Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 370
- Technical Topics 370
Comments
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] Back to the satirical comments ... whatever man.
If you see a return of satirical comments it is probably because you are a walking satire and are deserving of such comments.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] So your strategy is that even they do not agree with what the priest says and insist that the Church is wrong and has to accept them the way they are, as well as, stirring havoc to change the congregation's view in accepting homosexuality as a fact and not a sin, you will still welcome them. Is that what you are saying?
Here is what is being suggested. I am going to use the Church as a hospital analogy as this is how the Fathers have often viewed the Church.
You have a friend who is sick. They don’t see that they are sick, but you, because you’ve read up a little bit on their condition, see the symptoms and want to help them. So, what do you do? You take your friend to the hospital. Your friend will probably be resistant at first as they do not feel they are sick. However, because of your genuine love and concern for them, they will oblige and allow you to take them to the hospital, despite not believing they are sick. So, you take them to the hospital and you see a doctor. The doctor suggests to your friend that they stay for some time so that the doctor can perform some tests and keep them under observation. The sick person is initially hesitant and may be utterly resistant to the idea. However, because of your genuine love, concern and persistence that they stay, they oblige for your sake (again, despite not believing they are sick). The doctor begins to run tests and tells the sick friend the results. The sick friend is still hesitant (and possibly resistant) to accept the fact that they are sick. The doctor continues to run tests and begins treatment while consulting the Chief of Medicine, who also takes an interest in the case and guides the doctor in performing the proper tests and prescribing the proper treatments. As more tests are performed, and as more results come in, and as greater treatment is prescribed, the sick patient begins to slowly realize that they may, in fact, be sick. Meanwhile, you are by your friend’s side the entire time, offering them words of comfort as they resist at first, but gradually begin to accept the test results and the ensuing treatment. The doctor, with the aid of the Chief of Medicine, continue to provide treatment and run tests to check on the progression of the illness until, eventually, the illness is treated.
THAT is what is expected of us. In this analogy: replace hospital with the Church; replace sick friend with sinner; replace doctor with priest; replace Chief of Medicine with Christ; replace run tests with pastoral care; replace treatment with the Sacraments and replace sick and illness with any variation of the word sin. The hospital, the doctor, the Chief of Medicine and even you do not change your view on the illness that your friend has. Rather, over time, it is your friend that comes to realize they are sick and accepts the treatment.
In the case of the homosexual, does it mean that when the ‘illness is treated’ they cease being homosexual? Of course not. They won’t magically become heterosexual. However, they will come to realize that homosexual acts are sinful and that part of the treatment they must perform, in addition to partaking of the Sacraments, is to live a life of celibacy.
Here is what you have been suggesting:
A person brings their sick friend to the hospital, despite this sick friend not truly believing they are sick. imikhail is barring the door to the hospital and saying to this sick person, ‘You are not welcome in the hospital, despite being sick. Go away and come back when you acknowledge you are sick and are better. Then and only then are you worthy of entering this hospital.’
Thankfully, our God is far more merciful, compassionate and loving than you and welcomes all to Him.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144648#msg144648 date=1315933206] Back to the satirical comments ... whatever man. Whatever man.
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
We repent our sins to change for the sake of purity. Homosexuality does not repent and does not change for the sake of love. We share love but not repentance. One of the reasons we go to church is to be purified. So then what the homosexual offers isn't true and comes off like a bribe. Offering something good- love but behind it something bad- corrupt desire.
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=12337.msg144726#msg144726 date=1316036384]
We repent our sins to change for the sake of purity. Homosexuality does not repent and does not change for the sake of love. We share love but not repentance. One of the reasons we go to church is to be purified. So then what the homosexual offers isn't true and comes off like a bribe. Offering something good- love but behind it something bad- corrupt desire.
???
What?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619] Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
A person who is in a hospital will be allowed to remain in the hospital treated by a doctor regardless of whether they realize they are sick or not. The only time a person in a hospital will not be treated is when they willfully check themselves out of the hospital and refuse treatment (often against the doctors wishes). The same is true within the Church. The fact that you keep bringing in the congregation is silly. The congregation will not be affected by the repentance (or unrepentance) of a sinner. That is between them and their priest, not the congregation as a whole. In the hospital analogy, this would be like the other patients being concerned about whether another patient believes they are sick or not. That would never happen as each patient in the hospital is more concerned about their own sickness and getting better, and the treatment prescribed is between them and their doctor.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
If homosexuals are so vocal about acceptance, maybe it's because of how vocal those who discriminate against them are. It seems that the homosexual's sin is infinitely greater than any other sin, and as such, they should be ostracized and put out of the Church. If they were treated with the same love, compassion and respect other sinners received, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't react in the way they do.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619] Your key statement is "realize they are sick".
The scenario I created suggests that they won't listen and that they won't realize. You on the other hand created the scenario of having them listened and having them realized.
No one is suggesting to get rid of sinners from the Church without working with them first to realize that they are sinners. If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
A person who is in a hospital will be allowed to remain in the hospital treated by a doctor regardless of whether they realize they are sick or not. The only time a person in a hospital will not be treated is when they willfully check themselves out of the hospital and refuse treatment (often against the doctors wishes). The same is true within the Church. The fact that you keep bringing in the congregation is silly. The congregation will not be affected by the repentance (or unrepentance) of a sinner. That is between them and their priest, not the congregation as a whole. In the hospital analogy, this would be like the other patients being concerned about whether another patient believes they are sick or not. That would never happen as each patient in the hospital is more concerned about their own sickness and getting better, and the treatment prescribed is between them and their doctor.
How many people enter the church unrepentant of their sins? You have no bloody clue. And yet, if it were up to you, you'd banish the lot of them. That is utter insanity. The only place a sinner can get treatment is within the Church. Even if they may be unrepentant, that is between that person and the priest. The priest prescribes the treatment, not you, the congregation, or anyone else for that matter.
If homosexuals are so vocal about acceptance, maybe it's because of how vocal those who discriminate against them are. It seems that the homosexual's sin is infinitely greater than any other sin, and as such, they should be ostracized and put out of the Church. If they were treated with the same love, compassion and respect other sinners received, then maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't react in the way they do.
TRUE DAT.
What I was concerned about is what they are sharing and if it is shared does that make it acceptible?
When a homosexual starts advocating acceptance of homosexuality, like the ones I shared in post 53, this person has no place in the Church till s/he acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and comes to the Church for cure.
If one does not listen to the Church and is arrogant about their sin and has the potential to affect the congregation - the Church needs and will put him away.
2 Corinthean 5:1 - 6
"1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144747#msg144747 date=1316054715]
Sin, like disease, falls into categories of acuteness, is contagious, and will be dealt with accordingly.
When a homosexual starts advocating acceptance of homosexuality, like the ones I shared in post 53, this person has no place in the Church till s/he acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and comes to the Church for cure.
You clearly didn't read my analogy. Read it again. Slowly. I've addressed the case of where a patient does not recognize they are sick. They are still welcome (in fact, encouraged) to remain in the hospital and receive treatment from the doctor. The doctor will never dismiss a patient or kick them out of the hospital just because the patient does not recognize their sickness. If the patient, of their own free will, chooses to leave the hospital, that is something else entirely. However, the doctor or the hospital will never kick the patient out.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144747#msg144747 date=1316054715]
2 Corinthean 5:1 - 6
"1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
If you're going to reference St. Paul, for the love of God, at least get it right. 1 Corinthians 5:1-6 is what you want.
Regarding that here is what St. John Chrysostom says: Source
Don't see anything about kicking a person out of the Church.
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was nt practiced by the Church.
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399] As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was nt practiced by the Church.
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?! There is a reason St. John was given the title 'Chrysostom' (golden-tongue). It's because he had a way with words. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He was never 'not specific'.
Furthermore, you don't know what excommunication is. It is not expulsion from the Church. Source
Expulsion from the Church is by anathema only, not excommunication.
So seeing as how you have proven you don't have a leg to stand on, why not just bow out before you embarrass yourself further.
Here are my words:
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was practiced by the Church.
You are the one who chose to interpret my words as if I am speaking of anathema. Either you misunderstood, or you intentionally chose to misrepresent what I said to pick a feud.
Excommunication means not to partake of the communion, be outside the community till repentance is offered.
Here is more information for you:
Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive, suspend or limit membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.
Source
So in Cor 5:1-6 St Paul excommunicated that person, who married his step mother, with the goal of having him realize the seriousness of his sin. This is what many fathers explained including St John Chrysostom.
I agree completely with you.
When one is not allowed to approach the holy mysteries and not allowed to be in communion with the faithful, s/he will realize the seriousness of s/his mistake and how holy s/he needs to be to restore the relationship with God.
This approach is evident in the Church history and has turned many sinners to great saints.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144709#msg144709 date=1316019619]
If they do not listen and they start affecting the rest of the congregation, then a stand has to be taken - they need to be outside the Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399]
As I explained earlier, Corinthians 5:1-6 allows for casting those who do not adhere to the Church and cause disease among the congregation, like the ideology of homosexuals, to be cast out
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144758#msg144758 date=1316064399]
"that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you" = cast out of the communion of the Church. = Excommunication
It is clear to me you don't even understand what you're saying. Note the bolded red words. All you have been saying is expel them from the Church. I have provided the definition of excommunication within the context of the Church. To show you that it is not a fluke, I will provide another source: Source
You are the one who has subtly brought in the concept of anathema because you are talking about 'casting sinners out of the Church'. That is the definition of anathema. It is all well and good that you think you're clever in providing a broad definition of what excommunication means. Unfortunately for you, there is a specific definition used within the context of the Church that applies to those in the Church. As such, what do I care about how other religions define or apply the term excommunication. The only definition that matters is that of the Church's. As can also be seen above, excommunication is not casting someone out of the Church. It is a pastoral act that prevents the individual from partaking of the Eucharist (also called communion). I can see why someone like you would have difficulty with understanding the different nuances of the word 'communion'.
Additionally, here is what the expression 'cast out' means: Source
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144767#msg144767 date=1316087340]
Here are my words:
Many fathers wrote about this passage and explained that the punishment is the excommunication. St John Chrysostom was not specific but that does not mean that excommunication is not and was practiced by the Church.
Because you like to repeat yourself (thinking that it helps reinforce your point), I will be happy to oblige:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12337.msg144761#msg144761 date=1316071383]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
So you think you know more than St. John Chrysostom, a man who was a theologian, patriarch, saint and prolific writer? You put yourself above him and say you know what St. Paul meant better than him and that he is 'not specific'?! There is a reason St. John was given the title 'Chrysostom' (golden-tongue). It's because he had a way with words. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He was never 'not specific'.
Since you say 'many fathers' say something, back it up; because quite frankly, just because you say something means absolutely nothing.
It is clear to me that this is an exercise in futility. There is no point in continuing this 'discussion' with you.
If you need proof, let me know and I will provide several fathers' quotations, so your mind may be at ease.
Word of caution: Just because you lack the knowledge of something does not mean it does not exist.
Since you are fond of looking up in the dictionaries, here is something for you about the verb "cast out":
Main Entry: banish
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: expel from place or situation
Synonyms: ban, cast out, deport, discard, discharge, dislodge, dismiss, dispel, drive away, eject, eliminate, eradicate, evict, exclude, excommunicate, exile, expatriate, expulse , extradict, get rid of, isolate, ostracize, oust, outlaw, proscribe, relegate, remove, rusticate, sequester, shake off, shut out, transport
Antonyms: allow, keep, welcome
Source: Thesaurus.com
Again, you pick what you like of these definitions, apply it to what I said and voila you are on to debate. Grow up.
Hope you have learned something.
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
I also think it is hard for them to repent because they are a political body.
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
???
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=12337.msg144783#msg144783 date=1316122993]
I also think it is hard for them to repent because they are a political body.
???
:-\
I think about Jesus throwing out the money lenders out of the temple because it was a holy place and the money lenders understood it was a holy place. So I guess in fairness they couldn't complain being denyed access. Jesus didn't take a docter appoach.
Actually ...
"Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
Then invite them to a special meeting just for them, and keep the young impressionable members of the flock away from them. Let the adults handle them. We are not all endangered by speaking to them, in fact for most servants there is no danger at all. Why not invite them to the Church and speak to them about things unrelated to homosexuality - let them see the real core of the Church (charity, egalitarian love etc.) and then perhaps they will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say about their sexual orientation.
Christ didn't leave us the option of choosing who we do and don't let into the Church. ALL are welcome, ALL must be chased after - Christ didn't ignore the prostitutes or tax collectors, and neither must we. If it takes convincing, then we shall do everything in our power to convince them and leave the rest up to God. If simply pointing to Romans 1 doesn't work (and it rarely does) then we must change our tack.
God bless
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144805#msg144805 date=1316181012]
This woman, that Jesus forgave in Simon's house did recognize that she was a sinner.
What we are talking about regarding excommunication is for those who do not recognize that they are sineers, do not want to listen to the Church, pose a danger to the flock.
Then invite them to a special meeting just for them, and keep the young impressionable members of the flock away from them. Let the adults handle them. We are not all endangered by speaking to them, in fact for most servants there is no danger at all. Why not invite them to the Church and speak to them about things unrelated to homosexuality - let them see the real core of the Church (charity, egalitarian love etc.) and then perhaps they will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say about their sexual orientation.
Christ didn't leave us the option of choosing who we do and don't let into the Church. ALL are welcome, ALL must be chased after - Christ didn't ignore the prostitutes or tax collectors, and neither must we. If it takes convincing, then we shall do everything in our power to convince them and leave the rest up to God. If simply pointing to Romans 1 doesn't work (and it rarely does) then we must change our tack.
God bless
Very good suggestions.
I believe you are mixing between spiritual meetings and liturgical services. What I am addressing here is excommunication from liturgical services.
At the end of the day excommunication is dealt with on a case by case basis. There is no formula that you plug in variables and come up with an answer. It is left to the wisdom of the clergy and the guidance of the Spirit.
I understand what you are saying unworthy .. in all my posts I said the Church is the one that excommunicate because quite frankly, individual members do not have the authority to do so.
1 Cor 5:1-6 is the perfect example of what I am talking about.
this is kinda funny...its not like the church has a stack of 'excommunication certificates' in the priest's drawer waiting to be filled out and distributed. Excommunication is the church's very last resort in the battle for the person's salvation within the Church Body. Also, please note that a priest himself cannot excommunicate anyone. He can of course, bring up cases to his local bishop who then decides based on the circumstances whether or not this case is unfortunate enough to have to be excommunicated from the Body of Christ. In a normal scenario, hopefully the priest would try and try and try with this person to what we call in arabic 'netfa7em ma3 ba3d" lol or in other words to try and gently make the individual come to terms with his own condition and the Church's teaching. This is called PASTORAL CARE and every priest should excercise it during sensitive cases surrounding relationships, death, illness, and sin etc.
You are confusing excommunication with anathema ...
Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive, suspend or limit membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy.
Source
So in Cor 5:1-6 St Paul excommunicated that person, who married his step mother, with the goal of having him realize the seriousness of his sin.
There is a difference between a sermon and a discussion. So the intention, once again, of this podcast is to propagate (healthy) discussion. Which you inadvertently pointed out, isn't happening at church on the scale you mentioned.
If a social issue like homosexuality is only viewed as a sin by the church community, then this is a problem since belief inform actions, and in this case people have and most likely will only ever perceive homosexuals as intentional sinners and be almost entirely ignorant of the kinds of struggles that one would face as a homosexual internally and in mainstream society, let a lone a culture that knows almost nothing about sexual identity.
So healthy discussion (hearing both sides of something then discussing and listening to other people's opinions) may lead to education which may lead to the better treatment of people.
Cy