|
0 members (),
395
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,643
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
Originally posted by CJ:
The Byzantine Forum is very left of center. Just look at the number of posters giving support to the homosexual cause. Why are so many Byzantine Catholics willing to even consider that homosexuality is ok? Morality doesn�t change. It�s too bad that readers of this forum will think Byzantine Catholics have gone the way of liberal Protestants.
Thank God that the people in the parishes are more balanced. I haven't seen that at all. However, it's true that we try to walk the line between condemning the sin (correct) and the sinner (incorrect). See John 8:1-11 for the example we're expected to follow. It can be a little tricky but it's a good balance. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
I may have missed something, since this is not my favorite topic of conversation, but I have yet to read a post on this forum - nor would I particularly wish to read such a post - suggesting that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, nor do I recall seeing any post on this forum advocating any form of church wedding ritual for same-sex couples. Nor do I recall any post on this form advocating the reduction of the age of consent to 12 (I hasten to add, lest I be causing confusion, that I don't advocate such things myself, nor do I know any significant number of people who do - at least in my hearing).
Unfortunately, I have seen a startling number of posts advocating that unspecified but presumably drastic methods be adopted to deny those who would advocate such things the basic right to freedom of speech.
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 249
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 249 |
Originally posted by antonius:
Just a simple, relatively innocuous question can generate the FIERCEST of debates................... What?? You wanna fight about it?!?  Al (a pilgrim who apopogizes for his humorously-intended lapse of courtesy... just couldn't resist the irony!  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Originally posted by incognitus:
Unfortunately, I have seen a startling number of posts advocating that unspecified but presumably drastic methods be adopted to deny those who would advocate such things the basic right to freedom of speech.
Incognitus That is nonsense. If people wish to run around naked and scream obsenities at descent people and pretend sex in front of the world let them do it and pay whatever consequences come. As long as you wish to keep this on a secular level, then why complain about those who spat upon them and hurled raw eggs at them. Big deal. The latter is less worisome than the former. For that matter running around naked and performing acts of lewdness are not acts of free speech by any definition. We know that these people are going to act in this manner why then should we be forced to give them permission to do it. If I wanted to steel a car as an expression of my solidarity with those who don't have one I should have to pay the consequences. I at least shouldn't expect to get permission ahead of time to do it. This is not an issue of free speech. It's an issue of public debauchery and whether or not we are forced to pay for its display. dan l
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790 |
I find Rev Mike's post disingenuous. He comes here, announces that he is formerly Byzantine Catholic, now a liberal Episcopalian clergyman, who then espouses things like women priests and homosexual bishops, and then complains when people are offended that we are not diverse? What he lacks in wisdom he makes up for in nerve.
This place is extremely diverse. We have arguments, sometimes heated, on all sorts of things. I have had extreme disagreements, not always pleasant, with the Administrator, and Dan Lauffer, to name only two. Politically they pretty much line up with Standard Republicanism, and I am to the "left" on things of war and peace, labor, capitalism, and certain other issues apart from the life issues. The thing is that I know both of them hold to the same Faith that I do and our disagreements are not ones of first principles, but only on the application of those principles. I trust they would both say the same of me.
When a liberal Episcopalian, or an ultra-Orthodox or a Roman schismatic shows up we have a different situation. You, Rev Mike, always remind us that you were once one of us. You no longer walk in the path of Apostolic Christianity. As Dan rather indelicately put it you left the true faith. I don't know what your experience in our Church was, or the condition of your heart or conscience, but objectively there you are. You then defend things quite outside the pale of orthodox Christianity, offending many of us.
In fact the Administrator and the Moderators have always welcomed you with great courtesy. You have not been ill-treated by my lights.
Now, if someone showed up on a liberal Episcopalian forum, announced himself a former Episcopalian, now a Catholic clergyman, and proceeded to anathemize the other posters, pronouncing that they should all repent of their errors and embrace the True Faith, how long would he last?
I think you owe everyone an apology.
-Daniel, who only knows one Center, Jesus Christ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
Doc,
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Ungcsertezs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 102
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 102 |
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: Dear Administrator,
Actually, you haven't been to Canada lately, have you?
In fact, our Catholics here are largely liberal (and they vote Liberal too, having confused big "L" with small "l" liberal).
Catholics here are more likely than not to support the principle of secular same-sex marriage and benefits etc. They are more likely to support artificial birth control. If Catholic women in Quebec would stop having abortions, that would really lower the rates up here.
You are absolutely correct - there can be no "middle" or liberal ground on faith and morals.
I just disagree that Catholics (and even Orthodox) are more likely to be "stalwarts" on this than others.
The Episcopal/Anglican church also has its moral/liturgical conservatives.
That Fr. Mike isn't one of them doesn't mean that he represents his entire denomination.
Most of the Anglicans I know would be quite scandalized by what many of their own do.
But, as Fr Mike has said, this doesn't prevent Catholics from joining the Episcopal or Lutheran churches (which are now in full communion with each other, as I understand).
One further point, our liberal Catholics do see their vision of the church as being the "true" and only vision that can be, just as we see otherwise.
The ones I've come across will not be swayed - they are doing their liberalizing work from within the Catholic Church and wait for more "liberal" hierarchical members to come . . . their messiahs . . .
Alex Much could probably be said of the Church in America. What is at issue in such discussions is whether these people have, in fact, left communion with the Church or not. The truth is not determined by majority votes. Neither is the true Church's actual stance determined by what even a majority of her members mistakenly take to be truly Catholic. Just think of the situation that would have resulted if this were the case in the 4th century when Arianism swept up much of the Church! Sadly, many many people have been mistakenly led to believe that dissent on issues of faith and morals is OK while recieving communion. Somewhere our catechesis has failed and it needs fixing. Again, this is why I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are in a much better position to start evangelization because the West has so much wood to prune.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Iconophile,
I say Amen to all you have written. I count you as a brother even though we don't always agree. Now that I have tasted of the beauty power and truth of Eastern Apostolic Christianity I do not understand why anyone would leave this feast for the tasteless oat meal of Protestantism, especially the liberal variety. My center is also Jesus Christ. He is all that matters.
The fact of the matter is I just returned from a marvelous one evening conference featuring Father Loya and Sally Robb on "Heroic Holiness: Spirituality for Everyday Life" and am at once convicted. Not so much for my positions but for wasting time espousing them. Nothing on this thread or on the other thread about parading homosexualists has any value in the Kingdom of God.
In actual fact I have much sorrow for the men and women who have been so tricked by the devil that they have missed the calling of true humanity which is true holiness.
I pray that I will be a better witness to holiness even amongst those who proclaim themselves to be the enemies of Christ and of us who know His love and who are seeking to live in it.
Pray for me, a sinner.
Dan L
Dan L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Father Mike does not owe me an apology for anything, and while his posts are challenging they are also friendly.
Meanwhile, Dan Lauffer has posted the following:
"If people wish to run around naked and scream obsenities at descent people and pretend sex in front of the world let them do it and pay whatever consequences come. As long as you wish to keep this on a secular level, then why complain about those who spat upon them and hurled raw eggs at them. Big deal. The latter is less worisome than the former. For that matter running around naked and performing acts of lewdness are not acts of free speech by any definition. We know that these people are going to act in this manner why then should we be forced to give them permission to do it."
Once more, there are laws to regulate the behavior to which you object, and there are also laws to regulate the manner in which one may register one's objections. In most places of my acquaintance, public nudity is an offense against the law (an obvious exception is, for example, a nudist beach set aside for those who prefer things that way - at least that's my understanding of the legal situation; having never attended such a place I wouldn't claim to know for certain). Shouting obscenities at people in public may not be covered by the freedom of speech laws, but it will be necessary to obtain a legal opinion, which I am not competent to give.
I've only noticed "pretend sex" taking place on the theatrical stage, which I suppose is tolerated provided the prospective members of the audience are alerted to what to expect.
Then of course there are such horrible phenomena as the Jerry Springer show.
I don't need a lawyer to tell me that spitting on people (deliberately, that is) and throwing raw eggs at them is a physical assault, and therefore cannot be defended as an exercise of one's freedom of speech. Nor can it be defended as moral, adult human behavior.
There are serious Eastern Orthodox people who regard the Greek Catholic Churches as "illegal organizations". Following your logic, does this entitle them to confiscate our properties, imprison our bishops, clergy and leading lay people - or even to throw raw eggs at us and spit on us (literally)?
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 129
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 129 |
Originally posted by iconophile:
I find Rev Mike's post disingenuous. He comes here, announces that he is formerly Byzantine Catholic, now a liberal Episcopalian clergyman, who then espouses things like women priests and homosexual bishops, and then complains when people are offended that we are not diverse? What he lacks in wisdom he makes up for in nerve.
This place is extremely diverse. We have arguments, sometimes heated, on all sorts of things. I have had extreme disagreements, not always pleasant, with the Administrator, and Dan Lauffer, to name only two. Politically they pretty much line up with Standard Republicanism, and I am to the "left" on things of war and peace, labor, capitalism, and certain other issues apart from the life issues. The thing is that I know both of them hold to the same Faith that I do and our disagreements are not ones of first principles, but only on the application of those principles. I trust they would both say the same of me.
When a liberal Episcopalian, or an ultra-Orthodox or a Roman schismatic shows up we have a different situation. You, Rev Mike, always remind us that you were once one of us. You no longer walk in the path of Apostolic Christianity. As Dan rather indelicately put it you left the true faith. I don't know what your experience in our Church was, or the condition of your heart or conscience, but objectively there you are. You then defend things quite outside the pale of orthodox Christianity, offending many of us.
In fact the Administrator and the Moderators have always welcomed you with great courtesy. You have not been ill-treated by my lights.
Now, if someone showed up on a liberal Episcopalian forum, announced himself a former Episcopalian, now a Catholic clergyman, and proceeded to anathemize the other posters, pronouncing that they should all repent of their errors and embrace the True Faith, how long would he last?
I think you owe everyone an apology.
-Daniel, who only knows one Center, Jesus Christ A GREAT post, Iconophile !!! I'm about as right-wing as you can get, but I very much enjoy the diverse views expressed on these Forums. It would be no fun at all posting on a Forum where eveyone agreed with everyone else all the time............................. antonius
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Incognitus,
I ask that you pray for me as I pray for you.
Dan L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207 |
Once more, there are laws to regulate the behavior to which you object, and there are also laws to regulate the manner in which one may register one's objections. In most places of my acquaintance, public nudity is an offense against the law (an obvious exception is, for example, a nudist beach set aside for those who prefer things that way - at least that's my understanding of the legal situation; having never attended such a place I wouldn't claim to know for certain). Shouting obscenities at people in public may not be covered by the freedom of speech laws, but it will be necessary to obtain a legal opinion, which I am not competent to give.
I've only noticed "pretend sex" taking place on the theatrical stage, which I suppose is tolerated provided the prospective members of the audience are alerted to what to expect.
Then of course there are such horrible phenomena as the Jerry Springer show.
I don't need a lawyer to tell me that spitting on people (deliberately, that is) and throwing raw eggs at them is a physical assault, and therefore cannot be defended as an exercise of one's freedom of speech. Nor can it be defended as moral, adult human behavior. I'm really dismayed at the "tolerance" expressed by people on this forum of that which is a mockery of God. Fifty years ago, if a "gay pride" group organized a parade in any town in America, the townspeople would not have permitted it. Period. They would have organized and stopped it. And they would have been within their consitutional rights to do so, because they were rightly defending the morals of their community from lewd behavior. Fifty years ago, if the men of a town discovered a back alley abortionist in their neighborhood, they would physically drag the SOB out and turn him over to the police. And the police would have thrown the SOB in jail. Today, "gay pride parades" and abortion clinics are given state protection. When the citizens in a community in eastern europe tried to prevent a gay pride parade where it is not wanted, and the sodomists carried it on anyhow, one can expect extremists on both sides to cause problems. The gay pride parade precipitated some egg throwing and spitting. Yes, that was wrong. Boo hoo. Look how evil and intolerant those "Christians" are. Give me a break! What changed in the US Constitution to permit this here in our country? What has changed in God's Laws in the past half century that "God's people" tolerate these crimes that cry out to God for vengence? Nothing. Abortion and "gay pride" advocacy are both as reprehensible today as they were 50 years ago. The only thing that has changed is that "Christians" now not only "tolerate" but promote and defend such deviant behavior in their midst. This is most disconcerting when it comes from the keyboard of so-called "Byzantine Christians."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
Just wondering what people think of the Mardi Gras/Carnivale parades that take place in "preparation" for Lent. Shouldn't those be banned by the citizens as well? From what I've seen and heard of them, they're not exactly any different than what has been described about gay pride parades? And...they're much better attended!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2 |
Dan is absolutely correct ! and I'll add that until one has seen a Gay Pride parade first hand, there comments will lack a certain amount of validity. I have viewed the Chicago one in person, watched filmed footage, photo stills, spoken to a journalist friend who covered it, a woman who lived along the parade route, and even an embarrassed participant and the story is the same. I'm sorry to be so disgustingly graphic, but sadly for those who may have any doubts at all, the so called Gay Pride parade in Chicago has included public nudity, men fondling each others genitalia, simulated sex, men pulling other handcuffed men down the street on leashes, men kneeling and licking other mens motorcycle boots, men spanking each other and host of other displays of perversion. Not so surprisingly though when you see ABC News re-broadcast of the parade you just see the Gay Democrats, and the Gay hospital workers, and marching bands etc. Such a perverse spectacle was never intended to be protected under the 1st Amendment.
Doc Brian
You hit the nail on the head brother !
Incognitus
I'm quite shocked that you would draw a comparison between Gay Pride marchers and Greek Catholics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191 Likes: 3 |
Doc and John K,
The decline of public decency and the pssivity of Christians are very lamentable. Let us be strong to do what we can for the latter in our own lives and in the lives of those we love and pray that it has a convicting effect upon the former. John 16 comes to mind here.
Lawrence,
You are quite right. I pray for Incognitus. He does not know what he is doing and saying.
Dan L
|
|
|
|
|
