Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Concerned Copts
A few Copts from Australia have put together a podcast called Concerned Copts:
At grass roots, Concerned Copts is a podcast composed of a group of contributing individuals who address topics that are not generally discussed in the Coptic community. Topics that perhaps are perceived as taboo, or haven't been engaged exhaustively on a deeper level. Cc seeks to encourage critical thinking and healthy discussion in order to inspire and perpetuate a more open minded community. A community filled with diverse individuals.
Their first podcast is called: Homosexuality and the Coptic Church Part1.
Homosexuality has been an issue (or some would argue a non issue) of discussion with in the coptic church regarding its place in society and in religion. Is homosexuality a deviant alternate lifestyle, that is a result of rebellion? Or an uncontrolled sexual preference that people develop or a are born with? What are the social impacts of our views of homosexuality and its relevance in our culture?
Have a listen and leave your comments: http://concernedcopts.podbean.com/
You can also find Concerned Copts on facebook so you can pop by and say hello or have a chat.
Take care!
At grass roots, Concerned Copts is a podcast composed of a group of contributing individuals who address topics that are not generally discussed in the Coptic community. Topics that perhaps are perceived as taboo, or haven't been engaged exhaustively on a deeper level. Cc seeks to encourage critical thinking and healthy discussion in order to inspire and perpetuate a more open minded community. A community filled with diverse individuals.
Their first podcast is called: Homosexuality and the Coptic Church Part1.
Homosexuality has been an issue (or some would argue a non issue) of discussion with in the coptic church regarding its place in society and in religion. Is homosexuality a deviant alternate lifestyle, that is a result of rebellion? Or an uncontrolled sexual preference that people develop or a are born with? What are the social impacts of our views of homosexuality and its relevance in our culture?
Have a listen and leave your comments: http://concernedcopts.podbean.com/
You can also find Concerned Copts on facebook so you can pop by and say hello or have a chat.
Take care!
Comments
Have you listened to the podcast?
I call on the moderators to delete this thread.
imikhail before accusing people of an agenda perhaps read the post then listen to the podcast, because you will see that this is not the case.
I did so, otherwise I would not have known what the podcast is about. The opinions discussed in there are against how the Church views the Bible and how God deals with homosexuals.
The podcast premise is that homosexuality is not behavioral.
This thread needs to be deleted.
"The opinions discussed in there are against how the Church views the Bible and how God deals with homosexuals"
for example?
The premise was 'homosexuality is not a choice' and even then the discussion didn't directly follow from that.
But that's all irrelevant to the fact that you are making an accusation that people are pushing homosexuality onto the church without any justification. If you HAD read the above post or listened to the podcast in its entirety you would have heard the speakers talk about the importance of healthy open discussion. Not PUSHING things on people.
These "one issue" postings are really tired, particularly since your particular issue is decided. You can disagree with it all you want, but sheesh, stop posting about it!
You are wrong, the church is right, and no podcasts or surveys or anything else will change this. Accept the truth of the faith and the church that has upheld it for 2000 years.
its actually really tiring to address questions and comments that are irrelevant and completely misrepresent what I'm saying.
So until you actually begin to understand what I'm saying, then feel free not to post anything on this thread.
Thanks.
But here is some parting advice that should be helpful in your everyday life: Judge an argument or a position based on its own merits and faults, not on some obscure agenda. But this assumes that you can read with comprehension.
TC
(Speaker A): "We have one verse from 1st Corinthians. . ." (Speaker B): "Which is iinnnnnn thheeee Newww Tesstaammeeent???"
Also, a very revealing comment: "Does God really care?. . ." foolish speaker goes on to question authority and authenticity of the scriptures. (~18 min. mark).
BTW, foolish comment # 2 was made by Speaker B - no surprise there.
perhaps discussing the actual issue at hand would be more useful than quoting two useless lines that say nothing about the topic. No one in the podcast claimed they were authorities on any of these subjects or devout Copts. Its a discussion by laymen. But if the faith of others aren't up to your standards then go else where.
Cy.
To accept Christ, we accept His Words. All of it, not bits and pieces according to our liking. We can't be part-time Christians. I am not close to perfect by any means and struggle for the very thing. However, the difference lies in the initial acceptance of the Word.
-- just my thoughts
Unworhty1,
perhaps discussing the actual issue at hand would be more useful than quoting two useless lines that say nothing about the topic. No one in the podcast claimed they were authorities on any of these subjects or devout Copts. Its a discussion by laymen. But if the faith of others aren't up to your standards then go else where.
Cy.
I could have quoted hundreds of useless lines -thank God I only chose two.
thanks for the comment! The biblical perspective isn't necessarily disregarded it should just be given less of a priority over the 'human perspective'. But what is meant by human perspective? The 'human perspective' on this issue is addressing the emotions and psychology of the person who is a homosexual or non-conventional church member. Its accommodating to the basic social needs of someone first and foremost. Otherwise you wont have much a congregation to proselytize to, as they will begin to find places where they DO feel accepted. I think that people have every right to feel comfortable with their identity, and if who they are contradicts the bible or the teachings of god, then god should be the one who does the changing, and I don't think that can really happen unless people are given the environment to be themselves without 'social backlash'. So I guess what I'm suggesting is acceptance first, then the biblical teaching.
Cy
Hi Stavroforos,
thanks for the comment! The biblical perspective isn't necessarily disregarded it should just be given less of a priority over the 'human perspective'. But what is meant by human perspective? The 'human perspective' on this issue is addressing the emotions and psychology of the person who is a homosexual or non-conventional church member. Its accommodating to the basic social needs of someone first and foremost. Otherwise you wont have much a congregation to proselytize to, as they will begin to find places where they DO feel accepted. I think that people have every right to feel comfortable with their identity, and if who they are contradicts the bible or the teachings of god, then god should be the one who does the changing, and I don't think that can really happen unless people are given the environment to be themselves without 'social backlash'. So I guess what I'm suggesting is acceptance first, then the biblical teaching.
Cy
I strongly disagree. There is NOTHING superior to the Word of God. As for your definition of the human perspective and your concern for them is not clear for me. I find it interesting that you express the sin as an identity. We should never be comfortable with sin and accommodate our social needs to sin. Your statement of " God does the changing" is also quite intriguing.. you eliminate the gift of free will and the struggle of repentance. If your logic is correct, can we not argue for God to 'make us' perfect without sin? Your suggestion of acceptance before the teaching of GOD, is flawed. Forgive me, but don't you believe God is all knowing? Why do you offer suggestions as though you are wiser than the all knowing, almighty God?
Putting all your comments aside, homosexuality is a war from the devil that one needs to struggle against not one to promote and give excuses about. Lets be true and honest to ourselves and try not to deceive ourselves in something God clearly said was a sin. There is no gray area about the topic in the Holy Bible. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you believe that His words are infallible and there is no layman elaboration contrary to what is written that is correct. You and I are humans and anything we say or think maybe wrong.
EDIT: As for one suffering from the spiritual illness of homosexuality is accepted at all times in the church as long as they are living a life of repentance. However, the sin is rejected and condemned. We are not God to reject or condemn a person. We judge and condemn actions only.
My post is meant to be sincere but not offensive. Please forgive me if its at all portrayed in that matter
I appreciate your post, and your opinions and I'll do my best to address them as clearly as I can:
I'm not claiming that the word of god is inferior, I'm saying that it isn't always applicable. How useful are the versus from Leviticus, or any kind of preaching for a homosexual who's depressed or being bullied, or on the verge of suicide?
Sexual Identity is one's orientation and how they perceive and express their sexuality. This is just another way of categorizing a characteristic that influences who people are as individuals.
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/support-pages/lgb/lgb-information-pages/sexuality_and_identity)
I'm not saying nurture the 'sin', I'm saying nurture the sinner. The church has been compared to a hospital, if you're not going to have an environment where someone can feel safe then your most likely not going to have any patients. And I think the word nurture can be rather ambiguous. Nurture can very well include social acceptance and having the capacity with in an environment to let people be open \ without judgement.
On the 'god's changing' point. There is actually no way of successfully changing one's sexual orientation by will, at least there are no examples to date. So I think its ironic when free will comes up, when sexuality is not a choice in the first place. If its a sin then its not anyone's problem but the 'sinner'. The only responsibility people have in a church community is to make others feel safe and welcome. Which I can tell you is often not the case. Contributing factors are culture and human nature i guess.
Why is my suggestion of acceptance before preaching flawed? Did god command people to preach first then be socially accommodating later? I must say the story of the tax collector comes to mind...
If people want others to have a relationship with god, they have to be likeable and accommodating for others to listen to them.
Cy
I'm not saying nurture the 'sin', I'm saying nurture the sinner.
The fact that you put the word sin in quotation marks says it all really. If you aren't convinced that homosexuality is a sin, you must either be one or more of three things: a) an unbeliever b) blind/illiterate/or otherwise incapable of discovering what is written in the Holy Bible c) ignorant of the churches' stance on the matter. This is only applicable up to a certain point. Yes, the church and it's members are there to support someone struggling with a particular sin, and as long as they are sincerely struggling to give it up, then everyone should support them (1 Thess 5:11).
But when it comes to the stage that the person is not struggling, or is not even convinced that what they are doing is wrong, it becomes wrong to condone it. The commandments are clear, the words of God are clear, the Churches' position is CLEAR on homosexuality. At the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own salvation. The Church doesn't corrupt itself by condoning or sanctioning homosexuality in any way, including allowing those who are unrepentant to parade their corruption within the Church. We are in need of God's Lordship, he is not in need of our 'servitude' (you see what I did there with the quotation marks?) The people in the Church community also have a responsibility to ensure that God's commandments and correct doctrine is known and taught. People who condone homosexuality (people like you) are not doing anyone any favours - you deceive yourselves and others when you tell them that homosexuality is acceptable, so that neither the person struggling with the sin will be saved, nor will others who are led to believe it is acceptable through the stumbling block you become. You cannot accept the sin. We should help the sinners by loving them still, by encouraging them to talk to their father of confession, by being good Christians in general etc. But if by "accept" you mean denying that homosexuality if a sin, or by giving those who are struggling with the sin lies regarding it's seriousness and graveness, or by leading others to believe that it is an acceptable way of life, then you are doing the devil's work.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg144557#msg144557 date=1315827496]
I'm not claiming that the word of god is inferior, I'm saying that it isn't always applicable. How useful are the versus from Leviticus, or any kind of preaching for a homosexual who's depressed or being bullied, or on the verge of suicide?
Once again, the authority of the Bible is questioned. The Holy Bible is always applicable. The Bible has been around for a while and until this day there was never an instance where the Bible was not applicable. Again, I do not follow your logic as they are contrary to facts.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg144557#msg144557 date=1315827496]
Sexual Identity is one's orientation and how they perceive and express their sexuality. This is just another way of categorizing a characteristic that influences who people are as individuals.
On the 'god's changing' point. There is actually no way of successfully changing one's sexual orientation by will, at least there are no examples to date. So I think its ironic when free will comes up, when sexuality is not a choice in the first place. If its a sin then its not anyone's problem but the 'sinner'. The only responsibility people have in a church community is to make others feel safe and welcome. Which I can tell you is often not the case. Contributing factors are culture and human nature i guess.
Using your logic, I can argue that its okay to lust after the opposite gender and engage in sexual activity because the Bible is not 'applicable'. Its my identity and the way I express it, correct?
Playing your argument, I took it upon myself to define identity for you:
Identity: the state of having unique identifying characteristics held by no other person or thing.
Characteristics are things we have developed. Some are good, some are bad as a result of bad habits and such. Typically, a well balanced individual lives life constantly renewing their characteristics and trying to improve them to the better, rather than settle for 'its my identity'. The excuse of 'its my identity, I cant change fill in the blank is a lazy approach to the situation and has roots in the lack of desire to change. I would also like to add that as all the things I have mentioned start with something tiny, a thought. The devil does not come to somebody one day and just tells him have sex. He starts small with a thought and depending on the individual if its nourished it will give forth fruit and become a sin. Homosexual orientation is the same, the devil planted a seed. The person watered the seed and gave it attention, possibly even trying to justify it so now its a much larger problem and much harder to fix than the initial little thought that could have been fought by the Jesus Prayer for example. This is rather applicable in all facets of life, not just here.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg144557#msg144557 date=1315827496]
Why is my suggestion of acceptance before preaching flawed? Did god command people to preach first then be socially accommodating later? I must say the story of the tax collector comes to mind...
If people want others to have a relationship with god, they have to be likeable and accommodating for others to listen to them.
Explain how you would like one to be socially accommodated?? Like JG said we love them, we can try to help them to overcome this illness but none of that can be accomplished if the initial desire to change in that individual does not exist. All efforts of accommodating would be in vain. I repeat, we reject the sin not the sinner which still leaves me the question how and what are we accommodating for??
I ecourage you to consider what others have said about the matter and have an open mind about the topic rather than a narrow view, with your own driving agenda.
May God open your eyes to see the Truth(<-- There is only ONE!)
My personal religious belief is irrelevant to the argument.
"But when it comes to the stage that the person is not struggling, or is not even convinced that what they are doing is wrong, it becomes wrong to condone it. "
Who said anything about condoning? ..or parading?
"People who condone homosexuality (people like you) are not doing anyone any favours - you deceive yourselves and others when you tell them that homosexuality is acceptable, so that neither the person struggling with the sin will be saved..."
Again my personal position on the matter is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that the coptic church should accept homosexuality. I haven't said that once. Also how do you know these people wont be 'saved'? (see what I did with the apostrophe ?) Are you somehow privy to peoples 'judgment'? If you are then let us know which book our names are written in, thanks.
"You cannot accept the sin"
Again, I have never argued this.
When I say applicable I mean helpful. Substitute the word applicable for helpful where I've used in my previous post to you.
"Using your logic, I can argue that its okay to lust after the opposite gender and engage in sexual activity because the Bible is not 'applicable'. Its my identity and the way I express it, correct?"
I never said the identity was right or wrong.
"The excuse of 'its my identity, I cant change fill in the blank is a lazy approach to the situation and has roots in the lack of desire to change. I would also like to add that as all the things I have mentioned start with something tiny, a thought. The devil does not come to somebody one day and just tells him have sex. He starts small with a thought and depending on the individual if its nourished it will give forth fruit and become a sin. Homosexual orientation is the same, the devil planted a seed. The person watered the seed and gave it attention, possibly even trying to justify it so now its a much larger problem and much harder to fix than the initial little thought that could have been fought by the Jesus Prayer for example. This is rather applicable in all facets of life, not just here. "
You really couldn't be more wrong. First of all sexual orientation and sexual expression are two different things. If you're arguing that one's sexual preference is caused by the same thing as sexual behavior then you have to provide evidence for that. Please do. And elaborate further on how homosexuality is the exception in this case. Further more homosexuality can NOT be 'fought off' with prayer, I"m a living example of that, go read this blog http://gaycopt.blogspot.com/ where this individual was on the verge of suicide because he didn't want to accept his sexuality that didn't magically go away with prayer. Go find homosexuals in your church community (if you can) or people in the wider community and ask them how well praying away their sexuality went. "people watered the seed"? If homosexuality is anything like controlling sexual behavior, gay people would have gotten rid of it a long time ago. Do you have any idea what people face in a culture or society that is intolerant toward homosexuality? Do you have any idea the abuse that people have faced on the school yard, walking home from a club, in their own home? How may people have taken their own lives because they've been bullied or ostracized? Really? You don't think people would have tried to change their orientation if they could? If homosexuality was a mere behavioral deficiency they could choose to change, people would have every reason to "change their ways" and would have done it already and spared themselves the abuse, self loath and self destruction in a messed up society and culture such as ours.
Cy
Homosexuals are not welcome in the Church unless they recognize that Homosexuality is a sin. Period
No accommodation for homosexuals unless they understand and profess that Homosexuality is a sin
No acceptance in the Church of homoexuals unless they understand and profess that Homosexuality is a sin
By what authority do you declare such a ruling?
The Scriptures, the Church
I am putting the following in bold so that it catches everyone's attention and especially Copticyouth86
Homosexuals are not welcome in the Church unless they recognize that Homosexuality is a sin. Period
No accommodation for homosexuals unless they understand and profess that Homosexuality is a sin
No acceptance in the Church of homoexuals unless they understand and profess that Homosexuality is a sin
What do you mean by "welcome" and "acceptance"? Are you saying that if they walk into the church we are unhappy they are there? Elaborate.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg144585#msg144585 date=1315875037]
I am putting the following in bold so that it catches everyone's attention and especially Copticyouth86
Homosexuals are not welcome in the Church unless they recognize that Homosexuality is a sin. Period
No accommodation for homosexuals unless they understand and profess that Homosexuality is a sin
No acceptance in the Church of homoexuals unless they understand and profess that Homosexuality is a sin
What do you mean by "welcome" and "acceptance"? Are you saying that if they walk into the church we are unhappy they are there? Elaborate.
What I mean by accommodation and acceptance is what was raised by Copticyouth86 on this thread and the other one on the survey:
accommodating to the basic social needs of someone first and foremost. "Post 15"
I'm saying nurture the sinner. The church has been compared to a hospital, if you're not going to have an environment where someone can feel safe then your most likely not going to have any patients. "Post 17"
I personally don't think people should go around praising or condemning other people's sexuality I believe it to be judgmental and ultimately fruitless. (Comment made on March 24, 2011)
telling someone that homosexuality is a sin, is in essence accusing someone of being morally deprived for just being who they are. (Comment made on March 24, 2011)
The sinner must know of the disease bluntly so that s/he may take the necessary steps for the cure. The Church cannot just say to a homosexual that it is beyond him to be one and you were born that way and it is ok.
Specific reference?
Already discussed.
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,11073.msg134066.html#msg134066
2. You didn't answer the second question.
Forgive me if I have offended you, its unintended.
May God guide you.