The only thing you illustrate is that you can't read an article in context.
As is self-evident, this article itself DEPRIVES THE QUOTED COMMENTS OF THEIR RELEVANT CONTEXT. I am IGNORING the POLEMICAL COMMENTATOR’s INTERPRETATION, and focusing on the QUOTED STATEMENTS IN AND OF THEMSELVES. This is the ONLY RELIABLE METHOD of interpreting the comments of one quoted in an article of another who has a clearly POLEMICAL AGENDA. Focusing strictly on those comments DIRECTLY QUOTED, one can clearly see that you are IMPUTING absurd and unwarranted implications that CLEARLY DO NOT EXIST, just to suit you anti-Orthodox agenda.
THE CHURCH IS CALLED TO WITNESS ORTHODOXY NOT COMPROMISE AND NOT "preach another christ."
THE FIGURES IN QUESTION NEVER CLAIMED TO PREACH ANOTHER CHRIST. Stop EISEGETING your nonsense INTO THE TEXT. READ WHAT HE SAYS:
Statement ONE: “According to biblical teachings, God’s gift of salvation in Christ is offered to the whole humanity,”
THIS IS TRUE, and BIBLICAL. Christ became man and died on behalf of THE WHOLE WORLD.
“Likewise, according to Christian pneumatology, the Holy Spirit’s work is cosmic; it reaches in mysterious ways to people of all faiths.”
Indeed the Holy Spirit reaches out to all, convicting them all, in His attempt to bring them to the Church that they may be saved. This is Orthodox.
In NEITHER OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS DOES HE COMPROMISE HIS ORTHODOXY.
The vaoidly stupid is the position that outside the Body of Christ there is salvation.
First of all, if you want to be referred to strong proponents of this stupid position I refer you to YOUR OWN BISHOPS – BISHOP KALLISTOS WARE and BISHOP ALFEYEV. Unfortunately for you, the only thing His Holiness states in the out of context quotation is that THE HOLY SPIRIT OPERATES EVERYWHERE – he does not say that THE HOLY SPIRIT SAVES PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. His obvious and Orthodox intention behind the statement, is that the HOLY SPIRIT WORKS THROUGH PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH IN ORDER TO BRING THEM TO THE CHURCH IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM, AND NOT THAT THEY WILL BE SAVED OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH.
another argued for inclusiveness in reassessing their views of licit human sexuality and relations.
AGAIN, I point out the following:
Are you this stupid? Read his comments:
“When this appeal to the Bible [in a literal way] is combined with natural law,” he said, “it leads to exclusive and conservative positions.” He also objected to “statements [that] reflect a rather negative anthropology, where man is seen as a ‘fallen’ creature and sin is sexual.”
Now explain to me where you read his alleged condemnation of sexual purity, traditional morality and chastity, from that one out-of-context sentence? The statement is so ambiguous it could mean anything. Obiously in your Satanic agenda to humiliate the Bride of Christ (though to no avail) you will attempt to force the worst into that comment, but clearly there is no necessity in that interpretation. There are many so-called Christians who view sex as intrinsically or inherently sinful, and it is this false idealogy that he is clearly attacking. There is a limit to Orthodox conservatism before it comes unOrthodox; one who tries to assert the practise of chastity as a dogmatic necessity, then they are open to valid criticism, based on the teachings of the Apostle St Paul, who clearly did not condemn all sexual activity per se.
In the end, even granting your ridiculous unwarranted argument for arguments sake, one priests opinion on any matter does not overrule dogmatic Synodical declaration WHICH I HAVE ISSUED YOU. And if you want to continue this attempt to character assisinate clergy, how about I show you CLERGY OF YOUR OWN CHURCH WHO EXCERCISED INCLUSIVE SEXUALITY WITHIN YOUR OWN MONASTERIES. This is nothing new, it is well know, and I can gather links within 2 seconds. Far-fetched interpretations of ambiguous out-of-context stataments quoted in a polemical article are no match for news articles recalling facts concerning your monks PRACTISING INCLUSIVISM.
THERE WAS NO CONCERN OVER gnostic sects of the 1st-4th
Your stupidity owns you, apparently. Where did I mention Gnostic sects of the 1st-4th centuries?! I AM ADDRESSING CONTEMPORARY IDEAS WHICH RESEMBLE GNOSTIC IDEOLOGIES. THERE ARE CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE HETEREDOX IDEAS CONCERNING SEXUALITY, VIEWING SEXUALITY PER SE AS SINFUL, and stressing CHASTITY IN A DOGMATIC SENSE. Such IDEOLOGY IS REFLECTIVE OF GNOSTICISM, HENCE ITS BEING CRITICISED.
DO NOT ADDRESS ME ANY FURTHER.
STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO. You are a liar and is my duty expose you as a liar, just as it is the duty of my heavenly Father to expose your own father of lies. I will continue to address you as I so wish; I am not forcing you to respond.
You welcomed them into "your homeland" and gave it to them and offered generations to them. Tha's why it's THEIR HOMELAND NOW. LOL!
Yeah, do you know why? BECAUSE YOUR FATHERS WERE HERETICS WHOSE HANDS WERE COVERED BY THE BLOOD OF THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT COPTIC ORTHODOX MARTYRS. That’s why I said that your Fathers were more Muhammedian than Muhammed, since the Copts actually experienced some RELIEF under Islamic persecution, since it was at least of a less severe nature than that enacted by your HEARTLESS MERCILESS Schismatic Fathers, whose MURDEROUS FRUITS truly exposed their true identity.
but with nonsensical and dishonest verbal assaults.
AGAIN, you continue with the hypocrisy. Do you mean verbal assaults like:
dhimmis aren't free to speak on their own anyways.
Will you ever learn? I have no problem with you insulting me; go for your life. Just don’t whine about being insulted if you in turn are going to insult me. Got it?!
