Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In point of fact, there are many heretics we never talk about or only talk about regarding their errors. Origen is certainly not one of them. That said, the condemnation(s) of Origen are not mistakes.

Perhaps more noteworthy is that GG considers these "Catholic politics" determinative to the history of Christianity. It is surely the case that one will not find the explicit answer to the questions debated by Origen and Tertullian in scripture.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But Frazzled, Then we teach kids to shy away from topics that might offend someone or that their opinions must be kept to themselves. We need to teach kids that controversial topics can be civil.
We had anti-gay vs. Pro-gay in my class all the time. I ended up being totally opposite of this one girl. Do you know what happened, We stayed friends because she respected my view-point.

DId everyone in the class make it to calculus? if not you wasted your time.

No, But we learned respect for our fellow man(or women) and not to avoid sensitive topics. If you want a democratic society, you need a population that is not afraid of speaking for fear of offense.

 Manchu wrote:
In point of fact, there are many heretics we never talk about or only talk about regarding their errors. Origen is certainly not one of them. That said, the condemnation(s) of Origen are not mistakes.

Yeah, not sure if I was clear enough in my earlier post, and maybe should have spent more time expanding on my statement "Which we can see why other elements of the faith would reject it and consider it heresy". But the greater point is that to dismiss the importance of the guy entirely because of that is really poor biblical scholarship. His other teachings were massively important to Christianity.

So let me get this straight (see what I did there? ):

I fail to understand how on the one hand, the very same people believe in the constitution and freedom of choice, but on the other hand, do not allow people to choose their sexual orientation...seems to really contradict itself.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So let me get this straight (see what I did there? ):

I fail to understand how on the one hand, the very same people believe in the constitution and freedom of choice, but on the other hand, do not allow people to choose their sexual orientation...seems to really contradict itself.

The way some (many) politicians in our system seem to think is that you have freedom of choice and all that, so long as it falls within my view of freedom as well.... the newly raging gun debate is another prime example, as is right to work, abortion, Obamacare, etc.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So let me get this straight (see what I did there? ):

I fail to understand how on the one hand, the very same people believe in the constitution and freedom of choice, but on the other hand, do not allow people to choose their sexual orientation...seems to really contradict itself.

I didn't realise people chose it.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So let me get this straight (see what I did there? ):

I fail to understand how on the one hand, the very same people believe in the constitution and freedom of choice, but on the other hand, do not allow people to choose their sexual orientation...seems to really contradict itself.

I didn't realise people chose it.

Apparently if someone even so much as mentions the "G" word people choose to start lifting shirts. And given the behaviour of some priests, even I am not sure which of the 3 letter "G" words I am talking about

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So let me get this straight (see what I did there? ):

I fail to understand how on the one hand, the very same people believe in the constitution and freedom of choice, but on the other hand, do not allow people to choose their sexual orientation...seems to really contradict itself.

I didn't realise people chose it.

Let's not get this started in this thread, discussions like these keep attracting heterophobes

People do choose their sexual orientation - and I'm fine with that. What I really can NOT accept or respect are those guys that act just like homo-haters think gays are. I got two gay friends and they are really cool people you'd not assume being gay (one of 'em keps getting hit on by gals in bars ) and they are really disgusted by those "LOOK LOOK I'M GAY" people because they create this really negative image a lot of people have.

 Sigvatr wrote:
People do choose their sexual orientation - and I'm fine with that.

Orly? Do people also choose to be schizophrenic?

Mattman154 wrote:
Orly? Do people also choose to be schizophrenic?

For that question to be valid, you'd first have to definitively prove that sexual orientation is a solely genetic issue, which as far as I know no one has done (yet). EDIT: And even then schizophrenia isn't solely genetic.

 LordofHats wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:
Orly? Do people also choose to be schizophrenic?

For that question to be valid, you'd first have to definitively prove that sexual orientation is a solely genetic issue, which as far as I know no one has done (yet).

That's fine, however Sigvatr seems to believe that it is absolutely a choice

Yeah. The good old nature vs nurture debate. Haven't seen you in awhile

Well, as a gay man I don't remember ever actively choosing who I found attractive, so take that as you will.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But Frazzled, Then we teach kids to shy away from topics that might offend someone or that their opinions must be kept to themselves. We need to teach kids that controversial topics can be civil.
We had anti-gay vs. Pro-gay in my class all the time. I ended up being totally opposite of this one girl. Do you know what happened, We stayed friends because she respected my view-point.

DId everyone in the class make it to calculus? if not you wasted your time.

No, But we learned respect for our fellow man(or women) and not to avoid sensitive topics. If you want a democratic society, you need a population that is not afraid of speaking for fear of offense.

True, but on the other hand, if you want a society that has the ability to see after sunset without burning candles or alcohol lamps, you need a population that understands calculus.

I'm all for peace, understanding, and warm fuzzy feelings, but school is where you're supposed to be taught facts. Group hug-ins are great, but there should probably be some post-school-hours social hour for something like that.

Hey guys, how about a crazy idea, and we have a population made of people with all sorts of varying skills?

Primary school may be where we are just taught facts, but life is more complex and nuanced then only mathematics, and university one can learn things that require more nuance. Knowing Calculus is no guarantee of a good life either, but then, if you have no Liberal Arts the very idea of 'good life' wouldn't even be an idea, nor history, ethics, politics, language, ect ect. It isn't a choice of one or the other, after all. And if you think Liberal Arts is a 'Group hug-in', you are working off an seriously flawed data set.

If one believes to heavily in one or the other they are missing out greatly on a much of what the world has to offer.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well, as a gay man I don't remember ever actively choosing who I found attractive, so take that as you will.

Nor did I, but we should both keep in mind that in many ways human beings don't make as many choices as we like to pretend we do. Sure there's the big stuff like "what am I going to do today" or "when I grow up I wanna be." It's stuff like when you walk into a bar with some friends, have some drinks, and before you know it your in a bar fight with some guy who made a stupid joke about your mother (or maybe you ignored the joke and just went on with your night). A lot of the time we just do stuff and don't think about why we do it.

Why are things this way? I don't know. Maybe its subconscious decision making, maybe its genetic, maybe its what we eat, or the side effects of viral infection, maybe its all of the above.

I just find the debate about the cause of homosexuality perplexing. The all in choice crowd could be right (maybe) but they commonly frame their position on the sole basis that if it's a choice it can be banned, which is stupid. And then, when people on the right embrace the its genetic position its only so they can say its a genetic disease and needs to be treated, which is also stupid. Then on the left there's the people who say its genetic, and then constantly act like they feel guilty and need a better reason than its a choice to justify their position or just want to counter the religious position that it's a sin. The ones who sit on the left and say its a choice and its perfectly valid strike me as the only ones actually using their brains in the debate (barring all the scientists trying to answer the actual question, who themselves are half the time doing it for political reasons). In the end, I see all these people debating this issue and none of them really care why someone is gay. They just pick whatever position is convenient for their larger political end.

And I sit here thinking, why the do all you people care about why someone is gay? Just pass the damn marriage law so we can all get onto the next stupid political debate already.

I chose boobies because...boobies.

 Ahtman wrote:
Hey guys, how about a crazy idea, and we have a population made of people with all sorts of varying skills?

Absolutely. There are plenty of things I'm not suited to do professionally. Isn't the point of a primary school to teach children a standardized set of skills and abilities? Otherwise, if we're going to delve so far into specialization, why have primary school to begin with? Why not simply have trade schools and apprenticeships?

Primary school may be where we are just taught facts, but life is more complex and nuanced then only mathematics, and university one can learn things that require more nuance. Knowing Calculus is no guarantee of a good life either, but then, if you have no Liberal Arts the very idea of 'good life' wouldn't even be an idea, nor history, ethics, politics, language, ect ect. It isn't a choice of one or the other, after all. And if you think Liberal Arts is a 'Group hug-in', you are working off an seriously flawed data set.

To be fair, he never said which class this discussion was occurring in. At any rate, starting with "homosexuality: right or wrong" is pointless until you establish what right and wrong are.

Hotsauceman1, what class was this conversation in? As a precursor to this conversation, did you discuss Kant? Socrates? Which translation of Hegel did you use?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

And I sit here thinking, why the do all you people care about why someone is gay? Just pass the damn marriage law so we can all get onto the next stupid political debate already.

You people? I don't give a damn; marry and be miserable like everyone else.

I just don't time wasted on it in our schools, one way or another.

I didn't mean you as in you (or really in anyone in the thread for that matter). I meant 'you' in the abstract As in the people who dedicate all their time to lobbying the issue of why people are gay when really the why is completely irrelevant to them because it all goes back to the marriage debate.

 daedalus wrote:

Primary school may be where we are just taught facts, but life is more complex and nuanced then only mathematics, and university one can learn things that require more nuance. Knowing Calculus is no guarantee of a good life either, but then, if you have no Liberal Arts the very idea of 'good life' wouldn't even be an idea, nor history, ethics, politics, language, ect ect. It isn't a choice of one or the other, after all. And if you think Liberal Arts is a 'Group hug-in', you are working off an seriously flawed data set.

To be fair, he never said which class this discussion was occurring in. At any rate, starting with "homosexuality: right or wrong" is pointless until you establish what right and wrong are.

Hotsauceman1, what class was this conversation in? As a precursor to this conversation, did you discuss Kant? Socrates? Which translation of Hegel did you use?

 Sigvatr wrote:
People do choose their sexual orientation - and I'm fine with that.

Maybe you did, but I'm pretty sure that experience is not that common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
For that question to be valid, you'd first have to definitively prove that sexual orientation is a solely genetic issue, which as far as I know no one has done (yet).

Not genetic, but biological. And there is a number of studies identifying factors present during pregnancy that lead to homosexuality. For instance, the more boys a mother has given birth to before the current boy, the more likely the current child is of being gay.

Its about the amount of testosterone given to the child in the womb.

EDIT: And even then schizophrenia isn't solely genetic.

No, but it is biological, the result of brain chemistry. Homosexuality is no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I just find the debate about the cause of homosexuality perplexing. The all in choice crowd could be right (maybe) but they commonly frame their position on the sole basis that if it's a choice it can be banned, which is stupid. And then, when people on the right embrace the its genetic position its only so they can say its a genetic disease and needs to be treated, which is also stupid. Then on the left there's the people who say its genetic, and then constantly act like they feel guilty and need a better reason than its a choice to justify their position or just want to counter the religious position that it's a sin. The ones who sit on the left and say its a choice and its perfectly valid strike me as the only ones actually using their brains in the debate (barring all the scientists trying to answer the actual question, who themselves are half the time doing it for political reasons). In the end, I see all these people debating this issue and none of them really care why someone is gay. They just pick whatever position is convenient for their larger political end.

Yeah, well put. And the other issue is that all the above positions are determined by how they fit their greater political views, not because of what science has told us about what's going on. Beliefs about the real world are supposed to inflence political opinions, not the other way around.

And I sit here thinking, why the do all you people care about why someone is gay? Just pass the damn marriage law so we can all get onto the next stupid political debate already.

Pretty much, yeah.

 Manchu wrote:
In point of fact, there are many heretics we never talk about or only talk about regarding their errors. Origen is certainly not one of them. That said, the condemnation(s) of Origen are not mistakes.

Perhaps more noteworthy is that GG considers these "Catholic politics" determinative to the history of Christianity. It is surely the case that one will not find the explicit answer to the questions debated by Origen and Tertullian in scripture.

Manchu..For centuries the Roman Catholic Church was pretty much all there was. I have never said anything different about how important the foundation of Roman Catholicism was to the Greater Catholic faith, I.E. Chistendom. I just have a problem with many of the doctrines/tradition that evolved from the foundational epoch. Hence this is why I am reformed/protestant. We can still be brothers in Christ, while believing in the essential orthodox truths of the faith, while disagreeing on the other "stuff".

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


I mean, you're going to dismiss one of the most important voices in the development of early Christianity because of the wikipedia summary you read?
.

If you really think all I know about Origen is from a wikipedia article you don't know me. He is a well know heretic who is quoted by modern day unorthodox cultists to support their modern day heresies. I have read a few apologetic's that go into detail on the man.

Not going to claim to be an origen expert though, but not going to allow you to pigeonhole me like that.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Not genetic, but biological. And there is a number of studies identifying factors present during pregnancy that lead to homosexuality. For instance, the more boys a mother has given birth to before the current boy, the more likely the current child is of being gay.
.

Pedophiles are allready using that same argument.
Sebster are you going to be consistent with your compassion regarding, genetics and sexual identity, when scientists start saying pedos were born that way...and if you don't agree then you are a bigot?

GG

I don't think its possible to argue that Origen wasn't a brilliant man who simply ran afoul of later Church doctrines. In his own time there wasn't that much abnormal about his views. One thing that should be noted about Origen was that he's the kind of guy who talked out loud (as in wrote out loud) and its hard to determine exactly what he thought personally. A lot of his works, and a lot of the works produced by his immediate circle of peers, were exploratory, and not intended to be taken as doctrine. That Origen believed in reincarnation for example is a myth. He didn't he merely discussed the idea because it was an issue in his life time.

"Y’all were with me a second ago when I said that marriage was threatened!

"And it was! Under siege by these villains.
"Can you believe they wanted to gang up and have children?

"There would be an army of them, teeming and thronging,
"Tempting every American to give in to forbidden longing.

"I thought they couldn’t reproduce. That was their weakness!

"Now what are we gonna do? They’re gonna seek just treatment under the law?

"Dammit, that’s like saying it’s okay to be gay. Or a lesbian!
Hey man, you cannot say that. Society would crumble and fall apart."

(2005) MC Frontalot

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Y’all were with me a second ago when I said that marriage was threatened!

"And it was! Under siege by these villains.
"Can you believe they wanted to gang up and have children?

"There would be an army of them, teeming and thronging,
"Tempting every American to give in to forbidden longing.

"I thought they couldn’t reproduce. That was their weakness!

"Now what are we gonna do? They’re gonna seek just treatment under the law?

"Dammit, that’s like saying it’s okay to be gay. Or a lesbian!
Hey man, you cannot say that. Society would crumble and fall apart."

(2005) MC Frontalot

Ever since former super church pastor Ted Haggard got busted with lots of drugs and a gay prostitute named Earl, I've added an undertone of barely restrained lust for hairy men in assless chaps to every religious based rant against "The Gays".

 generalgrog wrote:
He is a well know heretic who is quoted by modern day unorthodox cultists to support their modern day heresies.

While that is true, Origen is also regularly quoted by bishops and entirely orthodox theologians. For example:

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/on-origen-of-alexandria

Benedict XVI wrote:May we follow Origen's example by praying with scripture, always listening attentively to God's word.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm ok with that. Teach math, writing, logic,and the scientific method. Keep the PC nonsense somewhere else.

So, give children all the tools necessary for noticing sexuality (or race, religion, and politics), but don't ever explain it to them?

I'll restate for the slow. Teach math, writing, logic,and the scientific method. When all the kids are going to college or quality vocational schools and can run rings around Western European and Asian students, then call me. Until then, put down the shiny and FOCUS!

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
He is a well know heretic who is quoted by modern day unorthodox cultists to support their modern day heresies.

While that is true, Origen is also regularly quoted by bishops and entirely orthodox theologians. For example:

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/on-origen-of-alexandria

Benedict XVI wrote:May we follow Origen's example by praying with scripture, always listening attentively to God's word.

That's interesting. while I admire Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul before him, don't you think this is sending a mixed message?

It's kind of like me quoting talking about how awesome Carlton Pearson(Now Bishop Carlton Pearson) is/was and not even mentioning that he has now turned from orthodoxy to the gospel of inclusion and joined the Unitarian Church.

In case you didn't know Carlton Pearson was a huge "star" Gospel singer and preacher in the 90's. I remember watching the man on TBN. But he is now pretty much shunned and has been called a heretic. A story very similar to Origen..and he teaches many of the same things as Origen such as universal reconciliation ( a.k.a.Gospel of Inclusion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson

GG

Honestly, anyone who still refers to people as heretics seems to be in a rather bad position for a good debate.

Also, ex-hitler jugend pope sends mixed messages? Who'da thunk.

 generalgrog wrote:
while I admire Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul before him, don't you think this is sending a mixed message?

That is a good question to ask. The answer is, or should be, no. Not everything that Origen held or taught is understood by our tradition to be true much less free from error. His work is nonetheless extremely important and in some ways even determinative of how orthodox theology has "unfolded" over the millennia.