We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, December 20. 2007
Is Theo blogging again? Inquiring minds want to know. (Photo of Mrs. Claus from Theo.)
Archbishop of Canterbury claims nativity "a legend."
When you take the laws seriously, illegals go home. Polipundit
Charter schools get top grades in NYC
Santa receives fire in Brazil. I did not know that Rio was one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
Conrad Black got revolutionary justice. I agree.
Stanford credit for Harry Potter. How about for reading Dr. Seuss? Or watching Gunsmoke?
Evil Border patrol oppresses innocent Mexicans
Government as Santa: Hillary video at Althouse. Unintended self-satire.
Huckaboom = conservabust? I'm sure he's a fine fellow, but he is a goober if I ever saw one.
These are the sort of quotes that make me like Fred.
400 climate scientists now dispute global warming.
NYT decries media deregulation. Of course.
Every large voting group in the US opposes illegal immigration.
Red wine prevents colds.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Look on the bright side. Hitchens and Dawkins can now join the Church of England with a clear conscience.
It is another example of how liberalism has infected Christianity. The Bible has a name for men like the Archbishop-false teacher! Scripture implies that false teachers and prophets will be judged more harshly. My question is how can men like him not see that? Aren't they the least bit concerned that they may in fact be teaching false doctrine? Of course the Bible warns about that also.
The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
I am genuinely puzzled. I've read comments, here in this blog, denouncing those who would judge the condition of each others faith (see http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/4734-I-knew-Jesus,-and-you-are-no-Jesus.html ). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the commenters are trying to say, but the comments thus far seem to suggest that one isn't a Christian unless one is some sort of modern American fundamentalist whose literalist beliefs derive from modern Christmas card depictions of the nativity. It's especially confusing that anyone would be disqualified as a Christian for questioning whether the Magi were "wise men," Kings or astrologers, as opposed to being concerned about central teachings about salvation and the death and resurrection of Christ.
Does anyone here think Jesus cared whether we believed it snowed in Bethlehem or that salvation rests on such a belief?
The biblical account of the nativity is a lovely story. What is the point in debunking a cultural artifact? The bishop doesn't 'know' what occurred so why pretend? Does he have an agenda? It all seems rather petty on his part.
I don't think the Archbishop was on a mission to debunk or that he had planned to make these comments.
It says in the article the Archbishop was being interviewed on the radio and another guest, one who was apparently hostile to Christianity, challenged him on the credibility of the Christmas story. I wasn't there and haven't heard the interview, but my inclination would be to say that we shouldn't be afraid to respond to such a critic by acknowledging that that the modern "Christmas Story" is a recent invention that might not accurately reflect the way it was. I wouldn't want to let those hostile to Christianity erroneously define for us the terms of Christianity belief. If I'm the Archbishop and I'm on the radio in the midst of such an attack, I would think I need to respond and I would not want to do so by embarking on a defense of snow in Bethlehem. Could he have chosen some other way to respond to the attack? I'm sure he could have, but when we're in such circumstances we can't always calculate precisely how to avoid saying something that someone somewhere won't find fault with. I would cut the man some slack on this.
The Canterbury teller ain't no more qualified in meteorology than theology.
It does snow in Bethlehem.
Wise men were crafty enough to evade compliance with murderous Herod's pogrom.
I want to clarify something about my previous comment. The post itself, pointing to the story, isn't the least bit troubling. What surprised and confused me were the reactions. I don't know much about the Archbishop, nor do I especially care. It is the reaction to this particular set of comments about the nativity scene that perplexes me.
What's perplexing is the purpose and motivation of a particular Christian clergyman. If he needs to rationalize the faith he represents by 'debunking' an aspect he's really incapable of debunking then hasn't he placed himself in a metaphysical cu-de-sac? Maybe he should re-think his career choice and end the pretense.
You make a good point about diagreeing with "modern Christmas card depictions" (nicely put), in the sense that I remember people debating whether the Three Wise Men were kings or astrologers over 30 years ago -- but I don't recall anyone calling the debaters un-Christian. As I've always understood it, there are certain things that are 'okay' to debate and it's not considered blasphemy.
You can't compare what an article says with what the commenters say. The article you linked to does seem to run counter to what the commenters here have expressed, but there's no real connection between the two. If two articles had appeared here with conflicting views, that'd be different. Fair game, and all that. But the commenters? Bah, humbug.
NJ: Glad you're okay. We missed you yesterday, got a bit worried.
You currently have a link to an x-rated pornography site on your home page. Perhaps you didn't scan down far enough on Theo's "new" old site, but he's crossed a heavy line and I presume every American who's currently linking to him will cut him free, lest they be associated with it. I'm sure his little gang of Brit buddies think he's "really cool" and that he's "really showing everybody what a tough blogger he is" and how he's "really putting it to the Establishment!", but the simple truth is that sleaze is sleaze. You bring yourself down to that level, Theo, don't be surprised if others don't wish to follow.
1. Astrologers or philosophers or kings? Who cares? But the Archbishop is a jerk to want to debunk the Christmas Story at Christmastime. A jerk, or an annoying adolescent.
2. Re Theo crossing the line: I can't speak for him, but I do agree that some of his photos now do go beyond our "art" category.
RE: Lord Black.
The logic of justice in this case does escape me but most in USA do not seem too interested. Looks like a bad signal to Wall Streeters. London and maybe Toronto exchanges could benefit some. I think Trump said something about Lord Blacks big mistake was making Hollinger a publicly traded company on NY exchange.
Left wingers often treat Lord Blacks name like something that gets stuck on the bottom of their shoe. Especially Canadian leftwingers, but very doubtful they would prosecute Lord Black in criminal court. He and his wife were very successful in the newspaper business but now he is paying large.
Re: Conrad Black
Roger with Staiyn are oversimplifying again.
They must be cuttin' and rollin' and smokin' for the same dream.
Black couldn't buy his way out of a strong case.
Staiyn suggests #1 get rid of plea bargain.
That is some wild ganga.
Black didn't plea but innocent.
Lord Black is a great newspaper man who drifted almost like a dream OR he will be vindicated upon appeal.
The system works even on rich kids.
I think the main witness for the prosecution against Black did plea.
Yes, and it is a daily practice in USA courts which is praised daily as insuring an efficient system.
Michael Vic suffered same challenge.
It isn't like Black defence was ignorant of it.
The facts remain the same: he's adjudicated quilty in lawful court by jury of his peers.
That's revolutionary American justice.
"At the end of the day, to end up where we ended up is a hell of a lot better than where we started," Defence lawyer Eddie Greenspan said.
Black may think prison will be a "bore".
But if Judge grants Blacks request, he wll be in a lively, multiple recreational oppurtunitied dig, minimum-security Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Florida.
But he may never even get there and never even see inside a jail cell for his crime.
"No one is above the law in the United States,"---Judge Amy St. Eve.
Not even Lady Justice.