#there’s also something here about old/new testament and a Jewish man founding a new religion | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

meanwhileinthebroomcloset · 5 years ago

Text

Mhm... This post was meant to be much shorter, honestly. Not to mention it got super personal, which was not my intention. It actually made me a bit teary-eyed and I’m usually an emotional constipated dumbass.

Am I ready for the potential backlash this is going to cause? Eh, probably not. Am I going to engage in the discourse this can cause? Ah, you wished. I have more to waste my energy on. I didn’t write this post to argument with anyone, anyway.

Gonna risk it, still.

-----------------------------------------

Isn’t it kind of ironic that it was witchcraft that made me fully return to Catholicism?

I mean, I kind of never left, hence the ‘’fully’’ in that sentence. But now I really know who I am. Although I don’t think Catholicism is the most accurate label (Christo-pagan, perhaps?) it’s the one I grew up with, and the one that comes more naturally to me.

Studying the beginning of it all, the commentaries of Pagans and Jewish writers at the time are just so fascinating and honestly beautiful.

Then everybody started chasing and killing each order, and it sure wasn’t fascinating anymore.... ‘’Stop being murderous revenge-driven assholes’’ I angrily mutter into my book, while frying my brains for High Middle Ages exams.

And then it split into Catholicism and Arianism (not that Arianism! The no-holy-trinity-on-my-watch one), and that was a totally different can of worms. Then Rome got pissy and the Orthodox Church officially became a thing that existed.

Man, why is religion so messy?

Faith is such a strange thing. So much power, so much potential for good and evil and everything in between. I started losing mine some years ago.

Contrary to some horror stories you may hear, especially from people who are now no longer Christian, I was raised in a pretty open environment.

‘’Don’t be mean, have faith, give second chances... Here are the commandments. They’re perfectly acceptable, see?’’

‘’Yes, there are different religions, but you should always respect them and the people that believe in them. Remember, Jesus was Jewish. Here’s some historical context... ‘’

‘’What the hell kid, nobody here is going to hell. Also, you’re five, there are no children in hell. No, the cops also won’t... Lord give me patience... Are you sorry? Did you apologize? Are you going to try to not repeat it? Great! Then it’s all fine and dandy!’’

‘‘Man, we are definitely all going to hell... At least since we’re all gonna be there, we could form a basketball team. The devil can be the referee. He will be an awful one, but hey, we’re in hell’‘

‘’I know the bible says the earth was created in seven days, but when that story was written, people didn’t know dinosaurs were a thing. Science is cool, and we are not in the middle ages. ‘’

‘’Blind faith is dangerous, kid.’’

‘’Thinking thoughts and acting upon them are two very different things.’’

‘’Yes, the second mom in that Solomon story was willing to see another kid die for the sake of an argument... sometimes people are that bad.’’

‘’God is perfect. People aren’t. That’s the world we live in and it’s okay.’’

‘’There are people who do terrible things in name of religion or say they’re doing it because the bible says so. Don’t believe them. There’s no excuse for murder and abuse.’’

‘’Yeah, Portugal is very enthusiastic when it comes to Catholicism... ’’

Pretty good summary of religion in my childhood.

Still, I found my faith waning. I didn’t really know why and I’m still a bit iffy talking about that.

‘’What did witchcraft do, then?’’

Well for once, it reinforced my ideas on how faith worked, and how strangely powerful it can be. Being skeptical is healthy but completely closing yourself off because something isn’t completely clear is too radical and you're just doing the equivalent of closing your eyes to the less brighter lights.

My god, I can hear the hardcore atheists coming...

Can I remind you there are more things in life that will not provide the proof you want, but that won’t mean they aren’t there? Relationships. Relationships are too complicated to have straight answers, a lot of the times. People hide their feelings, they fake them, express them and react to them differently. There are so many things we don’t understand or know about yet, like space and organisms that live on this Earth.

Sometimes what you need is a different approach to see they exist! It’s one of the things I learned with witchcraft.

There was also the religion itself. As I worked on my magic, I started seeing magic around me again. Not just with gods I had never considered and the one I was leaving behind, but with the faith I had always known.

The affection when someone says ‘’Our Lady’’ when talking about the Virgin Mary, my family calling upon Saint Barbara when thunder comes, children screeching excitedly because the Compasso has arrived to give us the news that Jesus has come to life again in Easter, the marble cemeteries, the comforting prayers, the masses I couldn’t ear because the local church’s echo is terrible, those boring long-ass weddings (oh my god, how many blessings do two people need?!), the loving dedication I see in every saint carved, my church's priest’s good humor... I never owned a rosary, but I always like the ones my aunts and grandparents keep.

I found Christian and Catholic witches on this site and I finally got to my conclusion. It’s really there. I just needed a different approach to it!

These things made me believe again, but also in new things.

‘‘But you can’t do that! You can’t combine magic and christianity’‘

Oh, watch me. And also watch the centuries of cunning women and witches in European history and those still alive today. The women that make ‘’mezinhas’’ and other types of favors in Portugal sure as hell are doing witchcraft, but you can bet your ass they don’t think they’re any less Catholic than anyone else. They don’t care about your opinions and I will hopefully do the same.

Relationships with deities are personal, and my relationship with God, Jesus and all of them is no different in that regard. I am a witch, I am human, I am catholic. I’m a follower, not a fucking mindless sheep.

You know what? I always compared God to Aslan. The lion wasn’t always there for Narnia, he wanted his people to solve their problems on their own. Get their independence, as a good parent does. They both don’t come up all mighty, that’s a posture reserved for evil and people who need a good slap in the face. They come to your level. God may come through one of the less eldritch abomination looking angels, though...

‘‘Well, if you have god, you shouldn’t need anything more. He's everthing. Why are you also a witch?’‘

Excuse me, do I look like a goddamned saint to you?! What part of human did you not understand?

And before you bitterly start quoting the Old Testament, let me remind you that it’s Old for a reason. Christ came to this earth to give us new rules since he technically saved us and things became different. That’s why Jewish people follow the Old Testament, for them, the messiah hasn’t arrived yet. Not to mention that to them that testament is not Old, it’s just the Torah.

You can keep quoting the bible to me all you want. But in my short twenty years of life, I was thankfully able to learn a few things. One of them is that the world isn’t black and white. Yes, I know this sounds obvious but there are some really dumb people out there. Also, this is the hellscape that we call tumblr.

Anyway, as I have mentioned several times before, I’m a never-ending knowledge seeker I found the world beneath my feet is not pure myth and I want to explore it. Look at me go.

I keep a critical mind with everything. Faith and religion are not an exception. I’m not overly skeptic about faith itself, but I am of its writings, interpretations, translations and etc... I study history, it’s a skill you naturally develop.

And there’s quite a few plot-holes, characterization differences and much more. It was written by humans that couldn’t do a cohesive collaboration even if their lives depended on it. Godphones sometimes don’t get a good reception. There’s a ton of cultural context to unpack. I hear people saying all the time that taking the bible’s words literally is one of the most stupid things you can do.

And when I say people, I mean priests, clergy, theology students, etc... I didn’t hear this from my drug dealer in the street corner..

...... I don’t have a drug dealer.....

Anyway...

There are many problems with the catholic church. There are many problems with a ton of catholic and christians out there. I will never deny that. Shit needs to get fixed and maybe even chucked into the trash.

But I still believe in God, I still believe in the saints but I also still believe there are more gods and spirits out there. And those things are separate.

I have no interest in converting you. I’m just yelling into the void.

If you are one of those that no longer is a christian, or catholic because some dipshits banged self-hate onto your head, I’m really sorry. I hope you heal well and get the help you need in your new faith or lack of it. Banging the ten commandments back onto their heads repetiedly and tell them to actually read the damn book is optional, though.

In the end, if you are (or are trying) to be good, you deserve respect and freedom to worship whoever or whatever you want. You don’t need to be perfect, you can just strive to be the best you can be in your situation.

--------------------------------------------

And now back to our schedueled programing.

#well #that was a thing #rant #christian witch #catholic witch

12 notes · View notes

alphacenturian4 · 5 years ago

Text

Rachel Stephens misunderstands Polemics

I received a viewer request to do a video deconstructing, but really refuting, Rachel Stephens claims that Modern Christian Holidays are secretly pagan. She has produced screes against Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and of all things Thanksgiving. So, if you came here to hear me say she is wrong and that the holidays you love are not pagan, then “The Christian holidays you celebrate aren’t pagan and Rachel Stephens is wrong.” But if you came here for a full-throated refutation of her claims as baseless and just more of Rachel’s insane conspiracy nonsense you’re not going to get that today. She actually does have some historical bases for her fears and misunderstandings this time, but they are misunderstandings nonetheless. Her discomfort and misinformation comes from her not understanding the long Christian and Jewish tradition of polemics. While the Christian origins of these traditions and customs are not pagan, the dates and some of the modern folk practices that surround these celebrations do have pagan and secular ties and these non-religious additions are a big reason for these holidays’ current popularity.

1st I should acknowledge that most of Rachel’s claims come from long standing anti-Catholic rhetoric, and maybe even some latent antisemitism, that Rachel seems both prone and subject to. As most of the holiday’s she speaks against have Legitimate Catholic Origins. As you will see, most of the holiday’s were initiated by Catholic Popes. As they took this idea of reapportion of pagan practices and holidays as license to Christianize popular holidays, by moving their already established Christian celebrations near the day of a pagan holiday, to overshadow or counter the then more popular pagan celebration. They saw this practice as inline with the already established cultural practice of Judaizing Hellenistic and Roman high feast and memorial days. A ready-made example of this comes from Christians reconfiguring Jewish high Holidays to fit within the context their new faith. For instance, Sukkot, the Feast of Booths, becomes The Feast of the Transfiguration. Or how the Passover Supper becomes the Lord’s Supper that is the Last Supper, commemorated every Mass in the Catholic Church. So the Popes and early Christians saw no problem in doing the same with pagan feast and heathen memorials.

In fact, this polemic Christianization of previously pagan or heathen events is a long-standing biblical tradition going back to the old testament and the proto-Israelite practice of taking the accepted facts of the day and turning them on their ear. Saying in essence, “you’re right but its this not that.” What some secular-humanists and atheist-skeptics call othering, where the Semitic and Abrahamic people spent much intellectual energy and time developing how they were unique and different from the much larger and more influential cultures and societies around them. This type of defining was necessary to maintain tribal unity and identity to avoid assimilation and acculturation. This process would reappear during the Church-Synagogue spilt, two words that originally meant the exact same thing but came to represent two different religions as Christians went about separating themselves from the Jewish Culture and Faith they grew out of.

Three great examples of this in the bible are Tiamat in Genesis, The sacrifice of Isaac, and Paul’s unknown God. All of Genesis up to the appearance of Abraham is Polemic against the Mesopotamian myths of the Canaanite, Babylonian, Sumerian, and Assyrian cultures. This is best examined in the Character of Taimat, she appears in both cultures’ Epic Poetry accounts of creation, but in the Mesopotamian she is the Mother goddess Dragon of Chaos, mother of the gods, slain by Marduk whom was latter identified as Baal by the Neo-Babylonians and post Jewish Kingdoms Canaanites.

Then there is the Sacrifice of Isaac, something most skeptics on youtube seem to misunderstand and mischaracterize. Which is unfortunate as this is one of the most explained examples of this type of polemic in both the Rabbinic and Christian oral traditions. The practice of child sacrifice and child emulation was rampant in the middle east at that time, but to find evidence of this you have to understand what polemics are. Polemics is the act of taking a widely accepted claim to its absurd extreme literal meaning and then filling in, recontextualizing, or reworking its meaning. In pre-biblical times, parents were expected to dedicate their 1st born child to the service of their Patron God or Goddess and in the Phoenician and Canaanite rites the child, when of the age of reason, was expected to take an oath and mark themselves as belonging to their patron god, this can be seen very explicitly in Livy when a teenage Hannibal takes his oath to avenge Carthage on Rome and then burns his hand in the fire of Baal. The Bible takes this rite literal and then freeing the Proto-Israelites from the practice by taking Isaac through the whole process and ending the ordeal by saying that God does not want child sacrifice anymore. It asks the reader, or listener, of its account to think about what it would mean if these commands were followed all the way through, what kind of god would demand that of a parent, and to show that our God is not like those other gods whom would expect you to follow through and complete such a task. Such as Artemis demanded of Agamemnon to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia in order for the sea winds to blow again in the direction of Troy.

The third example I will use to explain this concept of Christian reappropriation and its appropriateness is from the New Testament. Paul’s unknown God. Where Paul says: “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘To The Unknown God.’ Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, I will proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might reach for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are all His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, silver, or stone, nor an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore … He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

So, now that I’ve shown that the practice is both Christian and Biblical let’s get down to brass tax by defending the three Christian religious Holidays of Christmas, Easter, and Halloween. I will leave thanksgiving out of this discussion as it is a secular holiday that would require a different defense than what I will present here.

end part 1.

#Rachel Stephens #Should Christans #Should Christians Celebrate Christmas #You're Quitting Pagan Holidays #Are Holidays Pagan

5 notes · View notes

dfroza · 6 years ago

Text

as children of Light

we must believe is what cannot yet be seen. this is the essence of faith and hope in Love. the (Clarity) of its definition.

for the Spirit is the pure seed as the treasure of the heart (inside, Anew) who guarantees the promise of rebirth (of resurrection) after death.

the Ark of the Covenant at the Heart (the inner room) of the Temple represents the purest gold of the Son by which we are asked for it to be placed within the space of our hearts by welcoming the entrance of grace.

and we read of this in the Heart of the Scriptures as words written down and conserved through time to be shared as a Message that spreads Light throughout the beautiful mystery of earth as a universal garden of seeds, to be...

and sometimes by doing so, people have been wrongfully accused and hated for it by others. wrongfully arrested and imprisoned. tortured. killed. History is stained by the blood of the martyrs.

and we see this in Today’s chapter of the New Testament in the ancient book of Acts (chapter 21) that is paired with the concluding chapter 42 of the book of Job from the Old Testament in which Job responds to God in humility (of which we are are meant to do) and by Job’s prayer for his friends all is restored (and much more) of that which was stolen and destroyed in Job’s life.

Acts 21:

[Tyre and Caesarea]

And so, with the tearful good-byes behind us, we were on our way. We made a straight run to Cos, the next day reached Rhodes, and then Patara. There we found a ship going direct to Phoenicia, got on board, and set sail. Cyprus came into view on our left, but was soon out of sight as we kept on course for Syria, and eventually docked in the port of Tyre. While the cargo was being unloaded, we looked up the local disciples and stayed with them seven days. Their message to Paul, from insight given by the Spirit, was “Don’t go to Jerusalem.”

When our time was up, they escorted us out of the city to the docks. Everyone came along—men, women, children. They made a farewell party of the occasion! We all kneeled together on the beach and prayed. Then, after another round of saying good-bye, we climbed on board the ship while they drifted back to their homes.

A short run from Tyre to Ptolemais completed the voyage. We greeted our Christian friends there and stayed with them a day. In the morning we went on to Caesarea and stayed with Philip the Evangelist, one of “the Seven.” Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied.

After several days of visiting, a prophet from Judea by the name of Agabus came down to see us. He went right up to Paul, took Paul’s belt, and, in a dramatic gesture, tied himself up, hands and feet. He said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: The Jews in Jerusalem are going to tie up the man who owns this belt just like this and hand him over to godless unbelievers.”

When we heard that, we and everyone there that day begged Paul not to be stubborn and persist in going to Jerusalem. But Paul wouldn’t budge: “Why all this hysteria? Why do you insist on making a scene and making it even harder for me? You’re looking at this backward. The issue in Jerusalem is not what they do to me, whether arrest or murder, but what the Master Jesus does through my obedience. Can’t you see that?”

We saw that we weren’t making even a dent in his resolve, and gave up. “It’s in God’s hands now,” we said. “Master, you handle it.”

It wasn’t long before we had our luggage together and were on our way to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us and took us to the home of Mnason, who received us warmly as his guests. A native of Cyprus, he had been among the earliest disciples.

[Jerusalem]

In Jerusalem, our friends, glad to see us, received us with open arms. The first thing next morning, we took Paul to see James. All the church leaders were there. After a time of greeting and small talk, Paul told the story, detail by detail, of what God had done among the non-Jewish people through his ministry. They listened with delight and gave God the glory.

They had a story to tell, too: “And just look at what’s been happening here—thousands upon thousands of God-fearing Jews have become believers in Jesus! But there’s also a problem because they are more zealous than ever in observing the laws of Moses. They’ve been told that you advise believing Jews who live surrounded by unbelieving outsiders to go light on Moses, telling them that they don’t need to circumcise their children or keep up the old traditions. This isn’t sitting at all well with them.

“We’re worried about what will happen when they discover you’re in town. There’s bound to be trouble. So here is what we want you to do: There are four men from our company who have taken a vow involving ritual purification, but have no money to pay the expenses. Join these men in their vows and pay their expenses. Then it will become obvious to everyone that there is nothing to the rumors going around about you and that you are in fact scrupulous in your reverence for the laws of Moses.

“In asking you to do this, we’re not going back on our agreement regarding non-Jews who have become believers. We continue to hold fast to what we wrote in that letter, namely, to be careful not to get involved in activities connected with idols; to avoid serving food offensive to Jewish Christians; to guard the morality of sex and marriage.”

So Paul did it—took the men, joined them in their vows, and paid their way. The next day he went to the Temple to make it official and stay there until the proper sacrifices had been offered and completed for each of them.

[Paul Under Arrest]

When the seven days of their purification were nearly up, some Jews from around Ephesus spotted him in the Temple. At once they turned the place upside-down. They grabbed Paul and started yelling at the top of their lungs, “Help! You Israelites, help! This is the man who is going all over the world telling lies against us and our religion and this place. He’s even brought Greeks in here and defiled this holy place.” (What had happened was that they had seen Paul and Trophimus, the Ephesian Greek, walking together in the city and had just assumed that he had also taken him to the Temple and shown him around.)

Soon the whole city was in an uproar, people running from everywhere to the Temple to get in on the action. They grabbed Paul, dragged him outside, and locked the Temple gates so he couldn’t get back in and gain sanctuary.

As they were trying to kill him, word came to the captain of the guard, “A riot! The whole city’s boiling over!” He acted swiftly. His soldiers and centurions ran to the scene at once. As soon as the mob saw the captain and his soldiers, they quit beating Paul.

The captain came up and put Paul under arrest. He first ordered him handcuffed, and then asked who he was and what he had done. All he got from the crowd were shouts, one yelling this, another that. It was impossible to tell one word from another in the mob hysteria, so the captain ordered Paul taken to the military barracks. But when they got to the Temple steps, the mob became so violent that the soldiers had to carry Paul. As they carried him away, the crowd followed, shouting, “Kill him! Kill him!”

When they got to the barracks and were about to go in, Paul said to the captain, “Can I say something to you?”

He answered, “Oh, I didn’t know you spoke Greek. I thought you were the Egyptian who not long ago started a riot here, and then hid out in the desert with his four thousand thugs.”

Paul said, “No, I’m a Jew, born in Tarsus. And I’m a citizen still of that influential city. I have a simple request: Let me speak to the crowd.”

[Paul Tells His Story]

Standing on the barracks steps, Paul turned and held his arms up. A hush fell over the crowd as Paul began to speak. He spoke in Hebrew.

The Book of Acts, Chapter 21 (The Message)

Job Worships God

[I Babbled On About Things Far Beyond Me]

Job answered God:

“I’m convinced: You can do anything and everything.

Nothing and no one can upset your plans.

You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water,

ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’

I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me,

made small talk about wonders way over my head.

You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking.

Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’

I admit I once lived by rumors of you;

now I have it all firsthand—from my own eyes and ears!

I’m sorry—forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise!

I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.”

God Restores Job

[I Will Accept His Prayer]

After God had finished addressing Job, he turned to Eliphaz the Temanite and said, “I’ve had it with you and your two friends. I’m fed up! You haven’t been honest either with me or about me—not the way my friend Job has. So here’s what you must do. Take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my friend Job. Sacrifice a burnt offering on your own behalf. My friend Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer. He will ask me not to treat you as you deserve for talking nonsense about me, and for not being honest with me, as he has.”

They did it. Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite did what God commanded. And God accepted Job’s prayer.

After Job had interceded for his friends, God restored his fortune—and then doubled it! All his brothers and sisters and friends came to his house and celebrated. They told him how sorry they were, and consoled him for all the trouble God had brought him. Each of them brought generous housewarming gifts.

God blessed Job’s later life even more than his earlier life. He ended up with fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand teams of oxen, and one thousand donkeys. He also had seven sons and three daughters. He named the first daughter Dove, the second, Cinnamon, and the third, Darkeyes. There was not a woman in that country as beautiful as Job’s daughters. Their father treated them as equals with their brothers, providing the same inheritance.

Job lived on another 140 years, living to see his children and grandchildren—four generations of them! Then he died—an old man, a full life.

The Book of Job, Chapter 42 (The Message)

my reading in the Bible for Thursday, may 2 (also national prayer day), the 44th day of Spring and day 122 of the year

and the numbers 2 and 44 combined reminds me of 244S that was printed in gold lettering on the black leather binding of Bible left in my shipwrecked Saturn Vue in Los Angeles back in ‘12

2 notes · View notes

freedom-of-fanfic · 7 years ago

Note

Christian anon here, & I was dismayed when a recent reblog post stated in regard to Christian sexual morality & I quote "“all sex outside of marriage is evil” . This is at best a very poor interpretation & I apologize to the poster if they have been exposed to this mindset. For us, sex is something very sacred, so sacred that we reserve it to a man & a woman who have, via Matrimony, promised before God & each other to love, honor and mutually obey each other. 1 of 2

Outsideof marriage, it doesn't make sex "evil", but it does make a sin,something we strive to avoid, not always easy because humans are inherentlyflawed and fallible. Sadly, there are far too many Christians caught up in thepurity culture mentality who make a bigger deal out of sexual sin than theyshould about other sins (sins against social justice as a big for instance). Idon't like this mindset either, and thankfully, there are more Christianspushing back against it. 2 of 2

Hi,Christian anon. I understand where you’re coming from because I am alsoChristian (a queer Christian, which makes for an interesting life sometimes).And I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here regarding a truly Christian perspective on sexoutside of marriage vs the purity culture bullshit (my point of disagreement isthat I think ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ are usually treated as synonymous). It is, in fact, the least Christian thing inthe world to go around trying to control people’s behavior.

But. (there’s always a ‘but’ with me.)

I spent a huge chunk of today writing this and cutting it back because it kept turning into a theological dumping ground, which I don’t want it to be. but I’m throwing the majority of this post behind a cut because it’s inevitably sensitive stuff, considering how much pain (and death, tbh) Christianity-as-law-bludgeon has caused.

tl;dr: Christianity and secular law don’t mix well. Whenever it’s tried, things get real hellish real quick for a lot of people. Especially for people who are judged as ‘sexually immoral’.

(warnings for binary/cisgender language b/c the Bible doesn’t really address being nb or trans in particular.)

In thepost you are responding to, I called the Catholic Church the source ofanti-prostitution law in the United States. I said that it was because the US legislationwas founded on Western Europe legislation, and Western Europe legislation wasfounded on the legislation of the Catholic Church. And to be fair this is aglib and simplistic illustration of cause & effect – for starters, it skipsover Protestantism and the Age of Reason – but I’ll stand by the heart of it. Laws about sex work – sexual interactions ofany kind between consenting people of age, actually – in Western Europe &the US find likely origin in the inevitably disastrous mixture of Christianityand lawmaking, which originated in the institution of the Catholic Church.

Christianityas an organized religion does not playwell with the power to make law.

The inevitable product of trying toenforce Christian values via lawmaking is purity culture, authoritarianism, andviolence. This is because human law cannot enforce having moral character: wecan only judge actions and behavior, not thoughts or feelings. We can’t makekindness or uprightness into law: what is kind and upright behavior towards oneperson may be cruelty to another. (Not to say that Christianity is the only religion that mixes poorly with law,but Christians often deny that a religion founded on benevolence andforgiveness can be totalitarian. But the joke is: totalitarian law is no lesstotalitarian because its author wrote it to encourage ‘morality’ and ‘righteousness’.The joke is: God never forces His morals down anyone’s throat, so who are you to do it on His behalf?

I mean: theologicallyspeaking, one of the central tenants of Christianity is that law is insufficientand ill-fitted to guide our complicated, morally gray human existence. To methis seems like a huge giveaway that Christian principles and the law arefundamentally incompatible concepts.)

In its mostmature iterations, Christianity-as-law is

sexist

misogynistic

patronizing

anti-intellectual

controlling to the point of micromanagement via fear and shame

emotionallyabusive and denigrating individual worth

unforgiving of moral failings

hypocritical

judges others by assumptions about their thoughts and motivations

holds peopleto unachievable standards of ‘morality’ without kindness, and

punishes disobedience/noncomplianceviolently and without mercy.

It takes on God’s role as implacable judge, jury,and executioner, and holds the benevolent forgiveness promised by Jesus hostagein exchange for good behavior. How is the law God supposed to have mercyon you when it’s clear you’ll just abuse that mercy? Prove your worth first. (spoilers: you’ll never be approved.)

TheCatholic Church, born of Christianity shaking hands with the power to make lawvia Constantine's outreach, is my Exhibit A. at the peak of its legislativeinfluence and power, it severely set back human health, education, and wealthin Europe and West Asia and presided over multiple military excursions into theMiddle East in the name of conquering Jerusalem on God’s behalf (the literalCrusades, yes).

And I’d argue that this conquering spirit has been Christianity’sAchilles Heel ever since: a thread of shitty, shitty colonialist bullshit,through Anglicanism and Protestantism and Puritanism, that even now is buildingits latest thunderhead in the shape of ‘dominionist’ Christianity here inAmerica (if you are not familiar with it, suffice to say it is a secretive butwell-spread cultish thinking that straightforwardly holds that Christianitymust be legislated into place all over the world or Jesus can’t come back. Youcan’t make this stuff up.)

Bringingit back into to the sex thing, though: the Old Testament has multiple mentionsof laws forbidding sex work, and the New Testament, at least 50% written by theunmarried apostle Paul, has a lot of recommendations about being married toprevent being tempted by sex outside of marriage and the like. Extramarital lustand sexual immorality are also credited with multiple instances ofjump-starting unfortunate Biblical events and described by Paul as the only ‘sinagainst the body’ (1 Corinthians 6). In fact, Paul was kinda ‘eh’ on the wholehaving sex thing in general. In the same verse, he mentions in passing that itwould be better for men to not have sex at all if it’s possible for them.

Christianity-as-law is thus morally obligatedto make sex outside of marriage and anything that tempts people into sexoutside of marriage illegal. It’s the moral thing to do. Sex work has to go. Andbecause Biblical marriage can only be between a (cis) man and a (cis) woman*, same-gendersex has to go too. And extrapolate Paul’s offhand ‘male celibacy is ideal, tbh’into the harshest and narrowest form of lawful judgement that you can and youget ‘anything that makes men want to have sex is clearly dragging (cis) men down fromthe best possible person they could be. (people cis men see as ) women being beautiful makes men wantsex! (perceived) women are bad! Punish women formaking men want sex!’

Is thiswhat God calls for? I don’t think so.But historically speaking, this is what we get when Christians try to take thelegislative reins on God’s behalf.

And it’sfrankly hilarious that supposed Christians are acting as if it’s possible tosave people from their own sin by making sinillegal. When you check in with Jesus on the interaction between God’s lawand secular law, his response is simply ‘follow both’**. He also hung out withsex workers pretty much constantly during his ministry, never condemning them fortheir line of work even though it was explicitly against Jewish law to be a sexworker, because he recognized that human-enforced law – even law laid down byGod – can’t account for all the circumstances of human life or account for thereasons people do things that are, on their face, unlawful. That grace –literally the opposite of law – was kind of the point of his being born in thefirst place.

*Regardlessof what one’s opinion is about how the Bible defines marriage, that doesn’tmean that secular law has to share that definition. Especially when it createsa religious discrimination against LGBTQ+ people for completely secularmarriage benefits like tax breaks and visitation rights. (that’s the entire pointof this essay, oh my god.)

**ReferencingMark 12:13-17. Jesus also calls out the people asking him for trying to get himin trouble with the Roman authorities.

#christian fundamentalism #dominionism #purity culture #hide the sex work #protect sex workers #christianity and 'christianity'#christian theology #Anonymous

83 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

What Does The Bible Say About Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-republicans/

What Does The Bible Say About Republicans

What Does God Say About Democrats

What Does the Bible Say About 2016 Election – Hidden Secrets Revealed – Republican vs Democrat

Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Saving America

Steven Andrew is leading the nation to reaffirm covenant that the USA follows Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches covenant is the most important action to save lives, restore safety, strengthen the church, and raise godly generations.

testimonials

Michael

I know of no one doing everything they can to help our nation to turn away from wickedness and sin, and turn back to God, like Steven Andrew.;

Craig

Giving to USA Christian Church is the most powerful way to support God’s will for the nation and defend Christianity.

The USA is in a national emergency. Our only hope is to surrender our lives and the nation to God and agree to obey the Lord. We have hope. It is not too late to find Gods mercy. Steven Andrew

People are very concerned. The news shows the USA is in a freedon verses tyranny national emergency. It could even be a life verses death crisis if the nation goes into captivity as happened to Israel and Judhae for their sins. If we want to honor God and have God bless our lives and nation, it is important we know: What does the Bible teach about Democrats?

I am Steven Andrew, the pastor who believes like the founding fathers. I am on a mission from God

Pray

Is the Bible your final authority or do you go by your feelings and own ways?This is Gods opinion, not mine.

For protection and national security, the nation needs to see Democrats hearts the way God does.my This is Gods opinion not my opinion.

Grist Is The Only Nonprofit Newsroom Focused On Exploring Solutions At The Intersection Of Climate And Justice

Our team of journalists remains dedicated to telling stories of climate, justice, and solutions. We aim to inspire more people to talk about climate change and to believe that meaningful change is not only possible but happening right now.;Our in-depth approach to solutions-based journalism takes time and proactive planning, which is why Grist depends on reader support.

This September, become a monthly donor, and your entire yearly amount will be matched. Grist hopes to welcome 200 new monthly members by September 30, and were closing in on our goal! Help us further advance our reporting by giving us the stable, reliable funding we need. Consider becoming a Grist member today to ensure this important work continues and thrives.

Bible Verses Violated By The Republican Party

Please note this article is not another case of a Democrat insulting the Republican party and their religious members.; I dont like either political party and Ive lost hope in the current political system until major changes are made.

While Ive lost most; interest in national politics,; some things still catch my eye. But what bothers me the most, and always gets my attention, is when a politician campaigns on a the premise that their allegiance to their God makes them a better person than the other candidate. Fast forward a few months after their election and there they are obstructing ethical legislation; for their constituents only to make their donors happy.

If a politicians; adherence to the Bible is what makes them a good person and good elected official, what do they become when they no longer adhere to the Bible?

You can understand why I feel my arguments made here are sound: The voting and campaign records of Congress are widely-available public records, and since 7 out of the 10 Bible verses I used are from either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, meaning that 70% of this is literally the Gospel truth

You May Like: Trump Calls Republicans Idiots

James : 19 Niv: Everyone Should Be Quick To Listen Slow To Speak And Slow To Become Angry

Well THAT’S a big red flag if I ever saw one. Any of the above points show that Donald Trump does not have a reasonable filter. Whatever comes to mind comes straight out of his mouth, especially when he gets angry. If our president acts out in anger, we are going to have a lot of issues on our hands. Can you imagine how he would converse with other world leaders? What would he do if they insulted our government, or heaven forbid, Trump’s hand size? How would he react to negative criticism from countries we very much need to remain on good terms with? Not only is this dangerous, it also gives more reason for people not to respect America. It would say a lot about us if our leader had the same temperament as a two-year old in a time out. A true God following leader would participate in rational discussion, in which all sides are heard and acknowledged.

I’m not trying to tell anybody that Hilary is the Christian candidate we’re looking for. In fact, I don’t even believe we need a Christian candidate at all. This is America, where anybody of any race or religion can do the job. What I am trying to say, is that if you think Donald Trump is your closest bet to having a Christian in office, you’re making the wrong choice.

Your choice matters. Choose wisely.

Abortion Is An Integral Part Of The Vaccine Industry

For you created my inmost being;;you knit me together;in my mothers womb.;Psalm 139:13

The Bible makes clear that life begins at conception. It says that every child is a gift from God . If Jesus were here today, I am not sure if He would be carrying a sign, but we can agree He would be pro-life.

Many are surprised to find that in fact, vaccines do contain;aborted fetal tissue,;including lung and kidney tissue.

This is because scientists grow live vaccines in living tissue. You can find aborted fetal tissue in 23 total vaccines, including:

MMR

Read Also: We Are All Republicansâwe Are All Federalists

Gop Lawmaker: The Bible Says If A Man Will Not Work He Shall Not Eat

This storys headline;has been corrected. A quote from Rep. Jodey Arringtons remarks at a congressional hearing has also been added.

One lawmaker is citing a godly reference to; justify changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Rep. Jodey Arrington recently quoted the New Testament to question the strength of current work requirements.

The biblical passage, 2 Thessalonians 3-10, was a rebuttal to one of the hearings expert witnesses, a representative of the Jewish anti-hunger group MAZON. It is also a familiar refrain to anyone who has watched past debates about SNAP.

House Republicans have historically cited the verse if a man will not work, he shall not eat as justification for cutting some adults SNAP benefits. Arrington referenced the verse in a discussion;about increasing the work requirements for unemployed adults on the food stamp program. But critics say that;advances;a pernicious myth about the unemployed who receive SNAP.

The verse in question applies specifically to people who can work or otherwise contribute to society but choose not to, said theologians from several denominations who spoke to The Post. There is a perception, among some voters and lawmakers, that many adult SNAP recipients are exactly this sort of freeloader.

More from Wonkblog:

James : 26 Esv: If Anyone Thinks He Is Religious And Does Not Bridle His Tongue But Deceives His Heart This Person’s Religion Is Worthless

Wow. That was blunt. I commonly hear people say that they like Donald Trump because, “He speaks his mind.” There is a monumental difference between speaking your mind, and throwing words about without caution. The things that Donald Trump has used his platform to say should not only shock you; they should offend you. His words are rash, prejudiced, and hurtful. You don’t believe me? Here are some examples:

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of a**.”

“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has well been documented, are various other parts of my body.”

Now I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like the kind of man who has proper control over his tongue to me. Words are some of the greatest indicators of who we are. The president of our country should be able to possess certain qualities, such as engaging in foreign affairs without flying off the handle. Not only is this concerning to our national security, it is also a warning sign of poor character.

You May Like: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Looking For Some More Related Articles

Take a look at these other similar type articles:

Robert

Great article Jack,Sure a lot of good points you brought up. A lot to ponder as an election grows near.

It seems like the people who get elected reflect the sentiment of the nation. If we are concerned with the economy, we vote for the people we think will fix it. If we are concerned with moral issues, we vote for those we think care about what we care about.

This may also be a way in which God judges, or blesses, a nation. As the individuals of a nation move further from God, they elect representatives that are also further from God. These representatives are then naturally going to be motivated by something other than God and His love. Therefore, the nation suffers.

On the other hand, as the individuals of a nation move closer to God and elect godly representatives, these representatives seek Gods will for themselves and the country. The nation is blessed.

Thanks again for a wonderful, thought-provoking article.

Yours in Christ,

Friendship Is The Goal Of The Gospel

What does the Bible say about voting in 2020?

Christians rightly think about salvation as forgiveness of sins and eternal life. But it is more than this. Jesus gives all who trust him the privilege of being his friends . And what is eternal life, after all? According to Jesus, this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent . He rescued us to forge an intimate relationship with the triune God . God forgives us that we might share in his triune fellowship of love forever.;

In the new creation we will enjoy true friendship with all other believers. Our future is a world of friendship.

You May Like: Republicans Wear Red Or Blue

Matthew : 28 Esv: But I Say To You That Everyone Who Looks At A Woman With Lustful Intent Has Already Committed Adultery With Her In His Heart

Now, I’m not trying to single out Donald Trump for having completely natural biological urges. All of humankind has fallen prey to the allure of lust. However, to battle with that in one’s heart and to voice it out loud to others are two completely different things.

The LORD calls men to honor and protect women. Women are handcrafted by God, and they are to be respected. Donald Trump has been quoted saying things that go directly against this God-given duty:

“Grab them by the the p*ssy.”

If that wasn’t vulgar enough for you, here’s a list of adjectives he has publicly used to describe women: Fat. Dog. Pig. Slob. Disgusting animal.

I don’t know what it’s going to take for this country to start valuing women properly, but having this guy in charge isn’t going to do it. As a woman, you should be concerned that a candidate for president is getting away with talking about your demographic like that. As a man, you should be standing up for the women in your life by saying that this is NOT okay! Young girls in this world should not grow up thinking that those words are okay because the President of the United States says them. If we elect this man, that will be the standard our girls will have for the men in their lives.

Exercising Our Civic Responsibility: What The Bible Says About Voting

Before we look at what the Bible says about voting, let us look at how our individual votes count.

Song of Solomon 2:15 says, Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes. Foxes sometimes, in search of food, would enter into the grape orchards and devour the grapes and spoil the crop. However, the little foxes were too small to reach the grape bunches so they would chew on the vines and it would kill the whole vine. Instead of the farmer just losing his crop, he would lose his vine which was more disastrous. Spiritually some things we do or allow that we might think are little or insignificant can also be disastrous for us.

Listed below are some of the little foxes that generally keep us from our civic responsibilities, in the area of voting. The devil uses these lies and others so that he can keep godly men and women away from the polls and get the candidates of his choice elected. If we do nothing, it makes it easy for the enemy to help those who could become the wrong leadership for our nation.

My one vote doesnt count anyway.

Im disillusioned by the whole political process.

Im already too busy to take the time to cast an informed vote, so I just dont vote at all.

Politics are corrupt anyway and as a Christian I dont want to be involved.

What the Bible Says About Voting

_______________________________________________________________

Don’t Miss: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Achieving Racial Justice And Equity

The Bible is very clear that God does not show favoritism, and neither should his followers. So, there is no place for racism in the church or in America. The Democratic Party is absolutely just in standing strong against racism in America.;

Now, personally I think that some of the Democrats policies for eliminating racism are not biblical at all. But the fact still remains: The basic policy position is biblically just.

As the election approaches, remember: As Christians we are called to lead people to Christ, not to an elephant or a donkey. Dont allow your politics to sabotage your witness to unbelievers or your fellowship with believers.;

Our loyalty must be to Christ. So, do some research, and vote in line with the heart of Christ. Lets do our best to vote for right and just leaders, and to pray for righteousness and justice in the hearts of those who are elected.

Dane Davis is the pastor of Impact Christian Church. Join Impacts live outdoor worship service at 9 a.m. Sunday at 17746 George Boulevard in Victorville, or tune in online at 10 a.m. on the Impact Christian Church YouTube channel or Facebook page.

Christianity For Votes: How Republicans Are Using A Religious Facade To Gain Political Power

On full display: Rep. Ted Yoho, in his non-apology to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, remarkably argued, I cannot apologize for my passion or for loving my God, my family, and my country.

Talk of God has been brought into and out of national politics throughout American history, with various partisan and non-partisan causes, but rarely in our history has any political group weaponized faith for political goals as comprehensively as todays Republican Party. Although the name of God has been used as a rallying cry for Republicans for decades, the party that claims to support Christian values has developed a twisted ideology where the mere mention of God has become a license for injustice. Consequently, his name is being thrown out in vain by Republicans who seek to avoid being held responsible for their actions, even when those actions go directly against the Scripture.

The contradictory nature of devotional statements made by GOP;members;was put on full display in a recent scandal in Congress,;when Rep.;Ted;Yoho, R-Florida,;was forced to resign from a Christian organizations;board after publicly exhibiting a behavior profoundly opposite to the values he claimed to stand for.

Yohos non-apology

A powerful political tool

If we want to resemble a hope for uniting and healing;within our;nation, we must rebuke lies, hate and division. We must rejoice in the truth.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

Read Also: Why Do Republicans Wear Blue Ties

Christians Cannot Serve Both God And The Gop

The Christian right is the backbone of the Republican Party. Christians of all stripes from Catholics to Protestants and evangelicals consistently vote Republican. The core tenets of the modern Republican Party, however, are at stark odds with biblical scripture.

Over the last four decades, few priorities have consumed the Republican Party more than economic policies that benefit the ultra-wealthy. The Ronald Reagan presidency, in particular, ushered in an era where corporate bottom lines took precedence over fair wages for American workers. The rise of the Reagan-Republican ethos, which preaches the elevation of over virtually all other considerations, directly influenced of American jobs to countries with vast pools of cheap labor. Ditto for union-busting and the adoption of job-killing automation in pursuit of maximum profit.

These factors, unsurprisingly, the American middle class. Moreover, Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump all pursued radical tax policies that overwhelmingly; if not solely; benefitted a small group of exceptionally wealthy Americans at the expense of the working and middle classes.

Republican policies favoring the ultra-affluent, however, stand in stark contrast with biblical scripture. The Bibles condemnations of the wealthy and the accumulation of riches leave zero room for ambiguity.

In short, followers of Christ must choose between God and money.

Property was sold and the proceeds distributed to anyone who had need.

0 notes

yda2021 · 4 years ago

Text

Continuation of the religious faith.

Some have forgotten about the "spiral" nature of the development of any phenomena, about the duration of the process of increasing OBJECTIVE prerequisites for real LEAPS in the atheistic public consciousness. “They did not know, but they forgot” that both in the pre-Christian religions and in the "Bible" - in a mythical form, the highest achievements of historical science of that time are represented. The real facts of history and some names were turned by interested persons into mystical alogisms and put at the service of the CONSCIOUS introduction of ANOTHER religion. Anyone who has studied the history of Christianity, the "Old Testament", etc. ” Qumran finds", he can not help but notice that the numerous gospels of the "New Testament “began to be compiled long before the” birth of Christ" by people with a wide range of knowledge in matters of real history and mythology of the world. The "Notes of the Dead Sea" received the approval of interested persons and it remained only to find among the secretaries of the regional committees of the CPSU..., sorry, I misspoke, among the sons of Jewish carpenters, one who would agree and could play the role of a democrat..., sorry, I misspoke again, a prophet, a forerunner of the ideas already contained in the” Dead Sea scrolls " - the idea of equality of all people... in paradise. And such a son was found. I think that even Yeltsin, when he climbed on the tank, believed for five minutes that he was a democrat. Many still believe that Christ rose from the dead, and Yeltsin flew in a bag from the bridge into the river, and then rose from the mud, etc.

The history of religion gives reason to believe that among the professional ministers of any cults there are no individuals who truly believe in God. There is a lot of evidence that the church leadership has the scientific knowledge necessary for the successful management of the flock, finances and the entire world community. And if we look for the reason why Christianity still manages to maintain its influence on billions of people, it is solely due to the most SCIENTIFIC approach of the ministers of worship to the organization and strengthening of religious consciousness, the management of modern political systems.

That is, some people understand science, as always, as something unambiguous. And the fact that toxic and narcotic substances were synthesized and supplied to monopolistic oligarchs by SCIENCE, that SCIENCE supplied ballistic missile weapons to Hitler, that American globalism received nuclear and gene weapons from the hands of SCIENCE, these facts are not enough for some to understand that the dialectic of interaction between religion and science is much more complex than the scheme according to which religion arises by itself, out of ignorance, and science only

In fact, both the long history of feudalism and the current revanche of capitalism are based precisely on the fact that there are not only objective laws of revolution, but also objective laws of counter-revolution, learned by corrupt scientists. One of these laws is mythologization, i.e., the alogization of the consciousness of the exploited masses. And if you ask scientists whether, from the point of view of Marxism, there are means, the use of which allows you to prolong the existence of capitalism, science will answer in the affirmative and put in the first place not military means, but for example, drugs and, of course, religion.

The funny thing is that TODAY, BEFORE OUR EYES, the history books are changing dramatically. The same PROFESSORS who, as associate professors, vulgarized the era of Stalin during the Khrushchev era are working on their mythologization for a reasonable fee. A person who not only does not understand the dialectic, but also lacks the skills of conscientious analysis of modern facts that strike the eye can have before his eyes the modern impudent experience of inculcating religiosity in history textbooks and does not learn the lessons, does not understand the real dialectic of the CONTRADICTORY role of science and especially the BEARERS of scientific “mantles” in the formation and strengthening of the religious form of ignorance.

Today, the best paid minds of Western science are psychologists and mathematicians, chemists and physicists... they are working on the “construction” of new religious movements, or at least “scientific "theories on the model and likeness of the "theory of relativity", capable of performing the role of an antilog “virus”in the human mind.

I wonder what my opponents would say if they read the following lines in my article about the role of religious consciousness, i.e., abstract subjectivity, in changing the ways of production. The ancient world, I believe , which still knew nothing about the right of the subject, and whose entire worldview was essentially abstract, universal, substantial, could not, therefore, exist without slavery. The Christian-German worldview contrasted the ancient world as the main principle of abstract subjectivity and therefore-arbitrariness, withdrawal into the inner world, spiritualism; but this subjectivity, precisely because it was abstract, one-sided, had to immediately turn into its opposite, and instead of the freedom of the subject, give rise to the slavery of the subject. The abstract inner world was transformed into an abstract external form, into the humiliation and alienation of man, and the first consequence of the new principle was the restoration of slavery in another, less repulsive, but therefore more hypocritical and inhumane form, in the form of serfdom. The destruction of the feudal system, the political reformation, that is, the abolition of the feudal system. The APPARENT recognition of reason, and therefore the real consummation of unreason, has APPARENTLY destroyed serfdom, but in reality has only made it more inhumane, more universal.

Some people will say that they do not understand this and that it should be stated more simply, as in a dictionary. Some would also say that this is a vivid example of idealism. But I am saved only by the fact that these words belong to the materialist Engels, from whom I am trying to learn diamatic thinking. To the most inquisitive readers who will reach this point, I will, of course, inform them in person in which work of Engels I found these arguments, “and to you, bald...", I will not say this. Joke.

After reading Engels 'quote, which gives an extremely concise version of the description of the unity of the subjective and objective in the historical process, we will consider a brief parody of the” materialistic" approach to history in the presentation of the Podolsk criminal-theoretical group.

Once again about the relationship of science, religion and history

, or a vivid example... dullness.

Let us consider another example of how concrete historical absurdity follows from abstract-theoretical alogism. Let's give once again a familiar phrase and see what follows from it”:

“...religious obscurantism, - podolchans write, - triumphs when science stops in development or degrades.

A striking example is the Middle Ages. At this time, the development of productive forces led to the triumph of subsistence farming. If in ancient times Gaul imported wine from Italy, and Italy consumed Egyptian bread, then medieval France and Italy produced these and many other products themselves. The result was the feudal fragmentation of the advanced countries of the time and a sharp reduction in trade. Under these conditions, the degradation of science began, since the fragmented feudal possessions, unlike the large slave-owning and capitalist states, did not need the achievements of science and did not have the opportunity to pay for serious scientific work. Hence the triumph of religion, which really was a serious brake on the development of science and which was forced to gradually retreat with the development of trade and capitalist production, the formation of national states and the development of science as a consequence."

Podolchane claim-when " science stops in development”, then religion triumphs. It seems to be logical. But why does science suddenly "stop"? You'll never guess. It turns out, according to the “logic” of Podolchans, the reason for the stop and degradation of science is... “the development of the productive forces”, and the consequence of this... "the triumph of natural economy... the feudal fragmentation of the advanced countries of that time and a sharp reduction in trade”" Here is such "materialism".

According to Podolsky's "logic”, it turns out that at the time when Italy exported wine to Gaul, science developed because, firstly, wine merchants apparently paid for" serious scientific work”, and secondly, because... "the truth is in the wine”, and the export of wines, of course, in strict accordance with Podolsky" logic, is equal to the export of truths that simultaneously broke the slaveholding polytheism in the name of triumph... feudal monotheism. But what will not science do, which is well paid, and even through wine is introduced to the truth. But if you break away from feudalism and go down to market Russia, there is a small discrepancy. Russians began to drink more wine, including Italian wine, they began to trade more than to engage in production, and science is noticeably failing. Maybe it's the prevalence of natural moonshine. No one claimed that the truth was in the moonshine. But does the academic science of Erefia also stifle moonshine, in which instead of the truth there are only degrees?

From the Podolsky "logic" follows a rather blasphemous conclusion that the unprecedented and invaluable contribution that Marx, Engels, Lenini, Stalin, Frunze, Makarenko made to the development of social sciences, to the denunciation of obscurantism, they made... for good "money" and thanks to the developed wine trade.

Here is what a " fun " story turns out for Podolchans. The development of productive forces led to the triumph of subsistence farming, and the economic system is called, nevertheless, feudalism, which means the presence of large dynastic landholdings. And where could feudal fragmentation come from, if not as a result of the collapse of the Frankish Empire? And how many centuries was the empire of the Franks formed on the territory significantly exceeding the former Western Roman Empire? And how and to what extent were the fiefdoms to grow in the Frankish empire, so that their owners gradually became independent states and for many centuries defended their sovereignty by FORCE? Over these “little things” podolchane do not think.

The methodological error of Podolchans is that they cut historical time segments in accordance with the theory of relativity, i.e., as the observer pleases. If they are nearsighted, they will generalize on the historical material of a five-minute length, and if they are farsighted, they will sketch a year or two. If they want to, they will limit themselves to the history of Podolsk, and it will be profitable to add Italy, Gaul and Egypt.

They do not know that Marx discovered for them a formative approach to understanding the history of mankind, which allows them not to get lost in the” three pines " of historical incidents, but to distinguish the typical, essential, without separating the basis from the superstructure, and the superstructure from the basis, and progress from the class struggle, so that they can consider the formation not in separate pieces, focusing only on “facts” that are convenient for manipulation, but to comprehend the formation IN ITS INTEGRITY and THE STRUGGLE of OPPOSITES.

You can study a human embryo all day, but with it you will not understand anything in the history of mankind.

The people of Podolsk hid from themselves that the collapse of the Roman Empire did not happen in the same way as in the case of Egypt, Assyria, Urartu, etc. There, the decline and demise of a particular country was not accompanied by the demise of slavery itself. The collapse of the Roman Empire is the last act in the history of classical slavery. The Roman Empire collapsed under the influence of internal and external nascent FEUDALISM, which arose, first of all, in those regions where, during all the previous centuries of slavery, the tribal system and the natural way of farming prevailed, but where the productive forces were already practically not inferior to the productive forces of the Roman Empire, and the quality and quantity of products produced was sufficient to organize mass campaigns of superior forces of "barbarians" on Rome.

Having assimilated the latest achievements of slaveholding-Christian Rome in the development of productive forces, achievements in the basis and superstructure, the” barbaric " suburbs of Rome, BYPASSING SLAVERY, entered the stage of feudalism, ensuring the priority of large-scale feudal land ownership over the islands of natural economy, erecting THROUGHOUT Europe a mass of large cities, some of which were not inferior to Rome, with an unprecedented development of crafts, which led in the relatively near future to the emergence of capitalism.

The dialectic consists in the fact that the CONSCIOUS spread of Christianity played a decisive subjective role not only in the collapse of the Roman Empire, but, above all, in the formation of feudalism. The saints perfectly understood how to use the growth of productive forces to their advantage, and, unlike the feudal lords, the Vatican, during the feudal feuds, for many centuries had a WORLDWIDE influence and untold, at that time, treasures.

If we compare the totality of the achievements of slavery as a formation in the fields of science, technology, art, architecture, politics, diplomacy, international relations, and military affairs with the achievements of feudalism as a formation, taking into account that the history of feudalism (by time) in the” shorter " history of slavery, the superiority of feudalism over slavery will become obvious, and this can be explained from a scientific point of view only by one thing - the superiority of the feudal productive forces over the slave-owning ones. Moreover, if we compare the scale of the feudal imperialism of the Mughals, Genghisids, Portugal, Spain, England, France, and Russia, the comparison will not be in favor of the scale of the imperialism of slave-owning Egypt or Rome.

So, dear readers, if we approach history dialectically, and not curpuscularly and not relativistically, i.e., consider the phenomenon in the inseparable unity of all the elements of its content from the first qualitative leap in development to the “last", and not tear out individual pieces from history and speculate on particulars, the development of productive forces cannot lead to a” rollback " of history. It is another matter that in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, who cannot see beyond their own noses, any deviation from the bourgeois criteria of well-being, and even more so the need to work productively personally, means regression. From the Marxist point of view, the development of the productive forces of society, if we understand what it is, is synonymous with real progress in all areas.

"The dead don't bite.”

To simplify the process of ideological defeat of their opponent, Podolchans, like Morozov, sew me an obviously "firing squad article", as the Trotskyists did in relation to their opponents in the 30s. Podolchane know that the dead do not polemicize, and therefore write: "Just racism smacks of the statement:" The modern life of the tribes of the jungles of Africa, the deserts of Australia, the jungle of Brazil, etc. proves that they are practically unknown to creative thinking."And then, as in the anecdote, in which an ensign who got" trapped” explains to a young soldier that crocodiles, of course, fly “ " but nyzenko-nyzenko”. "Of course," the Podolchans write, " they [primitive people, V. P.] do not know dialectical materialism - their knowledge is too small. However, by surviving in their habitats with the tools they possess, these tribes demonstrate the ability to solve non-standard problems, thus showing creative thinking." What is their unconventionality and creativity in the conditions of the struggle for survival, podolchane do not report. Apparently, they are afraid that there will not be enough paper for a full description.

Meanwhile, the term “survival " means just such a way of life of these tribes in the twenty-first century, which does not even allow them to take a breath, and all the time of life is spent by these people only to prepare themselves for the next round of struggle for the very fact of existence, as most of the population of the former USSR, located beyond the Urals, in Asia, the Baltic States, the Caucasus and Ukraine, has to do. The microminiature of creative thinking in the Neolithic era is confirmed by the fact that some tribes of Australia, Asia, America, and Africa have NOT CHANGED their set of tools OVER the PAST TENS of THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and in the third millennium AD they walk with the same stone axes and spears that their ancestors walked with in the third millennium BC. What kind of real creative thinking can we talk about?

For the sake of truth, it should be said that not only asceticism, but also material excesses do not contribute to the development of the thinking of people of the early Neolithic. The availability of food in some climatic zones of the Earth makes it unnecessary to think creatively, and tribes living in naturally fertile conditions devote most of their time... sleep and digestion of food. The absence of dialectical materialism in their minds with a full stomach excluded the creative work of thought. For the narrowness of their worldview, for laziness of mind, for ignorance of the political map of the world, many peoples of Africa had to pay for several hundred years of slave trade and exorbitant exhausting labor on galleys and American plantations.

But the guilty conscience of Podolchans pushed them to direct deception of readers. They try to hide that following the words: "The modern life of the tribes of the jungles of Africa, the deserts of Australia, the selva of Brazil, etc., proves that they are practically ignorant of creative thinking."But, as practice has shown, in the twentieth century there is no knowledge that a young man could not master, as a child taken from a primitive tribe and placed in a modern educational institution. the brain of any physiologically healthy native is quite suitable for the assimilation of modern knowledge, but it is as if preserved by the social conditions of the tribe, deprived of the information necessary for the emergence of creative, innovative thinking." Where is the hint of racism here? Even the enemy of the people, the Trotskyist Yagoda, who sent many true communists to be shot at the false denunciation of the Trotskyists, would read this phrase and say with chagrin: "The informers have overdone it. You can't “kill " racism here.

Against the background of obvious denunciation, Podolsky shyness looks funny. Quoting me, they write “ " It's just inconvenient to read such lines: "For tens of thousands of years, humanity has not improved the means of production, since the product produced satisfied their current interests.”. And "explain how to understand the history of primitive tribes:" Humanity has continuously improved the means of production. In the tens of thousands of years preceding the formation of a class society, humanity separated itself from the animal world, and then moved from hunting, fishing and gathering to agriculture and cattle breeding, In the course of which man overcame the fear of fire and learned to use it; learned to make weapons for hunting and build a home; from wild plants, he bred cultural and tamed many types of animals; discovered the production of metal from stone. All this required a great effort of the mind. And the person was driven by interest. First, he wanted to protect himself from dangerous animals, and then create a stable food base. We can only talk about slow development."

Indeed, only some tens of thousands of years with an axe of the same “style”. Ie again podolchan crocodiles fly, only "nyzenko-nyzenko". “But this was due to the fact, "my refuters repeat after me," that the struggle for existence did not leave primitive society free time to study nature and isolate researchers from their environment, freed from productive labor. That is why class societies developed faster than primitive societies." Who's arguing with that?

The reader remembers that in the paragraph above, the Podolchans claimed that the” struggle for survival "of primitive tribes is full of non-standard creative thinking, and a few lines below, they also write that" the struggle for existence does not leave“, it turns out, the primitive man” free time " for the development of research, i.e. creative qualities in the individual. That's what I wanted to prove in my work, what Podolchans argue with and... immediately agree with. Only the given twists of the “logic” of Podolchans are called not dialectical, but UNPRINCIPLED and UNSCRUPULOUS.

But that's not all. Marxism, as is well known, proceeds from the fact that "productive labor” is an indispensable condition for the transformation of an ape into a man, and Podolchans claim that" class societies developed faster than primitive ones " because they had people “free from productive labor”. Apparently podolchane mean the high development of feudal lords, priests, officials, hired soldiers, ladies of the demimonde, etc.

Podolchane did not learn the teachings of the classics of Marxism about productive labor. But this topic is too broad and it is impossible to " cram” it into this brochure without removing the dialectical content from it. Here it is sufficient to say that the labor of the slave, productive for the slave owner, for the slave himself means only a deduction from the time of his life and an irrevocable loss of calories, that the labor of the proletarian, productive for the capitalist, for the proletarian himself also means only a deduction from the time of his life and an irrevocable loss of calories. To say that it is possible to be a researcher and to be free from productive labor is to sign a complete misunderstanding of the teachings of Marxism on the question of mental and physical labor. Podolsk residents forgot that both mental and physical labor can be productive, that mental labor plays a CRUCIAL role in increasing the productivity of physical labor. Podolsk residents do not know that “FORCED” and “UNPRODUCTIVE” work has a depressing effect on the creative personality, and “productive” work is a source of satisfaction of the needs of a healthy person, a condition for the formation of new needs and prerequisites for their satisfaction.

Considering the development of primitive society, Podolsk residents, as always, forgot to take into account the law of the abrupt development of the formation. Meanwhile, having made a creative leap in the process of isolation from the animal world (walking upright, using man-made tools, speech, musical instruments, rock paintings, weaving), primitive tribes objectively plunged into routine FOR THOUSANDS of YEARS. The improvement of tools and the accumulation of knowledge about the capabilities of man was so slow that for THOUSANDS of YEARS the captive man was preferred to literally EAT, rather than grow cereals with his help, make skins, cut stones, etc. Having created new tools and found a more rational way to use the captive people, their owners got free time for creative, productive work for THEMSELVES, i.e. they began to invent more and more grandiose slave-owning structures for the slaves. as soon as people accidentally learned, as the Podolchans write, “to extract metal from stone”, there was a leap in the development of tools, and the primitive eating of free labor stopped. There was another tragic leap in the development of the productive forces of society.

Podolchans do not know that each formation includes in its composition one or several LEAPS in development, interspersed with EPOCHS of routine, i.e., relatively slow, and sometimes incredibly slow accumulation of quantitative material for the next qualitative leap, and, moreover, far from unambiguous, namely dialectical. However, in the end, the component "curve” of these jumps is an ascending "sinusoid", abundantly watered with the blood of people who refuse to study dialectics in a real way.

Interest and science.

"One cannot agree," the Podolchans write , " that interest interferes with conscientious scientific thinking. On the contrary, the class interest of the proletariat did not interfere with Marx's conscientious scientific thinking. The interests of the advanced classes are a necessary condition for the development of production. And the acceleration of production leads to the development of science. The discovery of the heliocentric system was a consequence of the Great Geographical Discoveries and the need for orientation in the ocean. And the Great Geographical Discoveries were the result of commercial interests.

The development of machine production during the formation of capitalism led to the discovery of the laws of mechanics. The English bourgeois revolution was accompanied by the appearance of Newton. And the Great French Revolution caused the appearance of a galaxy of brilliant scientists (Carnot, Laplace, etc.). Industrialization, carried out in the interests of the working class of the Soviet Union, led to an unprecedented rise in Soviet science.

In the end, the actions of the most disinterested people, such as Spartacus, Giordano Bruno, Marat, the Decembrists and the classics of Marxism-Leninism, were driven by interests. The interests of the oppressed or advanced classes.

Another thing is that the interests of the reactionary classes and the declassified elements hinder the development not only of science, but also of all areas of society.”

That is, the crocodiles are flying again.

As always, the Podolites began “for health”, and in the end they recognized that” the interests of the reactionary classes " are big retarders. If the people of Podolsk were conscientious and, consequently, dialectical, they would pay attention to the fact that the same phenomenon, denoted by the same word, “interest”, is both progressive and reactionary. The interest of the bourgeoisie under both feudalism and capitalism is the same - profit. However, it turns out that under feudalism, the interest in profit is progressive, but the same interest in profit under capitalism, and even more so under the dictatorship of the working class, is reactionary. Consequently, the opponents, although “with a creak”, but recognize half of my rightness, recognizing the interest under certain conditions, the ability to inhibit the development of “all areas of society". It's getting warmer. It can be considered proven that interest is not only progressive, but also reactionary.

In addition, the Podolites do not even try to explain why, if the socialist and communist INTERESTS are so good, it is necessary to fight long and hard for the union of the working-class movement with communist SCIENCE. It would seem that be guided by the interest of the proletariat, especially since it is always with the proletariat, and do not torment yourself for 20 years by writing “Capital”, discovering objective laws, conducting propaganda and agitation at the risk of freedom and life. But podolchane are not used to pester themselves with questions.

What is “interest”? "Interest” is a Latin word, the content of which in other languages, like the content of most words, was formed historically. In dictionaries, starting with "Brockhaus and Efron” and up to the last "Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary", there are several variants of the interpretation of the word “interest“, but all of them evaluate the phenomenon of” interest“, as Podolchans, inconsistently positively, without trying to reveal the essence of the phenomenon itself, designated by the word” interest", its relationship with other behavioral motives.

In the literature, the word “interest” is used to refer to one of the forms of motivation for human activity. The brief definition given by Karl Marx to the concept of “interest” states that " interest by its nature is blind, knows no measure, one-sided, in a word-a lawless natural instinct." The private interest gets especially from Marx. "It goes without saying," writes Marx , " that private interest knows neither the fatherland, nor the province, nor the general spirit, nor even local patriotism. Contrary to the claim of those fantasy writers who want to see the representation of private interests as an ideal romance... such representation, on the contrary, destroys all natural and spiritual distinctions, placing instead on a pedestal an immoral, unintelligent and soulless abstraction of a certain material object and a certain consciousness slavishly subordinated to it." Let us note that private interest is the slavish submission of consciousness to the immoral, soulless abstraction of a material object, i.e., first of all, to money.

In my opinion, Marx's words can only be understood in such a way that the essence of interest as a form of motivation consists in an absolutely uncritical attitude of the subject (voluntary and involuntary) to the degree of comprehension of the material and spiritual reasons that motivate him to activity. The closest thing to the meaning of the concept of “interest” is adjacent to the concept adopted in the Russian language to denote illogical motives: "caprice”," I do what first came to mind” , etc.

But my opponents are used to press the opponent not with logic, but with the number of signatures, the number of quotations, so they will not be convinced by a single quote from Marx. Well, we will also quote Engels (if only my opponents had the patience to read it):

"interest is essentially a subjective, selfish, private interest, and as such represents the highest point of the Germanic-Christian principle of subjectivity and separation. The construction of interest as the connecting principle of humanity necessarily entails - as long as the interest remains directly subjective, simply egoistic-a general fragmentation, the concentration of individuals on themselves, isolation, the transformation of humanity into a cluster of mutually repulsive atoms; and this separation is again the final conclusion from the Christian principle of subjectivity, the consummation of the Christian world order. Further, as long as the main form of alienation, private property, continues to exist, the interest must necessarily be a private interest and its domination must manifest itself as the domination of property. The abolition of feudal slavery made "chistogan the only link between people". Property - the natural, soulless principle, opposed to the human, spiritual principle-is thereby enthroned, and ultimately, to complete this alienation, money-the alienated, empty abstraction of property-is made the ruler of the world. Man has ceased to be the slave of man and has become the slave of the thing; the perversion of human relations is complete; the slavery of the modern mercantile world-perfected, complete, universal venality-is more inhumane and comprehensive than the serfdom of the feudal time; prostitution is more immoral and more brutal than jus primae noctis [the right of the wedding night, VP]... The disintegration of humanity into a mass of isolated, mutually repulsive atoms is in itself the destruction of all corporate, national, and special interests in general, and the last necessary step towards the free self-unification of humanity”.

It is not difficult to notice how unfavorably the classics speak of the "ESSENCE of interest" in general and of private interest in particular. But my opponents will not fail to point out that Engels in the above quotation only once, at the beginning, raises the question of the ESSENCE of interest, and throughout this huge quotation speaks of “private interest”. But I do not set out to convince my opponents. I want the reader to reflect on the ESSENCE and AMBIGUITY of the interest.

But each person has his own private interest, and since humanity is divided and at the same time co-operated along class lines, each class, accordingly, has its own private class interest, and the interests of the opposite classes are antagonistic. But all interests ARE UNITED by one thing, namely, that interest by its nature is a minimally meaningful motive for activity, as Marx said "blind natural instinct” or, as Engels said “" interest... represents the highest point... the principle of subjectivity and separation”"

In other words, the interest does not cease to be a "blind natural instinct" even if it is a proletarian interest, for example, to ask the owner to raise the salary, or to drink beer at work, or to quietly break the owner's car. The result of the reign of interest in the proletarian milieu is well shown in the Manifesto. “This organization of the proletarians into a class, and thus into a political party, IS BEING DESTROYED EVERY MINUTE by THE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE WORKERS THEMSELVES."

In order to better understand the nature of interest, it is enough to ask the question: WHAT KIND OF EDUCATION, DIPLOMA, CONVICTION DO YOU NEED TO HAVE IN ORDER TO HAVE INTEREST?

It is clear that any person can have an interest - a child, a bandit, or an alcoholic. Only a specialist, a high professional, is guided in his field not by interest, but by accurate SCIENTIFIC knowledge. The lower the individual's qualifications, the less likely it is that his actions are based on a clear scientific calculation, and not a private interest.

That is why Marx had to create (tautalogy, because communism is already scientific, but it is said for the sake of understanding) scientific communism, because class interest alone is not able to ensure the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. The proletarian class itself, due to the circumstances that Podolchans write about as unfavorable (lack of free time), is not able to develop anything but an interest, rather blind, in the form of a desire to escape from the hell of wage slavery, with almost complete lack of understanding how this can be done.

Therefore, if the proletariat is left alone with its class interests, its struggle for the realization of proletarian interests will be waged... forever and without the slightest chance of winning. Because of this circumstance, in my works I proceed from the existence of a higher and lower form of motivation for the activities of individuals and entire classes. Among the LOWEST, most PRIMITIVE forms of motivation is INTEREST, among the HIGHEST, most DEVELOPED forms of motivation for activity is a scientifically based and confirmed by PUBLIC practice idea or, in other words, the SCIENTIFIC LEVEL OF PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS, embodied in MARXISM-LENINISM, which has not yet been assimilated by the masses.

I think that even the people of Podolsk will agree with me if I say that, judging by their writings, they highly appreciate the role of interest in the development of science. In their opinion, the brilliant creators, including Marx and Stalin, were motivated by interest. However, since I know for sure that neither Marx, nor Stalin, nor, especially, Spartacus, Newton, Carnot, Laplace, Marat, could personally tell the Podolchans anything about the motives of their activities, I do NOT BELIEVE the Podolchans ' word. But I was convinced that the people of Podolsk themselves are guided in their activities, first of all, by interest, and not by science.

Of course, podolchane can refer to the fact that in the works of the classics there are many cases of appeal to the class interest of the proletariat. But what else is there to appeal to, when Marxism has not yet been assimilated by the proletariat, and the struggle on the basis of interest still brings the proletariat closer to the struggle on the basis of science, i.e., to victory. Today, too, we STILL have to rely on the class interest of the proletariat, since the leading analysts of the working department of the MK RKRP and even the entire Podolsky theoretical group could not rise above their interests.

Opponents prefer to laugh first.

For me, the content of Podolchan's answer is a clear confirmation that people whose consciousness is infected with the most primitive form of motivation, i.e., interest, are extremely aggressive about the need to replace interest with scientific knowledge.

Podolchane write: "It is ridiculous to say that you can become a dialectician only after having previously studied all areas of science. Of course, expanding your horizons allows you to better understand dialectics. There is no doubt that. to create a dialectical method, one needs the encyclopedic knowledge that Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Lenin possessed."Again, the green crocodiles fly "nyzenko-nyzenko". Podolchane first laugh, and then... above yourself. After a good laugh, they admitted that creating a dialectic requires encyclopedic knowledge. It's warm again. But don't be happy.

"However," the Podolchans write further, " the discovery and development of dialectical materialism would be worth nothing if only specialists in all fields of science, culture, and production could master this method.” Podolchane, as soon as they imagine that " in science there is no pillar road and only the one who is not afraid of fatigue, climbs its rocky slopes...", as soon as they read that " you can become a communist only when you enrich your memory with the knowledge of all the riches that humanity has developed...” , so their mood immediately falls, and they begin to fight for the right to call themselves dialecticians before they acquire encyclopedic knowledge, although this is exactly what should not be done, because in any encyclopedia, along with wealth, there are piles of anti-scientific trash, arranged by paid professors in alphabetical order, not causal order. In short, every worldly experienced person, or child, who has read the fable "The Fox and the Grapes” will understand why the people of Podolsk are so rebelling against the need to master" the knowledge of all the riches that humanity has developed." Apparently not in the teeth.

"On the contrary," the Podolchans continue, " dialectical logic allows you to master any area of existence (science, technology, the laws of social development). Dialectical and historical materialism make it possible to analyze the current situation and use it to restore socialism. Therefore, it is necessary not to reinvent the wheel, but to master Marxism, studying the works of the titans, and learn to apply the knowledge gained”"

It's just a matter of business. It turns out that you will master the works of the titans, and then you will easily master “the knowledge of all the riches that humanity has developed”. Podolchans think that it will be much easier for them to master the works of the titans, especially dialectics, than “to master the knowledge of all the riches that humanity has developed".

They did not understand that the Communists had taken upon themselves the burden of acting for the practical reconstruction of the life of all mankind on the basis of ALL OBJECTIVE PREREQUISITES. Without understanding this, the Podolchans suggest that the communists be the vanguard in the transformation of all humanity without knowing EVERYTHING that is necessary for such a transformation, from love to space exploration. Podolsk residents, as noted earlier, did not understand at the time of writing their answer that the struggle for general education is the most important component of the struggle for dialectical education, that mathematics is a special case of dialectics, that after studying mathematics in good faith, especially higher mathematics, you have ALREADY PARTIALLY joined dialectics. And for a good connoisseur of higher mathematics, there are no special problems in understanding physics and chemistry, as special cases of materialism. Studying " Capital” According to Marx, you actually comprehend historical materialism by the example of one of the modes of production. Etc.

Podolchane did not notice that some "prodigies" teenagers graduate from the most prestigious technical institutes and universities. But the whole world practice does not have a SINGLE case where a person at the age of, for example, 25 years is recognized as an expert in philosophy. Not understanding this, podolchane first offer to learn the dialectic, confident that only then they will all the private secrets of the universe will begin to click like seeds.

Therefore, I suggest that young people move from simple to complex, from general education to dialectics, and Podolchans suggest moving from " very simple”, i.e. from dialectics to very complex, for example, to arithmetic or politics.

Podolchans are not aware that the classics of Marxism-Leninism did not leave behind a finished work called "Dialectical and Historical Materialism". We didn't have time. Therefore, if you strictly follow the instructions of the Podolchans and their friends in the infamous group, then all the time will be spent on an unsuccessful search for the work of the classics called "Dialectical and historical Materialism". The task facing the communist movement is to create a work with this name. And podolchane "so comrades", led by small interests, just suggest not to do this, but to study only the " works of the titans”, forgetting that all the publishing efforts of the CPSU, in the field of organizing the study of the works of the classics, turned out to be tragically insufficient.

Practice has proved that it is absolutely not enough to produce one hundred volumes of the works of the classics and organize their formal study. You can only talk about mastering dialectics if you go further than your predecessors, and not only in theory, but also in practice. Nothing else is given.

The state of the modern world communist movement, its disunity and multiparty nature in practice proves that the active "leftists", who haphazardly read the works of the classics on the basis of individual logic, are going... in different parties and movements. And if we do not properly organize the work on the development of Marxism and convince the youth of today that only the RKRP understands the need to develop the methodology of the classics and therefore CONSCIOUSLY moves forward to Victory, then our party will slowly die out, as is the case with the Communist Party. Consequently, without the most intense creative and conscientious work of the members of the RCRP on the fundamental and applied problems of developing the methodology in inseparable unity with the organizational work in the RCRP and beyond, what happened to the organization of the RCRP in Podolsk will happen. It will also "shrink". (And the RKRP - "shrunk" in the end, it was devoured by opportunism and outright Trotskyists).

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 8 years ago

Photo

Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross - (Edith Stein) - Feast Day: August 9 - Ordinary Time

Teresa Benedict of the Cross Edith Stein (1891-1942) - nun, - Discalced Carmelite, martyr

"We bow down before the testimony of the life and death of Edith Stein, an outstanding daughter of Israel and at the same time a daughter of the Carmelite Order, Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, a personality who united within her rich life a dramatic synthesis of our century. It was the synthesis of a history full of deep wounds that are still hurting ... and also the synthesis of the full truth about man. All this came together in a single heart that remained restless and unfulfilled until it finally found rest in God." These were the words of Pope John Paul II when he beatified Edith Stein in Cologne on 1 May 1987.

Who was this woman?

Edith Stein was born in Breslau on 12 October 1891, the youngest of 11, as her family were celebrating Yom Kippur, that most important Jewish festival, the Feast of Atonement. "More than anything else, this helped make the youngest child very precious to her mother." Being born on this day was like a foreshadowing to Edith, a future Carmelite nun.

Edith's father, who ran a timber business, died when she had only just turned two. Her mother, a very devout, hard-working, strong-willed and truly wonderful woman, now had to fend for herself and to look after the family and their large business. However, she did not succeed in keeping up a living faith in her children. Edith lost her faith in God. "I consciously decided, of my own volition, to give up praying," she said.

In 1911 she passed her exams with flying colors and enrolled at the University of Breslau to study German and history, though this was a mere "bread-and-butter" choice. Her real interest was in philosophy and in women's issues. She became a member of the Prussian Society for Women's Franchise. "When I was at school and during my first years at university," she wrote later, "I was a radical suffragette. Then I lost interest in the whole issue. Now I am looking for purely pragmatic solutions."

In 1913, Edith Stein transferred to Göttingen University, to study under the mentorship of Edmund Husserl. She became his pupil and teaching assistant, and he later tutored her for a doctorate. At the time, anyone who was interested in philosophy was fascinated by Husserl's new view of reality, whereby the world as we perceive it does not merely exist in a Kantian way, in our subjective perception. His pupils saw his philosophy as a return to objects: "back to things". Husserl's phenomenology unwittingly led many of his pupils to the Christian faith. In Göttingen Edith Stein also met the philosopher Max Scheler, who directed her attention to Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, she did not neglect her "bread-and-butter" studies and passed her degree with distinction in January 1915, though she did not follow it up with teacher training.

"I no longer have a life of my own," she wrote at the beginning of the First World War, having done a nursing course and gone to serve in an Austrian field hospital. This was a hard time for her, during which she looked after the sick in the typhus ward, worked in an operating theatre, and saw young people die. When the hospital was dissolved, in 1916, she followed Husserl as his assistant to the German city of Freiburg, where she passed her doctorate summa cum laude (with the utmost distinction) in 1917, after writing a thesis on "The Problem of Empathy."

During this period she went to Frankfurt Cathedral and saw a woman with a shopping basket going in to kneel for a brief prayer. "This was something totally new to me. In the synagogues and Protestant churches I had visited people simply went to the services. Here, however, I saw someone coming straight from the busy marketplace into this empty church, as if she was going to have an intimate conversation. It was something I never forgot. "Towards the end of her dissertation she wrote: "There have been people who believed that a sudden change had occurred within them and that this was a result of God's grace." How could she come to such a conclusion? Edith Stein had been good friends with Husserl's Göttingen assistant, Adolf Reinach, and his wife.

When Reinach fell in Flanders in November 1917, Edith went to Göttingen to visit his widow. The Reinachs had converted to Protestantism. Edith felt uneasy about meeting the young widow at first, but was surprised when she actually met with a woman of faith. "This was my first encounter with the Cross and the divine power it imparts to those who bear it ... it was the moment when my unbelief collapsed and Christ began to shine his light on me - Christ in the mystery of the Cross." Later, she wrote: "Things were in God's plan which I had not planned at all. I am coming to the living faith and conviction that - from God's point of view - there is no chance and that the whole of my life, down to every detail, has been mapped out in God's divine providence and makes complete and perfect sense in God's all-seeing eyes."

In Autumn 1918 Edith Stein gave up her job as Husserl's teaching assistant. She wanted to work independently. It was not until 1930 that she saw Husserl again after her conversion, and she shared with him about her faith, as she would have liked him to become a Christian, too. Then she wrote down the amazing words: "Every time I feel my powerlessness and inability to influence people directly, I become more keenly aware of the necessity of my own holocaust."

Edith Stein wanted to obtain a professorship, a goal that was impossible for a woman at the time. Husserl wrote the following reference: "Should academic careers be opened up to ladies, then I can recommend her whole-heartedly and as my first choice for admission to a professorship." Later, she was refused a professorship on account of her Jewishness.

Back in Breslau, Edith Stein began to write articles about the philosophical foundation of psychology. However, she also read the New Testament, Kierkegaard and Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises. She felt that one could not just read a book like that, but had to put it into practice.

In the summer of 1921. she spent several weeks in Bergzabern (in the Palatinate) on the country estate of Hedwig Conrad-Martius, another pupil of Husserl's. Hedwig had converted to Protestantism with her husband. One evening Edith picked up an autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila and read this book all night. "When I had finished the book, I said to myself: This is the truth." Later, looking back on her life, she wrote: "My longing for truth was a single prayer."

On 1 January 1922 Edith Stein was baptized. It was the Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus, when Jesus entered into the covenant of Abraham. Edith Stein stood by the baptismal font, wearing Hedwig Conrad-Martius' white wedding cloak. Hedwig washer godmother. "I had given up practising my Jewish religion when I was a 14-year-old girl and did not begin to feel Jewish again until I had returned to God." From this moment on she was continually aware that she belonged to Christ not only spiritually, but also through her blood. At the Feast of the Purification of Mary - another day with an Old Testament reference - she was confirmed by the Bishop of Speyer in his private chapel.

After her conversion she went straight to Breslau: "Mother," she said, "I am a Catholic." The two women cried. Hedwig Conrad Martius wrote: "Behold, two Israelites indeed, in whom is no deceit!" (cf. John 1:47).

Immediately after her conversion she wanted to join a Carmelite convent. However, her spiritual mentors, Vicar-General Schwind of Speyer, and Erich Przywara SJ, stopped her from doing so. Until Easter 1931 she held a position teaching German and history at the Dominican Sisters' school and teacher training college of St. Magdalen's Convent in Speyer. At the same time she was encouraged by Arch-Abbot Raphael Walzer of Beuron Abbey to accept extensive speaking engagements, mainly on women's issues. "During the time immediately before and quite some time after my conversion I ... thought that leading a religious life meant giving up all earthly things and having one's mind fixed on divine things only. Gradually, however, I learnt that other things are expected of us in this world... I even believe that the deeper someone is drawn to God, the more he has to `get beyond himself' in this sense, that is, go into the world and carry divine life into it."

She worked enormously hard, translating the letters and diaries of Cardinal Newman from his pre-Catholic period as well as Thomas Aquinas' Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate. The latter was a very free translation, for the sake of dialogue with modern philosophy. Erich Przywara also encouraged her to write her own philosophical works. She learnt that it was possible to "pursue scholarship as a service to God... It was not until I had understood this that I seriously began to approach academic work again." To gain strength for her life and work, she frequently went to the Benedictine Monastery of Beuron, to celebrate the great festivals of the Church year.

In 1931 Edith Stein left the convent school in Speyer and devoted herself to working for a professorship again, this time in Breslau and Freiburg, though her endeavours were in vain. It was then that she wrote Potency and Act, a study of the central concepts developed by Thomas Aquinas. Later, at the Carmelite Convent in Cologne, she rewrote this study to produce her main philosophical and theological oeuvre, Finite and Eternal Being. By then, however, it was no longer possible to print the book.

In 1932 she accepted a lectureship position at the Roman Catholic division of the German Institute for Educational Studies at the University of Munster, where she developed her anthropology. She successfully combined scholarship and faith in her work and her teaching, seeking to be a "tool of the Lord" in everything she taught. "If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him."

In 1933 darkness broke out over Germany. "I had heard of severe measures against Jews before. But now it dawned on me that God had laid his hand heavily on His people, and that the destiny of these people would also be mine." The Aryan Law of the Nazis made it impossible for Edith Stein to continue teaching. "If I can't go on here, then there are no longer any opportunities for me in Germany," she wrote; "I had become a stranger in the world."

The Arch-Abbot of Beuron, Walzer, now no longer stopped her from entering a Carmelite convent. While in Speyer, she had already taken a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience. In 1933 she met with the prioress of the Carmelite Convent in Cologne. "Human activities cannot help us, but only the suffering of Christ. It is my desire to share in it."

Edith Stein went to Breslau for the last time, to say good-bye to her mother and her family. Her last day at home was her birthday, 12 October, which was also the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Edith went to the synagogue with her mother. It was a hard day for the two women. "Why did you get to know it [Christianity]?" her mother asked, "I don't want to say anything against him. He may have been a very good person. But why did he make himself God?" Edith's mother cried. The following day Edith was on the train to Cologne. "I did not feel any passionate joy. What I had just experienced was too terrible. But I felt a profound peace - in the safe haven of God's will." From now on she wrote to her mother every week, though she never received any replies. Instead, her sister Rosa sent her news from Breslau.

Edith joined the Carmelite Convent of Cologne on 14 October, and her investiture took place on 15 April, 1934. The mass was celebrated by the Arch-Abbot of Beuron. Edith Stein was now known as Sister Teresia Benedicta a Cruce - Teresa, Blessed of the Cross. In 1938 she wrote: "I understood the cross as the destiny of God's people, which was beginning to be apparent at the time (1933). I felt that those who understood the Cross of Christ should take it upon themselves on everybody's behalf. Of course, I know better now what it means to be wedded to the Lord in the sign of the cross. However, one can never comprehend it, because it is a mystery." On 21 April 1935 she took her temporary vows. On 14 September 1936, the renewal of her vows coincided with her mother's death in Breslau. "My mother held on to her faith to the last moment. But as her faith and her firm trust in her God ... were the last thing that was still alive in the throes of her death, I am confident that she will have met a very merciful judge and that she is now my most faithful helper, so that I can reach the goal as well."

When she made her eternal profession on 21 April 1938, she had the words of St. John of the Cross printed on her devotional picture: "Henceforth my only vocation is to love." Her final work was to be devoted to this author.

Edith Stein's entry into the Carmelite Order was not escapism. "Those who join the Carmelite Order are not lost to their near and dear ones, but have been won for them, because it is our vocation to intercede to God for everyone." In particular, she interceded to God for her people: "I keep thinking of Queen Esther who was taken away from her people precisely because God wanted her to plead with the king on behalf of her nation. I am a very poor and powerless little Esther, but the King who has chosen me is infinitely great and merciful. This is great comfort." (31 October 1938)

On 9 November 1938 the anti-Semitism of the Nazis became apparent to the whole world.

Synagogues were burnt, and the Jewish people were subjected to terror. The prioress of the Carmelite Convent in Cologne did her utmost to take Sister Teresia Benedicta a Cruce abroad. On New Year's Eve 1938 she was smuggled across the border into the Netherlands, to the Carmelite Convent in Echt in the Province of Limburg. This is where she wrote her will on 9 June 1939: "Even now I accept the death that God has prepared for me in complete submission and with joy as being his most holy will for me. I ask the Lord to accept my life and my death ... so that the Lord will be accepted by His people and that His Kingdom may come in glory, for the salvation of Germany and the peace of the world."

While in the Cologne convent, Edith Stein had been given permission to start her academic studies again. Among other things, she wrote about "The Life of a Jewish Family" (that is, her own family): "I simply want to report what I experienced as part of Jewish humanity," she said, pointing out that "we who grew up in Judaism have a duty to bear witness ... to the young generation who are brought up in racial hatred from early childhood."

In Echt, Edith Stein hurriedly completed her study of "The Church's Teacher of Mysticism and the Father of the Carmelites, John of the Cross, on the Occasion of the 400th Anniversary of His Birth, 1542-1942." In 1941 she wrote to a friend, who was also a member of her order: "One can only gain a scientia crucis (knowledge of the cross) if one has thoroughly experienced the cross. I have been convinced of this from the first moment onwards and have said with all my heart: 'Ave, Crux, Spes unica' (I welcome you, Cross, our only hope)." Her study on St. John of the Cross is entitled: "Kreuzeswissenschaft" (The Science of the Cross).

Edith Stein was arrested by the Gestapo on 2 August 1942, while she was in the chapel with the other sisters. She was to report within five minutes, together with her sister Rosa, who had also converted and was serving at the Echt Convent. Her last words to be heard in Echt were addressed to Rosa: "Come, we are going for our people."

Together with many other Jewish Christians, the two women were taken to a transit camp in Amersfoort and then to Westerbork. This was an act of retaliation against the letter of protest written by the Dutch Roman Catholic Bishops against the pogroms and deportations of Jews. Edith commented, "I never knew that people could be like this, neither did I know that my brothers and sisters would have to suffer like this. ... I pray for them every hour. Will God hear my prayers? He will certainly hear them in their distress." Prof. Jan Nota, who was greatly attached to her, wrote later: "She is a witness to God's presence in a world where God is absent."

On 7 August, early in the morning, 987 Jews were deported to Auschwitz. It was probably on 9 August that Sister Teresia Benedicta a Cruce, her sister and many other of her people were gassed.

When Edith Stein was beatified in Cologne on 1 May 1987, the Church honoured "a daughter of Israel", as Pope John Paul II put it, who, as a Catholic during Nazi persecution, remained faithful to the crucified Lord Jesus Christ and, as a Jew, to her people in loving faithfulness."

#st. edith stein

21 notes · View notes

standtoreason93 · 6 years ago

Text

One Way or Any Way? – Part 2

By Greg Koukl

I do not consider myself a particularly brave person, and I think it especially foolish, on the main, to make a frontal assault on a clearly superior force. Further, it is always dangerous to cross theological swords with C.S. Lewis. He was, arguably, the most compelling voice for Christianity in the 20thcentury, and his impact continues unabated into the 21st.

Even so, as a young Christian I read something Lewis wrote that gave me pause the first time I saw it. Now, decades later, it troubles me more than ever. The problematic piece appears towards the end of The Last Battle, the final installment of Lewis’s wonderful and theologically rich children’s fantasy, The Chronicles of Narnia.

Emeth, a noble young Calormene soldier who all his life had innocently served Tash, the false god of his people, encounters Aslan face to face for the first time.

“Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash,” he admits to the great lion.

“Child,” Aslan answers, “all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me…. If any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.”[i]

In narrative form, Lewis seems to be suggesting that those who sincerely pursue God the best way they know how, regardless of the particulars of their own religion, are accepted by Him. Could he be right?

Anonymous Christians?

I don’t for a moment think Lewis was a pluralist. In fact, when Emeth asks Aslan if he and Tash are one (“Tashlan,” as some had put it), he “growled so that the earth shook.” This was error; Tash and Aslan were opposites. Clearly, though, the religious sincerity and the noble life of this young Calormene were taken by Aslan as implicit loyalty to the lion himself.

Lewis intimates that, though all religions are not true in themselves (pluralism), there still exist people of other faiths who are what Catholic theologian Karl Rahner called “anonymous Christians”—those enjoying the grace that comes through Jesus alone, even though they never explicitly put their faith in Him.

Was Lewis right? Many Evangelicals in this country seem to think he was, giving rise to a trend I have called the “confused confession.” It’s a term I introduced in the last issue of Solid Ground (January 2019) to describe the following claim: “Jesus is my savior. He is the only way for me. But I can’t say He is the way for others.”

As I argued earlier, this could mean a number of different things.[ii] Some, for example, may be uncertain about the fate of those who never heard about Jesus. This, I think, is Lewis’s concern. Perhaps God will judge them by the limited light they’ve been shown. Others, though, seem to take it quite a bit further.

Dinesh D’Souza, author of the vigorous defense of Christianity titled What’s So Great about Christianity, faltered in a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens and Jewish thinker Dennis Prager. When asked by Prager if Jews who do not accept Jesus as savior can still be saved, he said, “I believe the answer to that is yes.” Clearly, Abraham made it to Heaven without believing in Jesus, D’Souza pointed out. There must be, then, another “mode of salvation…that doesn’t include Jesus.”[iii]

In her book A Simple Path, Mother Teresa explained why she did not “preach religion” to those in her care. In a section titled “Equal Before God” she writes:

There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.[iv]

Consequently, Mother Teresa never considered it a problem when people of different religions joined together in prayer at her center and read from their own scriptures, since her focus was to encourage them in their “relationship with God, however that may be.”

Roman Catholic thinker Avery Cardinal Dulles makes this stunning claim in his essay “Who Can Be Saved?”:

Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.[v]

Remarks like these raise a host of questions. If Jews today don’t need to believe in Jesus, but can be saved as Abraham was, why did both Jesus and Paul say the gospel should go to the Jews first, before it went to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5–6, Acts 1:8, Rom. 1:16)? Given that Hindus worship idols, wouldn’t helping them be “better” Hindus make them better at breaking God’s first commandments (Ex. 20:3–5)? If atheists are seeking truth, why does Paul say they are suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:18)? If people following false religions are recipients of God’s grace, why does Scripture say they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25) and are therefore without excuse (1:20)? Worse, what implications do such sentiments have for the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20)?

This is why I call such a confession “confused.” It may sound plausible at first, but it is hard to make sense of it in light of either Old or New Testament teaching.

Let me tell you one of the reasons this confusion gets a foothold. People draw the wrong conclusions from an obvious scriptural fact: Not everyone in history needed to believe in Jesus to be restored to relationship with God. Though it may be that Abraham understood something about Jesus (John 8:56), that cannot be said of every patriarch, prophet, or Old Testament faithful. Despite their own sins, they still found favor with God apart from explicit faith in Christ. This is Lewis’s point.

Couldn’t the same be true today, some ask, not only of those who have never heard, but also for those who reject the message of Christ through no apparent fault of their own? How can we say what’s in a person’s heart? Who are we to judge?

This, I think, is D’Souza’s, Teresa’s, and Dulles’s point. Though Jesus’ death on the cross is the only provision for forgiveness, belief in Jesus is not the only way to receive the grace He alone provides. This view is called “inclusivism,” since even those who do not believe in Christ can, in certain circumstances, be “included” in the grace that He alone secures.

It is true; you and I are in a poor position to judge the hearts of others. But God is not. Though our judgments may falter, His are true. Has He said anything to shed light on this question? He has. Lots.

A “Jealous” God

First, it might be helpful to remember that from the very beginning, the God of the Bible has been narrow in His demands.

Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s singular restriction in the garden brought swift justice. The serpent’s suggestion of an alternate route to wisdom, knowledge, and fulfillment resulted in death, not the promised enlightenment.

God’s very first commandment to His fledgling people explicitly condemned all other “roads to Rome.” In Exodus 20:2–5, He said, “I am the Lord your God.... You shall have no other gods before Me.... You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” Transgressors of this command were executed, some destroyed directly by God Himself.

God showed His utter contempt for other religions by pummeling Egypt with plagues, each one directed at a different Egyptian deity (Exodus 12:12b: “...and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord”). The capstone plague ended the life of every firstborn whose doorway lacked the blood covering that was to be applied according to God’s very precise and particular conditions.

During their wanderings in the desert, the Jews were offered only one antidote to the poison of the serpents God had unleashed in judgment upon them. Only those who gazed upon a bronze snake lifted up on a pole were spared (Num. 21:9). Jesus Himself cites this event as a type—a foreshadowing—of His crucifixion, which alone purchases eternal life (John 3:14–15).

In Acts, we learn that “Christian” was not the first name given to the followers of Jesus. Instead, the name they used for themselves embodied the heart of their message about the Savior. They were simply called “The Way”—not “a way,” or “one of the ways,” or “our way,” but The Way (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23).

This pervasive theme of exclusivity was captured with crystal clarity in Jesus’ words, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13–14). Jesus’ very next words warned of false prophets who would appear as sheep yet would ravage the flock like wild wolves.

From Wide to Narrow?

Even so, it does seem that New Testament standards are more “narrow” than Old Testament ones. Why is that? Here, some distinctions may be helpful.

First, throughout the biblical revelation, the source of salvation has always been the unmerited mercy of God. Our Sovereign owes no rebel a pardon. That He extends clemency to any is a pure gift of grace (Eph. 2:8, Titus 3:4–7).

Second, the ground of salvation has always been the redemption secured by Christ on the cross. Old Testament saints who, because of progressive revelation, had not yet learned about Jesus were still saved because of Him. God “passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25), knowing the full, complete, and final payment would be made at the cross (Heb. 9:15, 10:10–18).

Third, the means of salvation has also been constant. Every sinner ever justified gained access to God’s mercy by faith. Whether in Old Testament or New, active trust in God’s grace appropriated His mercy. In every age, the just have lived by faith (Gen. 15:6, Hab. 2:4, Rom. 4:5, 5:1).

Each of those has been constant. Only one thing changed as God progressively revealed His plan. The way one expressed their faith in God (the means), that appropriated the work of Christ (the ground), based on the grace of God (the source), has been different at different times.

Adam received the covering God provided for his nakedness and trusted God’s promise that a seed of woman would crush the serpent (Gen. 3:15, 21). Abraham simply believed God’s promise of descendants who would bring blessing to the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3, 15:6). Jewish slaves in Egypt trusted God by believing the blood covering would protect them from the plague of death at the Passover (Ex. 12:13, 23). Old Testament saints trusted God through the atoning sacrifices He required to cover their sins (Leviticus).

There is only one question we need to answer at this point: What is the appropriate way of expressing faith now, in the New Covenant period, since the public appearance and proclamation of the world’s singular Messiah?

The answer from every New Testament writer is the same. Since Pentecost, the focus of faith and the ground of salvation are one and the same: Jesus. There is no other name that can save, and there is no other “name” we may put our trust in. Not the Levitical sacrifices or Passover blood (Heb. 10:8–10). Not zeal or sincerity (Rom. 10:1–2). Certainly not pagan gods, false prophets, or counterfeit religions (Matt. 24:23–25, Gal. 1:8–9, Jude 4).

That’s why Jesus said that our response to Him would be the acid test of our true loyalty to the Father. Anyone who loves God will honor the One sent by God. Conversely, those who reject Him, reject the Father also. This one point is so critical, it is repeated in various ways no less than 16 times in the New Testament (John 5:23b, 5:37–38, 8:19, 8:42a, 12:48–50, 14:7, 15:20b–21, 15:23, 16:2–3; 1 John 2:22, 2:23, 4:2–3, 4:15, 5:1, 5:9–12; 2 John 1:7–9a).

These verses reveal something crystal clear to me. Had any Old Testament saints lived during the time of Jesus or after, their love for the Father demonstrated by their earlier expression of faith would have driven them to embrace His Son, Jesus. Each one of those accepted by the Father under the Old Covenant would have loved the Son of the New (“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad,” John 8:56).

In a sense, then, nothing has changed from Genesis to Revelation. God’s way has always been specific, limited, and precise. A narrow gate leads to life. A broad way leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13–14).

And there are many more verses that make this clear. For example:

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)

“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

“And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8–9)

And after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:30–31)

I testify about [the Jews] that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:2–4)

And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. (1 John 5:11–12)

The God-Fearing Gentile

The most compelling single passage against inclusivism comes from the book of Acts and the conversion of a Gentile named Cornelius. Scripture says Cornelius was “a devout man…who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually” (10:2). Indeed, his “prayers and alms [had] ascended as a memorial before God” (10:4). As “a righteous and God-fearing man,” he was “divinely directed by a holy angel” to send for Peter to come to his house and hear a message from him (10:22).

This is quite a spiritual pedigree, all without the gospel of Christ. In fact, Peter was so impressed at the clear working of God in Cornelius’ life, he said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (10:34–35). This is the whole of inclusivist theology in a single sentence. Everything stated about Cornelius fulfills the inclusivists’ demand.

What does Peter do next? He does not assure this “anonymous Christian” that all is well and turn on his heel to leave. Instead, he preaches the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (10:36–41), then warns of final judgment by Jesus for all except those who believe in Him for the forgiveness of their sins(10:42–43).

Why go through all this trouble and labor over theological details about Jesus? Here’s why. For all his spiritual nobility, Cornelius is still lost. If the inclusivist gospel were true, Cornelius would not have needed a special visit from Peter. Yes, Cornelius had responded faithfully to all the revelation given to him up to that point. But it was not enough. It was just the first step. Even God-fearing Cornelius needed the rest of the story, the specifics about Christ and the cross, without which he could not be saved.

The teachings of Christ and also the writings of those disciples Jesus personally trained to proclaim His message after Him give little comfort to inclusivists. Remarkably, Dulles admits as much: “The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel.”[vi]If this is the clear testimony of the ancients, what good reason do we have to abandon that message in the modern era? I don’t see any.

And I will give you one final reason to be faithful to that message.

Pascal Redux

I have a last thought for any who may still be tempted to sit on the fence on this issue. Blaise Pascal, the 17th century French scientist and Christian sage, once offered a famous wager to his detractors. Based merely on a kind of cost/benefit risk assessment, Pascal argued it is smart to “bet” on God. If the Christian is right, he gains eternal life. If wrong, he passes into non-existence, nothing lost. The atheist, on the other hand, gains nothing substantial if correct, and if incorrect suffers eternally for his error.

I think the wisdom of Pascal’s wager applies to inclusivism. If we preach the message of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church—that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation—and we are wrong, what is the downside? If we proclaim that those separated from the gospel are also separated from Christ and have no hope and are without God in the world (Eph. 2:12), yet we are mistaken, Heaven will be more crowded than we thought. If we erroneously preach exclusivism, the upshot is good news, not bad.

However, what if we take the side of inclusivism and err? What if we are wrong when we teach that the person who has heard the gospel of Christ does not have to answer its challenge by humbling himself before the cross? What if we say that sincere people will be accepted by God in the pursuit of their own religious convictions? What if we discourage other Christians from “forcing” their views on “good” Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? What if we do any of these things and it turns out their rejection of Christ—either active or passive—seals their fate: judgment and an eternity of suffering for their crimes against God? What is the downside then? Only that we have given false hope to the lost and have prevented them from seriously considering the only salvation available to them. If you are an inclusivist and you are wrong, that is very bad news.

It seems we have a simple choice. We can be broad-minded and advance the broad way, a path Jesus said leads to destruction. Or we can endure being called “narrow-minded” and preach the narrow way, the only path that Jesus said leads to life. I, for one, would not want to be on the inclusivist’s side of this issue.

_____________________

[i] C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle (New York: Collier, 1956), 164–5.

[ii] For details, refer to “One Way or Any Way?—Part 1,” Solid Ground, January 2019, at str.org.

[iii] Dinesh D’Souza, “The Christian God, the Jewish God, or No God: A Meaningful Dialogue,” May 8, 2008. Find a video clip of this portion of the debate at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoonNPAs1Zc.

[iv] Mother Teresa, A Simple Path (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995), 31.

[v] Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., “Who Can Be Saved?,” First Things, February 2008.

[vi] Ibid.

0 notes

herestofindingmyreligion-blog · 8 years ago

Text

First post

I was in the process of making this big long post when I thought: why not just keep things simple. The thing is- I'm struggling with where I fit in in the world of religion. You see, I was not raised in a religious environment. At the age of 11 or 12 I had a near death experience where I literally flatlined in the hospital, my body was turning grey but I was somewhere else. There are still things that I cannot put into words and I'm 27 years old. After that experience I started researching religions and there were 3 that I sort of settled on as a kid: Judaism, Christianity, and Sikhism. I was raised by my grandparents and as far as Judaism and Sikhism went they supported me researching things and talking to people but they didn't want to go to those places of worship and wouldn't let me go by myself. So in my young age I tried out so many Christian and Catholic places of worship. Nothing seemed to be a good fit and I couldn't wrap my mind around Jesus as the messiah. Fast forward to the age of 23, I'm on a new town, I still have not found a place I fit, and I'm enjoying the summer farmers market. By the time I turned 24 I was invited to a big mega church here in town by more family. I started attending this mega church, sermons were touching my heart and the majority of the people there were nice. But there was one problem- I still didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah. There are prophecies that just were not fulfilled. How on earth do people worship a half man half G-d. IF Jesus is messiah how can he be the SON of G-d but also be G-d at the same time? Also, if all scripture is G-d breathed or Holy Spirit inspired why in the New Testament is Jesus saying that the Old Testament is only something written by man? I am meeting a few times a month with the women's pastor of the mega church to talk about my concerns. As of right now, at the age of 27, the two religions that really stuck are Judaism and Christianity. The pastor knows this and says that she will support me no matter what I choose. I would love it if I can get some input from the Jewish community- we only have a small reform synagogue here. Are there good books that you can suggest? Or favorite passages that you might have? The synagogue here is only open twice a month. I'm super nervous to go by myself. Should I contact the student Rabbi or connect with them on Facebook? Really, any tips are welcome. I also wouldn't mind comments from Christians. If you want to chitchat or you have resources or a favorite verse please feel free to share Thank you all for reading this!

#religion #judaism #jewish #reform judaism #christianity #Christian #faith

1 note · View note

whitegirlrevert · 4 years ago

Text

Conversion from Catholicism to Islam – a response

How have you found the conversion from Catholic to Islam. Lots of things in common but I’m sure there are also some pretty big differences.

*note this is just my experience*

At the end of the day religion is just a way to connect with the divine nature. I don’t see it as black or white. The more you get into any religion the more it starts to bother you because you recognize the inconsistencies between faith and practice.

I believe that you can be a believer in something higher or not. It’s something that’s personal. If at the end of the day, religion doesn’t make you a better person and help you benefit humankind then what is the point? That being said, there are many religious people who do benefit immensely from practicing their faith.

…

Use of reasoning.

What I appreciated with Islam is this notion of logic and rationality being used as an explanation for every single tiny thing. My understanding of this has now developed further and I know that even the ways that we construct religious rules and practice can shift depending on the social underpinnings of the initial “law-makers”. Growing up catholic, (and that may just be my specific upbringing) there were no explanations for anything. Everyone just took their faith as something certain without questioning it. This also still happens among muslims. I think it comes from a fear of questioning, based on a slippery slope concept. Perhaps questioning may lead you to leave the faith, and thus, it must be inspired by the “evil spirit”.

I am almost certain that if I was to continue searching with Catholicism, that I would have found a more intellectual basis for it. But there were just too many aspects of belief that were integral to the faith, and yet I fundamentally disagreed with, that it just didn’t make sense to identify as catholic anymore. It takes a lot of courage to reject something that you were brought up with. Multiple layers of disidentification occur before you can ultimately distance yourself.

Similar to use of reasoning, is having explanations for traditions.

Mass, or the specific traditions involved, was never explained to me. Even if I asked, no one seemed to know. In Islam, however potentially flawed, there is a specific reason for everything, and it’s not merely “well this is how people have been doing it for awhile”. I was never a fan of confession and I appreciate the Islamic principle that humans cannot intercede on your behalf. A similarity among reverts to Islam is their rejection of the concept of a trinity due to their inability to conceptualize it. We were always taught that this is the “truth”, but truth is always a construct. If you don’t have a trinity, then a lot of things about Christianity don’t come together for you anymore. I am not saying that it’s incorrect, just that it’s actually quite a difficult and contested concept, and yet, it has become simplified as if you’re just supposed to take such a theological concept at face value.

Specific rights for women.

If you go back to the New Testament and the Old Testament there aren’t really any explicit rights that women get. So when people question me, why can’t Islam operate how christians treat women. First of all, which christian women? Where do they live? There are christian women in parts of Africa who cohabit in polygynous relationships and have no explicit rights. In these regions, muslim women in polygynous relationships actually report higher marital satisfaction in comparison.

Comparative statements may be true in the sense that muslims should be treating women a different way, but often we mix Islam with muslims. The legal rights that women receive in Islam are very clearly stipulated in the religious text. The same does not occur in the bible. Instead, it’s actually external practice that have shaped the lives of Christian women. Do I think that the notion of Christ’s love and salvation plays a role in this? Absolutely! But we nonetheless have countless examples where women are not treated well in Christian communities. We cannot only look at how much fabric is on a woman’s body and deduce from that what the level of her “oppression” is.

Female religious leaders.

I grew up catholic so that’s a pretty specific ubringing. Many other churches allow women to be much more involved in the church, either as priests/ministers/pastors or other leadership roles. Arguably, the catholic church does not provide these positions. The same can be said of mosques – a woman can’t lead prayer in front of men. They can in front of women, but there are pretty much no opportunities made for women to lead female-led prayer either. It’s just not a priority. There are often religious conferences where they invite a token female scholar or worse, no female scholar to the panel. Sometimes I want to yell, “hey! We exist.”

Also, the struggle to find recitation of God’s word in Arabic by a female is real. It’s ridiculous. If you are a man, and think a woman’s voice will distract you then pick a male reciter! It is very simple. I think the concept of a woman’s voice being sexualized is absolute bullshit personally, and unsupported by both the qur’an and sunnah. This view is something that I’ve always found absolutely shocking, particularly because this is not a christian practice.

Judgement.

I don’t know many people that are catholic and actually know about their religion. Instead, I was exposed to individuals who went to church on Sunday, walked straight out, and made racist comments. My experience of the muslim community, however flawed, is that even if they judge (under the cover of haram policing; aka. “leading you to the truth”) they know that judging other people, backbiting, and slander is not permissible in Islam. This value is something that is fortunately often discussed at religious gatherings, and to me, it represents perhaps more authentic practice. For example, I was once coming back from a religious conference in a car with a sister who literally stopped the discussion in the back of her vehicle about how the religious speaker’s voice could have been improved. That to me, is living out your faith. I had never experienced something like that with christians. One thing that the two religious groups have in common is judging each other’s faiths without truly knowing much about them. Muslims definitely know more about Christianity than christians know about Islam. What they lack, however, is an ability to try to see Christian belief from a Christian perspective.

Connection to the divine.

1. Prayer.

I used to think, “wow, praying 5 times per day on a set schedule. How tedious!” But I think it’s honestly been my greatest blessings since converting. The prayer itself is actually more of worship mixed in with what we would normally view as “prayer” from a Christian lens. The rhythmicity of it all allows it to be a rather mindful exercise. The “call” to prayer is a reminder to prioritize and of the meaning of the word “Islam” itself (to submit to the will of God). We don’t pray when it’s convenient for us, but rather, because we have devotion to something greater. Obviously, this concept was new for me.

2. Jesus culture.

Jesus culture is what I would define as trying to make religion digestible for youth by making the concept of Jesus into something cool, i.e. “Jesus as pop star”. Growing up Catholic this didn’t really happen, so maybe my commentary is directed to other forms of Christianity. As muslims, we still respect and believe in Jesus as a prophet, but we don’t raise this respect to the level of worship. I find it telling that often when people want to insult muslims and Islam they refer to muslims as Muhmmad worshipers or refer to “our God” as Muhammad (astf). It reveals an identification of a human figure with God. Again, prophets are important to our relationship with God, but ultimately, they are not God. This is a concept called shirk in arabic, and it means equating something with God. This is the ultimate sin in Islam.

That being said, I think Jesus culture assists believers in feeling love toward God. Since their God has become so personified, it’s much easier to feel an emotion like love toward another human being than this higher concept of God. Growing up Christian, you just take Jesus as the son of God/also God as something normal. It’s fine if you want to believe that, but to deny that this concept is not problematic theologically, even from a Jewish perspective, is unfortunate.

3. Arabic.

In Catholocism/Christianity, you don’t need to know a certain language. Learning how to pray (the worship ritual prayers) required me to learn those prayers in arabic. But it really isn’t too different from how one learns to pray Our Father. These words are words that are pre-established for us to get certain meaning across. We can do our own prayers using whatever words or language afterwards, but Our Father is kind of a set prayer. The use of Our Father is very similar to the use of Al Fatihah (the first chapter/first few lines of the quran). Eventually, you pick up on terms and use them without thinking. Part of using arabic is because you can convey concepts that you couldn’t adequately describe by translating them into English. Now I am even learning to read the quran in arabic, which is something that I once assumed was impossible.

4. Ritual

I grew up Catholic so I am used to ritual. Nevertheless, I am not going to lie and say that conversion to another faith that employs ritual is easy. It isn’t. Particularly, if you’re trying to hide this new faith from your family members. All I can say is that youtube is a godsend and focusing on intention rather than correctness is very helpful. I have been thinking about creating how-to guides for new reverts and hosting them here, so hopefully that will be beneficial to followers.

5. Gender division

This has been very upsetting and unsettling for me. I understand the reasoning behind the arguments for it but I still find it hard to accept. Growing up and not being exposed to this culturally has a significant impact on how “normal” you find this. For example, certain synagogues also separate by gender in a similar manner. On the one hand, I appreciate being able to focus without distractions. On the other hand, I have extreme hatred for mosques that have dividers for the women constructed in such a way that does not allow me to see the interior of the building, or perhaps worse, is the equivalent of a tool shed. My ideal space is like a gurdwarah, where the genders are separate but side by side. I know a lot of people argue that more men tend to come to the mosque, therefore, they need more space. But I also wonder whether more women would come to the mosque if there was a comfortable space for them. This absolutely isn’t an issue at every mosque, but it’s enough of a problem that there is even a blog created–Side Entrance–that documents the various women’s mosque entrances and spaces across the world. If I don’t feel comfortable in a religious space, I simply don’t go there again. I don’t need to spend my time feeling angry rather than in peace.

#convert #revert #islam #muslim #catholic #conversion

1 note · View note

sammy24682468 · 6 years ago

Text

Righteousness is obedience to the law. The law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law

"“Righteousness is obedience to the law. The law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law; but he is incapable of rendering it. The only way in which he can attain to righteousness is through faith. By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of His Son to the sinner’s account. Christ’s righteousness is accepted in place of man’s failure, and God receives, pardons, justifies, the repentant, believing soul, treats him as though he were righteous, and loves him as He loves His Son.” —Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 367. How can you learn to accept this wonderful truth for yourself?