What to do about Islamic Expansion in US?

[George Australia]

In any case, I'd still like to know whether you think white people have the same rights as any other race/ethnicity to be concerned about and work to preserve their heritage and future.

I am an Orthodox Christian.
I am the slave of God.
I have no rights.

If you want to label the mere idea of that as "hate", then your dictionary is one I never read.

Do you need to look 'love' up in the dictionary too? Personally, I prefer to live according to the Gospel rather than the dictionary. The Gospel which teaches that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28 ) You seem to wish to Judaize the Church brendan, by insisting on 'rights' based on hereditary criteria.

[George Australia]

In any case, I'd still like to know whether you think white people have the same rights as any other race/ethnicity to be concerned about and work to preserve their heritage and future.

And exactly what do you mean by "white people" brendan? Do you include the Turks? What about the Greeks? The Bulgarians? The Russians? The French? The Hebrews? All of these are "white".... or are they? You see, my aunty's neighbour in Alexandroupolis is Greek, born in Greece (third generation), she speaks Greek, French and English, she identifies as Greek, she is baptized into the Church of Greece and her skin is black. So who is "not white" for you brendan? Apparently there are only two races- white and non-white....who do you consider white and who do you consider non-white brendan?

[brendan]

Do you need to look 'love' up in the dictionary too? Personally, I prefer to live according to the Gospel rather than the dictionary. The Gospel which teaches that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28 ) You seem to wish to Judaize the Church brendan, by insisting on 'rights' based on hereditary criteria.

Everyone is equal before God, yes, but that is all. Obviously, all people aren't equal in many things. Are all people the same height? Same intelligence? Same propensity towards heaviness or thinness? Enjoy equal health and vitality? The list can go on forever. Its obvious that people are not equal. You're trying to apply a spiritual principle incorrectly.

Let me rephrase my question a little, since you are trying so hard to avoid answering. George, do you APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of non-white organizing to promote their interests? I'm thinking of groups like the NAACP, LULAC, MeCHa, etc. If so, do you think white people should do likewise?

[brendan]

And exactly what do you mean by "white people" brendan?

George, come on, I said European-Americans. You're trying to obsfuscate.

Admit it, you just can't bring yourself to say that it should be acceptible for white people to pursue their ethnic interests like all other groups. And if you condemn whites for doing it, then you would have to condemn non-whites too, but you don't want to do that, so you play these word games to avoid giving an answer.

[George Australia]

And if you condemn whites for doing it, then you would have to condemn non-whites too, but you don't want to do that, so you play these word games to avoid giving an answer.

What I "condemn" brendan is phyletism in the Church, and what's more, the Church condemns it. Why is it so difficult for you to see that there are no 'races' in the Church? Why do you not accept the decrees of the Church which condemn distinctions between races? What is so unclear for you about "There is neither Jew nor Greek"? What is so unclear about the Synodal Proclamation of the Church of 1872 which condemns discrimination between races?:

"We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which "support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness."

Why can't you accept the Church's teachings brendan? Why can't you accept the teachings of the Apostles brendan? Why are you Judaizing by trying to introduce heredity into the Church? Why are you insisting on talking about "rights" to Orthodox Christians?- slaves have no rights.

[Justin Kissel]

Both of you obviously consider themselves to be in the right, and to be defending a valid position. I've tried to avoid saying anything on all these points, exactly because I think there is something to both of what you are saying, and that you would possibly not have this disagreement so sharply had you been having it face to face, over a beer or dinner or something. In any event, fellas, I have to ask, supposing that someone finally concedes, or that someone finally writes a post that seems to "seal the deal". What will have been gained? Obviously I am not seeing things from your perspective, but I gotta think that even if someone "came out on top" in this, it would be a very hollow and even perhaps dirty feeling. Paul said that he would stop eating meat sacrificed to idols, if it offended his brother. The point wasn't truth, the point was offense. Paul could have held his ground regarding his "freedom in Christ" (he was right), but to what end? Paul chose love, and having his own beliefs violated (to state things somewhat hyperbolically), rather than offending his brother. I am not judging anyone here, I'm certainly in no place to do that with this huge log in my eye! Please though fellas, for the sake of peace (which we are to seek with all men) and the spiritual well-being of those who are watching this conversation, can't we just call it a draw. And maybe even return to it another time after some further thought if that's felt necessary? But this stuff is really disedifying, not so much the points, but just the way we are arguing.

[George Australia]

Paul said that he would stop eating meat sacrificed to idols, if it offended his brother. The point wasn't truth, the point was offense. Paul could have held his ground regarding his "freedom in Christ" (he was right), but to what end? Paul chose love, and having his own beliefs violated (to state things somewhat hyperbolically), rather than offending his brother.

Dear in Christ Justin,
I've tried to have this thread stopped by the moderators because I could see where it was going.
Are you suggesting that I concede that phyletism has a place in the Church for the sake of keeping the peace and 'not causing offence'? St. Paul conceded a matter of personal opinion- what you are asking is that brendan concede his personal opinion, and that I concede the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Should we not also accept ecumenism on the same basis?
I can agree to disagree, but I can never accept brendan's opinion that distinctions between races are acceptable in the Church.
George