T
ThatOrthodoxGuy
Guest
Orthodoxy does not see Eastern Catholics as OrthodoxThe Byzantine Catholics say something similar to this…
Orthodoxy does not see Eastern Catholics as OrthodoxThe Byzantine Catholics say something similar to this…
That is one thing about which both of our Churches agree upon.Orthodoxy does not see Eastern Catholics as Orthodox
Understood, yet they chant similar prayers with similar intent…who knows what is seen as…the Lord looks down from heaven and sees His people…Orthodoxy does not see Eastern Catholics as Orthodox
1The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
2The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.
3They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.
His people call upon the Lord…4Do all the workers of wickedness not know, Who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, [And] do not call upon the Lord?
We will never understand the mind of GodUnderstood, yet they chant similar prayers with similar intent…who knows what is seen as…the Lord looks down from heaven and sees His people…
His people call upon the Lord…
You forgot what comes before and what comes after…We will never understand the mind of God
Isaiah 55:8-9
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.
**6Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.
7Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. **
8"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
9"For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
**10"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
Catholic & Orthodox seek the Lord…and the Lord will accomplish what He desires even if it is the unity that Francis works for and those that want division do not understand…11So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding [in the matter] for which I sent it. **
And how exactly have I done this?Brendan is twisting the Church’s teaching to fit his ideology.
I’m not stretching anything, I’m simply using the commonly held understanding and usage of the term as backed up by the definition in Webster’s dictionary. If you wish to create your own definition then that’s your choice, but I would suspect that the definitions contained in the likes of the Websters, or the Oxford English dictionaries might be more reliable than yours.I disagree…I have an irrational fear of whatever…then
I avoid…aversion, avoid…
Discriminate…I say things, write things, deny things
Are you suggesting that a phobia, knowing that you have an aversion to, want to get away from you then murder?
I believe you are stretching the word “phobia” beyond fear to other than fear.
Implying that a law designed to protect public morality constitutes “unjust discrimination”.And how exactly have I done this?
If you are going to make an accusation like this then please be specific.
Great post as always. The only part I disagree with was the last part of your post. Nothing would happen if somebody were to pervert children’s minds on this topic here in the US, Ridgerunner. Absolutely nothing. Some conservatives would write angry letters and they would be ridiculed and laughed at and then ignored. The book below is read in some US schools by children 5-8 years old. This is what the Russians are trying to prevent.The article doesn’t quote the whole law, so we don’t know what it says in detail. The article cites it as providing the following:
"The bill provides for Russian citizens engaged in the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” to be fined, while foreigners could be arrested and immediately deported.
The law defines the concept as “spreading information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children, suggesting this behaviour is attractive, and making a false statement about the socially equal nature of traditional and non-traditional relationships”.
Now, one can say what one wants about Russians generally, whether the average Russian hates homosexuals or would kill them if they could. I haven’t seen any evidence of that on here yet, but it could be true for all I know. I don’t know what the average Russian actually thinks about it. From a previous post of a purported poll, most Russians appear not to like homosexuality or its overt manifestations, but a relative few would actually do anything violent. I also think Putin himself is a villain and a dictator. But that doesn’t mean this law says anything other than what it says.
Alll this law appears to punish by fine is the above. Unless somebody comes up with better information than the article provides, I don’t see where the prohibited acts are a whole lot different from what the Catholic Church considers grave evils. Some could get one in trouble with the law even here in the U.S., depending on how one did them. Spread “information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children” pictorially and see what happense to you.
I don’t think there is a solid definition and I agree that usage is important. Reality is that a phobia is a fear and if you read from Wikipedia, my lease favorite source see what happens…I’m not stretching anything, I’m simply using the commonly held understanding and usage of the term as backed up by the definition in Webster’s dictionary. If you wish to create your own definition then that’s your choice, but I would suspect that the definitions contained in the likes of the Websters, or the Oxford English dictionaries might be more reliable than yours.
Pulling words apart like that and looking at exactly what the root parts actually translate to doesn’t work. The English language evolves and the meaning of words moves to reflect general usage and understanding of the words, it isn’t set in stone over time where definitions rigidly reflect the actual translations of the root parts of the words.
So by your definition of homophobia there can be no such thing as homophobic attacks on people, no homophobic bullying, no homophobic murders?
Homophobia encompasses a range of **negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed **as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[1][2][3][4][5]
Notice how the leap is made from negative attitudes and feelings to expression in antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion or hatred based on irrational fear…then notice how it is observed…in violence. It just does not make sense.Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.
Russia and the Russian Orthodox do not adhere to the entirety of the Catechism you quote. It is for Roman Catholics…here is what they follow…And Putin is doing this out of his urge to address a moral issue?
Absolutely not. The Church calls that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358).
Do you think that Putin is considering how he can foster a culture of respect, compassion, and sensitivity towards homosexuals?
How much respect, compassion and sensitivity do you think there is, amongst the Russian populace, for homosexuals?
On 2000-AUG-15, the Church “adopted a strictly conservative social policy platform that contained harsh criticisms of homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion and artificial insemination. The social policy platform was adopted at jubilee-year meeting of the Council of Bishops, an assembly of top Orthodox clergy, held at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior.” This is the church’s first “formal pronouncement on contemporary social issues” since the fall of the USSR. 1
The policy statement included the following:
“The Holy Bible and the Church doctrine unequivocally condemn homosexual ties as a perverse distortion of the God-given nature of the human being.”
Homosexuality is “a sinful injury to human nature.” (We assume that they are referring to homosexual behavior here, and not homosexual orientation or feelings.)
Homosexuality is to be “treated by sacraments, prayer, fasting, repentance and the reading of the Holy Scripture.”
**"…people advocating homosexual practices should not be allowed to carry out teaching or educational work with children or young people or take positions of authority in the army or in penitentiary institutions." We suspect that the term “advocating” here refers to persons who promote the belief that homosexual behavior is normal and natural for that minority of adults who have a homosexual orientation. **
They oppose same-sex marriage.
and this…“Discussions about the so-called sexual minorities in the modern society tend to recognize homosexuality not as a sexual perversion, but only as one of the ‘sexual orientations’, one that has an equal right for public demonstration and respect. Bearing pastoral responsibility for people with homosexual inclinations, the church at the same time decisively opposes attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and even more, a subject of pride and an example to be followed.” 2,3
Essay by Priest Seraphim Holland: 4
Seaphim Holland of the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas in Dallas TX makes the following points:
To have a homosexual orientation is not sinful. However, “we must struggle, fast, pray, and do everything within our power (with the help of God), to humble ourselves, and to uproot our passions, with great labour and toil. If a man is not struggling to do these things, he is not gaining the kingdom of heaven.”
All sexual impurities, such as homosexual behavior, are serious sins. The degree of sin is greater than that which results from a man and woman engaging in fornication (i.e. sex outside of marriage).
This is just in the eyes of the Russian Orthodox Church. Who are you to say what is and is not just for the Russian Orthodox?A gay or lesbian who has a same-sex encounter, and who does not repent of the act, commits a sin which separates themselves from God and their guardian angel.
“Any man can change - he can stop being a drunkard, or liar, or homosexual, or blasphemer, or pagan, or anything else, with God’s help.”
Yeah, some of us Westerners don’t appreciate the liberalism of our co-religionists, either.I just don’t understand people sometimes :banghead: Russia is not the west. They are tired of the unmoral everything is a gray area, that the west is shoving down peoples throat. I for one am tired of it also
“Homophobia” is a word invented by liberals five minutes ago. (“But it’s in the dictionary!!!” Duh. So is “McJob.”) It’s about as Catholic a concept as “gay rights,” which is to say it’s not at all a Catholic concept at all but a category of speech designed to frustrate rational thought and redirect conversation from the actual substantive content to the faults (real or imagined) of its participants, a concept which has no place in a Catholic’s moral understanding of the universe.I’m not stretching anything, I’m simply using the commonly held understanding and usage of the term as backed up by the definition in Webster’s dictionary. If you wish to create your own definition then that’s your choice, but I would suspect that the definitions contained in the likes of the Websters, or the Oxford English dictionaries might be more reliable than yours.
Pulling words apart like that and looking at exactly what the root parts actually translate to doesn’t work. The English language evolves and the meaning of words moves to reflect general usage and understanding of the words, it isn’t set in stone over time where definitions rigidly reflect the actual translations of the root parts of the words.
So by your definition of homophobia there can be no such thing as homophobic attacks on people, no homophobic bullying, no homophobic murders?
You must be a homophobe based on this statement.Yeah, some of us Westerners don’t appreciate the liberalism of our co-religionists, either.
“Homophobia” is a word invented by liberals five minutes ago. (“But it’s in the dictionary!!!” Duh. So is “McJob.”) It’s about as Catholic a concept as “gay rights,” which is to say it’s not at all a Catholic concept at all but a category of speech designed to frustrate rational thought and redirect conversation from the actual substantive content to the faults (real or imagined) of its participants, a concept which has no place in a Catholic’s moral understanding of the universe.
I will never, ever, ever understand why, when Catholicism and liberalism are in conflict, so many people opt for liberalism.
And you must be one too.You must be a homophobe based on this statement.
No, I have no fear of homosexuals therefore I have no phobia…having no phobia I am disqualified.And you must be one too.
But you’re still a homophobe because you adhere to the sane definition of marriage.No, I have no fear of homosexuals therefore I have no phobia…having no phobia I am disqualified.
what is the sane definition of marriage?But you’re still a homophobe because you adhere to the sane definition of marriage.![]()
But most Orthodox wish to remain separate for now Vatican 1 an 2 would need to be removed before anything could really begin.You forgot what comes before and what comes after…
Catholic & Orthodox seek the Lord…and the Lord will accomplish what He desires even if it is the unity that Francis works for and those that want division do not understand…
Which parts of the Vatican Councils would need to be repealed?But most Orthodox wish to remain separate for now Vatican 1 an 2 would need to be replied before the anything could really begin.
All of Vatican 2 And papal infallibility In Vatican 1Which parts of the Vatican Councils would need to be repealed?