I have to say that HGB Suriel approach here is different then the rest of most of the other approaches by our church clergy or even books. I have heard and read many things about homosexuality that everyone is expecting to hear. But here sayedna just took a little "stricter" way then everyone did/does. He just viewed the facts.
As QT said, this, homosexuality, is here to STAY and to dominate as ever (since it been present from loooooong ago). the best to deal with it is ti understand it from all the angles. His grace angel was just to state the facts. I was in that meeting when he gave the lecture.....in fact, i am the one who recorded this sermon, but a friend here put it online for everyone. His grace did not said anything out of his mind keda as most priests do. actually, very different from what he does normally, he was viewing a presentation during the simple and almost followed with it word for word; just to show that he is just stating what is out there for us to atleast know about. his lecture was by far the most educational lecture i have ever heard about homosexuality, but not spiritual; which i think is the problem that everyone here is considering....correct me if i am wrong?!!
[quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=7359.msg97505#msg97505 date=1227482748] I dont know how things are organised in the states, but where I live (and in belgium, my neigbour country ;)), civil marriage doesnt mean anything close to our sacramental marriage. Civil marriage is some kind of contract that gives two people who share a living some legal advantages, and they are registered as living together etc. In our view, marriage is the unity of two people through the grace of the Holy Spirit, its a holy thing, a mystery, something divine. Not simply a contract between two people, deciding to live under one roof. So basically, civil marriage in the church view is not valid as a marriage in the first place. Two christian people living together as being married, while only having a civil marriage are considered unmarried by the church, and therefore in a state of sin right? In that case, does it matter who is joined in this civil marriage? Whether its a male and female, two males, two jellyfish even? It's all not considered a lawfull marriage anyway!!!!!! For that reason, i think debating this whole issue is not relevant. Here in my country by democratic laws, the majority of the people approved of same sex marriage...what do we do? Go yell in front of the parlement and say all these people will go to hell? I don't think that's the way a democracy works. I can disagree with the majority, but i live in peace with those who think otherwise. The majority of the people here don't believe in God, but as we live in a democracy i'm granted the right to worship as i like, to believe in God, to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, but I cannot force this upon anyone. In that sense i agree with godislove on most of what she said, its too long to mention all the seperate points, so i'll just the post nice and short ;)
I don't know if you realise, but just by disagreeing with the majority, you are doing something.
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=7359.msg97506#msg97506 date=1227482779] [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97426#msg97426 date=1227211197] Civil rights, are as it may seem from the name, rights of civilians, and there shouldn't be any discrimination between those civilians based on sex, religion, social background or status, race, colour, or sexual orientation. Such rights are for example the right to own goods, the right to get married, etc. The most fundamental rights can be found in the Constitution of any country, such as the right to be treated equally by the state, the right for education, etc.
HG might not have said anything wrong (as in a lie or something) in itself, but he wasn't fair and didn't give the whole picture. And he potrayed so many people as monsters based on a minority, this is wrong. The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which I, the undeserving, am blessd to be part of...
God Bless Please pray for my weakness
Hello Godislove,
I read always your comments, and I respect deeply your opinions, not only because they are presented with clarity of thought but with a certain spirit of humility.
Godislove, correction can be done with humility also. not with sarcasm, nor mockery.
Hi QT, I must say I was flattered by the first part of your sentence, but then I noticed a touch of sarcasm in the second part. The second sentence proved my suspicion. But no offence taken, I am aware of the fact that I have a problem with humility and that I make myself guilty of the sin of pride quite a lot...
Therefor I would love to ask everyone whom I offended or just annoyed in any way by the way I come over (arrogant and proud) to forgive me and pray for me so that I would learn to become more humble...
And yes, I love using sarcasm as a way of dealing with anger and desperation, but I'm also aware it can be pretty hurtful, so again, my apologies...
But please don't let my arrogant way of saying things hide the true meaning of my words as I mean them...
I came across this saying by Voltaire today and I would love to say it, not just to you QT, but in general...
I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it... (and the original french version for a friend also residing in a neibhbouring country: Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire (Voltaire))
I think you read too deeply into my statement. I said that correction can be done without sarcasm or mockery, I was talking about us (the Church) correcting others (whether it be children, teenagers, whoever). It has to be done with a spirit wanting to edify the person.
I don't want to build up a discussion on your suspicions, and why you even had them in the 1st place.
As I said, I'm more of fan of you than I am of any australian bishop, but after hearing H.G Bishop Sorial, I have now a profound admiration for him:
I admire his concern for the youth. Its a true concern. That concern has made him unpopular. I admire him even MORE for that. I know many bishops who are just interested in making themselves popular. But the driving force behind his message was pure care for the Church. That concern is clear, and his sincerity for his Church is unquestionnable in his sermon.
By the way.. I don't think u are arrogant at all. On the contrary. I think u think that I think u are arrogant... but I had the opposite impression all along.
I do believe still my friend Godislove, that this problem is here to stay and how we address it will determine its resolution. I believe that by not showing any signs of correcting this idealogy, we only exacerbate it.
If I see my son doing something wrong and I don't tell him off and I say to myself.. "no no I must show him love - let me hug him instead" - Im not giving him a message that what he's doing is harmful for him and that's the reason why I care to even correct him.
Wow ok, I basically just made a fool of myself, but maybe humiliation would somehow lead to humility :-\... but what I said in my earlier post still stands and I'm glad I got it out, I still apologize for anything offensive in my posts..
Also, QT, I do share your admiration for HG (as I mentioned in my first post) for his outspokenness, and his courage to critisize the Anglican church in their meeting and to tell them that what they're doing is against the teaching of the Bible
However, although his concern for the youth is much appreciated, I still don't think that can be done at the cost of full truth and fairness...
Also, to answer Minagir, maybe part of the problem I had with HG's sermon is the fact that it wasn't the conventional spiritually soked sermon that we get from Coptic bishops and priests, but also, because I felt (and I acknowlegde some might disagree) that he didn't portray gays in a fair way ...
Also the issue of gay marriage came up which triggered a lot of discussion
I don't think my original post was clear, in all fairness to you.
I think you may have expected H.G Bishop Sorial to have talked about homosexuality with perhaps some pre-conceived ideas or sterotypical thoughts in your mind whilst you were listening to the sermon.
After just listening, I do not see the subject of His talk as being about homosexuality. Not at all, the subject of His talk, to be precise, is How the Church needs to address the ideology of homosexuality being considered a human right.
So, all his remarks are based on this subject. Not at all about homosexuals.
The world can do what it wants... why should the Church care? But if you listen carefully,... i mean, really carefully, to his sermon, you can see some concern about how he cares for the youth. Its quite touching actually.
He's not so much concerned about homosexuals and what they do, but more or less concerned about how the youth will see this act and be influenced by it - in my honest opinion.
In fact Godislove, u know what?? Its subject that EVERY single Coptic Christian living outside of the Middle East has to deal with once we have kids. Your kids will come home one day after playing with Spongebob at school. THey'd have read stories about how a Prince married a Prince, and adopted a baby boy through an adoption agency at the local village adoption agency.
Your daughter will come home and tell u that she is now unsure whether she is lesbian or not because she hasn't tried sex yet with the same sex AS HER SCHOOL HAS ADVISED HER!!!
You see??
This is an issue that affects us all. The subject is NOT AT ALL HOMOSEXUALITY... we all love gays. lol But, we are concerned about our children being drawn in by state-sponsored ideologies promoting homosexuality, and questionning heterosexuality in vulnerable young minds.
Well, anyways, thanks for clarifying QT, but really there had been no offence taken in the first place, even if you would have meant it like I initially thought you did...
I would like to comment on what you said though
The subject of education is another subject I feel very strongly about, the youth of today are the future and it's very important that our coptic youth is well educated and equipped to live in a world where, sadly, morals are in decline.
I share with you the concern for our future children growing up in this world, but I don't think the concern is only for parents living in the Middle East, it's for all parents...
Again, I will give an example coming from Egypt, simply because Egypt is closest to my heart... Our children in Egypt are bombarded by state-sponsored Islamic propaganda, they have to learn Quranic verses at school (as I myself once had to do) and of course Islamic teachings are widely available via all media-channels...
We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children, we can strive to, and I think we should do all that is in our power, but in the end it's beyond our full control... Which is why it's important our children are well-educated at church, which brings to light the importance of Sunday School and Youth meetings, and luckily our Pope (who used to be the bishop for education) is also someone who appreciates the importance of education. Also the child is educated a lot at home by his parents and older siblings who should try to be good examples for him/her.
So when discussing this aspect of HG's sermon, I agree with you...
But when discussing gay rights to get married for instance, then I stand firm (the arguments can be found in my former posts, I'll spear all of you another repitition..lol) Also, education should be done fairly, everything should be said, not just some parts, in other words, when educating we should be fair and truthful...
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97417#msg97417 date=1227198781] With all due respect to His Grace, I don't agree with how he makes homosexuals seem like monsters and pedophiles. He chose extreme examples to 'scare' people off from them, this is not fair. Firstly all his examples came from the US, and we all know by now that it's a place of extremes in many ways. Secondly, he kept referring to the United Stated declareation of independence as if it is a divine text that all agree with. But not everyone is convinced he gets his rights from God. It's as if HG is calling upon us to hate and avoid and fear homosexuals, instead of loving them and praying for them as our Lord would want. I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity, I know if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred and the things is he bases himself upon very extreme examples. I know quite a few homosexuals and believe me none of them are evil people with an evil agenda who rape little boys for fun... Also, I would like to mention, homosexuality and pedophelia is not a new thing, in Ancient Greece, a relationship (sexual or not) between an older man and a younger boy was considered normal and widely accepted by society.
I must admit his actions at the synod where he stood up for the word of God and critized what was going wrong are admirable, although, we've only heard the story from his side. But as to giving rights to homosexuals, we as christians, cannot force others to believe what we believe, we can only shine and be the light of the world. So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous... I was very displeased to hear this sermon. Also, when commenting, remember, I completely agree with the teachings of the Bible and I'm not condoning homosexuals, but I'm saying we cannot force others to think the way we think and take away their rights to live as they would wish. Since they're not hurting anyone else, they should be allowed to practice those rights in freedom.
Well the fact that God our creator, our master does not approve of them why should we? I think in one of the letters of St. Paul (may his blessings be with us all) he talks about how men who sleep with men dont go to heaven and the same with women. All in all i am just as confused about this as you are because in the bible it says to love everyone and all that, but then i think it says (correct me if im wrong) not to surround yourselves with people like that right? ???
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108] We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
[quote author=KyrillosSayed link=topic=7359.msg97531#msg97531 date=1227500546] [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108] We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
hmmm..... you can't fully change the world, no matter how much you can "influence"....
[quote author=minagir link=topic=7359.msg97532#msg97532 date=1227501917] [quote author=KyrillosSayed link=topic=7359.msg97531#msg97531 date=1227500546] [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108] We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
hmmm..... you can't fully change the world, no matter how much you can "influence"....
By your influence, YOU can BE the change you wish to see in the world.
[quote author=KyrillosSayed link=topic=7359.msg97533#msg97533 date=1227502123] [quote author=minagir link=topic=7359.msg97532#msg97532 date=1227501917] [quote author=KyrillosSayed link=topic=7359.msg97531#msg97531 date=1227500546] [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108] We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
hmmm..... you can't fully change the world, no matter how much you can "influence"....
By your influence, YOU can BE the change you wish to see in the world.
than you are the "changed one" who influences the world. so your back where you started...you CHANGE the kids, the people to influence the world; not influence the world to change our people!!.
People, being one person, can be changed by the world in many ways that are INFLUENCE by MANY OTHERS.....which is never fully right here.
I felt compelled to answer to some of your comments for I found them a bit troubling. I also note some serious flaws and contradictions in your arguments which I want to highlight line by line.I have to admit,that I did not expect to hear some of the things you said from a Christian, let alone from an Orthodox. Your characterization of Anba Soriel was not only unfair but also uncalled for.I am inclined to think,you did not appreciate HG's sermon to the full extent, because you already had a pre-conceived mind about the rights of HS that did not macth with the way the church authority functions, hence you have not paid full attention to the contents of the sermon.You can, of course ,prove my observation wrong and if I erred , I will stand corrected .
You wrote:
I must admit his actions at the synod where he stood up for the word of God and critized what was going wrong are admirable, although, we've only heard the story from his side”.
When you say that “ we've only heard the story from his side”,the implication is, you are not certain about the truthfulness of the whole story until you hear what the other side has to say before you make up your mind. This argument may make sense in a court room, but when you attribute it to a Bishop, a lifetime servant of God, it immediately loses its flavour. FYI,towards the end of his speech Bishop Soreil has read an article that the local Angelican dicose of Aussie wrote regarding the ecumenical discussions that took place. It is in the same paper,that 'the other side' anointed him as a modern day Elijah, which he said the mere comparison with a great prophet made him feel humble.He also added, the views of the Coptic church in relation to the practice of HS were welcomed by some and totally spurned by others .So, I would like to assure you that he did share ‘the other side of the story’ as reported.
I'd critizise HG's way of speaking (I'm not judging him,
I beg to differ. You have judged him when you criticized him. Criticizing is a form of Judgment.You are not only crticizing his way of speaking, but taken his speech out of context as well.What is worst is that, when your criticism has no basis.For instance, you criticized/judged him when you said "I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity"; when you said “if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred” ; when you said” So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous”; when you degraded his dignity by saying “ he exaggerated.. I think a man like him especially should speak in wisdom and fairness without exaggerating”;when you humiliated his rank and person by claiming ‘The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop”. godislove, what you are saying about this man of God is stunning and beyond any reasonable comprehension. For starters,neither me nor you are in the position to criticize Bishops and church clergies .These are people who dedicate their whole earthly time to God, preaching his word all over the place.These people know the word of God like an open book and for you to suggest that H .G kind of lacks wisdom is 'outrageous', to use your very own word. If you think, you have more knowledge in church affairs than the Bishops or the Pope, then logic dictates that you must be wiser.To think that you are wiser than a Bishop in matters of faith is to expose a hidden pride/arrogance ( i am not saying u r) inadvertently. Please take my brotherly advise, it is never smart to point fingers at our wise religious leaders, specially in the rank and file of Bishops.We simply do not have it.
So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous...
In my last post, I tried to explain why HG referred to the DOI. The foundation of the DOI is GOD.God is in the details of that document. The laws of civil rights that are anchored in that document are not the governments making but the Creaters and that the government is only its facilitator. They are about human rights that have human bounderies.Now, girgis asked you to define Civil rights in reference to the DOI, but you gave a general definition which did not have any bearing to the issue at hand. HG tried to argue that the DOI rights are in accordance with the laws of nature.Its philosophy is to grant individual citizens rights with common good under the light of reason.If the application of rights are abused,then it leads to anarchy,becasue people will always get brazen and will come up with unimaginable demands.However,in your next post you said that you don’t give a hoot about the DOI, since you live in Europe.If that is so, why did you lash out at HG for his mention of the document? What you should not forget is that His Grace gave the speech in the US to US residents who are familiar with US laws, so it is only appropriate for him to refer to the US constitution.It is not ,as you put it,like he did not know what he was talking about.
Next, he never called or referred to HS as freaks and monsters, not did he imply in any way.These are your own words. How come you quote him on something that he did not say? He also did not call them any names or purposefully attacked their person.He did not equate HS to Paedopiles.He only condemned the acts as sinful and rightly so. But, I wonder,where you got all that from? His Grace Bishop Soreil, infact, referred to published studies on Homosexual activities that was conducted by two US prestigious Colleges, namely the University of Columbia and the John Hopkins University. The study found out that the prevalence of HS molesting young adults is way much higher than in Hetero-sexuals.According to the research 80% of HS identify themselves as Pedopiles. Anba Soreil further elaborated how the Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine that is owned by HS from California had an article that declared their principle which goes that '’ the love between men and boys is the foundation of Homosexuality''. He also informed his listeners that the Journal strongly advocates for Sexuality between men and children. It is the HS dimwits who portrayed themselves as nature freaks and paedopiles and not Anba Soriel.If what I am saying is wrong, then the burden of proof falls squarely on you to show us in what manners Anba Damian defamed and vilified HS as ‘freaks and monsters’.
I am not sure what you understand by the separation of church and state. MY own understanding is that when have a state that is religious based then you get the kind of governments that you have in the Middle East.In such countries, it is the religious laws that runs the lives of all people.Unless you sumbit yourself to the faith of the state, you end up being persecuted like it happens in Egypt. The analogy that you drew by comparing the persecution of Copts and the persecution of Homosexuals does not pass a test. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The Copts and other oppressed people have a GOD-GIVEN right to demand their basic rights,- that is what Anba Soreil calls Human rights for the right cause ; while the Homosexuals are demanding a GOD-FORBIDDEN rights. I suspect you are viewing the whole issue from a Democratic point of view. That is not a bad idea ,when you remember that even democratic societies have their limits of rights. I grew up in Germany and in Germany there is a freedom of press. This freedom is not absolute and has its limits.For example, in Germany no journalist can claim that Germany never persecuted Jews. This is deliberatly falsifying history. If that happens and journalistic ethic is transgressed, one gets into trouble with the law and no freedom-of-press argument can save them from prosecution.The same rules apply all over the world.
It also appears to me that you are saying the church, hence Bishop Soriel is trying to impose his religious views on others by force.First of all,one of the church's duty is to teach morals. Morals come from religion. There may be persons who are non -religious but who uphold morals.But such people were religious once.They got their morals and virtues from there and the society they grew up. Almost all world religions teach a human being how to be a better person.This is to say,the idea of right and wrong exists in all societies.Humans have the knowledge of good and evil,because whether they are Godly or ungodly,they are created in the image of God.In the absence of religion, we have the innate knowledge to identify the right thing and do it or choose the wrong thing and commit it. You agreed that pronography is on the rise due to low morals.This is an admission in itself that you think the church's role should be magnified to prevent it from further mushrooming. Like Pornography, HS is also about morals that the church should challenge. The idea is not to try to abolish these behaviours,but to speak out the truth as far as possible. The Lord said," Who he hears, let him hear". Let us encouarge the church to speak up loudly and boldly against this abomination and it is up to the concerned to hear and consider or to walk away. There are of course hypocrities and those are who tell you there exists no right or wrong but only vantage points.The same people would get back at you when what they perceive to be right turns out to be wrong and are desperately trapped in a situation of their own making.
If you think the churchs approach is wrong, how do you think it should act when immorality runs rampant?I hope you agree with me,that staying mum or being indifferent is not an option.
Following your reasoning, one can not help but conclude, that even the Prophets who had been in the service of the Lord should have not meddled in the affairs of the ungodly people, am I right? Because, the prophets too were warning people to do the right and mend their ways. Were they imposing their views too?
To make it easier, let me ask you: If you were to be deported back to your homeland from your host country, and the Church acts in your behalf and defends your rights to stay, Would you not think,the church is not minding its own business?If no, why not? Or would you welcome their interference? If yes, why ?
[quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=7359.msg97573#msg97573 date=1227582301] Hi godislove,
I felt compelled to answer to some of your comments for I found them a bit troubling. I also note some serious flaws and contradictions in your arguments which I want to highlight line by line.I have to admit,that I did not expect to hear some of the things you said from a Christian, let alone from an Orthodox. Your characterization of Anba Soriel was not only unfair but also uncalled for.I am inclined to think,you did not appreciate HG's sermon to the full extent, because you already had a pre-conceived mind about the rights of HS that did not macth with the way the church authority functions, hence you have not paid full attention to the contents of the sermon.You can, of course ,prove my observation wrong and if I erred , I will stand corrected .
You wrote:
I must admit his actions at the synod where he stood up for the word of God and critized what was going wrong are admirable, although, we've only heard the story from his side”.
When you say that “ we've only heard the story from his side”,the implication is, you are not certain about the truthfulness of the whole story until you hear what the other side has to say before you make up your mind. This argument may make sense in a court room, but when you attribute it to a Bishop, a lifetime servant of God, it immediately loses its flavour. FYI,towards the end of his speech Bishop Soreil has read an article that the local Angelican dicose of Aussie wrote regarding the ecumenical discussions that took place. It is in the same paper,that 'the other side' anointed him as a modern day Elijah, which he said the mere comparison with a great prophet made him feel humble.He also added, the views of the Coptic church in relation to the practice of HS were welcomed by some and totally spurned by others .So, I would like to assure you that he did share ‘the other side of the story’ as reported.
I'd critizise HG's way of speaking (I'm not judging him,
I beg to differ. You have judged him when you criticized him. Criticizing is a form of Judgment.You are not only crticizing his way of speaking, but taken his speech out of context as well.What is worst is that, when your criticism has no basis.For instance, you criticized/judged him when you said "I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity"; when you said “if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred” ; when you said” So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous”; when you degraded his dignity by saying “ he exaggerated.. I think a man like him especially should speak in wisdom and fairness without exaggerating”;when you humiliated his rank and person by claiming ‘The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop”. godislove, what you are saying about this man of God is stunning and beyond any reasonable comprehension. For starters,neither me nor you are in the position to criticize Bishops and church clergies .These are people who dedicate their whole earthly time to God, preaching his word all over the place.These people know the word of God like an open book and for you to suggest that H .G kind of lacks wisdom is 'outrageous', to use your very own word. If you think, you have more knowledge in church affairs than the Bishops or the Pope, then logic dictates that you must be wiser.To think that you are wiser than a Bishop in matters of faith is to expose a hidden pride/arrogance ( i am not saying u r) inadvertently. Please take my brotherly advise, it is never smart to point fingers at our wise religious leaders, specially in the rank and file of Bishops.We simply do not have it.
So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous...
In my last post, I tried to explain why HG referred to the DOI. The foundation of the DOI is GOD.God is in the details of that document. The laws of civil rights that are anchored in that document are not the governments making but the Creaters and that the government is only its facilitator. They are about human rights that have human bounderies.Now, girgis asked you to define Civil rights in reference to the DOI, but you gave a general definition which did not have any bearing to the issue at hand. HG tried to argue that the DOI rights are in accordance with the laws of nature.Its philosophy is to grant individual citizens rights with common good under the light of reason.If the application of rights are abused,then it leads to anarchy,becasue people will always get brazen and will come up with unimaginable demands.However,in your next post you said that you don’t give a hoot about the DOI, since you live in Europe.If that is so, why did you lash out at HG for his mention of the document? What you should not forget is that His Grace gave the speech in the US to US residents who are familiar with US laws, so it is only appropriate for him to refer to the US constitution.It is not ,as you put it,like he did not know what he was talking about.
Next, he never called or referred to HS as freaks and monsters, not did he imply in any way.These are your own words. How come you quote him on something that he did not say? He also did not call them any names or purposefully attacked their person.He did not equate HS to Paedopiles.He only condemned the acts as sinful and rightly so. But, I wonder,where you got all that from? His Grace Bishop Soreil, infact, referred to published studies on Homosexual activities that was conducted by two US prestigious Colleges, namely the University of Columbia and the John Hopkins University. The study found out that the prevalence of HS molesting young adults is way much higher than in Hetero-sexuals.According to the research 80% of HS identify themselves as Pedopiles. Anba Soreil further elaborated how the Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine that is owned by HS from California had an article that declared their principle which goes that '’ the love between men and boys is the foundation of Homosexuality''. He also informed his listeners that the Journal strongly advocates for Sexuality between men and children. It is the HS dimwits who portrayed themselves as nature freaks and paedopiles and not Anba Soriel.If what I am saying is wrong, then the burden of proof falls squarely on you to show us in what manners Anba Damian defamed and vilified HS as ‘freaks and monsters’.
I am not sure what you understand by the separation of church and state. MY own understanding is that when have a state that is religious based then you get the kind of governments that you have in the Middle East.In such countries, it is the religious laws that runs the lives of all people.Unless you sumbit yourself to the faith of the state, you end up being persecuted like it happens in Egypt. The analogy that you drew by comparing the persecution of Copts and the persecution of Homosexuals does not pass a test. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The Copts and other oppressed people have a GOD-GIVEN right to demand their basic rights,- that is what Anba Soreil calls Human rights for the right cause ; while the Homosexuals are demanding a GOD-FORBIDDEN rights. I suspect you are viewing the whole issue from a Democratic point of view. That is not a bad idea ,when you remember that even democratic societies have their limits of rights. I grew up in Germany and in Germany there is a freedom of press. This freedom is not absolute and has its limits.For example, in Germany no journalist can claim that Germany never persecuted Jews. This is deliberatly falsifying history. If that happens and journalistic ethic is transgressed, one gets into trouble with the law and no freedom-of-press argument can save them from prosecution.The same rules apply all over the world.
It also appears to me that you are saying the church, hence Bishop Soriel is trying to impose his religious views on others by force.First of all,one of the church's duty is to teach morals. Morals come from religion. There may be persons who are non -religious but who uphold morals.But such people were religious once.They got their morals and virtues from there and the society they grew up. Almost all world religions teach a human being how to be a better person.This is to say,the idea of right and wrong exists in all societies.Humans have the knowledge of good and evil,because whether they are Godly or ungodly,they are created in the image of God.In the absence of religion, we have the innate knowledge to identify the right thing and do it or choose the wrong thing and commit it. You agreed that pronography is on the rise due to low morals.This is an admission in itself that you think the church's role should be magnified to prevent it from further mushrooming. Like Pornography, HS is also about morals that the church should challenge. The idea is not to try to abolish these behaviours,but to speak out the truth as far as possible. The Lord said," Who he hears, let him hear". Let us encouarge the church to speak up loudly and boldly against this abomination and it is up to the concerned to hear and consider or to walk away. There are of course hypocrities and those are who tell you there exists no right or wrong but only vantage points.The same people would get back at you when what they perceive to be right turns out to be wrong and are desperately trapped in a situation of their own making.
If you think the churchs approach is wrong, how do you think it should act when immorality runs rampant?I hope you agree with me,that staying mum or being indifferent is not an option.
Following your reasoning, one can not help but conclude, that even the Prophets who had been in the service of the Lord should have not meddled in the affairs of the ungodly people, am I right? Because, the prophets too were warning people to do the right and mend their ways. Were they imposing their views too?
To make it easier, let me ask you: If you were to be deported back to your homeland from your host country, and the Church acts in your behalf and defends your rights to stay, Would you not think,the church is not minding its own business?If no, why not? Or would you welcome their interference? If yes, why ?
Very well said Hezekiel...I couldn't agree with you more.
[quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=7359.msg97573#msg97573 date=1227582301] You wrote:
I must admit his actions at the synod where he stood up for the word of God and critized what was going wrong are admirable, although, we've only heard the story from his side”.
When you say that “ we've only heard the story from his side”,the implication is, you are not certain about the truthfulness of the whole story until you hear what the other side has to say before you make up your mind. This argument may make sense in a court room, but when you attribute it to a Bishop, a lifetime servant of God, it immediately loses its flavour. FYI,towards the end of his speech Bishop Soreil has read an article that the local Angelican dicose of Aussie wrote regarding the ecumenical discussions that took place. It is in the same paper,that 'the other side' anointed him as a modern day Elijah, which he said the mere comparison with a great prophet made him feel humble.He also added, the views of the Coptic church in relation to the practice of HS were welcomed by some and totally spurned by others .So, I would like to assure you that he did share ‘the other side of the story’ as reported.
hmmm.....i have to agree with Hezekiel and need to prove that this statement is WROOOOONG. Sayedna, whatever he said at the end wasn't HIS PERSONAL OPINION, but rather the declaration of what was said by the bishop that agreed with him from the Anglican Synod. He was reading this, almost word to word:
What if Elijah came to Synod? Bruce Ballantine-Jones comments Elijah was a direct man who called it as he saw it. If the ‘great ones’ didn’t like it – too bad! He owed his allegiance to God. What he said ruffled feathers and disturbed the refined atmosphere of the court. No doubt people hissed at his direct, honest style. People like Elijah do not sit well with the establishment. No doubt the establishment would have been happier if he moderated his tone, been less direct, used the language of diplomacy, didn’t remind them of uncomfortable things like God’s word and their rejection of it. As we read the stories about Elijah and his struggles no doubt we quietly cheer him on. “Good on you Elijah give it to them!” But what if Elijah came to Synod? Would we be so enthusiastic? An incident occurred at General Synod recently that got me thinking about this. Not a lot of publicity has been given to it but, for many who were there, it was very disturbing. It is customary for the General Synod to allocate a place for honoured guests from other denominations. Sometimes they are invited to give a greeting to the Synod on behalf of their church or organisation. This is all very friendly, very ecumenical. One such visitor in Brisbane was Bishop Suriel (pictured above) of the Coptic Orthodox Church. He is a tall man, resplendent in his long black robes. For five days he sat there observing the Synod, listening to the debates. Because he had to leave on the Wednesday, he asked if he could address the gathering. “Of course”, was the reply. Unfortunately, for the General Synod, they did not realise that there was a bit of Elijah in Suriel! The Speech In his speech he took issue on the question of women bishops, which he said was contrary to the teaching of Scripture as well as the tradition of the Church. Also he expressed the view that the Scripture is clear in its teaching on homosexuality, that it is an abomination, something detested by God, unnatural and indeed a sin. He said that the Church should help people with homosexual orientation to repent and to seek medical and psychological help to overcome their lifestyle. In making these comments on matters which had been debated at the Synod, he mentioned a number of the participants in the debates by name – in some cases approvingly and in one case not. His speech was received by some at the Synod with great hostility. At the reception held by the Queensland Premier for Synod members, straight afterward, he was audibly hissed by some when the Premier welcomed him. This response deeply hurt the bishop who subsequently said that in quoting several members in his speech, whether male or female, there was no intention to harm or offend anyone. He was simply attempting to give an orthodox perspective on issues raised in the Synod which he felt they needed to hear. The “Apology” The bishop left for Melbourne. The next day the Primate made a statement to the General Synod in which he said that the bishop was unfamiliar with the expectations that are part of Anglican Church life. He had been expected only to say a general short and pastorally sensitive word of encouragement. He said that Bishop Suriel now deeply regretted he caused great hurt to many and he appreciated ACL News October–November 2001 Page 7 his words were both hurtful and profoundly unfair. Also, Archbishop Carnley said of the Bishop that he deeply regretted the hospitality of the Synod had been abused in ways both hurtful and unfair. Nevertheless, the Primate indicated he had apologised to the Bishop for the fact that some hissed when his name was announced at the public reception. The Fallout The problem was that, when the Bishop heard about the Primate’s statement, he issued his own statement which said, in part – “I was deeply shocked and offended to hear the comments made by the Primate of The Anglican Church of Australia, His Grace Archbishop Peter Carnley, in today’s statement to the General Synod in Brisbane concerning the discussion between myself and Bishop Huggins and Bishop Herft at the Premier’s reception last night. This statement made to the General Synod was both incorrect and misleading. This statement was made without my knowledge and without my consent and therefore cannot be held as a statement which I made. I did not even see this document before it was read to the Synod and do not accept it. The statement also purposely neglected to inform the Synod that I had demanded a public apology from the Synod for the humiliation I suffered when I was hissed during a public reception given by the Premier of Queensland on Wednesday night and by members of the General Synod who came to abuse me after my speech.” and further he said: “I will not make any public apology as I felt justified for what I said as this is in line with the teaching of the Holy Bible and in no way did I attack anyone at the Synod. In fact I demand a public apology from the Synod for the treatment I have received from them which has been both humiliating and degrading. “In the statement issued by the Primate, he stated in point 3 that I abused the hospitality of the Synod in ways which were ‘hurtful and unfair’. This statement is itself debased on any truth and is an attack on me personally. The comments which I made were with the permission of the Primate and, if this is what people did not want to hear, then it is time for the members of the General Synod to be receptive to other people’s opinions even if it differs from their own – this is what ecumenism is about. This is what I stated in my speech – that we should be committed to our ecumenical journey together. Even though I have been hurt and offended at what has happened, yet I am obliged to follow the command of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to work for Christian unity. The Coptic Orthodox Church is totally committed to the pursuance of Christian unity – but not at the expense of the true faith which is spelt out in the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church.” In what seemed like a well meant attempt at damage control, the Primate successfully asked the Synod to pass a resolution of apology, and then a resolution expressing support for the Coptic Church in Egypt in their troubles was also passed. But, in my view, it was all too late – the damage had been done. There is no doubt that this was a major embarrassment to the Anglican Church and the matter was very badly handled. However it raised the question in my mind; what is it about gatherings like this which permits people only to use ‘church speak’ and not to engage in frank and open exchanges? How would we cope if Elijah or John the Baptist or somebody like St. Paul, who withstood Peter to his face over a gospel issue, came into our meetings? Would they be condemned for not playing by the rules? Is it alright to speak only so long as there is no substance in what one says and only as long as there is no actual engagement with people on the issues? So what would we do if Elijah came to our Synod? Canon Bruce Ballantine-Jones is the Rector of Jannali and also a Vice President of the ACL. He is a long-time Sydney representative on the General Synod.
Hezekiel, I felt compelled to answer your post for I believe you have drawn conclusions from things I said that were never meant to be drawn, in other words, I felt you read what I wrote from a pre-conceived idea that I was wrong in everything I said, and you clearly misunderstood most my beliefs.
Now, under normal circumstances, you saying that I don't come across as a christian or an orthodox would be the absolute worst thing anyone could say to me. Depending on who the comment came from, it would not only bother me, but brake my spirit in a way that is very difficult to mend. For it's a comment on the core of my life... For I see christianity not just as a religion but a way of life that is the highest one can ever reach, for it is following the example and the teachings of the Highest being ever... But don't worry, it didn't have those particular consequences this time , but I thought I would mention it because I don't think you realized when saying it how much effect it could have...
In my posts, I tried to view things from the most objective and open-minded perspective I could get myself to have. I even distanced myself from my personal beliefs as a christian because this issue is a world wide issue of people from all religions and places and not just a christian thing, so in my view a purely secular approach was necessary. You might say, but you just said christianity is a way of life, how can you say you're christian and still distance yourself from your ideals??? Because I'm not merely looking at myself as a church member but as a citizen of the world and that's the only way, at least as far as I can tell, to really understand the views of the other side which are in fact conflicting with our views as christians... I'm trying to look at my fellow human being and put myself in his/her position and just for the sake of understanding and thus being able to judge fairly... So it is for this discussion on the rights of civilians that I felt I had to be fair and secular, however I do not distance myself from my beliefs in my own life, when it comes to my actions, but as a lawyer who has to judge has to be objective and not let himself be influenced by his personal beliefs but only by the objective law so also I am trying to look for the most just and objective solution to this problem..
So I think the problem is that most of you have answered me thinking I'm twisting christianity or making compromises of how christianity should become or not become, but no my friends, christianity is perfect in itself and I'm not saying it should change to accomodate to the world and the changes in it... Nor should we change, as christians, we shouldn't make compromises, but as our blessed forefathers did, fight to keep our church a truly orthodox church and not fall in the traps the other churches have fallen in..
Hezekiel, I will try to answer your comment point by point, I hope you find my answers edifying... and as yourself, I stand corrected, if I misunderstood anything you said...
1. We've only heard the story from his side
I do try to reserve my opinion until I hear both sides speak, this is my way of trying to be fair. Now HG has already talked about what he said in his talk to the synod and he had the paper also, but still, I don't view journalism as my most trusted source, and who knows if there were other articles written that were completely different? I don't know how exactly HG talked because no matter how right you are in what you say, sometimes how you say it can make all the difference... And as I didn't like the way he portrayed gays, although he is right in condemning homosexuality, I thought I'd reserve my full admiration since I don't know exactly what was said at the synod Regardless, I don't know HG personally and I don't have anything against him, but the mere fact that he did stand up at the synod to tell them tht wht they were doing was wrong I thought was admirable, and I did say tht quite a few times
2. He gave a bad image of christianity
I said before, I'm not judging him as HG bishop Sorial, but as a person of great responsibilty and as a bishop in the church which I cannot express my feeling of lack of deserving to be a part of, I did share my opinion about the way christianity seemed from his sermon... Expressing my opinion is something I did out of concern, because I felt that if a non-christian would listen to it, he wouldn't truly find the face of christianity as a religion of love and compassion and spirituality in it... Believe me, I do not think of myself as knowledgable in religion at all, truly, I think it's actually a shame how little I know. Which is why when discussing theological topics, I mostly just ask questions and try to learn more which is why I love this website. But my critisicm wasn't about the theological side of the sermon, for even if that had been wrong in any way, I probably wouldn't have known. My critisism was about which examples HG gave and how they weren't a good representation of reality in my view...
Your brotherly advise is taken and appreciated, but I cannot see something that is unfair and be quiet, it's not in my nature, no matter who it came from. So when I thought the image of homosexuals was portrayed unfairly, I had to speak. I agree the leaders of our church deserve the utmost respect but they are not infalliable..
3. Why the DOI is not my main concern
This discussion evolved from being strictly about HG's sermon which was given in America, to being about homosexual marriage in general. Why I do not care so much for the DOI is not just because I don't live in America, but because it goes against my belief in separation of church and state. And I'm not alone, for there are Americans who would also like to see the 'In God we trust' off the American dollars. Of course, the DOI will not be changed and I'm not claiming it should it's become almost a 'holy' symbol of freedom and independence, but it's proof that religion still plays a part in the American state, when in my view, and that of many, it shouldn't. Also Hezekiel, I never implied HG didn't know what he was talking about, I really don't know where you got that...
4. Monsters and pedophiles
Hey, Hezekiel, I think you should be more precise. I never said HG literally said that pedophiles where monsters and pedophiles in that I never quoted him on anything... So please, I know you have your opinion of which you are very much convinced, but be fair and don't accuse me of something I didn't do
I said the way HG talked about them thus the examples he gave (which are not a good representation of the reality of things) made them look like that. If I didn't know any better about this particular issue, and undoubtadly there are people who don't, I think they would form a very negative opinion on homosexuals more than normally, based on this image...
5. A) Separation of Religion and State
Your post proved to me, you still don't get it... You speak of God-given rights in a state.. This is where we disagree, no such thing in a state, there shouldn't be mention of God, the God of religion. A state doesn't have a religion nor a God. The people yes, but not the state. Or that's how it should be, in my view. So when you say homosexual marriage is a God-forbidden thing, your argument only goes for those who believe in God. But if I were an atheist and I told you, I don't care about your God, what other argument would you be able to give him??? We don't even have to go as far as atheist, someone from another religion could say: In my religion, my God allows this... What are you gonna say then??? Why would we apply christian law and not muslim law or buddhist law, there needs to be one universtal law apart form religion.. Do you understand? Religion and God is a relative thing, you cannot base a law on something that is so relative. Which is why in a state, religion shouldn't play any role!!!!
5. B) the example of Egypt, is in my eyes a very good one
Please bear with me here
the Egyptian constitution claims Islam is the religion of the state the DOI speaks of God-given rights
Muslims see us, christians as sinners (worshipping a humanwhich is forbidden by quran) Christians see homosexuals as sinners (according to the Holy Bible)
Some muslims would like to take away our rights Some christians would like to take away a homosexual's right to get married (civil)
Christians in Egypt demand a secular state where your religion can neither be an advantage nor a disadvantage, they demand equal rights even if what they are doing in the eyes of Islam might be wrong Homosexuals demand their civil right as civilians to get married even if what they're doing, in the eyes of religion, is wrong
I'm not the only one who claims the church shouldn't interfere with state matters in Egypt, even the pope says that... There shoudln't be a difference between a muslim and a christian, the state should be the one to protect me, as a christian Egyptian, not the church. But since I think the system in flawed, it's the church that has to fight for its own rights at times, sometimes the state itself hinders the pocess of law, but the fact is that this is not how it should be!!!
6. It also appears to me that you are saying the church, hence Bishop Soriel is trying to impose his religious views on others by force.
It may have somehow appeared to you that way, but I wouldn't know how??!! I never ever claimed the church wanted to do anything by force, which would mean the chruch was phyisically or mentally forcing people to agree with it. I said, we as christians (the church) cannot make people abide by the same laws we abide by, religion is something you have to believe in, be convinced of. So even if we wanted to force them to believe in what we believe, we couldn't! You can't force someone to believe something... You can however force someone to live by the rules you live by BASED ON YOUR BELIEF WHICH YOU HAVE CHOSEN FREELY!!
7. preaching the word of God
I agree with you the church shouldn't say numb or indifferent, not at all. The Lord himself called us to be a light to the world, and the salt of the earth. So the church of which we are part of should preach His word and glorify Him at all times. I also said in an earlier post, the church has a huge role to play in education...
But it shouldn't take away someone's right based on its belief, never!
If the state had wanted to force the church to marry homosexuals and thus give them a church marriage, then I would be the first to disagree, because separation of church and state goes both ways. So I also don't agree when the church wants to take away someone's civil right to get married away based on its belief...
Finally, I hope you try to view things from a different perspective, do not give up your beliefs, that's not what I did, or am asking you to do. For I said before, in my own life, the word of God is ranked highest. But we are living in a world with many different cultures and religions and we have to find a way to live together in peace.
After 4 pages of back and forth discussion that has seemingly gone no where and not changed your mind at all I would like you to clearly state the "rights" that gays are being deprived of and the "horrible" discrimination they face.
They are deprived of their civil right to get married to whomever they would like, this right, is a right they should have because they are civilians. I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal, after all I said this before, civil marriage is nothing more than a contract which has judicial and economical consequences.
This contract can be ended with a divorce, this divorce (the ending of the contract) is is also something we disaprove of in christianity, unless there was adultery...
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97585#msg97585 date=1227634576] I don't understand what you mean...
Are you saying that I can't discern between state and God?
Or do you mean tht you get my point which is separation of religion and state?
God Bless Plz pray for me
not fully "can't discern" but just can't find the middle line between both.
Something we have to keep and we hear all the time, but we never think about or keep..."We as Christians LIVE INTO the world, the world DOESN'T LIVE IN us."
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97588#msg97588 date=1227634856] Oh good, I looked for it, but couldn't find it anywhere... Could you also pm it to me, plz?
I truly believe that as a Christian, my faith - nor the practice of it, really depends on the majority practicing it.
I can be a Christian in a non-Christian society.
Unlike Islam, we don't have to live in a Christian state for us to be successful Christians. This is unlike Islam that requires the state to uphold Sharia law for them to exist as muslims. One can even go to the extent and say that the Islamic Brotherhood see all of Egypt's problems are happening because the small Christian Coptic minority exist; and ONLY if we were converted, only then could Egypt prosper. That is how many members of this regime think by the way!
However, this topic of homosexuality and the subsequent ideology of it being a human right is very challenging for us. We could live in a country where we are minorities without any issue. In fact, its a blessing as one may become more attached to his faith as a result of being persecuted for it. We may even benefit from living in a society where immorality is widely accepted as the norm - it simply helps to distinguish us based on our values. But this issue of homosexuality is quite different.
Its different because for once, it is not being considered immoral by the state. On the contrary, it is being taught as correct sexual behaviour. Gays are not only correct in their sexuality, according to the State's position concerning this, but they are equal in their rights to adopt children, divorce, marry, and separate.
Its challenging because our children will be taught in schools that not only being gay is OK, but that you do not know that you are gay unless you've "tried it".
The challenge moves up a gear when, as parents, we correct this teaching on kids, the consequences are potentially drastic:
a) Are we in fact teaching them to respect the state and be patriotic towards the state that is enforcing immorality on them? b) When we counter-teach our children what is being taught to them in schools - how does this affect their development, both academically or socially? How does it affect their love for their fellow countrymen who do not share their same values - but rather enforce their values (or lack of rather!) on our children? c) Those of us who left Egypt due to islamic persecution will only find ourselves living in a society that condones immorality. How will that make further generations respect and integrate into the country they believed reflected their "christian" values?
Maybe this is the answer to immigration? Maybe copts will one day realise that Egypt isn't such a bad place after all to raise your kids. Maybe we should thank God for the Islamic regime?
This is a very confusing situation to be in. I've never wanted to feel indifferent to the State, but I am inclined - because of my faith, to respect the laws of the country. However, when the law starts suggesting and enforcing homosexuality on children by teaching them (in state schools!!) that they do not know that they are gay UNLESS they've tried homosexuality, then this is where I have a problem.
I think we will all have a problem!!
For once, I see Islam as something positive in Egypt, and our persecution as being the best of two evils to endure rather than this.
By being passive,the state allowed religious minorities to decide on how best to educate their children. Now western states have taken it upon themselves to be actively engaged in promoting the agenda set out by civil liberties groups everywhere who seem to have a mandate to redefine, what we consider, immoral behaviour as moral.
There is most definately a clear friction in values between Christian Orthodoxy and Western Liberalism. At 1st I didnt care, but now, it is imposing itself on us. By teaching our children that homosexuality is wrong, we could be now accused of homophobia, and not allowing our children to integrate in society.
Islam never forced itself on us in this way in Egypt. If anything, I believe that its an infringement of our human rights to be forced to believe something is right, when our religion tells us its wrong.
Responding to godislove's claim that "[gays] are deprived of their civil right to get married to whomever they would like, this right, is a right they should have because they are civilians."
You are basing this right on the assumption that people can marry whomever they wish and the state should not get involved in the matter whatsoever. Then following this premise we should allow polygamy, we should also allow allow marriage between lets say a 17 year old teen and 40 year old homosexual, after all the teen is mature enough. Why do we not also allow beastiality..."I can eat a cow but not sleep with it!" As you can see if we allow homosexuality we are heading down a slippery slope. Even if we disregard The Bible in our arguments you can see that the whole fabric of society is destroyed if you allow immorality. The fact is that homosexuality is against morals in the same way beastiality is. Morals are implanted in us by God, and no matter how hard people try to suppress the fact that homosexuality is wrong and everyone knows it. They might try to reason with themselves and justify it but the state should never allow it to be permissible. What is happening is people are trying to remove God and Christianity as much as they can from the state that we are missing the fact that they are adding in the devil and lawlessness in His place. If we do not even abide by the laws of nature what will distinguish us from animals?
Bestiality is not allowed because an animal in the eyes of the law is an object and not a subject who can make decisions
I agree with you that morals are in decline, and I truly think it's a shame, it's terrible to think how many people are in the wrong path... But all we can do is pray and try to be the best christians we can be...
I think allowing homosexual marriage is simply allowing two civilians to have a contract where they would have the judicial and economical advantages that civil marriage gives. Thus from a purely objective and secular point of view I don't see any argument (non religious) why it shouldn't be allowed.
I think this discussion has dragged on for too long, I have given you all the arguments I could find for the meantime, you think you are right, I think I am right, and unless anything new is put into the discussion or someone suddenly comes to a certain realization, it will probably stay like that... I do respect most your views, but I think we just can't seem to get on the same page, however, I thank you all for being tolerant to the 'opposition' ;)
Comments
As QT said, this, homosexuality, is here to STAY and to dominate as ever (since it been present from loooooong ago). the best to deal with it is ti understand it from all the angles. His grace angel was just to state the facts. I was in that meeting when he gave the lecture.....in fact, i am the one who recorded this sermon, but a friend here put it online for everyone. His grace did not said anything out of his mind keda as most priests do. actually, very different from what he does normally, he was viewing a presentation during the simple and almost followed with it word for word; just to show that he is just stating what is out there for us to atleast know about. his lecture was by far the most educational lecture i have ever heard about homosexuality, but not spiritual; which i think is the problem that everyone here is considering....correct me if i am wrong?!!
I dont know how things are organised in the states, but where I live (and in belgium, my neigbour country ;)), civil marriage doesnt mean anything close to our sacramental marriage. Civil marriage is some kind of contract that gives two people who share a living some legal advantages, and they are registered as living together etc.
In our view, marriage is the unity of two people through the grace of the Holy Spirit, its a holy thing, a mystery, something divine. Not simply a contract between two people, deciding to live under one roof. So basically, civil marriage in the church view is not valid as a marriage in the first place. Two christian people living together as being married, while only having a civil marriage are considered unmarried by the church, and therefore in a state of sin right?
In that case, does it matter who is joined in this civil marriage? Whether its a male and female, two males, two jellyfish even? It's all not considered a lawfull marriage anyway!!!!!! For that reason, i think debating this whole issue is not relevant. Here in my country by democratic laws, the majority of the people approved of same sex marriage...what do we do? Go yell in front of the parlement and say all these people will go to hell? I don't think that's the way a democracy works. I can disagree with the majority, but i live in peace with those who think otherwise. The majority of the people here don't believe in God, but as we live in a democracy i'm granted the right to worship as i like, to believe in God, to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, but I cannot force this upon anyone.
In that sense i agree with godislove on most of what she said, its too long to mention all the seperate points, so i'll just the post nice and short ;)
I don't know if you realise, but just by disagreeing with the majority, you are doing something.
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97426#msg97426 date=1227211197]
Civil rights, are as it may seem from the name, rights of civilians, and there shouldn't be any discrimination between those civilians based on sex, religion, social background or status, race, colour, or sexual orientation. Such rights are for example the right to own goods, the right to get married, etc. The most fundamental rights can be found in the Constitution of any country, such as the right to be treated equally by the state, the right for education, etc.
HG might not have said anything wrong (as in a lie or something) in itself, but he wasn't fair and didn't give the whole picture. And he potrayed so many people as monsters based on a minority, this is wrong. The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which I, the undeserving, am blessd to be part of...
God Bless
Please pray for my weakness
Hello Godislove,
I read always your comments, and I respect deeply your opinions, not only because they are presented with clarity of thought but with a certain spirit of humility.
Godislove, correction can be done with humility also. not with sarcasm, nor mockery.
Hi QT, I must say I was flattered by the first part of your sentence, but then I noticed a touch of sarcasm in the second part. The second sentence proved my suspicion.
But no offence taken, I am aware of the fact that I have a problem with humility and that I make myself guilty of the sin of pride quite a lot...
Therefor I would love to ask everyone whom I offended or just annoyed in any way by the way I come over (arrogant and proud) to forgive me and pray for me so that I would learn to become more humble...
And yes, I love using sarcasm as a way of dealing with anger and desperation, but I'm also aware it can be pretty hurtful, so again, my apologies...
But please don't let my arrogant way of saying things hide the true meaning of my words as I mean them...
I came across this saying by Voltaire today and I would love to say it, not just to you QT, but in general...
I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...
(and the original french version for a friend also residing in a neibhbouring country:
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire (Voltaire))
God Bless
Please pray for my weakness
I think you read too deeply into my statement. I said that correction can be done without sarcasm or mockery, I was talking about us (the Church) correcting others (whether it be children, teenagers, whoever). It has to be done with a spirit wanting to edify the person.
I don't want to build up a discussion on your suspicions, and why you even had them in the 1st place.
As I said, I'm more of fan of you than I am of any australian bishop, but after hearing H.G Bishop Sorial, I have now a profound admiration for him:
I admire his concern for the youth. Its a true concern. That concern has made him unpopular. I admire him even MORE for that. I know many bishops who are just interested in making themselves popular. But the driving force behind his message was pure care for the Church. That concern is clear, and his sincerity for his Church is unquestionnable in his sermon.
By the way.. I don't think u are arrogant at all. On the contrary. I think u think that I think u are arrogant... but I had the opposite impression all along.
I do believe still my friend Godislove, that this problem is here to stay and how we address it will determine its resolution. I believe that by not showing any signs of correcting this idealogy, we only exacerbate it.
If I see my son doing something wrong and I don't tell him off and I say to myself.. "no no I must show him love - let me hug him instead" - Im not giving him a message that what he's doing is harmful for him and that's the reason why I care to even correct him.
Also, QT, I do share your admiration for HG (as I mentioned in my first post) for his outspokenness, and his courage to critisize the Anglican church in their meeting and to tell them that what they're doing is against the teaching of the Bible
However, although his concern for the youth is much appreciated, I still don't think that can be done at the cost of full truth and fairness...
Also, to answer Minagir, maybe part of the problem I had with HG's sermon is the fact that it wasn't the conventional spiritually soked sermon that we get from Coptic bishops and priests, but also, because I felt (and I acknowlegde some might disagree) that he didn't portray gays in a fair way ...
Also the issue of gay marriage came up which triggered a lot of discussion
God bless
Please pray for my weakness
I don't think my original post was clear, in all fairness to you.
I think you may have expected H.G Bishop Sorial to have talked about homosexuality with perhaps some pre-conceived ideas or sterotypical thoughts in your mind whilst you were listening to the sermon.
After just listening, I do not see the subject of His talk as being about homosexuality.
Not at all, the subject of His talk, to be precise, is How the Church needs to address the ideology of homosexuality being considered a human right.
So, all his remarks are based on this subject. Not at all about homosexuals.
The world can do what it wants... why should the Church care? But if you listen carefully,... i mean, really carefully, to his sermon, you can see some concern about how he cares for the youth. Its quite touching actually.
He's not so much concerned about homosexuals and what they do, but more or less concerned about how the youth will see this act and be influenced by it - in my honest opinion.
In fact Godislove, u know what?? Its subject that EVERY single Coptic Christian living outside of the Middle East has to deal with once we have kids. Your kids will come home one day after playing with Spongebob at school. THey'd have read stories about how a Prince married a Prince, and adopted a baby boy through an adoption agency at the local village adoption agency.
Your daughter will come home and tell u that she is now unsure whether she is lesbian or not because she hasn't tried sex yet with the same sex AS HER SCHOOL HAS ADVISED HER!!!
You see??
This is an issue that affects us all. The subject is NOT AT ALL HOMOSEXUALITY... we all love gays. lol
But, we are concerned about our children being drawn in by state-sponsored ideologies promoting homosexuality, and questionning heterosexuality in vulnerable young minds.
I would like to comment on what you said though
The subject of education is another subject I feel very strongly about, the youth of today are the future and it's very important that our coptic youth is well educated and equipped to live in a world where, sadly, morals are in decline.
I share with you the concern for our future children growing up in this world, but I don't think the concern is only for parents living in the Middle East, it's for all parents...
Again, I will give an example coming from Egypt, simply because Egypt is closest to my heart... Our children in Egypt are bombarded by state-sponsored Islamic propaganda, they have to learn Quranic verses at school (as I myself once had to do) and of course Islamic teachings are widely available via all media-channels...
We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children, we can strive to, and I think we should do all that is in our power, but in the end it's beyond our full control... Which is why it's important our children are well-educated at church, which brings to light the importance of Sunday School and Youth meetings, and luckily our Pope (who used to be the bishop for education) is also someone who appreciates the importance of education. Also the child is educated a lot at home by his parents and older siblings who should try to be good examples for him/her.
So when discussing this aspect of HG's sermon, I agree with you...
But when discussing gay rights to get married for instance, then I stand firm (the arguments can be found in my former posts, I'll spear all of you another repitition..lol)
Also, education should be done fairly, everything should be said, not just some parts, in other words, when educating we should be fair and truthful...
God Bless
Please pray for my weakness
With all due respect to His Grace, I don't agree with how he makes homosexuals seem like monsters and pedophiles. He chose extreme examples to 'scare' people off from them, this is not fair. Firstly all his examples came from the US, and we all know by now that it's a place of extremes in many ways. Secondly, he kept referring to the United Stated declareation of independence as if it is a divine text that all agree with. But not everyone is convinced he gets his rights from God. It's as if HG is calling upon us to hate and avoid and fear homosexuals, instead of loving them and praying for them as our Lord would want.
I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity, I know if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred and the things is he bases himself upon very extreme examples. I know quite a few homosexuals and believe me none of them are evil people with an evil agenda who rape little boys for fun... Also, I would like to mention, homosexuality and pedophelia is not a new thing, in Ancient Greece, a relationship (sexual or not) between an older man and a younger boy was considered normal and widely accepted by society.
I must admit his actions at the synod where he stood up for the word of God and critized what was going wrong are admirable, although, we've only heard the story from his side.
But as to giving rights to homosexuals, we as christians, cannot force others to believe what we believe, we can only shine and be the light of the world.
So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous...
I was very displeased to hear this sermon.
Also, when commenting, remember, I completely agree with the teachings of the Bible and I'm not condoning homosexuals, but I'm saying we cannot force others to think the way we think and take away their rights to live as they would wish. Since they're not hurting anyone else, they should be allowed to practice those rights in freedom.
Well the fact that God our creator, our master does not approve of them why should we? I think in one of the letters of St. Paul (may his blessings be with us all) he talks about how men who sleep with men dont go to heaven and the same with women. All in all i am just as confused about this as you are because in the bible it says to love everyone and all that, but then i think it says (correct me if im wrong) not to surround yourselves with people like that right? ???
We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108]
We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
hmmm..... you can't fully change the world, no matter how much you can "influence"....
[quote author=KyrillosSayed link=topic=7359.msg97531#msg97531 date=1227500546]
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108]
We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
hmmm..... you can't fully change the world, no matter how much you can "influence"....
By your influence, YOU can BE the change you wish to see in the world.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=7359.msg97532#msg97532 date=1227501917]
[quote author=KyrillosSayed link=topic=7359.msg97531#msg97531 date=1227500546]
[quote author=godislove260 link=topic=7359.msg97521#msg97521 date=1227487108]
We cannot control the outside world which inevitably influences our children
But we can influence the world which inevitably controls our children.
hmmm..... you can't fully change the world, no matter how much you can "influence"....
By your influence, YOU can BE the change you wish to see in the world.
than you are the "changed one" who influences the world. so your back where you started...you CHANGE the kids, the people to influence the world; not influence the world to change our people!!.
People, being one person, can be changed by the world in many ways that are INFLUENCE by MANY OTHERS.....which is never fully right here.
I felt compelled to answer to some of your comments for I found them a bit troubling. I also note some serious flaws and contradictions in your arguments which I want to highlight line by line.I have to admit,that I did not expect to hear some of the things you said from a Christian, let alone from an Orthodox. Your characterization of Anba Soriel was not only unfair but also uncalled for.I am inclined to think,you did not appreciate HG's sermon to the full extent, because you already had a pre-conceived mind about the rights of HS that did not macth with the way the church authority functions, hence you have not paid full attention to the contents of the sermon.You can, of course ,prove my observation wrong and if I erred , I will stand corrected .
You wrote:
When you say that “ we've only heard the story from his side”,the implication is, you are not certain about the truthfulness of the whole story until you hear what the other side has to say before you make up your mind. This argument may make sense in a court room, but when you attribute it to a Bishop, a lifetime servant of God, it immediately loses its flavour. FYI,towards the end of his speech Bishop Soreil has read an article that the local Angelican dicose of Aussie wrote regarding the ecumenical discussions that took place. It is in the same paper,that 'the other side' anointed him as a modern day Elijah, which he said the mere comparison with a great prophet made him feel humble.He also added, the views of the Coptic church in relation to the practice of HS were welcomed by some and totally spurned by others .So, I would like to assure you that he did share ‘the other side of the story’ as reported.
I beg to differ. You have judged him when you criticized him. Criticizing is a form of Judgment.You are not only crticizing his way of speaking, but taken his speech out of context as well.What is worst is that, when your criticism has no basis.For instance, you criticized/judged him when you said "I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity"; when you said “if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred” ; when you said” So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous”; when you degraded his dignity by saying “ he exaggerated.. I think a man like him especially should speak in wisdom and fairness without exaggerating”;when you humiliated his rank and person by claiming ‘The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop”. godislove, what you are saying about this man of God is stunning and beyond any reasonable comprehension. For starters,neither me nor you are in the position to criticize Bishops and church clergies .These are people who dedicate their whole earthly time to God, preaching his word all over the place.These people know the word of God like an open book and for you to suggest that H .G kind of lacks wisdom is 'outrageous', to use your very own word. If you think, you have more knowledge in church affairs than the Bishops or the Pope, then logic dictates that you must be wiser.To think that you are wiser than a Bishop in matters of faith is to expose a hidden pride/arrogance ( i am not saying u r) inadvertently. Please take my brotherly advise, it is never smart to point fingers at our wise religious leaders, specially in the rank and file of Bishops.We simply do not have it. In my last post, I tried to explain why HG referred to the DOI. The foundation of the DOI is GOD.God is in the details of that document. The laws of civil rights that are anchored in that document are not the governments making but the Creaters and that the government is only its facilitator. They are about human rights that have human bounderies.Now, girgis asked you to define Civil rights in reference to the DOI, but you gave a general definition which did not have any bearing to the issue at hand. HG tried to argue that the DOI rights are in accordance with the laws of nature.Its philosophy is to grant individual citizens rights with common good under the light of reason.If the application of rights are abused,then it leads to anarchy,becasue people will always get brazen and will come up with unimaginable demands.However,in your next post you said that you don’t give a hoot about the DOI, since you live in Europe.If that is so, why did you lash out at HG for his mention of the document? What you should not forget is that His Grace gave the speech in the US to US residents who are familiar with US laws, so it is only appropriate for him to refer to the US constitution.It is not ,as you put it,like he did not know what he was talking about.
Next, he never called or referred to HS as freaks and monsters, not did he imply in any way.These are your own words. How come you quote him on something that he did not say? He also did not call them any names or purposefully attacked their person.He did not equate HS to Paedopiles.He only condemned the acts as sinful and rightly so. But, I wonder,where you got all that from? His Grace Bishop Soreil, infact, referred to published studies on Homosexual activities that was conducted by two US prestigious Colleges, namely the University of Columbia and the John Hopkins University. The study found out that the prevalence of HS molesting young adults is way much higher than in Hetero-sexuals.According to the research 80% of HS identify themselves as Pedopiles. Anba Soreil further elaborated how the Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine that is owned by HS from California had an article that declared their principle which goes that '’ the love between men and boys is the foundation of Homosexuality''. He also informed his listeners that the Journal strongly advocates for Sexuality between men and children. It is the HS dimwits who portrayed themselves as nature freaks and paedopiles and not Anba Soriel.If what I am saying is wrong, then the burden of proof falls squarely on you to show us in what manners Anba Damian defamed and vilified HS as ‘freaks and monsters’.
I am not sure what you understand by the separation of church and state. MY own understanding is that when have a state that is religious based then you get the kind of governments that you have in the Middle East.In such countries, it is the religious laws that runs the lives of all people.Unless you sumbit yourself to the faith of the state, you end up being persecuted like it happens in Egypt. The analogy that you drew by comparing the persecution of Copts and the persecution of Homosexuals does not pass a test. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The Copts and other oppressed people have a GOD-GIVEN right to demand their basic rights,- that is what Anba Soreil calls Human rights for the right cause ; while the Homosexuals are demanding a GOD-FORBIDDEN rights. I suspect you are viewing the whole issue from a Democratic point of view. That is not a bad idea ,when you remember that even democratic societies have their limits of rights. I grew up in Germany and in Germany there is a freedom of press. This freedom is not absolute and has its limits.For example, in Germany no journalist can claim that Germany never persecuted Jews. This is deliberatly falsifying history. If that happens and journalistic ethic is transgressed, one gets into trouble with the law and no freedom-of-press argument can save them from prosecution.The same rules apply all over the world.
It also appears to me that you are saying the church, hence Bishop Soriel is trying to impose his religious views on others by force.First of all,one of the church's duty is to teach morals. Morals come from religion. There may be persons who are non -religious but who uphold morals.But such people were religious once.They got their morals and virtues from there and the society they grew up. Almost all world religions teach a human being how to be a better person.This is to say,the idea of right and wrong exists in all societies.Humans have the knowledge of good and evil,because whether they are Godly or ungodly,they are created in the image of God.In the absence of religion, we have the innate knowledge to identify the right thing and do it or choose the wrong thing and commit it. You agreed that pronography is on the rise due to low morals.This is an admission in itself that you think the church's role should be magnified to prevent it from further mushrooming. Like Pornography, HS is also about morals that the church should challenge. The idea is not to try to abolish these behaviours,but to speak out the truth as far as possible. The Lord said," Who he hears, let him hear". Let us encouarge the church to speak up loudly and boldly against this abomination and it is up to the concerned to hear and consider or to walk away. There are of course hypocrities and those are who tell you there exists no right or wrong but only vantage points.The same people would get back at you when what they perceive to be right turns out to be wrong and are desperately trapped in a situation of their own making.
If you think the churchs approach is wrong, how do you think it should act when immorality runs rampant?I hope you agree with me,that staying mum or being indifferent is not an option.
Following your reasoning, one can not help but conclude, that even the Prophets who had been in the service of the Lord should have not meddled in the affairs of the ungodly people, am I right? Because, the prophets too were warning people to do the right and mend their ways. Were they imposing their views too?
To make it easier, let me ask you: If you were to be deported back to your homeland from your host country, and the Church acts in your behalf and defends your rights to stay, Would you not think,the church is not minding its own business?If no, why not? Or would you welcome their interference? If yes, why ?
Hi godislove,
I felt compelled to answer to some of your comments for I found them a bit troubling. I also note some serious flaws and contradictions in your arguments which I want to highlight line by line.I have to admit,that I did not expect to hear some of the things you said from a Christian, let alone from an Orthodox. Your characterization of Anba Soriel was not only unfair but also uncalled for.I am inclined to think,you did not appreciate HG's sermon to the full extent, because you already had a pre-conceived mind about the rights of HS that did not macth with the way the church authority functions, hence you have not paid full attention to the contents of the sermon.You can, of course ,prove my observation wrong and if I erred , I will stand corrected .
You wrote:
When you say that “ we've only heard the story from his side”,the implication is, you are not certain about the truthfulness of the whole story until you hear what the other side has to say before you make up your mind. This argument may make sense in a court room, but when you attribute it to a Bishop, a lifetime servant of God, it immediately loses its flavour. FYI,towards the end of his speech Bishop Soreil has read an article that the local Angelican dicose of Aussie wrote regarding the ecumenical discussions that took place. It is in the same paper,that 'the other side' anointed him as a modern day Elijah, which he said the mere comparison with a great prophet made him feel humble.He also added, the views of the Coptic church in relation to the practice of HS were welcomed by some and totally spurned by others .So, I would like to assure you that he did share ‘the other side of the story’ as reported.
I beg to differ. You have judged him when you criticized him. Criticizing is a form of Judgment.You are not only crticizing his way of speaking, but taken his speech out of context as well.What is worst is that, when your criticism has no basis.For instance, you criticized/judged him when you said "I think he gave a bad image of chrisitianity"; when you said “if I weren't a christian, then I would see him as an extremist calling for hatred” ; when you said” So basing himself upon the DOI to say that homosexuals are freaks who shouldn't have rights, is in my opinion outrageous”; when you degraded his dignity by saying “ he exaggerated.. I think a man like him especially should speak in wisdom and fairness without exaggerating”;when you humiliated his rank and person by claiming ‘The way he talked about homosexuals, is to me, unacceptable, especially since he's a bishop”. godislove, what you are saying about this man of God is stunning and beyond any reasonable comprehension. For starters,neither me nor you are in the position to criticize Bishops and church clergies .These are people who dedicate their whole earthly time to God, preaching his word all over the place.These people know the word of God like an open book and for you to suggest that H .G kind of lacks wisdom is 'outrageous', to use your very own word. If you think, you have more knowledge in church affairs than the Bishops or the Pope, then logic dictates that you must be wiser.To think that you are wiser than a Bishop in matters of faith is to expose a hidden pride/arrogance ( i am not saying u r) inadvertently. Please take my brotherly advise, it is never smart to point fingers at our wise religious leaders, specially in the rank and file of Bishops.We simply do not have it. In my last post, I tried to explain why HG referred to the DOI. The foundation of the DOI is GOD.God is in the details of that document. The laws of civil rights that are anchored in that document are not the governments making but the Creaters and that the government is only its facilitator. They are about human rights that have human bounderies.Now, girgis asked you to define Civil rights in reference to the DOI, but you gave a general definition which did not have any bearing to the issue at hand. HG tried to argue that the DOI rights are in accordance with the laws of nature.Its philosophy is to grant individual citizens rights with common good under the light of reason.If the application of rights are abused,then it leads to anarchy,becasue people will always get brazen and will come up with unimaginable demands.However,in your next post you said that you don’t give a hoot about the DOI, since you live in Europe.If that is so, why did you lash out at HG for his mention of the document? What you should not forget is that His Grace gave the speech in the US to US residents who are familiar with US laws, so it is only appropriate for him to refer to the US constitution.It is not ,as you put it,like he did not know what he was talking about.
Next, he never called or referred to HS as freaks and monsters, not did he imply in any way.These are your own words. How come you quote him on something that he did not say? He also did not call them any names or purposefully attacked their person.He did not equate HS to Paedopiles.He only condemned the acts as sinful and rightly so. But, I wonder,where you got all that from? His Grace Bishop Soreil, infact, referred to published studies on Homosexual activities that was conducted by two US prestigious Colleges, namely the University of Columbia and the John Hopkins University. The study found out that the prevalence of HS molesting young adults is way much higher than in Hetero-sexuals.According to the research 80% of HS identify themselves as Pedopiles. Anba Soreil further elaborated how the Journal of Homosexuality, a magazine that is owned by HS from California had an article that declared their principle which goes that '’ the love between men and boys is the foundation of Homosexuality''. He also informed his listeners that the Journal strongly advocates for Sexuality between men and children. It is the HS dimwits who portrayed themselves as nature freaks and paedopiles and not Anba Soriel.If what I am saying is wrong, then the burden of proof falls squarely on you to show us in what manners Anba Damian defamed and vilified HS as ‘freaks and monsters’.
I am not sure what you understand by the separation of church and state. MY own understanding is that when have a state that is religious based then you get the kind of governments that you have in the Middle East.In such countries, it is the religious laws that runs the lives of all people.Unless you sumbit yourself to the faith of the state, you end up being persecuted like it happens in Egypt. The analogy that you drew by comparing the persecution of Copts and the persecution of Homosexuals does not pass a test. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The Copts and other oppressed people have a GOD-GIVEN right to demand their basic rights,- that is what Anba Soreil calls Human rights for the right cause ; while the Homosexuals are demanding a GOD-FORBIDDEN rights. I suspect you are viewing the whole issue from a Democratic point of view. That is not a bad idea ,when you remember that even democratic societies have their limits of rights. I grew up in Germany and in Germany there is a freedom of press. This freedom is not absolute and has its limits.For example, in Germany no journalist can claim that Germany never persecuted Jews. This is deliberatly falsifying history. If that happens and journalistic ethic is transgressed, one gets into trouble with the law and no freedom-of-press argument can save them from prosecution.The same rules apply all over the world.
It also appears to me that you are saying the church, hence Bishop Soriel is trying to impose his religious views on others by force.First of all,one of the church's duty is to teach morals. Morals come from religion. There may be persons who are non -religious but who uphold morals.But such people were religious once.They got their morals and virtues from there and the society they grew up. Almost all world religions teach a human being how to be a better person.This is to say,the idea of right and wrong exists in all societies.Humans have the knowledge of good and evil,because whether they are Godly or ungodly,they are created in the image of God.In the absence of religion, we have the innate knowledge to identify the right thing and do it or choose the wrong thing and commit it. You agreed that pronography is on the rise due to low morals.This is an admission in itself that you think the church's role should be magnified to prevent it from further mushrooming. Like Pornography, HS is also about morals that the church should challenge. The idea is not to try to abolish these behaviours,but to speak out the truth as far as possible. The Lord said," Who he hears, let him hear". Let us encouarge the church to speak up loudly and boldly against this abomination and it is up to the concerned to hear and consider or to walk away. There are of course hypocrities and those are who tell you there exists no right or wrong but only vantage points.The same people would get back at you when what they perceive to be right turns out to be wrong and are desperately trapped in a situation of their own making.
If you think the churchs approach is wrong, how do you think it should act when immorality runs rampant?I hope you agree with me,that staying mum or being indifferent is not an option.
Following your reasoning, one can not help but conclude, that even the Prophets who had been in the service of the Lord should have not meddled in the affairs of the ungodly people, am I right? Because, the prophets too were warning people to do the right and mend their ways. Were they imposing their views too?
To make it easier, let me ask you: If you were to be deported back to your homeland from your host country, and the Church acts in your behalf and defends your rights to stay, Would you not think,the church is not minding its own business?If no, why not? Or would you welcome their interference? If yes, why ?
Very well said Hezekiel...I couldn't agree with you more.
You wrote:
When you say that “ we've only heard the story from his side”,the implication is, you are not certain about the truthfulness of the whole story until you hear what the other side has to say before you make up your mind. This argument may make sense in a court room, but when you attribute it to a Bishop, a lifetime servant of God, it immediately loses its flavour. FYI,towards the end of his speech Bishop Soreil has read an article that the local Angelican dicose of Aussie wrote regarding the ecumenical discussions that took place. It is in the same paper,that 'the other side' anointed him as a modern day Elijah, which he said the mere comparison with a great prophet made him feel humble.He also added, the views of the Coptic church in relation to the practice of HS were welcomed by some and totally spurned by others .So, I would like to assure you that he did share ‘the other side of the story’ as reported.
hmmm.....i have to agree with Hezekiel and need to prove that this statement is WROOOOONG. Sayedna, whatever he said at the end wasn't HIS PERSONAL OPINION, but rather the declaration of what was said by the bishop that agreed with him from the Anglican Synod. He was reading this, almost word to word:
What if Elijah
came to Synod?
Bruce Ballantine-Jones comments
Elijah was a direct man who called it
as he saw it. If the ‘great ones’ didn’t
like it – too bad! He owed his
allegiance to God. What he said ruffled
feathers and disturbed the refined
atmosphere of the court.
No doubt people hissed at his direct, honest style.
People like Elijah do not sit well with the
establishment. No doubt the establishment would
have been happier if he moderated his tone, been
less direct, used the language of diplomacy, didn’t
remind them of uncomfortable things like God’s
word and their rejection of it.
As we read the stories about Elijah and his struggles
no doubt we quietly cheer him on. “Good on
you Elijah give it to them!”
But what if Elijah came to Synod? Would we be
so enthusiastic?
An incident occurred at General Synod recently
that got me thinking about this. Not a lot of publicity
has been given to it but, for many who were
there, it was very disturbing.
It is customary for the General Synod to allocate
a place for honoured guests from other
denominations. Sometimes they are invited to give
a greeting to the Synod on behalf of their church
or organisation. This is all very friendly, very
ecumenical.
One such visitor in Brisbane was Bishop Suriel
(pictured above) of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
He is a tall man, resplendent in his long black
robes. For five days he sat there observing the
Synod, listening to the debates. Because he had to
leave on the Wednesday, he asked if he could
address the gathering. “Of course”, was the reply.
Unfortunately, for the General Synod, they did
not realise that there was a bit of Elijah in Suriel!
The Speech
In his speech he took issue on the question of
women bishops, which he said was contrary to the
teaching of Scripture as well as the tradition of the
Church.
Also he expressed the view that the Scripture
is clear in its teaching on homosexuality, that it is
an abomination, something detested by God,
unnatural and indeed a sin. He said that the
Church should help people with homosexual
orientation to repent and to seek medical and
psychological help to overcome their lifestyle.
In making these comments on matters which
had been debated at the Synod, he mentioned a
number of the participants in the debates by name
– in some cases approvingly and in one case not.
His speech was received by some at the Synod
with great hostility.
At the reception held by the Queensland Premier
for Synod members, straight afterward, he
was audibly hissed by some when the Premier welcomed
him. This response deeply hurt the bishop
who subsequently said that in quoting several
members in his speech, whether male or female,
there was no intention to harm or offend anyone.
He was simply attempting to give an orthodox perspective
on issues raised in the Synod which he
felt they needed to hear.
The “Apology”
The bishop left for Melbourne. The next day the
Primate made a statement to the General Synod
in which he said that the bishop was unfamiliar
with the expectations that are part of Anglican
Church life. He had been expected only to say a
general short and pastorally sensitive word of encouragement.
He said that Bishop Suriel now deeply regretted
he caused great hurt to many and he appreciated
ACL News October–November 2001 Page 7
his words were both hurtful and profoundly unfair.
Also, Archbishop Carnley said of the Bishop that
he deeply regretted the hospitality of the Synod
had been abused in ways both hurtful and unfair.
Nevertheless, the Primate indicated he had
apologised to the Bishop for the fact that some
hissed when his name was announced at the
public reception.
The Fallout
The problem was that, when the Bishop heard
about the Primate’s statement, he issued his own
statement which said, in part –
“I was deeply shocked and offended to hear the comments
made by the Primate of The Anglican Church of
Australia, His Grace Archbishop Peter Carnley, in today’s
statement to the General Synod in Brisbane concerning
the discussion between myself and Bishop Huggins
and Bishop Herft at the Premier’s reception last night.
This statement made to the General Synod was both
incorrect and misleading. This statement was made
without my knowledge and without my consent and
therefore cannot be held as a statement which I made.
I did not even see this document before it was read to
the Synod and do not accept it.
The statement also purposely neglected to inform the
Synod that I had demanded a public apology from the
Synod for the humiliation I suffered when I was hissed
during a public reception given by the Premier of
Queensland on Wednesday night and by members of the
General Synod who came to abuse me after my speech.”
and further he said:
“I will not make any public apology as I felt justified for
what I said as this is in line with the teaching of the Holy
Bible and in no way did I attack anyone at the Synod. In
fact I demand a public apology from the Synod for the
treatment I have received from them which has been
both humiliating and degrading.
“In the statement issued by the Primate, he stated in
point 3 that I abused the hospitality of the Synod in ways
which were ‘hurtful and unfair’.
This statement is itself debased on any truth and is an
attack on me personally. The comments which I made
were with the permission of the Primate and, if this is
what people did not want to hear, then it is time for
the members of the General Synod to be receptive to
other people’s opinions even if it differs from their own
– this is what ecumenism is about. This is what I stated
in my speech – that we should be committed to our
ecumenical journey together.
Even though I have been hurt and offended at what has
happened, yet I am obliged to follow the command of
my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to work for Christian
unity. The Coptic Orthodox Church is totally committed
to the pursuance of Christian unity – but not at the
expense of the true faith which is spelt out in the
Scriptures and the tradition of the Church.”
In what seemed like a well meant attempt at
damage control, the Primate successfully asked the
Synod to pass a resolution of apology, and then a
resolution expressing support for the Coptic
Church in Egypt in their troubles was also passed.
But, in my view, it was all too late – the damage
had been done.
There is no doubt that this was a major
embarrassment to the Anglican Church and the
matter was very badly handled. However it raised
the question in my mind; what is it about
gatherings like this which permits people only to
use ‘church speak’ and not to engage in frank and
open exchanges?
How would we cope if Elijah or John the Baptist
or somebody like St. Paul, who withstood Peter to
his face over a gospel issue, came into our
meetings? Would they be condemned for not
playing by the rules? Is it alright to speak only so
long as there is no substance in what one says and
only as long as there is no actual engagement with
people on the issues?
So what would we do if Elijah came to our
Synod?
Canon Bruce Ballantine-Jones is the Rector of Jannali
and also a Vice President of the ACL. He is a long-time
Sydney representative on the General Synod.
(http://www.acl.asn.au/old/ACL News October 2001.pdf) page 6
FOLLOW WITH THE RECORDING, and you'll see.
Now, under normal circumstances, you saying that I don't come across as a christian or an orthodox would be the absolute worst thing anyone could say to me.
Depending on who the comment came from, it would not only bother me, but brake my spirit in a way that is very difficult to mend. For it's a comment on the core of my life...
For I see christianity not just as a religion but a way of life that is the highest one can ever reach, for it is following the example and the teachings of the Highest being ever...
But don't worry, it didn't have those particular consequences this time , but I thought I would mention it because I don't think you realized when saying it how much effect it could have...
In my posts, I tried to view things from the most objective and open-minded perspective I could get myself to have. I even distanced myself from my personal beliefs as a christian because this issue is a world wide issue of people from all religions and places and not just a christian thing, so in my view a purely secular approach was necessary.
You might say, but you just said christianity is a way of life, how can you say you're christian and still distance yourself from your ideals??? Because I'm not merely looking at myself as a church member but as a citizen of the world and that's the only way, at least as far as I can tell, to really understand the views of the other side which are in fact conflicting with our views as christians...
I'm trying to look at my fellow human being and put myself in his/her position and just for the sake of understanding and thus being able to judge fairly...
So it is for this discussion on the rights of civilians that I felt I had to be fair and secular, however I do not distance myself from my beliefs in my own life, when it comes to my actions, but as a lawyer who has to judge has to be objective and not let himself be influenced by his personal beliefs but only by the objective law so also I am trying to look for the most just and objective solution to this problem..
So I think the problem is that most of you have answered me thinking I'm twisting christianity or making compromises of how christianity should become or not become, but no my friends, christianity is perfect in itself and I'm not saying it should change to accomodate to the world and the changes in it... Nor should we change, as christians, we shouldn't make compromises, but as our blessed forefathers did, fight to keep our church a truly orthodox church and not fall in the traps the other churches have fallen in..
Hezekiel, I will try to answer your comment point by point, I hope you find my answers edifying... and as yourself, I stand corrected, if I misunderstood anything you said...
1. We've only heard the story from his side
I do try to reserve my opinion until I hear both sides speak, this is my way of trying to be fair. Now HG has already talked about what he said in his talk to the synod and he had the paper also, but still, I don't view journalism as my most trusted source, and who knows if there were other articles written that were completely different?
I don't know how exactly HG talked because no matter how right you are in what you say, sometimes how you say it can make all the difference... And as I didn't like the way he portrayed gays, although he is right in condemning homosexuality, I thought I'd reserve my full admiration since I don't know exactly what was said at the synod
Regardless, I don't know HG personally and I don't have anything against him, but the mere fact that he did stand up at the synod to tell them tht wht they were doing was wrong I thought was admirable, and I did say tht quite a few times
2. He gave a bad image of christianity
I said before, I'm not judging him as HG bishop Sorial, but as a person of great responsibilty and as a bishop in the church which I cannot express my feeling of lack of deserving to be a part of, I did share my opinion about the way christianity seemed from his sermon...
Expressing my opinion is something I did out of concern, because I felt that if a non-christian would listen to it, he wouldn't truly find the face of christianity as a religion of love and compassion and spirituality in it...
Believe me, I do not think of myself as knowledgable in religion at all, truly, I think it's actually a shame how little I know. Which is why when discussing theological topics, I mostly just ask questions and try to learn more which is why I love this website. But my critisicm wasn't about the theological side of the sermon, for even if that had been wrong in any way, I probably wouldn't have known. My critisism was about which examples HG gave and how they weren't a good representation of reality in my view...
Your brotherly advise is taken and appreciated, but I cannot see something that is unfair and be quiet, it's not in my nature, no matter who it came from. So when I thought the image of homosexuals was portrayed unfairly, I had to speak.
I agree the leaders of our church deserve the utmost respect but they are not infalliable..
3. Why the DOI is not my main concern
This discussion evolved from being strictly about HG's sermon which was given in America, to being about homosexual marriage in general. Why I do not care so much for the DOI is not just because I don't live in America, but because it goes against my belief in separation of church and state. And I'm not alone, for there are Americans who would also like to see the 'In God we trust' off the American dollars. Of course, the DOI will not be changed and I'm not claiming it should it's become almost a 'holy' symbol of freedom and independence, but it's proof that religion still plays a part in the American state, when in my view, and that of many, it shouldn't.
Also Hezekiel, I never implied HG didn't know what he was talking about, I really don't know where you got that...
4. Monsters and pedophiles
Hey, Hezekiel, I think you should be more precise. I never said HG literally said that pedophiles where monsters and pedophiles in that I never quoted him on anything...
So please, I know you have your opinion of which you are very much convinced, but be fair and don't accuse me of something I didn't do
I said the way HG talked about them thus the examples he gave (which are not a good representation of the reality of things) made them look like that. If I didn't know any better about this particular issue, and undoubtadly there are people who don't, I think they would form a very negative opinion on homosexuals more than normally, based on this image...
5. A) Separation of Religion and State
Your post proved to me, you still don't get it... You speak of God-given rights in a state..
This is where we disagree, no such thing in a state, there shouldn't be mention of God, the God of religion. A state doesn't have a religion nor a God. The people yes, but not the state. Or that's how it should be, in my view. So when you say homosexual marriage is a God-forbidden thing, your argument only goes for those who believe in God. But if I were an atheist and I told you, I don't care about your God, what other argument would you be able to give him??? We don't even have to go as far as atheist, someone from another religion could say: In my religion, my God allows this... What are you gonna say then???
Why would we apply christian law and not muslim law or buddhist law, there needs to be one universtal law apart form religion..
Do you understand? Religion and God is a relative thing, you cannot base a law on something that is so relative. Which is why in a state, religion shouldn't play any role!!!!
5. B) the example of Egypt, is in my eyes a very good one
Please bear with me here
the Egyptian constitution claims Islam is the religion of the state
the DOI speaks of God-given rights
Muslims see us, christians as sinners (worshipping a humanwhich is forbidden by quran)
Christians see homosexuals as sinners (according to the Holy Bible)
Some muslims would like to take away our rights
Some christians would like to take away a homosexual's right to get married (civil)
Christians in Egypt demand a secular state where your religion can neither be an advantage nor a disadvantage, they demand equal rights even if what they are doing in the eyes of Islam might be wrong
Homosexuals demand their civil right as civilians to get married even if what they're doing, in the eyes of religion, is wrong
I'm not the only one who claims the church shouldn't interfere with state matters in Egypt, even the pope says that... There shoudln't be a difference between a muslim and a christian, the state should be the one to protect me, as a christian Egyptian, not the church. But since I think the system in flawed, it's the church that has to fight for its own rights at times, sometimes the state itself hinders the pocess of law, but the fact is that this is not how it should be!!!
6. It also appears to me that you are saying the church, hence Bishop Soriel is trying to impose his religious views on others by force.
It may have somehow appeared to you that way, but I wouldn't know how??!!
I never ever claimed the church wanted to do anything by force, which would mean the chruch was phyisically or mentally forcing people to agree with it.
I said, we as christians (the church) cannot make people abide by the same laws we abide by, religion is something you have to believe in, be convinced of. So even if we wanted to force them to believe in what we believe, we couldn't! You can't force someone to believe something... You can however force someone to live by the rules you live by BASED ON YOUR BELIEF WHICH YOU HAVE CHOSEN FREELY!!
7. preaching the word of God
I agree with you the church shouldn't say numb or indifferent, not at all. The Lord himself called us to be a light to the world, and the salt of the earth.
So the church of which we are part of should preach His word and glorify Him at all times.
I also said in an earlier post, the church has a huge role to play in education...
But it shouldn't take away someone's right based on its belief, never!
If the state had wanted to force the church to marry homosexuals and thus give them a church marriage, then I would be the first to disagree, because separation of church and state goes both ways. So I also don't agree when the church wants to take away someone's civil right to get married away based on its belief...
Finally, I hope you try to view things from a different perspective, do not give up your beliefs, that's not what I did, or am asking you to do. For I said before, in my own life, the word of God is ranked highest. But we are living in a world with many different cultures and religions and we have to find a way to live together in peace.
Please pray for my weakness
God Bless you
God bless you
Please pray for my weakness
After 4 pages of back and forth discussion that has seemingly gone no where and not changed your mind at all I would like you to clearly state the "rights" that gays are being deprived of and the "horrible" discrimination they face.
God Bless
They are deprived of their civil right to get married to whomever they would like, this right, is a right they should have because they are civilians.
I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal, after all I said this before, civil marriage is nothing more than a contract which has judicial and economical consequences.
This contract can be ended with a divorce, this divorce (the ending of the contract) is is also something we disaprove of in christianity, unless there was adultery...
God Bless
Please pray for me
Are you saying that I can't discern between state and God?
Or do you mean tht you get my point which is separation of religion and state?
God Bless
Plz pray for me
I don't understand what you mean...
Are you saying that I can't discern between state and God?
Or do you mean tht you get my point which is separation of religion and state?
God Bless
Plz pray for me
not fully "can't discern" but just can't find the middle line between both.
Something we have to keep and we hear all the time, but we never think about or keep..."We as Christians LIVE INTO the world, the world DOESN'T LIVE IN us."
Could you also pm it to me, plz?
Thanks in advance
God bless
Please pray for me
Oh good, I looked for it, but couldn't find it anywhere...
Could you also pm it to me, plz?
Thanks in advance
God bless
Please pray for me
hmmm.....here: http://www.melbcopts.org.au/contact.shtml
but you haven't commented on what i said??!!!
God Bless
Plz pray for me
I can be a Christian in a non-Christian society.
Unlike Islam, we don't have to live in a Christian state for us to be successful Christians. This is unlike Islam that requires the state to uphold Sharia law for them to exist as muslims. One can even go to the extent and say that the Islamic Brotherhood see all of Egypt's problems are happening because the small Christian Coptic minority exist; and ONLY if we were converted, only then could Egypt prosper. That is how many members of this regime think by the way!
However, this topic of homosexuality and the subsequent ideology of it being a human right is very challenging for us. We could live in a country where we are minorities without any issue. In fact, its a blessing as one may become more attached to his faith as a result of being persecuted for it. We may even benefit from living in a society where immorality is widely accepted as the norm - it simply helps to distinguish us based on our values. But this issue of homosexuality is quite different.
Its different because for once, it is not being considered immoral by the state. On the contrary, it is being taught as correct sexual behaviour. Gays are not only correct in their sexuality, according to the State's position concerning this, but they are equal in their rights to adopt children, divorce, marry, and separate.
Its challenging because our children will be taught in schools that not only being gay is OK, but that you do not know that you are gay unless you've "tried it".
The challenge moves up a gear when, as parents, we correct this teaching on kids, the consequences are potentially drastic:
a) Are we in fact teaching them to respect the state and be patriotic towards the state that is enforcing immorality on them?
b) When we counter-teach our children what is being taught to them in schools - how does this affect their development, both academically or socially? How does it affect their love for their fellow countrymen who do not share their same values - but rather enforce their values (or lack of rather!) on our children?
c) Those of us who left Egypt due to islamic persecution will only find ourselves living in a society that condones immorality. How will that make further generations respect and integrate into the country they believed reflected their "christian" values?
Maybe this is the answer to immigration? Maybe copts will one day realise that Egypt isn't such a bad place after all to raise your kids. Maybe we should thank God for the Islamic regime?
This is a very confusing situation to be in. I've never wanted to feel indifferent to the State, but I am inclined - because of my faith, to respect the laws of the country. However, when the law starts suggesting and enforcing homosexuality on children by teaching them (in state schools!!) that they do not know that they are gay UNLESS they've tried homosexuality, then this is where I have a problem.
I think we will all have a problem!!
For once, I see Islam as something positive in Egypt, and our persecution as being the best of two evils to endure rather than this.
By being passive,the state allowed religious minorities to decide on how best to educate their children. Now western states have taken it upon themselves to be actively engaged in promoting the agenda set out by civil liberties groups everywhere who seem to have a mandate to redefine, what we consider, immoral behaviour as moral.
There is most definately a clear friction in values between Christian Orthodoxy and Western Liberalism. At 1st I didnt care, but now, it is imposing itself on us. By teaching our children that homosexuality is wrong, we could be now accused of homophobia, and not allowing our children to integrate in society.
Islam never forced itself on us in this way in Egypt. If anything, I believe that its an infringement of our human rights to be forced to believe something is right, when our religion tells us its wrong.
You are basing this right on the assumption that people can marry whomever they wish and the state should not get involved in the matter whatsoever. Then following this premise we should allow polygamy, we should also allow allow marriage between lets say a 17 year old teen and 40 year old homosexual, after all the teen is mature enough. Why do we not also allow beastiality..."I can eat a cow but not sleep with it!" As you can see if we allow homosexuality we are heading down a slippery slope. Even if we disregard The Bible in our arguments you can see that the whole fabric of society is destroyed if you allow immorality. The fact is that homosexuality is against morals in the same way beastiality is. Morals are implanted in us by God, and no matter how hard people try to suppress the fact that homosexuality is wrong and everyone knows it. They might try to reason with themselves and justify it but the state should never allow it to be permissible. What is happening is people are trying to remove God and Christianity as much as they can from the state that we are missing the fact that they are adding in the devil and lawlessness in His place. If we do not even abide by the laws of nature what will distinguish us from animals?
Bestiality is not allowed because an animal in the eyes of the law is an object and not a subject who can make decisions
I agree with you that morals are in decline, and I truly think it's a shame, it's terrible to think how many people are in the wrong path...
But all we can do is pray and try to be the best christians we can be...
I think allowing homosexual marriage is simply allowing two civilians to have a contract where they would have the judicial and economical advantages that civil marriage gives. Thus from a purely objective and secular point of view I don't see any argument (non religious) why it shouldn't be allowed.
I think this discussion has dragged on for too long, I have given you all the arguments I could find for the meantime, you think you are right, I think I am right, and unless anything new is put into the discussion or someone suddenly comes to a certain realization, it will probably stay like that... I do respect most your views, but I think we just can't seem to get on the same page, however, I thank you all for being tolerant to the 'opposition' ;)
God bless you
Please pray for my weakness