Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There's a lot there I can and do agree with.
I guess one remaining question would be regarding Davis's past. We're pretty big on insisting on God's forgiveness and mercy, particularly when a person repents. My impression is that, generally speaking, she has repented. I don't know, of course, maybe she thinks divorce is a fine thing and plans to do it next year. But it seems to me that we give each other the benefit of the doubt, and even heterodox Christians can be sorry for their past, and while the world will drag it up, it seems to me that as long as she's not crowing about and praising her divorces, we should grant that a person who seriously confesses Christ probably holds repentance and awareness of sin in a relatively important place in his or her life. We give ourselves a break on that, anyway, and assume that we have all repented.
So why treat her past as something she HASN'T repented of? Why refer to it as something she's probably going to continue doing or as something by which we should judge her sincerity now? I really doubt she holds her past sins and errors as something helpful in, as you say, fighting the powers-that-be.
On Russia, I think people on your end have a general impression that Russia is becoming Holy Russia again because Orthodoxy is currently fashionable. I don't think that's the case, I think important figures in the Church here are reproducing behaviors that provoked the tremendous backlash against faith in the Russian Revolution: turning blind eyes to both government injustices and outrageous behavior of people acting in the name of the Church. Most people don't seriously believe, nominalism is rife - and meaningless, they still import "Futurama", "Family Guy" and the rest of the c%$p from US TV affirming the normality of abnormality. The propaganda is chipping away here, too, if more slowly. I give us only ten years, give or take a few, to backlash.
And I AM American. I pay prices to keep my citizenship, and still love my native land, and care what happens to my family and friends. I appreciate what you say about armchair generaling, and agree that, yes, it is easier for me to say these things. But I say them because I really think they will impact me and those I love, so still have to weigh my words.
Thanks, though, for bringing the ability to see and reach out to those you disagree with!
I don't think this is about free speech either. I think it is about her violating her oath of office. From what I understand she isn't even issuing marriage licenses to streight couples. Why is she even there if she is doing nothing but picking up a paycheck. That isn't fare to anyone.I don't remember that being part of the First Amendment.
We praise Fr Patrick Henry Reardon when he decides to try to apply a consistent policy, and then blast Davis for trying to do the same.I don't think this is about free speech either. I think it is about her violating her oath of office. From what I understand she isn't even issuing marriage licenses to streight couples. Why is she even there if she is doing nothing but picking up a paycheck. That isn't fare to anyone.
The oath of office is to serve the public in the capacity of that office, by performing the services due the public by the law of the land. If you don't like what the duties are then you leave the office and look for employment elsewhere.We praise Fr Patrick Henry Reardon when he decides to try to apply a consistent policy, and then blast Davis for trying to do the same.
The oath of office, in military or civilian life, as I understand it, is not to uphold Supreme Court rulings that change what we sign up for, but to support and defend the Constitution. Even that is moot to those of us who think we are not bound to obey clearly immoral laws, let alone rulings not confirmed in law. But if you believe in obeying immoral laws, as it appears you do, there's not much to say to you. It seems to me that you would rather have homosexuals and godless people in office spreading this stuff as rapidly as possible. That is certainly the effect of the advice of all the "resigners". It's no use our voting for Christians now, because they'll just have to resign at the first challenge, according to this logic.
The idea that no one should be able to force understandings is false. All law is the forcing of understandings. This new idea that men can marry men is in fact being forced (and therein you contradict yourself, in defending de facto that particular forcing). Secularism can take over as easily as Islam and persecute even more thoroughly.The oath of office is to serve the public in the capacity of that office, by performing the services due the public by the law of the land. If you don't like what the duties are then you leave the office and look for employment elsewhere.
The secular world is the way it is and to not understand that is to not understand what Christ said by persecution. Religion should not be a part of government for the simple reason is that nobody should be able to force their understandings upon you. I'm sure that others feel differently about this, but that's only because Christianity is the prevelant religion in America. Now if Islam overtook Christian then they would think differently.
I only post on threads where I feel I have something to add, the things I think I have learned something worth offering.Why is it that most of the conversation always seems to go on in the rare threads I pretty much avoid and don't participate in?
There is a difference between secular laws and religious laws. I thought I made it quite clear I was speaking about religious laws, and no there are no forced understandings in secular laws because they are specific and distinct with penilities envolved. There are no attempts to justify these laws at the level of those enforcing them and those recieving that enforcement.The idea that no one should be able to force understandings is false. All law is the forcing of understandings. This new idea that men can marry men is in fact being forced (and therein you contradict yourself, in defending de facto that particular forcing). Secularism can take over as easily as Islam and persecute even more thoroughly.
What people feel strongly about is where they will accumulate.Why is it that most of the conversation always seems to go on in the rare threads I pretty much avoid and don't participate in?
I only post on threads where I feel I have something to add, the things I think I have learned something worth offering.
There are a lot of things where I don't think I have the best answers. Jackstraw blows me away on the Church fathers, so I mostly shut up and listen. Matt or any of the other seminarians will knock me flat on liturgics, and most here are pretty competent at answering visitor questions. I usually consider my input unnecessary.
We praise Fr Patrick Henry Reardon when he decides to try to apply a consistent policy, and then blast Davis for trying to do the same.
What people feel strongly about is where they will accumulate.
I've tried to open up some philosophy posts but mine seem to fizzel out bafore the first page is even filled out. I guess I'm no good at this thread making stuff.
Lol, I know what you mean.I only post on threads where I feel I have something to add, the things I think I have learned something worth offering.
There are a lot of things where I don't think I have the best answers. Jackstraw blows me away on the Church fathers, so I mostly shut up and listen. Matt or any of the other seminarians will knock me flat on liturgics, and most here are pretty competent at answering visitor questions. I usually consider my input unnecessary.
True.
I wasn't thinking about anything like why my threads get fewer posts - I honestly never pay attention to that. They usually get discussed to the degree they need to be.
I think it may have more to do with the possibility that I'm not posting in the "hot topic" areas, and not really interested in reading them. I thought I posted in this one early on, but it's just not something worth hundreds of posts to me. I probably missed almost all of the points to discuss on the issue. Lol.
I think it's my problem. If it IS a problem. Mostly I just wonder sometimes where folks are, but then I see they ARE here ... Just not where I am.It's all good.
Philosophy can be interesting ... But I don't see a great tendency toward it in Orthodoxy in mist cases.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?