This is comparing apples with oranges.

What will happen if the author tries to compare Buddhist *monks* with Russian Orthodox *monks*? Then, both are celibate.

I am Orthodox — but the author seems to be trying a little too hard to promote Orthodoxy using an implication that is false. Celibacy is not only a Buddhist monastic custom, it is a Christian one too.

If celibacy is truly a “problem” then one should look at Zoroastrianism and Islam — religions that essentially prohibit celibacy, calling it unnatural.

Does the author wish to take his absurd argument to that extreme? If not, then please don’t slip in misleading statements.

Orthodoxy and respect for Orthodoxy should be based on knowledge and a rational appreciation of facts. Not distortion, propaganda and lies — fruits of ungodliness, according to our Orthodox faith.

But for us adults, let’s get something a little more substantial.

The author is playing a little fast and loose with facts. To claim the the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox are on one side, and the Roman Catholics are on the other is dangerous.

First of all, there is the serious divided between the EO and the OO on the issue of Chalcedon. On that front, the EO and the RC are in the same boat, while the OO are considered heretical. This is changing slowly, but the fact remains: the OO do not accept Chalcedon. For the author to suggest that the EO and OO are one in spirit is … ridiculous.

Second, the author states “The Orthodox Church is Wholistic, Therapeutical and Mystical in nature, as opposed to the Western Churches who stress on Logic, Reasoning and Intellectuality.”

Oh really? Then you obviously know very little about the topic. The Orientals and the Eastern Orthodox most certainly stress Logic, reasoning and intellectuality. While the Eastern fathers also include many mystics — so do the West. In fact, the Eastern mystical fathers are accepted by the Western RC as bonafide Fathers and Doctors of the Faith (e.g., the Desert Fathers, Isaac of Nineveh, Jacob of Serug, etc.).

And many of the Eastern fathers were also very careful to present Logical and Rational arguments. Almost all of the Greek Fathers fall into this boat — in fact, it is the Greeks that brought Philosophy into Theology, making the latter more rigorous (of course, this also had the unhappy result of precipitating schisms when one side couldn’t accept or understand the other side’s terminology). For the Orientals, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Dionysius bar Salibi and — who can forget — Bar Hebraeus stand out in this respect.

Is this blog trying to promote Orthodoxy, or is it just giving a voice to pre-schoolars who lack enough intellectual sophistication to present a true list of what makes Orthodoxy “great”?

The arguments are either:
1) there are many other ways of serving the Church; women should be content with those
2) this has never been done before and hence it should not be done (e.g., Deena Ideh’s intellectually-crippled argument above)

Both arguments circumvent the issue — neither presents any valid facts to address the issue directly.

My questions:
1. What do the history books say? What was actually practiced in the past? We know that Orthodox traditions have changed throughout history, due to persecution, modernization, uncontrolled reforms, corruption, etc. Hence, what we have today may not be faithful to what our Fathers practiced. So: what did our Father’s practice?

Specifically, there are records of a female deaconate. Could someone comment — in a rational an intellectually strong manner, not the trivial drivel that we often get nowadays from ignorant clerics and laity alike — on this? I know the Eastern Orthodox Church is seriously studying this issue.

2. What do the Fathers have to say?

I — and I believe most Orthodox faithful — really don’t care about the basically moronic arguments that half-educated clergy and un-educated laity (either liberal or conservative) have been passing around for decades.

We want *facts*. Not snippets of scripture or snippets of quotes by the Fathers, not personal opinions, and not anecdotes. We want bonafide *facts* on this issue. If you quote Scripture and the Fathers (as you should) quote it in full, with context; please don’t resort to the typical Protestant cut-and-paste routine of distorting Scripture.

Could we please resurrect the intellectually-advanced culture that the Orthodox Fathers and Doctors facilitated in the old days?