Comments by "John Crawford" (@JohnCrawford1979) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
4
-
Just one last aspect, the four terms for 'love' in Greek used to be a common sermon, or teaching among evangelical Christians, as well as a few other Protestant sects, particularly those with roots coming from the Anglican/US Episcopal sects. It became common after C.S. Lewis did a series of radio talks in 1958 on the concept of love, which were later compiled into his book, “The Four Loves,” exploring the four classical Greek terms for love: storge (affection), philia (friendship), eros (passionate love), and agape (charity). The radio talks were apparently criticized in the U.S. at the time for their frankness about sex. Until Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, which began with a series of 129 lectures delivered by the Pope during his Wednesday audiences from 1979 to 1984, C.S. Lewis' "Four Loves" was among the few most notable candid talks on sex and love that was had among Christians, Protestant or Catholic, in modern history to date.
3
-
True, the Greeks were somewhat conservative, especially if you are talking about being religious and traditional. Even in not being Christians, there was a strong sense of morality within Greek/Hellenic society. That's to be expected, as per the city-state held the νόμος (nómos), the law, rule, code, or 'norms' of the people within that city-state. These laws were regards to behaviors to either persuade or dissuade people doing things in order to keep the public unity. Plus this was long before state and religion being separate was a thing, so obeying the laws was obeying the gods. And yes, I do find it humorous that they think conservatives are humorless when it comes to sex or adult humor.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Catholic Tradition teaches that we believe in the resurrection of the body. Since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's, the question arose due to some fusion of Eastern religions that practiced cremation, as well as modernists who believe that Earth is overpopulated, also believe that we don't have enough room to bury, or otherwise keep the body at cemeteries. It's still advised to be bodily interred (burried or in a tomb), but whether a Catholic or Christian cannot be resurrected without their body, or if cremating leads to Hell, has led to, well, a 'diplomatic' answer of that the Church can't say what will happen, but the soul is eternal, and awaits its judgement regardless. Because Man cannot judge the soul of a person, because only God can, we thus cannot say for certain what a soul's eternal destination is if their body was cremated. The revised Code of Canon Law (1983) states, “The Church earnestly recommends the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching” (Canon 1176.3). Thus, The Church can say 'it's not forbidden', even though the tradition is burial or entombment. As long as the purpose does not reject the resurrection of the body.
2
-
2
-
@sayaneechan5799 - I don't even know if my reply got to you, because apparently the algorithm either doesn't like me talking about being a conservative, or voting for the previous US president, or otherwise presuming saying it's OK to have a certain skin color was a no-no phrase. Or bringing up w-0-ke. Who knows what YouTube is so sensitive about?
Anyways, since I can't have grown up conversations on YouTube without childish YouTube censors deleting things, all I'm going to say is, American history and culture has been, and always will be a mix of cultures and people with skin colors. We talk about culture in color because we have a lot of color in our people. White makes sense to us since that's the color of our skin. Our culture is remotely European - especially if our lineage goes back to the Mayflower. I'm Sotts-Irish from my Dad's side, but it's been about three or four generations that we had a relative that actually lived in Ireland or Scotland. On my Dad's mother's side come the closest ties as I believe my great-grandmother, my grandma's mom, had come with her parents from Germany to the US. But again, my great-grandma moved here as a child at the turn of the 20th century, so I have little to no direct connection to Germany save memories of a sweet old lady that smiled at everything and everyone, but likely didn't know everyone nor what was going on since Alzheimer's kicked in. She died some time when I was in grade school in the early to mid 80's. So why call it European culture when most of us have little connection to Europe?
For a while, this culture was called WASP, as in White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. I suppose that works fine for some, but Italian Americans are generally Catholic. And what about Jewish Americans? So it's easier to lump it all together as 'white'. That should be simple enough to understand, right? Unfortunately, a lot of baggage gets lumped into the term, which, fair enough, it is part of our history, and something we have to learn from. But we don't have to become self-loathing over it either. Nor do I believe that we forever pay a debt for the wrongs done by white people in the past. Eventually after repenting of something, there needs to be forgiveness and to move on with life. I don't own a slave, and no one in my family has that I have any recollection of. If they did, it's their sin, not mine. I have nothing to feel sorry about, and I have no reason to hate my skin color, especially if color of one's skin shouldn't mean anything about who one is as a person. Yet it is still tied to a history and a culture in the US. It shouldn't be used as a club against us, but it also shouldn't be something absolutely hated or vilified either. White people were involved in freeing the slaves, and white people helped fight for civil rights. History isn't black and white, it's full of color with many stories to be told and lessons to be learned.
2
-
2
-
1
-
As a Catholic, it's more of a historical interest than anything. If it's real, awesome! If not, well, it is what it is. I think for the Church, is more a matter of pride in being able to hold a relic attributed to Jesus, his burial, and what it may mean to the resurrection. But ultimately, it's not the cloth we worship, but we may have a certain veneration to the relic because of its attributions to Jesus. Beyond that, if the Shroud is not real, it's a historical elaborate hoax, but has little bearing to the main, and most important aspects of Christian faith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's just among unhinged liberal idiots, usually white people pretending to be talking for black people. But I will say, simply being called "Yo white guy!" Would be annoying. Can't speak of how much more or less annoying than some one black being called, "Yo black guy!" It's somewhat disrespectful, though can be understandable if someone is trying to call for you, and your skin color is the most notably different feature about you then the rest of the guys around you. Preferably, most people would like to be called by their name, especially if you know their name. Yet, even there, some people don't even like their name. So maybe for some, "Yo black dude!" would be preferable than, say, being called Peewee, because that's what your parents named you after because they liked Peewee's Playhouse, and named you before the whole getting caught wanking it in a porn theater incident.
1
-
1
-
From a more traditionalist standpoint, the aspect here is more politically charged. In earlier times, things were more about the actions in the scandals that, in earlier terms would be considered 'buggery' or 'sodomy'. These would be things one would expect a priest to get defrocked, but, instead they did like the secular world did with problematic teachers, or how domestic disputes were handled by covering up, paying a blind eye, shuffling them off for another community to deal with, etc. Still kind of happens today, though politics are different,so the reasons for playing the same shuffle game are different, such as the case where a highs chool student identifying as female went into the hischool female bathroom and did things against the will of a biological female student. That student who identified as female was tossed off to another school where the same sort of incident as before happened to another biologically female student. Politics aside, most people would say if a person did such things against the will of another person, the person that did such actions should be charged and tried appropriately under criminal law. But, because of the politics, people don't want to touch it, lest they be labeled some sort of 'istaphobe'. In prior times, it was keeping things as private, domestic matters. But now, with things out in the open, people cover more for their politics. Even among traditionalists, we've had bad leaders and priests that got cover because people couldn't believe said person would so such things because, what was seen in public was them doing God's work, or otherwise showing as a face of a holy person. The scandal with Church Militant is a major example of it, and it's still hard to believe a person that went so hard in the fight against priests and Bishops doing bad things would himself be doing similar bad things behind the scenes. It may have been something taken out of proportion, but it could just be trying to look for a benefit of the doubt where there's none to give, which then becomes hopeful, wishful thinking. But that's just taking it from the angle of actual actions of abuse, and a general consideration for the way things were and still wind up being done, and a few reasons why. Between the public and private matters of any community or group of people, there are certainly many twists and turns that make it impossible to simply explain or define, as much as people may want a 'simple truth', which is practically an oxymoron in and of itself.
On the other aspect of priesthood, the barring based on sexuality is relatively recent, and reactionary to the priest abuse of the 1950's - 1970's among the Church in the US. At least that's part of it. However, there were scandals throughout the world, and while young boys were commonly preyed upon, there were cases the other way. But there is also the matter of the wording of the matter, and the implied meaning conveyed. It's like how conservatives opposed to a certain 'procedure' call themselves pro-life, and those at least wanting the 'procedure' to be legal in what they claim to be 'reproductive rights', or the 'right to choose', regardless the human developing in the womb neither did anything wrong, nor gets any choice in the matter of whether to live or die. People have this uncanny ability to define things, especially what is unsettling, in ways that can justify just about anything, regardless if it's justifiable or not. When it goes beyond an individual's private creed, and becomes that of a group or community, that creed becomes something like a cult and makes those beliefs more unshakeable because of having others around that believe similar, that share in the same creed. The secular equivalent is a shared ideology, which is what we get with politics. This is what we're up against with the sexuality issue in the Church, and even despite the attemp to keep people with deep seeded view of themselves attached to their sexuality, and thus the desires and actions thereof out of the priesthood, the creed of these alternate sexualities still entered the Church, and are adopted into the mix of political ideologies of the liberal, or leftist Catholics. Pope Francis belongs to that camp in a unique fashion that in Argentine politics is called Peronist. It's essentially the use of double speak, which can leave one confused as to what the Pope really stands for. In this, the actions speak louder than words, but yet the words effectively distract from the actions. Thus why traditionalists commonly believe by tossing out this leak of his naughty word and kind of weak apology, serves to distract from the supposed agenda to allow priests of alternate sexuaity to join the priesthood - the more liberal, the merrier.
Otherwise, if it wasn't for politics, I would agree that simply having a certain orientation should not bar someone from the priesthood. But with that comes with all things that makes a Catholic priest a priest. That boils dow to the role of alter Christi, being 'another Christ' by way of leading the congregation in the formal prayer of the Mass, presenting one's congregational community with the Sacraments, and all and all giving one's life fully to God to help serve His people, His Body, the Church Militant along this path of struggle to keep to the things holy of God in a world that constantly mocks it and tries to tempt the faithful away from the faith. The priest is there to help lead us to Heaven, bring us closer to God, and help us to become holy saints in our own right, regardless if we become canonized as one of the greats, or unsung heroes that made it to the Beatific Vision. It's a tall order, but being a priest isn't just another job, it's a lifetime service and calling of God. Because of the politics, that vision of what a priest is supposed to be is blurred, and diminished greatly by those who push their politics over their calling from God.
1
-
1
-
For the most part, Christians that didn't believe the Earth as round were among the illiterate and uneducated. Or, they took too literal things like the four corners. However, the circle is interpreted by many Christians as the world being round. However, early pagans did have a view of flat earth. After all, the cosmology described in the Prose Edda assumes a flat Earth. Aristotle even claimed the earth flat, so can't jest say it was a Christian thing, and as per Aristotle, we can't deny that the concept held sway in academics for quite some time. Even today, people will still deny the earth being round, despite having the best evidence from pictures from space.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logicplague - On some level, I agree. I'm you're average white American mutt with family lineage coming from Scottish/Irish, German, possibly French descendents. Europe is/was predominantly white by color, and the cultures do have variations that are based more on region. Granted, there are various regional cultures in the US as well. We're a pretty huge land mass with 50 states, each with their own particular statewide culture, as well as each county in the states with their own traditions and folklore, etc. I've lived in 4 counties in my own state, and have visited others, and I can say that in Washington state, you can find differences of culture between King County where Seattle is, compared to Yakima, Benton, and Franklin, where there are cities and towns most people don't know about, and probably don't care about, especially if they bare care about Seattle to begin with. American history is just as much about the European settlers as it is about the black slaves and native Americans. Many of our counties in Washington state are named after tribes that were local to the region, with some of them remaining in the area to this day. Monolithic group means nothing to me other than BS people make up when they want to make an argument, rather than discuss a subject. Of course I know there are all sorts of tribes that were all over what is now the US. Which is also why it's stupid to claim they were all genocidal barbarians. They all as tribes had their particular cultures, just as the Euopean clans did that eventually became nations in Europe. Or do you thing those clans held hands with each other and never fought among each other? Heck, even when they became Christian nations, they fought among each other. So all I'm saying is no one has a moral high horse of superiority when it comes to war. All of humanity has partaken in war, so no clan, tribe, or nation is without blood on their hands.
1
-
@logicplague -however, I disagree that a color, black or white, diminishes anything. There is both a white history, and a black history in the US, and it's something we as a nation ought to recognize. Likewise with the differences of culture. Likewise with native Americans, because there's a lot to learn about the history before the US was a nation, and before European Pilgrims came to settle here. All this woke BS muddies the waters. It does nothing to help learn about these things. People would be more open to exploring the history and culture if not for people saying you should hate your white/European ancestry. And what point is there to expecting most people, save the self loathing to accept that they will be forever unforgiven and have no way to ever repent of whatever wrongs their ancestors may or may not have participated in? That sort of stuff is the rhetoric that leads to genocides, rather than people coming together to celebrate diverse histories, cultures, etc.
1
-
@logicplague - I don't know if anything got lost by the censors, but I think we agree more than we disagree. We may categorize differently, but I don't think it disregards anything. Of course there are numerous American tribes, each with their own histories and cultures. The same is true when we talk about US American history and culture, because each state, as well as the various counties, cities, towns, and native tribal reservations have their own particular histories and culture. Not all of history is found in textbooks, and a lot of it can be lost without the storytellers and people that keep record of such histories and cultures. Sadly, these local histories tend to be ignored, even deemed unimportant to the people that live there locally. Unless you're in Seattle, NYC, Los Angeles, or any of the 'important' cities that have a certain amount of name recognition around the world, that have been put on the map, as it were. Even there, you also have the so-called fly by states, the history of how a huge chunk of the US gets ignored, despite how much the farm land has been important for feeding the whole nation, and how they suddenly become important when it comes to getting votes and electing a president
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sayaneechan5799 - Probably because being a conservative and voting for Trump, people call that voting literally for Hitler. So I'm used to hearing that rhetoric.
All I'm saying is it's OK to be white. You don't have to be ashamed of your skin color. Call yourself whatever you want, but I'm perfectly fine with being called white. And outside of the woke BS that goes all over the world, most Americans are fine talking about American white/European culture or black American culture, native American culture, and Latin American, etc. Most Americans that haven't gone woke insane can talk about the different cultures and histories and learn from them. 'Colorblindness' is nonsense. We live in a world full of color, from sky to the sea, to the earth, plants, animals, and yes, even human beings have color. I refuse to live in a bland and boring colorless world.
1
-
@rhetorical1488 - Erasing, or manipulating history, as well as political agendas are all part of human nature as well. It's why in both history and current affairs you have to take what you read, hear, and watch with a grain of salt. After all, Romans had their particular take on history and their interactions with other clans and countries they 'interacted' with. The Greeks, Goths, Celts, and the like have their versions of these 'interactions'. That is to say war, trade, and any other way that people might be towards another, things happened. People that survived, or, for history, people who's writings survived, are the stories that we come across. Whether we choose to believe them or not is another thing, as is whether we can verify that there is something true from their stories worth counting as history, or the truth about current events.
As it is, propaganda goes back as far as the hieroglyphics, possibly longer. Who knows? Maybe a caveman hunter painted a lot of deer on his caves to boast that he was a better hunter than he really was. But hey, if he was looking to have a larger harem to keep him warm at night, who are we to judge? But, by and large, that is what most propaganda and political agendas are all about, a numbers game and to try and convince people one person or group is better than another. Erasing, or maniplulation of history is something many people do without really thinking about it. I mean, how many people honestly, truly are candid about who they are in their bios and profiles? Sure, like in a resume, we try to put our best foot forward. I'd imagine the Egyptians, if they suffered the loss they did to the Hebrews that the Bible accounts as being held as slaves, they probably did what they could to hide and erase that out of their histories.Same would also go with their depopulation practice of slaughtering Hebrew babies, not unlike China had done in more recent times under the one child policy. China themselves are a modern example of fudging the history so that events like Tiananmen Square are erased, or at least part of a silent, underground history known by those that lived it, but not spoken of in public. For us in the US and Canada, such censorship sounds appalling, as it should in countries that value and try to safeguard free speech. Yet with that also means being discerning about what you read and hear. It's not a new thing, this policing speech. There are certain things you can't discuss about WWII or the Holocaust in Germany without potentially being sent to jail. As offensive, over the top comedy as the 'saluting pug' was, was it really something to be jailed and taken to court over? On the other hand, there are some journalists out there covering controversial topics that are difficult for most people to bear reading, listening, or talking about that get jailed, partly because of the sensitive content, and partly because it's about a protected race or class of individuals or people. People wonder why it took so long to go after Epstein. Is it really that hard to figure out, considering all the rich, famous, and powerful people in the world he had going to the island?
But I'll leave at that for now, because I've probably already hit a lot of key words and phrases that the algorithm is likely to flag and erase this. Yet, that's another case of erasing and manipulation, for if you can suppress speech without human intervention, just because, well then now we have the machines doing the tyrant's work so the tyrant doesn't have to take all the blame. It's just the algorithm. No one to blame but code.
1
-
@TheSuperappelflap - this is part of why I comment the way I do when people say, "no one in Europe ever refers to their skin color," because it's patiently false. Maybe they don't use the English term, but another language with a term that means the same color. As it is, in the places where Latin Americans migrated, even legally migrated, they clashed with black people over their word for black. Granted, there was also gang rivalry, but their word for black got responses, regardless if the one using the word had any idea that it was offensive. Add to that, language can be a personal thing for people, and to be told you're using a bad word, and it's one you've used all your life to simply refer to a color, and people are saying you can't use it, well, some people don't like being told what they can and cannot say. It's also partly why Spanish had become like a predominantly secondary language in certain parts of the country, and being bilingual in Spanish boosted one's employability in those areas. The geography has increased since then, along with more places becoming multilingual with immigrants from other parts of the world increasing as well. Why the increase? I'll leave that for people reading this to come to their own conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sayaneechan5799 - Generalities are generalities. I could be mad at people calling me an American, but it is what I am, simply by living in America. Even saying North America is general, because it can mean US or Canada. Similar with Northwest. Even calling me a Washingtonian can still be too general, not to mention the state of Washington gets mixed up with Washington D.C., which is a city, the nation's capitol, and way over on the other side of the country from Washington state. Plus, there's differences between eastern and western Washingtonians, enough that this state has sought a few times to split into two states. And even that doesn't distinguish differences, because most of what is meant by western Washington politically is generally King County, which mostly comprises of Seattle. The issue for the rest of Washington is the domination of Seattle politics over the rest of the state.
Regardless all that, I'm an American, and I take no offense to being called one. I think our influence in the world is exaggerated. Wokism itself is an offshoot of the socialist/Marxist Frankfurt School that originated from the Institute for Social Research founded at Goethe University Frankfurt in 1923. So I don't know why Germany doesn't get blaimed more for poisoning the world with socialism and Marxism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even though more traditional, conservative Catholic, I've come to respect you as a person, regardless if I agree with you or not. You're always informative and nuanced, plus the shared interest in history and culture, and preserving the objetive of it over 'your truth', which is more subjective, a personal perspective.Most times, our disagreements might be in regard to role of the Church, which just about everyone has difficulty holding objective and nuanced about, be it history or the current era. But I do appreciate when you reserve judgement and ask for more clarity on why the Church may do things one way or another. Point being here that people can learn and respect one another regardless of differences.
As per influencer, I do agree for the need to take responsibility. This is not necessarily about taking it for the team, or a deserved punishment to serve as an example, for setting a good example as a mentor is a form of influence. While I don't talk on my channel, I do try to reference source material if arranging someone else's song, as well as what audio, video, amd musical software I use to compose and arrange songs. Doing that makes a difference between being responsible with copyrights and licenses, or otherwise not and being given a valid copyright strike. I'm glad when people enjoy my music, or arrangements, and take pride in showing my receipts as well.
Anyways, thanks for the content, and was glad you didn't rush to conclusions. Regardless what happens, everyone deserves their day in court, if they need to defend themselves, and may mercy and justice prevail.
1
-
1
-
As for 'love', sure, modern English has let the term be used for all sorts of things. But we do have various terms, including traditional Greek derivatives, such as erotic, aphrodisiac, and nympho to mean similar to 'love' as in enamored, impassioned, hot, or sweet for, or on, have a crush on, turned on, lustful, or simply horny. The higher love, such as agape (ἀγάπη), would traditionally be, for Godly love, worship, devotion, or adoration. However, they are often used in modern context for someone highly praised, or a person that has become worthy of trust and respect, or someone that you strongly desire and admire. Philia (φιλία) would denote friendship, comradery, and is somewhat mixed with storge (στοργή), in as much as brotherhood and familial bonds are mixed among friendships and the modern way in which they are put together, such as instead of co-workers being mere associates, but becoming work family, or a friend that's been around and part of family gatherings and internal workings, is considered more like part of the family. Though we don't call it philautia (φιλαυτία), we do have some modern notion of self-love or self-affirmation of which we would distinguish between a healthy, positive, balanced self-awareness/self-acceptance that allows individuals to love and appreciate themselves, and unhealthy, excessive, narcissistic self-love that is characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and a lack of empathy for others. We may have some differences on meanings of terms, and all I can really say here, is that I'd hope for our modern era, we return to using more of the terminology we have for certain cravings, desires, respect, etc., than simply saying, "I love that!" Especially when all you mean is that you like how a burrito tastes, or favor the flavor or color of a thing. Someone might just say, "Well, if you 'love' it so much, why not marry it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not sure what happened to my post. I noted preference for 'year of our Lord,' and how BC can be 'before the birth of our Lord,' and how that can be a matter of style as much as communication. Or, in a manner of speaking, style has to do with the way in which one relays something, as in what is stressed and for what impact.
I mentioned the beginning of Homer's Iliad for example, since the way it is interpreted tends to boil down to style as well. For whether you start 'sing O muse,' or 'sing O goddess,' neither is wrong because the Muses themselves were considered goddesses. The use of 'O goddess' may be literally more accurate, as 'theas,' the feminine version of 'theos' (god) is used. Poetically, muse is not wrong, since we are talking about a work of literature, and the Muses were the goddesses of the arts. Further, if one wants to be really technical, the passage begins with the word 'menin' which is 'wrath,' as in an enduring anger that is usually reserved as the anger of the gods. However, it here conveys the anger of Achilles who is considered something of a demigod in Greek mythology. The Greek language is very relational in word usage, even though at times to read it in a literal left to right manner as is accustomed in English, it can sound like some excited boy who gives out a word salad from not yet forming the sentence structure we normally use today. But in Greek, the placement is purposeful. Why put anger before the goddess to sing? Because the anger of the fallen Achilles matches that of the wrath of the gods. Thus one of the major themes of the Iliad besides the fall of Troy, being the death of Achilles, to which even the chief god Zeus weighed in on the fate of this hero. Thus why one could poetically form even the literal left to right like this:
"To the wrath, sing, O goddess,
of the son of Peleos, the wretched Achilles."
For this conveys the meaning, along with stressing the key aspects of the passage in the manner of the original Greek, but in a way that makes sense in modern English. Even so, it's a translation made out of preference of a poetic, song-like lyric of more recent style or fashion of use in English. T may give a glimpse of how I may interpret the Iliad, which does have a way. Of being changed after reading it in the Greek, not unlike how the understanding of the Bible can change from reading, say, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, etc., as compared to the accepted modern English translations. Thus 'correct' often depends on what is accepted as truth, sometimes regardless what is indeed the Truth.
1