Of course, the world is filled with those who see themselves as the image of God rather than accepting that one most be at first worthy to approach God by aspiring to the impossible of being Him, despite mortal limitations.
Quite simply if God is against sodomy, God is against sodomites and those who even think of sodomy.
To state otherwise is self-delusion of the highest order. If such abominations insist on calling themselves Christian, they can at least do it on their own somewhere, because no real Church should accept them and they should be told to leave.
I am grateful for Miss Lazalor's bringing to our attention the inextricable mess that the Orthodox "churches" have gotten themselves into, although I believe that practise is the abhor sodomy in public and engage in it in private.
The article to which Miss Lizalor links has this paragraph:
Quote:
Closely connected to this is the second objection. If the Non-Chalcedonians are not required to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) and the subsequent three, and to not accept the Fathers whose theology played a key role in formulating the councils’ definitions, what does that imply regarding Orthodox theological epistemology, given that Orthodoxy believes itself to be the Church of the Seven Councils and of saints such as Savas the Sanctified, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus, who were dedicated opponents of the Non-Chalcedonians of their time?
|
The question is not rhetorical but requires an answer. The answer is Read the Bible and obey God, not some bearded buffoon with a golden crucifix strapped around his neck.
That said, I do recommend a perusing of another article mentioned
("Tonsured" means "had a haircut" - I assume that the barbers in the area are particularly good, or particularly cheap - Golitin is not a bad fellow, as long as you leave aside his frankly unsupportable views on the only important thing in the world - worshiping God.)