Keep Sol Invictus in Christmas

There is a documentary on the pagan origins of Christmas and its customary celebration on one of the streaming services, and I watched it with some interest last night.  I know those origins fairly well, but wonder if those who insist that we "Keep Christ in Christmas" know that, in fact, Christ is a relatively new addition to the celebrations which have taken place around the Winter Solstice for many thousands of years.

As is appropriate for a religion which borrowed so extensively from pagan philosophy and ancient pagan mystery religions, the "Christian" traditions of Christmas have their basis likewise in pagan culture; the Roman Saturnalia and northern European traditions of the Yule in particular.  Gift-giving, feasting, bonfires, lit evergreen trees, wreaths of ivy and holly; all of these had their origin in pagan celebrations related to the solstice and the return of the light of the unconqueable sun, triumphing over darkness each year.

There is nothing in Scripture indicating when Jesus was born, and the early Church simply, and I think wisely, chose to celebrate it on the date already selected and celebrated as the birthday of Sol Invictus and Mithras as well as other deities--December 25th. The peculiar census which supposedly required all to return to the place of their birth (an absurdity) was fabricated as well in order to arrange for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem to comport in prohecy--why not that as well, since the Church was, in a way, making a story? In this fashion the church was able to allow popular ancient pagan rituals and celebrations to continue while substituting a Christian narrative.

But Chist as the new light of the Winter Solstice plainly was not enough and thus the complaints regarding his absence from the season.  But this shouldn't be surprising.  It's difficult to reconcile a religion which condemns this life and glorifies one which is said to come after it with the celebration of life as we wish to live it here; a life affirming festival.  And, of course, the Church decided to celebrate the Resurrection on Easter which if anything in Christianity should emphasize new life; but celebrates not this life, but rather life after death.

The grim, bleak Christianity imposed during the reign of Oliver Cromwell prohibited the celebration of Christmas.  In fact, it prohibited celebrations of any kind. That seems more consistent with the teaching of Jesus that we should give up our families and lives and follow him.

The Midway

 

And so I'm back in Chicago, once my home long ago, so long ago I barely remember it as it was when we left it a when I was five, also so long ago.  Since then I've been here many times as a visitor, now an aging one, sore from walking distances which made no difference once and now are daunting.

It's been whipped by an impressive snow storm, and recently whipped through the antics of an elderly cousin of an ape-like creature whose white-box haircut, wrinkled, corroded orange-tinted skin and feeble efforts at displays of chest-pounding render him ridiculous.  But he's malicious, and like Tiberius in his dotage is prone to cruelty he confuses with strength.  And so he sends sad creatures in para-military garb to harass those they may even here, unasked for and unwanted; has motorboats destroyed by the most powerful military in the world; and spends his time threatening a much weaker nation, all while racking in money wrinkled hand over swollen foot.

But Chicago survives and so do I.  Despite the posturing and the real violence, and the storm, downtown is crowded with tourists as it has been for years. This won't change as it's a real city, The Great American City.  No Bordello-Chic as the White House now displays. It knows con men well, and gangsters, and isn't fooled where others have been by cheap imposters.

At the Palmer House real history was made.  Real Presidents stayed here.  The Reno hearings after the Battle of the Little Bighorn took place here.  Custer stayed here on his way to  his death and the mutilation of his troops by the Sioux and Cheyenne.  The real won't be displaced by gaudy fraud or fraudsters.

Regarding Transhumanism

 

Transhumanism is, according to that invaluable and easily accessed source, Wikipedia, a movement advocating the modification of humans to increase longevity, cognition, condition and no doubt a host of other things considered desirable, through technology.  Such modification has been the subject of science fiction for quite some time, of course.  But now we have or will shortly have the technology needed to make the transhumanist dream come true.

Unsurprisingly, there are those who oppose this movement.  I suspect some do so merely because the dread prefix "trans" appears in the name.  Others may do so for religious reasons.  But those reasons are less and less persuasive these days.  They're reminiscent of claims like:  "If God had meant for us to fly, He'd have given us wings." And I suspect that few will be convinced if objections are made that we can't be changed because God made us "in his image and likeness."  What kind of god would consent to be like us?

I think most would like to be enhanced.  Assuming it's safe to do so, why not live longer, be smater etc.?  And I think the large corporations which I'm sure are pouring vast sums of money into the relevant technologies want us to be enhanced as well, and to pay dearly for enhancement.  So, I expect it to take place.

There's the risk that those controlling the technologies may use them to control the enhanced, of course.  But we've always valued our pleasure and satisfaction over our liberty.

I also expect that only the wealthy will be able to afford modifications to any great extent.  The benefits they already have will be increased accordingly.  They'll be not only richer than most, but will live longer, be smarter, stronger, healthier than most as well.  Gradually, a class of super humans will come to be, and grow.

Governments may be expected to take advantage of these technologies for military purposes, and enhanced soldiers will be developed.  Those unable to afford enhancements will be delegated menial tasks, though I expect a black market will develop through which enhancements will be made somewhat avaiable to the underprivileged, at least to the extent needed to keep them amused and from becoming dangerous.  Also, I think it should be expected that certain technologies of a lesser kind will become widely avaiable.

It sounds like a science fiction novel of the dystopian sort, doesn't it?  I have no doubt ethical concerns will be raised, but also have no doubt they'll be largely disregarded.

Perhaps transhumanism will allow us to compete with AI, though.  There's always a silver lining, they say.

  

The New Domus Aurea

 

The Emperor Nero may not really have fiddled while Rome burned.  After the great fire which devastated a large portion of the ancient city, however, he took advantage of the devastation to spend enormous sums to build for himself an enormous, extravagant and elaborate palace which came to be called the Domus Aurea, or Golden House.

Perhaps because he wasn't entirely certain the Roman people would know the huge structure was his, he also erected a 120' statute of himself adjacent to this palace.  Portions of this gargantuan edifice have been explored.  They've survived, although Vespasian did his best to bury the Golden House after the Senate and people of Rome finally had enough of the meglomaniac that was responsible for its construction.  In its place he built the Flavian Amphitheater, better known as the Colosseum.  The statue of Nero was transformed into one of the god Sol.

Nero at least didn't himself demolish the buildings he replaced with his monumental house to gratify his ego.  The great fire did that for him.  Now, unfortunately, someone Nero would have recognized as a fellow spirit has torn down part of a building having national significance to satisfy his own self-love by building a very large and unnecessary ballroom.

The ballroom will apparently dwarf the White House itself.  It will be 90,000 square feet; the White House itself is 50,000 square feet.  It will be as large as 1.5 football fields, and will accommodate 999 persons.  Why 999?  This assumes it won't be expanded, though; something almost to be expected.

One wonders what events requiring so much room will take place there.  Inaugural balls, presumably.  When are balls otherwise held?  One seldom hears of balls taking place, outside of Disney films and romantic novels.  If not balls, what?  Proms?  Weddings?  Conventions?

It seems this vast space will decorated in the same gaudy manner as the resorts Nero's fellow spirit has already developed.  Gold, apparently, will be everywhere.  Such an abundance of gold suggests a lack of imagination.  It also suggests a belief that an abundance of gold is necessary to demonstrate wealth and excellence.  Regrettably, that belief has already caused the Oval Office to appear cluttered and tawdry.

What prompts someone to mar nature or dignified historical buildings with such showy self-indulgence?  Some (including this writer) have noted similarities with the wealthy, boorish character of Trimalchio in The Satyricon. He decorated his large villa with frescoes and paintings of events in his life and tokens from his admirers.  He spoke almost exclusively of himself and his properties.

I suspect meglomania can be combined with a terrible kind of insecurity.  The sense of importance and power felt by the meglomaniac is diminished by a nagging fear that he is, in fact, inadequate and looked down upon by others.  And so the meglomaniac is desperate to glorify himself and make a mark on the world, and punish those who won't kowtow to him.

The fact that he is planning to construct a large triumphant arch in the Capitol is most telling.  Those who have done this or had it done for them were great military figures, though.  Does our Ozymandias plan to try and rival them?  Let's hope not.

Between You And God Only

 

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein made several pithy statements I admire.  One of them is: "Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only."

That's as it should be, I think.  I'm not an atheist.  I don't find the fact that someone believes in God in itself distressing, offensive or incredible.  I don't accept any of the arguments which have been made over the years claimed to prove God's existence.  Neither do I rush to contest them.

But I wish, oh how I wish, that those who are religious would would make their religion a matter between them and God only.  

I don't mean to say that believers should not worship together.  It's not something that appeals to me, however. Reverence for the divine is something I can express without the presence or assistance of others.  I don't think the God I revere demands that worship be a group affair, or that it's required. I find the thought that God needs or wants anything from us incredible. Similarly, I think it demeaning to us and God to believe that God will grant our wishes if we ask for them in an appropriate manner.  Nor can I accept a God who demands that adults have sex only in certain ways. To paraphrase an author whose name I can't recall, such a God seems to me to be too small.

What I find disturbing is when believers try to foist their beliefs on others.  They have a long history doing so, of course, if they are the kind of believers who believe that their beliefs are the only true beliefs and their God the only true God, and all others should believe as they believe.

In doing so, they've caused a vast number of people to be killed in various ways, or savagely oppressed, or forcibly converted, for thousands of years.  Intolerance is a necessary feature of such religions.  One is fortunate if the members of such religions content themselves with merely trying to persuade nonbelievers and, if they fail to do so, think them damned for all eternity.

It would seem a simple thing to make your religion a matter between yourself and God only, but it's clear that too many believers are inclined to proclaim their faith publicly even if they refrain from demanding that others do so as well.  Do they think this will impress God?  Do they hope to impress us with their piety?  Do they think this religious exhibitionism persuades anyone, or is it for their own satisfaction?