Sunday, May 31, 2020
Access Hollywood and the Smoking Gun: Why is it different today?
Historically, ordinary Democrats and ordinary Republicans thought of themselves as engaged in an in-house quarrel amongst people who agree on certain basics, such as the rule of law, freedom of speech and the press, etc. Thus, Republicans would prefer to be ruled by Democrats than by Fascists, and Democrats would prefer to be ruled by Republicans than by Fascists. Further, it was thought better to have someone win of decent character who is from the other party than have someone of bad character from one's own party win. Now, I think, a lot of people are in doubt about this. Republicans and Democrats see the elections in apocalyptic terms--the other party threatens civilization as we know it, so we have to win, no matter who we have on our side and who they have on theirs. I have been struggling to figure out why, for example, the Access Hollywood tape was no absolutely curtains for Trump, the way the Smoking Gun Tape was curtains for Richard Nixon. And the only thing that comes to my mind is that in Nixon's time politics was an in-house quarrel between people who thought they believed the same things and differ about how we go about getting those things done, while now, for many, politics is, like Star Wars, a simple tale of good and evil, and losing to the other side the worst that could possibly happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215I see. The article has good points. Goes along way towards explaining the MAGA haters.
Fixed it for ya.
Oh, yeah? Well FIX THIS.
Brainwashed cultic thinking at its finest!
Sorry. Don't have a subscription.
Is it the video of the Minneapolis mayor being shouted down at his cultist Struggle Session?
Or large cultist crowds demanding that people kneel to the god of "Antiracism"?
You don't have a WaPo subscription? Well, no wonder you're so screwed up! You're living in a world of Alternative Facts!
No, the article is about Trump spreading totally insane conspiracy theories about Martin Gugino (who happens to be fighting for his life with severe head injuries (he just got out of ICU), after being shoved to the pavement by police).
I thought you might like to read Knox's unique take on St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
Pages 9-24
You can sign up and then "borrow" the book for 2 weeks.
He's got some good arguments regarding who's teachings St. Paul is addressing.
You don't have a WaPo subscription? Well, no wonder you're so screwed up! You're living in a world of Alternative Facts!
I don't subscribe to anything really. Each time I did, I got flooded with ads and propaganda. There are plenty of sites other than Washington Post on one side and Fox News on the other that provide news on a much more real-time basis. Dinosaur media is too slow, and by the time they publish, I've normally already heard both sides of the story from sources I don't have to subscribe to.
That said, nowadays it's wise to wait 2 days and read both sides before coming to any conclusions. Since your cult prevents you from hearing from the outside world, I already know what your conclusion will be to every story, no matter what it is. Orange Man Bad! So to you, there never really is any "news". It's just the same story every day.
I've actually read Knox's translation of the entire Bible. I regard his English rendering of Ezekiel as the clearest and most readable I've ever encountered. Unfortunately, I've burst beyond the capacity of my bookshelves to hold all my books, so it's been relegated to a desk drawer.
For the record, on my shelves are the following:
The Vulgate (in Latin)
The Douay Rheims Bible
The King James Bible
The Ignatius Bible (RSV/CE)
The Navarre Bible (in 10 volumes)
A Russian language Bible
The J.B. Phillips translation of the New Testament
and The 1928 Book of Common Prayer (which includes the Coverdale Psalter)
The Knox traslation was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
"the Washington Post on one side and Fox News on the other"
Bu-bu-bu-but, the Washington Post doesn't take sides! Its totally objective! :)
The Knox traslation was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
The link allows you to "borrow" the book to read online. In order to do that, you have to subscribe, which I did today reluctantly. I may hate to be flooded with ads, but I'm also cheap. ;-)
Would probably be hard to read the whole book online. I don't have room on my bookshelves either. The complete hardbound series of Ante-Nicean, Nicean and Post-Nicean Early Church Fathers take up the most space. It was useful in the days when the JW's came to talk to me, but now they're downloadable and searchable.
Hmm.. I had to check, but the only books I have by the Early Church Fathers are by St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. But I do have 4 or 5 about the Fathers. My favorite is When the Church was Young by Marcellino D'Ambrosio. Super readable - I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the subject. I also have Thomas Aquinas's 4 volume Catena Aurea (which quotes the Fathers extensively), but it's also been exiled to a desk drawer (for space reasons).
The full set of the ECF's don't contain just the orthodox writers but all the writings available by heretics as well and all of those in between. For instance Tertullian was orthodox until he wasn't, but still is a good source for finding out what was going on circa 200 AD (even though Knox thinks he's a bore).
Irenaeus is a great source for the history of early heresies, what they believed and why they were considered heresies. You can study what the Church teaches, but it's equally important to know what the Church rejects. Arianism for instance was skating by as claiming to be orthodox by an equivocation wrt the Greek word for substance. That's why there was the relatively recent change in the English liturgy to change the Nicene Creed to specifically include the word "consubstantial". To correct the original deficient English translation.
I still don't like the word "consubstantial". (Hah! Even Spell Check doesn't recognize it.) I'll guarantee that 99% of parishioners have no idea what it means. (Perhaps a sermon or two is warranted here?) I think "of the same substance as (or with)" would have been far more understandable, and equally orthodox.
99% of parishioners have no idea what it means. (Perhaps a sermon or two is warranted here?)
What? A priest delivering a homily that was actually informative and well delivered? What are you a Protestant?
I still don't like the word "consubstantial".
You may think it doesn't make an iota of difference, but it does!
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
Post a Comment