Paul Stookey's Wedding Song:
Stookey, a devout Christian, wrote this beautiful ballad about Christ's Presence in marriage for the wedding of Peter Yarrow.
But it's about the most important and basic human relationship-- about the love between man and woman in marriage, which is a reflection (along with having children) of the Trinity in our daily lives.
Marriage is a sacrament. After two thousand years, the Lord's love still graces our lives and our music, in each marriage anew.
He is now to be among you at the calling of your hearts
Rest assured this troubador is acting on his part.
The union of your spirits, here, has caused him to remain
For whenever two or more of you are gathered in his name
There is love. there is love.
A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home
And they shall travel on to where the two shall be as one.
As it was in the beginning is now and til the end
Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.
And there is love. there is love.
Oh then what's to be the reason for becoming man and wife?
Is it love that brings you here or love that brings you life?
And if loving is the answer, then who's the giving for?
Do you believe in something that you've never seen before?
Oh there's love, there is love.
Stookey, a devout Christian, wrote this beautiful ballad about Christ's Presence in marriage for the wedding of Peter Yarrow.
But it's about the most important and basic human relationship-- about the love between man and woman in marriage, which is a reflection (along with having children) of the Trinity in our daily lives.
Marriage is a sacrament. After two thousand years, the Lord's love still graces our lives and our music, in each marriage anew.
"Marriage is a sacrament. After two thousand years, the Lord's love still graces our lives and our music, in each marriage anew."
ReplyDeleteWhich is marriage *must* be perverted and destroyed.
Of course it must. As does every other thing that distinguishes us from cattle. For if we're to submit to being treated as cattle, responsive to the prod and the wire, we must first become as cattle, born and bred to dependence on the managed pasture and the beneficence of our betters.
DeleteLeave it to a christian to feel the need to distinguish himself from cattle.
Delete-KW
"Leave it to a christian to feel the need to distinguish himself from cattle."
DeleteBigot.
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
DeleteThe Good Book treats Christians like cattle, so what's the problem?
Beautiful, Doc. Simply beautiful. PP&M were one of my favorite musical groups when I was a young man. As it happens, today is our Anniversary, so your post was a gift to my wife as well. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAdm:
DeleteHappy Anniversary to you and your bride! Many Blessings!
Mike
Happy Anniversary, Boggs!
DeleteAny big plans, or just a quite day of it?,
Thank you, gentlemen.
DeleteNo big plans, just preparing a nice dinner together, a bottle of Cristal, and candlelight.
Nice! Enjoy.
DeleteA bottle of Cristal. How many lives could have been saved instead? Jesus wept.
DeleteHappy Anniversary, Adm!
ReplyDeleteMarriage didn't exist more than 2000 years ago? The Ancient Hebrews didn't have marriage?
ReplyDelete2000 years ago was 13 CE. Jesus (if he lived) was 17 years old (assuming he was born in 4 BCE instead of the wild guess several centuries later, which omitted the year '0', causing all sorts of problems with the beginning of decades, centuries and millennia.
He's supposed to have started his ministry when he was 30, depending on which account you believe (written decades after the alleged events described).
To be accurate, you should have written 'somewhat less than 1987 years of the Lord's Grace'.
It's similar to your general problem with simple numbers, as shown by you referring to the insecticide apocalypse being paused for 50 years. 50 years ago was 1963. The year of publication of Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring'. DDT was banned for general agricultural use around 1982.
The insecticide apocalypse being paused would be true if DDT had been used in agricultural amounts continuously and no bad effects becoming apparent, and it would be 'paused' since the time it became generally used, in the '50s.
Actually the 'apocalypse' was avoided for 30 years. Or not, depending on whether you think DDT is generally harmful or not.
Bach,
DeleteChristianity is just about 2000 years old.
The fellow speaking is a Christian talking about Christians to Christians.
As for no year zero. There is the year 1BC then the the year 1AD. The year BEFORE the birth of Christ and then the one(s) that follow. Get it?
There is no year zero (unless you're thinking of Pol Pot?). The century and the new millennium (third) began in 2001 AD.
BTW There is no common era. That's just elitist bunk typically hidden under the veil of PC.
The rest of the cultures on this planet have their own calendars.
If you would rather use another calendar, you are free to do so.
Crusader Rex,
DeleteChristianity isn't just about 2000 years old. Its age is the time since Paul started his travels, organising the churches, writing his Epistles (the ones that are genuine that is).
Common Era is a perfectly acceptable convention for dating to allow for other religions to use a common calendar.
If there's no year '0' (and I agree with you on this point), then Jesus wasn't born. I just assume that the person who set up the calendar was postulating that Jesus was born in 1 CE.
Zero wasn't a concept in Europe at the time. The concept came from India via the Arabs as part of Arabic numerals. There's no zero in Roman numerals.
And actually, it's arguable whether we actually have Christianity or Paulism. Paul, who never knew Jesus, had much more to do with the founding of the early church. And it's arguable whether the church he set up has much to do with the present, or ones, since there are so many of them.
Crusader Rex,
DeleteI see now what you mean. You're claiming that Jesus was born on exactly the cusp of a new year. He was born at exactly midnight between December 31, 1 BCE and January 1, 1 CE.
If they were using the Julian calendar. And if January 1 was considered to be the first day of each year, which it wasn't for long periods of time. Until England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the first day of the year was in March (March 25 I think), creating problems with dating. The year of execution of Charles I in contemporary sources is given as a year earlier, since he was executed in January, the 'previous' year.
The convention after 1752 was to correct the year but not the day. Which means that the grave of Handel in Westminster Abbey is incorrect, because it gives his dob as January 23, 1684 ( he was born in 1685, as was Bach). And he died several years after 1752.
Bach,
ReplyDelete"Christianity isn't just about 2000 years old. Its age is the time since Paul started his travels, organising the churches, writing his Epistles (the ones that are genuine that is)."
Paul was a Christian. Christianity began with the coming and ministry of Christ. Stop playing these childish, canned semantic games, Bach.
"Common Era is a perfectly acceptable convention for dating to allow for other religions to use a common calendar."
Only for western progressive elitists. Other cultures have their own dates. If the 'C' in CE stood for 'Christian' I could see what you mean. But it is not a commonality, and so CE is a deliberate misnomer propagated by lazy, secular western elitists.
The other cultures will figure it out. many already have. I know several Israeli and a couple of Muslim academics who refuse to refer to the calendar a 'common'.
"If there's no year '0' (and I agree with you on this point), then Jesus wasn't born. I just assume that the person who set up the calendar was postulating that Jesus was born in 1 CE."
Sheer nonsense. We are talking about a calendar based on the dates of a life and ministry. You do realize that when a child reaches the year one, he/she has COMPLETED their first year, right? A child that is a week old is in his or her first year. Year ONE. There is no year zero in the lifespan of a human (or living) being. It is that simple. Get a grip, man.
"Zero wasn't a concept in Europe at the time. The concept came from India via the Arabs as part of Arabic numerals. There's no zero in Roman numerals."
That is utterly irrelevant. Zero is an abstract concept of nothing or no value. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Neither do negative integers. There is no -1 AD. There is 1 BC, then 1 AD. The calendar date of the change over (ie January 1 etc) is irrelevant to this discussion..
"I see now what you mean."
That is laughable...
" You're claiming that Jesus was born on exactly the cusp of a new year. He was born at exactly midnight between December 31, 1 BCE and January 1, 1 CE."
No I am not. You are erecting yet another childish straw man.
"If they were using the Julian calendar. And if January 1 was considered to be the first day of each year, which it wasn't for long periods of time. Until England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the first day of the year was in March (March 25 I think), creating problems with dating. The year of execution of Charles I in contemporary sources is given as a year earlier, since he was executed in January, the 'previous' year."
And? He was off by a year? Wow. Earth shaking. Pick up a history book on any subject matter older than a couple of centuries and you will find such 'errors' are retrospective. Trees and forests.
Christianity is just about 2000 years old. The man in the video is speaking to Christians about Christians (being wed).
Crusader Rex,
DeleteA child in his first year is zero years plus x months old. There is a year '0' in the life of a human.
There should have been a year zero in dating years too. The first year after a defining event (such as the birth of Jesus - if it ever could have been determined) should have been the year zero. 1 year after that event would have been the start of 1 (in this case CE or AD).
And anyway. Zero isn't an abstract concept. It was one of the greatest advances in mathematics. Without it you can't even do science because it allows you to imagine the very large and the very small.
Marriage is a sacrament.
ReplyDeleteUsing a modern song to justify a relatively modern way of thinking doesn't really make for a convincing argument. The idea that marriage is a sacrament is one that not even the Church really promoted until much later than 2,000 years ago. As an example, Charlemagne had five wives, and we know of five long term mistresses of his, who could be better described as concubines. None of his marriages were regarded as sacramental. He wasn't particularly unusual for his day. Marriage as a "sacrament" is a much more recent idea than you seem to realize.