| 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. |
| The issue of “Orientation” During the 1950s and 1960s four scientific reports were published on human sexuality following research in the United States of America Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female by Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others and published by Saunders. Human Sexual Response (1960) and Human Sexual Inadequacy (1970), by William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson. These not only told us a great deal more about the sexual activities of men and women but they also presented them in a way that claimed to be scientific and therefore “true”. Subsequently the methodology of the experiments behind these reports has been challenged and much of the detail is now considered unsound but many of the broad ideas have been accepted by the general population, though there is not the same acceptance from the sociological, psychological and gynaecological disciplines from which they originated. One of the most important concepts that are now widely accepted is that of “Orientation”. The point here is that the sexuality of a given man or woman’s sexuality is conditioned by factors, often considered beyond their control, which determines them to a particular kind of sexual activity, heterosexual (meaning sexual activity with the opposite sex), homosexual or bisexual (meaning that the person will indulge in sexual activities with any sex, their own or the opposite). Exactly when this “orientation” will be determined depends on the authority. Some suggest that it is genetic, determined in the home or determined as a matter of choice or even as a result of abuse. It is important to point out however that with the scientific community this concept of “orientation” is by no means fully understood, nor indeed accepted. It has been suggested for instance that “orientation” may change during a person’s So, for instance, the American Psychological Association in their Encyclopaedia of Psychology state:- “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality – is determined by any particular factor or factors. The evaluation of amici is that, although some of this research may be promising in facilitating greater understanding of the development of sexual orientation, it does not permit a conclusion based in sound science at the present time as to the cause or causes of sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. (Vol 7, p And further “Currently [as of “September 26, 2007”], there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation”. |
| The atheistic scientific approach denies a priori the existence of anything other than the Cosmos, (or in the “Many Worlds” hypothesis, the Multiverse), in this case, God. Under this view, creation makes itself, there being no extrinsic or for that matter intrinsic divine agent to bring it into being. However, such spontaneous creation is never actually explained in such theories without some sort of precursor. Two favoured current theories either involve a quantum irregularity in the substrate vacuum which super-inflated like a bubble in a boiling pan of milk or the collision of two higher dimensional sheets or branes which triggered the Big Bang in the energy of their collision. None of this solves the puzzle as to why there should be a bubbling quantum foam or a system of colliding branes in the first place. The precursor may be necessary and true, but whatever “it” is, it is not nothing or non-being. The search for a First Cause or an Origin only ceases if a beginning is considered unnecessary, and then one is stuck with the brute fact of an eternal, infinitely regressive universe. Whether or not the Universe is eternal still ignores the favourite old elephant in the corner. This is his question:- “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Science is not equipped to answer “why” questions such as this, whereas such unfathomable existential issues are “food and drink” to the philosopher and the theologian. The hubris of an all-inclusive positivism for atheist scientists enables them to claim scientifically that no such theological answers can exist in principle. That is to step beyond the boundary of empirical science itself into belief, in this case the belief we call “unbelief.” It must be recognised that there are questions and answers in life that do not submit to the scientific method because they deal with references that are by definition not measurable. Measuring my heartbeat alone will not reveal whether or not I am in love. The great 19th Century theologian, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, described the conundrum of existence from a religious point of view. He describes either the terror or beauty of our existence very succinctly. The choice is stark and uncompromising: the void or God? |
| Небесное Царство, к-рого удостоятся праведники после всеобщего воскресения, представляется Г. Б. прежде всего царством света, где люди, избавившись от превратностей земной жизни, будут ликовать, «как малые светы вокруг великого Света» (Or. 18. 42). Уделом праведников будет «несказанный свет и созерцание Святой и Царственной Троицы ( τς γας κα βασιλικς θεωρα Τριδος), сияющей более ясно и чисто и всецело соединяющейся со всецелым умом» (Or. 16. 9). Это то царство, «где жилище всех веселящихся и поющих непрерывную песнь, где голос празднующих и голос радости, где совершеннейшее и чистейшее озарение Божества, которое ныне мы принимаем лишь в загадках и тенях» (Or. 24. 19). В Царстве Небесном есть «разные обители», к к-рым ведут разные роды жизни, но «один путь - через добродетель» (Or. 27. 8). В этом Царстве происходит окончательное воссоединение человека с Богом, приобщение Божественному свету, восстановление и обожение всецелого человеческого естества. Экзегетический метод Хотя ни одного систематического толкования Г. Б. на какую-л. книгу Свящ. Писания не известно, его творения насыщены библейскими цитатами и примерами их толкования (см.: Gallay P. La Bible dans l " œuvre de Grégoire de Nazianze le Théologien//Le monde grec ancien et la Bible/Ed. C. Mondésert. P., 1984. P. 313-334; Demoen K. Pagan and Biblical Exempla in Gregory Nazianzen: A Study in Rhetoric and Hermeneutics. Turnhout, 1996. (CC Lingua Patrum; 2); Norris Fr. W. Gregory Nazianzen: Constructing and Constructed by Scripture/Ed. P. Blowers. Notre Dame (Ind.)//The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity Notre Dame, 1997. P. 149-162). В основном экзегеза Г. Б. имеет целью решение конкретных богословских задач. Так, полемизируя с еретиками, Г. Б. доказывает, что правосл. учение о Св. Духе имеет свое основание в Библии (Or. 31. 29-30). Богословствовать, по его мнению, возможно только о том, что открыто в Свящ. Писании (Or. 42. 18). В неявном виде в произведениях Г. Б. содержится учение о 4 смыслах Свящ. Писания: «Из именуемого - иного нет, но сказано в Писании; другое есть, но не сказано; а иного нет и не сказано; другое же есть и сказано» (Or. 31. 22). В толковании библейских текстов Г. Б. призывает не предаваться иудейской мудрости, «гоняясь за слогами и оставляя вещь» (Ibid. 24), но «сквозь букву проникать во внутреннее» (Ibid. 22). Хотя святитель часто прибегает к приему аллегории (Or. 20. 4; Or. 21. 29; Or. 28. 2; 43. 71, 72, 75; 45. 23), его экзегетический метод нельзя представить как систематический аллегоризм в духе александрийской школы. При толковании Свящ. Писания он часто апеллирует к здравому смыслу (Or. 31. 21-24). Риторическое образование Г. Б. проявляется в регулярном использовании им филологического анализа текста Свящ. Писания. Влияние |
| Here, of course, the point regarding music is intensified. All these texts, and numerous others, are written and appointed by tradition to be sung, not recited, in worship. Speech is an essential element of the everyday; without denying its obvious value and potential for eloquence, it is nevertheless routine and quintessentially utilitarian — there is nothing unique or attention grabbing about normal daily speech. Even if the poetic structure of a liturgical text is shaped with a brilliant use of imagery and metaphor, to speak it, in the eyes of tradition, is to give the aural impression that the text is common or ordinary. And the same text is perhaps only slightly enhanced if it is read instead by someone with an attractive resonant voice. Yet, text set to music is an undeniably elevated form of expression — arguably the highest form of textual expression in fact. To sing rather than speak sacred text emphasizes that the realm of the liturgical is an unmistakably special place which yields a heightened experience, never mundane or commonplace. As well, singing, better than speech, engages a collection of individuals and unifies them into the heightened activity of producing melody and rhythm to sacred words. This is why the early Byzantine church emphasized congregational participation in responsorial psalmody. There is a collective momentum and energy in singing, precisely because of pitch and rhythmic organization, that lacks in spoken group recitation. In fact, when a group speaks a text together, the words most often become heavy and stilted i.e. artificially dignified or pompous even, the phrasing becomes contrived, and nuance caves into the blandness of solemn oath-like recitation. In singing, however, text is enlivened by melody and pulse, ensuring flow and direction, thus arguably engaging the senses more fully. In fact, whether the faithful are actually singing sacred text or listening to the words and music produced by the cantors or choir, those gathered should be drawn into the text being sung — into its theme and essence, and the music should likewise direct the faithful to the sacred liturgical event taking place or about to take place. If, on the other hand, music or singing muddies the text, or in some way distracts from liturgy, commanding attention to itself and away from worship, then it fails to fulfill its purpose or liturgical raison d’kmre. One could say, in the end, that it becomes in these instances nothing more than religious entertainment. Thus, sadly, the failure to take the broadest level of liturgical consideration into account first and foremost while examining the actual music tempts clergy, scholars, church musicians, and parishioners alike to focus on the purely musical aspects of liturgical music to the detriment and sometimes complete ignorance of the liturgical aspects. |
| В 362-363 гг. Л. сблизился с имп. Юлианом Отступником, который прибыл в Антиохию для подготовки к персид. походу. Юлиан и раньше восхищался сочинениями Л., однако имп. Констанций, отправляя его в Никомидию, запретил ему посещать школу язычника Л. ( Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. III 1. 13-15). Л. была предложена должность квестора, от которой он отказался. В годы правления Юлиана Л. составил речь о консульстве Юлиана (Or. 12), приветственную речь, обращенную к Юлиану (Or. 13), и речь в защиту бывш. ученика Аристофана, занимавшего гос. должность и принужденного судом выплатить штраф (Or. 14). Л. защищал антиохийскую курию в конфликте с Юлианом (Or. 13, 15, 16). Феодорит Кирский упоминал Л. в связи с легендой о том, как некий учитель-христианин предсказал гибель императора ( Theodoret. Hist. eccl. III 23). После смерти Юлиана Л. произнес неск. речей в его память, восторженно оценив личность императора и его деятельность (Or. 17, 18, 24). От времени правления имп. Валента речей Л. не сохранилось. Это был тяжелый период для Л., т. к. его обвиняли в поддержке узурпатора Прокопия и в занятиях колдовством. С имп. Феодосием I у Л. сложились добрые отношения. В 383 г. он получил почетную должность префекта претория. Между 384 и 390 гг. Л. произносил в основном полемические речи против некоторых комитов Востока и консуляров Сирии, а также речи, посвященные общественным злоупотреблениям (Or. 26-29). Л. принадлежат 64 речи на разные темы. В них рассматриваются вопросы образования (Or. 2 - «К тем, кто назвали его несносным»; Or. 3 - «К юношам, о слове»; Or. 34 - «В ответ на попреки педагога»; Or. 35 - «К тем, кто не произносят речей»; Or. 43 - «О договоренностях»; Or. 58 - «К юношам, о ковре»), пороки и злоупотребления в Антиохии (Or. 8 - «О бедности»; Or. 10 - «О плефре»; Or. 42 - «За Фалассия» (протест против исключения из сената друга Л.); Or. 62 - «Против тех, которые издевались над ним за его преподавание»; Or. 63 - «За Олимпия»), нравственные вопросы (Or. 5 - «Артемида»; Or. 6 - «О ненасытности»; Or. 7 - «О том, что быть неправо богатым жалостливее бедности»; Or. 25 - «О рабстве»; Or. 64 - «К Аристиду за плясунов» (речь в защиту мимов)). Помимо речей Л. принадлежит 51 декламация (вымышленные речи на исторический или мифологический сюжет, напр. «Апология Сократа», «Речь, обращенная к Одиссею на берегу»); биография Демосфена и эпитомы его речей; прогимнасмы (краткие изложения мифов). Кроме того, сохранился обширный корпус писем Л., включающий 1544 аутентичных послания (прошения, рекомендации, дружеские письма), которые относятся либо к 355-365, либо к 388-393 гг.; послания 365-388 гг. не сохранились ( van Hoof. Self-Censorship. 2014). Известны также 9 псевдоэпиграфических писем, опубликованных в трудах Л. |
| 1. Match the words on the left to their definitions on the right. 1 to regard something as something to happen or be present in a particular situation or place to publish to divide or split into different parts to exclude to think about someone or something in a particular way to separate to make an attempt or effort to do something to deliberately not include something to exist to prepare and issue (a book, journal, or piece of music) for public sale an explanation demanding that rules concerning behaviour are obeyed and observed strict the state of being legally or officially binding or acceptable validity unable to be separated or treated separately discipline based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions a regulation an official rule made by a government or organization subjective an effort to achieve or complete a difficult task or action inseparable a statement or account that makes something clear an attempt a system or method for the maintenance of order; a system of rules for conduct 2. Match each word with a synonym. 1 to divorce to treat something as something to regard something as something to fall into error to possess to form to keep to separate to make up to preserve to fall into mistake to have a mistake because devotion unchanging primary an error unalterable main/chief/key 3. Match each English word or phrase with a Russian equivalent. Verbs 1 to deal with претендовать, заявлять, утверждать to regard something as something применить что-либо к чему-либо to claim формировать, образовывать to apply something to something иметь дело, рассматривать to form открывать что-либо кому-либо to reveal something to somebody рассматривать что-либо как что-либо to reflect составлять, быть частью to prepare somebody for something вступать, вникать, разделять to make up вырождаться в, перерастать в to contrast хранить, сохранять to enter into принадлежать to divorce something from something готовить кого-либо к чему-либо to degenerate into отражать |
|
|
