Creeping Liberalism

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks. I am to please.

I know OINO is a joke - I think it is a bad one.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In general, the heresy of individualism has infiltrated the Church in our time, the idea that all issues are merely "between a person and their spiritual father/confessor" is symptomatic of that. If everything depends upon individual conceptions and circumstances, then there is no such thing as Church teaching; "Church teaching" becomes, not an objective thing that can be demonstrated by Scripture, the fathers, and Church practice, but a subjective thing, determined exclusively by the individual.

There is something here I wish I could comment on, but I'm afraid that while I understand it on a basic level, I find it very difficult to articulate.

I'm thinking of what St. Nikolai Velimrovich first introduced me to, but I've since heard a number of priests speak on it. It has to do with all of us as community, as body, and that everything we do - even a "little" sin we might commit in private, has an effect on the entire body. I'm told it is part of why we come for Reconciliation, because our sin is not only against ourselves, against God, but against the entire community, even if they don't know about it.

That kind of thinking makes me question the limits of something being between oneself and one's confessor only. I'm not talking about a confessor violating privacy - God forbid! But I don't think we should (?) dismiss intentional, ongoing sin and/or heresy without acknowledging that it does have an effect on all.

I'm not saying this well, and I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, because in truth I don't know what should be done. I'm only saying that I think there is a reality there that the Church does historically acknowledge.

Where to go from there, I'm not sure. But your statement made me think of this.

 

[gzt]

All we have on this message board is rhetoric, so I will not stop calling on people to moderate themselves and speak carefully.

 

[GregConstantine]

All we have on this message board is rhetoric, so I will not stop calling on people to moderate themselves and speak carefully.

Are you including yourself in the category of "all"?

I think some here have contributed very well thought out opinions and question, I would hardly say it's all rhetoric.

 

[rusmeister]

If ever there were anything that could cause me to doubt Orthodoxy, it would be proving that consensus among the fathers (about a wide range of topics) does not exist. Frankly, I don't believe that. I find consensus everywhere I turn, whenever I really inquire into something that matters. And frankly, Jewish doctors don't matter much. Marriage and sexuality do, very much.

So when people start saying that we can't know anything, we can't say divorce is a bad thing we ought to struggle against, we shouldn't say anything about fornication or homosexuality when there is so much poverty or suffering in the world, or that these things are simply none of our business, I turn off my hearing aid, so to speak. Other people's marriages are absolutely our business when they are our friends, neighbors and relatives. Sin is not just an individual transgression; it is corporate. If I steal, lust, or engage in drunkenness, I don't just sin against God, I sin against you, and my neighbor. It IS your business to take me aside and say "Yo, dude...". And while we should NEVER forget that I (we) am the chief of sinners, we are still supposed to exhort our brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as ourselves.

 

[gzt]

I'm not quite sure who you're addressing.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm not quite sure who you're addressing.

Not so much "who", gz, as "what".
The "what" I'm addressing is the idea that we should not generalize; that each situation is "uniquely individual" and we are, in effect, "not qualified to judge anything".
Furthermore, you say some things are not obvious; I grant that some things really are not obvious, but that regarding the general issues we are referring to that some things ARE obvious, At least to some. A person can say "I don't see why..."; this is what a thing not being obvious can mean; that it is not obvious to THEM. That does not mean that it is not obvious to anyone, or that there is no one who can see, or that general conditions might not apply in all, or nearly all cases.

It is obvious to me that an Orthodox Christian may NOT support the legalization of "gay marriage" or any other homosexual or immoral arrangement. Not seeing that we ought not support the legality of immorality is certainly a handicap. If a thing is immoral it ought NOT have the support of law. Period. A child can understand that. The purpose of law is to support national morality. If it doesn't do that it is an unjust law; a law in defiance of the very purpose of law.

That doesn't mean that an Orthodox Christian in error is "not Orthodox". It does mean that they should desire to see their errors as soon as possible and correct them as soon as they see them.

 

[gzt]

Should divorce be legal? Should any sex outside of marriage be legal? Your arguments would say that both should not be legal and Orthodox Christians cannot support either being made legal, but I think this is obviously not the case. As for your first couple sentences, I don't think anybody is arguing either of those, so I'm confused as to why you're taking this tack.

 

[rusmeister]

Sex outside of marriage legal? Of course not. (All of this assumes the Christian has power to legislate in society and that law is of effect.)
Divorce is another matter. Christ admitted it, though not as the ideal, and the Church allows it. That we have come to the point of abusing it over the last century is another matter. If a faithful partner is abandoned by an unfaithful one, the faithful partner is not guilty of adultery.

You have said a few times that it is not for us to judge.
"While true, my point was that, except in very clear cases, this is not for us as individuals to discern."
"I think all of this discussion requires knowing conditions that we do not know the answer to."

But for the most part, we are trying to speak to the generalities, and it is very much up to us to discern.

 

[gzt]

Please actually read the context. I'm stating that we should be careful about stating that somebody who has opinions that do not align with what you think Orthodoxy teaches is obviously unorthodox, is obviously "Orthodox in name only". An "obvious" example pointed out - support for legal same-sex marriage - are somewhat more complicated than it may seem. It is pretty clear, certainly, that Orthodoxy teaches rather unanimously throughout history that sex is only for a man and a woman married to each other - and that Christianity, unlike Judaism, teaches monogamy, at that. Anybody having sex outside that context is committing a sin and anybody teaching that it is not a sin is going against the teaching of the Church. Note, by the way, support for the legality of same-sex marriage implies neither. I am mostly trying to get people to be careful about drawing implications from gross political behavior - say, not opposing legal same-sex marriage - to their religious state (OINO!). But also trying to get people to realize that a "bad Orthodox" who doesn't think homosexual intercourse is a sin in all contexts, while certainly a "bad Orthodox", is very, very far from "Orthodox in name only".

 

[gzt]

What I mean here is that people are all too willing to pull the trigger. It's one thing when it comes to "bad Orthodox" - people unambiguously teaching something contrary to the Church. I think we need to be careful about how we characterize them, as they aren't "Orthodox in name only" and proper treatment takes its lead from the hierarchy, but we can definitely say they're wrong. But we're very willing and ready to pull the trigger on a lot of other things, and that really needs to stop wherever it occurs.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Support of the legality of same-sex marriage is a sin, and if a person is at the point in their life where they're legally supporting things like abortion or gay "marriage" and other sin-enabling voting patterns or political support, that person most likely is NOT a real Orthodox Christian anymore. OINO. The moral teachings need to line up with the the moniker.

 

[gzt]

That is an interesting assertion, but I don't think it's borne out by the facts on the ground.

 

[rusmeister]

The distinction that I don't see being made is that between unwittingly holding un-Orthodox ideas, and actually putting oneself out of communion with the Church.

It is definitely un-Orthodox to support the legality of any actual immorality. Note that divorce itself is not immoral; it is a result of immorality, and can only be justified to protect an innocent party. But a person can hold ideas (like supporting the legality of immorality) and not be putting oneself out of communion; we all, no doubt, have kooky ideas on some point. I think God has mercy on our ignorance. But when we are brought to face Orthodox truth and continue to deny it in favor of what we personally think best, I think we do risk crossing that line at some point, of committing the ancestral sin of choosing what the self-prefers over what God wants us to become.

Where you go wrong is in trying to defend the support of the legalization of homosexual relations. You say that such support "implies neither"; this is manifestly false; the legalization of an activity certainly and absolutely implies its social acceptability. There can be no refuting of this, only unsupported denials. The upshot is that what you support politically winds up biting us all in the butt, an unwitting advancement of the modern evil and hastening of the day of our persecution.

 

[gzt]

I think you're hopelessly confused. We'll have to disagree on this.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I think you're hopelessly confused. We'll have to disagree on this.

So says the guy who believes a man and another man can marry, we come from chimps and monkeys over "millions of years" and who believes everyone who disagrees with you is being political in here, while most your posts are political, and what you put in your profile is political to say the least. yeah he hopefully confused, but your not? gotcha

 

[gzt]

You can quite literally believe whatever you like.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Welcome to TAW, mate. LOL.....

So says the guy who believes a man and another man can marry, we come from chimps and monkeys over "millions of years" and who believes everyone who disagrees with you is being political in here, while most your posts are political, and what you put in your profile is political to say the least. yeah he hopefully confused, but your not? gotcha

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the argument here is that, theoretically, I could say, "Hey, I don't believe in gay marriage, but I also recognize this is a democracy and my Orthodox religion isn't the state church and my moral compass isn't the be-all, so I have to step outside of myself and for the good of the democratic order I'll let these folks live steeped in sin to be fair and objective about freedom and democratic principles. I'm a libertarian."

I could say that, but it'd be nonsense. Has Orthodoxy ever really functioned that way in history? Has an Orthodox society lived two lives---one of a sinful devil's advocate in the public eye, and the other a holy man on Sunday? Is that the model for us to live by?

So I could be Orthodox in 1940 in Germany and support Hitler going around chanting "go, Goebbels! You rock!" and being ok with ethnically cleansing Jews and throwing them into pits stacked nice and high, as long as I don't personally help out and slit any throats and pray Vespers and Divine Liturgy? I'm ok with propaganda, swastikas, salutes, book burnings, racism, hatred, war, and fascism because that's just our society here in Germany, and yet I can keep private views of Orthodoxy and I'm good?

I'm with you, Rus. This is just weirdsville. It's what's wrong with Orthodoxy. The cowardice of our society that refuses to label evil as EVIL and to call a spade a spade has entered into our own church even, I'm afraid. The "tolerance" campaign is permeating everything, and there really just is a moral tofu going on. Just wibble and wobble and taste like whatever you get blended into. Tofu morality.

Tom Hanks will be held accountable for his actions if his portrayal in that film inspired "gay" men to persist in the lifestyle, and if any of his donations, speeches, and public words have guided and shaped, molded, and incited the LGBT hordes to be emboldened and inspired. If his actions added to the social ills, I don't care how many icons he kisses or Vespers he prays or if he hangs out at Mt. Athos, he will be held accountable.

As a teacher, I know that my words inspire and mold kids. I have to be EXCEPTIONALLY careful with my moral teachings and my exemplars. What more if you're a celebrity wearing a T-bar cross...

The distinction that I don't see being made is that between unwittingly holding un-Orthodox ideas, and actually putting oneself out of communion with the Church.

It is definitely un-Orthodox to support the legality of any actual immorality. Note that divorce itself is not immoral; it is a result of immorality, and can only be justified to protect an innocent party. But a person can hold ideas (like supporting the legality of immorality) and not be putting oneself out of communion; we all, no doubt, have kooky ideas on some point. I think God has mercy on our ignorance. But when we are brought to face Orthodox truth and continue to deny it in favor of what we personally think best, I think we do risk crossing that line at some point, of committing the ancestral sin of choosing what the self-prefers over what God wants us to become.

Where you go wrong is in trying to defend the support of the legalization of homosexual relations. You say that such support "implies neither"; this is manifestly false; the legalization of an activity certainly and absolutely implies its social acceptability. There can be no refuting of this, only unsupported denials. The upshot is that what you support politically winds up biting us all in the butt, an unwitting advancement of the modern evil and hastening of the day of our persecution.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

So says the guy who believes a man and another man can marry, we come from chimps and monkeys over "millions of years"

I think he acknowledges that in the USA a man can get legal married to another man, which is true in the legal/secular sense. But that is a far cry from one saying that he believes a man can marry a man in a religious based marriage in the eyes of God.

Also you are presenting a misconception with evolution.

We never came from chimps, they are like cousins not our actual ancestors (but we share a common ancestor).

Think of the evolution of life on earth as a tree of life. With branches representing the process of evolution. While we are related to the other Great Apes, they are on their own branches in the history of evolution.