| While continuing to promote and defend Scientology, which is a global religious persecutor, the US has done nothing about the cult’s persecution of Caroline and me, and has not even acknowledged our request for help. For the US to be compelled by its own law to promote and defend a “religious” organization internationally, the only condition the IRFA puts on the nature of that organization’s religious “practices” is that they are “peaceful.” (See 22 USC 6401(a)(5), 6402(13)(A)(i).) If Philip Morris, the tobacco corporation, being a commercial enterprise, determined that it is religious, and that its cigarettes are religious artifacts and smoking is a sacrament, the US would be obliged to defend and promote the Church of Philip Morris® around the world. The Church’s religious artifacts and religious exercise might harm or shorten the lives of its practitioners, but smoking is peaceful, and even people’s deaths from smoking or lung cancer are peaceful. In fact, death from smoking necessarily eliminates any possibility of the diers dying unpeaceful deaths, which for CPM is an excellent religious marketing concept. The Church of Philip Morris, following religiously in Scientology’s precedential legal footsteps, would make Fair Game against its critics a core religious belief and practice. As with Scientology, CPM’s false advertising for its products and its way to happiness would of course be a protected, tax exempt activity; as would be the Church’s lying, trickery and litigation, and even destroying people, as long as it was some form of peaceful destruction. CPM members and their attorneys naturally would Black PR people who criticized the Church and its poisons as religious bigots or anti-religious extremists. Scientology, however, unlike the Church of Philip Morris, is not peaceful, even in its own unalterable scripture, and is not engaged in peaceful activities, but is, by scripture, at war. Scientology and Scientologists, moreover, are not at war with an unfortunate, or harmful, or threatening condition in the world; for example, a war on evil, or on poverty, on illiteracy, or on litter. Scientology is at war with real, live, decent, productive people with real, live families, friends, careers, etc. Scientology’s front groups. which make a big deal of confronting generalized phenomena or conditions in society, the wogs’ world — Applied Scholastics for illiteracy; Narconon for drugs; Criminon for criminality; Citizens Commission on Human Rights for psychiatry; etc. – all exist to cloak Scientology’s and Scientologists’ real, and antisocial, war, which is on real persons, live human beings that the Scientology head says are to be warred on. All persons that Scientology and Scientologists war on are in the religio-racial class invented and identified in Scientology scripture as “Suppressive Persons” or “SPs.” |
| Second, the programs are dishonest . It is a regular practice for government civil servants employed in population control programs to lie to their prospective targets for quota-meeting about the consequences of the operations that will be performed upon them. For example, Third World peasants are frequently told by government population control personnel that sterilization operations are reversible, when in fact they are not. Third, the programs are coercive . As a regular practice, population control programs provide “incentives” and/or “disincentives” to compel “acceptors” into accepting their “assistance.” Among the “incentives” frequently employed is the provision or denial of cash or food aid to starving people or their children. Among the “disincentives” employed are personal harassment, dismissal from employment, destruction of homes, and denial of schooling, public housing, or medical assistance to the recalcitrant. Fourth, the programs are medically irresponsible and negligent . As a regular practice, the programs use defective, unproven, unsafe, experimental, or unapproved gear, including equipment whose use has been banned outright in the United States. They also employ large numbers of inadequately trained personnel to perform potentially life-endangering operations, or to maintain medical equipment in a supposedly sterile or otherwise safe condition. In consequence, millions of people subjected to the ministrations of such irresponsibly run population control operations have been killed. This is particularly true in Africa, where improper reuse of hypodermic needles without sterilization in population control clinics has contributed to the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, including AIDS. Fifth, the programs are cruel, callous, and abusive of human dignity and human rights . A frequent practice is the sterilization of women without their knowledge or consent, typically while they are weakened in the aftermath of childbirth. This is tantamount to government-organized rape. Forced abortions are also typical. These and other human rights abuses of the population control campaign have been widely documented, with subject populations victimized in Australia, Bangladesh, China, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tibet, the United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam. |
| II. Божество Сына. Свт. Василий Великий утверждает единосущность Отца и Сына (Adv. Eunom. IV); Сын всегда совершенный, без поучения премудрый, Божия сила ( Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 8); Сын имеет славу, общую с Отцом (Ibid. 7); Он обладает совершенным могуществом, и воля Его неотделима от воли Отца (Ibid. 8), соединена и неразлучна с ней; не имея никакой разности по существу с Отцом, Он не имеет разности и по могуществу (ibidem). По свт. Григорию Богослову, Сын Божий безначален в отношении ко времени ( Greg. Nazianz. Or. 20); вечно рождаемый от Отца (Or. 29); истинный и равночестный Отцу (Ibidem); равный Ему по природе (Or. 30); слава Отца и присносущный Сын Его, Слово Божие, живая печать Отчая, во всем равный Отцу, сила и мысль Отца (Or. 29); Сын тождествен с Отцом по сущности, единосущный, чистая Печать и нелживейший образ Отца (Or. 30). Свт. Григорий Нисский сравнивает взаимоотношение Ипостасей в Боге с отношением слова и дыхания в человеке. Логос и Дух столь же необходимы, как речь и дыхание у человека. Тем не менее Они неотделимы от Божественной сущности, в к-рой существуют ( Greg. Nyss. Quod non sint tres dei). Для свт. Григория Богослова Бог есть прежде всего полнота, по естеству своему Он есть всякое благо, какое только можно объять мыслью; более того, Он выше всякого блага, и мыслимого и постигаемого, как выше Он красоты или доброты. Бог есть полнота и потому - блаженство. Совершенное единство внутрибожественной жизни выражается во вневременности Божественного бытия. Бог вечен по природе и выше всякой последовательности и разделения. Недостаточно сказать: Бог всегда был, есть и будет - лучше сказать: Он есть, ибо Он «сосредоточивает в Себе Самом целое бытие, которое не начиналось и не прекратится» ( Greg. Nazianz. Or. 38). Этим определяется совершенная сверхвременность троических отношений: Отца и Сына и Отца и Духа. Рождение Слова и исхождение Духа нужно мыслить прежде всякого «когда»: Отец не начинал быть Отцом, ибо бытие Его не начиналось. И потому Он в собственном смысле Отец, «что не есть вместе и Сын» (Or. 29). Сверхвременность и совечность Ипостасей не исключают зависимости между ними. Сын и Дух «безначальны в отношении ко времени» и «небезначальны в отношении к Виновнику» (Or. 25). В Троице ничто не возникает, ничто не становится, ибо Божество есть полнота, «бесконечное море сущности». «Какой Отец не начинал быть Отцом?» - спрашивает свт. Григорий Богослов. И отвечает: «Чье бытие не начиналось» (Or. 29). |
| It is this consensus which distinguishes Byzantine theology, taken as a whole, from the post-Augustinian and Scholastic West, and makes possible the attempt, which we undertake in the second part of our study, at a systematic presentation of Byzantine Christian thought. 2. A Living Tradition This presentation is rendered difficult, however, by the very character of Byzantine church life, as it is reflected in the theological literature. In the Byzantine period, as in the patristic, neither the councils nor the theologians show particular interest in positive theological systems. With a few exceptions, such as the Chalcedonian definition, the conciliar statements themselves assume a negative form; they condemn distortions of the Christian Truth, rather than elaborate its positive contentwhich is taken for granted as the living Tradition and as a wholesome Truth standing beyond and above doctrinal formulae. By far the greatest part of the theological literature is either exegetical or polemical, and in both cases the Christian faith is assumed as a given reality, upon which one comments, or which one defends, but which one does not try to formulate exhaustively. Even John of Damascus, sometimes referred to as the «Aquinas of the East» because he composed a systematic Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De fide orthodoxa), produced only a short textbook, not a theological system; if his thought lacks anything, it is precisely that original philosophic creativity which a new system would presuppose. The lack of concern for systematization, however, does not mean a lack of interest in the true content of the faith or an inability to produce exact theological definitions. On the contrary. No civilization has ever lived through more discussions on the adequacy, or inadequacy, of words reflecting religious truths. The homoousion as distinct from the homoiousion, «of two natures» or «in two natures»; two wills or one will; latreia of icons or proskynesis of images; the created or uncreated character of the divine «energies»; procession «from the Son» or " " through the Son " these were issues debated by Byzantine Christians for centuries. |
| Whether the deacon serves only a liturgical function, or as a full- or part-time minister within a diocese or parish, is largely a matter of need and training. Other types of deacon are protodeacon and archdeacon, both of which are classically supervisory roles over other deacons, but in practice indicate a bishop’s deacon or an honorary title. These offices are similar to those of archpriest, protopresbyter, archbishop, etc., wherein the classical definition has to do with leadership over others of the same rank, but practically speaking nowadays the title is frequently an honorific. Primary reasons for titles as honorifics stem from (1) the practice of the Russian Church, wherein Peter the Great made ecclesiastical rankings correspond exactly to civil service seniority rankings (disregarding their functional, ecclesial aspect) and (2) the desire to give titular honors. Although most agree that this “system of awards” needs to be reformed, the discipline to do so is not overabundant. Other “lower orders” of clergy include subdeacons and readers. Subdeacons are altar servers who are trained to assist at the pontifical (bishop’s) services. Readers or cantors chant and read the epistle and people’s parts of the services. All deacons, subdeacons, and readers are technically ranked among the laity, while bishops and priests are considered clergy. Before listing the ranks of monastic clergy, two items should be pointed out. First, unlike the Roman Catholic Church (after the Cluny Reform), the parochial clergy of the Orthodox Church are not usually celibate or monastic, but are married or “white” clergy. Orthodox bishops (after the Seventh Ecumenical Council) must be elected from among the monastic or “black” clergy. The matter of marriage or celibacy of clergy is thus disciplinary and not doctrinal. Second, monastic men and women who are not ordained are reckoned among the laity and not among the clergy. Ordained monastics have special titles: a hierodeacon is a monk-deacon; a hieromonk is a monk-priest; a hegumen is an abbot of a smaller religious community; while an archimandrite is abbot of a larger monastery. |
| In this context one can already see that any attempt to induce or hasten death for the primary purpose of ending pain and suffering (as distinct from the possible requirements of war or capital punishment) by any outside or artificial means, such as physician-assisted suicide, is not grounded in the traditional and ancient Christian way of seeing meaning and value in life’s afflictions. In fact, suicide (whether physician-assisted or not) is considered a symptom of despair—a deadly and soul-destroying sin—for such an act incorrectly assumes that joy or happiness are primarily the absence of suffering, and stands in stark contrast to St. Paul’s statement that we can be sorrowful, yet always rejoicing (2 Cor. 6: 10) and all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer (2 Tim. 3:12). However, in our secular culture the idea of joy or contentment in the midst of sorrow and affliction is becoming increasingly politically incorrect. The traditional Christian sees that if the dying process were without pain and discomfort, very few would opt for suicide or physician-assisted suicide. It is the avoidance of pain which has become the imperative today, even though a good deal of life and living is naturally accompanied by afflictions and suffering of all kinds, and cannot be avoided—and not just bodily pain, but emotional, mental, and spiritual, as well. Although the word euthanasia means “good death,” traditional Christians see this as a misnomer, for they have always defined death—when it is sought as an end in itself—as evil. According to Orthodox theology, man was originally created in order to live forever, and death, which came into the world by sin, is a violation of God's plan for man. Therefore, although one need not—as we see in the lives of the saints below—artificially attempt to extend the dying process, we may not ourselves hasten the cessation of life, either. “This holds equally true whether the decision for death is made by the person concerned or by his caregivers.” In the case of those confessors who actually sought martyrdom, their death, like that of the soldier fighting to stop the spread of Nazism or Communism, is not an end in itself, but in order to achieve a greater good—i.e., the spread of the faith, the end of tyranny, etc. The voluntary martyr, therefore, far from opening even a tentative door to physician-assisted suicide (even as the lesser of two evils, as some suggest it may actually be), presents us with someone quite different from the person who seeks death only in order to stop his own personal physical and mental suffering, and who may thereby be rejecting the providence of God in his life, a providence that encompasses many things, including purification and refinement of soul which, experience shows, comes to those who accept the suffering of their final illness. |
| Second, certainly there are times when a married couple may abstain for the sake of prayer, but as the scripture (and Elder Thaddeus) says, it must be by mutual agreement. Mutual agreement does not mean that one person makes the other feel guilty or dirty or sinful because he or she doesn’t want to abstain as much as the other—especially for prayer. Here, the weaker brother law applies. Just as monks would eat whatever is served them without asking questions so as not to offend their host, so a married person must serve his or her spouse. I am speaking here in regard to abstinence for prayer, not in terms of each person’s physical and psychological rhythms and their “natural” or regular patterns or “needs” which will change throughout their lifetime and according to a myriad of circumstances. These have to be worked out in love, self sacrifice and mutual care between the couple. Which brings me to the third and perhaps most important issue. There are many different pathways to holiness. Further, there are many different life situations people find themselves in. How any abstinence or ascetical practice might be applied in any given situation can vary greatly. In some marriages, where the relationship is strong and the sexual life is regular and mutually satisfying (forgive me for being explicit, but the topic requires it), then periods of abstinence by mutual agreement are not harmful (if indeed they are for prayer, and not merely because it is lent. There is a huge difference here. To fast without praying is very close to hypocrisy). However, many couples struggle in their relationship so that just maintaining regularity and affection is itself an ascetical discipline. Consider the example of a person who struggles with anorexia or bulimia or some similar eating disorder. Every day for this person is an ascetical struggle with food. Just to eat a normal healthy diet with regular meals and regular portions is already a huge ascetical struggle. Similarly, each married couple has to find what works for them, what actually promotes prayer and peace in their relationship, what actually helps them draw near to God. |
| THE PASSIONS OF THE SOUL: GROWING THROUGH SUFFERING Silence is the way we begin to notice what is happening inside and around us. However, progress in the movements of the heart takes toil and time. We do not change suddenly, magically becoming new people, our old faults forgotten. We can never run away from who we are ; we shall never escape temptations and passions: our temper, vanity, ambition, fear, envy, delusion, resentment or arrogance. In the spiritual classics of the early desert, knowing oneself means knowing one " s passions ; and knowing – at least, in the biblical sense – means loving. It implies being aware of one " s behaviour, and particularly one " s weaknesses. Indeed, in the ascetic tradition, there are two ways of understanding and responding to the passions. Sometimes, passions are perceived as negative; this derives from the Stoic concept of sins and vices, whereby these are regarded as a disorder or disease. Alternatively, passions may be perceived as positive; this conveys the Aristotelian understanding of sins or vices, whereby passions are considered neutral forces or natural impulses. According to the former view, passions are intrinsically evil; they are a pathological condition. The source of passions is the Devil ; passions must, therefore, be eradicated or eliminated. According to the latter view, passions are intrinsically objective; they are neither good nor evil, neither right nor wrong. The source of passions is God; passions, then, must be redirected or transfigured. Indeed, in the second of his Ascetic Discourses, in the fifth century, Abba Isaiah of Scetis claims that all passions – including anger, jealousy and even lust – are granted by God with a sacred purpose: namely, to reflect and reveal our «passionate» love for God and »compassion» for God " s creatures. 275 Our passions and problems cannot be denied or concealed; for, potentially, they are the very resources for spiritual renewal and revitalisation. When our passions are misdirected or distorted, the soul is divided; we are no longer whole or integrated. |
| Provides a SimpleCache (PSR-16) decorator for file fetchers GPL-2.0+ Small library defining a minimalistic caching interface and provides some basic implementations GPL-2.0-or-later Simple and minimalistic Geocoder interface with some basic implementations GeoJSON implementation for PHP Jeremy Mikola Find and report on slow tests in your PHPUnit test suite John Kary 5.2.12 A library to validate a json schema. Bruno Prieto Reis, Justin Rainbow, Igor Wiedler и Robert Schönthal 1.0.18 Statsd (Object Oriented) client library for PHP Giulio De Donato 1.11.0 Apache-2.0 MaxMind DB Reader API Apache-2.0 Internal MaxMind Web Service API Gregory Oschwald GPL-2.0-or-later A minimalistic http/curl request interface library 41.0.0 GPL-2.0-or-later MediaWiki CodeSniffer Standards 0.12.1 GPL-2.0-or-later Standard MediaWiki phan configuration MediaWiki developers GPL-3.0-or-later Removes executable bit from files that shouldn " t be executable Kunal Mehta GPL-2.0-or-later Adds a OOP and declarative parser hook interface on top of MediaWiki GPL-2.0-or-later A Phan plugin to do security checking Brian Wolff и Daimona Eaytoy Tolerant PHP-to-AST parser designed for IDE usage scenarios Rob Lourens Sends your logs to files, sockets, inboxes, databases and various web services 1.11.1 Create deep copies (clones) of your objects OSL-3.0 Map nested JSON structures onto PHP classes A basic but flexible php tree data structure and a fluent tree builder implementation. Nicolò Martini 4.16.0 BSD-3-Clause A PHP parser written in PHP Nikita Popov GPL-2.0+ A simple interface to manage schema-free temporal persistent key/values mwjames GPL-2.0+ A minimalistic cache adapter interface library GPL-2.0+ A very simple callback container/builder library GPL-2.0-or-later A minimalistic interface to relay generic events to registered listeners James Hong Kong GPL-2.0-or-later An interface to report and relay arbitrary messages to registered handlers 0.46.3 Provides library of common widgets, layouts, and windows. |
| The 1957 Homicide Act lasted for only seven years. The leading English judges, who had always been strong supporters of capital punishment (on the moralist grounds that the supreme crime merited the supreme penalty), now became abolitionists. They had been forced to impose or withhold the death penalty from individual murderers, without any regard for the particular moral deserts of an individual—for whose category of murder the sentence of death was mandatory, relative to those of an individual who could not be sentenced to death, because his or her category of murder was seen by Parliament as one where the theory of deterrence did not apply. Murder in the pursuit of theft or robbery was always subject to the death penalty, regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, whereas murder by a rapist or a thrill-seeker was not. Murder using a gun or explosion was capital; murder using a blunt instrument, a knife, or poison was not. The murder of a police officer or prison guard was capital; the murder of a child or old and frail person was not. The categories were reasonable and rational when viewed simply in terms of deterrence, but when capital punishment in Britain lost its moral underpinning, it ceased to be viable. Many of those who had already come to oppose capital punishment in Britain in the 1920s were Protestant Nonconformists who saw it as un-Christian. However, the Nonconformists’ support for abolition, in contrast with the support for capital punishment on the part of most Anglicans, reflected the ideological and institutional, as well as the theological, divisions between the two groups. The Anglicans, the upholders of the established Church of England, one of the hierarchies of the English state, had a corporate view of society and religion; the state could and should execute. The Protestant Nonconformists, by contrast, were not part of the establishment and saw themselves as outsiders; they tended to affiliate with the anti-establishment Liberal and Labour Parties. Those who were |
|
|
