| A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product. " Installation Information " for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network. Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying. |
| Monarchy is an icon of Christ. No other form of government images this: “God has placed a king on earth in the image of His Heavenly single rule, an autocratic king in the image of His almighty power, an autocratic king and a hereditary king in the image of His Kingdom that does not pass away.”—Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow In summary, here are just a few of the reasons, from both a consideration of political theory and practical application, that monarchy is a more moral, stable, and overall better and ontologically higher form of government than any other system. I will not delve into the debate of whether or not absolute or autocratic monarchy is preferable to constitutional monarchy, but I will simply observe that, whether or not a monarchy exists constitutionally within a democratic political framework, its existence is still of great benefit to the broader political society and culture. 1) Monarchy’s intrinsic end or aim is ontologically higher than the intrinsic end or aim of any other type of political authority. The underlying purpose of monarchy is the rendering to God by each monarch of a successful stewardship on behalf of his or her people. Each monarch is only a temporary steward, but he must give an eternal account of his or her stewardship to the King of Kings. This stewardship is best carried out by the monarch’s zealous maintenance of peace and good order, and therefore, the general protection of liberties and freedoms conducive to that peace and order. An elected leader who abuses his or her authority and violates the constitution he or she has sworn to defend understands himself or herself to face only earthly consequences (possible impeachment, criminal conviction, removal from office, enduring unpopularity, etc.). A monarch on the other hand understands himself or herself to be fundamentally accountable to God for how he or she discharges the duties of his or her office. 2) Monarchy is the most natural form of government known to mankind, and the most widely practiced form of political authority throughout human history. The fact that monarchies still exist today after thousands of years and numerous political revolutions is remarkable in and of itself, and all the more so given that most monarchies in the world today are seen as highly legitimate by most of their populations. History is replete with examples of bad monarchs and good monarchs, as well as bad presidents and good ones, yet the presidential and prime ministerial systems of government are, at most, three hundred years old in any part of the world, and in most countries, far more recent introductions. |
| Thus, when we speak of the crisis of culture, we usually imply a dis-integration in one of these two different, if related, systems, or rather in both of them. It may happen that some of the accepted or alleged values are discredited and compromised, i.e. cease to function and no longer appeal to men. Or, again, it happens sometimes that «civilized man» themselves degenerate or even disappear altogether, that cultural habits become unstable, and men lose interest in or concern for these habits, or are simply tired of them. Then an urge for «primitivism» may emerge, if still within the framework of a lingering civilization. A civilization declines when that creative impulse which originally brought it into existence loses its power and spontaneity. Then the question arises, whether «culture» is relevant to the fulfilment of man’s personality, or is no more than an external garb which may be needed on occasions, but which does not organically belong to the essence of human existence. It obviously does not belong to human nature, and we normally clearly distinguish between «nature» and «culture,» implying that «culture» is man’s «artificial» creation which he superimposes on «nature,» although it seems that in fact we do not know human nature apart from culture, from some kind of culture at least. It may be contended that «culture» is not actually «artificial,» that it is rather an extension of human nature, an extension by which human nature achieves its maturity and completion, so that an «under-cultural» existence is in fact a «sub-human» mode of existence. Is it not true that a «civilized» man is more human than a «primitive» or «natural» man? It is precisely at this point that our major difficulty sets in. It may be perfectly true, as I personally believe is the case, that our contemporary culture or civilization is «on trial.» But should Christians, as Christians, be concerned with this cultural crisis at all? If it is true, as we have just admitted, that the collapse or decline of culture is rooted in the loss of faith, in an «apostasy» or «retreat,» should not Christians be concerned, primarily if not exclusively, with the reconstruction of belief or a reconversion of the world, and not with the salvaging of a sinking civilization? If we are really passing in our days an «apocalyptic» test, should we not concentrate all our efforts on Evangelism, on the proclamation of the Gospel to an oblivious generation, on the preaching of penitence and conversion? The main question seems to be, whether the crisis can be resolved if we simply oppose to an outworn and disrupted civilization a new one, or whether, in order to overcome the crisis, we must go beyond civilization, to the very roots of human existence. |
| Such a formula which could hold valid not only for the region of Kosovo and Metohija but, mutatis mutandis, for every other region where there is or could be instigated some similar crisis. In their wishes and activities to help on the way of procuring a solution which brings peace, security, freedom and justice for all nations in Kosovo and Metohija, or somewhere else, the Churches, of course, will decide neither for the official standpoints of the governments of Yugoslavia and Serbia, nor for the standpoints of Albanian parties and organizations in Kosovo and Metohija, nor for the stand- points of the NATO alliance and European Union, but for an approach grounded on ageless and irreplaceable principles of Gospel anthropology and ethics. These principles take their point of departure from each human being as a supreme value: from such a being which is capable of love and worthy to be loved. We must not perceive our neighbor, particularly the one who suffers, either as Jew or Samaritan, or as Turk or Gypsy, or as Christian or Muslim, or as believer or non-believer. We should regard him as our brother or, in a more biblical spirit, as Christ Himself, the First and Greatest amongst ‘merciful Samaritans’: secretly present in every hungry, thirsty, naked, wounded, sick and endangered human being: Him who in his enemy embraces his neighbor, and in the heart of an officer of occupation (as the enemy of his people, foreigner by faith and language) is able to discern such faith which is not found in Israel, in his own people… By being understood in their existential dependency from this anthropological-ethical vision, the international juridical norms (related to human, civic arid national rights, and to the entire international interstate order) gain wider dimensions and more profound meaning. By the same token, there comes a reduced danger of their political instrumentalization or ideological misuse. And that, sadly, is still a common occurrence. I am personally convinced that, in this matter, an all-Christian and all-European consensus (not a political, but an existential, essential consensus) is wholly possible. And that, aided by certain spiritual efforts, we are not far from it. It is, probably, of least importance whether we shall name it as pluralism or open society, or some other term. |
| Enn. V 1; Porphyr. Sent. 30). Вдохновленное Н. представление о взаимоотношении Лиц Св. Троицы разрабатывалось представителями Каппадокийской школы, сформулировавшими каноническую версию правосл. тринитарного учения (см.: Zachhuber. 2001. P. 66-68). Не исключено, что в целом концепция Бога как троичной Единицы или единой Троицы осмыслялась в каппадокийском богословии под влиянием учения об умопостигаемой триаде, к-рое было разработано Порфирием и Ямвлихом с опорой на «Халдейские оракулы» (см.: Lilla. 2005; Морескини. 2011. С. 620-624). Триадологические схемы Мария Викторина, блж. Августина и свт. Григория Богослова, выражающие отношения Отца, Сына и Св. Духа посредством триад «бытие - жизнь - ум» или «пребывание - исхождение - возвращение», свидетельствуют о прямой рецепции ими неоплатонического учения об умопостигаемой триаде (см.: Mar. Vict. Adv. Ar. I 49-50, 52, 63; Aug. De ver. rel. 31. 57; Idem. Confess. XIII 11. 12; Idem. De civ. Dei. XI 26-28; Greg. Nazianz. Or. 23. 7; 29. 2; подробнее см.: Фокин. 2007. С. 72-76, 95-103). Описание Св. Духа у свт. Василия Великого во многом совпадает с описанием Души у Плотина, влияние которого в данной области подтверждается наличием цитат из «Эннеад» в трактате «О Святом Духе» (сопоставление и анализ см.: Henry. 1938; Dehnhard. 1964). Важные параллели с неоплатонической онтологией обнаруживаются в христ. концепции тварного бытия; частично они объясняются общей ориентацией на платоническое противопоставление вечного идеального бытия, к-рое в христианстве отождествляется с Богом, и тварного мира. Согласно христ. теологам, творение, созданное Богом из ничего (μ ν), неизбежно является изменчивым и тленным; оно сохраняет существование лишь до тех пор, пока его поддерживает воля Творца (см.: Orig. De princip. II 9. 2; Iren. Adv. haer. II 34. 2-3; Athanas. Alex. Or. contr. gent. 41; Idem. Or. contr. arian. I 58; Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. I 3). Это представление совпадает с базовой для платонизма и Н. дихотомией подлинного бытия и становления, в соответствии с к-рой бытие чувственно воспринимаемого космоса расценивается как несамостоятельное, полностью зависящее от присутствия в нем умопостигаемых форм и постоянно обращенное к вышестоящим причинам. |
| 365 В западной литературе подробно рассмотрено обетование прародителям у Генгетенберга: Christologie d. Alt Testam. В. I., а равно и во всех упомянутых сочинениях. 367 Автор записок на Книгу Бытия, Преосвящ. Филарет, говорит об этом так: „К изъяснению сих слов пролагает путь перевод LXX толковников: «αυτς σου τηρησει κεφαλν». Слово αυτς – он, несогласное со словом σπρμα, семя, показывает, что переводчик имел в мыслях не столько слово: семя, довольно неопределенное в своем знаменовании, сколько главный предмет, в настоящем случае, им означаемый; и что семя жены принимал он за одно лице“. Записк. на Книг. Быт., ч. I, стр. 108. Таргумы Онкелоса и Ионафана также дают этому месту мессианский смысл (Смотр. у Преосв. Макария: „Введение в Правосл. Богослов.“ Стр. 146 и 147 по изд. 1847г.). 368 Смотр. у Св. Иринея: Contr. Наег. Lib. V, cap. XXI. n. 1; у Св. Киприана: Testim. adv. Iudaeos ad Qvirinum, с. IX и др. 369 Смотр. у Геттингера: Апология христианства и у Неймана: Geschichme d. Messian. Weissagung in alt. Testam. S. 19. 370 Кроме упомянутых выше общих руководств к объяснению обетований и пророчеств, можно указать на статью: „ Изъяснение Ноева пророчества о будущей судьбе потомства его“ (Христиан. чт. 1839г.). 371 Блажен. Феодорит: Толков. на Быт. отв. на вопрос 59, стр. 59. Ефрем Сир.: Толков. на кн. Быт. Твор. Св. отц. Т. XXII, стр. 323. 372 Объяснение обетований патриархам Аврааму, Исааку и Иакову дается только указанными выше общими сочинениями. 373 Св. Иустин Филос. Dialog сит Тгурн. Св. Ириней: Contr. Haeres. Lib V. С. XXXII, n. 2. Св. Киприан: „Tesmimoniorum“. Lib. 1. С. XXI. 374 Кроме указанных выше общих сочинений об обетованиях и пророчествах, можно указать на небольшую статью в Христиан. чтен. „ Пророчество Иакова, касающееся его сынов и в особенности Иуды“ (1830г. XXXIX, 161). 375 О толковании преданием иудейским свидетельствуют: Таргум Онкелоса, Таргум Ионафана и Талмуд Вавилонский (Смотр. у Лаврова: „Обетования и пророчества о Христе в Пятикнижии Моисеевом“). Из Отцов церкви так понимали и объясняли: Иустин Мученик (Dialog. cum Tryph.). Св. Ириней (Соптг. Наег. Lib. IV, c. 10). Ефрем Сирин (Толков. на кн. Быт. Твор. Св. отц. Т. стр. 393) Св. Златоуст (Contr. Jud et gent. quod Christus sit Deus. Opp. T. I, p. 561). |
| He had, he said, enjoyed freedom of speech throughout his professional life, and had no concerns that he would be arrested for insulting someone. His concern, he said is “more for those more vulnerable because of their lower profile.” Under the law’s current wording, anything could be interpreted subjectively as “insult,” he said. Criticism, ridicule, and sarcasm, any unfavorable comparison, or “merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy can be interpreted as insult.” He cited “ludicrous” cases of abuse as a student in Oxford arrested for calling a police horse “gay”; a Christian café owner threatened with arrest for displaying Bible passages on a television screen in his business; and a teenager arrested for holding a placard calling the Church of Scientology a “dangerous cult.” British humor is self-deprecating and outrageous, often rude, and frequently revolves around mocking the stupidity, shortsightedness and banality that plagues humanity in every walk of life. Without the freedom to insult both individuals and groups, including homosexuals, Atkinson has warned, those great traditions of freedom of mockery will die out and give way to a “culture of censoriousness.” In Britain, “harassment,” or causing someone “alarm or distress,” is a statutory offense, but the many critics of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 have warned that it is a law designed to be abused, with the determination of the offense resting on the subjective feelings of the putative victim. The key, they say, is in the wording: “A person is guilty of an offense if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.” Atkinson could also have mentioned that Section 5 charges are increasingly being levied by police against conservative Christians who object either to the homosexual lifestyle or to the government’s plans to institute “gay marriage.” Christian groups have complained that it is being used specifically to suppress any public opposition to the sexual zeitgeist, particularly the homosexualist movement. Several Christian street preachers have been arrested for citing Biblical passages condemning homosexual activity. |
| But in the contemporary world there are also other states--and they are probably the majority--which proclaim the principle of separation of Church and state. In the constitution of the Russian Federation this principle is formulated in the fourteenth article: “No religion can be established as the state or mandatory religion. Religious assemblies are separate from the state and equal before the law.” The Russian Empire, by the way, also had no one religion that was mandatory for all citizens. Orthodox citizen during the imperial era could not legally apostatize from the Orthodox Church, and Christians of all confessions did not have the right to apostatize from Christianity; the conversion of the Orthodox to a heterodox confession, or of any Christian to Judaism, Islam, or paganism was punishable by law, and converts were held responsible for their action. However, although people of other religions or confessions had the right to become Orthodox, no one was ever forced to do so, and all religions recognized by the state enjoyed protection by the law. As for the separation of religious assemblies from the state—that statement in the current Russian Constitution should not be subjected to a broad interpretation. It means only that the parishes, monasteries, synodal departments, and theological seminaries are not governmental organs or government institutions similar to state ministries, police departments, or military bases. This constitutional statement has no bearing upon, for example, the possibility of teaching religion in school as an elective course or otherwise. It is well known that although in certain countries that uphold the principle of separation, like the United States or France, religion is not taught in public schools; but other countries, where there is also no state Church, such as in Austria or Poland, religious education is provided in public schools. The constitutional right to confess a religion or to confess no religion, the right to “the freedom to choose, have, and disseminate religious and other convictions and freely disseminate corresponding views,” guaranteed by article 28 of the Constitution, cannot be equated with the right to conduct militant atheist propaganda in the impudent and rowdy style of Yaroslavsky [vi] or Demyan Bedny [vii] , or the right to offend the religious sensibilities of the faithful, as these defenders of home-grown products so desperately insist. |
| The presence of ‘Synoptic-sounding materials’ or ‘Johannine-sounding materials’ in an ancient writer does not necessarily denote that writer’s knowledge of the Synoptic or Johannine Gospels. Ancient Mediterranean culture was an oral culture, very much given to storytelling, memorization, and oral performances of every kind. People were more apt to reproduce words, sayings, and narratives from memory (accurately or not) than we are today, who are trained not to trust to our memories but to go to our books to check for accurate and contextual use. But recognizing ancient culture as an ‘oral culture’ cuts both ways. On the one hand, people might be more prone to reproduce from memory what they had heard and not read in a book. On the other hand, people used to the oral retelling of stories, each time with certain nuances of change, would feel less inhibited about ‘retelling’ or ‘rewriting’ with minor modifications even what they had read, or heard someone else read, in a book. This is well noted by John Barton: The often inaccurate quotations in the Fathers, it is argued, show that they were drawing on ‘synoptic tradition’ but not actually on the Synoptic Gospels. Such a theory cannot be ruled out absolutely, but it is not the only or, probably, the best explanation for loose quotation. We should remember instead how loose are quotations from the Old Testament in many patristic texts, even though the Old Testament was unquestionably already fixed in writing. The explanation is to be found not in oral transmission in the strict sense, but in the oral use of texts which were already available in written form. 251 Even quite literate and literary persons might readily reproduce from memory rather than look something up. Not only this, but recent studies have shown that ancient authors, when quoting or alluding, were also more likely to change intentionally the wording 252 of a source than we are, who fear being caught misquoting. Quotation standards, or better, methods of borrowing pre-existing material, in the early second century were not so strict as they are today, even when borrowing sacred materials (as Barton noted above). Unless there was a particular reason for quoting verbatim, as when you expected an opponent to check your citation, or when you were expounding particular words in a sermon or commentary, the rather more cumbersome practice of quoting precisely from open books was often deemed unnecessary. It was sometimes even seen as more sophisticated and less boorish to one’s informed reader to adapt the words of one’s source rather than repeat them verbatim. The typical style of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and others mentioned in this chapter, for instance, very often was not to quote, in our sense of the word, but to work the words or phrases of their sources (which their readers were assumed to know) into their own statements, or to mix sources together. |
| Why the Cults? The Waco horrors [a fatal assault by U. S. Agents on the Branch Davidians, a heavily-armed apocalyptic cult, in February, 1993] remind us that millions of Americans of Christian background have left mainstream Christian Churches for non-Christian or pseudo-Christian religious movements. Some have gone to other world religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism, or American imitations of these. Others have embraced one of several large religious movements founded here in America, such as the Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists or Jehovah " s Witnesses. Archpriest Paul Yerger 24 March 2009 Source and copyright: Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church The Waco horrors [a fatal assault by U. S. Agents on the Branch Davidians, a heavily-armed apocalyptic cult, in February, 1993] remind us that millions of Americans of Christian background have left mainstream Christian Churches for non-Christian or pseudo-Christian religious movements. Some have gone to other world religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism, or American imitations of these. Others have embraced one of several large religious movements founded here in America, such as the Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Still others are involved to various extents in a vast number of movements or experiences which have been called “New Age.” All these movements, while outwardly quite diverse, have a lot in common, and are certainly not new. They bear much resemblance to what was called Gnosticism in the early Christian world. A detailed analysis of them is beyond the scope of this article, but certainly they are not Christian as Orthodox, (or Roman Catholics or Protestants) have understood the term. It is confusing or even deceitful that many of these movements use Christian terms like “Christ,” “Holy Spirit,” “salvation,” etc. to mean things completely different from what these things mean in historic Christianity. The god they speak of is not the ‘One God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible’ as spoken of in the Creed. He is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who led Israel out of Egypt. Furthermore, Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, is not the center of these movements. For them He is not the unique Son of God become man, and His Cross and Resurrection is not the unique object of their faith. |
|
|
