christian Nation. When the Christians came to America they found homosexuality practiced amonst Native Americans. Homosexuality is one of the sins of Porneia, the word Jesus speaks in the exception clause re: divorce. Excuse me, JamesK, “Porneia” does not mean adultery. It is broader. It has the function of destroying the marriage bed – there is zero tolerance for it. In Malachi when the prophet declares God HATES divorce, the sentence goes on……BECAUSE he hates those who deal “treacherously” with the wife of their youth. Implying that treachery=divorce. There is such a thing as an “innocent” party and I am thankful Missourian is speaking out against no-fault divorce. But by God’s will these “nations” in Open Treacheries (Porneia: Incest, Bestiality, Homosexuality, Adulteries, Immoralities) will not survive.
America as we know it is more like an Empire, now than the Republic she set out to be. Congress continually goes way beyond her “enumerated and delegated powers.” Where has a vision for Christendom disappeared to?
A Theocratic Republic has nothing more than the effect of legislating morality in this manner: It drives crime underground. If various crimes can be carried out in dark and secret ways, that is how they should be carried out. Open, flagrant, in-your-face challenges to the Written Law Code, preaching/teaching subversion to it are not tolerated by Righteous Judges.
Some things have changed with Christ’s First Advent. The power of the sword (carrying out those things worthy of death by stoning) is given to The State while The Church carries out sanctions concerning Fencing the Lord’s Table. God’s design is for a massive outgoing from Jerusalem unto the ends of the Earth. Christians taking dominion over every tongue, tribe and nation. But doing it by Baptizing (immersion 🙂 and Teaching to Observe everything Christ commanded. (does this sound like Shariah Law? No it does not.) And nations should be eager to want God’s Law for their own Law.
One other note, Marcionism [‘forget the Old Testament’] was an early heresy taken on by Irenaeus and Tertullian. So is Antinomianism [no law] a heresy. I regret to say, it’s everywhere.
Isaiah: “This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at My Word.” Does God mean this? “Cursed is he who does not continue in all that is written in the book of the law to do it.”
Jim, or CFLconservative – Christendom?
First words of the Divine Liturgy. Bless, Master +++ Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages +++ Amen
Thy Kingdom Come.
God-Centered. Man fits but he is not at the center.