вторник, января 13, 2009
What then is the virtue of a horse? is it to have a bridle studded with gold and girths to match, and a band of silken threads to fasten the housing, and clothes wrought in divers colours and gold tissue, and head gear studded with jewels, and locks of hair plaited with gold cord? or is it to be swift and strong in its legs, and even in its paces, and to have hoofs suitable to a well bred horse, and courage fitted for long journies and warfare, and to be able to behave with calmness in the battle field, and if a rout takes place to save its rider? Is it not manifest that these are the things which constitute the virtue of the horse, not the others? Again, what should you say was the virtue of asses and mules? is it not the power of carrying burdens with contentment, and accomplishing journies with ease, and having hoofs like rock? Shall we say that their outside trappings contribute anything to their own proper virtue? By no means. And what kind of vine shall we admire? one which abounds in leaves and branches, or one which is laden with fruit? or what kind of virtue do we predicate of an olive? is it to have large boughs, and great luxuriance of leaves, or to exhibit an abundance of its proper fruit dispersed over all parts of the tree? Well, let us act in the same way in the case of human beings also: let us determine what is the virtue of man, and let us regard that alone as an injury, which is destructive to it.
Подписаться на:
Комментарии к сообщению (Atom)
Сообщения
2 комментария:
Hm. Old Golden Mouth pre-empted the post-modernists there, didn’t he?
And the political breed too:
‘…he calls the Jews "pigs" and associates them with drunkenness… these things must be put in the context of the hostility which Jews themselves had against Christians and the fact that the Christian Fathers found abhorrent the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. St. John's statements are expressions of theological and "ideological" (if I may use this somewhat inappropriate modern term) outrage, not of racism. It speaks for itself that he also praised the Jewish Prophets, those Jews (including the Apostles) who accepted Christianity, and even preached, like all of the Church Fathers, against the wrong or violent treatment of Jews. These things, of course, are seldom mentioned by those who want to make a racist of him… Finally, the Divine Chrysostomos was a great rhetorician. Much of his language reflects the rhetorical devices of his time, not the personal antipathy which a reader jaundiced by the "nicety" of modern discourse might attribute to him. This must be remembered at all times when reading him and other Church Fathers.’
Canny fucker.
(Text borrowed from here http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.aspx)
Edmund the Unwilling was somewhat less deft: 'You see, the thing is, heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in heaven. Like, well, singing, talking to God, and watering pot plants. While hell, on the other hand, is for people who prefer, well, you know the other sort of things, adultery, pillage, torture, those…areas.'
Отправить комментарий