[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870] Well so far this has been my experience, I have been hoping that people would begin to speak with a little more intelligence and open mindedness or at least with some critical thinking, as its been demonstrated that some facts of what we call reality contradict the beliefs of some people on this forum. You'd think that would be enough to jolt them into an intelligent conversation, or a useful, non circular one at least.
Wishful thinking, especially on this particular forum. Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen. They can proof-text anything and yet overlook Christ's greatest commandment which is to Love. 'Love covers a multitude of sins' [1Peter 4:8]. People here seem to forget that. They seem to forget that Christ Himself never attacked sinners whether they came to Him or whether He sought them. He only ever attacked the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, who felt they were without sin and followed the Law.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870] Maybe it will happen one day.
On this forum, I wouldn't hold my breathe.
As for your podcast, I have a few recommendations. I listened to your first one, and I can tell that you all haven't done this before. I would recommend that you increase the number of participants to get a greater dialogue going. I would also recommend that you find, at the very least, one (though two or three would be better) individuals who are more spiritually mature, who have a solid foundation in the Church's teachings (not just those who can regurgitate Bible verses, but who actually know the teachings of the Church Fathers as well) but who are also open-minded and well read on scholarly articles in the subjects you wish to discuss. It seems that you do seek the Church's perspective on these issues, and as such, you need individuals who can accurately present it for proper dialogue. (emphasis mine)
Really, Cephas? I don't know how you come to that conclusion. . .
For someone who has just taken the SATs, I would have expected you to know what words like 'dialogue' and 'discussion' meant. Perhaps I was mistaken in making such a mediocre assumption.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870] Well so far this has been my experience, I have been hoping that people would begin to speak with a little more intelligence and open mindedness or at least with some critical thinking, as its been demonstrated that some facts of what we call reality contradict the beliefs of some people on this forum. You'd think that would be enough to jolt them into an intelligent conversation, or a useful, non circular one at least.
Wishful thinking, especially on this particular forum. Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen. They can proof-text anything and yet overlook Christ's greatest commandment which is to Love. 'Love covers a multitude of sins' [1Peter 4:8]. People here seem to forget that. They seem to forget that Christ Himself never attacked sinners whether they came to Him or whether He sought them. He only ever attacked the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, who felt they were without sin and followed the Law.
Jesus also attacked EVERYONE who does not listen to the teachings of the Church:
"But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city." Luke 10:10 - 12
Once again, and in true fashion, you prove my point. You're skill at proof-texting without applying any critical thought as to what the text is saying is stellar. I'm going to pretend like you're a big boy and remotely intelligent, and see if you can figure out why what you've just posted has no bearing whatsoever on what I said. (Hint: It has something to do with the words 'that Day'.)
[quote author=Severian link=topic=12337.msg145517#msg145517 date=1317585195] Kephas, do you agree that repentant homosexuals should be communed while active homosexuals should be excommunicated? This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. I ask because I just want to make sure I understand you.
God bless.
Repentant homosexuals should be communed. Unrepentant homosexuals should also be communed. Why deprive a person from the medicine they need to heal? Excommunication is a last resort. It is not handed out willy nilly by people on the internet who are semi-literate about what they think certain canons say and how they think certain canons should be applied. It took an Ecumenical Council to excommunicate (and then anathematize) Arius. You think this is something the Church, in her wisdom, hands out on a whim? The canons are guidelines on how to treat people, not hard and fast rules that are applied by people who know nothing about pastoral care or economia. And just so we're clear, this applies to all types of sinners, not just homosexuals (though this thread is dealing with homosexuality). It is the priest's responsibility to care for his flock and to provide the proper guidance and discipline. Christ won people over with love and compassion, not with rules, regulations, spewing Scripture in their faces and judging them. The unrepentant becomes repentant when they see and experience the love of Christ and develop a relationship with Him. The unrepentant does not become repentant when they are judged, criticized, ostracized and have verses thrown in their faces.
Unrepentant sinners as well, Cephas? How does this work? I take your point about the medicine of the Eucharist, but I do wonder if it is correct, strictly speaking (i.e., in terms of the teaching of the Church), to extend it to people who are not repentant. Jesus Christ first asked the blind man if he wanted to be healed, didn't He? The unrepentant presumably say "no" by their lack of repentance, so how does this medicine work for them? Does God force Himself on them even when they don't want Him, or is their taking communion seen as a sort of de facto cooperation with God's healing, even as they reject Him by their actions? If the second is true, how does this square with 1 Corinthians 11:29? (eating and drinking unworthily leads to damnation)
I am absolutely not wanting or trying to start an argument, I've just never heard that before and am new to and ignorant of the ways of the Church.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870] Well so far this has been my experience, I have been hoping that people would begin to speak with a little more intelligence and open mindedness or at least with some critical thinking, as its been demonstrated that some facts of what we call reality contradict the beliefs of some people on this forum. You'd think that would be enough to jolt them into an intelligent conversation, or a useful, non circular one at least.
Wishful thinking, especially on this particular forum. Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen. They can proof-text anything and yet overlook Christ's greatest commandment which is to Love. 'Love covers a multitude of sins' [1Peter 4:8]. People here seem to forget that. They seem to forget that Christ Himself never attacked sinners whether they came to Him or whether He sought them. He only ever attacked the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, who felt they were without sin and followed the Law.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870] Maybe it will happen one day.
On this forum, I wouldn't hold my breathe.
As for your podcast, I have a few recommendations. I listened to your first one, and I can tell that you all haven't done this before. I would recommend that you increase the number of participants to get a greater dialogue going. I would also recommend that you find, at the very least, one (though two or three would be better) individuals who are more spiritually mature, who have a solid foundation in the Church's teachings (not just those who can regurgitate Bible verses, but who actually know the teachings of the Church Fathers as well) but who are also open-minded and well read on scholarly articles in the subjects you wish to discuss. It seems that you do seek the Church's perspective on these issues, and as such, you need individuals who can accurately present it for proper dialogue. (emphasis mine)
Really, Cephas? I don't know how you come to that conclusion. . .
For someone who has just taken the SATs, I would have expected you to know what words like 'dialogue' and 'discussion' meant. Perhaps I was mistaken in making such a mediocre assumption.
A) It was the LSAT.
B) What in the world do the words "dialogue" and "discussion" have to do with you thinking CY is actually seeking the Church's perspective on this issue? Just because one engages in a dialogue and/or a discussion doesn't mean that they have any intention in seeking the truth.
C) I too held you to expectations but alas they were too much. How naive and wishful of me?! To actually expect a response to an objection I raised. . .what was I thinking? Next time I will write to you in bullet form so it is a bit easier for you to get what I'm saying.
D) I hope this whole "A) B) C) D)" thing is making it easier for you. If it isn't, let me know, maybe I can type fewer words or something.
Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen.
You have criticized EVERYONE as being blind proof texters. I may be one, but I dont believe everyone is. You say that we have passed over love, and have left out that greatest commandment, then turn to some attitude of saying,
For someone who has just taken the SATs, I would have expected you to know what words like 'dialogue' and 'discussion' meant. Perhaps I was mistaken in making such a mediocre assumption.
and like
I'm going to pretend like you're a big boy and remotely intelligent, and see if you can figure out why what you've just posted has no bearing whatsoever on what I said.
Before you go bring me dictionary excerpts about what the terms you say mean, let me make it clear, that i have no care for dictionary definitions. Love is a spirit, and not a definition. You cannot speak with such a condescending attitude and claim to love. There is nothing wrong in what you say as long as we are just taking them as words. But they come with a terrible attitude which is anti christian.
You have good opinions, but they may need to be addressed less condescendingly. So are we the, "
willy nilly by people on the internet who are semi-literate about what they think certain canons say and how they think certain canons should be applied
You seem to be a person of great understanding, and I know that I am not. So I expect to be shunned by you. You probably know how to bring everything i just said down. But remember that there is a right way and a wrong way. As for your idea that unrepentant should be communed? I BELIEVE (my opinion not my fact) that the unrepentant person who watches pornography should not be communed. Any sin that is unrepentant from hinders one from communion. Last week, I was denied communion because I hadn't confessed in a month. Did it hurt... Yes. Did i feel angry... Yes. But after that, i repented more after seeing the fault in not repenting and confessing, and being shown the need to do so. you are right that it is for the priests job as a shepherd to guide this, but then again, nothing said on this forum is a rule. They are all opinions. If a priest were to read this forum, I hardly feel he would concider looking over it twice for more opinions. To an extent, this is as you say, "meaningless."
Finally, I do appreciate your truth in saying
Christ won people over with love and compassion, not with rules, regulations, spewing Scripture in their faces and judging them. The unrepentant becomes repentant when they see and experience the love of Christ and develop a relationship with Him.
This is very true, and it needs to be commonly highlighted. You are very correct in saying this.
Forgive me Kephas if I offended you. I hope that its all good, and that it doesn't get heated.
The fathers think of the Eucharist as light and fire. Light for those who practice repentance and confession but fire to those who take without discernment.
We are to practise righteousness. It is the right way and the good way to do things. Not to blame and argue who is responsible. For me it is like God is the creator of all so he loves what he has created. But what was seperated he would like to come back to him. Those who are seperated futher than us cannot expect to say they are the same as us because God loves all. Our church has rules and we obey as this is loyality.
"But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city." Luke 10:10 - 12
And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them Mark 6:11
This verse shows that the Lord refuses those who do not listen to his message hear on earth and on the Judgment day.
I do not think anyone honestly believes that the apostles would shake off the dust on judgement day. Neither would the Church has testimony against those rejecting the message only on Judgment day.
He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." Luke 10:16
Those who do not hear to the Church reject Christ. Would the Church commune those who reject Christ? Of course not.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12337.msg145593#msg145593 date=1317740994] Unrepentant sinners as well, Cephas? How does this work? I take your point about the medicine of the Eucharist, but I do wonder if it is correct, strictly speaking (i.e., in terms of the teaching of the Church), to extend it to people who are not repentant. Jesus Christ first asked the blind man if he wanted to be healed, didn't He? The unrepentant presumably say "no" by their lack of repentance, so how does this medicine work for them? Does God force Himself on them even when they don't want Him, or is their taking communion seen as a sort of de facto cooperation with God's healing, even as they reject Him by their actions? If the second is true, how does this square with 1 Corinthians 11:29? (eating and drinking unworthily leads to damnation)
Yes, unrepentant sinners. It works with the guidance of a spiritual father. Some people sin and they are unaware they are sinning. Or they may sin and feel that they are not sinning. How does one know they are sinning if they lack guidance from a spiritual father and do not have a relationship with Christ? They can't. The closer one gets to Christ, the more they become aware of their sinfulness. How can one get closer to Christ if they do not partake of His Holy Gifts? They are the means of uniting with Christ. You raise the example of the man born blind, and you are right to an extent. However, Christ does not work in a 'one size fits all' fashion. He deals with each person on an individual basis. So, while He asked the man born blind if he wanted to be healed, what about the story of the paralytic who was brought to Christ by his 4 friends? Christ forgave and healed this man, not based on his faith, but on the faith of his friends. Look also at the story of the Samaritan woman. Christ came to her, she did not seek Him out. Further, in the process of making her realize her sin, Christ did not just blatantly state her sins and embarrass her. Rather, He took her step by step, beginning with asking for water from the well, to speaking about Living Water, to asking her to bring her husband so He can speak to the both of them. It is here where she admits that she's not married (note, she still doesn't fully admit she's sinning) and Christ still praises her. Finally, there's the incident of the paralytic by the pool, who was waiting for the angel to stir the waters. Once again, Christ sought him out. When asked if he wished to be healed, his response was 'I have no man to put me in the water'. So even here, we see this man not seeking Christ, not asking to be healed by Him, but rather relying on man. Yet, Christ still healed him. After he was healed, he praised God.
Some unrepentant sinners are unrepentant because they defy the Church and her authority. Others are unrepentant because they have been ostracised, discriminated and hated. They are forced out of a relationship with Christ (from their perspective) and thus are unaware of their sins. A person living in darkness cannot see the stains on their own garment. Thus, how can they acknowledge the filth they do not see? Only when they begin to step into the Light, can they see how filthy they are.
The gospel of last week ended with: ". . . for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
What is meant by lost? Who falls into this category?
I think of the lost sheep: Those who desire the truth and do not know where to look; those who have strayed and don't know how to return.
Those are whom the Lord seeks after.
What I don't think of is the Prodigal Son. The prodigal son was not lost but was rebellious. The Lord does not seek after the rebellious. They know where to look for Him and He awaits for their return so that He may receive them with open arms, full of joy.
They know what is good but deny it and for this they cannot be in the Father's house: One cannot be in both darkness and light.
Unfortunately, unrepentant homosexuals are like the prodigal son. They are rebellious. In most cases they cannot come back to the Father except after hitting rock bottom. No amount of "love" or easing up the rules will change them. What was the son missing in his father's house? He gave him everything. They have to come to a self-realization that they are in sin and are nothing without the Lord. This cannot happen when they are in the church and everyone treats them like nothing is wrong. Again, this only applies to the unrepentant out of rebellion.
[quote=Matthew 7:6, NIV]“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Some unrepentant sinners are unrepentant because they defy the Church and her authority. Others are unrepentant because they have been ostracised, discriminated and hated. They are forced out of a relationship with Christ (from their perspective) and thus are unaware of their sins. A person living in darkness cannot see the stains on their own garment. Thus, how can they acknowledge the filth they do not see? Only when they begin to step into the Light, can they see how filthy they are.
This is the category that could not be communed till they acknowledge their filth, that they were living in the darkness. Till they become repentant, they have no chance of receiving communion.
The prodigal son acknowledged his mistake, repented, had a plan of restoring his life with His Father, went to His Father and confessed. After all this, His Father declared that this son was dead but now alive.
Homosexuals who do not acknowledge their sin are dead, and dead people cannot receive communion.
The prodical son wasted the money his father gave him on a bad life-style in the town. He realised his mistake and went back to his father. He did not go back to him with the people he spent his money with saying, my father has heaps of money and he is generous besides he loves me. His father recieved him because he was lost to the father for awhile. So the father celebrated his return.
Comments
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12337.msg145500#msg145500 date=1317536824]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12337.msg145497#msg145497 date=1317531842]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870]
Well so far this has been my experience, I have been hoping that people would begin to speak with a little more intelligence and open mindedness or at least with some critical thinking, as its been demonstrated that some facts of what we call reality contradict the beliefs of some people on this forum. You'd think that would be enough to jolt them into an intelligent conversation, or a useful, non circular one at least.
Wishful thinking, especially on this particular forum. Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen. They can proof-text anything and yet overlook Christ's greatest commandment which is to Love. 'Love covers a multitude of sins' [1Peter 4:8]. People here seem to forget that. They seem to forget that Christ Himself never attacked sinners whether they came to Him or whether He sought them. He only ever attacked the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, who felt they were without sin and followed the Law.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870]
Maybe it will happen one day.
On this forum, I wouldn't hold my breathe.
As for your podcast, I have a few recommendations. I listened to your first one, and I can tell that you all haven't done this before. I would recommend that you increase the number of participants to get a greater dialogue going. I would also recommend that you find, at the very least, one (though two or three would be better) individuals who are more spiritually mature, who have a solid foundation in the Church's teachings (not just those who can regurgitate Bible verses, but who actually know the teachings of the Church Fathers as well) but who are also open-minded and well read on scholarly articles in the subjects you wish to discuss. It seems that you do seek the Church's perspective on these issues, and as such, you need individuals who can accurately present it for proper dialogue.
(emphasis mine)
Really, Cephas? I don't know how you come to that conclusion. . .
For someone who has just taken the SATs, I would have expected you to know what words like 'dialogue' and 'discussion' meant. Perhaps I was mistaken in making such a mediocre assumption.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12337.msg145509#msg145509 date=1317579607]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12337.msg145497#msg145497 date=1317531842]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870]
Well so far this has been my experience, I have been hoping that people would begin to speak with a little more intelligence and open mindedness or at least with some critical thinking, as its been demonstrated that some facts of what we call reality contradict the beliefs of some people on this forum. You'd think that would be enough to jolt them into an intelligent conversation, or a useful, non circular one at least.
Wishful thinking, especially on this particular forum. Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen. They can proof-text anything and yet overlook Christ's greatest commandment which is to Love. 'Love covers a multitude of sins' [1Peter 4:8]. People here seem to forget that. They seem to forget that Christ Himself never attacked sinners whether they came to Him or whether He sought them. He only ever attacked the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, who felt they were without sin and followed the Law.
Jesus also attacked EVERYONE who does not listen to the teachings of the Church:
"But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city." Luke 10:10 - 12
Once again, and in true fashion, you prove my point. You're skill at proof-texting without applying any critical thought as to what the text is saying is stellar. I'm going to pretend like you're a big boy and remotely intelligent, and see if you can figure out why what you've just posted has no bearing whatsoever on what I said. (Hint: It has something to do with the words 'that Day'.)
[quote author=Severian link=topic=12337.msg145517#msg145517 date=1317585195]
Kephas, do you agree that repentant homosexuals should be communed while active homosexuals should be excommunicated? This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. I ask because I just want to make sure I understand you.
God bless.
Repentant homosexuals should be communed. Unrepentant homosexuals should also be communed. Why deprive a person from the medicine they need to heal? Excommunication is a last resort. It is not handed out willy nilly by people on the internet who are semi-literate about what they think certain canons say and how they think certain canons should be applied. It took an Ecumenical Council to excommunicate (and then anathematize) Arius. You think this is something the Church, in her wisdom, hands out on a whim? The canons are guidelines on how to treat people, not hard and fast rules that are applied by people who know nothing about pastoral care or economia. And just so we're clear, this applies to all types of sinners, not just homosexuals (though this thread is dealing with homosexuality). It is the priest's responsibility to care for his flock and to provide the proper guidance and discipline. Christ won people over with love and compassion, not with rules, regulations, spewing Scripture in their faces and judging them. The unrepentant becomes repentant when they see and experience the love of Christ and develop a relationship with Him. The unrepentant does not become repentant when they are judged, criticized, ostracized and have verses thrown in their faces.
I am absolutely not wanting or trying to start an argument, I've just never heard that before and am new to and ignorant of the ways of the Church.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12337.msg145500#msg145500 date=1317536824]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12337.msg145497#msg145497 date=1317531842]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870]
Well so far this has been my experience, I have been hoping that people would begin to speak with a little more intelligence and open mindedness or at least with some critical thinking, as its been demonstrated that some facts of what we call reality contradict the beliefs of some people on this forum. You'd think that would be enough to jolt them into an intelligent conversation, or a useful, non circular one at least.
Wishful thinking, especially on this particular forum. Everyone here knows how to blindly proof-text, but when it comes to actually thinking about anything in a critical fashion, well, that won't happen. They can proof-text anything and yet overlook Christ's greatest commandment which is to Love. 'Love covers a multitude of sins' [1Peter 4:8]. People here seem to forget that. They seem to forget that Christ Himself never attacked sinners whether they came to Him or whether He sought them. He only ever attacked the self-righteous Pharisees and Sadducees, who felt they were without sin and followed the Law.
[quote author=copticyouth86 link=topic=12337.msg145490#msg145490 date=1317508870]
Maybe it will happen one day.
On this forum, I wouldn't hold my breathe.
As for your podcast, I have a few recommendations. I listened to your first one, and I can tell that you all haven't done this before. I would recommend that you increase the number of participants to get a greater dialogue going. I would also recommend that you find, at the very least, one (though two or three would be better) individuals who are more spiritually mature, who have a solid foundation in the Church's teachings (not just those who can regurgitate Bible verses, but who actually know the teachings of the Church Fathers as well) but who are also open-minded and well read on scholarly articles in the subjects you wish to discuss. It seems that you do seek the Church's perspective on these issues, and as such, you need individuals who can accurately present it for proper dialogue.
(emphasis mine)
Really, Cephas? I don't know how you come to that conclusion. . .
For someone who has just taken the SATs, I would have expected you to know what words like 'dialogue' and 'discussion' meant. Perhaps I was mistaken in making such a mediocre assumption.
A) It was the LSAT.
B) What in the world do the words "dialogue" and "discussion" have to do with you thinking CY is actually seeking the Church's perspective on this issue? Just because one engages in a dialogue and/or a discussion doesn't mean that they have any intention in seeking the truth.
C) I too held you to expectations but alas they were too much. How naive and wishful of me?! To actually expect a response to an objection I raised. . .what was I thinking? Next time I will write to you in bullet form so it is a bit easier for you to get what I'm saying.
D) I hope this whole "A) B) C) D)" thing is making it easier for you. If it isn't, let me know, maybe I can type fewer words or something.
Your words, You have criticized EVERYONE as being blind proof texters. I may be one, but I dont believe everyone is. You say that we have passed over love, and have left out that greatest commandment, then turn to some attitude of saying, and like Before you go bring me dictionary excerpts about what the terms you say mean, let me make it clear, that i have no care for dictionary definitions. Love is a spirit, and not a definition. You cannot speak with such a condescending attitude and claim to love. There is nothing wrong in what you say as long as we are just taking them as words. But they come with a terrible attitude which is anti christian.
You have good opinions, but they may need to be addressed less condescendingly. So are we the, " You seem to be a person of great understanding, and I know that I am not. So I expect to be shunned by you. You probably know how to bring everything i just said down. But remember that there is a right way and a wrong way. As for your idea that unrepentant should be communed? I BELIEVE (my opinion not my fact) that the unrepentant person who watches pornography should not be communed. Any sin that is unrepentant from hinders one from communion. Last week, I was denied communion because I hadn't confessed in a month. Did it hurt... Yes. Did i feel angry... Yes. But after that, i repented more after seeing the fault in not repenting and confessing, and being shown the need to do so. you are right that it is for the priests job as a shepherd to guide this, but then again, nothing said on this forum is a rule. They are all opinions. If a priest were to read this forum, I hardly feel he would concider looking over it twice for more opinions. To an extent, this is as you say, "meaningless."
Finally, I do appreciate your truth in saying This is very true, and it needs to be commonly highlighted. You are very correct in saying this.
Forgive me Kephas if I offended you. I hope that its all good, and that it doesn't get heated.
ReturnOrthodoxy
We are to practise righteousness. It is the right way and the good way to do things. Not to blame and argue who is responsible. For me it is like God is the creator of all so he loves what he has created. But what was seperated he would like to come back to him. Those who are seperated futher than us cannot expect to say they are the same as us because God loves all. Our church has rules and we obey as this is loyality.
And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them Mark 6:11
This verse shows that the Lord refuses those who do not listen to his message hear on earth and on the Judgment day.
I do not think anyone honestly believes that the apostles would shake off the dust on judgement day. Neither would the Church has testimony against those rejecting the message only on Judgment day.
He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." Luke 10:16
Those who do not hear to the Church reject Christ. Would the Church commune those who reject Christ? Of course not.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12337.msg145593#msg145593 date=1317740994]
Unrepentant sinners as well, Cephas? How does this work? I take your point about the medicine of the Eucharist, but I do wonder if it is correct, strictly speaking (i.e., in terms of the teaching of the Church), to extend it to people who are not repentant. Jesus Christ first asked the blind man if he wanted to be healed, didn't He? The unrepentant presumably say "no" by their lack of repentance, so how does this medicine work for them? Does God force Himself on them even when they don't want Him, or is their taking communion seen as a sort of de facto cooperation with God's healing, even as they reject Him by their actions? If the second is true, how does this square with 1 Corinthians 11:29? (eating and drinking unworthily leads to damnation)
Yes, unrepentant sinners. It works with the guidance of a spiritual father. Some people sin and they are unaware they are sinning. Or they may sin and feel that they are not sinning. How does one know they are sinning if they lack guidance from a spiritual father and do not have a relationship with Christ? They can't. The closer one gets to Christ, the more they become aware of their sinfulness. How can one get closer to Christ if they do not partake of His Holy Gifts? They are the means of uniting with Christ. You raise the example of the man born blind, and you are right to an extent. However, Christ does not work in a 'one size fits all' fashion. He deals with each person on an individual basis. So, while He asked the man born blind if he wanted to be healed, what about the story of the paralytic who was brought to Christ by his 4 friends? Christ forgave and healed this man, not based on his faith, but on the faith of his friends. Look also at the story of the Samaritan woman. Christ came to her, she did not seek Him out. Further, in the process of making her realize her sin, Christ did not just blatantly state her sins and embarrass her. Rather, He took her step by step, beginning with asking for water from the well, to speaking about Living Water, to asking her to bring her husband so He can speak to the both of them. It is here where she admits that she's not married (note, she still doesn't fully admit she's sinning) and Christ still praises her. Finally, there's the incident of the paralytic by the pool, who was waiting for the angel to stir the waters. Once again, Christ sought him out. When asked if he wished to be healed, his response was 'I have no man to put me in the water'. So even here, we see this man not seeking Christ, not asking to be healed by Him, but rather relying on man. Yet, Christ still healed him. After he was healed, he praised God.
Some unrepentant sinners are unrepentant because they defy the Church and her authority. Others are unrepentant because they have been ostracised, discriminated and hated. They are forced out of a relationship with Christ (from their perspective) and thus are unaware of their sins. A person living in darkness cannot see the stains on their own garment. Thus, how can they acknowledge the filth they do not see? Only when they begin to step into the Light, can they see how filthy they are.
What is meant by lost? Who falls into this category?
I think of the lost sheep: Those who desire the truth and do not know where to look; those who have strayed and don't know how to return.
Those are whom the Lord seeks after.
What I don't think of is the Prodigal Son. The prodigal son was not lost but was rebellious. The Lord does not seek after the rebellious. They know where to look for Him and He awaits for their return so that He may receive them with open arms, full of joy.
They know what is good but deny it and for this they cannot be in the Father's house: One cannot be in both darkness and light.
Unfortunately, unrepentant homosexuals are like the prodigal son. They are rebellious. In most cases they cannot come back to the Father except after hitting rock bottom. No amount of "love" or easing up the rules will change them. What was the son missing in his father's house? He gave him everything. They have to come to a self-realization that they are in sin and are nothing without the Lord. This cannot happen when they are in the church and everyone treats them like nothing is wrong. Again, this only applies to the unrepentant out of rebellion.
[quote=Matthew 7:6, NIV]“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12337.msg145714#msg145714 date=1317878667]
I see. Thank you for your explanation, Cephas.
:)
You're welcome.
The prodigal son acknowledged his mistake, repented, had a plan of restoring his life with His Father, went to His Father and confessed. After all this, His Father declared that this son was dead but now alive.
Homosexuals who do not acknowledge their sin are dead, and dead people cannot receive communion.
The prodical son wasted the money his father gave him on a bad life-style in the town. He realised his mistake and went back to his father. He did not go back to him with the people he spent his money with saying, my father has heaps of money and he is generous besides he loves me. His father recieved him because he was lost to the father for awhile. So the father celebrated his return.