silveradept | The Sun Rises Again

Current Mood: happy
Current Music: Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Wizards in Winter

The Sun Rises Again - 25 December 2007

Solstice was a few days ago, but for those who celebrate the Osiris/Mithras cult and all its derivatives, greetings of the festival of rebirth to you. Which, for some, is simply insufficient. It being a slow news day, and kind of thematic, the New York Times has decided to put a spotlight on the person that Bill’O probably considers his staunchest ally in the nonexistent War on Christmas. Who probably would have a look at this photograph of a church in touch with Christmas origins, and not see why people are having a good laugh at it. A much easier-to-understand joke involves a Christmas mistake of switched bags.

Of more interest to the world is that even after 25 years of fighting the War on Some Drugs, the price of Mexican marijuana in Houston hasn't changed much - which means it’s actually gotten cheaper with the way that the dollar has gone. Some things never change?

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology suggests that a possible reason why we haven’t found anyone else in the universe yet is because they hit a barrier that wiped them out - something like nanoweapons. For now, we’re playing with directed sound to get in your head and beams to fry your skin. The first recorded use of nanoweapons may be the last, and there’s no guarantees all they will do is leave a crater behind.

Peace on earth, and to all people, good will.

Ron Paul is still unsuitable as a Presidential candidate. as he stands by statements and associations with groups interested in bringing back the order before the Civil Rights Act. We expect Mr. Paul to run as an independent, if he’s really serious, with as much stuff as has been put up on him. Huckabee’s candidacy, with the statement about his 23% sales tax and his evangelical roots should also be pushing him to the fringe, but then again, a lot of the other candidates don’t look good either. Will it be a matter of holding one’s nose and voting for the least offensive candidate?

Penelope Trunk, in the Boston Globe, passes on one piece of good advice in a mountain of questionable stuff. the good advice? Graduate school is not for everyone, so evaluate and talk to people who have been there and done that to see whether you really want to press on. The questionable stuff? Going for an MBA is a no-brainer in the affirmative, for other professions, not so good (and in law, one should check marketing skills as well as legal ones), and for humanities degrees, where teaching is the likely result, Penelope says not to bother, as “Baby boomers have a lock on tenure-track jobs, and those boomers aren’t going anywhere any time soon.” A true statement, but if my recall is correct, having one’s MAC means a better base salary and pay grade possibilities. So it might be worth it, once you can get hired. Going for an Ed.D might not be the right idea, though. In my case, it was MLS or bust, so I didn’t have much of a choice.

And rounding out the very short news entry, a nearly-complete survival kit that fits in a mint tin, one that fits in a deer-hunting pouch, and one that fits in a medium-size fanny pack. The smaller ones lack shelter units and protection, and the big one isn’t exactly going to have a tent inside it, so finding protection and natural shelter will have to be part of the idea if you should need such a kit. And the two smallest kits do not have a food supply with them, so you’d better hope the fish bite or you find some washable, edible berries/shoots/plants.

Regarding the Saturnalia, though, I’m embarrassed to say that I received presents from places I wasn’t expecting, and thus had nothing to exchange there. And furthermore, all that I really could and did give out this year were cards, and a few gifts bought for exchanges. I know that for most, the giving is the important part, and that I cannot reciprocate is immaterial. Still, there’s always a little twinge there when it happens. Dome time down the road, I’ll do it to someone else and the debt will be paid. Can’t say that I’ve had enough of a sense of self-worth to really feel comfortable with the idea that my companionship is a great thing and a wonderful gift given. I’ll chalk it up to having moved in the last few months and try not to feel too bad about it. Besides, my presents from home are going to be my stuff arriving in boxes, so I’m not going to complain too much if there isn’t anything new.

I got a blanket, a set of knives, a box of prizes, chocolate and then some, an absolutely adorable book bag with a dragon on the front, the beanie baby Scorch (a fuzzy dragon), a fuzzy lion, a movie pass, tea (English Breakfast and Oolong), tea mugs, balsamic vinegar, a soup cookbook, a Babar book that I was going to buy tomorrow from the friends of the library, a movie pass with enough for tickets and concessions, the third volume of .hack//GU, of which I don’t have the first two volumes, some money to go bookbuying with, and some money to go buy myself things like bookcases with. So it was still a good gift-receiving period for me. I keep saying that when I get a bit more self-sufficient, I’ll be able to give gifts... it’s been quite a few years that I’ve been saying that. Maybe next year I will have finally managed to make that into a reality. We can only hope.

So begins that first day of a twelve day journey for magoi in Persia, having noticed a very odd celestial sighting and deciding that the matter warranted further investigation and observation. According to the popular legend, they will find the star pointing at a stable in Roman Judea, and declare the child born there to be a descendant of kings. Wishing to stamp out any talk of insurrection and rebellion, throughout the existence of this particular child, the Roman authorities will attempt to ascertain the identity of the “king” of one of the rebellious religious monotheist sects and execute him. Unfortunately, rebels hide the child until he is grown, and then reintroduce him into Judea as a prophet of their god. He accumulates a following rapidly with his teachings, a populist appeal that says society and government should take care of their people, rather than taxing them dry and not caring about their welfare. Fearing a rebellion in his name, Roman authorities arrange for him to be arrested on terrorism charges and swiftly execute him after a show trial. This puts down the rebellion, but the legend of the now-martyred Jew survives and is passed from person to person in secret. Biding their time, meeting in secret, eventually they are able to place one sympathetic to them in the highest office of the land, and now protected by the state, begin a bloody and repressive revenge on the people that they feel oppressed them. Thoroughly convinced of the rightness of their cause, their campaign to stamp out any dissent continues even to this day, one thousand, six hundred years after the first of the cultists came to power. Many say peace and do war. However, as with any institution, a subversive element has appeared, even within their power structure. They have decided that the teachings of the Jew they consider a facet of their god are correct and should be listened to more than the vengeful leaders of their sect. They work within their own system, trying to gather others both inside and outside the system so they can exert influence and pressure and eventually topple the leaders that have done great harm in the name of their god. We wish them good skill and fortune in their endeavours. The subverters have not yet reached critical mass, but their ranks grow every day. Perhaps the final triumph of their effort will be when we suddenly stop noticing their presence in places they shouldn’t be. Or maybe it will be just a faint part of a hymn...

Gloria in excélsis Deo
Et in terra pax homínibus.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You know, I just have to ask... is there a reason you actively avoid saying Christ, God, Christmas, etc? It's lovely that you're inclusive of everything else out there, honestly it is, but that sometimes weirds me out that you go so far out of your way to avoid using those words.

Also, I don't consider my celebration of Christmas to be particularly derivative of anything. Sure, the date and the tree got co-opted from elsewhere, but the Bible story that they're currently used to celebrate didn't. I'm celebrating my Savior's birth. The fact that some of the trappings of the celebration were borrowed doesn't mean that my celebration itself is derivative.

I'm not offended, I'm just letting you know my point of view, and genuinely curious about yours.

And while I'm commenting, I have to nit pick your Christmas story a bit. Rebels didn't hide the child, his parents hid him, but they didn't have to hid him very hard, after Herod slew the children of Bethlehem, he stopped looking, and nobody else even noticed his existance until he started teaching at the age of 33.

And the Romans did perform the execution, but they didn't hold the trial, the Jewish Sanhedrin held the trial. . Pilate, the Roman ruler, only got involved because the Jews weren't allowed to hold their own executions, and he wanted to let Christ go, but he let the Jewish leadership pressure him into having Christ executed. Rome didn't fear Christ, they hardly knew who he was. The Jewish leaderhip feared him, they were the ones having their traditional religious authority undermined by his new interpretations of the Law.

I think you've watched The Life Of Brian a few times too many. Christ was never any kind of political revolutionary, he quite clearly said that his kingdom was not of this world. (He said it to Pilate, even.) Some of his followers no doubt hoped he would be a political savior, but he never taught anything to do with politics. He healed Romans as well as Jews, and the only time he taught on a subject related to the Roman occupation of Israel, he supported the Roman's taxes, and said to render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar's.

[insert lapsed Catholic joke here].

The celebration itself of a kingmaker and son of a god's birth has been around before, but the way a story is told is always unique. Many similarities, but differences here and there to make it one's own. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess that unless I'm celebrating the specific festival in its approved way, I don't use the words or names associated with it. And given my syncretic sort of nature (medievalist in degree, religious studies major and librarian at heart), I'm celebrating several Vague Early Winter Possibly Religious Festivals all at once. So it's not just Christmas, celebrated as a prayer and joyous noise to YHWH, but Sol Invinctus, the return of the Sun, Mithras, Osiris, all those who descend into the Underworld, apparently dead, only to return to life later. Amaterasu pokes her head outside of her cave, sees a beautiful woman in the mirror, and comes out to investigate.

So light the hearth fire, make appropriate sacrifices to the gods of home and family, give gifts to those who need them, receive good cheer and gifts from others, and have a bit of a Bacchanalia next Monday, ya? If the Divine Principle exists, I think we will find himher to be far more transcendent than our minds, our myths, and our religions can ever imagine. Why limit oneself to one philosopher or writer when so many of them say the same thing, emphasizing different parts of the tune in their work?

Regarding the Christmas story, it is written from a outside and potentially cynical position. All the nitpicks you have are true, from the perspective of someone who believes. His parents can be "enemy combatants" for hiding a threat to Roman power, the show trial was still a show trial, no matter who conducted it, and Pilate was a man who wanted to make sure he kept his job and didn't spark an insurrection on his watch. Even if he denied wanting anything to do with politics, the way he gathered followers meant he could have political things happening in his name, including rebellions and acts of terror against Roman rule. By killing the source of inspiration for such things, the Roman might have hoped to head off a problem. Later on, they sacked the Temple, too, but that didn't dissuade either Jews or Christians from continuing their worship.

What I have said is true, if you look at it in the right light. What you have said is true, if you look in a different light. Neither of us is necessarily correct, but we both have spoken something true.

Uh. I have a hard time with what you said being true.

There is no record of Christ other than the Bible. (And if there is actually some real, solid, historical record of him I've missed out on, then please, point it out, I'd love to have a counter to the "somebody just made the whole thing up" argument.) The Bible says nothing whatsoever about the Romans regarding Christ as a rebel or a threat. Quite the contrary.

So... you're making things up. I guess if you want to define true as "somebody somewhere thinks this is right" then sure, your stuff is as true as mine. But at least mine has the benefit of having been written down within a century or so of the events, whereas yours appears to have been invented from whole cloth much, much, much later.

You know, people who claim the New Testament is complete fiction always weirded me out a little. It's really hard to make the claim that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist as a human being. I don't even think most skeptics claim that. It's the whole Son of God part that the atheists tend to have a problem with. People who try to claim that Jesus didn't exist at all are just arguing a losing battle.

I would go as far as to agree that there probably was some guy who got a few followers to believe that he was of divine origin (maybe he really performed miracles, maybe he was good with slight of hand) and their teachings spread through the community and eventually the world. The popularity and spread of these teachings can be attributed to how it favored the lower classes and was a rebellion against the contemporary religion which funneled money away from the poor. (I know, ironic isn't it?) Heck, the gospels had to come from somewhere, either a bunch of guys got together and decided to write a collective novel about this Jesus dude or this person with these grand ideas of charity and forgiveness actually existed. I'd say that odds are heavily in favor of the latter, otherwise we are all victims of one of the greatest and least funny literary jokes of all time.

Really, the only REAL question for anyone who thinks about it is: was Jesus the Son of God and did the whole resurrection thing actually happen? And quite frankly, that's something you just have to take on faith.

Also, SPark, I don't think you and Silv are in disagreement. Whether his "Christmas story" is actually more "Life of Brian" than "Gospel of Matthew" is beside the point. The point is simply that Jesus had teachings and then he left. It actually doesn't matter if he was the Son of God or not, if he wanted to be in the political limelight or not, if he was tried like Socrates or tried like McVeigh. Simply put, he's not here but his teachings have been pored over, twisted, reinterpreted, translated, preached, used to justify mass killings and used to bring peace. Silver's merely lamenting the fact that there is so much of the justify cruelty part and so little of the restore equality part.

Well, that's kind of the point. All we have is one account, written by those who want to put Jesus in a good light and to emphasize the supremacy of the new religion over the others.

Considering what we've seen with regard to government over the years, though, it's not hard to imagine the possibility that the Romans were worried about rioting or political instability. Even by the book's own account, Pilate asked several times for someone to produce some hard evidence that Jesus was advocating for overthrow. All he got in response was more hearsay and an increasingly unquiet mob outside his courtroom. Over the course of the trial, things got bad enough that he released a known terrorist instead of the innocent man when it came time for the annual pardoning. Otherwise, he might have had a riot on his hands all across Judea.

There's no account of Pilate's side of the story, though, so we have no idea what he and the Romans thought of the strange man that was gathering a following, intentionally or not. All that is mentioned is that the Judean was brought to a trial, Pilate shrugged and asked for evidence, and in return got a threatened riot. I can't say that this side of the story is correct, but it is possibly true. Including all of the stuff that would confirm or deny in the Christ-story, however, doesn't accomplish anything toward promoting the underlying message of Jesus, so it's not there.

I was aiming for a telling of the story and the history of the churches up to today from a perspective somewhere outside the believer's mindset.

It seems to me, though, that by saying that what you've said is as true as what I've said, that you're saying that an idea, that you came up with, entirely out of your own head and without any research or documentation or science of any kind behind it is exactly as true as an idea which was arrived at from several years of intense study, including college level courses, of the only extant documentation of the actual events.

I feel that truth is important, that it ought to be backed by evidence, and that ideas or theories or notions about how things might have been are interesting and fun, but that they're not truth, and shouldn't be presented as such. Speculation and fact are not equal. The recorded facts say nothing at all about rebellion against the Roman Empire. Christ's parents were not recorded as being rebels, or lawbreakers, or anything but ordinary law-abiding subjects. Christ himself is not recorded as being a rebel, nor as having broken any Roman law, but he is recorded as having broken the Sanhedrin's interpretation of Jewish law. When you read, in the original account, that Pilate went out of his way to try and have Jesus released, and when you put that with the previous complete lack of any sort of rebellion against Roman authority... and then you draw the conclusion "I think he was a political rebel" from it, you're speculating, you're not presenting truth.

I don't care if you believe in Christ or not, I'm quite aware you think of him as just another man. That doesn't bother me one bit. I just am rather irritated by this notion of yours that theories completely unsupported by evidence are as valid as theories based on the available facts. You're giving me the Young Earth Creation equivalent here. It's something you happen to think is possible, but it's not something supported by any evidence, and is directly contradicted by quite a lot of the evidence present.

I think my intended tone did not come across, then. I am playing very loosely with the source material and retelling it in the modern world, with justifications and reasons that would be more likely espoused if the story happened in 2007-2008 than in 33 C.E.

That's the aim I was trying for - the story from an outside perspective, without the obvious religious references and the point of view of the believer that ascribes noble aspects to the main character. Switching one unreliable narrator for another. Take out the obvious Jesus references from the account and tell me someone wouldn't draw the conclusion that even though he was denying it all the way there, had no history of it (well, one disturbing the peace citation), this Jew, this Nazorean, was going to become a political figure. Whether he liked it or not. If Pilate truly didn't care about rebellion or political insurrection, he wouldn't have asked about them. "Are you a king, then?" is a pretty direct question about competition to the established order. Pilate concludes rightly that there's nothing there that should concern him, aside from the rapidly growing and significantly uglier and more unruly mob outside his court calling for the Nazorean's head. Because while Pilate might know that there's nothing there, and Jesus knows there's nothing there and the writers know there's nothing there, there had to be some reason why the chief priests were dragging a Jew before the Roman court, specifically asking for the death penalty. He's a threat to the chief priests, which means his teachings are popular, and furthermore, that means followers. Followers make for political potential, even if it's never tapped. Enough Jesus freaks in the right places, or in the angry mob, and look! Now they're in government, in the places of power, as rabbis and devotees, and who knows what they're going to do now?

In many ways, we're taking this far too seriously, because it isn't intended to be something scholarly-supported and well-researched. Just a bit of perspective on how things could have gone. Or how they could be justified, knowing what we know now, having seen several hundred years of what happens when you put fanatics into positions of political power. I'm totally reading modern interpretation backwards into the Bible that hang off of shreds here and there, with no real chapter-and-verse support. I'm not saying that Jesus was a political rebel. I'm saying that he could easily have been perceived as one, and that there are textual fragments that could justify reading things that way, and they would probably hold up if you removed all of the believer-specific inside knowledge.

The Bible is believer specific inside knowledge? Nothing I told you came from any source but straight from the un-annotated King James Version. Have you read the New Testament?

You misunderstand me. Even though the writers spell out the inside knowledge right on the first page of each of their accounts, the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth is not just a Messiah, but the Messiah, and that the following accounts are chronicles of his Great Work on Earth is inside knowledge. If you believe that, then the accounts are true, possibly even objectively true, depending on how true you want them to be. All of the narrative and a lot of the justifications for the actions of Jesus and his followers are predicated on the assumption that Jesus is God. That's the believer-specific inside knowledge.

For those who don't believe in the premise spelled out in the very beginning, then the objectivity and the truth value of the stuff that follows is not guaranteed. Furthermore, there may have been deliberate omissions and additions to the accounts to solidify the ideological position of the writers. Finally, depending on whether you believe or not, passages take on different interpretations and conclusions. If it's already an assumption that Jesus is God and does all of this out of the goodness of his heart and want to reconcile humanity from their sinful nature, then there's no way in hell Jesus is going to grasp at something as pedestrian as political and temporal power. From outside the belief structure, though, if Jesus isn't known to be God, then he's a guy with a philosophy that's gathering followers. And while he's said he has no interest in politics, his followers weren't necessarily so high-minded. Peter's impulse was to strike with his sword. Remove the God part, and you have a rabbi with a fairly popular philosophy, which could compete with the current institutional structure.

Apparently I fail to grasp your point as thoroughly as you fail to grasp mine. No point in discussing this further, and honestly no point in discussing much of anything further.

Then I apologize. I do not understand your point of view completely, but I believe the discussion has been fruitful, if unfortunately not very enlightening to me. Thank you for taking the time to try and get into my head. I'm sorry I'm not grasping things. Perhaps another time I will.

I'd love to print out the grad school article and carry copies around to everyone who says tome "hey, you should go to grad school". Although, the article completely skips over the Social Services type degress. For that, I would say "it depends on what you want to do". County Social Worker? Need a Masters. Elementary School Guidance counselor? Just a BS. High School Guidance Counselor? Masters required.

But I honestly see no point in getting a Masters degree in something when I don't really know what I'd want to do. Something as vague as "English" just doesn't cut it for me.

I kind of get what's being said about the humanities thing with grad school. It seems to me that she's suggesting not to get a masters hoping toward research positions or just to satisfy an interest in a given subject. You're correct about the pay scale raise in education. In NC, there's something like a 10% jump if you have your masters; it also makes you a bit more competitive in finding jobs because you're more qualified to teach that subject (assuming M.Ed. here). Finally, it can make it easier to get jobs outside of the state where you have your teaching license.

I'm currently applying to grad school for an M. Ed.

Those are sensible reasons not to get a Master's degree. Research positions might all be filled up, but it sounded more like she was grouping teaching in with that, too. I know that having a M.Ed or a MAC is a benefit to most of the teachers, even if it does mean extra expenditure - so in the teaching case, going back and getting the Master's might be better. If you've got a state with continuing education requirements, there's going to be school involved anyway.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Sun Rises Again - 25 December 2007

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject