God Loves Winners

 

Judging from what one sees when certain athletes are interviewed at the conclusion of a contest, God is peculiarly concerned with sports.  I should qualify that statement. I refer to what winning athletes or members of winning sports teams say when given the chance after a game or event they or their team has won. They praise or thank God for allowing them to win, or arranging that, or assisting them in winning.  Unsuccessful athletes or members of sports teams aren't seen praising or thanking God for their loss or failure to play well.

What explains these statements?  There's nothing objectionable about believing in God in and of itself.  It seems odd, though, to note that in such circumstances.  And indeed, those who make such statements don't merely say they're believers.  They instead say that they won because God wanted them to win, or was responsible for their success.

If that's true, though, it follows that God wanted their opponent or opponents to lose, or caused them to lose.  Shouldn't the losers be begging God's forgiveness in that case, or asking why God made them lose?  Do the winners think they're more worthy than the losers in the eyes of God?  Is that what they feel those who watch them give thanks should believe?

Perhaps they feel that their faith somehow inspired them.  That would be a kinder interpretation of such a public display.  But that's not what is said, normally.  What's said instead is something to this effect:  Thank you, God, or I praise you because I (or we) triumphed and the other person or team lost; that wouldn't have happened but for you.

What this assumes is that God favors some of us more than others, or loves some of us more than others; or punishes some of us while rewarding others; or makes some of us happy while making others sad.  And all of this in connection with a football game or other game.

God loves winners, then, and not losers.  Winners are better than losers.

Why is that the case?  Clearly, it can't be because they're winners. They're winners because God wanted them to be winners.  Just as God wanted losers to lose, necessarily.

So, why did God so decree? What manner of God intervenes in football and other sports?

Yet another great mystery--the problem of sports, to match the problem of evil.

Just Like Old Times

 

The Venezuela adventure is hardly the first time our Great (quasi) Republic has used its military in foreign lands for purposes of exploitation. 

It's clear enough, I think, that this is why the incursion took place.  The recent pardon of the former president of Honduras for convictions of crimes related to drug trafficking and weapons, similar to charges being made against the Maduros, makes the claim that the incursion was for such crimes less than credible.

In fact, part of the current regime acknowledges that this was all for obtaining access to and control of Venezuela's oil resources, and the country itself if necessary.  Another part is somewhat more circumspect, and for the time being denies that control of Venezuela is sought.

But considering our history, exploitation of lands and people has often been our modus operandi.  Perhaps the most brazen and long lasting exploitation involved indigenous peoples.

As to our exploitation of other nations, the Mexican-American War, which U.S. Grant, who fought in it, called "one of the most unjust wars ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" resulted in the acquisition of territory including California, New Mexico and Arizona. Commodore Perry led a fleet to Japan, forcing it to trade with the U.S.  

The Spanish-American War, which it seems was fought for no reason except to gain territory in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Philippines, prompted Rudyard Kipling to write a poem urging Americans to "take up the white man's burden."

Imperialism probably wasn't the primary reason behind our involvement in WWI and WW2, and the later conflicts in the 20th century, though there's little question that America sought to profit from them when it could.

There's something disturbing, albeit curiously refreshing, in the fact that there has been in this case little effort to disguise the fact greed is behind this incursion.  From statements being made by those in power it seems that this greed for territory and resourced motivates the threats being made regarding Greenland and now Columbia.

It remains to be seen whether and to what extent this greed will be satisfied or will result in undesirable deaths and oppression.  It also remains to be seen whether Congress or the courts will do anything to stir themselves to challenge unilateral action of the Executive Branch in conquest in the pursuit of economic gain and pursuit of imperial ambitions. 

 American politics is so corrupt that it's unlikely members of the House or Senate will exert themselves to staunch the flow of money to themselves or those whose money they depend on.  As to the courts, the Supreme Court, at least, seems content to let the chips fall where they may.

So...bombs away?

, 

Dreaming of Apatheia

Apatheia, in ancient Stoic philosophy, is a mental state free from emotional disturbance caused often by fears and desires, and therefore capable of reason and clear judgment.  It isn't apathy or indifference, with which the word "Stoic" is too often associated.  It is rather characteristic of an ideal mental condition in which decisions are intelligently made, according to nature.  Care and concern therefore are typical of apatheia-- one is concerned to make the appropriate decision and takes care to do so.

The ancients knew apatheia was difficult to achieve, and so recommended that the aspiring Stoic engage in what Pierre Hadot called "spiritual exercises."  He believed that what are known as the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are examples of the Emperor performing such exercises, calling to mind Stoic maxims and applying them to day to day life.

I think it's clear that obtaining apatheia requires considerable discipline and effort. I also think we'd benefit enormously if most of us, or even some of us in positions of power and influence, obtained it.  I wonder, though, if it can be achieved in today's world.

It seems to me we're perpetually disturbed in these sad times, and that our society and technology fosters disturbance.  We thrive on outrage.  Traditional and social media encourage it and spread it.  Our so-called leaders seem incapable of rational thought, though it's possible they've simply abandoned it, or no longer believe it's of any use in persuading or leading a populace which itself appears unable to exercise judgment, merely want to be told what to do, and are incensed if what they're told to do doesn't work.

Is it possible that AI may turn out to be our salvation?  We seemingly no longer want to take the time to think; perhaps we no longer can think, not in any real sense--not as needed to resolve problems.   I suspect we'd be more than happy to let AI do it for us. 

 Perhaps we've reached the point where only AI is capable of achieving apatheia, as it would be less subject to emotional dusturbance.

The King Who Exalts Himself

The king referred to in the title to this post appears in the Book of Daniel.  He's sometimes associated with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; sometimes with Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire; sometimes with the Antichrist.  As may be expected, he exalts himself above all others, even the gods, is supremely arrogant and devotes himself to self-glorification.  As may also be expected, he comes to a bad end.

There's something peculiar about a person who, being in a position to do so, names places and things after himself.  Or for that matter refers to himself in the third person.  Or finds ways to glorify himself instead of or in place of others. Or at the expense of others.

 There's something very peculiar about someone who does so when it is normally the case that this is done only after the death of the person whose name is used in recognition of great deeds done while he lived.

No other president has indulged in this kind of self-glorification, and for good reason.  They would have been thought close to mad if they did so.  They would have seemed ridiculous, pitiful, unusually needy, risible.  They would be mocked.

This kind of excessive pride in oneself is particularly unbecoming in someone leading a republic.  It is, instead, characteristic of an autocrat or dictator. So, in modern times, such displays of hubris have been indulged in by the likes of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong-il, and the Duvaliers.  In antiquity Nero, Caligula and Elagabalus, among others.  Shelley's Ozymandias is an example from poetry.

The person doing this must be terribly insecure, convinced that he won't be remembered or if remembered will inspire laughter and contempt.  He can't expect he'll be honored by the nation, so instead he must honor himself.  One would think those close to him would warn him of how this makes him appear.

The curious thing is he'll be remembered for exalting  himself.  That's what will be considered remarkable about him.  Not in a good way, however.  Self-promotion will be what he's remembered for, to the point of absurdity.

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.