ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, in whose hands are the living and the dead; We give thee thanks for all those thy servants who have laid down their lives in the service of our country. Grant to them thy mercy and the light of thy presence, that the good work which thou hast begun in them may be perfected; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord. Amen.
May they rest in peace and rise in glory,
LSP
We must all eat at this place, and what can we say? A free man can defend himself, a slave can't. Go ask a Red Indian or someone in the UK if you doubt me.
#2A,
LSP
Everyone knows Sunday's the Feast of the Trinity, that central doctrine of the Faith which describes the inner nature of God as He has revealed Himself. One nature, divine, three persons, distinct, and unless you believe this you're in big trouble, says the Athanasian Creed. This, NB Anglicans, has been shunted to the back of our latter day Prayer Books where presumably it'll cause less offense by virtue of being well hidden. Here's the intro:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence.
So, there's most definitely a three line whip on orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. That said, can we make any sense of it? St. Augustine most certainly endeavored to do so in his magisterial De Trinitate, read it if you can and I found this short commentary helpful. An excerpt:
The Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, and yet they are a unity in the equality of the one substance. Any inferiority of the Son refers to his human nature or to the Trinitarian order whereby he has received his equal being from the Father. “The Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God…yet there are not three Gods – but one God – the Trinity Itself” . . . “so total is the equality of this triad that not only is the Father not greater than the Son as far as divinity is concerned, but also Father and Son together are not greater the Holy Spirit, nor any single person of the Three is less than the trinity Itself” (8.1).
Still, within this equality there are distinctions between the Persons. The Father is distinguished as Father because He begets the Son, and the Son is distinguished as Son because He is begotten. The Spirit, similarly, is distinguished from Father and Son inasmuch as He is ‘bestowed’ by them; He is their ‘common gift’, being a kind of communion of Father and Son.
The distinctions between the three persons are grounded in their mutual relations within the Godhead. Augustine resorts to the category of “distinctions based on relations” even though this may seem contrary to the doctrine that God as simple and as such cannot be differentiated from his attributes. The reason for this assertion is to escape a cunning dilemma posed by Arian critics. They argued that the distinctions within the Godhead, assuming they exist must be categorized as either substance or accidents. Everyone agrees that God has no accidents. On the other hand, to view the distinctions as substance would result in three independent substances in the Godhead.
Augustine rejects the dilemma. He suggests that the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit denote not difference in substance between the Persons but eternal and unchangeable relations between them within the one substance. That is to say, what differentiates the Three Persons in the Trinity is the specific form of relations. The persons retain substantial equality.
The relationships do not simply distinguish the Persons from each other – they are the persons. In technical language, they are subsistent relationships. Accidents in ordinary things like qualities or quantities can change. For example, the quantity of stuff in a man can change without him ceasing to be a man. But in the case of the divine, relationships are actually substantive predications since they are identical with divine nature or substance. But a relationship requires real distinctions between two referents at the poles of the relationship. The Father is distinct from the Son. Neither is distinct from God; and they are each distinct from the Holy Spirit, not as Father and Son, but as ‘from whom he proceeds’.
Edmund Hill elaborates, “Therefore [the Father] is not only Father, he is the fatherhood (the relationship) by which he is Father. So too the Son is the sonship by which he is Son. And the Holy Spirit. . . the relationship of being Gift, the relationship of ‘givenness’ if you like.
Now, per the above, what do "subsistent relationships" in the life of the Trinity teach us? To put it another way, if distinct personhood, real personhood has been revealed to us as relationship, what does that mean for us who have been created in the image of God? Read Augustine's triads, obviously, but perhaps we get a glimpse of the truth when we reflect on how dismally we behave when self-obsessed, and how much better when the opposite applies.
In other words, we become ourselves when we forget ourselves in relationship. The last shall be first, and all of that.
Just look at Victoria Nuland and tell me I'm wrong. By the monkey, I dare you.
Guinea on,
LSP
Here you go now:
DISCLAIMER
You probably feel cheated by this brief pop music post and were expecting a firearms comparison. Which gun would you take as your weapon of choice depending on various contexts.
For example, in the Compound's kitchen we choose Glocks, a 9 and a .45. At the door it's different, a pump 12 does the trick. Upstairs, maybe Birettas rule, or wheelguns. Point being -- you can go with this, you can go with that.
I rest my musical if slightly opaque case.
Oh my, you go to a diocesan meeting in Fort Worth and return to... what? HAIL. Yep, hail. I thought it was gonna break my truck, but it didn't, lo and behold. Still, it was fierce and I texted Calgary, "Outrageous hail!'
She replied, "Look at that baby hail. That's like you sending me a video of one tiny thunder clap. Yes, we did have one tiny second of thunder. I had to pause my phone to make sure because it was so little and quiet."
Well, damme by faint praise, what? And in case you're wondering, here at the Compound we stand fast on the deck, stalwart, daring our ancient enemy the Weather to do its worst.
In other news, the SEC has approved Spot Ethereum ETF. Well, thrice in and double and quits. Your call, I'm long ETH and, of course, DOGE$, the Peoples' Coin.
Felix,
LSP
Just look at what SATAN has done to this poor girl. Inner wickedness at the highest levels of the state reflected in demonic visage. You'll note, dear readers, that Victoria's all about killing people. She's also a Bonesman. Here's LL via commentary, I quote at length:
Nuland was a career ambassador with the highest diplomatic rank in the U.S. Foreign Service. She retired from government work, but fear not, she is still the Brady-Johnson distinguished practitioner (a funded chair) in grand strategy at Yale University and a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy.
Nuland will join The School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University (SIPA) as the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor (funded chair) in the Practice of International Diplomacy effective July 1.
Nuland will also direct SIPA’s International Fellows Program, which provides an interdisciplinary forum for Columbia University graduate students to study international problems. Lastly, she will be a member of the Institute of Global Politics’ affiliated faculty, which comprises selected scholars and practitioners who work on research projects to advance IGP’s mission.
blah-blah-blah
So she now sits in funded chairs at Columbia (in a month or so) and Yale. What is her affiliation with the Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale? Ah, LSP, the plot thickens. It turns out that she's a faculty advisor to Skull and Bones...
322, anyone, or should we just say Bush? Listen up.
Cheers,
LSP
Do you remember our proxy war in Ukraine, in which NATO pits its wits, logistics and manpower against Russia? Sure you do. That said, how's it working out for us? Good question.
The Russkies wren't the force we (I) were expecting, and the Ukrainians were and are a testament to NATO leadership. As LL put it, the Russkies should've cut through them like a "knife through butter." And they didn't.
That said, UKR's fabled counteroffensive fizzled miserably last year and it seems the Russians are learning; off they go, capturing towns and villages on the Kharkov front. What does this mean? I'll go out on a limb and call a significant Russkie breakthrough, with UKR lacking men and material to plug the gap. You see, as they rush reserves to Kharkov what have they got in Dontesk. Not so very much.
Russian TOS-1A "Solntsepek" and MLRS "Grad" fire on the positions of Ukrainian Forces in the village. Belogorovka.
— -- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- (@GeromanAT) May 21, 2024
(Seversk Bulge) pic.twitter.com/xM1hS1uPfg
Of course this dismal state of affairs could be reversed if we went all-in and mobilized for war, Russia wouldn't stand a chance against the whole world, minus China, Iran, India, North Korea, maybe Turkey, Brazil et al. So, with the BRICS equation in mind, it'd be a close run thing. And then there's Europe.
The once vaunted UK can field a single, yes, one, and this is pathetic, all arms division. What about France? They can't even control their few remaining island colonies. Then there's Germany, that massive fighting force. Spain, Portugal and Ireland aren't even worth mentioning. So, if it wanted, a battle group/brigade could invade Gay Garden Europa and win? Heck, why not, what would stop it.
But maybe Poland will save us. And that's just it, stop dreaming. NATO is America and when that stops, as it must one day do, what then?
Your Call,
LSP
Or is it? Perhaps our enemies scent weakness
And degeneracy
Which is so stupid because everyone knows diversity's a force multiplier on the battleground as the enemy falls over laughing. You see? Winning strategy.
So over the Rainbow,
LSP
