#immorality sanctified by tradition

[memoriae-lectoris]

Traditional Roman religions mainly involved tepid civic ceremonies. They sought to enlist the traditional gods of the city or state to provide protection and prosperity. For the most part this involved public rites conducted by priests and involved little more than some chanting and a sacrifice. Even ‘worship’ by groups devoted to a specific deity usually amounted to little more than an occasional animal sacrifice followed by a banquet. As Cumont put it: “Perhaps there never was a religion so cold and prosaic as the Roman.” Although not quite as restrained, traditional Greek religions also relegated religious emotionalism “to the periphery of religious life.” In contrast, the new ‘oriental’ faiths stressed celebration, joy, ecstasy, and passion. Music played a leading role in the services of these faiths—not only flutes and horns, but an abundance of group singing and dancing. As for ecstasy, the behavior of participants in the worship of some of these groups seems to have been very like modern Pentecostalism—people going into trancelike states and speaking in unknown tongues. Writing in the second century, the physician Aretaeus of Cappadocia described worshippers of Cybele as entering a state of ecstatic madness. “This madness is divine possession. When they end the state of madness, they are in good spirits, free of sorrow, as if consecrated by initiation to the God.” As Cumont summed up: “The Oriental religions touched every chord of sensibility and satisfied the thirst for religious emotion that the austere Roman creed had been unable to quench.”

The ‘oriental’ religions were not devoted to sanctifying civic life, but were instead directed toward the individual’s spiritual life and her or his moral obligations. In contrast, Roman religions imposed a collective standard of guilt: lapses on the part of one or several members of the community, such as failure to properly propitiate the gods, brought punishment to all. Moreover, aside from requiring humans to venerate them properly, the Roman gods seemed to care little about human behavior, moral or immoral. Worse, the Roman gods set bad examples of individual morality: they lied, stole, raped, committed adultery, betrayed, and tortured. Consequently, since “Hermes steals, then there are also Hermes festivals at which stealing is allowed; if the gods rape earthly women, then there are ceremonial occasions on which the most beautiful virgin or even the ‘queen’ must surrender to a Stronger One.” Thus did Roman religion fail to support the moral order. The same applied to Greek religion: the Greeks did not regard morality as god-given, but of human origins—“Greek gods do not give laws.” In contrast, the ‘oriental’ religions stressed individual morality and offered various means of atonement. Some of these were built into their initiation rites, which stressed purification and the washing away of guilt. Not content to offer atonement through rites alone, the ‘oriental’ faiths required acts of self-denial and privation, sometimes even physical suffering—actions that gave credibility to doctrines of individual forgiveness. Moreover, cities were neither punished nor saved; individuals could “wash away the impurities of the soul…[and] restore lost purity.”

#book: cities of god #rome #greece #culture #religion

[guiltywisdom]

hello, you explained that eastern orthodoxy doesn't believe in the original sin and i'd like to read more on this! Do you know books or sites that explain this in detail?

It’s true, Eastern Orthodoxy does not believe in “Original Sin” instead we believe in something called “Ancestral Sin” which can be confusing since in Greek it is written the same way but there are important differences! Firstly though, before I explain what “Ancestral Sin” is, I have to explain what Orthodoxy believes about the Incarnation of Christ and how this is different from the typical understanding.

A major difference between Orthodoxy and other Christian denominations is that we don’t believe that Christ came down to “wash away” anyone’s sins! He didn’t come to just suffer and be punished in our stead! He didn’t “sacrifice himself to himself.” He became human so that we may be perfected! Christ came to reunite man and God.

Adam and Eve were meant to share in God’s divinity, born both with the capacity to be immortal however they sinned and brought death into the world by disobedience. They “chose” the path of death. Death is the natural consequence of turning away from God. God could have fixed this but they were denied the tree of life, immorality, as an act of compassion so they would not be forever imperfect. God and human nature, separated by the Fall, are reunited in the Incarnate Christ and redeemed through His victory on the Cross and in the Resurrection by which death is destroyed. Death was not God’s retribution, God did not demand a blood sacrifice to be appeased. Christ lived as a man so that our lives might be sanctified and he died as a man so that death may no longer have power over us. He died so that he could enter Hades (Sheol), fling open the gates of Death and let in the Light of God!

Hades (Sheol) is the land of the dead and before Christ, it was a place of silence. It separated the people from God because God was not in Hades. Everyone goes to Hades when you die but with the Crucifixion, Christ harrowed Hades and let in the light of God. Now God has access to Hades and the righteous receive a foretaste of Paradise.

We are all born sinless. We do not inherit sin nor guilt. The “wages of sin are death” and we inherit things like sweat, toil, hunger, thirst, weariness, sorrow, pain, suffering, sickness, tribulations and tragedy but we do not inherit Adam and Eves actual sin; this means we are not responsible for anyone else’s sin. Adam and Eve merely introduced the effects of sin into the world. We are born sinless and technically it is possible to die without having committed a single sin. Babies are born without sin and if they die before baptism, they go straight to “Heaven”. It is just extremely unlikely that we will live an entire life without sin. Baptism then, for babies, is more about adoption into the community of God then the cleansing of sins.

As for books or sites? I honestly have no idea. The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware? It’s a good text for people new to Orthodox teachings. Unfortunately this is cobbled together from the writings of saints I didn’t keep track of...sorry, and I’m also sorry that this reply took this long! Sorry! 🙇‍♀️ If you are confused by anything said here, just tell me via another ask (or DM) and and I’d be happy to explain that specific part more.

TLDR: Orthodoxy doesn’t believe in Original Sin, instead it believes in something called “Ancestral Sin”; this means that we believe that everyone is born sinless but they do inherent the effects of sin which are things like pain, death and suffering as well as the tendency to sin ourselves.

*Disclaimer: This is my understanding of Orthodox teaching at the time of writing however it is important to note that Orthodoxy is rich in it’s tradition and not everyone is going to agree on everything. I am also not an expert and I am trying to be more humble but also still helpful.

#replies #asks

[the-hem]

What are the Fanatics?

"The Codes of the Apocalypse, Translated." The value in Gematria is 1458, עדן‎ח, Eden H. "The Ones who bear the burden of the equality of every person."

Eden= The fifth letter of the alef-beis, the hei.

"The design of the hei is comprised of a dalet and a yud. The dalet is composed of one horizontal line (signifying width) and another that is vertical (signifying height), which together represent the physical world, the world of materialism.

The yud (the detached left leg) represents G‑d, and thus spirituality. The Maharal teaches us that just as the dalet and the yud come together to form the hei, so, too, one has an obligation to imbue and sanctify the physical world with spirituality and G‑dliness.

In Chassidic thought,2 the hei represents thought, speech and action. Just as the form of the hei is composed of three lines, so do thought, speech and action comprise the three garments of the soul, the three garments through which we express our­selves.

The top horizontal line (thought), by its very design, repre­sents the concept of equality. To truly experience every person as equal, one must restructure one’s thought process.

Perhaps it appears on the surface that some people are better and some are worse than others. But our responsibility is to focus instead on the soul, the G‑dly spark within each person.3 Since our souls emanate from the same Source, we are all equal in our essence.

When we delve beneath the personality and externality of a person and go straight to his or her core, we experience that we are all one."

The Torah establishes the Decrees and a very clear strict probition against propaganda and slavery, but these have not been able to secure the levels of worldwide equality God expects.

This is why the Rabbinate expounded upon the Noachide Laws within the Mishnah. The Noachide Laws clarify the ways all men must contribute a legal environment that protects humanity from all the forms of manmade harm, which include those directed at the personality:

"The Bible presents a predominantly binary picture of humanity, with the Jewish people in covenant with God on one side, and the idolatrous nations of the world on the other. However rabbis of the talmudic period-approximately 200 to 600 CE-seized upon one aspect of the biblical narrative that does not fit into this neat binary universe.

While the Bible portrays the stranger as isolated individuals in Jewish society, the Talmud expanded the idea of the stranger and conceptualized it into a broad legal and moral category.

Based on the post-diluvean covenant God makes with Noah and his descendants (Gen. 9:8-17), the Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 64b) interpreted the stranger to be all gentiles who accept the seven Noahide commandments constituting the basic laws of morality:

the positive injunction to set up courts that justly enforce social laws

the prohibition of blasphemy, i.e. intolerance of worshipping the one God of the universe

the prohibition of idolatry

the prohibitions of grave sexual immorality, such as incest and adultery

the prohibition of murder

the prohibition of theft

the prohibition of eating the limb of a live animal, which is a paradigm for cruelty

Jewish law grants all non-Jews who accept these laws of civilization social and theological rights everywhere, as well as residency rights in a Jewish religious polity.

As a result, the talmudic tradition split the gentile world into two sub-categories: immoral persons who reject the Noahide commandments and to whom tolerance is generally not extended, and gentiles who accept the laws of the Noahide covenant who are regarded positively, whom Jews are obligated to protect and sustain.

As such, classical Judaism subscribed to a double covenant theory: Jews have the Torah covenant of 613 commandments and all gentiles have a covenant of seven Noahide mitzvot, each covenant being valid for its respective adherents. Conventionally, only those accepting the covenant are termed 'b'nai Noah' (sons of Noah, or Noahides).

Noahides are not expected to convert to Judaism, for they have an independently authentic covenant that governs a valid way of life.

Noahides are accorded positive status in this worldview, to the extent that gentiles who faithfully keep the Noahide commandments are regarded as more beloved by God [i.e. more valued] than Jews who violate the fundamentals of their covenant of 613 commandments.

This is clearly evidenced by the Talmudic and medieval rabbinic claim that 'righteous gentiles have a share in the world to come' (i.e. salvation earned by their exemplary lives on earth), whereas Jews who commit grievous sins do not earn that status."

[fieriframes]

[5 images. A bowl of food. A close up of a slice of pizza. A close up of a plate of food. A hand holding a bowl of soup. A man standing in a kitchen preparing food. Captions: Just because something isn’t good doesn’t mean it’s bad. What men do matters more than what they know. Immorality sanctified by tradition is still immorality. You honor yourself by acting with dignity and composure. Ethics is a skill]

#s29e18 coming together in cali #guy fieri #guyfieri #diners drive-ins and dives #something is #does #good #mean #bad #men #immorality sanctified by tradition #immorality #still #dignity #composure #ethics #skill #food #indoor #bowl #table #sitting #slice #plate #person #hand #holding #kitchen #man

[arcticdementor]

In September of 2020, I published a book entitled The Stakes. It was billed as a “current events” or election-year title. The election behind us, the candidate I recommended is no longer president. But the analysis which led me to that recommendation is very much still “current.”

To recap briefly (but read the whole thing!), the book explains how every prominent and powerful American institution, including the federal government, has been taken over by a hostile elite who use their vast powers to attack, despoil, and insult about half the nation. In the sixth chapter (excerpted here), I outline what I think America will look like if the present ruling class refuses to moderate, cannot be forced to share power, and has the wherewithal to keep its regime going. In the seventh chapter, I sketch several possibilities—from secession to Caesarism to collapse—that might result if it turns out that our overlords are a lot less competent than they think. And in the final chapter (excerpted here), I offer policy and other ideas that might enable America to avoid those fates.

That chapter (from which this essay is adapted) culminated with a proposal now being talked about widely, namely, to allow counties, cities, and towns unhappy with their current state government to join another. This would be a practical, and practicable, way to ease Blue and Red Americans’ present discontent and exasperation with each other.

There are precedents. The counties that became Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820, and—more famously—those that became West Virginia left Virginia during the Civil War. Fittingly, when I wrote the chapter, West Virginia had generously offered to welcome western Virginia counties unhappy with rule from newly, aggressively Blue Richmond. Today, a year later, West Virginia’s governor says the offer still stands.

There are similar movements throughout the country—most, though not all, driven by disaffected Reds. The most recent, news-making example was five Oregon counties joining two others in voting to leave the Beaver State and become part of Idaho.

So far nothing has come of any of this. But why shouldn’t these efforts be allowed to proceed if both the welcoming state and the exiting counties want it? Wouldn’t that be “democracy”?

…

Classical philosophers and historians alike condemn democracy as a bad form of government, in part because of its partiality but mostly because of the specific nature of the demos, which they contend is the polis’s least wise and least moderate part.

I would here add that it’s both sad and hilarious to see classically-trained academics and intellectuals bleat on about the sanctity of “democracy.” The worst offenders are the Straussians, who really should know better. Haven’t we all read Republic VIII and Politics VI, to say nothing of the warnings from Strauss himself on the dangers and shortcomings of democracy? Their failure as analysts is worse. The present American regime that they celebrate as “our democracy” is all but identical to classical oligarchy (discussed in those same books) while the “populism” that gives them the vapors is much closer to the democracy they claim to revere. But even more embarrassing, the Straussians’ central boast is to stand above, in Olympian detachment and even disdain, all regime pieties and see through them as self-serving rationalizations. Yet when extolling “democracy,” they sound no different than an Assistant Secretary of State, foundation president, or CNN host.

…

States such as California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and now Virginia are utterly dominated by one party, and often one city, which amounts to the same thing. This is how Virginia—cradle of the American Revolution and home to four of our first five presidents—suddenly, just like that, became implacably hostile to the first two amendments to the United States Constitution. Five cities and counties, three adjacent to Washington, D.C., essentially dictate to the other 128.

The uncomprehending angst of people who’ve lived the same way, in the same places, for generations suddenly finding themselves harassed by a hostile government—ostensibly “theirs”—is mocked by the ruling class as a lament over “lost privilege.” After Virginia flipped from purple to Blue in 2019, the state legislature immediately enacted draconian gun restrictions that flew in the face of centuries of tradition and peaceful practice. Too bad! You lost! That’s “democracy.” As Joel Kotkin has remarked, “The worst thing in the world to be is the Red part of a Blue state.”

We should not, however, give the powers-that-be too much credit for principled consistency. If and when popular majorities produce outcomes the rulers don’t like, their devotion to “democracy” instantly evaporates. Judges, administrative state agencies, private companies—whichever is most able in the moment to overturn the will of unruly voters—will intervene to restore ruling class diktats. On the other hand, when voters can be counted on to vote the right way, then voting becomes the necessary and sufficient step for sanctifying any political outcome. It doesn’t even matter where the votes (or voters) come from, so long as they vote the right way. The fact that they vote the right way is sufficient to justify and even ennoble their participation in “our democracy.”

Blues perpetually outvoting Reds and ruling unopposed: this, and only this, is what “democracy” means today.

Bad Faith Objections

Reds, increasingly, are catching on. They know the game is rigged, that they cannot win, and the veneer of their participation and consent is a sham.

This is why the gaslighting is being dialed up to the lumen levels of blue stars. Every objection to Blue despoilation is now openly ascribed to “white supremacy.” Don’t want to be late for work because regime-favored thugs “protesters” are illegally blocking an intersection? White supremacy! Object to being beaten on the streets? White supremacy! Want to see the laws enforced equally and impartially? White supremacy!

Obviously, nothing is more susceptible to this dread charge than calls for “secession.” Hence the entirely apples-to-oranges cases of redrawing state lines better to reflect residents’ preferences and interests will be—already is being—compared to the events of 1860-61.

…

Some opponents of Red attempts to leave Blue states will disingenuously point to Lincoln’s first inaugural address, the ne plus ultra anti-secession argument. But there Lincoln was talking about replacing ballots with bullets throughout a sovereign state—overturning not merely the outcome of one election but the form of government itself. The peaceful rearrangement of political and administrative boundaries within a sovereign state is an entirely different act, with far lesser—and less grave—consequences. Indeed, in the latter case the consequences may be entirely salutary: there is ample precedent in history and around the world of countries redrawing internal lines to suit shifts in population and interests.

Others will try to muddy the waters by facilely equating the peculiarly American use of the word “state” for our 50 regional governments with the far more common meaning of state as “sovereign and independent country.” Lincoln said secession was unlawful, unconstitutional, and immoral—but this hypocrite Anton who claims to be a Lincolnite is endorsing the very practice! The argument is false and will be offered in bad faith. If you wish to waste a moment of your time, which I don’t recommend, remind such liars that the anti-secessionist Lincoln not only supported but presided over the division of Virginia. The decisive point is that this proposal is here proffered for precisely Lincolnite reasons: to save the Union and keep the current territory and population of the United States together.

…

Article IV, Section 3 states that “no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

In the Maine and West Virginia cases, new states were formed, hence the legislatures of the original and prospective states, plus the Congress, had to consent. (In the case of Virginia, then in rebellion against the government of the United States, two competing state governments existed. The Unionist government, recognized by the federal government, voted to allow the separation.)

The Constitution is, however, silent on the question of transferring a county from one state to another. No doubt should rural Virginia counties seek to join Charleston, Richmond wouldn’t like it—all that lost tax revenue! Look how many fewer people to boss around! Fewer Electoral votes!

But, constitutionally speaking, the state government’s power to stop it would be dubious. As would, if we want to speculate along such lines, the means. It could, and almost certainly would, take the issue to federal court where, admittedly, any outcome is possible regardless of law, and any outcome favorable to Red interests extremely unlikely. There’s little question that a Blue state capital could easily join with the federal judiciary and the Biden administration to block any such action. That may or may not be “constitutional” as you and I understand the term, but we don’t rule.

Or suppose we interpret Article IV, Section 3 to mean that moving just one county from one state to another constitutes creating a “new state.” That makes things harder, but hardly impossible. It simply means that legislative victories would have to be won. That may seem impossible now; no empire ever seeks to become smaller. But, dare I say, the election of Donald Trump seemed impossible as late as 9 p.m. on November 3rd, 2016. Public opinion is changing fast. Reds, who’ve put up with a lot only to face repeated demands that they put up with even more, are getting fed up.

Not only do they get nothing but abuse from the political system, increasingly they don’t even get to talk. Any dissent against regime ideology is swiftly and ruthlessly censored on Blue media platforms, which is to say, all of them. Reds’ elected leaders (to the extent that they have any) are declared “domestic enemies” by the Speaker of the House. Blue wise men talk of “cleansing” Reds from the political system. Nils Gilman—a man who called for my death—declaimed that “These people need to be extirpated from politics.” To have no say and no voice, forever, means that one’s only option is exit.

It would be an act of magnanimity, and even self-interest, for a sufficient number of Blues to recognize Red concerns and let the state-county reorganization proceed. Right now, at least half of Red America feels trapped in an abusive marriage, endlessly told they’re worthless, racist, and evil—but also that under no circumstances may they even broach the topic of leaving. Stay and take your deserved punishment is Blue America’s constant message to Red, the political philosophy of Judge Smails: You’ll get nothing and like it.

Besides, as Blues never tire of reminding us, aren’t we Reds poor, weak, and dumb? Who wants such dross as fellow citizens? Imagine (say) Virginia’s glorious future without all those retrograde hicks getting in the way of NoVa’s progressive utopian vision.

If Blues cannot see their way to letting such peaceful means proceed as a way of improving civic harmony and extending the life of the republic, they’re placing a giant bet that they can, through sheer brute force, rule Reds forever. Can they? They’d also be admitting that, in New America, “democracy” just means Blues outvoting Reds, effectively nullifying their franchise.

…

It’s worth pointing out, in this context, the utter hypocrisy of Blues who cry “Jeff Davis!” at the mere suggestion of some rural counties in a Blue State seeking refuge with fellow Reds, which almost certainly would not change the composition of the Senate, but who blithely demand that D.C. and Puerto Rico be made states so the Democrats can get four extra Senators and (likely) four more Electoral votes.

#michael anton #american mind #read the whole thing

[pamphletstoinspire]

Some Troubles in Dublin

The Archbishop-Elect of Dublin, Dermot Farrell, gave an interview to the Irish Times soon after his appointment had been announced by the Holy See. (Click here for a transcript of the interview.)

The new archbishop declares himself in favor of women deacons and married priests. He does not find in the Scriptures an argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood. He calls the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality merely technical. He also says he has no problem with the private blessing of rings for divorced and remarrying couples and for homosexual couples (though he finds public blessings problematic because people often misconstrue them as actual marriages).

Amid so many other troubles, the Irish Church appears to be headed for more rocky days.

Farrell’s treatment of Church teaching and practice regarding homosexuality, for example, is dismissive: “It’s a technical description. People misconstrue that then because it is technical theological language.” He considers amending this technical language, because “I think Pope Francis has discussed that (removal). It came up at the last Synod.”

Really?  Farrell is referring to this teaching of the Catechism: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357)

In common parlance, calling language in a document “technical” can mean that it is unintelligible or is commonly misunderstood by the uninitiated, and is there to serve some arcane or legalistic purpose. Its removal is desirable but may be difficult to do if sticklers, purists, or legalists object. Better just to ignore it and treat it as a dead letter, as in “Technically speaking that is true, but. . .”

To describe the clear, unchanging, and unchangeable teaching of the Church on the inherent immorality of homosexual acts as technical language that could, and even should, be dispensed with is plainly a rejection of that teaching.

The rejection of homosexual activity, and the homosexual lifestyle, by faithful Catholics, however,  is not a misconstruing of “technical” language found in the Catechism. Those who want the Church to embrace and bless the homosexual lifestyle object to the language of the Catechism not because it is misconstrued by clueless people who think it means that no one should engage in homosexual acts because, being intrinsically disordered, they are immoral. Rather, they object because the language is easily and correctly understood to mean just that. The problem for them is not the allegedly confusing words used, but rather the clear meaning of those words.

Archbishop Farrell, in response to a question about blessing rings for divorced and remarried couples and for same-sex couples, says:

The difficulty with blessings is that they are very often misconstrued as marriage. Priests have given these blessings in the past. I remember one colleague of mine. I had said to him – he used to have this ceremony of the blessing of rings – I said to him I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings if you’re doing that here in the house but if you go out into the public domain, in a church, and bless rings as you see it. . .they turned up with 200 people and they saw it as a marriage. Sometimes people use that phraseology. . .you’re into confusion there. It can be misconstrued as “yes, the priest married us.” Blessings are always going to be misconstrued and that’s where the difficulty arises because once you start blessing things like that people are going to construe that as a marriage. We can’t have that sort of situation in the Church because it creates all sorts of problems in terms of our own teaching and these teachings of the church have been constant.

Leaving aside the question of blessing the rings of divorced and remarried couples, what exactly are we to understand is the meaning of blessing the wedding rings of same-sex couples, whether in private or in public? Is it a misconstrual to consider that the priest who does such a blessing approves of the relationship that the homosexual couple has entered into (which is a counterfeit, pseudo-marriage), and asks God’s favor and approval upon that relationship as symbolized by the rings?

The Modern Catholic Dictionary defines a blessing thus: “In liturgical language a blessing is a ritual ceremony by which an authorized cleric in major orders sanctifies persons or things to divine service, or invokes divine favor on what he blesses.” The dictionary’s entry on rings states: “Conferring the ring is an integral part of the marriage ceremony to signify the mutual love of husband and wife, and wearing the ring symbolizes their pledge of marital fidelity.”

The main problem with blessing wedding rings of a same-sex couple is not that people will become confused and think that the priest was actually marrying them. No, the main problem is that a priest who does such an unholy act is giving the impression that God will favor what He has condemned. Same-sex “marriages” are not marriages in any way, shape, or form. It’s a gravely sinful relationship in which two men or two women pledge to sodomize each other. No blessing should ever be invoked by a priest upon this unnatural relationship nor upon the pirated symbols of the holy estate of marriage.

Archbishop Farrell says: “I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings.” If that’s true, what he does have is a more fundamental difficulty: God has warned shepherds who mislead their flocks into paths of sin and error that they will be held accountable. Let us pray that the new Archbishop of Dublin will forswear his comments and reaffirm the Church’s actual teaching and practice.

By: Fr. Gerald E. Murray

#some troubles in Ireland

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Thu., July 2, 2020

Celebrating Saints of June 19, in the Old Calendar

Holy Apostle Jude , the Brother of the Lord (80)

The Holy Apostle Jude, one of the twelve apostles of Christ, is descended from King David and Solomon, and was the son of Righteous Joseph the Betrothed (Sunday after the Nativity of the Lord) by his first wife.

The Holy Apostle John the Theologian writes in his Gospel, “... neither did his brethren believe in Him” (John. 7:5). Saint Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, explains this passage. He says that at the beginning of the Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry, Joseph’s sons, Jude among them, did not believe in His divine nature. Tradition says that when Saint Joseph returned from Egypt, he began to divide his possessions among his sons. He wanted to allot a share to Christ the Savior, born miraculously and incorruptibly from the All-Pure Virgin Mary. The brothers were opposed to this because Jesus was born of another mother. Only James, later called “The Brother of God,” offered to share his portion with Him.

Jude came to believe in Christ the Savior as the awaited Messiah, and he followed Him and was chosen as one of the twelve Apostles. Mindful of his sin, the Apostle Jude considered himself unworthy to be called the Lord’s brother, and in his Epistle he calls himself merely the brother of James.

The Holy Apostle Jude also had other names: the Evangelist Matthew terms him “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus” (Mt. 10:3). The Holy Evangelist Mark also calls him Thaddeus (Mark 3:18), and in the Acts of the Holy Apostles he is called Barsabas (Acts 15: 22). This was customary at that time.

After the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, Saint Jude traveled about preaching the Gospel. He propagated the faith in Christ at first in Judea, Galilee, Samaria and Idumaia, and later in the lands of Arabia, Syria and Mesopotamia. Finally, he went to the city of Edessa. Here he finished the work that was not completed by his predecessor, Saint Thaddeus, Apostle of the Seventy (August 21). There is a tradition that Saint Jude went to Persia, where he wrote his catholic Epistle in Greek. In the Epistle much profound truth was expressed in a few words.

Saint Jude’s Epistle speaks about the Holy Trinity, about the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, about the good and bad angels, and about the dread Last Judgment. The Apostle urges believers to guard themselves against fleshly impurity, to be diligent in prayer, faith and love, to convert the lost to the path of salvation, and to guard themselves from the teachings of heretics. He also says that it is not enough just to be converted to Christianity, but faith must be demonstrated by good works. He cites the rebellious angels and men punished by God (verse 6) to support this.

The Holy Apostle Jude died as a martyr around the year 80 near Mt. Ararat in Armenia, where he was crucified and pierced by arrows.

Source OCA ( Saints of the day)

St john of Shangai and San Francisco

Saint John was born on the 4th of June 1896 on the country estate of his parents, descendants of nobility, Boris Ivanovich and Glaphira Mikhailovna Maximovitch in the little town of Adamovka in the Province of Kharkov. At Baptism he received his name in honour of Saint Michael the Archangel. His paternal ancestors were of Serbian extraction. One of his ancestors, Saint John, Metropolitan of Tobolsk, was an ascetic of holy life, a missionary, and a spiritual writer. Saint John of Tobolsk lived in the first half of the 18th century and was glorified in 1916. His glorification was the last celebrated during the reign of the Tsar Martyr Nicholas.

Saint John was an obedient child; his sister recalls that it was very easy for his parents to raise him. Ruminating about his future during his youth, he could not make a definite decision as to a career, being unsure as to whether he should dedicate himself to military or civil service He only knew that his future life would be guided by an insuperable desire to stand up for the Truth, which was nurtured in him by his parents. He was inspired by the examples of those people who live their lives for the Truth.

He commenced his education at the Poltava Military Academy which, Vladyka himself would later say, “was dedicated to one of the glorious pages of the history of Russia.” He was an exemplary student, but he disliked two subjects; gymnastics and dancing. He was well liked at the academy, but nevertheless felt he should choose a different path. This idea was especially furthered by contact with the well known religious instructor at the academy, Archpriest Sergei Chetverikov, author of books about Saint Paisius Velichkovsky and the Holy Optina Elders, and with the rector of the local seminary, Archimandrite Varlaam. The day of Michael Maximovitch’s completion of the military academy coincided with that of Archbishop Anthony’s (Khrapovitsky) investiture to the catherdra of the See of Kharkov. This renowned hierarch and theologian was the main advocate of the restoration of the patriarchate in Russia, subsequently the Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich, and finally the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Throughout his life this Archpastor inspired the church-oriented academic youth in all matters spiritual thanks to his principal attribute – his sincere love for them. Having heard about young Michael Maximovitch, of whom many spoke in church circles, Archbishop Anthony desired to meet him. It was in Kharkov that Archbishop Anthony became Saint John’s spiritual guide. This relationship continued throughout Archbishop Anthony’s whole life.

In Kharkov Michael entered Law School, which he completed in 1918, and served for a while in the Kharkov court during the days when the Ukraine was ruled by the Cossack leader, (Hetman) Skoropatsky. But the heart of the future hierarch was far from this world. When not studying, he spent all of his free time at the university reading spiritual literature, especially favouring the lives of saints. “While studying the worldly sciences,” said the Saint during his election to the episcopacy, “I delved all the more into the study of the Science of sciences, into the study of the spiritual life.” Visiting the monastery in which Archbishop Anthony lived, Michael had the opportunity to pray at the tomb of an ascetic of the first half of the 18th century, Archbishop Leletius Leontievish, a deeply revered but not yet glorified righteous one. The soul of the young saint was pierced by a thirst to obtain the true goal and path of life in Christ...Keep reading Australian and New Zealand, ROCOR Diocese

Jude 1:1-10 NKJV

Greeting to the Called

1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,

To those who are called, [a]sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:

2 Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.

Contend for the Faith

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord [b]God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Old and New Apostates

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of [e]dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in [f]contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:1 NU beloved

Jude 1:4 NU omits God

Jude 1:6 own

Jude 1:7 punishment

Jude 1:8 glorious ones, lit. glories

Jude 1:9 arguing

John 14:21-24 NKJV

1 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and [a]manifest Myself to him.”

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

Footnotes:

John 14:21 reveal New King James Version (NKJV) Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. All rights reserved.

Source Biblegateway

#ortohodoxy #orthodoxchristian #religions orthodoxy #firstchristian #ancient faith #spirituality #bible #gospel

[pilyarquitect]

why dont you agree with lgbt? the bible says nothing about it.. only the church does. do you listen to gods word (the bible) or other catholics? the only poeple who have a problem with it are the church not the bible

Dear anon,

You really should considerer your words before affirm something you can’t. I say that because Bible say things about homosexuality specifically, you can find:

Leviticus 18:22

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 Genesis 19:1-29 (Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”

When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”

But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”

He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.)

By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Romans 1:26,27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations

with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with other men,

and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:10

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Sexual Immorality.*

“Everything is lawful for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful for me,” but I will not let myself be dominated by anything.

“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food,” but God will do away with both the one and the other. The body, however, is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body;

God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not!

[Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For “the two,” it says, “will become one flesh.”

But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body.

Do you not know that your body is a temple* of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.

1 Timothy 1:10

We are well aware that the Law is good, but only provided it is used legitimately, on the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are upright. On the contrary, they are for criminals and the insubordinate, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the godless; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers, for the promiscuous, homosexuals, kidnappers, for liars and for perjurers -- and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching that accords with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, the gospel that was entrusted to me.

 I think I’ve given you enough proves about what the Bible says about homosexuality. Church just explains why the Bible says that. Also, for your interest, you have the Catechism that says:

2357. "HOMOSEXUALITY refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, [Cf. Gen 191-29 ; Rom 124-27 ; 1 Cor 6:10 ; 1 Tim 1:10 .] tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'[CDF, Persona humana 8.] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

2358. "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. "

2359. "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. "

With this, what Cathecism says it that feel attraction for other equal sex people isn’t sin, but to consent on this attraction and have sexual activity with a person of the same sex, this is sinful and it’s totally wrong, so wrong that even the Bible says it. Forgive me to say that, but you have no reason in your words. 

So, answering your question, I totally listen God’s word, because the Bible is saying it, and I listen The Church because Church explain it. 

CONCLUSION: BIBLE AND CHURCH ARE SAYING THE SAME!

[betadereader]

It’s “just” fiction.

How many of us have come across the typical phrase "it's just fiction"? Starting from a personal basis, I have always found it as a justifying sentence of an author with its content. And if the author has to get away with this defense, it is because someone has previously questioned said content. 

To begin with, I will clarify a point. Writing about a murder does not make you a murderer, just as writing a rape does not make you a rapist; role-playing a sadistic and abusive character does not make you that character, acting in your real environment just like them. 

In the world there are people who know how to separate the line of fiction and reality very well, while others do not. However, this is not the focus of this essay. I wanted to focus on the undervaluation of fiction in that very phrase "it's just fiction." I am going to articulate it with several examples that have occurred or continue to occur in reality, in addition to raising a series of questions. 

For better or for worse, the news media have configured a heritage of History. We are aware of History because there is written and / or audiovisual material, but the story offered by the media may not represent History itself. We know the version of history that they tell us. 

If I have gone to a very current example, the simple fact of creating a story in the format of an informative speech does not always reflect 100% of the object that occurred. 

With information abuse (the saturation of information) and so-called fake news, they also have the possibility of affecting the user's conscience, despite being a totally invented, fictitious story. 

Again, for better or for worse, and putting history and the media together, people tend to learn history more easily with fiction series. The fictional discourse can be educational and, at the same time, not represent History as such, trivializing some political aspects or creating a polarized world of black and white; good vs. bad. 

I also wanted to highlight a sociological experiment that was carried out on television, replicating Milgram's experiment. 

Milgram's original experiment, now cataloged by several experts as immoral, reflected very favorable results for the scientific community in its day. His main objective was to study the forms of obedience and whether they could find connection with those condemned during the Nazi era. Translated to the television world, in the documentary The Game of Death, they wanted to see to what extent a game show could become an authority, in addition to coming up with several theories. 

Like the original experiment, an agentic state (sometimes conformism too) was found in the contestant, relegating all authority to the guidelines of the program. There is an additional theory that mentions “belief perseverance”. In the contest, electric shocks are given to a subject who cannot be seen but can be heard. As the program progresses, the greater the intensity of the shock. Obviously it is an experiment and the pain is acted out, but in the participant —who did not know that they were part of the experiment— the following belief came up: "I can't really be hurting him because this is television."

“This is television” as a synonym for prior planning and pure spectacle; as a synonym for falsehood; just fiction.

I mentioned this example because, especially at the beginning of the documentary, it denounces a normalization of violence and physical and emotional torture on television. It denounces, also at the end, that commercial televisions, in their desire for money, "teach us that it is normal to humiliate, eliminate and be sadistic." (It’s an old documentary but if you want to see it, click here. It’s in French, I’m sorry).

Continuing with sociological experiments, how many experiments have tried to study the link between violence and video games? Or sexism and video games? Or xenophobia and video games? Or nationalism and video games? 

It should be said that the last mentioned are more common in the attitude of the player, using the video game as an expressive way to say whatever they want. However, we cannot ignore that, like historical television series, video games can also serve for nationalist discourses by demonizing the enemy and sanctifying themselves (especially when talking about video games which main topic is war).

I do not wish to dwell too much on each of the questions raised, since the emphasis is not the result of these experiments, but the undeniable interest and concern on the community of experts, as well as more and more students who are interested in these problems in order to analyze and debate them.

We are not indifferent to the images or books we consume. No matter how invented a story is, it stirs up real emotions. We grow with the media (traditional or digital media) and the content they have to offer us. There is socialization with the media at a very early age, and when we grow up we continue to learn from them.

Media acts on our emotions. And the stories that are told to us through media help to frame a collective imagination that even affects the vision of reality itself. Reality can also help build fictional worlds. And so the cycle would begin, since new ideals in fiction can act as a mirror for a future society and/or perpetuate harmful values (especially when under romantic treatments). They are two worlds that feed into each other.

For this reason the famous so-called "romantic love" has been so analyzed and criticized for promoting toxic ideas such as 1) love is the final happiness of every person and we are not complete otherwise, 2) we must to depend on someone else consider ourselves a "whole", 3) "for love everything is forgiven", "true love is eternal" and more idealizations that impacts on society and its perspective of love.

(Closely linked to romantic love, monogamy has been accused of being toxic and I wanted to make a small point that the decision of a closed relationship is as valid as an open relationship, and that an open relationship can be as toxic as a closed one. Here everything is said).

If fiction lacked that power, censorship would never have existed. The witch hunt in Hollywood or censorship that existed in the USSR for the control of the media and its content should not have happened. And many more historical contexts that I am ignoring. Governments were afraid of a content contrary to the predominant ideology, because it could break and violate their established values.

If fiction lacked power, propaganda would also lack power. Propaganda, especially in the context of dictatorships, offers a cult of personality; they idolize, endow dictators with divine values.

We just have to see the television advertising: it is all an idealized, invented version of the product. Don't give me that you've never been disappointed in buying the real product because "it wasn't like it was on TV."

We just have to see how certain groups in society (racial groups, different sexual orientation and gender identity groups, cultural ...) demand to be participants in fictional stories because fiction configures a mirror of the real world, where they are already participants.

Okay, taking a step closer to the "it's just fiction" statement ... so why do film academies exist? Depending on the film, they work with fiction to a greater or lesser degree, but it is still fiction. Why would there be jobs that are dedicated to worlds which work with fiction, if that is worthless? If "it was only fiction" nobody would pay for a movie or a book. And the same happens with television and animation series; no one would consume them. Any story that contains fiction, that is, any made-up story (depending on the needs of the script and the historical context), has no value.

By the same logic, any literary work would not have survived in memory and the writers we know as the "classics" would no longer be. By the same logic, any artistic movement (theater arts, literature, audiovisual and more), would have fallen into oblivion and its formal codes by which they acquire identity, would not be worthy of analyzing and studying. 

Because what difference does it make. It is just fiction. Nothing happens for the massive creation of very questionable content (the topics of which this blog will address later). 

Continuing with this essay, does anyone remember 50 Shades of Grey trilogy? Yes, that mess that originated (if I remember correctly) as a Twilight bad fic. How much movement was there on social networks denouncing an abusive and toxic relationship? Apart from BDSM and the criticism that it was painfully written (I started reading it by laughing and ended up wanting to tear my eyes out), there were countless posts in which the relationship of the characters was analyzed. Many voiced their complaint and amazement at how a book that focuses on and romanticizes a toxic relationship could hit the market.

I suppose that something problematic is even more when it becomes popular and it is about making money with it. And probably publishers don’t give a damn because they're going to make money anyway. Although the world of FanFiction is not destined —in principle— for commercialization, the fic that romanticizes problematic subjects is not "less important" for this reason, because it can do the same damage. There is a vast "FanFiction culture", and more than one fic has made the jump to the market. We have all seen a book with its brilliant promotion of "phenomenon on Wattpad".

Fickers —writers of FanFiction— are not film or television producers. It is good that FanFiction (and like FF we have Wattpad and AO3) is not a strictly professional universe. A fic, like a movie or a television series or a video game, can narrate very murky and dark things from life. A story can talk about drugs (or other types of addictions), the inhumanity of war, torture, sexism, rape, pedophilia and more that I’m ignoring. You can do it from the critical perspective of the characters and their actions, or from the point of view of the addict, inhuman, sadistic, sexist, rapist or pedophile respectively with the aforementioned.

Why if the producer/writer who whitewashes the image of pedophilia or terrorism (for example) or romanticizes them is considerated as a pedophile or as a terrorist but nothing is said against romanticization and the subsequent normalization of rape in the FanFiction world?

That question is one of many examples of harmful behavior by content creators, which toxicity can be seen thorugh fiction. That question is one from many others that this Tumblr account wants to develop as essays.

Because fiction is not “just” fiction. Whoever wants to rely on this phrase, is the equivalent of being a shameless person... as something to begin with.

#fiction #power of fiction #long post #essay writing

[frederickwiddowson]

Exodus 16:22-31 comments: gathering manna

Exodus 16:22 ¶  And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23  And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. 24  And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. 25  And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. 26  Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. 27  And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 28  And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 29  See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. 30  So the people rested on the seventh day. 31  And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

The Sabbath day, the seventh day, was a gift for man, a day of rest. It was holy to God, as a day set apart. You have a God-given right to a day off and any system, government, or person who denies you that is a godless tyranny over you. God ordained a day of rest, one out of seven.

Genesis 2:2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

As part of the Law given to Moses for the Hebrews, the children of Israel, they were to observe this day as a special day.

Exodus 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12  Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

The religion of the Hebrews was primarily a physical one, with observances, and special days, and requirements for carrying out physical duties. The religion of the Christian is a spiritual one with no sacred spaces outside of the Christian’s own heart. The Jews had a tabernacle and a temple. However, for the Christians;

1Co 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Corinthians 6:19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

The Hebrews had a Sabbath day, a physical day of rest, and there were other special Sabbaths, as well. Many Christian faith traditions tried to call Sunday the Christian Sabbath all the while making it not a day of rest but a day of obligation. The truth is that early Christians, as history provides evidence, worshipped before dawn on Sunday and then went to work. Sunday was not a day off from work for three hundred years after Christ. If it were truly the Christian Sabbath then from sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday you would do nothing, not even light a candle in your home.

27  And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 28  And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

Notice here, though, one common thread between Hebrew and Christian. God gave a command and told them how it was going to be and yet they still tested reality to see if it were true what God said. Do we not all do that and should not God be angry when we presume upon Him with our doubting disobedience?

God will lay out moral laws, confirming what had always been His standard. Modern man and woman will test these laws and suffer judgment from disobeying them but typically just don’t ‘get it.’ Sexual immorality, stealing, lying, cheating, and tolerating those who do under the excuse of tolerance typically results in suffering but many people still don’t see what they’ve done in defying the standards that God set down. These are physical facts just as much as gravity. You might jump off the roof and not break your leg but usually something like that happens. You might regularly commit sexual sin and get away with it but many times it will result in disease, lowered self-esteem, even unwanted pregnancy and poverty. ‘Pushing the envelope’ or ‘dancing on the edge’ are two euphemisms we have for testing limits. Life is hard enough when you do the right things and suffer misfortune but you are a fool when you practically beg for judgment on your behavior.

Don’t test what God has said to see if it is indeed true. There are some things you should never do, not even to think about them.

Philippians 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

[gravitascivics]

CURRENTLY, HOW WONDERFUL?

On March 23, 2018, this blog posted an entry that reviewed how complex public moral questions can be.  In that posting, “A Category of Complex Issues,” it described how a polity must deal with the free rider problem.  That is the problem in which rational calculations lead some to commit immoral and even illegal acts.  It argues that a view of governance and politics solely based on a natural rights view of such concerns falls short of addressing this overall problem.  In short, that construct does not provide enough reason to be good.

         This posting attempts to pick up on this theme and considers what Richard C. Sinopoli[1] sees in the work of John Locke – the father of the natural rights view – in how it deals with moral questioning.  In so doing, Sinopoli gives his readers a more nuance view of Locke’s writings – more nuanced then one gathers from present day depictions of that 1700s’ philosopher.  This will not be an attempt to sanctify Locke, but to be more accurate in reporting what he judged individual rights to be and how those rights related to moral questions.

         Yes, Locke bases his argument on a view of humans as naturally disposed to seek a dominance over others.  But he sees natural humans capable of being taught or socialized in ways that are conducive to the demands of a just society.  Sinopoli, though, judges Locke’s view of this socializing process as relying on a hedonistic psychology or on self-serving drives in their cruder form.

         Before describing this psychology, it is worth remembering why one does so.  One should note the role calculating appropriate social values and dispositions play in the maintenance of a functioning society or polity. The writings of enlightened thinkers, though, did not agree fully on this role.  A point of disagreement ranges around the role and the meaning of virtue.

         Locke sees virtue as a restraint on natural tendencies whereas his contemporary writers such as Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid viewed humans as more apt to pursue socially amenable drives such as compassion or benevolence as natural.[2]  Sinopoli points out that Locke did not see the existence of virtue as did classically influenced writers, especially those who wrote in the tradition of Aristotle.

Instead of natural tendencies or biases, Locke counted on educational experiences to instill the more cooperating, coordinating, and compromising behaviors upon which a polity depends.  He did not favor enforcing such values – even as important as they are.  The government – other than providing the rational deterrent for antisocial behaviors; i.e., coercive punishment – should not play a role in this socializing process.  

That should be left to social entities such as families and churches.  Of course, other communal entities play a role.  They can be social organizations – businesses or labor groups.  But one should remember, that the role of public education was not an issue in Locke’s time since it did not exist outside of orphanages.

         Admittedly, Sinopoli cannot cite one single work in which these Lockean ideas are spelled out. They are gleaned from a variety of the philosopher’s writings.  If Locke had dedicated one targeted writing effort to these concerns, perhaps he would have explored all these complex implications surrounding his proposals.  

For example, how could a citizenry get together, as individual agents pursuing individual goals, and come up rationally with the necessary supports or rewards to develop such a socializing strategy? How could they create those entities that would do the necessary work to bend the natural biases of selfish beings – those unsocialized youngsters?  He foreshadowed the work of behavioralists by supporting a system of compassionate rewards and punishments to do the job, but he does not give his readers a how-to account for accomplishing this.

This blog will pick up on this development at some future point, but for now a reaction seem to be appropriate.  First, how realistic is it to depend on self-centered agents mustering the necessary collective understanding and willingness to meet the challenge younger selfish beings impose on society?  Is that not being too optimistic?  

For example, just think of the problems current concerned people have in convincing their fellow citizens of the dangers posed by climate change.  Even that relatively immediate emergency is not enough for many to accept policies that hint at any short-term sacrifices to offset a long-term existential disaster. In meeting this emergency or in properly socializing a younger generation, humans must have more going for them then a natural selfish bias.  

The fact that humans have been able to establish generally congenial social environments indicates that Hutcheson and Reid were closer to describing human nature.  Also, what one sees developing from an adoption of natural rights thinking is not this communal, cooperative effort to encourage socially minded individuals, but an advancement of a non-communal view.  

This nation’s public and private institutions have shied away from communal social messaging, with certain exceptions here and there.  Consider that in public schools today, one finds a paucity of effort to socialize the young along these concerns – one can argue that an effort to do so has become illegitimate.  The natural rights construct today argues it is up to everyone, individually, to determine his/her views concerning any social responsibilities one might have beyond obeying the law.  A more “everyone has the right to do his/her own thing” prevails.

If the reader doubts this, just consider if the film, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” were released today as a featured film – even with a more secular bent – how it would be received.  Probably it would be viewed as an out-of-date sentimental piece of Hollywood fare.  Yes, in a recent Christmas Eve showing it was able to muster about four and half million viewers,[3] but then again, it’s become more of a Christmas tradition for some than a serious bit of art with a practical, serious message.

This blog has argued that Locke’s views have become more individualistic as the years have gone by.  This is seen as a natural development when a people are given a legitimizing rationale for acting self-centered-ly.  As such, the nation’s public schools – be it coercively or compassionately – have more and more drifted away from fulfilling any role in socializing youth as Locke envisioned.  Consequently, many of the current generation has been described as narcissistic and selfish.[4]

[1] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1992).

[2] Gary Wills describes how these writers’ ideas affected Thomas Jefferson and others of the founding era.  See Gary Wills, Inventing America:  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1978/2018).

[3] Rick Porter, “TV Ratings Sunday:  NFL and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Lead Christmas Eve,” TV by the Numbers, December 25, 2015, accessed December 2, 2019, https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/tv-ratings-sunday-dec-24-2017/ .

[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York, NY:  Free Press, 2009).

#John Locke #natural rights #Richard C. Sinopoli #civics education #social studies

[dendroica]

The history of the US is riddled with leaders betraying in practice the laws sanctified on paper. Centuries-old injustices over race and class are frequently glossed over in textbooks that seek to inspire with tales of heroism instead of to scare with the truth of the disregarded. But in the past and recent present, US leaders struggled to hide or justify their misdeeds, afraid of public accountability. They did not always uphold the values of our founding documents but they knew they were supposed to try. They knew there could be penalties if they were caught in immoral or criminal behavior, such as humiliation, a lost election, or even impeachment. In contrast, bigotry is blatant; laws are broken; patriotism is sham that seems to amuse them. What is unprecedented is not that a president is doing bad things, but that he does not bother to pretend to be good. This malice is not an indicator of liberating honesty, as contrarians have framed it, but a signpost on the road to humanitarian catastrophe. Policies Trump has embraced include eliminating healthcare for millions of Americans, using nuclear weapons, supporting Russian imperialism, rounding up ethnic and religious minorities, and making lists of federal employees who study climate change or gender equality, in seeming anticipation of a mass firing and an attack on science and freedom. These authoritarian moves do not benefit any US citizen, including those who voted for him. That these policies are being proclaimed openly, and in several instances blatantly favor Russian interests over those of the US, implies that traditional penalties for betraying the electorate are gone. As anyone who lives in an authoritarian state knows, once authoritarians get in, it is very hard to get them out. Politicians looking at 2018 and 2020 fail to comprehend that authoritarians rewrite rules, that laws are only as good as the people who uphold them, that the constitution is a piece of paper unless it is honored in practice. So long as the majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to cower to the new administration, it becomes increasingly unlikely that democracy will hold.

Our kids may never get the chance to know America

#Donald Trump #authoritarianism #politics

[vsplusonline]

A Civil Contract: Same sex relationships and marriage

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/a-civil-contract-same-sex-relationships-and-marriage/

A Civil Contract: Same sex relationships and marriage

In April 1954 when the proposed Special Marriage Bill was being debated in Rajya Sabha a Congress MP from Bihar, Tajamul Hussain, raised the question of how the law might deal with sex change. According to the report in the Times of India (ToI) Hussain asked “if the husband changed into a woman and the wife into a man what should happen to such a marriage? Would it become void?” Hussain’s query was brushed off as irrelevant at that time, but it is not irrelevant today. With easier availability of medical services for transitioning and greater visibility and acceptance of transgender people, their marriages too are now happening. Some involve transmen and transwomen marrying each other, as with Tista Das and Dipan Chakraborty, who married in Kolkata last year after meeting in a trans legal clinic. Others are cases like that of Lalit Salve, who transitioned from being Lalita while employed as a police constable in Maharashtra. This February Salve’s marriage to his wife Seema was announced in Aurangabad.

It is no surprise that something once considered not even worth discussing is now quietly taking place in India. Marriage matters in India, as we are reminded incessantly by films and TV, by the wedding industry’s excesses, by print and online matrimonial ads, by the way even perfect strangers, leave alone family members, feel able to ask questions about our marital status. And then there is the quiet courage of those who brave the horrific risks of caste and community outrage to marry those they love.

Even those who choose to walk away from marriage, like certain unmarried spiritual leaders and politicians, subtly reinforce the importance of marriage with the implication that they are sacrificing the fulfilment that, apparently, only marriage can bring, in service to some larger cause.

So when Ayushmann Khurrana, whose recently released film Shubh Mangal Zyada Savdhan deals with both same sex relationships and marriage, was interviewed earlier this year it probably seemed just obvious to say he was proud that same sex marriages had been legalised in India. Khurrana quickly corrected himself with a tweet saying he wished it would soon happen, but it does suggest he managed to make the whole film assuming that the Supreme Court’s decriminalisation of homosexuality in 2018, which features in the film’s climax, automatically allowed same sex marriage.

Because what would be the point of being able to be openly gay or lesbian in a society like India which puts such a huge value on marriage and still be unable to get married to the partner of your choice? Nikesh Usha Pushkaran and Sonu MS, who both live in Kerala, certainly thought that way. This was why in July 2018, even before the Supreme Court had finished its hearings, they had gone to Guruvayur Temple and quietly exchanged rings to mark their commitment to each other. But they knew, when the verdict came in September that year, that while it was welcome it did nothing to make their marriage legal. And since a religiously sanctified and legal marriage did not seem remotely possible at the moment, they opted for the solution that has been available, in some form, for Indians since 1872 – a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

For all that marriage is held to be a key component of society, its formal recognition by the state is a relatively new institution. Through much of history, in India and across the world, marriage has just involved some kind of declaration before witnesses, or decisions by community elders or local authorities, to recognise the union. It has been argued by scholars like James Boswell that these unions sometimes included same sex ones. The need for state recognition of marriage began, in Europe, with opposition to the authority of the Catholic church. Protestant preachers like John Calvin in the 16th century suggested the need and the anticlerical French revolution made it imperative in 1792.

A few decades earlier, in 1753, the UK Parliament made it obligatory for marriages to be registered by the state sponsored church – but only in England and Wales. Till as recently as 1940 Scotland recognised marriages made before general witnesses, which lead to many elopements to Gretna Green, the first Scottish town beyond the border with England, where marriages were often witnessed by the local blacksmith.

The Scottish legal scholar Henry Maine must have been well aware of the complexities of attitudes towards marriage when he accepted the job of legal advisor to the Viceroy of India in 1862. And this might explain his unexpected receptivity to a petition he received from a faction of the Brahmo Samaj in 1868 asking for a new law to recognise marriages that did not subject them to the demands of traditional religious authorities.

It is quite possible that the petition had more to do with the long battle of parts of the Brahmo Samaj to be recognised as a community distinct from Hindus, but Maine saw a larger potential in it. As a legal scholar he would become famous for enunciating a theory of how laws in society move from the conventions of status in traditional society to the autonomy of individuals who then create laws based on contracts.

As Perveez Mody notes in The Intimate State, her study of how the concept of love marriage has evolved in India, “the fact that the Brahmos were seeking to repudiate their ‘status’ (in this case, caste community) and intermarry through ‘reformed rite’ in the presence of a Brahmo authorised not by religious authority but by the state was, in a sense, in keeping with Maine’s theory of progress from caste ‘status’ to civil marriage ‘contract’.” Much to the surprise of everyone, possibly including the Brahmos, Maine came out with a Native Marriage Act that created a non-religious marriage for everyone willing to take that route. Initially it required formal rejection of religion (and also didn’t apply to Christians) as a neat way to step around the principle followed since the Rising of 1857 that the British would not meddle with Indian religious traditions.

Maine was drafting the law in Calcutta, then the most cosmopolitan part of India and this influenced his view of an India beyond the structures of the traditionalists. Mody notes how he cited the register of students of Calcutta University “in which, under the records of the religions of students, ‘Theist, Vedaist, Pantheist and Spiritualist are among the commonest…’” This helped him, and his like-minded successor James Fitzjames Stephens (an uncle of Virginia Woolf) to withstand the immense fury and pressure that traditionalists brought against the Act. They had to agree to modifications (like dropping the exception for Christians) and, even after it passed in 1872, very few couples actually went on to marry under it.

But it did set a template for the Special Marriages Act of 1954 that would come to replace it. This law enacted by independent India simplified the idea first set forth by Maine, creating a broad law for state recognised marriage (and divorce) that did not involve religion. Again, opposition from traditionalists did result in inclusion of clearly patriarchal clauses like different age requirements for men and women, of 21 and 18 respectively. As it happens, the current government has suggested that this specific anomaly of ages needs to be corrected – yet it is an example of the reasons cited in Nikesh and Sonu’s petition for the Act being discriminatory against them. Much of the language of the Act is gender neutral, but in a few key places like this issue about ages there are specific references to different genders. The Kerala petition explains that, with religious marriage impossible, Nikesh and Sonu decided to go the Special Marriages route, only to find “to petitioners utter shock” that these references to opposite sex couples seemed to prevent them using the law. The petition details the insult they felt at this and “thus highly aggrieved by this unjust and unequal treatment and gross discrimination meted out by the unjust provisions of the Special Marriages Act, 1954, the Petitioners are approaching this Hon’ble Court for appropriate remedies.”

Lest anyone feel inclined to dismiss their personal feelings, the petitioners also note the considerable practical problems they face by not being allowed to marry: “Being married carries along with it the right of maintenance, right of inheritance, a right to own joint bank accounts, lockers; nominate each other as nominee in insurance, pension, gratuity papers, etc.” Numerous other problems could be cited – not least the cases of same sex partners who have not been allowed hospital visitation rights to their partners of many years. And all this really is the crux of the marriage debate from Maine’s Act of 1872 till today. Opponents to the Special Marriages Acts have alleged, in often the most lurid way, that it will lead to immorality and promotion of lusts, when those who want to marry simply want the regular, mundane rights to live like any other married couple in India.

This week in Kerala High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman directed the Centre to provide an answer to the petition, postponing the matter by a month for this purpose. It is to be hoped that when this comes the response will not indulge in the moralism that opponents to the Special Marriages Acts have wasted their time in, but look at the practical issues that the petition raises and what solutions could be found.

This is a question other countries have faced, and many are still dealing with it. In Mexico, for example, it has been left to individual states, leading to a truly confusing situation where same sex couples have rights in parts of the country and not others. In Israel religious authorities have blocked civil marriages for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. This has led to a truly jugaad solution where couples are allowed to go abroad and marry and then those marriages are recognised in Israel. It is hard to see who this benefits other than travel agents.

There is also the interim step that countries like France have taken of offering most of the benefits of marriage under civil partnerships, but not actual marriage itself. But as France recognised, this is a somewhat meaningless distinction, and it is discriminatory too. The simplest solution, as proponents of the Special Marriages Act have always recognised, is civil marriage for all.

if(geolocation && geolocation != 5 && (typeof skip == 'undefined' || typeof skip.fbevents == 'undefined')) !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments); if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '338698809636220'); fbq('track', 'PageView');

Source link

#Fashion

[shirlleycoyle]

Russia’s Church Blesses Nuclear Weapons, Some Clergy Want to Stop

The Russian Orthodox Church is an important part of religious life in Russia. For the past two decades, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the church a cornerstone of public life. As the church grew in power, it also grew closer to Russia’s military. That meant public rituals blessing weapons. Lots of them, including nuclear weapons. Now, officials in the Russian Orthodox Church are looking to stop the practice of blessing weapons of mass destruction.

“The blessing of military weapons is not reflected in the tradition of the Orthodox Church and does not correspond to the content of the Rite,” said a proposal on the Orthodx Church’s website, according to Reuters. The proposal, which will be discussed at a meeting on June 1, goes on to say that sanctifying weapons that can kill massive amounts of people isn’t a godly practice.

For the change to happen, Patriarch Kirill—the head of the Russian Orthodox Church—would have to approve the proposal. It’s hard to know if this will happen, but Kirill’s public comments on nuclear weapons have been positive. “We should remember all those who labored on the creation of Russia’s nuclear shield,” he said during a 2007 consecration of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. “Because it prevented a third world war and spared mankind nuclear catastrophe.”

This isn’t the first time the Orthodox Church has pushed back on blessing nuclear weapons. It attempted a similar reform in 2019. “Weapons of mass destruction and non-personal weapons in general should not be ‘sanctified,’” Bishop Savva of Zelenograd said on Telegram in 2019. “This is where the commission’s position is at odds with practices of recent years.”

Blessing is a major part of the Russian Orthodox Church’s public practice. It blesses buildings, people, and events as well as tanks, guns, submarines and nukes. The Church is not a monolith and the pull away from blessing nuclear weapons represents an internal schism at odds with its public face in recent years.

Since growing in influence after Putin came to power, the Church has pushed to become a bigger part of Moscow’s military. “The Russian Orthodox Church has greatly increased its physical presence among the military and the nuclear scientific communities,” the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—the folks in charge of the Doomsday Clock—said in a 2019 review of Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy, a book about Russia’s Orthodox Church getting close to the nuclear community.

“The priests even go beyond the old Soviet military kommissars, reassuring recruits that there is nothing immoral about following orders to launch nuclear missiles and protect the sacred motherland,” the Bulletin said.

There’s a tension in the church one this proposal highlights. Some among the clergy have been trying, unsuccessfully, for a few years to change the practice. But it remains, and influential priests are against it. “Only nuclear weapons protect Russia from enslavement by the West,” Vsevolod Chaplin, a former spokesperson for the patriarch told Russian newspaper Vzglyad in 2019. He called Russia’s nuclear weapons guardian angels that protected Orthodox Civilization.

Russia’s Church Blesses Nuclear Weapons, Some Clergy Want to Stop syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[whittlebaggett8]

Have We Lost Our Moral Values?

Shaista Shakeel

It was challenging to imagine, a sort of bolt from blue. I was soaked in the sweat of shame. As a woman, I could only disguise my face presuming myself not to be determined with the shame. Immorality has limits, but what we saw at Bandipora by all standards was limitless and shameful. All people shook heads to verify that if the news in contention was a typo mistake. But it was reality. It was a dreadful incident, a shameful act and an existing reality. A father tormented the innocence of his daughter. It happened in Kashmir. A valley regarded as valley of saints and Sufis, the valley of Lal Ded and Habba Khatoon. A protector turned a tormentor. Father is synonymous with religion, trust and a shield for his daughter. But, its that means was shattered brutally by the incident at Bandipora. Now, a lady has to run for safety even in her have residences. We have grow to be morally corrupt. We have missing our ethical material. Our lifestyle has been bombarded with a shameful blot. The incident pierced our souls and the sky screamed. A feeling of disbelief sprouted. A lovely Kashmiriyat was bruised. A seed of discontent was sown in the valley. These episodes ended up alien to our society. But now disgraceful tragedies have hit our Kashmir. Where by are we heading? This continues to be a million dollar dilemma. Our blessed traditions, our cultural legacy, our morality, our ethical values, our societal self-discipline are shed. What we have now is ruined social eco procedure. Our self esteem and self regard have been dashed to dust. That is the trouble with the perspective we have adopted. We chase immorality and shed morality at the velocity of mild. Our decency has absent on a very long go away we are on unethical rampage. Retaining every little thing apart, we terribly need to inculcate ethics and morality in our society in every single breath. The pious interactions ought to proceed to characterize the feeling of have confidence in and religion. Mere assigning of sacred names to the associations won’t make them sanctified. Respect and dignity for the girls should be encouraged. We need to modify the mindsets we require to transform the modern society at grass root degree. The beautiful essence of Kashmiri tradition requirements to be reconstructed and renovated. The valley of saints and Sufis should be embellished with the bouquets of our genuine and wonderful traditions, quicker the improved.

—The writer is instructor by job and can be attained at: [email protected]

Relevant

The post Have We Lost Our Moral Values? appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/04/21/have-we-lost-our-moral-values/

#Opinion