In striking down the anti-same sex marriage provisions of fourteen states, the Supreme Court has covered the United States with shame. It has proven that a determined and noisy minority may, with sufficient support from the media, impose its will on the country. But worst of all, there is a good chance that for the sake of "rights" discovered by justices in the "penumbrae" of the Constitution, certain rights spelled out in the black and white of the text may well be sacrificed.
First of all, the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses will come under attack. Already, same sexual orientation provisions in state law have been used to ruin Christian business people in the hospitality and wedding catering industries who refuse to be drawn into the celebration of something they see as sin--and this by state attorney generals and judges who would never dream of upholding a suit against a halal caterer who might refuse to barbecue a hog for someone's event.It is likely that this present decision will be used to exclude conscientious Christians from public employment, education, academia, and other fields. As a protected client group of the Democratic Party, criticism of sexual deviants--even in defense of children who may find themselves unwillingly thrust into families consisting of themselves, their fathers, and the creepy guys who edged their mothers out of the picture or via adoption or surrogate parenthood fertilization into a homosexual household--will probably be denigrated as "hate speech". The time will also come when social workers, teachers, and others tasked with monitoring and reporting possible cases of abuse will forfeit their livelihoods if those they report on turn out to be a same-sex couple.
The conservative movement must not acquiesce in this socially damaging decision and appeal to stare decisis. the country, for the sake of written liberty and its future generations needs conservative leadership that will be willing to roll back the "inevitable march of history" (an idol of would-be tyrants), and even to investigate and impeach dangerous federal judges. Perhaps, on the state level, a campaign of civil disobedience should also be launched.
We have seen the great damage that the abolition of fatherhood via the welfare system has wrought on large sections of our population. Now, the Supreme Court has decided to put traditional believers, children, and those suspicious of sexual libertinism at risk. While the United States will, via this route, probably kill itself with a whimper rather than a bang, it has put itself in danger nonetheless.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2015
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
A Question About the Gnostic Gospels
If the Gnostic Gospels, such as the Coptic Gospel of [pseudo-]Thomas, are supposedly as valuable for understanding the life of Jesus as the canonical New Testament, how come Tatian made no use of them?
During the middle of the 2d century, an Assyrian by the name of Tatian, or Addai, became a Christian. He was under the tutelage of Justin Martyr, but when Justin died, Tatian became a follower of the Gnostic Valentinus. He was then excommunicated from the Christian church in Rome, and moved eastwards first to Macedonia, then later to his native Mesopotamia. Scholars agree that he died around 185 A.D.
Tatian's main claim to fame was the production of the Diatessaron ("through the four"), which synthezied the four Gospels into a single, continuous narrative. This apparently remained "the' Gospel for Syriac-speaking Christians until roughly a century later, when it was supplanted by the Pehsitto's separated Gospels.
Despite adhering to a system of doctrine closer to that of Valentinus than to that of the orthodox, Tatian made no use of the Gnostic Gospels in his Diatessaron. This would be strange given both his own Gnostic predilections had the Gnostic material enjoyed wide currency and status as a legitimate "alternative" Christianity in Tatian's time. Given that there would be no state-sanctioned persecution of Christian heresy until roughly a century and a half after Tatian's death, such an omission may require an explanation.
Quite simply, the Gnostic gospels did not exist in Tatian's day,during the second third of the second century. He was probably instructed in Gnostic teachings through treatises or word of mouth. Perhaps the Gnostic gospels were composed as Gnostic adherents recognized that the Jesus of the four canonical Gospels was not "one of us". Perhaps Tatian's Diatessaron served not only the purposes of orthodox believer, but inadvertently drove home to Tatian's fellow Gnostics the wide gulf between their beliefs and those of the historical Jesus.
During the middle of the 2d century, an Assyrian by the name of Tatian, or Addai, became a Christian. He was under the tutelage of Justin Martyr, but when Justin died, Tatian became a follower of the Gnostic Valentinus. He was then excommunicated from the Christian church in Rome, and moved eastwards first to Macedonia, then later to his native Mesopotamia. Scholars agree that he died around 185 A.D.
Tatian's main claim to fame was the production of the Diatessaron ("through the four"), which synthezied the four Gospels into a single, continuous narrative. This apparently remained "the' Gospel for Syriac-speaking Christians until roughly a century later, when it was supplanted by the Pehsitto's separated Gospels.
Despite adhering to a system of doctrine closer to that of Valentinus than to that of the orthodox, Tatian made no use of the Gnostic Gospels in his Diatessaron. This would be strange given both his own Gnostic predilections had the Gnostic material enjoyed wide currency and status as a legitimate "alternative" Christianity in Tatian's time. Given that there would be no state-sanctioned persecution of Christian heresy until roughly a century and a half after Tatian's death, such an omission may require an explanation.
Quite simply, the Gnostic gospels did not exist in Tatian's day,during the second third of the second century. He was probably instructed in Gnostic teachings through treatises or word of mouth. Perhaps the Gnostic gospels were composed as Gnostic adherents recognized that the Jesus of the four canonical Gospels was not "one of us". Perhaps Tatian's Diatessaron served not only the purposes of orthodox believer, but inadvertently drove home to Tatian's fellow Gnostics the wide gulf between their beliefs and those of the historical Jesus.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Resurrection of fo Jesus Christ
Paul says it best:
Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the godpel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preafhed unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was see of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present [ca. some time in the latte 50's or early 60's A.D.--Uncle Cephas], but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(I Corinthians 15:1-8)
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be it that the dead rise not...
If in thie life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(I Corinthians 15:12-19)
Uncle Cephas urges his readers to go to the Scriptures and read the whole of the Pauline letters. They're worth it.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is therefore fundamental to the Christian faith. Without it, Paul says, we might as well go home. Indeed, the naturalism of 19th and 20th century liberal theology caused many to join that group which Paul rebuked in Corinth so long ago. The result was the weakening of the churches, the near-suicide of Protestantism, and its replacement by a host of violent "isms" which spilled more blood in the 20th century alone over the right interpretation of Marx than was spilled over wrong theology in the 15 centuries between the conversion of Constantine and the shutting down of the Spanish Inquisition in 1804.
The resurrection of Christ also signals a new beginning for our human race, that there is indeed salvation. So sure were the first apostles of their message that most of them died martyrs proclaiming it. It also tells us that Jesus Christ is indeed the holder of all authority in heaven and on earth, for even death and Hell are subject to him who conquered them--and now witnesses that he is able to save those who trust him from those final horrors.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ also explains the use of Sunday as the day of rest and worship for Christians. Just as the original Sabbath proclaimed the original creation, so the day of resurrection proclaims the new creation (Acts 20:7ff.).
May this, and all other Sundays, be blessed and joyous to you.
Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the godpel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preafhed unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was see of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present [ca. some time in the latte 50's or early 60's A.D.--Uncle Cephas], but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(I Corinthians 15:1-8)
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be it that the dead rise not...
If in thie life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(I Corinthians 15:12-19)
Uncle Cephas urges his readers to go to the Scriptures and read the whole of the Pauline letters. They're worth it.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is therefore fundamental to the Christian faith. Without it, Paul says, we might as well go home. Indeed, the naturalism of 19th and 20th century liberal theology caused many to join that group which Paul rebuked in Corinth so long ago. The result was the weakening of the churches, the near-suicide of Protestantism, and its replacement by a host of violent "isms" which spilled more blood in the 20th century alone over the right interpretation of Marx than was spilled over wrong theology in the 15 centuries between the conversion of Constantine and the shutting down of the Spanish Inquisition in 1804.
The resurrection of Christ also signals a new beginning for our human race, that there is indeed salvation. So sure were the first apostles of their message that most of them died martyrs proclaiming it. It also tells us that Jesus Christ is indeed the holder of all authority in heaven and on earth, for even death and Hell are subject to him who conquered them--and now witnesses that he is able to save those who trust him from those final horrors.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ also explains the use of Sunday as the day of rest and worship for Christians. Just as the original Sabbath proclaimed the original creation, so the day of resurrection proclaims the new creation (Acts 20:7ff.).
May this, and all other Sundays, be blessed and joyous to you.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Marriage Equality, the Sexual Revolution, and Uncle Cephas
Now that I'm being bombarded by Facebook messages urging me to support Maryland's Question on homosexual marriage, I've decided to speak out.
Uncle Cephas will not stand for normalizing homosexual marriage for three reasons; two secular, one religious.
The religious one's easy. The Old Testament found homosexuality an abomination worthy of the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13), while the New Testament calls it one of the corrupt fruits of idolatry (Romans 1:26-27). I know there are many high-minded, "progressive" Christians out there who believe we should be as solicitous for the feelings of practicing homosexuals as we are for those of everyone else (including the chronically bad tempered? violent? thieving?), but between them and the Scriptures, the Scriptures win.
The secular ones are twofold: one is immediate, the other concerns the future.
Regarding the future, we won't know if I'm right or wrong until after I'm dead. But I suspect that after a generation of young men grows up after being raised by two "daddies" ("fathers" doesn't seem appropriate), a lot of the younger lawyers now arguing so passionately for "marriage equality", adoption by homosexuals, and the like will sympathetically take the class action cases of unhappy young men and sail off into comfortable retirement after suing the pants off of every institution that made their future clients' tales of growing up buggered an unhappy reality. And, of course, the courts will be clogged with such cases.
But the more immediate reason I oppose the LGBT agenda is one that can't be talked about in mixed company, so I request the ladies to skip a few paragraphs.
Having reached the age when the Doc wants to look at my prostate now and again, I simply can't believe that someone who likes getting the moral equivalent of a rectal exam is healthy; and I can't help believing that whoever gets his kicks giving it isn't more than just a little bit cruel.
Frankly, the whole sexual revolution should've soured long ago. Back in the Silly 'Sixties and Sillier 'Seventies, we were all assured that utter openness and freedom about sexual matters would prevent marriage breakup, make out children healthier and happier, and be generally good for society and even for the fishes in the sea (well, maybe not them). However, a generation later, our marriages are failing at a higher rate, and even MSNBC reports that one in four teenaged girls has an STD. We have growing underclasses of all demographics growing up fatherless, and all the social pathologies that follow such a phenomenon.
Now, I doubt that what I say will be taken seriously by very many. Most modern Americans, in their hearts of hearts, doubt that there will be a real judgment for them after they die, and believe that you only go around once in life and have to grad for all the gusto you can. Hence, what earlier generations called irresponsibility or even sin will be eagerly pursued until we either go extinct, or have a Reconstructionist or Islamic revolution forcing better behavior.
Unless, of course, God decides to be merciful.
Uncle Cephas will not stand for normalizing homosexual marriage for three reasons; two secular, one religious.
The religious one's easy. The Old Testament found homosexuality an abomination worthy of the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13), while the New Testament calls it one of the corrupt fruits of idolatry (Romans 1:26-27). I know there are many high-minded, "progressive" Christians out there who believe we should be as solicitous for the feelings of practicing homosexuals as we are for those of everyone else (including the chronically bad tempered? violent? thieving?), but between them and the Scriptures, the Scriptures win.
The secular ones are twofold: one is immediate, the other concerns the future.
Regarding the future, we won't know if I'm right or wrong until after I'm dead. But I suspect that after a generation of young men grows up after being raised by two "daddies" ("fathers" doesn't seem appropriate), a lot of the younger lawyers now arguing so passionately for "marriage equality", adoption by homosexuals, and the like will sympathetically take the class action cases of unhappy young men and sail off into comfortable retirement after suing the pants off of every institution that made their future clients' tales of growing up buggered an unhappy reality. And, of course, the courts will be clogged with such cases.
But the more immediate reason I oppose the LGBT agenda is one that can't be talked about in mixed company, so I request the ladies to skip a few paragraphs.
Having reached the age when the Doc wants to look at my prostate now and again, I simply can't believe that someone who likes getting the moral equivalent of a rectal exam is healthy; and I can't help believing that whoever gets his kicks giving it isn't more than just a little bit cruel.
Frankly, the whole sexual revolution should've soured long ago. Back in the Silly 'Sixties and Sillier 'Seventies, we were all assured that utter openness and freedom about sexual matters would prevent marriage breakup, make out children healthier and happier, and be generally good for society and even for the fishes in the sea (well, maybe not them). However, a generation later, our marriages are failing at a higher rate, and even MSNBC reports that one in four teenaged girls has an STD. We have growing underclasses of all demographics growing up fatherless, and all the social pathologies that follow such a phenomenon.
Now, I doubt that what I say will be taken seriously by very many. Most modern Americans, in their hearts of hearts, doubt that there will be a real judgment for them after they die, and believe that you only go around once in life and have to grad for all the gusto you can. Hence, what earlier generations called irresponsibility or even sin will be eagerly pursued until we either go extinct, or have a Reconstructionist or Islamic revolution forcing better behavior.
Unless, of course, God decides to be merciful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)