West vs East-Spiritual Warfare

[archer75]

No. Women must simply just exist. Modesty is a good thing- but I don't believe for a second that a woman being modest dissuades any man anywhere from temptation in any way. In quite a few countries if a girl or woman doesn't have a male relative to escort her everywhere then she's considered to 'contribute' to a situation that creates a temptation to evil in men. Even if she has no male relatives to escort her everywhere and she's just going to the blasted grocery store to attempt to live. She just simply must exist in the world. And- this is just another way of victim blaming overall. Women always modify their behavior for the benefit of men and can't live life without having to worry about what men might do to them.

Many girls who become trans these days are doing so to escape womanhood because they are sexualized no matter what they do or don't do.

I agree with seashale greatly here. As a man, I know that I am perfectly capable of sinful thoughts when there is no woman anywhere around. And on occasion, I have not had such sinful thoughts even when there were plenty of attractive women around. It's about me and my attention, not about them. You don't wanna look at somebody, don't want to think about somebody? Then don't. As if women can't look extremely attractive in outfits that are considered "appropriate" for Liturgy, maybe much more attractive than they would in shapeless sweats that would look disrespectful. The only garb that is going to make everyone "not be a temptation" is "opaque hamster ball."

It's only ever said about women, though. The pectoral cross on the priest might tempt me to fantasies of my own holiness and lead to spiritual pride. Does that mean the cross should be covered up? Maybe someone sees a nice wristwatch on a wealthy man at Liturgy. Temptation! All possible. No one mentions these things, however. And has anyone ever seen a woman wearing a string bikini to Liturgy (or Vespers, or a baptism)? I haven't.

Unfortunately, seashale's remark about the "social contagion" of the trans business among girls / young women is painfully and obviously true. It must be terrifying to be an adolescent girl these days (worse than before). Naturally, some of them are going to try to opt-out.

 

[seashale76]

And I have a suspicion that the Ukrainian poster is a member of the OCU.

And so what if he is? It's considered canonical by some jurisdictions- and that means he's as Orthodox as you.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[rusmeister]

I haven’t been saying that men are justified in their own sins. Only that we have the power to inflame or extinguish temptation in regards to ourselves in those around us.

There is something naive in the idea that it doesn’t matter how a person (or nation; thus, the relevance of the connection) acts, or how a woman dresses, an attempt to try to read us as unfallen beings who are not subject to temptation. The best men resist temptation; many men are not the best men. If a man insists on walking down a city street with cash hanging out of his pockets it’s the same thing - we would hope, in a civil society, that people tempted to rob him would restrain themselves. In an unfallen world, he would not be foolish to do so. But in a Fallen world, he IS foolish to do so. So is the woman who insists on walking naked in public, and for the same reason. It’s not about one’s sex, or about the desire that everyone feel safe to do (within reason) what we please in a civilized world. It’s about what Fallen people will do in a Fallen world. Thinking modesty and prudence irrelevant or unnecessary is foolish, and runs against our Tradition, which DOES recognize man’s sinful nature, and encourages us to act and behave in ways to minimalize it.

In objecting to my thought, in saying, “If you don’t want to look, don’t look”, you are appealing to good men to be good. But not all men are equally good, not all men are saints. A saint might bring one of those skirts they keep at monasteries for visitors to cover the woman who chose to come to church in a mini-skirt, and he would be right, because the woman has created a situation where men OUGHT to avert their eyes because she has chosen a form of dress designed to DRAW their attention.

Mexico would be foolish in the extreme to enter into a military alliance with China, and offer to put Chinese missiles on its territory. It would be an invitation to American military reaction. In both the personal case and the national case, thinking that one can do whatever one wants because one “should have the right to do so” is naive and foolish. It fails or refuses to take into account what one’s immediate neighbor may be inclined or tempted to do in response.

I don’t even think one can think that modesty does not do anything to minimize temptation without having lived a life sheltered and/or privileged to an abnormal degree in terms of human history.

 

[rusmeister]

And so what if he is? It's considered canonical by some jurisdictions- and that means he's as Orthodox as you.

I don’t know about the given member, but it is simply not true to say that the OCU is certainly Orthodox. The question is not whether the EP can issue a tomos, but whether the Orthodox people as a whole accept it. That’s not about “democracy”; it’s about consensus. Orthodox bishops have signed accords of unification with Catholics in the past, only to be soundly rejected by their people when they return home.

The OCA is not universally recognized, but HAS been accepted as Orthodox by the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox world. The same is not true of the OCU. It was formed in a decidedly schismatic manner, and (in my opinion) the EP has made himself something of a pariah in doing what he did. Equally, the Russian Patriarch has no real power to declare something Orthodox “just because he says so”. The basic conditions to say that a thing “is Orthodox” are that a) it must be in line with the consensus of our Tradition, and b) it must by consensus, be accepted by most over space and time. Iconoclasm was accepted by most - but for a short time (in our understanding of “short”), and was ultimately rejected, proving itself to be un-Orthodox.

So the jury is still quite “out” on the OCU, but the case for it does not look good, having been done by fiat from the top, rather than by consensus.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

1. Regarding the analogy with Mexico. Ukraine still does not have such missiles that can hit the territory of Russia. Despite the fact that the sixth month of the war is already underway. So, if this is the only thing, then we can agree: Russia is withdrawing its troops, and Ukraine does not receive such missiles.

2. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Onufry, as I wrote above, is between two fires. On the one hand, the Moscow Patriarch does not even want to listen in order to intercede before Putin for the Ukrainian, who are being killed. This was the main reason for the declaration of independence of the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate. On the other hand, patriotic forces within Ukraine are accused UOC of collaborating with the occupiers. Although everything falls apart in the courts, because there is no evidence. Where there are more or less normal number of parishioners in parishes and there is money for the court, in the courts of Ukraine it is now possible to defend the rights of the UOC. They slander UOC all the time. Also, the so-called Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) behaves provocatively. Either they have FSB agents, or because of their stupidity. But in the midst of the war, they are inciting inter-religious strife within the country. Sometimes the authorities act stupidly. One metropolitan said that his priests and parishioners wanted to donate blood for the wounded soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But they were banned, saying that they wanted to advertise themselves with such a good deed. This is as crazy as what Russia does when it bombs the churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In the photo, the temple of the skete of the Svyatogorsk Lavra of the 16-17th centuries is burning.

 

[rusmeister]

1. Regarding the analogy with Mexico. Ukraine still does not have such missiles that can hit the territory of Russia. Despite the fact that the sixth month of the war is already underway. So, if this is the only thing, then we can agree: Russia is withdrawing its troops, and Ukraine does not receive such missiles.

No, we can't agree. What you don't seem to grasp is any sense of the future tense. "Ukraine still does not have missiles". Ukraine, as a member of NATO, would certainly have missiles. Assurances that they won't are as hollow as the assurances 30 years ago that NATO would not expand eastward.

2. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, headed by Metropolitan Onufry, as I wrote above, is between two fires. On the one hand, the Moscow Patriarch does not even want to listen in order to intercede before Putin for the Ukrainian, who are being killed. This was the main reason for the declaration of independence of the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate. On the other hand, patriotic forces within Ukraine are accused UOC of collaborating with the occupiers. Although everything falls apart in the courts, because there is no evidence. Where there are more or less normal number of parishioners in parishes and there is money for the court, in the courts of Ukraine it is now possible to defend the rights of the UOC. They slander UOC all the time. Also, the so-called Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) behaves provocatively. Either they have FSB agents, or because of their stupidity. But in the midst of the war, they are inciting inter-religious strife within the country. Sometimes the authorities act stupidly. One metropolitan said that his priests and parishioners wanted to donate blood for the wounded soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But they were banned, saying that they wanted to advertise themselves with such a good deed. This is as crazy as what Russia does when it bombs the churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

I mostly agree.
One thing, though - you see the FSB as a possibility. OK. But I think it is MUCH bigger than that. Patriarch Bartholomew's tomos goes far beyond the scope of the FSB. That means global powers, not just Russia and its FSB.

And you know we ALL oppose the burning of churches and want it to stop. We only disagree on the way to stop it.

I talk to expats in Russia online. Some do support the Russian government's actions, and to them I look like a Ukrainian apologist, not so different from you. It's only when I talk here that I look like a Russian apologist.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

The issue of a Ukrainian nationalist church has been on-going since the 90s. Actually, every single issue that caused this war has been.

 

[Johnny Ross]

Let us not forget the massive role, in this spiritual warfare, that the Patriarch of Constantinople has played to inflame the divisions between East and West.
"The practice of Church Tradition in the fight with heresies and schismatics that threaten the unity of the Church is never just protest and a canonical fight with cunning theories and schismatic (anti-canonical) actions, but at the same time, the condemnation of those Church actors who support them and act accordingly."

Demetrios Anagnostou. Greek Theologian: Patriarch Bartholomew is a Threat for the Orthodox East!

 

[Nick1000]

Putin and his apologists consistently use the argument that the west allegedly violated an agreement to not expand NATO or to not expand eastward or various versions of that argument.

That argument is completely bogus even though they claim to have some secret Dead Sea Scrolls or something that allegedly "everyone knows" confirms their allegation.

In reality, Putin has directly told Russians and the world repeatedly and I do mean to say repeatedly, that Ukraine has always been part of Russia- period.'
And that you can do this or that or Nato this or that or naked women walking down the street theories, etc but the end result will be the same: Ukraine is part of Russia because Putin says so. Kiev is the jewel in the crown for his little Russian World game and he is in one country but the jewel in the crown is in another so he needs to fix that, in his mind, because you cannot be a real Russian without historical Kiev/Rus.

Win or lose in Ukraine, if Putin's goal is to reduce Nato expansion or power in the region he has failed on steroids. There are two new nato members and all the others are quadrupling their military power and positioning to deal with Russian aggression. That is not going to be reduced in this decade. Might even be a NATO base at Kherson. Ukraine is not a naked woman walking down the street asking for sex. It is a sovereign country trying to protect itself and if they join the EU without Vlad's permission he will have a hissy fit over that too. The Russian apologists do not imagine a world where you do not get a permission slip from Putin before doing anything.

There are endless arguments by those who say that Americans or others do not understand the Russian mind but there are quite a few NATO members who used to be part of the Soviet Union and their problem with Putin is that they do understand some things quite well.



Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

 

[seashale76]

I don’t know about the given member, but it is simply not true to say that the OCU is certainly Orthodox. The question is not whether the EP can issue a tomos, but whether the Orthodox people as a whole accept it. That’s not about “democracy”; it’s about consensus. Orthodox bishops have signed accords of unification with Catholics in the past, only to be soundly rejected by their people when they return home.

The OCA is not universally recognized, but HAS been accepted as Orthodox by the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox world. The same is not true of the OCU. It was formed in a decidedly schismatic manner, and (in my opinion) the EP has made himself something of a pariah in doing what he did. Equally, the Russian Patriarch has no real power to declare something Orthodox “just because he says so”. The basic conditions to say that a thing “is Orthodox” are that a) it must be in line with the consensus of our Tradition, and b) it must by consensus, be accepted by most over space and time. Iconoclasm was accepted by most - but for a short time (in our understanding of “short”), and was ultimately rejected, proving itself to be un-Orthodox.

So the jury is still quite “out” on the OCU, but the case for it does not look good, having been done by fiat from the top, rather than by consensus.

Oh- I'm well aware of the history. The EP also cited precedent in his letter from a few years back for his actions. I recall reading it. His sources checked out even if you don't agree with him. Also, you accept the Patriarchate of Antioch as being Orthodox but a former Patriarch of Constantinople decided to oust an entire validly elected Patriarch on his own (which then formed the Melkite Catholic Church) and put his own guy in. It had nothing to do with what the people wanted then.

 

[seashale76]

I haven’t been saying that men are justified in their own sins. Only that we have the power to inflame or extinguish temptation in regards to ourselves in those around us.

There is something naive in the idea that it doesn’t matter how a person (or nation; thus, the relevance of the connection) acts, or how a woman dresses, an attempt to try to read us as unfallen beings who are not subject to temptation. The best men resist temptation; many men are not the best men. If a man insists on walking down a city street with cash hanging out of his pockets it’s the same thing - we would hope, in a civil society, that people tempted to rob him would restrain themselves. In an unfallen world, he would not be foolish to do so. But in a Fallen world, he IS foolish to do so. So is the woman who insists on walking naked in public, and for the same reason. It’s not about one’s sex, or about the desire that everyone feel safe to do (within reason) what we please in a civilized world. It’s about what Fallen people will do in a Fallen world. Thinking modesty and prudence irrelevant or unnecessary is foolish, and runs against our Tradition, which DOES recognize man’s sinful nature, and encourages us to act and behave in ways to minimalize it.

In objecting to my thought, in saying, “If you don’t want to look, don’t look”, you are appealing to good men to be good. But not all men are equally good, not all men are saints. A saint might bring one of those skirts they keep at monasteries for visitors to cover the woman who chose to come to church in a mini-skirt, and he would be right, because the woman has created a situation where men OUGHT to avert their eyes because she has chosen a form of dress designed to DRAW their attention.

Mexico would be foolish in the extreme to enter into a military alliance with China, and offer to put Chinese missiles on its territory. It would be an invitation to American military reaction. In both the personal case and the national case, thinking that one can do whatever one wants because one “should have the right to do so” is naive and foolish. It fails or refuses to take into account what one’s immediate neighbor may be inclined or tempted to do in response.

I don’t even think one can think that modesty does not do anything to minimize temptation without having lived a life sheltered and/or privileged to an abnormal degree in terms of human history.

Your posts are very condescending. However, it always comes back to the same thing, overall. You think Russia is completely justified in doing what it has done. That's the crux of it.

 

[prodromos]

Your posts are very condescending. However, it always comes back to the same thing, overall. You think Russia is completely justified in doing what it has done. That's the crux of it.

Ridiculous. You must be heavily reading your own preconceptions into his posts. Lord have mercy.

 

[rusmeister]

Your posts are very condescending. However, it always comes back to the same thing, overall. You think Russia is completely justified in doing what it has done. That's the crux of it.

Prodromos is right. You have prejudicially and wrong decided that I think Russia is justified. Hopefully you'll come back at some later point, reread what I actually said, and see that. That's not condescension. I'm not speaking to you like a child. But if you think that a man is not tempted by deliberate showcasing of female wares, and/or that it is not wrong to so tempt a man, then I don't think anything can be said to you until you learn that tempters do in fact bear responsibility, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

[prodromos]

Seashale, you call Russ condescending and then perform the incredibly condescending act of rating his post above as "funny"?
You don't recognise the hypocrisy?

 

[seashale76]

The gaslighting going on here is amazing. Keep it up guys.

 

[prodromos]

The gaslighting going on here is amazing. Keep it up guys.

Gaslighting: Signs and Tips for Seeking Help
Signs of gaslighting
Someone who’s gaslighting might:

• insist you said or did things you know you didn’t do
• deny or scoff at your recollection of events
• call you “too sensitive” or “crazy” when you express your needs or concerns
• express doubts to others about your feelings, behavior, and state of mind
• twisting or retelling events to shift blame to you
• insist they’re right and refuse to consider facts or your perspective

 

[Nick1000]

Not where we want to be regardless of varying views.

Russian Priest Beats Ukrainian Priest With Cross at Soldier's Funeral

Russian priest beats Ukrainian priest with cross at soldier's funeral

 

[archer75]

@rusmeister Regarding women's attire at services, I'll agree that certainly there are outfits that would be totally inappropriate. Wetsuit, string bikini, as well as plenty of outfits not intended for swimming. I've never seen a woman at a service in one of those, but certainly, they would be inappropriate. As would be my going to services in just bathing trunks or a clown suit.

And certainly it would be wrong for anyone to go to services in an outfit, or engaging in behavior, that would be distracting or tempting on purpose (who would do that? Probably someone, I guess).

So, having agreed so far, I'll say these two things:

1) How do I know what's tempting? I can tell whether I think a woman is good-looking even when she's in super-"modest", nothing-showing, non-form-fitting attire with her hair covered. I know I am not the only man with this "power." Is she "being a temptation to me" just by being there? If not, why not? If so, why is she allowed to be there? Or why am I allowed to be there? Perhaps I am so good-looking that even in men's attire that you would find appropriate for services, many women there are boiling over with temptation. Maybe so. What am I supposed to do about this?

2) Let's allow that there would be a situation where we could agree: yeah, that woman's outfit was not appropriate for services (doesn't matter what it is, just that we imagine that we agree). And then we hear something after services in the alley by the church. We look out: a man is beating that woman to death! He is so much larger and stronger, she is barely able to resist. She is already on the ground, completely vulnerable. He is screaming "I am going to beat you until you stop being alive!!" and pummeling her in a way that is absolutely horrifying. Looking back at the other parishioners who are peering out at him, he says, with nothing but malice in his voice, "And I know who's next, too!" eyeing a woman who was wearing a long woolen skirt, long sleeves, and a headscarf while she stood in a dark corner of the church.

Now, here are a couple options for what to do in this situation. Remember, we can agree that her outfit was inappropriate.

1) Nothing.
2) Scream at her "Stop resisting! You're making it take longer! Just get it over with! The violence must stop!!"
3) Ask her sister where she buys clothing and, on hearing the answer, inform her that that was not a good source of clothing.
4) Go to the office of the church, activate the computer, and try to log in to her credit or bank account, acting indigant all the while, so you can see exactly what she bought and when.
5) Get the strong men together and run out there and stop him.

I think the only option is 5. If this woman was really so confused or so deliberately attention-seeking that, for some reason, she really wore a string bikini to church, then if she recovers from her injuries, maybe tell Father or Matushka or the abbess that you think one of them might mention to her that other attire should be preferred. But in the moment, I would go with 5.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Not where we want to be regardless of varying views.

Russian Priest Beats Ukrainian Priest With Cross at Soldier's Funeral

Russian priest beats Ukrainian priest with cross at soldier's funeral

More than 15 years ago, I had to talk to a police officer. He told me a story. One prisoner was released early from prison on the condition that he behave well in freedom. He was a good shoe repairman. He took up this business, did everything efficiently and inexpensively, and was in demand. Life began to improve. But one acquaintance, passing by his workshop, kept trolling (teasing) him, saying offensive things. This one could not answer him, since under the terms of the agreement he would have been put back in prison. He understood that the shoemaker would not touch him and trolled (teased) him more and more insistently. The shoemaker endured all this for a long time. But one day he couldn't resist. He had a knife in his hand. When that person started trolling (teasing) him again, he unexpectedly stabbed him in the heart area with a knife. The result is a tragedy: he was imprisoned again, and his offender died.

This is me to the fact that trolling (teasing) a person is also a big sin. Unfortunately, representatives of the OCU troll (tease) representatives of the UOC. The UOC also wants to show a patriotic position. They, too, want to serve their people and support them in difficult times of war. But these people who troll (teasing) provoke conflicts on religious grounds.

It seems to me that it is beneficial for someone to rock the Ukrainian society on the basis of religious and linguistic conflicts. It is beneficial for Russia to rock the Ukrainian society and make it unstable during the war, which is why I suggested that the FSB is behind these trolls. Or is it just stupidity.