Jesus often used the slave/master imagery in his parables and other teachings. He does not condemn this social institution of His day.
John's Gospel does not speak of the Jews in flattering ways and to some seems anti-Semitic.
Is Jesus going to be a target of radical left democrats and not just Jesus, but the Church He founded especially the Church's moral teachings on sexuality in general which implicitly opposes LGBTQ ideologies and women's ordination as well as same sex "marriages". And radical democrats see abortion as a human right, one of their sacraments. Will they destroy the Church over that?
21 comments:
While we are at it, may have to change the names of some of our churches/parishes, Catholic and otherwise. St. Peter? Why, he denied Christ three times---pretty serious blemish. St. Paul? Why, he persecuted the Church before his famous conversion on the road to Damascus. And as Father M. mentions in this column on our Lord, any parish with the name "Christ" may have to go too---like Cathedral of Christ the King here in Atlanta, And "Christ" is a popular name for Episcopal churches, like Christ Church of Savannah on Abercorn, the "mother church" of Georgia Anglicanism.
And at the political level, some Georgia counties are going to have to change, right? No Lee County outside of Albany (as in Robert E. Lee). Washington County (Sandersville), between Macon and Augusta at the upper border of the Diocese of Savannah? Well, we know Washington owned slaves. Jeff Davis County, along Highway 341 between Macon and Brunswick? Well, I think we know who he was. Columbia County, the northernmost county in the Diocese of Savannah (bordering Augusta-Richmond County)? Well, that of course was named for Christopher Columbus, whose statue has been toppled or defaced in several cities. Gotta go too! Georgia has 159 counties, more than any other state except Texas. Maybe we can name a county "Thou Shall Not Be Offended County", even though that would be a long name!
Could be!
I read where they want to take down a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Boston. You just can't make this stuff up.
Nancy Pelosi still has not denounced her father for erecting a statue of Robert E. Lee in Baltimore in 1948 while he was the mayor.
They started taking down Jesus statues in the 1960&70’s when groups demanded that Nativity Scenes be removed from town squares and public places. They took down the Ten Commandments from some public buildings, crucifix from others, prayer in schools were banned, they took Christ out of Christmas and turned Christmas Season into The Holiday Season. Through regulation they disbanded Catholic Schools. They took down the Saint Patrick Parade in NYC. They clandestinely took down the TLM. For years they degraded Pentecost Sunday with LBGTQ demanding Eucharist. IMHO they have been taking down Jesus Statues for decades.
Why do you think progressives are working so hard to change things?
They know the persecution is coming if the Church does not change its teachings, and know that had early Christians been more accomodating, they would have completely dodged the entire first 500yrs of sporadic savage persecution.
They also know if we shed this "western thing" today, we can dodge persecution in Asia and from Muslims...
All we have to do, is submit just like everyone else, and everyone will LIKE us.....and then we can be free to effectively proclaim our message, that God is a smiley face.
Of course, they miss entire that had early Christians offered that incense, put up that statue of Caesar, they would have been seamlessly absorbed into the empire as any of the other multitude of mystery religions, and disappeared just as utterly.
Bee here:
As if this is about statues, or monuments, or slavery, or police brutality, injustice, or even black lives for that matter...those things are just the lever. For it could just as well be about inequality to women in the workplace, living conditions of the homeless, people who don't feel okay about their "gender assignment," or even the selfishness and usurpation of resources by those living in rural areas vs. a city (I kid you not...this is coming).
Isn't the real goal the destruction of Western Civilization, and all the values it establishes and promotes? We have to see this for what it is at it's heart, as an attack by Marxist ideologues on our civilization -those who want very much to overthrow the United States and all Judeo-Christian based societies no matter what country, and take over the power and money. It doesn't matter what the issue is, the action is always to promote "revolution."
The big fat NO! by the majority in this country that is represented by support of President Trump gets ignored by the media, who represent the Left and support such an overthrow of our country. So this isn't about any current crises or issue, regardless of what anyone tries to say. It's a bigger agenda. Much, much bigger.
I keep praying God's will be done, because He knows what's best for us, and how to get to the good for all. That way I don't have to try to suggest solutions (even to Him) that are way above my pay grade... :-)
God bless.
Bee
Agencies of our government ought not favor one religion over another. A Nativity scene on the county courthouse lawn is a form of "favoring" and is not appropriate.
To get around that notion, government says, "Well, Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus are MERELY another "holiday" symbol, so if we erect candy canes and snowmen and reindeer and gingerbread houses, along with the creche there will be no favoring of Christian symbols. "YAY!" cheered the pro-creche crowd, we can have our symbols on the courthouse lawn!
The problem is, the Nativity scene is NOT just another "holiday" symbol. And if we, who are believers, give the meaning of our symbols over to the government, we have lost them. We've allowed them to be turned into secular tchotchke, having all the significance of gingerbread and fake snow.
Is that really what we want for our symbols?
Far better that every church that so desires erect a beautiful creche on their own front lawns, light them up tastefully (no inflatable Holy Families, please), and pipe Christmas carols through an outdoor sound system that the neighbors are OK with.
No "non-establishment" issues at all. The birth of the Messiah is still celebrated in the open, and, for those who want more than a "holiday" display, their desires are met.
Father M, you probably don't need the adjective "radical" in front of Democrats---a redundant term as almost all Democrats these days are pro-abortion---hardly any exceptions. In the US Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia the only exception I can think of. Used to be Georgia Democratic politicians were more conservative than their national counterparts, but not anymore. The era of moderate to conservative Democrats in this state like Joe Frank Harris, Zell Miller and Sam Nunn is over. The Democratic nominee for the David Perdue seat, Jon Ossoff, is pro-abortion, and the leading Democrat for the other Senate seat here in Georgia (the Kelly Loeffler) one---is pro-abortion, even though he is a minister. Imagine that, a man of the cloth endorsing abortion!
And after today's Supreme Court ruling that the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation, I don't want to hear any more Democratic complaints that Republicans are stacking the courts with "right-wing" extremists. Back in 1992, the Court upheld Roe v Wade---and 3 Republican appointments participated in doing so---Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter. A Republican majority court also gutted anti-sodomy laws and upheld the "right" to same-sex marriage. In not one of those instances was a majority of justices appointed by Democrats. The Democratic appointees since the 1990s have been reliably liberal votes on social issues---I mean, find me just one time when Breyer and Elena Kagan have upheld a pro-life measure--just one! The Republican apppointees? Well, a roll of the dice. And lest we not forget, the author of Roe in 1973 was Harry Blackmun, not appointed by liberal Lyndon Johnson, but rather by Richard Nixon.
Jesus and his teachings have always been a target for radical left Democrats. It's gotten worse as the world falls deeper into sin and more is brought into the light. 20 years ago you would never even dream of an LGBTQ group demanding to March in a Catholic parade. Now it's not enough that they demand to be included in the parade, but they must have the sin "recognized" by marching with their own "banner". Nothing less will be satisfactory for them. And they have the support of every radical left Democrat in NY.
“ A Nativity scene on the county courthouse lawn is a form of "favoring" and is not appropriate.” BUT THE LBGTQ RAINBOW FLAG is hung on a government flagpole in front of a government agency. That flag flying in government agencies is extremely common in some states. That isn’t favoritism?
We could use a return of Jesus to Earth now given how this nation is sinking into a moral abyss. Like on abortion. We hear a lot about "black lives matter", but it does not seem like many of the people who say that, or wear such t-shirts, really believe that. Lets look at abortion---in 2018, blacks (who account for about a third of Georgia's population) accounted for a disproportionately high 55 percent of all abortions in the state---and that is just of the abortions for which we know the race. Some 20 percent of abortions had no race reported, so we could be at stage in Georgia where maybe close to two-thirds of abortions in this state are performed on blacks. The black abortion rate in Georgia is far higher than the white rate.
Yet...I don't see any of these protesters stopping by the local Planned Parenthood Clinic to denounce such genocide. Gene, TJM, anyone out there claim to have heard lately prominent blacks denouncing Georgia's abortion rate? Probably not John Lewis, the veteran Atlanta congressman who votes pro-abortion every time, or almost so. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms? Martin Luther King the third? Andy Young? Stacey Abrams? The silence is deafening.
Hi anonymous 1:13
I have another word for that but it's not printable!ðŸ˜
Is LGBTQ a "religion"? No.
If the LGBTQ flag, which does not represent a religion, has to go, then so do the POW/MIA flags that fly at many governmental buildings. I, for one, would not be in favor of that.
Would you?
As for the decisions made today (and any day) by the SCOTUS, it should be remembered that the Court bases its decisions on the US Constitution, not on the Bible or any religious teachings.
Secular Humanism is as much a religion as Christianity. It has its sacraments of gay marriage and abortion. Toss in global warming too. The problem for us, is we have morally ill bishops and priests who de facto support this stuff.
But TJM, you need to catch up with the times! According to the liberals, the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document which "evolves" with the times. So it has no fixed meaning! I mean, lets admit it, when Congress---whether under Democratic or Republican control---considers legislation, they usually do not first ask, "is it constitutional." Take the talk for instance on whether to ban police "chokeholds". Well, police power is mainly in the hands of the state and local governments---especially the latter. The Constitution only mentions three crime---treason, piracy and counterfeiting---not "hate crimes", carjacking, etc.
Joseph Sobran stated years ago, "To any unbiased reader, the U.S. Constitution has a clear meaning. It specifies and limits the powers of the federal government. Yet we are supposed to believe that it has 'evolved' into a document that means nearly the opposite: that it allows the federal government to do nearly anything. If you point out to the average liberal that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to impose a compulsory national health care plan, he will say, 'Oh, but the Constitution is a living document! It has evolved with the times!"
Finally for now, lest we forget, John Roberts, the chief justice who sided with the liberals and Gorsuch on today's ruling, was the "swing vote" that ensured the survival of Obamacare--you know, the same Obamacare under which Little Sisters of the Poor are supposed to get contraceptive coverage. And Gorsuch may be more libertarian than conservative---and he is Episcopal. You don't expect much in the way of social conservatism from Episcopalians these days!
Uh..anonymous 3:05...
LGBTQ is aa group of people who desperately want attention and will go to any means possible to throw their sexuality in everyone's face. That includes flying a ridiculous rainbow flag.
Please don't even try and compare that to MIA/POW. There is NO comparison.
Yes I went there! It
Gripper -
I didn't compare LGBTQ to POW/MIA.
Read it again: "If the LGBTQ flag, which does not represent a religion, has to go, then so do the POW/MIA flags that fly at many governmental buildings. I, for one, would not be in favor of that."
I compared flying the LGBTQ flag to flying the POW/MIA flag.
Big difference.
I owe anonymous 3:05 an apology. I made it sound in my post that he/she was making a comparison of the 2 flags. Anon clearly stated they would not want to see the MIA/POW removed. And I clearly got agitated even thinking about comparing the 2 . anonymous 3:05 I apologize for my MIS characterization.
Having said that, I stand by everything else I said.
Here is an example of a statue of Jesus being taken down, or more correctly a statue of Jesus resurrected. Compare Rio de Juniero’s Statue of Christ the Redeemer by French sculptor Landowski to New York’s Statue of Liberty by French sculptor Burtholdi under the guidance of Lefebvre. The Statue of Liberty 1886, Christ the Redeemer 1922. To put the French concept of Liberty in context, here is the blurb from Wikipedia:
“By the time of the French Revolution the modern type of imagery was well-established, and the French figure acquired the name of Marianne from 1792. Unlike her predecessors, she normally wore the cap of Liberty on her head, rather than carrying it on a pole or lance. In 1793 the Notre Dame de Paris cathedral was turned into a "Temple of Reason" and, for a brief time, the Goddess of Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars.”
No one is suggesting taking down religious statues so why are we discussing this.
Let’s discuss whether or which civil statues should be removed from public environments - where do you draw the line?
They'll tear down statues of MLK Jr. and William Wilberforce.
Will they also get around to tearing down statues of Jesus?
Uh, YES, OBVIOUSLY.
Next question?
Shaun King, see what this guy said. Yes, actually, a BLM activist and maybe better described as leader has talked of taking down religious statues, calling them symbols of white supremacy.
Post a Comment