Wednesday, March 2, 2011

SYNTHEOPOIESIS † ΣΥΝΘΕΟΠΟΙΗΣΗΣ Jn1034

To the writers of the former JN1034 blog  and then Syntheopoiesis who have faithfully, for years, shared the love that is God and the mystery that is faith, your presence is required of you.

I know that we have lost one of our fathers but we must continue the cause of liberty and love. We must bond together to fend off the coup of the Internet Pentarchy.  If you are unable to maintain a blog please contact me directly (you know how) to assist me in taking up the armor of God and defeating the enemies of the Church.

8 comments:

Leftmost said...

I must say, looking back, I found Jn1034 to be very proud and arrogant. They didn't always seem that way, but it seems as time went on they got worse and worse. They began explaining their position a lot less and instead bragging about their position a lot more.

At any rate, there's no need for them. A constructive dialogue in the Orthodox Church which creates a truthful view of homosexuality is up to us, the laity; not them. We need not advocate either for or against.

We need only band together and declare with one voice that we want a discussion. A real discussion. Not one of those sudo-moral discussion of the past were some aged intolerant priest teaching the congregation about homosexuality with a fictional, gay, "little billy" character.

"Today kids we're going to discussion why homosexuality is wrong. This is little billy. Little billy wants to be popular and modern. Little billy wants to be called little Susie. Oh look, now little Susie is doing meth and beating children. Now how could you defend a life style that involves meth a beating children?"

And that would be the end of the discussion. And the congregation would walk out being none the smarter for having listened to that intolerant crap.

So...we need to band together with other Orthodox (they must be Orthodox) and declare loud and clear that past discussions within the Church have been stereotyped, unproductive, unclear, and dismissive.

We need to tell the highest authorities in the Orthodox world, make them understand, this issue cannot be ignored any longer. The laity demand and answer and the Church has been unclear. Even the passages in the Bible, are unclear. Furthermore the passages used to condemn gays in America are in English. How accurate are those English phrases? Do they even have the same meaning?

Even to this day, I have no clue what the passage in Romans is really referring to. I even read St. John Chrysostom's homily on it, and he didn't even clarify what exactly it was about. He just kept saying it was something which he would not mention.

Anyway, we need a dialogue. A long and serious dialogue, which involves homosexual members of our own Church.

We do not need JN1034 to reemerge with their arrogance and sometimes, questionable doctrine.

We are the laity. When we work together, our voice is louder, clearer and taken more seriously. If anything JN1034 is nothing more than "diverted dissent", our own dis-info unit to 1984's Goldstien.

Get your friends, get your neighbors, get your clergy, to say, "We want a dialogue." That's it. Nothing more. Not, we want gay marriage, not, we don't want gay marriage. No, just, "We want a dialogue."
One that is serious. One that isn't run by biased agendas or special interest groups.
We need our Church Hierarchy to sit down and look gay couples in the face to tell them and tell the Church once and for all, whether gay marriage is in, or out.

Sorry for the long post, hope you don't mind. Don't be a stranger now, visit my little corner of cyberspace anytime you wish. :)

Angela Damianakis m.s.w said...

Howdy, I am glad you decided to chime in. I do miss Jn1034 I had never heard many issues (not just the ‘gay' one) presented the way they did. I have done some research a while back and was able to figure with pretty good accuracy who a couple of them actually were. It was unnerving that they came and went with a lot of poetic platitudes about who they claimed to be without actually stepping up. Sounds a bit like you too and some of your ghost writers one of whom needs a better pseudo name I recognize his name and writing off the bat. I don't' know how much they advanced the cause for civil liberty that way but I have no idea of knowing or gauging what they accomplished behind the scenes.
What was very clear they had a very firm grasp of language and elevated the dialogue. They were provocative to invoke interest and reaction. I think they intended on smacking the smugness right off the faces of those who live very comfortable lives. They had many facts and details logged in their intellectual brain pool and a versatile lexicon of linguistic fortitude unmatched by any I’ve seen on the net. I didn't look to them for absolute answers to doctrine or official church position or God's position; not even the confirmed ‘certifiable’ Saints of the Orthodox Church get that ‘pass’ or credence as an absolute. Jn1034 was able perhaps for the first time to help me relate to my Faith and my God differently. I was able to shed the religiosity from the faith and realized that even those who are pious and have good deeds can become self-righteous narrow-minded, intolerant and cruel. They did widen my lens of what is acceptable and how to have a conversation about the issues which plague society and the individual.

Angela Damianakis m.s.w said...

I think that you will find however that the church position has been very consistent but unwilling to detail it's objections hiding behind a misplaced modesty. I understand that to have a real debate about what is objectionable what is intolerable to the church that it would exile sinners. Many of the behaviors that homosexuals engage in are also participated by their heterosexual counterparts. If it is then a question of sexual relations outside of the marital bed then all those young adults, 20 and 30 somethings who are active should not get the pass. All those engaging him extramarital affairs should be held to higher more consistent standards. All this must be done without woman being told by their spiritual fathers that Communion is off limits to them because of the ‘kind’ of relations they are having with their husbands (in obedience). Likewise we should frame the situation in a way that compounds the problem. Because we force gays to be closeted because of threats of banishment they don’t have long-term monogamous relationship but then engage in risky and immoral one night stands which are easily written off as moments of weakness all be them now chronic instances. Likewise you could argue that the teenage young girl who has birth control in her bag is easily labeled as a slut or whatever the most dreadful derogatory term available to her so rather then minimize the wake of destruction she avoids all responsibility ending up with a disease and an abortion. Obviously there is more that meets the eye if teenagers are engaging in sex beyond raging hormones (give me a break). There is the breakdown of the extended and nuclear family. By nuclear I mean essential. There is a distraction about what they should be developing in themselves. Why should it matter if a ten year believes themselves to be gay or straight their sexuality is not what should be nurtured at that juncture. There should be some moral standards that we strive to maintain. There should be a natural consequence to prayer beyond tolerance without reason. Sexuality complicates many aspects of our life which are unseen at the outset kind of like the forbidden fruit. Once it is done it’s done. This is the lesson.
I understand that human sexuality is not as cut and dry or black and white as we would make it seem. If it were that easy there would be little to no conflict. As you have stated life is not really drawn in straight lines. I for one find pornography and the sale or trade of sex to be a industry of exploitation. Perhaps the only sin of sexual contact is the objectification of the other in the exchange. It is to dehumanize and therefore not to see the God in them. I disagree with many that there is no place for such an exchange and then what it would claim to fix is not a curing anything but simply averting greater conflict. The notion that a man could pay for sex to relieve himself as being noble because he is not raping the teenage girl down the block and call that a victimless solution is absurd. The notion that pornography is acceptable because it is voluntary and legal is again another intolerable cruelty. I don’t think that the cause for human love and support can be discussed when these other hitchhiking issues are raised.

Leftmost said...

Thanks for responding. :)

A) True, I maintain my anonymity, however, I don't claim to be anybody important either.


B) I do no have ghost writers. Their names are at the top of the article and the title is a link to the original.

C) Very true that JN1034 had a way with words. They were gifted in that one area. Not that anyone will ever know. Why they copyrighted their posts and blocked all comments I'll never understand. But, in short, what's needed is dialogue, and all that's needed to start that is the laity.

Angela Damianakis m.s.w said...

I for one will never understand the need for such obscurity. I understand being vulnerable as my livelihood is in jeopardy every time I challenge the OCA for example. Offers to speak on orthopraxis and psychotherapy on ancient faith radio has been repeatedly declined while other female speakers new to the faith with their protestant education are promoted. I don't believe in hiding and I don't believe the martyrs did either. As for ghost writers let's look at Nicholas Zymaris his writing and name is very much like that of someone I know. Perhaps protections are necessary at times but not as a free pass all the time.

Angela Damianakis m.s.w said...

I think a don't ask don't tell policy on blogging is ironic. I am not a lesbian and I am not for female ordination. I do believe in having an honest debate with people with names and faces. You can't be on the front lines with someone who is not going to stand beside you.

Leftmost said...

Regarding the article to which you refer, I pulled it from AXIOS and the author is listed as Nicholas Zymaris, so that is what I put.

However aside from myself, my blog has no ghost writers. In fact, I am the only actual writer for my blog.

What you say about AFR shunning cradle Orthodox and embracing newly illumined and giving a megaphone to their sudo-protestant interpretation of Orthodoxy is unnerving to say the least.

I keep my identity anonymous because for the time being there really is no need for me to say who I am. Currently there are people (though few and fortunately all laity) in the Orthodox world who believe I should be excommunicated and are set on discovering my identity to report me (presumably in a less-than-favorable light) to my SF. Now, I don't really think my SF would excommunicate me, but it's a hurdle which I do not see as being necessary.

However if my blog were to...take-off, and cause a huge stir in the Orthodox community then perhaps I should do the honorable thing and say that, "Yes, I wrote this".

However, currently, there is no need to go about doing that. And I'd rather not be found by the folks who are trying to find me. They are an unpleasant bunch.

Angela Damianakis m.s.w said...

The aside issue yes I have seen the source for that writer previously mentioned.
As for the impact you are having your standing behind your cause and up for what you believe in has little to do with the following. I have no real idea of the following or interest in my blogs that is out of my sphere of control. All I can control is my behavior. To that extent you have an arbitrary point at which you 'must come out' seems weak. As for your spiritual father I don't think someone can have a spiritual father without disclosing this type of identity issue. A father confessor is another matter as the role is different. As you are aware a spiritual father need not be a priest. Coming out from the shadows will shed light on the issue and more importantly on you and your direction. I am personally offended by the idea of woman as priests, I don't think that men dressing as women is organic it is a psycho social construct. It is a reality non the less. I believe there are very small segments of the population where true androgeny (defective genetics) plays a role. I can still understand the cross dresser as I would understand the alcoholic as people as Orthodox Christians.