This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Abortion and Anarchism
I knew someone who thought abortion was wrong, murder actually, but opposed laws against abortion because he was an anarchist and opposed laws. Was he some kind of a hypocrite?
I'm not exactly familiar with the different flavors of anarchists on a philosophical level, but did this guy view laws themselves as immoral? If he had a black and white view of laws and approved of vigilante justice, then I suppose it would be possible to hold both views.
I do not believe it is possible to be a "pure" anarchist. As long as people live together, there will be at a minimum customs that govern their interactions. In fact, amongst primitive societies, customs have the force of law and the only difference is one of semantics.
The other would be the party that vowed to impeach him before he was ever sworn in, pushed the Russian hoax for years along with corrupt FBI officials and leftist media, held a biased and, frankly, sham partisan impeachment inquiry which presented "experts" with no firsthand knowledge of anything, kept changing the alleged crime until they found one that seemed to resonate with voters a bit more, and then impeached Trump over a phone call (whose import is contradicted by the Ukranian president himself) and his refusal to cooperate with their corrupt partisan games. Only a complete idiot would cooperate with this House over anything except passing needed legislation. If I was president, I wouldn't even return their phone calls.
The House was never interested in governing, in helping anyone out. They only care about getting Trump. The fact they allowed a lying piece of human slime like Schiff to be the face of their efforts only shows how far they've fallen as a party.
The Senate will put the impeachment where it belongs - the trash. And hopefully voters will send the Democrats following after their impeachment into the same trash can in 2020, until they do some soul searching and realize the average American is not interested in their unhinged left-wing hatred.
What's interesting is that you will disagree that any of what I wrote is true, which means that one of us has very, very bad media sources. You'll say it's me, but conservative media proved itself right over the Russian hoax and the FISA abuse, with facts and information that have been public knowledge for years, while leftist media proved itself wrong again and again in its anti-Trump agenda. I have no reason to suspect this one is any different. Both impeachment articles are nothing-burgers compiled after useless secondhand testimony filled with assumptions and hearsay.
Who knew that the Democrats could be so abysmally evil and corrupt that they could make Trump look good? They exceeded even my expectations, and their behavior will continue to only sink lower until voters send them packing.
"What's interesting is that you will disagree that any of what I wrote is true"
That is indeed interesting, as what you wrote seems to me to be nothing but absolute lunacy. (I mean that.)
There was no "Russia hoax". Both Mueller's damning report and other evidence have already proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign colluded with Putin to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor. There can be no rational denying of this fact. Those actions alone deserved impeachment and removal from office. And now we have a "crime in progress" - the effort to subvert the 2020 election. There was left no choice for patriotic Americans but to do whatever necessary to stop this wannabe Mussolini from destroying what was left of our democracy. I know damn well that the Kool Aid drinking Republican senate will not vote to convict, but tonight's impeachment has at the very least put down a marker, and called a spade a spade. Trump is a violator of his oath of office and a traitor to these United States. He richly deserves to be convicted in the senate (which, due purely partisan reasons, will not happen) and removed in disgrace from office.
But tonight, I can rejoice that for all eternity, Trump will go down in history in disgrace as an impeached president.
As I thought. It's like the left lives half in a parallel universe, except all of their "facts" got left behind in the other universe. Looks like pure hatred-fueled delusion to me. Absolutely incredible.
But tonight, I can rejoice that for all eternity, Trump will go down in history in disgrace as an impeached president.
Except it's the Democrats who have been disgraced by their petty partisan actions. They make Trump look virtuous.
I'll be voting Trump in 2020 just to give a giant middle finger to these corrupt lunatics known as the Democratic Party.
I remember an atheist who challenged me and said that evolution disproves any and every concept of a deity, and he meant it. Not just the Christian god from a young-earth perspective, but any conceivable creator. He actually claimed that evolution disproved a god who created evolution when I asked. There was absolutely no point in talking further with him when he was obviously emotionally entrenched to the point that any counter simply bounced off his head before reaching his brain, so I walked away and didn't bother pointing out the gaping flaws. Let him have the last word.
In the spirit of Christmas, I'm going to again concede the last word and walk away!
Here's to seeing how low the Democrats can possibly stoop in the new year!
He actually claimed that evolution disproved a god who created evolution when I asked.
That's some pretty serious mental gymnastics. He must have had some trauma that makes him unable to even entertain possibilities that threaten his world view.
It's the last day I'll be at work till after Christmas and someone left a small Christmas gift at my desk. I have no way to gift them back before Christmas.
My all time favorite Christmas movie is Smoke with Harvey Keitel and William Hurt. I can never watch it with dry eyes all the way through, and the ending is absolute perfection (at the link).
Fair Warning: Have tissues at hand before you watch the clip. It's in two parts. Be sure and watch both!
Well, if we're going that route, The Muppet Christmas Carol tops my own list of animated Christmas movies. (And I second your mention of A Charlie Brown Christmas.)
In my defense, Kevin is 8 years old when he is left home alone. My name is Kevin, and when the movie came out in 1990, I was 8 years old. A very special movie at the time!
It's a Wonderful Life was not a hit when it was first released and so didn't get much play. I don't ever remember seeing it until it was run 24/7 during Christmas season for a few years and then started to read stories that is was run 24/7 and people were complaining.
When I think of Christmas movies, I like that one the best now. I wonder if I've been programmed.
There's some channel that plays A Christmas Story 24 hours straight, and my dad watches it the entire day and has since I can remember. So I can't help but hate it!
I just looked at that Rotten Tomatoes list of the supposedly 55 best ever Christmas movies. Seems I've only seen 20 of them (and more than half of those only once), and there were quite a few that I had never even heard of.
I would count only 7 of them amongst my "favorites", and one of those (Holiday Inn) would have a giant asterisk next to it, due to its cringeworthy blackface scene.
I never saw A Christmas Story at all until just last year despite it being on all the time and everyone talking about it. I thought it was good, not the best but still funny. Liked Scrooged too.
I'd never even heard of Krampus until bmiller mentioned it 2 days ago. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it.
On my personal list, for best "serious" Christmas movie it's a tie between Smoke and The Bishop's Wife. For best funny Christmas movie, it's either A Christmas Story or Scrooged. For best non-English language Christmas movie, it's Ирония судьбы, a 1976 Soviet film. I make a point of watching it every year about this time.
Krampus is of a different genre. Bad campy horror/comedy. But it's based on a real middle European folklore tradition. Anything like Krampus in Poland?
Hell yes! My (Polish American) father used to threaten my brothers and me with the Man with the Bag when we misbehaved. I'd always assumed that it was his own invention, until long after I had left home and learned of the "Sack Man's" folk tale origins.
Yeah, that's what I thought about Krampus too. Just some idea a movie writer dreamt up.
Following your link, it looks like it's not just a European thing but cuts across cultures:
In North India, children are sometimes threatened with the Bori Baba or "Father Sack" who carries a sack in which he places children he captures. A similar being, "Abu i Kees" (ابو كيس), literally "The Man with a Bag", appears in Lebanon. In Korea, mangtae yeonggam (망태 영감) an old man (yeonggam) who carries a mesh sack (mangtae) to put his kidnapped children in, thus, "Old Man with a Sack". In some regions, mangtae yeonggam is replaced by mangtae halmeom (망태 할멈), an old woman with a mesh sack. In Vietnam, misbehaving children are told that ông ba bị (in the North; literally mister-three-bags) or ông kẹ (in the South) will come in the night and take them away. In Sri Lanka, among the Sinhalese people, elders frighten misbehaving children with Goni Billa, (translates roughly as "sack kidnapper") a scary man carrying a sack who arrives day or night to capture and keep children. In the Western Cape folklore of South Africa, Antjie Somers is a Bogeyman who catches naughty children in a bag slung over his shoulder. Although the name is that of a female, Antjie Somers is traditionally a male figure (often an escaped slave who fled persecution by cross-dressing).
My childhood home was rather filled with echoes of the Old World. As I said, my father would frighten us with the Man with the Bag, while my mother would threaten to sell us to the Gypsies (very probably a real possibility in Poland). We celebrated every Holy Day in our house with festive decorations and dinner table customs. Unfortunately, Americanization led astray most of my siblings. Only my (now deceased) older brother and myself maintained our Catholic faith. One of my younger brothers is a militant atheist, my youngest sister is an evangelical protestant, and my other 2 siblings are not much of anything. And I'm the only one who cares anything for our Polish heritage.
My childhood home was rather filled with echoes of the Old World. As I said, my father would frighten us with the Man with the Bag, while my mother would threaten to sell us to the Gypsies (very probably a real possibility in Poland).
It's Christmas time that we remember our fondest memories isn't it?
I personally was never particularly frightened by either threat, because the "man with the bag" seemed rather strange to me and I had no idea who Gypsies were. But in any case (as my brother likes to say), our family put the "fun" in dysfunctional.
They say that such things are hereditary, but I maintain that I am super motivated to give my children and grandchildren happy and joyous memories of Christmas precisely because my own childhood experiences were (in large part) so dreadful. My father was a messed up, undiagnosed survivor of WWII PTSD and my mother a terrified victim of domestic abuse. We kids just made our own shelters and emerged from them only when we had to.
Sorry for your bad childhood experiences. We can't change the past, but we can try to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past during the rest of our lives.
Legion of Logic said... The other would be the party that vowed to impeach him before he was ever sworn in,
You mean, "a handful of members of that the party", right? Pelosi and the Democratic leadership firmly opposed impeachment until the Ukraine scandal came along.
pushed the Russian hoax for years
Do you always describe investigations that results in dozens of convictions, including a half-dozen of Trump's advisers, as "hoaxes"?
along with corrupt FBI officials
You do realize the FBI is overwhelming Republican, right? That includes Comey (actually register registered as a Republican), Mueller, and Wray. Unbroken Republican leadership going back to 2001.
and leftist media,
The media owned by the wealthy, which pushes for wars and villianizes welfare recipients, is "left-wing"?
held a biased and, frankly, sham partisan impeachment inquiry
I thought the partisanship was real, not sham.
Seriously, what were the significant *process* differences between this impeachment and Clinton's.
which presented "experts" with no firsthand knowledge of anything,
You mean, as opposed to the experts who would have been firsthand witnesses?
kept changing the alleged crime
You mean, investigating with an open mind?
until they found one that seemed to resonate with voters a bit more, and then impeached Trump over a phone call
The phone call set off the whistle blower report, but there was certainly much more to it.
(whose import is contradicted by the Ukranian president himself)
Because extortion victims *always* come clean, and there would be no danger to the Ukraine if its President said something Trump didn't like?
and his refusal to cooperate with their corrupt partisan games.
You mean, Trump's corrupt attempt to get an announcement of an investigation of Biden that was not happening?
Only a complete idiot would cooperate with this House over anything except passing needed legislation.
Legion of Logic said... Hate to say it, but How the Grinch Stole Christmas and A Charlie Brown Christmas are still my favorite Christmas shows/movies of all time.
We sat down as a family to watch the Charlie Brown special this year.
For the 2nd year in a row, I was a Wise Man in the Christmas Pageant that the Methodist Church down the street from me puts on. (It's a long story as to how I, a Catholic, got roped into this.) I love demolishing the "Christmas Card" image of the Nativity and replacing it in people's minds with the far more glorious (and believable) reality. The Methodists must be OK with what I say, because, after all, they did invite me back this year.
Bottom Line: The Gospel stories of the birth of Christ are literally true, but hardly anyone ever takes the time to actually read them. They prefer the Christmas cards.
The Methodists are orthodox Christians who can recite every word of the Nicene Creed and mean it. It's when it comes to the Sacraments and the hierarchy that they differ from Catholics.
But what I was (gently) making fun of is what I call a Christmas Card view of the Nativity - three wise men (kings) on camels arriving at a very Bavarian looking animal shelter on Christmas night itself, with a bright star overhead.
Now I have no quarrel with the number three. After all, there were three gifts, so there is some basis for it. But no way were they kings. (That part comes from various places in the Psalms, which speak of the kings of the Earth "bringing Him tribute".) The camels likely are due to Isaiah 60:6 (" A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the LORD.") We all know that the ox and the ass are also from Isaiah (Chapter one).
What I find most fascinating is that the Magi are mentioned several times in the Bible, most prominently in Numbers and in Acts. And they are not nice people. In fact, Paul refers to the Magus Elymas, whom he encounters in Cyprus, as "you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy." But rather intriguing is the Magus Balaam's prophecy in Numbers 24:17. "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel." Was this perhaps a prophetic mention of the mysterious Star of Bethlehem?
In any case, after reading several books on the subject of the star, I have concluded that there was very definitely something visible to the Magi, but at this date we can never know precisely what it was. There are multiple possibilities. My own favorite hypothesis is that the star was actually a very curious procession of all the planets along with the Moon which "followed in a train" behind the rising Sun on April 17, 7 B.C. It would explain why no one other than the Magi "saw" it, because it occurred in the daytime, and only an astrologer who kept careful track of where all the planets were would be aware of its happening.
Some scholars say that the term "the East" as used by Matthew would have been understood by his readers to be Babylon, the place of Jewish exile. I think here's some reason to believe this, but it's far from conclusive. Also, the farther you get from Israel, the less interest there'd be in "the King of the Jews". But unless some extra-Biblical evidence shows up, my view is that at this point, we just can't say for sure.
Personal opinion: Magi astrologers in Babylon, acquainted with Jewish thought through contact with the descendants of those Jews who never returned to Israel after the the exile, were also conversant in Greco-Roman astrological interpretations (in which Pisces was equated with Judea). They "observed" (mathematically) the rising Sun on April 17, 7 B.C. followed by a train of every planet plus the Moon. It made them think of the great Roman triumphal processions, where a conquering general would parade through the streets of Rome with his defeated enemies in chains behind his victor's chariot. The Magi saw this celestial spectacle as a sign of a King who would quite literally conquer the universe. St. Paul describes in many places precisely this, where he describes Christ as having overcome the "Spiritual Powers in Heavenly Places".
"He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them." (Colossians 2:15)
And this all occurred in Pisces. So the Magi saw in this sign of the birth of a new King, not just an Earthly event, but a universal one with cosmic consequences.
Babylon was part of the Parthian empire at that time which was a successor of the older Persian empire of Cyrus that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem.
Not necessarily. There could have been a considerable time lag between the celestial event and the Magi setting out. Dating Christ's birth is a bit iffy in any case. Herod died in 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born prior to that date. Also, it appears in Matthew that the Magi arrived in Israel at least a year after His birth. The Holy Family is now living in a "house" in Bethlehem, and Herod orders the massacre of not just infants, but of all those 2 years old and under. So 7 B.C. seems a not improbable date for the star.
63 comments:
I'm not exactly familiar with the different flavors of anarchists on a philosophical level, but did this guy view laws themselves as immoral? If he had a black and white view of laws and approved of vigilante justice, then I suppose it would be possible to hold both views.
I do not believe it is possible to be a "pure" anarchist. As long as people live together, there will be at a minimum customs that govern their interactions. In fact, amongst primitive societies, customs have the force of law and the only difference is one of semantics.
Was he some kind of a hypocrite?
Hypocrite no. Un-Christian yes.
Note the time - December 19th, 8:24 (EST) A.D. 2019.
"Rejoice... Just rejoice!"
TDS makes it interesting at least.
"TDS makes it interesting at least."
I know. Isn't it amazing how the entire Republican party has been infected with it?
One strain, certainly.
The other would be the party that vowed to impeach him before he was ever sworn in, pushed the Russian hoax for years along with corrupt FBI officials and leftist media, held a biased and, frankly, sham partisan impeachment inquiry which presented "experts" with no firsthand knowledge of anything, kept changing the alleged crime until they found one that seemed to resonate with voters a bit more, and then impeached Trump over a phone call (whose import is contradicted by the Ukranian president himself) and his refusal to cooperate with their corrupt partisan games. Only a complete idiot would cooperate with this House over anything except passing needed legislation. If I was president, I wouldn't even return their phone calls.
The House was never interested in governing, in helping anyone out. They only care about getting Trump. The fact they allowed a lying piece of human slime like Schiff to be the face of their efforts only shows how far they've fallen as a party.
The Senate will put the impeachment where it belongs - the trash. And hopefully voters will send the Democrats following after their impeachment into the same trash can in 2020, until they do some soul searching and realize the average American is not interested in their unhinged left-wing hatred.
What's interesting is that you will disagree that any of what I wrote is true, which means that one of us has very, very bad media sources. You'll say it's me, but conservative media proved itself right over the Russian hoax and the FISA abuse, with facts and information that have been public knowledge for years, while leftist media proved itself wrong again and again in its anti-Trump agenda. I have no reason to suspect this one is any different. Both impeachment articles are nothing-burgers compiled after useless secondhand testimony filled with assumptions and hearsay.
Who knew that the Democrats could be so abysmally evil and corrupt that they could make Trump look good? They exceeded even my expectations, and their behavior will continue to only sink lower until voters send them packing.
In case you guys forgot.
Merry Christmas!
"What's interesting is that you will disagree that any of what I wrote is true"
That is indeed interesting, as what you wrote seems to me to be nothing but absolute lunacy. (I mean that.)
There was no "Russia hoax". Both Mueller's damning report and other evidence have already proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign colluded with Putin to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor. There can be no rational denying of this fact. Those actions alone deserved impeachment and removal from office. And now we have a "crime in progress" - the effort to subvert the 2020 election. There was left no choice for patriotic Americans but to do whatever necessary to stop this wannabe Mussolini from destroying what was left of our democracy. I know damn well that the Kool Aid drinking Republican senate will not vote to convict, but tonight's impeachment has at the very least put down a marker, and called a spade a spade. Trump is a violator of his oath of office and a traitor to these United States. He richly deserves to be convicted in the senate (which, due purely partisan reasons, will not happen) and removed in disgrace from office.
But tonight, I can rejoice that for all eternity, Trump will go down in history in disgrace as an impeached president.
Christmas?
Anyone?
As I thought. It's like the left lives half in a parallel universe, except all of their "facts" got left behind in the other universe. Looks like pure hatred-fueled delusion to me. Absolutely incredible.
But tonight, I can rejoice that for all eternity, Trump will go down in history in disgrace as an impeached president.
Except it's the Democrats who have been disgraced by their petty partisan actions. They make Trump look virtuous.
I'll be voting Trump in 2020 just to give a giant middle finger to these corrupt lunatics known as the Democratic Party.
Christmas?
I remember an atheist who challenged me and said that evolution disproves any and every concept of a deity, and he meant it. Not just the Christian god from a young-earth perspective, but any conceivable creator. He actually claimed that evolution disproved a god who created evolution when I asked. There was absolutely no point in talking further with him when he was obviously emotionally entrenched to the point that any counter simply bounced off his head before reaching his brain, so I walked away and didn't bother pointing out the gaping flaws. Let him have the last word.
In the spirit of Christmas, I'm going to again concede the last word and walk away!
Here's to seeing how low the Democrats can possibly stoop in the new year!
He actually claimed that evolution disproved a god who created evolution when I asked.
That's some pretty serious mental gymnastics. He must have had some trauma that makes him unable to even entertain possibilities that threaten his world view.
Got to pray for those people.
"He must have had some trauma that makes him unable to even entertain possibilities that threaten his world view."
Hmm.. Sounds like the perfect description of every Trump supporter I've ever spoken with.
Merry Christmas, Krampus.
It's the last day I'll be at work till after Christmas and someone left a small Christmas gift at my desk.
I have no way to gift them back before Christmas.
I hate that!
That's OK. Just make a donation in his name to the Human Fund.
Since it's the Christmas season I've been watching cult classic Christmas movies.
Krampus was pretty good and well known.
But I never heard of Rare Exports. It's good too.
Just don't be naughty!
My all time favorite Christmas movie is Smoke with Harvey Keitel and William Hurt. I can never watch it with dry eyes all the way through, and the ending is absolute perfection (at the link).
Fair Warning: Have tissues at hand before you watch the clip. It's in two parts. Be sure and watch both!
That one didn't show up in my "Cult Classic" list.
Here's the link to Part 2. Forgot to include it.
Part II
Die Hard was a Christmas movie wasn't it?
Hate to say it, but How the Grinch Stole Christmas and A Charlie Brown Christmas are still my favorite Christmas shows/movies of all time.
Well, if we're going that route, The Muppet Christmas Carol tops my own list of animated Christmas movies. (And I second your mention of A Charlie Brown Christmas.)
Wow. Charlie Brown still a top hit after all these years.
It's a Wonderful Life. Isn't that the best Christmas movie of all time?
Christmas Vacation
Oh come on.
Home Alone!
Groan!
55 Best Christmas movies of all time: by Rotten Tomatoes
No one picked a loser yet.
In my defense, Kevin is 8 years old when he is left home alone. My name is Kevin, and when the movie came out in 1990, I was 8 years old. A very special movie at the time!
OK. I guess your personal story explains the choice.
Now I gotta hear Starhopper's excuse. ??? :-)
My excuse? I have a "cousin Eddie" - in fact, my entire family is cousin Eddie.
You are part of your family
Your entire family is cousin Eddie
;-)
Sad, but true.
It's a Wonderful Life was not a hit when it was first released and so didn't get much play. I don't ever remember seeing it until it was run 24/7 during Christmas season for a few years and then started to read stories that is was run 24/7 and people were complaining.
When I think of Christmas movies, I like that one the best now. I wonder if I've been programmed.
"I wonder if I've been programmed."
Well heck, I could have told you that!
No one's mentioned A Christmas Story (about the kid wanting a BB gun) yet. A lot of that one reminds me of my own childhood (minus the snow).
There's some channel that plays A Christmas Story 24 hours straight, and my dad watches it the entire day and has since I can remember. So I can't help but hate it!
But does your dad relate to the father in the movie, or to the son?
Also, does anyone else here like Scrooged with Bill Murray?
I just looked at that Rotten Tomatoes list of the supposedly 55 best ever Christmas movies. Seems I've only seen 20 of them (and more than half of those only once), and there were quite a few that I had never even heard of.
I would count only 7 of them amongst my "favorites", and one of those (Holiday Inn) would have a giant asterisk next to it, due to its cringeworthy blackface scene.
I never saw A Christmas Story at all until just last year despite it being on all the time and everyone talking about it. I thought it was good, not the best but still funny. Liked Scrooged too.
I just looked at that Rotten Tomatoes list of the supposedly 55 best ever Christmas movies.
Did you guys notice that even Krampus rated higher than Home Alone or Christmas Vacation? Just saying.
I'd never even heard of Krampus until bmiller mentioned it 2 days ago. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it.
On my personal list, for best "serious" Christmas movie it's a tie between Smoke and The Bishop's Wife. For best funny Christmas movie, it's either A Christmas Story or Scrooged. For best non-English language Christmas movie, it's Ирония судьбы, a 1976 Soviet film. I make a point of watching it every year about this time.
Krampus is of a different genre. Bad campy horror/comedy. But it's based on a real middle European folklore tradition. Anything like Krampus in Poland?
Krampus
Hell yes! My (Polish American) father used to threaten my brothers and me with the Man with the Bag when we misbehaved. I'd always assumed that it was his own invention, until long after I had left home and learned of the "Sack Man's" folk tale origins.
Yeah, that's what I thought about Krampus too. Just some idea a movie writer dreamt up.
Following your link, it looks like it's not just a European thing but cuts across cultures:
In North India, children are sometimes threatened with the Bori Baba or "Father Sack" who carries a sack in which he places children he captures. A similar being, "Abu i Kees" (ابو كيس), literally "The Man with a Bag", appears in Lebanon. In Korea, mangtae yeonggam (망태 영감) an old man (yeonggam) who carries a mesh sack (mangtae) to put his kidnapped children in, thus, "Old Man with a Sack". In some regions, mangtae yeonggam is replaced by mangtae halmeom (망태 할멈), an old woman with a mesh sack. In Vietnam, misbehaving children are told that ông ba bị (in the North; literally mister-three-bags) or ông kẹ (in the South) will come in the night and take them away. In Sri Lanka, among the Sinhalese people, elders frighten misbehaving children with Goni Billa, (translates roughly as "sack kidnapper") a scary man carrying a sack who arrives day or night to capture and keep children. In the Western Cape folklore of South Africa, Antjie Somers is a Bogeyman who catches naughty children in a bag slung over his shoulder. Although the name is that of a female, Antjie Somers is traditionally a male figure (often an escaped slave who fled persecution by cross-dressing).
My childhood home was rather filled with echoes of the Old World. As I said, my father would frighten us with the Man with the Bag, while my mother would threaten to sell us to the Gypsies (very probably a real possibility in Poland). We celebrated every Holy Day in our house with festive decorations and dinner table customs. Unfortunately, Americanization led astray most of my siblings. Only my (now deceased) older brother and myself maintained our Catholic faith. One of my younger brothers is a militant atheist, my youngest sister is an evangelical protestant, and my other 2 siblings are not much of anything. And I'm the only one who cares anything for our Polish heritage.
My childhood home was rather filled with echoes of the Old World. As I said, my father would frighten us with the Man with the Bag, while my mother would threaten to sell us to the Gypsies (very probably a real possibility in Poland).
It's Christmas time that we remember our fondest memories isn't it?
I personally was never particularly frightened by either threat, because the "man with the bag" seemed rather strange to me and I had no idea who Gypsies were. But in any case (as my brother likes to say), our family put the "fun" in dysfunctional.
They say that such things are hereditary, but I maintain that I am super motivated to give my children and grandchildren happy and joyous memories of Christmas precisely because my own childhood experiences were (in large part) so dreadful. My father was a messed up, undiagnosed survivor of WWII PTSD and my mother a terrified victim of domestic abuse. We kids just made our own shelters and emerged from them only when we had to.
Sorry for your bad childhood experiences. We can't change the past, but we can try to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past during the rest of our lives.
Weren't there any bright spots?
Legion of Logic said...
The other would be the party that vowed to impeach him before he was ever sworn in,
You mean, "a handful of members of that the party", right? Pelosi and the Democratic leadership firmly opposed impeachment until the Ukraine scandal came along.
pushed the Russian hoax for years
Do you always describe investigations that results in dozens of convictions, including a half-dozen of Trump's advisers, as "hoaxes"?
along with corrupt FBI officials
You do realize the FBI is overwhelming Republican, right? That includes Comey (actually register registered as a Republican), Mueller, and Wray. Unbroken Republican leadership going back to 2001.
and leftist media,
The media owned by the wealthy, which pushes for wars and villianizes welfare recipients, is "left-wing"?
held a biased and, frankly, sham partisan impeachment inquiry
I thought the partisanship was real, not sham.
Seriously, what were the significant *process* differences between this impeachment and Clinton's.
which presented "experts" with no firsthand knowledge of anything,
You mean, as opposed to the experts who would have been firsthand witnesses?
kept changing the alleged crime
You mean, investigating with an open mind?
until they found one that seemed to resonate with voters a bit more, and then impeached Trump over a phone call
The phone call set off the whistle blower report, but there was certainly much more to it.
(whose import is contradicted by the Ukranian president himself)
Because extortion victims *always* come clean, and there would be no danger to the Ukraine if its President said something Trump didn't like?
and his refusal to cooperate with their corrupt partisan games.
You mean, Trump's corrupt attempt to get an announcement of an investigation of Biden that was not happening?
Only a complete idiot would cooperate with this House over anything except passing needed legislation.
https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-senators-tweeting-photos-giant-pile-dead-house-passed-bills-mitch-mcconnell-desk-1478047
The House was never interested in governing, in helping anyone out.
Yeah, the huge pile of bills says otherwise.
Legion of Logic said...
Hate to say it, but How the Grinch Stole Christmas and A Charlie Brown Christmas are still my favorite Christmas shows/movies of all time.
We sat down as a family to watch the Charlie Brown special this year.
For the 2nd year in a row, I was a Wise Man in the Christmas Pageant that the Methodist Church down the street from me puts on. (It's a long story as to how I, a Catholic, got roped into this.) I love demolishing the "Christmas Card" image of the Nativity and replacing it in people's minds with the far more glorious (and believable) reality. The Methodists must be OK with what I say, because, after all, they did invite me back this year.
Bottom Line: The Gospel stories of the birth of Christ are literally true, but hardly anyone ever takes the time to actually read them. They prefer the Christmas cards.
What do the Methodists believe about the birth of Christ?
The Methodists are orthodox Christians who can recite every word of the Nicene Creed and mean it. It's when it comes to the Sacraments and the hierarchy that they differ from Catholics.
But what I was (gently) making fun of is what I call a Christmas Card view of the Nativity - three wise men (kings) on camels arriving at a very Bavarian looking animal shelter on Christmas night itself, with a bright star overhead.
Now I have no quarrel with the number three. After all, there were three gifts, so there is some basis for it. But no way were they kings. (That part comes from various places in the Psalms, which speak of the kings of the Earth "bringing Him tribute".) The camels likely are due to Isaiah 60:6 (" A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the LORD.") We all know that the ox and the ass are also from Isaiah (Chapter one).
What I find most fascinating is that the Magi are mentioned several times in the Bible, most prominently in Numbers and in Acts. And they are not nice people. In fact, Paul refers to the Magus Elymas, whom he encounters in Cyprus, as "you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy." But rather intriguing is the Magus Balaam's prophecy in Numbers 24:17. "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel." Was this perhaps a prophetic mention of the mysterious Star of Bethlehem?
In any case, after reading several books on the subject of the star, I have concluded that there was very definitely something visible to the Magi, but at this date we can never know precisely what it was. There are multiple possibilities. My own favorite hypothesis is that the star was actually a very curious procession of all the planets along with the Moon which "followed in a train" behind the rising Sun on April 17, 7 B.C. It would explain why no one other than the Magi "saw" it, because it occurred in the daytime, and only an astrologer who kept careful track of where all the planets were would be aware of its happening.
Think the wise men were from Persia?
Some scholars say that the term "the East" as used by Matthew would have been understood by his readers to be Babylon, the place of Jewish exile. I think here's some reason to believe this, but it's far from conclusive. Also, the farther you get from Israel, the less interest there'd be in "the King of the Jews". But unless some extra-Biblical evidence shows up, my view is that at this point, we just can't say for sure.
Personal opinion: Magi astrologers in Babylon, acquainted with Jewish thought through contact with the descendants of those Jews who never returned to Israel after the the exile, were also conversant in Greco-Roman astrological interpretations (in which Pisces was equated with Judea). They "observed" (mathematically) the rising Sun on April 17, 7 B.C. followed by a train of every planet plus the Moon. It made them think of the great Roman triumphal processions, where a conquering general would parade through the streets of Rome with his defeated enemies in chains behind his victor's chariot. The Magi saw this celestial spectacle as a sign of a King who would quite literally conquer the universe. St. Paul describes in many places precisely this, where he describes Christ as having overcome the "Spiritual Powers in Heavenly Places".
"He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them." (Colossians 2:15)
And this all occurred in Pisces. So the Magi saw in this sign of the birth of a new King, not just an Earthly event, but a universal one with cosmic consequences.
Babylon was part of the Parthian empire at that time which was a successor of the older Persian empire of Cyrus that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem.
So that would tie into your theory.
Also, it was Alexander the Great that defeated the Persians, and so Hellenization set in there just as it had in Israel. Cultural diversity!
They "observed" (mathematically) the rising Sun on April 17, 7 B.C. followed by a train of every planet plus the Moon.
So, that would make Jesus 40ish at the time of his death?
Not necessarily. There could have been a considerable time lag between the celestial event and the Magi setting out. Dating Christ's birth is a bit iffy in any case. Herod died in 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born prior to that date. Also, it appears in Matthew that the Magi arrived in Israel at least a year after His birth. The Holy Family is now living in a "house" in Bethlehem, and Herod orders the massacre of not just infants, but of all those 2 years old and under. So 7 B.C. seems a not improbable date for the star.
Post a Comment