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.