Concerned Copts



  • [quote author=Gay4XC link=topic=12337.msg144873#msg144873 date=1316402963]
    CY86, don't waste your time talking to a bunch of Pharisees. It'll get you crucified.

    We gay people are already bearing a heavy cross and don't need to come across the nonsense, the hypocrisy, and even the sin of judging that people are engaged in here, and carry their defamation as an even heavier cross.

    They will all be judged for their ignorance. The Coptic church is already suffering from God's wrath by going through so much injustice as retribution for all the racial, religious, and now sexual orientation and family life injustices these so-called Orthodox Copts are doing.

    If anything, the Copts need to wake up and repent. We can't cry out for justice when we fail to care and even choose to defame others unjustly.


    Pray for the Copts so that they may know that the devil is in homosexuality

    Pray for the Copts so that they may know that only hetersexuals will enter heaven

    Pray for the Copts so that they may know that the Western acceptance of homosexuals is driving Westerners to the path of Sodom and Gomorrah

    Pray for the Copts that the Lord may deliver everyone of them from homosexuality

    Pray for the Copts that the Lord may have mercy on His Church and seal it against the ideology of the homosexuals.

    May the Lord have mercy on your soul.
  • May God's healing and saving power come to those afflicted with this illness like a dear brother of mine who was healed and has now entered into a share in Christ's salvation.
  • The Great St. Paul was a Pharisee, I believe.

    He was quite clear:  Homosexuality is a SIN.
    He was quite clear:  Homsexuality is an ABOMINATION.

    ...naturally this is inclusive when in writing, action, or promotion by Podcast.


    Let me remind you in case you forgot:  HOMOSEXUALITY = SIN
  • ...Oh, and Gay, I forgot one thing:  take all of your foul thoughts and misrepresentations, and evil comments off of this website.
  • Cy86 is Gay4xc.

    Both the Old and New Testament make it clear.  "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22

    It is an abomination.

    You are making your life more difficult than it has to be. You must have anticipated that a thread like this would get this type of response. Pray for God's guidance, and you will see what His will is.
  • I take exception to CY86's idea that the church being "open" to homosexuality is to be compared to being open to non-Egyptians. I am a non-Egyptian in the church,  and not only do I find this characterization of the church to be wildly at odds with my own experience*, but it strikes me as a terrible comparison to make even if it were based in reality. There is no sense in which being a non-Egyptian is against the laws of God as delivered to us in the scriptures and lived out within the scope of holy tradition. Homosexuality, on the other hand, very clearly is.

    (*- Is it just me, or is this "the church is unwelcoming" canard invoked every time someone wants to change the church so that it will resemble the world? "Oh, the converts won't like our chants...we better get rock'n'roll guitars and keyboards like the Protestant churches they're used to, or they'll leave!";Do any of these people ever think to ask the converts themselves how they see the church or what they struggle with before pushing for decisions in the  supposed interests of others?! It really does not seem so.)
  • [quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg144867#msg144867 date=1316392731]
    Hi Remnkemi,

                        So in your opinion in order for God to work in the lives of people they would perhaps require a place where that can happen most effectively i.e. church?
    God can work wherever He wants. But we know from the scriptures and patristic writings that the Church is a hospital. So if one wants healing from same-sex inclination, then go to the Church and repent. But it will require struggling outside the Church building too.

    Also you said that people who are same-sex inclined have abandoned god's commandment to begin with. I don't agree with this, but I'd like to know what commandment that was.

    Read reply #47 on this thread.

    I disagree with your interpretation of equal treatment. There are no laws that give homosexuals more rights than anyone else, though I could be wrong if you know any then i'd like to see what they are.  Also Laws that protect homosexuals or people who identify with lgbt form discrimination are not "more rights" they are there to enforce equal treatment so that people don't have to suffer the taunting or potential abuse or mistreatment. Thats like saying anti race, gender, disability discrimination laws give those categories of people more rights. Thats absurd.

    I was following the same logic that was in the links you mentioned. If homosexuals are more likely to get bullied than heterosexuals, then they will require more protection than heterosexuals. Even if homosexuals are granted zero rights now (which they are not, since even murderers and pedophiles have civil rights), but even if they have zero rights, and if they were all of a sudden get exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, they would still be in danger of bullying. That is what the article wanted to imply. By that very same logic, homosexuals are required to have more rights.

    Secondly, you are wrong about "there are no laws give homosexuals more rights than anyone else." Nearly every state has additional statutory consequences for hate-crimes. If a bully assaulted a heterosexual in a random event, he would get X punishment for the crime. But if this bully did the same exact assault to a homosexual, it would become a hate-crime and he would get X punishment for assault and Y punishment for the hate motive. If you can prove any discrimination then the crime enters a different class in the eyes of the law. It may be absurd but it's true.

    Thirdly, it doesn't matter how society and society's laws treat homosexuals, what matters here is Christian laws, since you opened this discussion about how the Church should treat homosexuals. No matter how absurd and how unfair it is, the Church does not treat a unrepentant homosexual the same way she treats a righteous, virtue-abiding heterosexual, since the latter is trying to live in the faith of God, while the prior is knowingly defying God's commandment.

    "Jesus accepted all sinners who repented and sought forgiveness. He did not accept hypocrites and Pharisees..."
    He did die for them too didn't he?

    Yes He did die for them but he didn't accept their behavior and beliefs because, like the homosexual, they refused to acknowledge any wrong-doing.

    "It's irrelevant if this person is heterosexual or not." Absolutely! But I think the coptic community can be rather conservative because the culture is based on so much tradition so much so that people's ability to treat people equally regardless of sexuality, can and has been very much impeded. And its like when a non egyptian walks in to the church, its very difficult for them to feel welcome because the culture is so old and monotone. And its not about modernising its about sacrificing what ever holds up that cultural boundary in order to be open to others.

    Your example doesn't apply. A non-Egyptian who walks into Church and is not welcomed because of culture is not committing any sin or offence. The homosexual, if unrepentant, is sinning. You can't expect people (much less the Church) "to treat people equally regardless of sexuality". Herein lies your problem. The Church is already treating unrepentant homosexual equally regardless of sexuality. They are treated like any other liar, murderer, or sinner that doesn't repent. What you want to advocate, and what every LGBT movement insists on, is that we treat unrepentant homosexuals, like law-abiding parishioners. That will never happen. It will never happen with any other non-homosexual sinner. Why should homosexuals expect it? Maybe it goes back to what I said that homosexuals expect more rights than heterosexuals?

    The education means learning about sexuality,  the struggles that people face in society so that we can be more accommodating to people. 

    Are we supposed to also be educated on pedophilia and the pedophile's struggle so that we can be more accommodating to unrepentant pedophiles? And do we ignore the sacrament of marriage and learn about polygamy so we can accommodate the unrepentant polygamist? 

    I haven't been arguing that people should be given free pass to sin, I'm saying lets give them a free pass to a community where they don't have to feel bad about themselves. Obviously the church teaches the homosexuality is a sin, OBVIOUSLY. But you don't need to remind people, they KNOW. Like you say let god's grace work but at least give people a place they can turn to when the world is getting them down. Thats my opinion anyway.

    The unrepentant homosexual does not see the difference between a free pass to sin and a free pass to a community since he doesn't think he has sinned. You are describing the exception: the repenting homosexual. In this case, I will agree with you that there are cultural boundaries he will face by the congregation. But there are no pastoral boundaries. He will be accepted and loved just like any sinner who is repenting. So we are in agreement. And I hope you continue to contribute to the discussion.
  • The interesting thing about hate-crime laws is that they are enacted to punish crimes committed with a certain motivation (racial, sexual, etc). Personally I don't think that things are always so cut and dry that we can say that such crimes shouldn't be viewed as especially heinous for involving the specific targeting of a person as a member of a group -- but I do question the application of this idea. My brother attended technical school in Laramie, Wyoming around the time of the famous Matthew Shepard case that was a driving force behind modern hate crime legislation, and I don't know anyone (regardless of their religious or other background) who would hesitate to condemn such a brutal crime just because the victim was gay.

    That said, I can think of many more times when people are discriminated against and, because they don't form a protected class, nothing is done for them. They are essentially told to suck it up and quit whining, whereas if they were gay they could call the ACLU or whatever and have a whole media campaign that would essentially force the redress of whatever injustice  they feel that they've suffered, whether real or provable or not. And that's just the problem: When my friend who is a midget has to risk being homeless because the apartment manager at the apartment she has already signed the lease to occupy decides (after agreeing to the contract himself) that he does not want to be held responsible for "looking after her" (which she absolutely did not and would not ask anyone to do), who can she turn to? Is this not also discrimination? Well, it is, but it is not provable, and it doesn't have magazines and television specials designed to expose it. It's not as though the vast majority of discrimination that takes place in the world takes place under some sort of banner or open declaration of "We/I am discriminating against this person because they are gay/Christian/short/female/black/whatever". Prejudice is usually very quiet. This is why flagrant discrimination is so offensive to the 'equality'-obsessed West. We prefer it to be very quiet so that we can ignore it. Unless, of course, the group in question has very good PR, like the gays, the Muslims, and other people who have successfully manipulated history and the openness and ignorance of the Western societies in order to destroy them and rebuild them in their image. 

    Every Christian everywhere should be against this. We stand with our God in condemning those wicked behaviors which He has condemned, and even so embracing the repentant sinners that, after all, we all recognize that we are too. Anything else is wrong.

  • Forgive us copticyouth86  It's not good when people feel they have to defend themselves. You said the church had old traditions, however, because the world is changing, it is not good that we have to defend the dogmatic way we're living. It is the protestant church that has changed. It is the weaker part of the bride of Christ. Just like any bride, they should obey, as this is loyality. They are weak because their truths are a cop-out when it comes to a responsibilty. So they have a weak truth. I think most arguements are about identity and selfishness.
  • ^You do realize that Protestants are in no way, shape, or form a part of the body of Christ, right?  :-\
  • Why does thi topic always leed into someone attacking the church, and saying something crazy about the church. the very church you want to be accepted into, you call a bunch of pharisees. HAHAHAHA. Guys, im just saying that the church in this particular subject is perfect. Nothing needs to change.

    Gay4XC, Dont use Gods holy word, twist it and then cover your shame with it. If you have a real response, respond using your mind, and the bible. I understand that i havent done that, but there is enogh o that through the thread, but to walk in a claim everyone else is a pharisee for being upright about such a twisted issue, is itself twisted, and to be honest, a tad childish. If you have nothing worth saying to add, don't speak.

    As for the matter at hand. If we are speaking about allowing Gay people who are struggling AGAINST the sin to be welcomed, the best way is to not make it a public announcement, and so bring this person to their father of confession who can personally guide them. As for those who struggle WITH this sin (and herein I mean they have that petty understanding of well being which can only come out of a song like Lady Gaga's music, and struggle to accept themselves as they are) know that though they may accept themselves, but God will not nor will His bride, the church.

    There is no need to make an institution of Gay people or anything. There is not need in our church to make a group for people who masturbate. It is a sin which at times can be difficult to overcome, but it still must be private between the father of confession and the disciple. i worry that these groups would become some kind of support groups which are then turned into a pity party, or where these sinners can make each other feel more comfortable in their sin, or worse, cause other innocent people to comfort these sinners in their sins, and so doing partake in their sins. Homosexuality is a virus. Not just a sin. It is a menace, and those who are inflicted with it (by inflicted, i speak only of those who refuse to repent) must be quarantined, even if it means that they are afflicted with deep sorrow and being rejected.

    You said, "I haven't been arguing that people should be given free pass to sin, I'm saying lets give them a free pass to a community where they don't have to feel bad about themselves." No they should feel bad about themselves

    St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain says concerning people who sin grave sins, "They must grieve deeply and weep bitterly, always strictly examine their conscience and confess all their sins without self pity, and they must neglect no means which can sure and save them." (Unseen Warfare, 278)

    St. Jude also speak of those who refuse to repent, "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."(Jude 23)

    Regardless of the way that this forum goes, I will never show pity to the unrepentant. I will be strict with this matter. Though i cannot save with fire because I to am a sinner, I will at least not quench the fire which the church places such sinners through, and though I love my brothers the homosexuals, to the day I die, I will always hate the garment of homosexuality. May God help me to never accept this sin, and may he have mercy on you from this sin. Rather then argue on such a forum, go repent. Stop waisting your time. Then again, I probably just wasted my time writing this. Nothing but the action of the Holy Spirit (repentance) can break down the walls of sin which you have allowed satan to build around your heart. There is only one remedy, which is to listen to the holy spirit message of repentance, which I hope you dont harden your heart to. Otherwise, there is no forgivness.

    May God snatch you and me from the fire of hell, and may he have mercy on the church. We are nothing, and he can do as he wants. If you feel like you are still right and everything and here is wrong, simply go pray and ask God to change things, and if it is for the good of the church, he will not withhold it. But if not... beware of the final judgement.


  • Wouldn't it be wise to say those that believe in him are part of him. Then if we're part of him, are we a part of his body. The protestants do not believe in the consubstanial part, but they believe in him. That is their weakness. We can say we have been married to Christ for 2000 years and it is because of the dogmatic way we see things that keep us together.
  • [quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=12337.msg144912#msg144912 date=1316478466]

    Wouldn't it be wise to say those that believe in him are part of him. Then if we're part of him, are we a part of his body. The protestants do not believe in the consubstanial part, but they believe in him. That is their weakness. We can say we have been married to Christ for 2000 years and it is because of the dogmatic way we see things that keep us together.
    I am sorry I have to disagree. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic is the bride/body of Christ. The Protestants are thus not a part of that body because they are not in communion with the Church. This does not mean they aren't Christian or that they are outside the scope of salvation, but they are schismatic and heretics who lack the fullness of grace found within the Church.

    I do not write this in a spirit of condemnation. Many Protestants are a thousand times more pious than the average Orthodox, but this does not negate the fact that they are in schism and heresy and outside the bride of Christ.

  • I agree with what you have said but I don't agree with the actions taken. As schism is seperation and herec- sorry can't spell it - is comdemnation.
  • + Irini nem ehmot,

    What do you mean you don't agree with the action taken? Whether you agree or not is immaterial. It is what it is. Protestantism is a heretical schismatic group.

  • You are right. It probably came from my desire for peace.  Our church goes on a straight and narrow path and with a straight path the ones at the head can see a long way in the distance. A path that is not straight has too many distractions even though they want to end up in the same place, and what is more is they can get lost.
  • I agree with the real, concerned Orthodox Copts’ replys such as the following: Stavroforos Nos. 13, 16, 19, 30; imikhail Nos. 22, 27, 31, 34; JG No. 18; Aegyptian No. 40; ophadece No. 45; and those who agree with this traditional orthodox theology and philosophy.

    I disagree with Unworthy1’s reply No. 35. To welcome these obviously weak, unrepenitant youth sinners is to invite them to corrupt the morals of similarly weak, innocent or struggling youth. Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals. 1Cor.15:33.

    I’d like to share the following very enlightening recent relevant article from by the courageous Canadian OCA Orthodox priest, Fr. Lawrence Farley; which directly addresses the Coptic Churches' current crucial modern heresies of feminism(/freudianism) and divorce; and warns of their naturally consequential heretical bedfellow, homosexuality.

    Labelling the Debate

    by Fr. Lawrence Farley, Canada
    All of my generation will remember the lines from A Charlie Brown Christmas when Charlie Brown, depressed over the coming of Christmas, sits down at Lucy’s desk (the sign overhead announcing “The Doctor Is Real In”) and says, “I am in sad shape. I know I should be happy, but I’m not.” Lucy responds, “The mere fact that you realize you need help indicates that you are not too far gone. If we can find out what you’re afraid of, we can label it.”

    Labelling is not always helpful. Sometimes labels are too simplistically applied, and shut down real thought and dialogue. But sometimes labelling is crucial—such as when dealing with a disease. Then it is called “diagnosis”. I submit that our current debates in the Church about sexuality indicate that something is wrong with us, and if we can find out what that is, we can label it. The intensity of debate, conducted as it is between people of equal intelligence and goodwill, about something as basic as human sexuality, and about something which the Scriptures and the Fathers and the traditions of our Church have been clear and uncontroversial for about two millenia, clearly reveal that something is wrong. The debate is not like other debates in the Church in the past. This debate is a symptom.

    In the fourth century, there was something wrong with the Church in the form of Arianism. That is, there was confusion in the minds of many about the divinity of Christ. Beginning in the twentieth century, there is confusion in the minds of many about the humanity of Man—and if objection is taken to the use of the inclusive term “Man”, this only reveals how deep the confusion actually goes. The heresies of Arianism about the nature of Christ were bad enough, since they effected what it means to be a Christian. The heresies about human sexuality are even worse, because they effect what it means to be a human being, whether Christian or not.

    These distortions about gender roles are the main front and ideological battleground of the perennial contest between the Church and the World (or the secular zeitgeist, the spirit of the times). A secular spirit always exists in this age, challenging the Church. The nature of the challenge changes with the times. In our time, the challenge of secularism seems concentrated in the area of human sexuality, of what it means to be an authentic man or woman, husband or wife. Thus, as the traditional understanding erodes in our culture, divorce rates go up, the number of common law unions go up, there is increasing acceptance of casual sex, and of prostitution (now euphemised as “the sex trade”, as if schools offered training and certificates), violence against women increases, and the use of pornography is increasingly normalized. One part of this complicated, varied, often contradictory, and systemic break-down of the traditional understanding of sexuality and sexual roles interacts with our culture under the banner of Feminism.

    There is, of course, much that is laudable in Feminism, for Feminism is a very large tent, and contains under its roof a large variety of movements and demands—some political, some theological. Certain of its demands, such as the right of women to equal pay for equal work, should be granted by all concerned, since they are matters of simple justice. But the theological feminism which effectively is at war with traditional gender roles is another matter.

    This theological feminism asserts that because both men and women equally share the image of God and because this common humanity which unites them is more fundamental than the gender differences which distinguish them, then these gender differences have no theological significance. I grant the premise (that both genders equally share the divine image, and that this is the most fundamental fact about human existence), but not the conclusion (that therefore gender differences have no theological significance). The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.

    In the 1970s, this conclusion, a part of the reigning zeitgeist, was behind the drive to ordain women to Holy Orders in the Anglican/ Episcopal Church. First it was declared that deaconesses were deacons, then women were ordained as deacons, then as priests, then as bishops. One verse of Scripture (Gal 3:28, “in Christ there is no male and female”) was wrenched from its original context and made to do service for a question foreign to that context—a question, moreover, which the author of the verse had already dealt with elsewhere in a contrary way. Proponents of women’s ordination announced that Jesus was far too revolutionary, daring and egalitarian to sanction something as repressive and patriarchal as an all-male leadership, and that the authentic Paul (the author of Gal. 3:28) approved of female church leaders too. The verses in Paul about women and men in his First Epistle to the Corinthians were by-passed, re-interpreted or dismissed as interpolations. The explicit denial of the possibility of women as teaching leaders in 1 Timothy was similarly dismissed as non-Pauline (as if that somehow negated its authority as part of the New Testament canon). The Fathers also were dismissed as too patriarchal, and anyhow, attention was called to how they said that both men and women equally shared the divine image. So there.

    As someone who observed the entire process unfolding in the Anglican Church at that time, I find it instructive to observe how the cause of women’s ordination progressed. First, no bold assertions were made about Paul being crudely wrong. Theologians in seminaries, widening their eyes with as much innocence as they could muster, simply asked questions, like “Can we really regard the obviously non-Pauline sentiments in 1 Timothy 2 as binding for all places and for all times?” (They were just asking the question. The issue was, of course, very complicated, as everyone but fundamentalists recognized.) Debates were held, letters written by people on both sides of the debate to church newspapers. (No one blogged back then.) People warned of disaster, and were in turn dismissed as alarmist and too fearful. Motions in synods were made. Counter-motions were made. People lobbied. It looked as if something as basic to Church life as Holy Orders was to turn on attendance numbers at church conferences. Then the step was taken of ordaining women deacons. Relax everyone: not priests, just deacons. Then, since the Church obviously had no problem with women deacons, why not women priests? Relax everyone: just priests, not bishops. And there will be a Conscience Clause for dissenters, so no one need be afraid or alarmed. Then, since the Church obviously had no problem with women priests, why not women bishops? By then, the Conscience Clause turned out to apply only to the dinosaurs already ordained, and hopefully approaching retirement. New recruits must abide by the new orthodoxy. Appeals to love, compassion and broad-mindedness were made to the rank and file, and those still rejecting the concept of women’s ordination were denounced as misogynist and ridiculed or pitied in turn. Anyone remaining in the Anglican Church of Canada now and arguing that women should not be priests enjoys all the credibility among them as that enjoyed in society by Holocaust-deniers and flat-earthers.

    To repeat: all this followed from the conclusion, “Gender has no theological significance because what matters is one’s humanity, not one’s gender”, so that the two-millenia old gender roles no longer applied. The next phase in the Anglican Church was the debate about same-sex marriage. By this time, I had already figured out where the real Church was, and had become Orthodox. But observing this new process gave me a chilling sense of deja-vu. Those in the Anglican Church, arguing for the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and of homosexual relationships in general, by then had a certain logic on their side, as well as a certain momentum. And the logic of women’s ordination seemed to be irresistible: if gender didn’t matter, then it didn’t matter. It was no use saying that men and women were different enough so that homosexual marriage was impossible for Christians. In deciding to ordain women as clergy, the church had already decided men and women were to all practical intents the same. People still appealed to St. Paul in defence of the traditional understanding of sexuality, but St. Paul had long since been dismissed from theological thinking. Similarly with any appeal to history or tradition. The war promoting same-sex marriage was won without firing any real shots.

    What is instructive to me is that we see the same scenario being played again in North American Orthodoxy. Once again, no one is boldly saying that St. Paul can go hang. The worst that is said about him is that he did not have the benefit of reading our modern studies proving that homosexuality is inborn and God-given. People are not openly denying the two-millenia old Faith, they are just asking questions, all the time dismissing their opponents who warn of disaster as alarmist and too fearful. Plus ca change...(sp ?)

    We can, if we choose, deny the parallel with the fourth century, refuse to acknowledge that there is something wrong with us, and refuse to label it as heresy. We can, if we choose, balk at the painful and messy work of dealing with heresy, and insist that these are matters for legitimate debate. We will then continue proceeding down the path blazed for us by the Anglicans.

    I think that it is time to recognize that debate is not legitimate if it is debate over things long uncontroversial in Scripture and Tradition. It is time to recognize that the present debate over gender in our Church is a symptom that we are dealing with an underlying heresy. It is not enough, of course, simply to cut off debate and to tell people to shut up and sit down. Thoughtful answers need to be provided—as they were provided to Arians in the fourth century. There is a difference between debating and answering. We debate to arrive at the truth. We answer when we know what that truth is.

    The historic Church has long known what the truth is about human sexuality. It is time that these answers be authoritatively given.

    --Archpriest Lawrence R. Farley
  • With all due respect and disrespect, the article by the OCA priest is a pile of trash feathered with whipped cream to cover the stench of Satan's pull.

    Concept:  "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."

    St. Paul, as claimed, is not inspired but "stupid".
    My claim, after reading this putrid article is that St. Paul is a "prince", still, among the Apostles; greater than all of the others for having preached in excess of all the others combined.
    The OCA is a non-inspired heretic.  He will pay a heavy price before God the Almighty and in being a source for leading others astray.

  • Just to remind everyone:

  • [quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=12337.msg145025#msg145025 date=1316693759]
    With all due respect and disrespect, the article by the OCA priest is a pile of trash feathered with whipped cream to cover the stench of Satan's pull.

    Is this how Orthodox speak nowadays?

    [quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=12337.msg145025#msg145025 date=1316693759]
    The OCA is a non-inspired heretic.  He will pay a heavy price before God the Almighty and in being a source for leading others astray.

    Thank you for condemning them. Now God can look to you for help on judgment day.

    I thought the article had its flaws, but it was notable as it looked at how the Anglicans slowly made exceptions over time.
  • +TheGodChrist+

    For those who may be interested, the Catholic leadership's cowardly compromises with the same evil, Feminism, has had somewhat different, but similarly immoral and faith destroying results. The early history/phases of Catholic Feminiusm is detailed in UNGODLY RAGE, the Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, by the admirable, faithful Irish-American journalist, Donna Steichen. You can obtain the details of a few elements of its latest manifestations and status from the frequent major media reports on the expensive, scandalous Catholic Homosexual/Pediphile Priest Saga. What's your preference? Is this Satan's modern church apostacy cafeteria? What further heretical choices will the Coptic Church leadership make? Please, CLEAN House! 
  • Actually, I forgot to put the word OCA "priest".  It was a typo.  Be that as it may, if it is published and posted by the OCA, then they bear the same penalty.

    That is why the USA is so wonderful.  If you want to worship the rear-end of a jackass, you may do so.  However, the other part of being in the USA requires you do not push your views on anyone.

    If one wants be Episcopalian (of the USA Anglican Tradition) and have Gay priests, Gay Deacons, Gay Bishops, a Gay Time, go for it.  It is your sinful perrogative.  However, do not try to push that manure, trash, or whitewashed stupidity on the Orthodox Church.

    We also have the Church of Satan, that is very popular in Long Island, New York.  Should we slowly let some of their views infiltrate?

    Let me remind you all again:  HOMOSEXUALITY = SIN.

    There has been plenty of documentation from top to bottom.  It is not genetic.  It is not from God.  It is not condoned by God.
    Eventhough I am not a prophet, or a saint, or an apostle, I think I am able to speak on behalf of the Almighty to say:  Homosexuality is a SIN.

    Anyone trying to promote it suffers the penalty that Our Lord prescribed for leading "the small ones astray".

  • As for the Anglicans:  they don't even know what to believe in for their credo.
    They vote things in and out.
    One jurisdiction has one set of rules, the other has another set of rules.
    One accepts gays, the other does not.

    How can that be 'orthodox'?

  • [quote author=irishpilgrim link=topic=12337.msg145000#msg145000 date=1316649202]
    I agree with the real, concerned Orthodox Copts’ replys such as the following: Stavroforos Nos. 13, 16, 19, 30; imikhail Nos. 22, 27, 31, 34; JG No. 18; Aegyptian No. 40; ophadece No. 45; and those who agree with this traditional orthodox theology and philosophy.

    I disagree with Unworthy1’s reply No. 35. To welcome these obviously weak, unrepenitant youth sinners is to invite them to corrupt the morals of similarly weak, innocent or struggling youth. Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals. 1Cor.15:33.

    I’d like to share the following very enlightening recent relevant article from by the courageous Canadian OCA Orthodox priest, Fr. Lawrence Farley; which directly addresses the Coptic Churches' current crucial modern heresies of feminism(/freudianism) and divorce; and warns of their naturally consequential heretical bedfellow, homosexuality.

    I think you're reading into the article more than is actually there, he is encouraging debate to develop a more cohesive and Christian answer to the problem.

    The article is neither specifically written as any sort of rebuttal to the Coptic Church or against the sin of homosexuality here is another article which he has written on this subject.

    You keep bring this point up in vague illusions with little or no detail, exactly what are these supposed sins which the Coptic Church is doing and how is it committing them?

    Thanks and please pray for me.


    Thoughts on "an Orthodox Defense of Gay Marriage"
    Jul 15, 2011 Posted By: Father Lawrence Farley 23 comments Tags: none
              There is, of course, an immense supply of nonsense and twaddle freely available online, and responding to all of it would be a task dwarfing the cleaning out of the legendary Augean Stables.  Usually when I read such things and am tempted to respond, a little voice from “Firefly” plays in my head, saying, “Just keep walkin’, preacher man”, and I leave well enough alone.  But when I read a post purporting to be both learned and Orthodox (the author is a Ph.D, and describes the piece as “An Eastern Orthodox Defense of Gay Marriage”, I found that I could not just keep walkin’.  Despite the disclaimer, “the views expressed in this post belong solely to the author and are not representative of the Orthodox Church”, the unwary reader might think that the views are at least consistent with historic Orthodoxy.  The author, after all, does have a Ph.D. in theology.

                I refer to the July 13 post of Mr. David J. Dunn, PhD, in the Huffington Post, entitled, “Civil Unions by Another Name:  An Eastern Orthodox Defense of Gay Marriage”.  The author’s main point, it seems, is that all marriages outside the Church are in effect “civil unions by another name”, and not marriage as the Church understands it.  Mr. Dunn speaks of secular marriages such as are performed “by a judge in a courthouse” and then asserts, “strictly speaking, our theology does not recognize the legitimacy of such marriages.  They are not sanctified by the Spirit in the church.”  He does not suggest, however, that “people married in secular ceremonies are not ‘really’ married.”  He allows that “for practical purpose we tacitly recognize these civil marriages even if they don’t quite meet our theological standards.”  Mr. Dunn, drawing on the distinction between Christian marriages and non-Christian ones, asserts that “all marriages performed outside the church are civil marriages”.  I assume by “civil marriages”, he means the “civil unions” referred to in his title, as opposed to true marriages, for obviously marriages performed outside the Church are civil marriages—that is what the word “civil” means.  His point seems to be that they are not true marriages.  Rather, “all marriages granted by the state for tax and inheritance purposes are just civil unions by another name”.

              Mr. Dunn seems to recognize only two categories for two people living together in a publicly-recognized lasting commitment:  the sacramental marriages performed in the Church by the Holy Spirit, and mere civil unions performed outside the Church by the State. 

                Mr. Dunn is of course entitled to his opinions and to posting them anywhere he wishes.  But it is nonsense to bill them as “Eastern Orthodox”.  They are utterly alien to the understanding of the Orthodox Church.

              My first clue about the eccentric nature of his “Orthodoxy” came when he referred to the Holy Spirit as “she” in his fourth paragraph.  “She”?  Was this a typo?  Had Mr. Dunn been getting his theology from The Shack?  My second clue was when he used the adjective “Constantinian” as a theological swear word.

            This, I think, reveals the ideological DNA of Mr. Dunn’s make up.  When he says that, “When Constantine legalized Christianity in the early fourth century, some began to see an almost godlike authority in the state.  An increasing number of Christians found it difficult to tell the difference between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God”, I know I am reading Anabaptist literature.  Menno Simons would’ve been proud, and could’ve written this.  Never mind that it is historical nonsense, and is the type of stereotypical pseudo-history spouted by the likes of Dan Brown.  My point is that it is also a thoroughly Protestant approach.

            An Orthodox and historically nuanced approach sees value in the Byzantine symphonia of Church and State, and in Constantine’s contribution in particular.  (That is why we refer to him liturgically as “St. Constantine the Great, God-crowned and equal-to-the-apostles”.  We are not referring to his personal sanctity, but to his vision of the world.)  Unlike classical Protestantism, Orthodoxy sees the world as shot through with divine grace.  All persons, Christian or secular, partake of the divine image, all receive life from God (He is, after all, the only source), and all human acts of kindness, Christian or secular, reflect and gladden God’s heart.  The Reformed tradition asserted the contrary, and said that everything outside of the Church was tainted and sinful.  “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit,” saith the Protestant Thirty-Nine Articles, “are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ...We doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”  This is the dour voice of classical Reformation Protestantism.  It is not the song of the Fathers or of the Orthodox.  Obviously there is a line between the Church and the World, between this fallen age and the Kingdom.  But even in this age we find God’s grace enlivening, brightening and leading all that He has created.  That is why, for instance, we bless the rivers and lakes of the world at Theophany.

          This historic Orthodox appreciation of God’s grace in the world and even in the institutions of the world (such as the State), did not begin with Constantine, Mr. Dunn’s suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding.  St. Paul himself referred to the State as “instituted by God” and “appointed” by Him (Rom. 13:1f).  The secular civil servant he called “God’s servant” (Greek leitourgos, a term elsewhere used to describe priests and apostles).  The pre-Nicene Church, for all its struggles with a persecuting State, did not fall into the error of a Manichean pessimism about the world God created.  It still confessed with the seraphim that “the whole earth is full of His glory” (Is. 6:3).  The State possessed a kind of divine authority from God for the restraining of evil and the prevention of social chaos.  The institutions of this age (many of which were regulated by the State, such as marriage) partook of the reflected glory that God generously imparts to all that He has made.

            Thus, a Christian in today’s secular and pluralistic society will recognize not two but three possibilities for public union of persons:  Christian marriage, celebrated in the Church by a priest; marriage in the world, as was celebrated and lived by all cultures and ages even before the coming of Christ; and civil unions properly speaking, which do not conform to the timeless and universal understanding of marriage, but for which the State wishes to make provision in terms of “tax and inheritance purposes”.

            The question is:  what is the essence of marriage, and why should the State care about it?

            Marriage is the union of two persons who have publicly agreed to live together and care for one another for the purposes of creating family.  (The fact that some married couples cannot have children is irrelevant to this definition; the historical purpose of marriage remains, even if some couples cannot fulfill it.)  The children resulting from such unions are the responsibility of the parents, and can only grow in physical, psychological and emotional health if both father and mother together raise them in a healthy way, so that the children in turn learn what it means to be a man or woman, a daddy or a mommy.  Usually in history, children in a family were the fruit of this co-habiting commitment between husband and wife (i.e. through sex), though of course adoption was also practiced. 

          This historical link between relationship and procreation is one of the things humanizing us. Creating children through pre-arranged one-time sexual unions or through government test-tube factories (such as we find in SF stories) is recognized as less than human—that is why they became the stuff of SF stories to begin with.  Whether we find it convenient in today’s culture or not, the rhyme “First comes love (or at least meeting), then comes marriage, then comes Mommy with a baby carriage” is the song and history of the world.  It is what the world, at all times and in all cultures, has meant by marriage.  The world has never thought of fixing or changing it, because the world has seen that it is not busted or in need of change.

              Today we have more or less completely sundered the link between sex and procreation, which is why we can talk at all about such an oxymoron as homosexual marriage.  But marriage, Christians and other monotheists think, was not created by society, and cannot be changed at whim by society.  It was created by God for His creation as the means of fulfilling it, enriching it, and sustaining it, and as the only authentic matrix for producing and raising children.  Because it was created by God to work in a certain way, we cannot change its fundamental character or purpose, or amend it, as if it were a clause in the US Constitution.  The State can, of course, come up with other models for lasting and hopefully mutually nurturative co-habitation, such as homosexual civil unions.  But we should not call these models marriage or equate them with marriage as timelessly practiced, for marriage has to do with the potential creation of families through sex, and this possibility is excluded in homosexual unions.

            Thus, marriage is the historical institution that produces children, and it is because these children are the building-blocks and hope for any society that the State recognizes a responsibility to and an interest in the institution producing them.  In this sense, the State indeed has legitimate business in the bedrooms of the nation (the assertion of the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau that it does not is historical nonsense, though it did make for a good political sound-bite in 1970s Canada).  Marriage, as we have seen, is not just a Christian or Orthodox institution.  It is a human one, and one that can enrich the lives of all citizens of the State whether they are Christian or not.  Thus the State has a rightful duty to regulate it and protect it, since the health and preservation of the institution forms the foundation and future of the society.  If the State concludes that polygamy is harmful to the healthy raising of children, it has the right to step in.  (Are you listening in the town of Bountiful, B.C.?)  If the State discerns that pride of place should go to unions that produce children, it should act in accordance with this discernment.

            “Calling upon the state to protect our sacrament” (to quote Mr. Dunn again), is not “an act of extreme unfaithfulness”.  It is asking the State to do the duty given to it by God for the preservation of the health of the family and the traditional understanding of gender which alone can create healthy family.  It is nonsense to assert that “denying civil marriage to homosexuals does nothing to protect its sanctity”.  That sanctity (or health, to use a more accurate word) is under attack from all quarters.  Declaring homosexual marriages to be true marriages, equal to classically-defined marriage has the immediate result of blessing homosexuality itself, and furthering the disastrous division of sexuality from procreation.

            The full dimensions of the disaster will not be immediately apparent, so that people like Mr. Dunn can assert that allowing gay marriage does nothing to hurt the marriages of non-gays.  It is true that if the State allows gay marriage in July 2011, all those people already married will not feel themselves impacted by suppertime.  They will not feel their marriages impacted at all.  The establishment of homosexual marriage is not a problem because of its impact on these people, or on those who will be married soon thereafter.  It is a problem because it fundamentally changes the nature of our understanding of sexuality and of the complementarity of the sexes in marriage required to create and raise children who have a healthy understanding of gender roles.  These changes will not be apparent in society in a year or even in a few years, and during this time liberals can truthfully and cheerfully report that those in traditional marriages still find their lives untouched.  But over the course of generations, the impact will be felt, and far-reaching results never foreseen or intended will surely come.  I cannot elaborate further on what these unforeseen results will be, or they would not to unforeseen.  But sexuality and gender is so basic to our nature (regardless of what gay propaganda says) that such a change will certainly be broad and far-reaching.

            In this the situation somewhat resembles the liberalization of divorce laws in Canada in the 1960s.  There may have been good reasons for the liberalization which made divorce easier than before.  The foreseen and intended result was the support of suffering spouses and meeting the need to shorten and end that suffering.  The unforeseen result was the present culture of divorce and the explosion of the number divorces after but a few years of marriage, with heart-break for the divorced spouses themselves and latent long-term instability for the children who see their worlds torn apart.  Yet another result has been the rise of single-parent families with its almost inevitable financial pressure and the much-lamented “child poverty”.  These results were not foreseen nor intended, but they can be traced back to the change in divorce laws nonetheless.

            In the same way, creating a category of homosexual marriage inevitably will alter the perception of sexuality in the succeeding generations in ways we cannot foresee.  It is true that the Church can remain aloof from society, and hunker down in its bunker while society around them experiences the problems traced back to its having shifted its basic foundations.  We can say, “We still maintain our traditional marriage practices, even though society around us doesn’t, so we don’t care what society does.”  We would score high in purity of doctrine, but quite low in being our brother’s keeper.  The Church does have a stake in what secular society does (contra the Anabaptists and Mr. Dunn).  That is why we Christians urge society to do things which will help all those in society, whether they are Christians or not.  We urge the State to help feed the poor.  We urge to State to educate its young about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse.  And we do this urging, not just because we are concerned that Christians be fed and saved from drug and alcohol abuse, but because we want everyone else to be fed and saved too.  In the matter of fundamental truths in society, we are our brother’s keeper.

            It is true that changing the laws to allow same-sex marriage will not immediately result in a flood of such marriages, since the homosexual part of North American population seems to run at between 1 and 4%.  That is not the point.  The point is that we changing our cultural understanding of what gender means, and the logic of this change will work itself out in many unforeseen ways in the coming generations regardless of marriage stats in 2011 or the decades after. Our children’s children, looking back at us in a hundred years’ time, will not rise up to call us blessed.

  • PeterA's message is unmatched, and I think that there is not better answer. Is it sad that he committed suicide? Most definitive. Is it wrong that people bullied him? No question, and they will meet God and answer for it. But lets not deny the truth, he was wrong for his actions of homosexuality. Her excellency lady Gaga (the name I have given her after her "Judas" single) said that he is not a victim but a lesson. I see that he is a victim, in that people insulted him, and a lesson in that it was a wake up call that we need to not insult homosexuals. But lets not forget, he was guilty of a detestable sin and added sin to sin with his suicide. I feel bad that it came to a point like that, however there is nothing more to say than we should accept them as people, not as homosexuals. I think the sad thing in the fact that he commuted suicide is not simply as Lady Gaga stated, "We lost a little monster" but rather, that we lost a little monster to hell because he committed suicide (the unforgivable sin).

    This incites little desire in me to be more accepting of unrepentant homosexuals. They are still grave sinners, and God will still accept them if they repent. If they don't, he cannot change is word. Committing suicide wont make any  problem go away.

    I am not claiming that you have any hidden agenda CY86, I am only saying that this suicide directs my thoughts into nothing more then where it was originally, "How can we get these children of God to repent, before they add sin to sin?"

    Like PeterA said, we sympathize, but it stops at that. We dont become decieved and begin saying that "we need to accept unrepentant homosexuals or else they may kill themselves."

    I have a question though... why was he given a funeral? The apostolic churches generally refuse a funeral to anyone who has committed suicide.
  • Let us always be on guard to remember the word "Sick" when we hear that so and so is a "gay" or a "homosexual". For truly homosexuals and gays are no different than drug addicts or alcoholics.

    These people who refer to themselves as homosexuals are caught up in a habitual sin that is either committed physically or through the mind. They think they are a different breed of people that God somehow messed up during their creation.

    Homosexuality is a sin  .. anyone who calls himself a homosexual or a gay is a sinner .. Repentance is the only answer.
  • Imikhail, the claims in your last post have no basis in reality, and are insulting. Please educate yourself on this issue before making baseless assertions, unless of course you are able to justify your claims.


    Edit: Apologies for personal attack. Thanks Remnkemi for pulling me up on it.
  • Returntoorthodoxy,

                                how do you know that this 14 year old child committed the so called detestable sins your accusing him of? And how do you know he s in hell? Has every person who committed suicide been condemned to hell? Was samson? didn't he kill himself and about 2000 thousand people, after praying for the strength to do so? Personally I think murdering people and killing yourself is far more reprehensible than being a homosexual and killing yourself.

    Furthermore, the question should not be "How can we get these children of God to repent, before they add sin to sin?" But how do we get people to withhold unsolicited opinions which (may or may not be intended to) hurt the person they are directed at, that can result in things such as suicide and mental illness?


Sign In or Register to comment.