Concerned Copts: Butt out of my religion

2

Comments

  • If anyone on this thread lives in Sydney and wants to talk, come to my church on a Friday or lets have a debate on the podcast. This is very disappointing. The issue at heart are these Christian concepts:

    Love your neighbor as you love yourself
    Love your enemy
    Take the plank from your own eye before taking the speck from your brothers eye.

    If you cannot see these issues within the podcast, let me know.

    If any here continue this ridiculous wave-of-the-hand, ignoring what is uncomfortable, then the Church really has lost. We have lost our great thinkers, those who debated, those who spoke to Pagans, Heretics and fellow Christians with zeal and love. I have not seen it here. Maybe it is the anonymity of the internet which causes people to be so rude, arrogant and dismissive. I know no one here would speak to me this way face to face. Again, anyone have ANY issue with what I have said, email my parish priest and confession father, Father Hanna Gad, St Demiana and St Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Church - Diocese of Sydney.

    Thank you,

    Albert Osseily
  • If anyone wishes to reply to me by email, you can at [email protected]
  • I listened to the podcast which introduced the issue of "Should Muslims (or any other group for that matter) be free to impose on themselves any rules they would like?" and if you say no, how is that different than the hypothetical situation of if the gov't would mandate confessions about child abuse be reported.

    The topic went on to a broader discussion about whether there should be one law for the entirety of the people or does there need to be a more sophisticated re-thinking of how we form our laws and what is really morality.

    A couple of points:

    At about 31:00 the speaker says that laws really have no moral value in and of themselves. They are more of a mechanical process, if I disobey law X, I will receive punishment Y.

    I actually agree with this! We do not derive our values from the law or from society, but rather, we have God's law written on our hearts and have His commandments and instructions and teachings in the Bible. So basically my point is, the laws of the land are somewhat irrelevant. Why do I say somewhat?

    "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1)

    So we have here in the Bible a command to subject ourselves to the government. Therefore, the laws of the land should be followed.

    So is government authority absolute? No!

    But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

    We see here the apostles disobeying the authority of the government because it conflicts with the authority of God and obviously God's authority is the only absolute.

    I disagree with some of the conclusions that the speaker, however, makes.
    For example, in the example of the muslim man being beaten by other muslims for breaking one of their laws, he should absolutely be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law because what he did was illegal. By the same token, if the government decided that priests have to make public confessions concerning child abuse, priests who disobeyed that should be persecuted as well. HOWEVER, the question is should these priests follow this hypothetical law? The answer is absolutely not! We have a higher authority which is God and His Church. The laws of the land mean nothing to us when they are in conflict with the laws of God.

    Now you might say, well that's what the Muslim is saying about his situation in beating a transgressor of his law. You're right! However, there is a point, in my opinion, that you are missing here. The Christian is following the laws of God and the Muslim THINKS he is following the laws of God. There is an absolute truth. One of these people worship the true God and one does not. One is following the laws given to him by God and one is following laws claimed to be given to him by God. So while you may put the government disobedience of the Muslim on the same level of the government disobedience of the Christian on the same level, I do not. One is obeying his Master and will be rewarded for being "persecuted for righteousness sake" while the other is following the ideas of men.

    Finally, I think your podcast would benefit from bringing speakers that have opposing viewpoints to enrich the discussion. This particular podcast has one speaker and 3 or 4 others who are more or less nodding their heads in agreement. The interviewers should challenge the speakers viewpoints more in order to get a better result
  • Albert and Concerned Copts:

    The following is handed to you in a spirit of humility. They contain the exact words that Mr. Osseily, your guest speaker, used in your podcast. They are politely debated with respect. We hope that you will come to terms with what you said, and realize how out of line it is with the Church’s principles and teachings.


    "If I’m a Muslim, and I want Islamic law applied to me, why can’t I do that?"

    In your story of the man being whipped, I hope you realized that you were justifying the flogging of a man that was whipped 40 times by Islamic men. “Why can’t they do that?” you pointedly ask. It’s as if every killer can now do as he pleases with no consequence.

    Why do you side with terrorists? Why do you sanction and defend the right for a person to legally live under the cruel imprisonment of Islamic law? Torturers can now live and coexist in peace now that they have you to defend them. You defended their right to do this act. It’s your own words, and I wish they weren’t said.
     
    Instead of looking at this incident for what it is, a truly heinous crime, you choose to throw away your God-given sense of right and wrong, in favor of a supposed “freedom” agenda. In your opinion, the victim is not the man who was helplessly born into Islam and mercilessly beaten by Islamic persecutors. No, in your opinion, the victims are the killers who got caught because they weren’t given the freedom to commit this atrocity.

    How does this contradict the Church’s view you may ask?

    “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

    Abba Anthony said, 'A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, "You are mad, you are not like us."'

    “…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, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:2-5).

    “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

    “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful” (Psalm 1:1).

    When you defend the ways of the wicked, you don’t gain favor with God. Instead, you heap scorn upon yourself, and end up reveling in being blind.

    True freedom is found in Christ, and in Him alone.

    You want to really be free? Follow Christ and his principles. Please stop inventing temporary, feel-good ideologies that dissipate with the wind.


    “What I love doing, and I know it’s a bit evil, I love drawing people into really taking a stance…very easy to do with Coptic people (jeers and laughs)…very, very easy to do.”

    Ridiculing your fellow Coptic brethren and reducing them to simpletons. What a bugga.’

    Try saying that statement to the Martyrs’ families in Maspiro.


    “Should we allow Muslims to apply Islamic law to themselves, of course, [the Copts shout] “No, no, this is disgraceful. This is Australia, this is a Christian country, we have Australian law.”

    You are a Christian, and you know the truth. If you really do believe that Christ and His Church possess the absolute truth of life, than it supersedes all other philosophies such as those of Plato and Aristotle, whom you admire much. 

    Do you know how Islamic law operates? Do you know the underlying intentions of the Muslims who push for Islamic law?

    Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&
    It is a brief summary of how Islamic law works in western societies.

    Also, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
    It is highly informative.


    “Our marriage law was basically based on Christian values, one man, one woman; one husband, one wife.”

    Agreed. Really, I do…

    But one question…As a confessing Coptic Orthodox Christian, which do you hold higher in your value system?

    -Christ and His words of eternal truth, which saves and leads people to a life of eternal bliss.

    -Or this perverted sense of promoting freedom through sin?

    In the words of St. Cyril, the Pillar of Faith, "This is nothing but foolishness and stupidity, the frenzy of a crazed mind."

    You know what…let’s let everyone marry who they want. I want to marry my dog Sparky, and you can marry your best friend named Larry. Four wives? Why not fifteen? Why impose a limit? Let’s fill the earth and subdue it with sin; so much that it would finally put the nail into our coffin of eternal damnation. Let’s make our filthiness stink so much that it rises to God as a stench so horrible, so putrid, so free with sin, that it makes God regret ever creating us (as opposed to a sweet smelling aroma of purity and self-sacrifice that rises up to God).

    Let’s fill the environment---every sound, every noise, every visual---with freedom. Let’s make it near impossible for our youth to stay pure. “I want to offer my services of tongue piercings and tattoos in a school zone.” “I’m not hurting anyone, and it’s the youth’s free choice…right?”

    Let’s fill the air with all sorts of alternate and opposing views on life. Let’s confuse our youth so much that they have no choice but to glue to the fleeting opinions and political notions of the time.

    Let’s embed the world with the freedom to do whatever I think is right in my own mind.

    This mentality, my brother, is nothing further from the truth of the One God that you and I try to worship.

    What does our Mother Church, the one who cares for our well-being and looks out for our best interests, say about the matter?

    “…Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2).

    “A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart” (Proverbs 18:2).

    “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

    “But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.’” (Genesis 3:4)

    If we let sin creep into our society under the banner of “freedom,” aren’t we deceiving ourselves? Isn’t this a trick by someone trying to “legalize sin” and make it “freer” and more “accessible?”

    You are a Christian first, a freedom fighter second. Don’t confuse the order of the two.


    These are just some of the many disturbing comments made in this podcast.

    I hope that this ends the bulk of the discussion. Many other clear points were made by the other posters dzheremi, aiernovi, PeterA, Κηφᾶς, imikhail, Christs' servant, TITL, Andrew, and dozens of others that put in time and effort in the previous thread. At this point, all rhetoric has been exhausted.

    If you still wish to hold these views, as well as those opinions of Concerned Copts, we will lament and pray for your return to the Orthodox truth.

    Just know that these views are very far from the light of God.

    “A scoffer does not love one who corrects him…” (Proverbs 15:12).

    I wish you the best.

    +++
  • Woot Woot!!!!  ;D ;D
  • [quote author=aiernovi link=topic=12498.msg146639#msg146639 date=1319587478]
    I listened to the podcast which introduced the issue of "Should Muslims (or any other group for that matter) be free to impose on themselves any rules they would like?" and if you say no, how is that different than the hypothetical situation of if the gov't would mandate confessions about child abuse be reported.

    The topic went on to a broader discussion about whether there should be one law for the entirety of the people or does there need to be a more sophisticated re-thinking of how we form our laws and what is really morality.

    A couple of points:

    At about 31:00 the speaker says that laws really have no moral value in and of themselves. They are more of a mechanical process, if I disobey law X, I will receive punishment Y.

    I actually agree with this! We do not derive our values from the law or from society, but rather, we have God's law written on our hearts and have His commandments and instructions and teachings in the Bible. So basically my point is, the laws of the land are somewhat irrelevant. Why do I say somewhat?

    "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1)

    So we have here in the Bible a command to subject ourselves to the government. Therefore, the laws of the land should be followed.

    So is government authority absolute? No!

    But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

    We see here the apostles disobeying the authority of the government because it conflicts with the authority of God and obviously God's authority is the only absolute.

    I disagree with some of the conclusions that the speaker, however, makes.
    For example, in the example of the muslim man being beaten by other muslims for breaking one of their laws, he should absolutely be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law because what he did was illegal. By the same token, if the government decided that priests have to make public confessions concerning child abuse, priests who disobeyed that should be persecuted as well. HOWEVER, the question is should these priests follow this hypothetical law? The answer is absolutely not! We have a higher authority which is God and His Church. The laws of the land mean nothing to us when they are in conflict with the laws of God.

    Now you might say, well that's what the Muslim is saying about his situation in beating a transgressor of his law. You're right! However, there is a point, in my opinion, that you are missing here. The Christian is following the laws of God and the Muslim THINKS he is following the laws of God. There is an absolute truth. One of these people worship the true God and one does not. One is following the laws given to him by God and one is following laws claimed to be given to him by God. So while you may put the government disobedience of the Muslim on the same level of the government disobedience of the Christian on the same level, I do not. One is obeying his Master and will be rewarded for being "persecuted for righteousness sake" while the other is following the ideas of men.

    Finally, I think your podcast would benefit from bringing speakers that have opposing viewpoints to enrich the discussion. This particular podcast has one speaker and 3 or 4 others who are more or less nodding their heads in agreement. The interviewers should challenge the speakers viewpoints more in order to get a better result


    @aiernovi

    Can I first say, thank you so much for a reasonable and respectable response. I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air that is. May I start with what I agree with.

    1) Absolutely we should obey God over man. When the saints were asked to bow to the Emperor as their god, they disobeyed. They are saints and heroes to me for this. In this I am 100% with you.

    2) Your last point about getting other points of view is spot on. This was the first podcast I have ever done in my life, so my apologies for not organising something better. I would love to do a follow up podcast (debate) with someone in Sydney (where I live and the podcast was done) having a rational and logical (and Christian) discussion about it.

    Can I then ask you this. We live in a multi-religious society and we have passed the stage of trying to create a "Christian" state, and the Church and State have been separated. How then do we as Copts balance our desire for a more Christian community, without looking to the State to impose such things? I think it ought to be clear that looking to government to impose our views is a poison chalace. The same government that may ban gay marriage can also ban secrecy in confession, so we drink from this cup at our own expense.

    Again, thank you so much for your great points.
  • aosseily,

    In a democratic society, people of course are free to petition their governments to take up whatever issue they deem important. For example, Muslims petitioned at the White House to have Shariah Law become the law of the land. Homosexuals petition to have gay marriage recognized. Copts could petition to make it illegal to sell meat at restaurants on Wednesdays and Fridays. It is up to the individual to take up a cause they are passionate about and it is up to the government to decide on that issue within the confines of its particular constitution or whatever governing documents they may have.

    I agree that we have a desire for a more Christian community. However, I do not think appealing to the government to mandate that is necessarily the best way to go. We would be better served by being a light to the world and giving God a chance to work through us and change the hearts of those who currently live a life far from Him. Forcing people by government law will never change hearts.

    Now that's not to say we don't have our right to have our voice heard. If, for example, there is a referendum on abortion. It is of course between you and God, but my personal opinion is that it would be wrong for you to vote or support something that is against God's commandments.

    Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

    So if it was, in some small way, in your hands to stop people from doing something wrong, it seems according to James that you are obliged to do it.

    I'll leave you with one final verse that really sums up your question quite well:

    Psalm 118:8-9 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.
  • TheGodChrist

    Let me summarise.

    I do not support terrorism or violence. I absolutely believe in the non-aggression principle. I don't believe in the "right" of a Muslim to impose Islamic law as HE likes. I bring up the point cause it contrasts an interesting attitude in Copts, one that I enjoy showing up. Yes I love drawing my fellow Copts in. If they thought a little more instead of drawing swords so quickly, then maybe there would be more Copts in the pews, instead of our youth running away. I have hated watching the venom at Church scatter the sheep. Why do you think this happens friend? Its because of the violent rhetoric of so many "good" Christians......you know, the ones that give the dirty looks when a girl comes in with a short skirt. The one that spreads venom when he knows the sins of his brother (instead of covering it)

    The point I drew out time and again is the following incorrect attitude, first and formost that this or any other Western country is a Christian country. It is not in Law (read the constitution of your country) nor in practice. Only politicians like to spout this nonsense to get votes. If you do not believe me, contrast the ten commandments with the law of any Western country. Also, think of the only sin which cannot be forgiven, is it illegal?

    Second, when drawn in to comment on allowing "Islamic law", many again reach for their pitch forks and support ALL legislation to ban ANY aspect of it, whether its Islamic law in marriage or banking or criminal. Then, when faced with the prospect of THEIR government imposing limits on THEIR Christian beliefs, all of a sudden things change. One rule for you, another for me. Christ spoke of this, called its hypocrisy. 

    Did I EVER (ever) claim to NOT believe in right or wrong? I believe in absolute truths, I believe in the word of God. I do not, however, look to the Emperor to tell me what it is. I follow God. You can follow Caesar if you wish, but then dont preach Christ to me.

    I know more about Islamic laws, and its horrors then I care to remember. Thank you for the links though.

    I wish to ask you this question. Can you only follow God's law when it also happens to be the law of the land?

    Can Christ be preached when the pagans rule?

    These questions are the crux of my podcast. I really feel that you have totally misunderstood everything I was saying. Again, if you have any further questions, please ask.

    Sincerely,

    Albert Osseily
  • [quote author=aiernovi link=topic=12498.msg146660#msg146660 date=1319602723]
    aosseily,

    In a democratic society, people of course are free to petition their governments to take up whatever issue they deem important. For example, Muslims petitioned at the White House to have Shariah Law become the law of the land. Homosexuals petition to have gay marriage recognized. Copts could petition to make it illegal to sell meat at restaurants on Wednesdays and Fridays. It is up to the individual to take up a cause they are passionate about and it is up to the government to decide on that issue within the confines of its particular constitution or whatever governing documents they may have.

    I agree that we have a desire for a more Christian community. However, I do not think appealing to the government to mandate that is necessarily the best way to go. We would be better served by being a light to the world and giving God a chance to work through us and change the hearts of those who currently live a life far from Him. Forcing people by government law will never change hearts.

    Now that's not to say we don't have our right to have our voice heard. If, for example, there is a referendum on abortion. It is of course between you and God, but my personal opinion is that it would be wrong for you to vote or support something that is against God's commandments.

    Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

    So if it was, in some small way, in your hands to stop people from doing something wrong, it seems according to James that you are obliged to do it.

    I'll leave you with one final verse that really sums up your question quite well:

    Psalm 118:8-9 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.


    @aiernovi

    Again, thank you for your sincerity. Again, I agree with you. I ask only, is there a threshold, a line in the sand, where the Copt is in danger of using his majority (if it exists with other link minded people) by imposing himself on others. I always find this danger exists. My issue comes with screaming to ban gay marriage in Australia, but then being upset if a female  Christian convert in Egypt cannot marry as it is seen as immoral. Does this show you the difficulty of balancing freedom and goodness in any society?

    Your views friends.
  •     I think this gets to my point in the first post. If for example, there was a vote on outlawing abortion, Christians, I feel, should vote for it because it would save lives and prevent evil. The reason this is not hypocritical with getting up in arms with a Muslim trying to impose his laws on the government is because they are not on equal levels. Christian ideals are not "our" ideals but the ideal that God commanded us to follow. The ideals other religions would like to impose are simply man made and have no authority. I understand from a civil, secular perspective, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc views are all equal in the eyes of the law, it does not mean they are actually equal. They are not. There is a right. There is a wrong. So to be clearer, in your example of preventing the marriage of Christian converts, this is IMMORAL. Truly Immoral. Against the commands of Christ. This is why they should be treated differently.
  • [quote author=aiernovi link=topic=12498.msg146663#msg146663 date=1319604372]
        I think this gets to my point in the first post. If for example, there was a vote on outlawing abortion, Christians, I feel, should vote for it because it would save lives and prevent evil. The reason this is not hypocritical with getting up in arms with a Muslim trying to impose his laws on the government is because they are not on equal levels. Christian ideals are not "our" ideals but the ideal that God commanded us to follow. The ideals other religions would like to impose are simply man made and have no authority. I understand from a civil, secular perspective, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc views are all equal in the eyes of the law, it does not mean they are actually equal. They are not. There is a right. There is a wrong. So to be clearer, in your example of preventing the marriage of Christian converts, this is IMMORAL. Truly Immoral. Against the commands of Christ. This is why they should be treated differently.


    Could I first say that in a sense I agree with the idea that there are universal principles that we should support, such as being against rape or murder. What becomes murky is the idea that since OUR beliefs are truth, then why shouldnt we impose truth on everyone. This becomes upsetting when done to us. Who would impose these truths on the people? The Church? The Coptic Church? The Pope of Alexandria? Do you see where I am going with this?

    Thank you
  • "What becomes murky is the idea that since OUR beliefs are truth, then why shouldnt we impose truth on everyone."

    We shouldn't impose our truth on everyone because we follow the example of God. He gives us His commandments, but with them gives us free will to make our own decisions. What I meant to say is that the opinions of others should not be held on par with commandments of the Creator of the Universe. He doesn't want us to be robots and so we shouldn't turn our countrymen in to robots either.

    My hypothetical situation was meant to illustrate the point that, when given a choice, we should support laws that support the Laws of God and oppose laws that oppose them. If I were made president of the United States tomorrow I would not make smoking illegal even though I know it is sinful. Making something illegal does not change the heart and that is what God is looking at. I was simply saying if there is a debate in the government over certain laws, we should support the Biblical perspective as best we can.
  • [quote author=aiernovi link=topic=12498.msg146667#msg146667 date=1319607851]
    "What becomes murky is the idea that since OUR beliefs are truth, then why shouldnt we impose truth on everyone."

    We shouldn't impose our truth on everyone because we follow the example of God. He gives us His commandments, but with them gives us free will to make our own decisions. What I meant to say is that the opinions of others should not be held on par with commandments of the Creator of the Universe. He doesn't want us to be robots and so we shouldn't turn our countrymen in to robots either.

    My hypothetical situation was meant to illustrate the point that, when given a choice, we should support laws that support the Laws of God and oppose laws that oppose them. If I were made president of the United States tomorrow I would not make smoking illegal even though I know it is sinful. Making something illegal does not change the heart and that is what God is looking at. I was simply saying if there is a debate in the government over certain laws, we should support the Biblical perspective as best we can.


    @aiernovi

    Fair points. As much as I can see though, I will support the Biblical perspective in my own life. I again admit that I do believe in life, liberty, property (a very American view). As far as I read it, this is totally in line with Christian ethics, morals and beliefs, but does not cover everything that would be considered sinful.

    Thank you again for your reasonable response.
  • Hey Guys,

                wondering if i can chime in... aiernovi, you said that "We shouldn't impose our truth on everyone.." later in your post you wrote that " we should support laws that support the Laws of God and oppose laws that oppose them". That sounds like a contradiction, because essentially you are using a political avenue to try to impose what is lawful for people thats is based on "the Laws of God ". And if the laws of God are truth, then you are trying to impose your truth or a truth on people.

    How do you reconcile this?

    Cy
  • Cy86, that doesn't seem to be a contradiction at all to me. Refraining from imposing the truth we know on everyone does not mean sitting back and letting a law pass (when we have a say in it, and we usually do) if it seems unjust. If someone is doing that, then I think that raises questions about how strong that person's faith in what he calls "truth" really is.

  • Nothing said in these podcasts will change the church's view that unrepentant homosexuality is a sin. Maybe I seem like a fool speaking about the topic not even raised, but I have a feeling this will come up, so I'm just cautioning everyone.

    I know that this thread is not dealing with homosexuality but I always like to cease the opportunity to witness for the Truth.

    Anyone who calls himself a homosexual is a sinner and is not worthy of the eternal Kingdom.

  •   Hello Albert,
                        I was wondering if you could summerise the points made in the pod-cast? I think there needs to be some clarity for the direction or stand that has been made by concerned copts or yourself.

      My prayers are for peace of heart for all.
  • [quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=12498.msg146685#msg146685 date=1319648131]
    Cy86, that doesn't seem to be a contradiction at all to me. Refraining from imposing the truth we know on everyone does not mean sitting back and letting a law pass (when we have a say in it, and we usually do) if it seems unjust. If someone is doing that, then I think that raises questions about how strong that person's faith in what he calls "truth" really is.


    Exactly my point. We live in a democratic society so from time to time, the leaders ask for our "opinion" in the form of votes. How should this opinion be formulated? Well one thing's for sure, they should be in line with the teachings of the Bible. Therefore if there is a matter in which my opinion is requested (a vote) about something which has moral or religious repercussions, I can vote in favor of the Bible and against anti-biblical laws. There is nothing "imposing" about that. Everyone is free to express their votes using any criterion they like. I'm just saying our criterion should be the Bible and the Church
  • "Anyone who calls himself a homosexual is a sinner and is not worthy of the eternal Kingdom."

    "But I will say that I think these podcasts are a way for him to deal with the real agenda he tried to bring forth in the past but couldn't; homosexuality."

    *Rolls eyes* Again an argument falls and stands by its own merits. Bringing into question the motives of the person making it (or even a podcast group), says nothing about its soundness or validity. And bringing another persons argument under dispute because they are somehow associated (in this case Albert has made one podcast) with a group you find suspect is just as fallacious. I think i'm going to start a thread on this...



    And for the record, you can bet there will be another talk on homosexuality.
    For people who will bother, here is why:
    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.222798477784047.60929.102566516473911&type=3

  • [quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12498.msg146713#msg146713 date=1319672498]
    "Anyone who calls himself a homosexual is a sinner and is not worthy of the eternal Kingdom."

    "But I will say that I think these podcasts are a way for him to deal with the real agenda he tried to bring forth in the past but couldn't; homosexuality."

    *Rolls eyes* Again an argument falls and stands by its own merits. Bringing into question the motives of the person making it (or even a podcast group), says nothing about its soundness or validity. And bringing another persons argument under dispute because they are somehow associated (in this case Albert has made one podcast) with a group you find suspect is just as fallacious. I think i'm going to start a thread on this...



    And for the record, you can bet there will be another talk on homosexuality.
    For people who will bother, here is why:
    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.222798477784047.60929.102566516473911&type=3


    I checked out the link you provided. . .you really believe those posters represent how a typical Orthodox Christian responds? Half of the posters were kids.
  • [quote author=aiernovi link=topic=12498.msg146702#msg146702 date=1319662106]
    [quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=12498.msg146685#msg146685 date=1319648131]
    Cy86, that doesn't seem to be a contradiction at all to me. Refraining from imposing the truth we know on everyone does not mean sitting back and letting a law pass (when we have a say in it, and we usually do) if it seems unjust. If someone is doing that, then I think that raises questions about how strong that person's faith in what he calls "truth" really is.


    Exactly my point. We live in a democratic society so from time to time, the leaders ask for our "opinion" in the form of votes. How should this opinion be formulated? Well one thing's for sure, they should be in line with the teachings of the Bible. Therefore if there is a matter in which my opinion is requested (a vote) about something which has moral or religious repercussions, I can vote in favor of the Bible and against anti-biblical laws. There is nothing "imposing" about that. Everyone is free to express their votes using any criterion they like. I'm just saying our criterion should be the Bible and the Church



    Hmm I don't think I buy that. You're still saying that you will vote 'Pro-Bible' and against anti-Biblical laws. I understand that the Bible is just a criterion but where do you draw the line? And just because you're vote may not be that of the majority, you still desire a legal system that fulfils the standards of your Holy Book. This is where I draw the contradiction. To me this sounds like "We shouldn't impose our truth on everyone.. but if my vote just so happens to be that of the majority, I didn't impose my beliefs on anyone, I only expressed my opinion." I could be missing something, and completely have misrepresented you, apologies if I have, but thats how I'm reading it.

    Cy



  • Are you still upset over Prop. 8, Cy?

    What's wrong with voting based on morals? If a legalize MJ prop. is before me, should I disregard morals and vote on a economic basis only? What if I don't care about the economy and only care about morality?

    The greatest danger is when people impose on others what is or isn't good criterion for voting, not when people vote based on beliefs (wherever they may come from).

    Every person has the right and obligation to vote based on the criterion that matters to them, whatever that may be.

  • [quote author=Andrew link=topic=12498.msg146714#msg146714 date=1319673555]

    I checked out the link you provided. . .you really believe those posters represent how a typical Orthodox Christian responds? Half of the posters were kids.


    No, I don't think so. Though some appear to be very vocal on facebook. Some of my closest friends are Coptic Orthodox, and I can tell you they don't respond like that. But those comments came in hundreds. This is why we need to educate people, to reduce hate speech and bullying whether on line or in person.

    Anyway this is completely off topic, if anyone has anymore questions Pm me.

    Cy
  • Andrew,

              no I'm not upset about prop 8 (that is, its not emotionally affecting me at this point in time) at least if you mean if thats the driving force behind being vocal about certain things, then not really.

    Look, I agree that people have every right to use what ever criterion they want. Though I was addressing what aiernovi had specifically said about his or her not willing to impose their truth on others, yet still using their holy book as a criterion. I found that rather odd because again, where do you draw the line? But thats a question I'm waiting for aiernovi to respond to.

    Well here's the thing, if we lived in a democratic society where the population was largely Muslim, would you have a problem or concern if they used their Holybook as a criteria to vote?

    Cy


  • [quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12498.msg146718#msg146718 date=1319675272]
    Well here's the thing, if we lived in a democratic society where the population was largely Muslim, would you have a problem or concern if they used their Holybook as a criteria to vote?

    Cy


    Of course not! Why can I use the Holy Book, while they can't use their holey book (pun intended)? That is assuming that the Constitution protects my civil liberties. What do I have to fear as long as there is a separation of religion and the state?
  • "Of course not! Why can I use the Holy Book, while they can't use their holey book (pun intended)?

    Great so its fair to use a Holy Book if someone else is, agreed.

    "That is assuming that the Constitution protects my civil liberties. What do I have to fear as long as there is a separation of religion and the state?"

    And this was kinda the conditional statement I was waiting for, because using a HolyBook as a guideline to legislate certain laws, can encroach on people's civil liberties, and people's religious beliefs, and influences can seep into the policies being made or prevent policies from being passed.  We still have an issue redefining the marriage act so that people of the same gender can't get married. The prohibition of this civil right is purely based on religious influence. Our prime minister is an atheist and yet even she has trouble keeping religious influences separate from government.

    "Declaring there were "some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future", Ms Gillard said her view was that the Marriage Act - and marriage being between a man and woman - "has a special status".

    Ms Gillard said it was important for people to understand their Bible stories "not because I'm an advocate of religion - clearly I'm not - but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture".

    "It's impossible to understand Western literature without having that key of understanding the Bible stories and how Western literature builds on them and reflects them and deconstructs them and brings them back together," she said."

    (Article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-makes-stand-as-a-social-conservative/story-fn59niix-1226025066869)


    Andrew, I believe you are imagining a very ideal and unrealistic scenario. So I'll ask you, where do you draw the line of your religious barometers, or rather where do you expect people to draw their line?
  • [quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12498.msg146723#msg146723 date=1319680084]
    "Of course not! Why can I use the Holy Book, while they can't use their holey book (pun intended)?

    Great so its fair to use a Holy Book if someone else is, agreed.

    "That is assuming that the Constitution protects my civil liberties. What do I have to fear as long as there is a separation of religion and the state?"

    And this was kinda the conditional statement I was waiting for, because using a HolyBook as a guideline to legislate certain laws, can encroach on people's civil liberties, and people's religious beliefs, and influences can seep into the policies being made or prevent policies from being passed.  We still have an issue redefining the marriage act so that people of the same gender can't get married. The prohibition of this civil right is purely based on religious influence. Our prime minister is an atheist and yet even she has trouble keeping religious influences separate from government.

    "Declaring there were "some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future", Ms Gillard said her view was that the Marriage Act - and marriage being between a man and woman - "has a special status".

    Ms Gillard said it was important for people to understand their Bible stories "not because I'm an advocate of religion - clearly I'm not - but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture".

    "It's impossible to understand Western literature without having that key of understanding the Bible stories and how Western literature builds on them and reflects them and deconstructs them and brings them back together," she said."

    (Article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-makes-stand-as-a-social-conservative/story-fn59niix-1226025066869)


    Andrew, I believe you are imagining a very ideal and unrealistic scenario. So I'll ask you, where do you draw the line of your religious barometers, or rather where do you expect people to draw their line?
    (emphasis mine)

    I think it is idealist to envision a state in which politics are completely separated from religion, but not one in which civil liberties are protected in light of that fact.

    The highlighted portion of your post is incorrect. The majority can come to the same decision without any appeal to religion but using common sense and morality. The reason gay marriage is not protected is because it isn't a civil liberty.

    I really am not interested in arguing this same thing with you since we have belabored the point. So, if you respond, I will not.
  • Hmm I don't think I buy that. You're still saying that you will vote 'Pro-Bible' and against anti-Biblical laws. I understand that the Bible is just a criterion but where do you draw the line? And just because you're vote may not be that of the majority, you still desire a legal system that fulfils the standards of your Holy Book. This is where I draw the contradiction. To me this sounds like "We shouldn't impose our truth on everyone.. but if my vote just so happens to be that of the majority, I didn't impose my beliefs on anyone, I only expressed my opinion." I could be missing something, and completely have misrepresented you, apologies if I have, but thats how I'm reading it.

    I feel as though must have been unclear in my previous posts. The way government is set up (at least here in America), everyone citizen has a right to vote. They can vote using any criterion they desire. Christians can use the Bible. Economists can use pie charts. Animal lovers can sign language monkeys for ideas. All votes are equal.

    Anyone who votes for anything is expressing a desire for a certain outcome. Do I desire eliminating abortions-then I should vote as such. Do I desire that homosexuals not be married-then I should vote as such. Do I desire that everyone named aiernovi receive a $5000 tax credit-then I should vote as such.

    No matter how you vote or what criterion you use, voting in and of itself is expressing a desire to impose your will on others. If there is a referendum to lower the speed limit in my neighborhood, my voting for it is expressing a desire to impose my will on how YOU should drive. I'm not really sure why you think this is somehow tyrannical or unethical.

    I was making no distinction between being in the majority or the minority, you have misunderstood me on this point. What I was saying is our government is set up giving us the freedom to express our opinions in the form of votes. Everyone can express their opinion and vote how they like. Why is it wrong for me to vote with the Bible in mind? Would it be wrong for me to vote with economy in mind? Would it be wrong for me to vote with self-interest in mind? Would it be wrong for me to vote with the Koran in mind? The answer is no. Our government gives us the freedom to vote however we like based on whatever we like. 
  • "The highlighted portion of your post is incorrect. The majority can come to the same decision without any appeal to religion but using common sense and morality. The reason gay marriage is not protected is because it isn't a civil liberty."

    I was referring to the example I just used, it demonstrates a wholly religious influence that regulates what people can and can't do. And yes you're correct it isn't a civil liberty, its a civil issue which should be a civil right, because at least in this case where an appeal to religion and tradition is made, there is absolutely no good reason why gay people cannot and should not get married.

    "The majority can come to the same decision without any appeal to religion but using common sense and morality"

    Beside the fact that there has never been an example of a "common sense reason" to prohibit gay marriage, you want to impose your moral values on people?


    Cy



  • If the gates of hell cannot overpower the church, neither will some petty attempt at a podcast, or by some random tasbeha.org posts. Both sides, pray that Gods will be done, and work for whatever you feel correct. After that, God will step in. I only pray that his interjection is violent and that the works of the devil "hidden or manifest" be taken away, and that the council of Ahithophel is destroyed. I am not going to post again on this thread, and I would hope that we can just let this talk die out. We have tried this before, and it ended without any meaning. We wont get any where, and there have been enough comments on this post to identify both sides. I for one am done waisting my time on such foolish and endless "talks."

    ReturnOrthodoxy
Sign In or Register to comment.