RMH
🪼
occasionally subtle

⁂

Product Placement
Jules of Nature

blake kathryn
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
taylor price
Three Goblin Art
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Claire Keane

#extradirty

Andulka

Origami Around
Misplaced Lens Cap
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

tannertan36

Kaledo Art

PR's Tumblrdome

seen from Sweden
seen from United States

seen from China

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from Greece

seen from Netherlands
seen from Kyrgyzstan

seen from T1

seen from United States
@keserian
christmas isn’t pagan. at all.
Let me explain why.
It’s a common misconception that the date chosen for celebrating Christ’s Nativity was selected due to its proximity to pagan (particularly Roman) holidays on the Gentile calendar. This was because, according to such theorist, early Christians wanted to draw in the pagans by celebrating Holy Days around the times of their usual seasonal festivals.
However, this makes no sense for two reasons. First, pagans hated members of this monotheistic religion, just as they despised the Jews. And the last thing the early Church fathers wanted was to mix their delicate new religion with impurities that surely come with appealing to pagan culture. Christians wouldn’t have been welcomed to celebrate anything openly, never mind allowed to undermine important pagan festivals with their own.
Second, what drew pagans to Christianity in the first place was how it differed from pantheist religions they were familiar with. So why on earth would early Christians then try to appeal more to pagan culture when that had no bearing on conversion? It’s a fallacy that is contradicted by the “purity” beliefs of the Church.
Keep in mind the culture of the early Church. They were still fresh, brand-new, and the early clergy would have been very concerned with the mixing of religions diluting the Christian message. Most Church “Doctors” were scrupulous scholars, meticulously researching and interpreting Holy Scripture from both the New Testament and the Old. They would have studied the extensive history recorded in books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which recorded the Jews bad experiences and following consequences that resulted from the Jews mingling too much amongst the pantheist society. The Doctors would have been keen to avoid repeating these mistakes. (Think of how many seemingly negligible, “harmless” heresies the Church sought to squash early on).
Not to mention that many well-documented sources (such as King Charlemagne) indicate the complete abandon of pagan beliefs during conversion. It makes sense, logically: if you were a new convert, it would be best to avoid any and all reminders of your past faith less you feel tempted to return or re-adopt some aspects of it.
But doesn’t Christmas fall suspiciously close to pagan holidays on the calendar, suggesting at least a connection? Nope. This misconception became wildly circulated in the 19th century with the publication of Alexander Hisop, who wrote wildly unsourced claims.
Yule is a Celtic holiday (Dec 21st - 7th). So why would early Christians settle the Nativity on a day only celebrated by a fraction of far-West Europe?
There is also claims it was influenced by Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birth of the Unconquered Sun). However, this was proposed on Dec. 25th by the pagan Roman emperor Aurelian in 275 AD– after the dates of published works from the Saints Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) and Sextus Africus (160 - 240 AD), who I will get to in a moment. Thus, early Christians (many of Jewish heritage) were associating December 25th as a date closely associated with Christ long before Aurelian dedicated the birthday of the sun.
In fact, many scholarly sources indicate that the winter solstice was NOT a hotbead for sun-worshiping for pagans. Here’s the most succinct quote: “Thomas Talley has shown that, although the Emperor Aurelian’s dedication of a temple to the sun god in the Campus Martius (C.E. 274) probably took place on the ‘Birthday of the Invincible Sun’ on December 25, the cult of the sun in pagan Rome ironically did not celebrate the winter solstice nor any of the other quarter-tense days, as one might expect.” (Michael Alan Anderson) The principle dates for sun-worship were actually in August, not December.
If anything, Emperor Aurelian purposely chose December 25th for a new, lousy, and unpopular pagan feast to overshadow the ever-growing Christian culture in his empire. The pagan Romans hated monotheism and tried to purge it, hence all the early persecutions within the empire. The truth is that Aurelian wanted to drown out the Christians, not the other way around.
The misconception originated with this quote:
“It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day.” (Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997, p. 155)
Many seized this passage as proof of paganism being the root of Christmas. Yet context is critical. The original author is Bishop Bar-Salibi, an Eastern Orthodox bishop, writing to his flock to attempt to explain why Western Catholics celebrated on the 25th: Eastern Christians traditionally celebrate on Jan 7th. He had only a cursory knowledge of Western Catholic culture and wrote sparingly, not particularly well thought-out or with much research. It is, at the very best, a haphazard guess by a foreigner.
One must consider the environment of Roman Christians at the time. They were actively persecuted by these same pagans– is it really likely that those same pagans would take kindly to them adopting their practices–or that the Christians would want to assimilate the culture that was trying to wipe them out? Not likely.
Okay, so Christmas wasn’t chosen to be on December 25th because of any pagan holidays. So why was the date significant? They didn’t just draw random dates out of a hat and pick one at random. In order to understand the date, you have to understand late Jewish culture and how it developed into early Christian culture.
Another common misconception (and directly related to this one) is that Hanukkah is not based in Mosaic Law. It’s definitely Jewish, but it was not born of any law, command, or decree like other Jewish holidays (i.e. not born from Moses). It was a way for the Jews to remember and celebrate the second dedication of the Temple after the Maccabean revolt. The celebration always lasted 8 days, starting on the 25th day of the Jewish month of Kislev. The month of Kislev on the Jewish calendar overlaps the month of December on the Julian/Gregorian calendar. In fact, sometimes the overlap is so close, that Hanukkah is celebrated at the same time Christians are celebrating Christmas.
The apostles decided which laws of Judaism the Early Christians were still beholden by (Council of Jerusalem, circa 50 AD). Hanukkah, because it was not Mosaic Law, was not included in this determination because it was simply a tradition of the people rather than a command of God. Remember that many early Christian-Jews still considered themselves to be Jewish. They would have continued to follow many cultural aspects of Judaism, such as attending the Temple on the Sabbath, and, by extension, celebrating Hanukkah.
Hanukkah was very much a celebration focused on light, a “rebirth” for the (earthly) kingdom, and a refreshed covenant with God. It made sense that Early Christians would therefore feel close to it. However, early Christians were shunned by the Jews, often kicked out of the culture completely. They lost track of the Jewish calendar over time, and thus it’s only natural that they fell into using the Julian calendar as the Gentile Christians did. They instead celebrated Hanukkah on December 25th–which was pretty close to Kislev 25th anyways. And–here’s the kicker– there are 8 days between Dec 25th and Jan 1st, meaning it perfectly wrapped up the end of the Christian cultural year with re-dedication (new years revolutions, anyone?). Christmas became the christened version of Hanukkah in the beginning. This went on for several centuries in the Early Church.
So how did the Christian Hanukkah become associated with Christ’s nativity? Early Christians, in accordance with old Jewish custom, believed that the world was created on Nissan 14, which is about March 25 on the Julian calendar. These Jewish Christians not only associated the beginning of the world on that date, but also the beginning of the new world: meaning the conception of Jesus Christ.
To this day, the Catholic Church (and Lutheran, Anglican) celebrate the Annunciation on March 25th. Pregnancies last for about 9 months, so count that far ahead from the date: you get December 25th. Aforementioned Saints Ireaneus and Sextus Africanus firmly defended this date. Thus, it was only natural for Christians to adapt their version of Hanukkah into a celebration of Christ’s nativity. Eventually the 8-day feast was overshadowed by 12 days, but that’s another discussion irrelevant to this one.
Here’s the biggest kicker: December 25th wasn’t officially chosen as the date of the Nativity by Church Officials until the Medieval period. Long after most pagan or pantheist religions had mostly died out. The date was chosen by tradition of the people’s celebrations and its connections to the traditional date of the Annunciation (conception of Our Lord).
So you’ve got two explanations as to how Christmas came to be: the widely-circulated suggestion of it being based on pagan practices, mostly prompted by 19th-century misconstructions; versus it naturally originating from the course of intermingling of Jewish and Gentile-born early Christians. The latter is supported by a lot of official documentation by the church, including published works by several saints/scholars close to the time of origin.
Accepting that Christmas was not pagan-based, let’s move on. What about the supposedly pagan customs ingrained in it? Like the Christmas Tree? Yes, the Franks and Scandinavians worshipped trees. But there is no credible documentation found that suggests they even brought them into their houses (in fact, this probably would have been sacrilegious, especially to the Norse: trees were only ever to be chopped down for absolute necessity, so having one around for ornamentation would be disrespectful).
St. Boniface was glorified for the legend of his chopping down of the (pagan) Donor Oak to prevent human sacrifice, and this act was quite evangelized. The Germans watched in horror, fearing Thor would strike them down for this brazen act. Boniface, seeing this, took action. He indicated a small fir sapling growing close to the roots of the former sacrifice tree, and used it as a teaching tool: the fir was triangular in shape, representing the trinity; it was always green, representing God’s never-ending love for His people; and the needles always point upwards as God. Boniface suggested that God placed the fir there as a symbol to the pagans. It is then said that Boniface took a tree into the later-constructed church, an ever green similar to the fir, during the winter as a reminder.
Of course, the modern Christmas tree came later, during the time of the Protestant reformation. It was in Germany, in an attempt to recreate St. Boniface’s tree. Martin Luther is said to have first added lighted candles to an evergreen tree, in an attempt to recreate in his chapel the starlight he saw, shining between trees in a forest, while walking home one winter night. There are other supposedly Pagan symbols used in Christmas celebrations, but most of those aren’t as widely used or accused as the Christmas Tree.
TL;DR: Christmas comes from Jewish customs, not pagan
“cause more carnage when used with a pistol-grip” . apparently pistol grips make the round bigger and faster.
That’s a demonRAT for you
This could kill you…
But THIS will kill your soul
To be shot with that abomination actually would.
Either version is an abomination. The M14 was a badly conceived weapon system from day 1.
So some dude got sent to the hospital with cyanide poisoning because he was eating cherries and decided, for some fucking reason, to crack the pits open and eat the meat inside.
“I didn’t think nothin’ of it. Thought it was just a seed.”
“Deep breath”
I SWEAR TO THE FUCKIN GODS…..
(cue 25 minutes of unintelligible yelling)
….and that is why being separated from our food’s origins and not knowing anything about botany is what is wrong with the world today goddamnit.
I bet some people would eat castor beans too. Or yew. Or just fuckin’ snack on some hemlock because it’s natural, man.
Fucking incredible.
LIKE IT TAKES SOME FUCKING EFFORT TO GET A CHERRY PIT OPEN FUCKING W H Y
Question: Is it the same with plums? I used to do that occasionally when I ate dried and seasoned Asian plums as a kid.
Yes.
Plum pits do not contain as much as cherry, but they do.
Do not eat stone fruit pits, people. Or bitter almonds.
They all have cyanide in them.
Oh boy, apricot kernels. The amount of people I see lauding those as a “cure for cancer” is… demoralizing. I can’t find it right now but I believe there was a mother in the past few years who was taken to court for child endangerment/neglect for feeding those to her very young child as a cancer treatment.
I saw this horror last year, and yelled for an entire hour.
To be fair, I bet if you die of cyanide poisoning the cancer won’t kill you.
I have been wanting to use these photos for months.
The recommendation is to only eat 3 in one hour. because that is just the most filling snack and of course they will stop at three.
But then they say DON’T EAT MORE THEN 10 A DAY.
It’s not even FDA approved. “may be toxic”.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
Just because it’s food for another creature doesn’t mean it’s fine for you.
Best case scenario it’s like grass which is basically neutral- it’s generally not going to kill you but there’s no nutrition for humans in it, and enough will probably make you sick.
Worst case scenario it’s something like belladonna berries which taste sweet but will kill you stone cold dead.
Same for the wrong kind of mushrooms, other berries, leaves and barks. Before consuming, CHECK. If you can’t check, don’t put it in your mouth.
Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
I’ve been saying this for so long, oh my gosh.
^^As a toxicologist, I approve this message.
Friendly reminder that the laws on supplement labeling in the US are super lax and haven’t been updated since 1994. That’s nearly 25 years ago!
Just trying to figure out where they stand. Guess it depends on the day.
Nope…it depends on Trumps stance.
close the medieval loophole!
Bring It Back 🇺🇸
More important than ever.
Even though it cost more I still buy only American Made pocket knives for my collection.
But the alternative costs SO much more.
Things that are built well do cost more. And if I can get a solid product that keeps other Americans working I’ll do it.
Absolutely!!!! Buying an inferior product not only costs us, the consumer, more money but it also adversely affects our economy in ways that are immeasurable.
As a car salesman (Honda), I have to add that all of my Accords, Pilots, Ridgelines, and Odysseys are produced in the US. Most of my Civics and CR-Vs are either built here, or in Canada with high US parts content. Actually, my Accords are more American made than your average Ford car, sad to say.
The only cars I can think of that are always produced outside the US are the Civic Hatchback, HR-V, Fit, Insight, and Clarity. Most of our hybrid models are built in Japan, the Civic Hatch is built in Britain, and the Fit and HR-V are both built in Mexico (although that might be changing to a US plant soon according to rumors). Even more impressive, most of the design for those cars takes place here in the US as well, and a lot of parts used in Hondas sold in EDM and JDM (European and Japanese domestic markets), as well as entire cars, are actually produced here in the US and shipped overseas.
When you buy an American built car, you're paying a whole chain of people, from the salesman who sold you the car, the technician who inspected it when it came off the truck, the driver who brought it from the depot to the dealer, the factory workers who assembled the car, the contractors who built the parts for the car, all the way back to the designers who sketched the body design. I forget the exact number, but Honda did an FYI page in their internal sales magazine that figured out how many people were involved in the production of a single Accord, and it's well over a thousand.
I suppose the Marines transition to PMags wasn’t going to be without a few minor issues but interesting little fix.
I do love the Marine Corps way of fixing problems. Don't bother designing and ordering a whole new batch of pouches, just figure out a way to make it work.
The thing in the sustainable population post that really is interesting to me is the idea that we could stuff every human into an Ecuador-sized NYC and the rest of the world would be uninhabited.
it would feel like a giant prison complex id rather die than live with such claustrophobic population density
Not if I was in charge of the megacity project, we’d have trees in on and around futurist and brutalist buildings.
Even if it was a giant prison complex, it’d be an archeofuturist hyper-aesthetic tree house prison complex.
There's actually a lot of very interesting work done on Eucumenopolis design and theory. The problem with putting that many people into that small a space really becomes a question more of waste heat management than anything else.
Things I’d happily sell my grandma and a kidney for: The Witcher / Deus Ex crossover game School of the Tiger (because of the Detroit Tigers) and useful retractable silver blades for killing monsters and conspiracies :P
It’s called Cyberpunk 2077 and it’s coming out next year.
i sometimes wonder…..do pokemon trainers ever experience ‘evolution regret’ on the odd occasion?? like there are some serious size differences in some lines loool
What do angels actually look like per the bible?
Well, according to Ezekiel 1 they might look something like this…
According to Daniel 10 something like this…
According to Isaiah 6…
In Ezekiel 10…
Again in Ezekiel 10…
Basically, when the people writing Scripture tried to describe what they saw when they saw an angel… they run into the end of their imagination… they can never quite seem to fully explain it because they had trouble even comprehending what they saw, let alone being able to describe it to someone else.
Yeah, that’s usually how people responded to seeing them in the Bible…
There’s a good reason why angels’ standard greeting is ‘Do not be afraid’.
I used to listen to this radio show and one thing I remember because it was so funny was a Christmas special where an angel showed up to tell the shepherds about the birth of Christ. The conversations went:
Angel: “FEAR NOT.”
Shepherds: *screaming*
Angel: “I SAID FEAR NOT.”
Shepherds: *screaming LOUDER*
Angel: “WHAT PART OF FEAR NOT ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING?”
So demons are fallen angels but they don’t look scary because they’re fallen, that’s just what all angels look like…
Maybe that’s why so many Christians see visions of Saints or the Virgin Mary instead…like Jesus is all…no, no see being human made me realize sending Angels might not be the best idea. I don’t know if humans can handle this. So I’m gonna just send mom
@fem-deanwinchester
I’M GONNA JUST SEND MOM
God: The humans are scared.
Mary: Fine. I’m on it.
Jesus: It’s either Mom or the thousand eyed flaming wheel, Dad, do you really think the humans are gonna be chill with that when they’re terrified of spiders already?
God: Hey now, some of those spiders eat birds.
Jesus: …Dad…
God: …To be fair, Australian wildlife was my dark creation phase.
Australian wildlife was my dark creation phase
This is my new favorite post
Happy birtday
Murderer: Swings again
Me: Strike 3,
You’re out!
McCain is the biggest piece of shit walking
Best thing he did in the Navy was get shot down
Responsible for the deaths of 27 service members, with 100 injured due to negligence. To my mind this makes you a traitor at most and a criminal at least.
I’m not clear on part of this. Was his wet start the reason the Zuni fires which then caused a bomb on his A-4 to go off? Am I getting that right?
Yes. The plane behind him was close enough that the wet start set off the Zuni, which set of his own unstable ordinance.
Honestly the brain tumor isn’t a huge problem. Not like it can make him any more of a dumbass
His dad helped cover up the attack on the USS Liberty? Holy shit this family.
Wait. Something here doesn't make sense. The Zuni rocket didn't misfire because of a wet start. Navy records, and experiments, indicated that the Zuni fired because of an electrical surge during engine start that occurred because some of the safety plugs were removed too early because the flight crew was rushing to get the mission in the air. Also, if I remember correctly, the Zuni in question traveled across the flight deck before striking an F-4, which wouldn't make sense if a wet start caused it.
Okay, so I went back and found the initial flight deck video for the Forrestal disaster, and this article doesn't make any sense. The positioning doesn't work out. The Skyhawks and Phantoms are all arrayed in a "U" shape at the aft of the flight deck, and none of them look to be in a position where a "wet start" would directly impinge on another aircraft. Also, McCain was flying a Phantom. The F-4 has a slightly different engine layout than most modern jets. Rather than put the engine nozzles at the very rear of the aircraft (like the F-22 Raptor, F/A-18 Hornet, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, F-14 Tomcat and most other jet fighters) the engine exhaust on the Phantom is actually mounted closer to the center, underneath the tail assembly. Any pilot who "wet started" his aircraft had a very good chance of damaging his own tail far more than he had a chance of scaring anyone behind him.
Moving on, Snopes, Politifact, and Fact Check all call BS on this one. Now, I agree that I don't trust them worth a darn, so I actually sat down and read through their points. Basically, the geometry doesn't work out. McCain's fighter was next to the plane that was hit by the Zuni, so it doesn't make any sense at all that a wet start from his aircraft caused the rocket to misfire.