Loading ...
Here is an argument that I use when liberals say that Christ could not have supported female ordination or homosexuality or the abolition of slavery because He lived “2,000 years ago” and no one would have believed Him if He said such things. The premise of this idiocy is that Christ was limited by the culture He lived in and “just couldn’t get by” with opposing patriarchy or heterosexism or slavery. The obvious answer is that Christ felt perfectly free to defy whatever social norms He wanted to whenever He wanted to. After all, He antagonized people until they nailed Him to a Cross. So He certainly wasn’t frightened of being rejected or being killed for saying unpopular things. Nor were the thousands of martyrs who died in His Name. If Christ had wanted to die on the Cross for espousing women’s lib, He would have. But He didn’t. And no, that is not an argument from silence. But it is proof that Christ did not hold back truths because He feared the status quo.
1 Response to “But that was 2,000 years ago!”
Comments are currently closed.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Nor was Christ afraid to abrogate the Levitical priesthood and the Law, the saying of which now, 2,000 years later, is denied through cowardice. He fulfilled the Law, making the signs and symbols that represented the future meaningless. What was once an act of faith such as performing sacrifices of the Mosaic Law has now become an act of defiant denial. Imagine the authority exercised in creating a new priesthood in keeping with the order of Melchisedech and yet being afraid to include women. Yes, this premise is idiocy.