Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden

[Ohorseman]

That text seems to be more in line with what appears to be your preferred subject.

I wrote, “it is not my preferred subject” (we were referring to the subject of women preachers). Let me explain it better.

One day something happened to my little girl :

Here is the background. In the USA, Obama passed the same-sex marriage act in 2015. This overturned all the states that had in their state constitutions marriage protection amendments. It was common for states to have this, and even liberal California had one, until the liberal federal courts overturned the vote of the people. And liberals say that we can’t legislate morality.

Next, Obama signed executive orders that essentially required that all schools in the USA had to let students use the bathroom of their choice. This forced a national conversation. We had companies, like Target for example, letting people use whatever bathroom they want.

THEN, in school, a liberal male teacher had a class discussion about letting students use the bathroom of their choice. He publicly ridiculed my 12 year old daughter about her being uncomfortable with boys in the bathroom with her, to the point that she was in tears and did not want to go back to school. Eventually, girls are getting their breasts cut off. Boys are getting their penis cut off. Our children are taking so-called puberty blockers and hormones of the opposite sex. Teachers like that liberal teacher that bullied my daughter, and other adults, are encouraging this. Seriously, this is what has been happening in the USA. Do we just eat the rainbow fruit?

It happened to Elon Musk’s son - and that is when he decided to destroy what he called “the woke mind virus”. Praise God for Elon. Fortunately, my two daughters did not get pulled into LGBT. But, unfortunately, at this time I have a 14 year old niece that wants to be a boy. No surgeries yet. Thank God that Trump won and I pray he shuts down that demonic factory.

So, I did not pick this subject. It picked me. And it is the heresy of our times. The church has fully participated in LGBTQ by letting women wear the robes of a priest and behave like a man before the church, rather than follow the instructions in the Bible for how we organize the family and church. The church followed Satan and the world when it preferred diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) over obedience to God’s word. The church participated in blurring the gender lines. And because it altered what we call traditional church teachings on gender and gender roles, they consequentially blurred the sexuality lines, because they created the slippery slope of compromise of the scriptures.

And we fool ourselves if we think it is about women’s rights. A woman that preaches to men is like that dude that pretended he was a girl so that he could swim on the women’s swim team. Both are gender bending. Both are out of order. So, this is about more than women priestesses and such. See it.

+++​

I think you're stretching it's meaning towards the LGBTQ movement when Eve actually shares many qualities of Mary Magdalene in that moment.

It's not a stretch. You see it that way because you THINK I am trying to stretch what Woman did in Eden to connect directly with LGBTQ. No. I connect it to the Anointed Cherub's pride, then feminist pride, then gay pride. BTW, her name was "Woman", not Eve. Adam named her Woman, and then Adam re-named her to Eve AFTER they sinned in Eden.

How is Eve like Mary Magdalene, as you claim?

It would have made a lot more sense if you titled your thread so the topic is clearly about the problem LGBTQ.

No. That's only part of it. It is about PRIDE. The pride of the Anointed Cherub, feminist pride, & gay pride. This pride causes them all to move outside of their God-given identities. So did Adam, but in his case it was effeminacy.

You might be confused by me using that word, "effeminacy". Naked Adam did not dress like a girl or walk around with a limp wrist, or anything like that. But Adam did not remain in his God-given identity as "keeper" of Eden, but that was his job as man. Keeper. Protector. But he was impotent to this call. He disobeyed God when he did not keep the garden and ate the forbidden fruit that his helper gave him.

 

[jas3]

So, I did not pick this subject. It picked me. And it is the heresy of our times. The church has fully participated in LGBTQ by letting women wear the robes of a priest and behave like a man before the church, rather than follow the instructions in the Bible for how we organize the family and church. The church followed Satan and the world when it preferred diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) over obedience to God’s word. The church participated in blurring the gender lines. And because it altered what we call traditional church teachings on gender and gender roles, they consequentially blurred the sexuality lines, because they created the slippery slope of compromise of the scriptures.

Well, the Church didn't. A multitude of Protestant denominations certainly have.

 

[RamiC]

So, I did not pick this subject. It picked me. And it is the heresy of our times. The church has fully participated in LGBTQ by letting women wear the robes of a priest and behave like a man before the church, rather than follow the instructions in the Bible for how we organize the family and church. The church followed Satan and the world when it preferred diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) over obedience to God’s word. The church participated in blurring the gender lines. And because it altered what we call traditional church teachings on gender and gender roles, they consequentially blurred the sexuality lines, because they created the slippery slope of compromise of the scriptures.

Thank you for sharing your story, it really helps me understand why you feel so strongly.

I happen to see a big problem with the "trans" thing myself, I just do not share your opinion that a woman who says she is a woman doing a thing women have not always been able to do for whatever reason, is being "trans". I may know more about the "trans" thing than you think. I believe it is going to be revealed as a massive error in society as a whole.

Have you ever imagined how you might feel if your daughter's distress had not been caused by "trans" DEI policy? If she had been saying that she wanted to be an engineer, and been told that she could not do that, because it equated to being gay/dominating men/unbiblical?

What if she believed in total complentarianism and was abused by her husband, and thought she must be a bad wife because her husband said so, and he is the "authority"?

And we fool ourselves if we think it is about women’s rights.

Women have rights. "Trans" is not women...that is a huge part of the point.

 

[The Liturgist]

The church has fully participated in LGBTQ by letting women wear the robes of a priest and behave like a man before the church, rather than follow the instructions in the Bible for how we organize the family and church.

That’s a conflation of two completely different issues. And I say this as someone who is from a denomination which does not have female presbyters (but the wives of married presbyters, who are a majority of our priests, serve as presbyteras, a non-liturgical leadership role in the congregation), and which is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and trans-sexuality.

But I cannot endorse your statement that denominations that have women in ministerial roles that correspond with that of priest or pastor are, just by virtue of that, engaging in homosexuality, because it’s not true. It is also a libelous accusation to say that all female clergy are engaging in some kind of homosexual behavior by engaging in ministry.

Also given your view, I don’t understand why you are a member of ACNA, which ordains women, when there are Continuing Anglican churches available that do not, but then again one major way in which Orthodoxy differs from ACNA and other broad-church Anglican groups is that we don’t believe that communion is possible without doctrinal agreement.

 

[Ohorseman]

Thank you for sharing your story, it really helps me understand why you feel so strongly.

I happen to see a big problem with the "trans" thing myself, I just do not share your opinion that a woman who says she is a woman doing a thing women have not always been able to do for whatever reason, is being "trans". I may know more about the "trans" thing than you think. I believe it is going to be revealed as a massive error in society as a whole.

Have you ever imagined how you might feel if your daughter's distress had not been caused by "trans" DEI policy? If she had been saying that she wanted to be an engineer, and been told that she could not do that, because it equated to being gay/dominating men/unbiblical?

What if she believed in total complentarianism and was abused by her husband, and thought she must be a bad wife because her husband said so, and he is the "authority"?

It's worse than your realize, sister. Much, much worse. As a woman, this below should concern you greatly.

Don't think that an entire feminist pride movement and overturning the Bible is justified because some men are abusive. Should we stop referring to Christ as the Bridegroom and the church as Bride, because some husbands are abusive. Should we end fatherhood because some guys are bad dads and even abusive. Should we stop referring to Our Father in heaven as a Father, because we have bad examples and failures here on hearth.

No. A father calls us forward to be the best that we can be, out of the mistakes of the past. This is why we call God our Father, and not mother. Mothers are different. They take care of and nurture, which is fine until the hard things come. Both are according to God’s design. Yes, I know this is an oversimplification. Even so, fathers, please stand up.

What is worse, abortion or war?

Since 1973, Roe vs. Wade, in the USA:
63 million deaths by abortion

Compared to all USA wars combined:
1.1 million deaths by war

Abortions kill more than bullets and bombs. There were 1 million abortions in USA in 2023 alone. These are the USA numbers, and the global numbers will blow your mind. But we are okay with it, because the blood runs unseen down the drain of an abortion clinic rather than being spilled in the street in plain sight by a soldier’s gunshot or bomb. Abortions' blood is now the fuel for women’s liberation. This is true, because if a woman gets pregnant, being a mother becomes primary. So, birth control and abortions are the great equalizers of the sexes. This new feminist and gay power system is far deadlier than the patriarchy has ever even thought about. But it is what you would expect when you let the god of this world run things.

Yep, I don’t care if my daughter can’t be an engineer. I taught my daughters that they can be valued, successful, and even loved by being a woman, and by doing things that women do, and not by acting like a man. Adam should have told Woman (Eve) that he was the keeper of the garden and contended with the serpent, not her. It was not her place. According to Deut. 22:5, “a woman should not wear that which pertaineth to a man” - and this includes a soldier’s uniform, the robes of a priest, and maybe even the cockpit of a blackhawk helicopter.

Women have rights. "Trans" is not women...that is a huge part of the point.

But you have no authority to say that trans are not women, because you change the Bible and the reality that it describes to suit you, so why can't they do the same? Nor can you suggest that trans and gay have no rights. They do, because feminist pride gave them their rights. If you remove all the scriptures about gender and gender roles, about headship in the family and church... so you can have girl bosses and girl engineers... then you must also remove all the verses against gay, even trans. Don't you see. You can't just pick and choose. Change these, but not those. To be trans and gay, they are only affecting themselves. At least they do not kill millions of the unborn so that they can gain equal standing or power. I hope your are starting see, this is about more than women preachers and LGBT.

 

[Ohorseman]

That’s a conflation of two completely different issues. And I say this as someone who is from a denomination which does not have female presbyters (but the wives of married presbyters, who are a majority of our priests, serve as presbyteras, a non-liturgical leadership role in the congregation), and which is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and trans-sexuality.

But I cannot endorse your statement that denominations that have women in ministerial roles that correspond with that of priest or pastor are, just by virtue of that, engaging in homosexuality, because it’s not true. It is also a libelous accusation to say that all female clergy are engaging in some kind of homosexual behavior by engaging in ministry.

Also given your view, I don’t understand why you are a member of ACNA, which ordains women, when there are Continuing Anglican churches available that do not, but then again one major way in which Orthodoxy differs from ACNA and other broad-church Anglican groups is that we don’t believe that communion is possible without doctrinal agreement.

No, there is nothing libelous here. I am not conflating 2 different issues. You think that because you have some slight misunderstandings. I am not suggesting that a female priest or pastor is engaging in homosexual behavior. Not at all. I don't think I have written anything that claims that. I am saying that female priests or pastors have their identity in something that is the role of a man. And if they wear the robes of a priest, they are cross-dressing (Deut.22:5). That is transgender behavior, gender bending. But it is not homosexual behavior. There are transgender men that have sex with women. I knew a guy that was transgender and married to a woman. There is also a priest that was transgender and married to another priest that was female. Some are straight, some gay, & some bi. No joke. Do you better understand? Think about it more, and if you still think I am conflating, please explain.

I explained why I am in the ACNA in a previous post. It is not as you think. We basically have 2 denominations in 1. One side has WO. One does not. It's a wobbly arrangement that could result in a split at anytime.

 

[RamiC]

No, there is nothing libelous here.

I think there is, and you posted it.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is transgender behavior, gender bending.

That’s just as bad an accusation, since you have by extension accused, for example, female aviators, of gender bending.

 

[RamiC]

That’s just as bad an accusation, since you have by extension accused, for example, female aviators, of gender bending.

"Deut. 22:5, “a woman should not wear that which pertaineth to a man” - and this includes a soldier’s uniform, the robes of a priest, and maybe even the cockpit of a blackhawk helicopter" from post #45.

And wearing helicopters!

 

[The Liturgist]

"Deut. 22:5, “a woman should not wear that which pertaineth to a man” - and this includes a soldier’s uniform, the robes of a priest, and maybe even the cockpit of a blackhawk helicopter" from post #45.

And wearing helicopters!

Yes I was not aware one could wear the flight deck or cockpit of a helicopter, especially one that seats two passengers.

And if the idea is that women are incompetent at aviation, I can cite numerous examples of excellent female pilots. Indeed my instructor was a lovely lady in her 40s who owned a Cessna 172 Skylane (as I was ten at the time, I was too small to reach the rudder pedals on a 172, so my instruction was in the Cessna 152).

 

[RamiC]

I explained why I am in the ACNA in a previous post. It is not as you think. We basically have 2 denominations in 1. One side has WO. One does not. It's a wobbly arrangement that could result in a split at anytime.

You are not Orthodox because...?

 

[Ohorseman]

View attachment 360673

I think there is, and you posted it.

"Deut. 22:5, “a woman should not wear that which pertaineth to a man” - and this includes a soldier’s uniform, the robes of a priest, and maybe even the cockpit of a blackhawk helicopter" from post #45.

And wearing helicopters!

Yes, RamiC, you can wear a helicopter.

LOL. You guys are funny. RamiC, you understand that commandment about as well as you understand 1 Cor. 11:1-16. I’m joking, so please don’t be offended.

But, yes, you can indeed wear a blackhawk helicopter. And you can wear a tank. They are a type of outer garment. It is like the armor of a knight, but instead of having a sword and spear, they have bombs and bullets, and can fly in the case of the blackhawk helicopter. They are war machines that you basically wear, metaphorically speaking. You have to think in a more symbolic way to understand. I don’t think women should fight in war. I see this to be going against what the Bible teaches. A man is called to love his wife like Christ loved to church, to die for her. Women are called to obey and submit to their husbands, but they are not called to die for men.

Women are more valuable than men. Man was made of the earth, the dirt. But the woman was made of a higher substance. She was made from the side of Adam, AFTER God breathed His spirit into the man - and so she was made of a substance elevated by God Himself. The nursery rhyme about boys being made of snips, snails and puppy dog tails (dirt) and girls of sugar, spice & everything nice (consecrated substance)… there is an amount of truth to that, symbolically speaking.

Wearing the position of a man: it is this way with a usual Protestant type female pastor that heads a church - she is wearing a position, the position of a man according to the Bible. Think in terms of the symbolic. It is like her outer garment. Westerners have shortcomings when it comes to thinking in the symbolic. And the image or meaning is even worse if it is a liturgical church with a priestess, because she literally wears the clothes of a man.

As far as me being libel, no, I have made no false claims about a person.

 

[Ohorseman]

That’s just as bad an accusation, since you have by extension accused, for example, female aviators, of gender bending.

Caitlyn Jenner and Lia Thomas are NOT homosexuals - they have never dated another man.

The Liturgist, you are a smart guy. I can tell that from your posts. Even so, you are the one conflating. The facts about Jenner and Thomas prove that you are wrong. Cross-dressing, gender bending, and transgender are not always about being homosexual, but even so they are sinful.

Maybe you should learn from Jonathan Pageau, another EO. He will teach you at his YouTube channel to think more symbolically - he taught me. It is how the writers of the Bible thought and it will benefit your understanding of the scriptures. As you know, for 1500 years Christians participated in the faith not by READING pages of a book but by RELATIONSHIP with the church - the Saints, Sacraments, Priest, etc. Today, it’s more about READING. They thought, talked, and wrote in a manner that was more symbolic and poetic.

But today, here in the West, we spend much of our time arguing about words, going against 2 Timothy 2:14.

LGBT and maybe Q is about leaving their God-given identities. That is easy to see. Men and women also step out of their God-given identities. This one is harder for us to see, especially in the West, because we are so very egalitarian. Sometimes to see things, we have to go to the extreme, into something that breaks the Western woke matrix....

Most will agree that a man should not be the sole caretaker in a children’s nursery. If a dude had a daycare, and he was the only one that ran it, would you drop your kids off there? I wouldn’t. To me, it’s weird, for lots of reasons.

Likewise, if you have a worldview that is based in the unaltered scriptures of the Bible, it is also weird when a woman is a priest or pastor, teaches men, leads in the Eucharist, judges prophecy, wears priestly robes, washes men’s feet, hears confessions of sins, blesses the laity, etc. etc. This is out of line with the scriptures, with a few exceptions. In many faith traditions, we call the guy that is the head of the church “father”, just like we refer to God as “Father”. Paul did it too. Some dislike doing that because of something Jesus said. Even so, it communicates a role, it is symbolic. To put a woman in that place is like placing a man to run a nursery.

A man running a child's nursery is gender bending. If the man running the nursery puts on a dress so that he looks like the kids’ mommies to make the kids more comfortable, now he is cross-dressing. It is even transgender behavior. From the traditional view, this is what women do when they become the head of a church. See it.

 

[Ohorseman]

The background of the art depicts the fall of the Anointed Cherub and the third of the angels that fell with him. The dark and collapsing angels can be seen within what looks like lightning, which is Satan himself falling from heaven. The holy angels of light are not captured in the lightning and they are colored the colors of the rainbow. But in this case, the colors are in the proper order. Though to the naked eye they look white, the stars are actually colored many different beautiful colors. Only outside of the holy order of heaven is the meaning of these colors distorted and inverted from good to bad by the devil, his demons, and the people that follow them.

We are created as male and female in the image of God, and all that have faith and were baptized in Christ are children of God, with salvation assured no matter our earthly distinctions (Galatians 3:26-28). NEVERTHELESS, even before angels fell and Eden was lost, different roles or identities were made for us, according to the Divine order, an order that shines forth from the heavens and lays itself out in all the earth. Remaining in our male and female distinctions as we live, move, and have our being in God is true obedience and high worship, and to do otherwise is to deface God's image, to demons' delight. Women's ordination is a disorder because men and women fall out of their God-given identities. It is an echo of angels falling and Eden lost.

The scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is our high priest and that He is the new Adam. We see Adam as a priest because he mediated between earth and God. We see this mediation when Adam named the animals, gave his body up for the creation of the woman, and walked with God in Eden during the cool of the day. In these things, Adam was fulfilling the role of a priest. But then, the woman unwittingly mediated between earth and the serpent. She opened the door to idolatry, to worshiping creation rather than the Creator. And a women priestess also opens the door to idolatry, to worshiping creation rather than the Creator - or at least worshiping created things along side the Creator, like when the Israelites worshiped on the high places rather than according to God’s instructions. The DEI stuff, that's human made idols. Remember what Paul taught us about idols.

The idea that the woman in Eden became a type of pagan priestess is within the boundaries of scriptures and has a stronger basis than the many things that progressives claim to justify women preaching and having authority over men. There is a long list of examples where progressives stretch the scriptures beyond their original meanings and even heavily rely on sources outside of the Bible.

I cannot look at a woman priestess, usually with her hair cut off, wearing the collar of authority rather than the cover of obedience to God (1 Cor. 11) and NOT think of the disorder and idolatry. I can’t unsee what I see. And unlike the progressives that alter the scriptures to justify their disordered egalitarianism and LGBTQ sinful inclusivities, their DEI, (all idols) I’m staying within the boundaries of Holy Scriptures and the traditional teachings of the Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Cross-dressing, gender bending, and transgender are not always about being homosexual, but even so they are sinful.

I didn’t say that they were about cross-dressing, but my point is that your attack on female aviators as being gender-benders is completely unwarranted. Pilots do not wear their aircraft (except for the exception of, maybe, a para-sail, a powered parachute glider, or a jetpack) and the idea that, for instance, a female airline pilot is somehow sinning by virtue of her profession is entirely wrong and offensive.

 

[The Liturgist]

LGBT and maybe Q is about leaving their God-given identities. That is easy to see. Men and women also step out of their God-given identities. This one is harder for us to see, especially in the West, because we are so very egalitarian. Sometimes to see things, we have to go to the extreme.

I agree that trans-sexual behavior is as immoral, indeed, more immoral, than homosexuality, insofar as it can involve the mutliation of the genitals. This renders the individual infertile, destroying their reproductive capability. Canon I of the Council of Nicaea prohibits any man who has castrated himself voluntarily except where medically necessary (for example, due to cancer or injury) from receiving Holy Orders, that is to say, being ordained to any office.

But there is a huge difference between that, and saying that female airline pilots are gender-bending.

Additionally, I reject the idea that female clergy in denominations that have them are engaging in transvestitism. While my church does not ordain women, but instead makes them presbyteras and schemanuns, which are frankly better jobs, since someone tonsured in the great schema is more spiritually important in the Orthodox Church than bishops, I am friends with a number of female clergy who are entirely moral and upright.

 

[RamiC]

Yes, RamiC, you can wear a helicopter.

No, it is not a garment.

1 Cor. 11:1-16.

I cover my head in church.

 

[Ohorseman]

I didn’t say that they were about cross-dressing, but my point is that your attack on female aviators as being gender-benders is completely unwarranted. Pilots do not wear their aircraft (except for the exception of, maybe, a para-sail, a powered parachute glider, or a jetpack) and the idea that, for instance, a female airline pilot is somehow sinning by virtue of her profession is entirely wrong and offensive.

No. You are adding your own ideas, and choosing to be offended by your own ideas. Those are not my ideas. I referred to a female piloting a Blackhawk helicopter, a war machine, that she metaphorically wears if she goes into battle. I think it is against the Bible for a woman to go to war. Men should. If you disagree, that's up to you.

Sorry guys, I have to get to work. I enjoy exchanging ideas with you guys but I will have to respond later.

 

[RamiC]

disordered egalitarianism

Strange, because I believe "trans" is a disorder.

I am neither egalitarian nor complentarian.

and LGBTQ sinful inclusivities, their DEI, (all idols) I’m staying within the boundaries of Holy Scriptures and the traditional teachings of the Church.

I do believe either gender can make their own gender an idol. It seems to be what is happening when people quote a few selected verses of the Bible, extrapolate and exaggerate from them to justify claiming authority for themselves over things, which in reality are under God's own.

 

[Ohorseman]

You clearly would not ask, because I am a woman and if you now ask, you would have allowed yourself to be lead by a woman.

You and I having a conversation is not you being in authority over or teaching me, even if I learn something from you. The scriptures are referring to position, not conversation. Now, if I placed myself under you as a disciple, and you were my teacher, then this would not be Biblical. It would be okay for other women and even children, both boys and girls, but not men. This relates to the nature of male and female, which is not merely a social construct. The idea that it is a human construct is a denial that God made us male and female, as well as Genesis 2:22-25, a holy order created even before the Fall. Worldwide children declare this daily - “out of the mouth of babes”, as Christ said.

No, it is not a garment.

It is a garment. Again, it is using metaphorical language. The Bible uses such language. For example:

Galatians 3:26​

"You were all baptized into Christ, and so you were all clothed with Christ". ​

Now, we know that Christ is not an actual clothing, in the natural way of thinking.

Isaiah 61:3​

"To console those who mourn in Zion, to give them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness".​

Now, we know that praise is not an actual garment. Garment or clothing represents what we put on and wear. It’s symbolic language being used here. Being clothed in Christ or wearing the garment of praise is about embodiment, a state of being.

If you can’t get the right side of your brain turned on and understand symbolic language, as a reference point, you could think of a knight in shining armor. He is fully encased in his metal armor. Shield, sword, lance, mace, cross-bow. Riding a horse, also covered in armor. The man is basically wearing his war machine. In his case it is more literal.

Someone driving a tank or flying a blackhawk is a modern day version of that. I think sending women into battle to fight to the death is against what the Bible teaches. Generally speaking, men should do that.

Deut. 22:5 actually says “a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man”. So, the Bible is not limiting this to only a physical garment, even from the mundane view. She should not wear things that pertain to men, to include position or role - that is an embodiment, a state of being. Likewise, if a woman is a priest, she is embodying that which pertains to a man - the Bible says so in many places as I have already pointed out. If she wears his priestly robes and collar of authority, then she is literally wearing that which pertains to a man. She has usurped a position, a position that we call “father”, and have done so for a long, long time.