Townhall.com | Matt Barber | June 22, 2007
With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed “same-sex marriage” on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man “marrying” a man or a woman “marrying” a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court’s seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural “gay-marriage” Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court — through judicial fiat — made Massachusetts the only state to recognize “same-sex marriage” by miraculously divining that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick, many in Massachusetts — embarrassed by the court’s unprecedented leftist extremism — felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this court forced insanity.
. . . more
post 94:
Phill, I posted a rather long explanation and answer to your very good question about what constitutes a Troll. Perhaps Fr. Jacobse will get it out of the spam filter soon. Unfortunately, your Trolling with this post however….;)
note 93:
Should you not be Trolling at http://www.EpiscopalianToday.org ???
note 95:
It seems, however, that one of the key elements of the Christian faith is dealing with unpleasant truths about ourselves and even the things that we align ourselves with in this life
Sound reasonable, but what does this have to do with Orthodoxy? As a liberal Episcopalian, why do you presume to speak for “Christians” at a site called OrthodoxyToday.org??
Was this a political ploy? I, for one, don’t believe it was. This act showed great humility on his part.
On the contrary, this act showed modern liberalism on his part. As Christians we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers (though we do suffer certain consequences of them). As a modern liberal, we are to feel great guilt about and are responsible for the sins of our fathers. This act was “humble” in a modern liberal sort of way, NOT in a Christian way. Instead of presuming to speak for Christians James, why do you not simply ask what IS the Orthodox thought on such and such? Why are you here? Are you really interested in Orthodoxy and it’s response to the culture?
Christopher writes: “As a modern liberal, we are to feel great guilt about and are responsible for the sins of our fathers”
Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”
I don’t believe PJII was attempting to insist that there is some personal responsibility on the part of modern Christians for the errors of their ancestors. What he was doing was acknowledging that mistakes have been made in the institution he represented at the time and that he no longer wished those errors to continue. An apology, in this sense, is to say, “We do not view you in the same light as our predecessors have. We wish, instead, to find a common bond between our faith and yours.”
Where is the egregious offense here? Your anger is so evident in your posts, and I don’t understand its necessity. Explain why wishing to end the errors of the past is a “wicked liberal” endeavor or at least why you feel his actions had some personal negative impact on you or on Christianity as a whole.
post #102:
James, you may have more liberal cliche’s in your hip pocket than
Dean. What you percieve as “anger” is Christianity. It is a standard sound bite from leftist/liberals that the right/Christians are “angry”. Really, what are you doing here? I suggest you fast from posting anything on this blog for 40 days, and instead spend your time studying what Christianity is, what conservativism is. Many of the articles on the home page of this web site will be a good start for you.
After the 40 days, instead of regurgitating conspiracy theories (i.e. Judeo Christian) and non Christian interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, you might have a basis to LISTEN to an Orthodox perspective. It might take a while before you have anything to contribute, but be patient with your self – giving up modernism/liberalism takes a little time…;)
James, I wrote:
First, to say, I did seek and find.
The books are the Rudder, Orthodox [where bigamy is addressed concerning Church times] and, more extensively as to what I hoped to find: The Institutes of Biblical Law, written by a Presybterian missionary of Armenian descent. In fact, an Armenian priestly family near Mt Ararat from Bible times, first Jewish priests then Christian 2000 yrs. The Turkish massacre 1915 meant immigration to American & a point of contact w the Presbyterians.
Unfortunately — the apologetic would not fit in with your world-system of
belief. Not at present, it would not seem.
Let us say with Rutherford that the devil is God’s master fencer and, God
intends to perfect our weapons. This is fine for me — by your testing I have found wonderful apologetic.
But what about you ? You are not the devil. Yet, James, your message is devilish in that you say the Bible *does not* reveal — as God deigned you imago dei to know him — the God of the universe seen through the Hubble Telescope.
What about these Celestial Realms? Is not this Territory, where the consequences of the Fall of man did not extend, at least I don’t think so? You say you cannot reconcile such Immense, Transcendent, Wonderful God with the Bible’s account of God. Blood sacrifice, etc.
But Down here on terrestrial and solid ground earth. We have reality as REAL as those heavens. I ask, how shall we account for what we see? I’m sure this is obvious. But bear with just one example. Where does stop the world of the small? The microsope? Much wonder, too — mingled with every disease.
You say man is part good, part bad. But, a good cell smitten w/disease……..it’s ruined! This spells horrible trouble! Oh wretched man that I am!!!! Why should God redeem anyone? This does not fit with that Immense Perfection.
At any rate, I hope that we are not in gridlock?
I say Incarnate God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — is found on every single page of Scripture. Breathing. No jot or tittle is irrelevant.
If you are granted this faith as well [I pray!] — the apologetic I found would be more than satisfying for you.
May I ask of you a favor? As you read through the whole of Psalm 19, tell me — do you truly take exception with King David? Man after God’s heart. Type of Christ. With what?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=PSALM%2019;&version=47;
Regretfully, but hopefully,
– Nancy.
Fr Jacobse wrote:
Really neat.
The Antiochian Western Rite has a hymnal. It is called the St Ambrose Hymnal. Several weeks ago we opened to a hymn written by Philip Doddridge. I must say, I was —- happy about it. Be Thou My Vision, that’s ancient and a favorite. But Doddridge?
In Amazing Gace, the movie about the uphill battles to rid slavery in England, there is a silent scene. The camera guides your eye to a small table. Upon it is a book. One which called William Wilberforce to sincere faith. The title reads THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF RELIGION IN THE SOUL. The author is Philip Doddridge.
So wonderful! To sing Doddridge’s hymn in Orthodox Liturgy.
Well, are Wilberforce and Doddridge heretics, per se? I guess they are. In weightier matters of the law, I don’t think so! But I plan on planting a kiss on their cheeks in heaven nonetheless and I don’t think that will be heresy! And John Newton, of course. And all the redeemed souls for whom he prayed and loved, and called himself wretched. And, therefore God: AMAZING
I loved the Bagpipes, Amazing Grace. To whom much is forgiven the same loveth much.
Michael Bauman wrote: My concern is in how much needless suffering will be endured because we refuse to see the true nature of the enemy: the complacency, the apostasy, the heresy in our own hearts that allows the extrinsic evil to flourish.
Amen.
“The Bible calls debt a curse and children a blessing; but in our culture, we apply for a curse and reject blessings. Something is wrong with this picture.” Doug Phillips, Unknown
p.s. today my son said, was sang in the Liturgy: When I survey the wondrous cross. By Isaac Watts. Oh dear. Another heretic. But the words of this hymn — not. Charles Wesley said he would give up all his other hymns to have written this one. Something else about Watts. He had a hand in the project, “The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul.” I believe he planned it, and after Doddridge wrote it, Watts revised a section.
Nancy, Orthodox Protobresbyter John Meyendorff writes: “In the Old Testament, He even has admitted such institutions as polygamy and divorce because He knew that man was still unable to understand his own original destiny and to live in accordance with it.”
So, perhaps it is arrogant to judge the Old Testament prophets for this common practice. It is in accord with Orthodox beliefs to condemn actions, not the person committing the action. Thus, perhaps David was, despite his adulteries and violence and other shortcomings, a Godly man (we have no sure way of knowing).
This is why I’m a bit surprised when some liberal-minded clergy are referred to as “ungodly” because of their beliefs and actions. It seems they should be given the same benefit of the doubt and grace given to the very imperfect and even sinful Old Testament prophets.
JamesK, special responsibilities of those who assume spiritual leadership
David was a political leader. Liberal clergy have nominated themselves to become leaders and teachers of others. As such their responisiblity is very, very heavy. I submit that they will be judged by standards which are heavier than than person who does not attempt to teach or lead others.
A heresy propounded by clergy can lead many astray and cause great suffering, if not the loss of the opportunity of salvation. I like to think of God’s teachings and laws as “protective legislation” I don’t think there is any real happiness outside them. In the Middle Ages it was common to portray the Devil as a trickster. He tricks us into thinking that promiscuous sex will make us happy, or that material wealth will give us peace of mind. It is only after we have taken his bait and proceed to wreak havoc in our lives that we see that we have been tricked.
People like John Lennon and Maslow, people who promoted the idea that recreational drugs could be a path to spiritual or psychological maturity or other benefits influenced many to try drugs. Many people started down a path that severely dertailed their progress in life or completely ruined their lives.
I predict that those who promote the normalization of homosexual conduct will cause a great deal of suffering, not the least of which is the injury suffered by innocent children raised with pseudo-parents, homosexual couples. It will take a generation for the damage caused by this to surface and be documented.
We all have some influence. Highly placed people have more influence than others. We are all responsible for the influence we wield over others, whether it is a large number of people who were influenced by John Lennon or just a small number of people influenced by people like me.
James, what prophets were polygamous? I can’t recall any.
Note 105. Nancy writes:
Why would they be heretics? Heresy arises from within, and the only persons deemed heretics in Orthodoxy would be Arius, Nestorius, and a few others.
Fr. Hans: It appears that Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon were polygamous.
a) Abraham
“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” Genesis 25:1
“Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.” Genesis 16:1
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Genesis 16:3
b) Jacob
And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.” Genesis 29:23
“And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.” Genesis 29:28
“And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.” Genesis 30:4
“When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.” Genesis 30:9
c) David
“And David comforted Bathsheba his wife…” 2 Samuel 12:24
“David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. 1 Samuel 25:39
“David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.” 1 Samuel 25:43
“But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife,” 1 Samuel 25:44
Some minor propets include Machir, Jehoram and Ashur.
Again, I am no apologist for polygamy, but I am curious as to how or why there was a concession to this practice to those living under the Law. What are the implications, theologically and morally speaking?
I have not really read any good analysis of this, and I’m honestly not sure what to make of it.
The men you cited were not prophets.
Abraham and Jacob were patriarchs (fathers of the Judaic tradition), David and Solomon were kings (kings and prophets served two different functions in the Old Testament), Machir, Jehoram and Ashur were not minor prophets.
Further, there was no Law until Moses. Abraham and Jacob predate Moses in the text.
Meyendorff’s explanation is good: “In the Old Testament, He even has admitted such institutions as polygamy and divorce because He knew that man was still unable to understand his own original destiny and to live in accordance with it.” Moral development takes time.
But there is no way that a prophet could be polygamous. Do you understand what a prophet is and does? If not, I’ll explain it.
Why would they be heretics? Heresy arises from within, and the only persons deemed heretics in Orthodoxy would be Arius, Nestorius, and a few others.
Hopeful & streamlined.
“The lex orandi must be recovered as the lex credendi.” Schmemann. Moment of truth. What is prayed deep in the heart – is indeed what is most believed.
Romans 8:26
Honestly, Christopher, I post what I think about something, and I like to read what other people have to say. It’s not for me to say how someone should respond to something I’ve written, but I certainly respect it when someone points out what they perceive as flaws in my ideas.
If your goal is to discourage people from making postings where they restate their philosophy ad nauseum, you might not want to imply that you interpret their silence as a sign that they believe they’re wrong.
Also, although it’s kind of charming that you treated it seriously, I feel I should point out that when I referred to “the offensive and inflammatory nature of my posts” I was being sarcastic.
Note 111: You’re right. They did predate Moses, and the men in question weren’t prophets. However, I’m not sure what you mean by “there is no way that a prophet could be polygamous”. Why was there a separate standard for prophets vs. figures who played other roles in the revelation of Scripture?
Also, do the Orthodox see the prohibition against adultery in the Law to imply a condemnation of polygamy as well? It seems that it refers instead to the taking of a spouse that belongs to another.