Earlier in the pages of this Blog I have questioned some of the fundamental believes of Christianity and, in particular, of Roman Catholicism.
I asked where, in God's Name, can anybody find a rational, reasonable connection between a Man/God being cruelly tortured and then killed by Crucifixion and the forgiveness of Man's sins.
In short: This is what Christians believe:
God (the father) said: "Kill me ( God the Son) and I will forgive all your sins.
I have also written about "Prayer" and have suggested that it is either "useless" and/or "unnecessary".
Enough of this, however.
I would like now to look at the concept of "Original Sin". (O.S.)
I am sure that we can agree that O.S.is the act committed by Adam (why not also Eve?) against God's prohibition to eat the fruit from a certain tree. One might assume that this "fruit from the tree" is simply a simile for man's and woman's sexual awakening.
Genesis 3-6: .....after both ate from this tree..."then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Since Adam, seduced by Eve, knew that he had done wrong, he hid in the garden of Eden, where God found him, after having called out "where are you?" ( Did "All Knowing God" not know where Adam hid ?)
Then God asked Adam if he had eaten from the forbidden fruit.
(Did the All Knowing God not know this ? Did he have to ask ?) Now Adam reveals himself as an absolute coward:
"This woman you gave to me... she made me do it"... or words to this effect.
Talk about a cowardly passing the buck... then of course, Eve, not wanting to take all the blame, pushes it onto the snake... she made me do it... or words to this effect.
What a sad couple of people all of us come from!
Now comes God's punishment: All three of them, the snake, Eve and last but not least Adam get it in the neck. The punishment is simply fearful. Read it! You won't believe it!
Eve is condemned to painful childbirth and to be subjugated to Adam ( I wonder which is worse.)
Adam is condemned to hard labour and then comes the cruncher: ..."for dust you are and to dust you will return."
It seems that up to this fatal point, Adam and Eve (the snake too ? ) were immortal. Now they are slated to die.
God so we are asked to believe, created Mankind and seemingly imbued them with a strong sexual drive.
In fact, the strongest drive after the will to survive. When they realize that they are naked (become aware of their sexuality) God throws the book at them. He condemns them to a torturous life and finally to death. And all of this because they could not overcome their drive to copulate.
How is this for an All Loving-, All Forgiving- All Just God ?
And here we come to the concept of O.S.
Romans 5:19
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one Man (Adam) and death (entered the world) through sin and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
So, it can be said that O.S. is not only disobedience of Adam, but also the state of Mankind now and forever.
So what is it that frees us from this cursed O.S.?
It is Baptism by water !
It seems that while Jesus' death frees us from all regular sins ? How? Why? When ?
Only Baptism can free us from O.S. ... and back we are at the poor children who die before they can be baptised. They used to roast in Hell, until somebody dreamed up: Limbo....
It is difficult, probably impossible, to get a grip on all of these contradictory, illogical statements, threats, promises, and make any kind of sense of them.
so, let's talk about something else; suggests
Bertstravels
Friday, June 27, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Germany 1 : USA 0
Yes, that's the way it ended. A game with only few high lites, but well fought by both teams. It seemed to me that the Germans had a little more of the game, particularly in the first half. Their attack was a bit more organized and the Americans often just cleared the ball out of harms way with a gigantic up-field boot, which inevitably ended with a German defender and the new attack into the American half was on.
At half time there was still no score.
The German goal happened in a most spectacular way. A German shot to the left of the US keeper, who with a marvellous parade deflected the ball back into the field and, unfortunately right onto the boot of one of the German sharp shooters, Thomas Müller in the 55th minute of the game drilled an unstoppable shot into the far corner of the US goal.
In spite of three dangerous chances which the US players worked out in the last three minutes of the game, they were unable to tie this game.
All in all, I suppose one has to admit that the slightly better team won this tussle.
The good news is, that in spite of this outcome, both teams will advance into the 8th final.
At half time there was still no score.
The German goal happened in a most spectacular way. A German shot to the left of the US keeper, who with a marvellous parade deflected the ball back into the field and, unfortunately right onto the boot of one of the German sharp shooters, Thomas Müller in the 55th minute of the game drilled an unstoppable shot into the far corner of the US goal.
In spite of three dangerous chances which the US players worked out in the last three minutes of the game, they were unable to tie this game.
All in all, I suppose one has to admit that the slightly better team won this tussle.
The good news is, that in spite of this outcome, both teams will advance into the 8th final.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
The World Cup of Soccer
I've been asked why I have not said anything about this wonderful World Cup of 'Fußball' (Soccer), when I have played the game myself for many years and then coached young players in the fine arts of this game, finally hanging up the boots for good in 1976 after a most successful trip to Austria with the Senior Team of Willowdale United in 1975.
We returned with 2 Victories (2:0 and 4:2) and 3 very close losses: 2:1, 3:2 and 1:0, with one wipe out of 7:1 which we played under miserable weather and pitch conditions against the U21 team of the then Austrian Champion, Wacker Innsbruck. However, enough of this. This trip with its 6 games and innumerable side lights would be worth a lengthy entry here. But this is for another time.
Here, in Austria every game of this 'WM' was televised in its entirety, some of them twice.
I was sad to note right from the beginning that neither Canada nor Austria succeeded in sending their respective team to this competition. So my allegiance switched to the USA, although there is little hope for them against such power houses like England, Italy, Spain, not to mention Brazil and Mexico.
Did I say: 'power houses' England, Italy, and Spain? Well, all three of them took an early exit, much against my and everybody else's expectations.
As the saying goes, however: " The ball is round and bounces in unexpected directions."
In some cases the 'Super Stars' did not perform to expectations: Wayne Roony of England never developed, on a consistent basis, all of his potential. Mario Balotelli of Italy certainly was a giant disappointment and the whole Spanish team fell far short of what everybody had hoped for.
The heavy, ultra heavy favourites now remain Brazil or Holland.
Do not be at all surprised if Germany will speak a mighty word, the USA remaining simply my personal preference with very little hope of getting into the Semis.
We may look forward to better and better games, hopefully we shall be spared the cannibalistic tendencies displayed by the Uruguayan star Louis Suarez.
without any 'biting remarks' I remain
Bertstravels.
We returned with 2 Victories (2:0 and 4:2) and 3 very close losses: 2:1, 3:2 and 1:0, with one wipe out of 7:1 which we played under miserable weather and pitch conditions against the U21 team of the then Austrian Champion, Wacker Innsbruck. However, enough of this. This trip with its 6 games and innumerable side lights would be worth a lengthy entry here. But this is for another time.
Here, in Austria every game of this 'WM' was televised in its entirety, some of them twice.
I was sad to note right from the beginning that neither Canada nor Austria succeeded in sending their respective team to this competition. So my allegiance switched to the USA, although there is little hope for them against such power houses like England, Italy, Spain, not to mention Brazil and Mexico.
Did I say: 'power houses' England, Italy, and Spain? Well, all three of them took an early exit, much against my and everybody else's expectations.
As the saying goes, however: " The ball is round and bounces in unexpected directions."
In some cases the 'Super Stars' did not perform to expectations: Wayne Roony of England never developed, on a consistent basis, all of his potential. Mario Balotelli of Italy certainly was a giant disappointment and the whole Spanish team fell far short of what everybody had hoped for.
The heavy, ultra heavy favourites now remain Brazil or Holland.
Do not be at all surprised if Germany will speak a mighty word, the USA remaining simply my personal preference with very little hope of getting into the Semis.
We may look forward to better and better games, hopefully we shall be spared the cannibalistic tendencies displayed by the Uruguayan star Louis Suarez.
without any 'biting remarks' I remain
Bertstravels.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Doggy-Dog-Dog
Three non-controversial pictures ! I hope !!!
Our Airdale Terrier after a visit to
the "beauty parlour"
where she got a hair cut and a bath.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
"Fronleichnam" what does it mean ?
Today, in Austria, the festival of "Fronleichnam" was celebrated.
The etymological meaning of the word stems from the middle-high-german, "vrom" meaning "that, which concerns the Lord" and "leichnam", meaning "body"
Today's festival therefore dealt with "The Eucharist".
The ceremony or sacrament, during which Christians remember and celebrate "The Last Supper",
during which Christ offered bread and wine to his disciples and reportedly said:
"Take, eat; this is my body" and then, offering them a cup of wine: "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood.....
(Matthew 26:26-28)
Although this is a scene described in the Bible, a book which must be considered as suspect in regards of its veracity, due to its many contradictions and incomprehensible, illogical, nonsensical statements, let us, for a moment, pretend as if this report were true and accurate:
Christ takes a loaf of bread, breaks from it and tells his fans that they should eat this, because this is his body.
Then he offers a drink from a cup of wine and tells them: drink this, for this is my blood.
The only consideration which prevents us from thinking of "Cannibalism" surely must be that Christ meant this symbolically, allegorically and not literally.
Leave it at this! Allow it to remain in the realm of the Symbol and it would be truly beautiful. As an Allegory Christ would have said:
"Each time you take a bite to eat, think of me! Each time you take a drink: Think of me.
But nooooo !
This would not have been enough of the magic: We need some spectacular "HocusPocus! Abra Cadabra"
The Church, in later years, had to insist that there was a true 'Transubstantiation' ! A true and real changing of what, a second ago, was a piece of bread, now is flesh of the body of Christ, and that, which a moment ago was a cup of wine, now is a cup of Christ's blood.
This transubstantiation happens not only at the Festival of the Eucharist, (Fronleichnam), but happens each and every Mass, celebrated by a Priest.
Christ is really present in flesh and blood and there is no debate! You hear?
This is to be 'believed' by every Catholic. He, who does not believe it, who thinks this be only a symbol, an allegory, is not a Catholic. Cannot be a Catholic, never was and never will be a Catholic.... and likely will find him/herself on a quick road to Hell.
I do not want to ask you to perform a chemical analysis of the wafer of bread or the cup of wine before and then after the aleged "transubstantation". Because, so the argument would be presented: One cannot proove or disproove matters of faith by scientific analysis or by logical considerations.
When I was a child, I went to "First Confession" and then to "First Communion".
The Priest, who gave Religious Instruction to a bunch of 3rd graders, told us most seriously:
"When you receive the Host, it may look like a waver, but it is not! It is the real body of Jesus Christ.
Therefore do not bite it with your teeth. This would hurt Jesus. Just press it gently with your tongue against the roof of your mouth and you will feel how the body of Christ dissolves and goes into your body, where it will stay, because your confession and absolution has made your body into a clean house in which Jesus will want to live. ( How sinful can an 8 year old be that Jesus Christ would want nothing to do with him ? )
Even at the ripe age of 8 I did not believe a word of it and only wondered why this nice man lied to us so blatantly, when I knew, because he told us, that 'Lieing' was a mortal Sin.
Bertstravels
still wonders.
.
The etymological meaning of the word stems from the middle-high-german, "vrom" meaning "that, which concerns the Lord" and "leichnam", meaning "body"
Today's festival therefore dealt with "The Eucharist".
The ceremony or sacrament, during which Christians remember and celebrate "The Last Supper",
during which Christ offered bread and wine to his disciples and reportedly said:
"Take, eat; this is my body" and then, offering them a cup of wine: "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood.....
(Matthew 26:26-28)
Although this is a scene described in the Bible, a book which must be considered as suspect in regards of its veracity, due to its many contradictions and incomprehensible, illogical, nonsensical statements, let us, for a moment, pretend as if this report were true and accurate:
Christ takes a loaf of bread, breaks from it and tells his fans that they should eat this, because this is his body.
Then he offers a drink from a cup of wine and tells them: drink this, for this is my blood.
The only consideration which prevents us from thinking of "Cannibalism" surely must be that Christ meant this symbolically, allegorically and not literally.
Leave it at this! Allow it to remain in the realm of the Symbol and it would be truly beautiful. As an Allegory Christ would have said:
"Each time you take a bite to eat, think of me! Each time you take a drink: Think of me.
But nooooo !
This would not have been enough of the magic: We need some spectacular "HocusPocus! Abra Cadabra"
The Church, in later years, had to insist that there was a true 'Transubstantiation' ! A true and real changing of what, a second ago, was a piece of bread, now is flesh of the body of Christ, and that, which a moment ago was a cup of wine, now is a cup of Christ's blood.
This transubstantiation happens not only at the Festival of the Eucharist, (Fronleichnam), but happens each and every Mass, celebrated by a Priest.
Christ is really present in flesh and blood and there is no debate! You hear?
This is to be 'believed' by every Catholic. He, who does not believe it, who thinks this be only a symbol, an allegory, is not a Catholic. Cannot be a Catholic, never was and never will be a Catholic.... and likely will find him/herself on a quick road to Hell.
I do not want to ask you to perform a chemical analysis of the wafer of bread or the cup of wine before and then after the aleged "transubstantation". Because, so the argument would be presented: One cannot proove or disproove matters of faith by scientific analysis or by logical considerations.
When I was a child, I went to "First Confession" and then to "First Communion".
The Priest, who gave Religious Instruction to a bunch of 3rd graders, told us most seriously:
"When you receive the Host, it may look like a waver, but it is not! It is the real body of Jesus Christ.
Therefore do not bite it with your teeth. This would hurt Jesus. Just press it gently with your tongue against the roof of your mouth and you will feel how the body of Christ dissolves and goes into your body, where it will stay, because your confession and absolution has made your body into a clean house in which Jesus will want to live. ( How sinful can an 8 year old be that Jesus Christ would want nothing to do with him ? )
Even at the ripe age of 8 I did not believe a word of it and only wondered why this nice man lied to us so blatantly, when I knew, because he told us, that 'Lieing' was a mortal Sin.
Bertstravels
still wonders.
.
An old custom: The route of the procession is decorated with birch trees
Four Altars, symbolising the four compas points, are erected
along the route. The Priest and his entrouage will stop and
he will read appropriate verses fro the Bible.
The "Bürgers" of the town, carrying various flags, casually move along.
Of course, the local "marching band" is there too and plays sacred music.
The ladies of the 'Trachten Klub'
The Priest, under the "heaven" carried by four members of the fire fighting brigade,
preceded by 6 Altar boys and girls
A stop at one of the four altars gives an opportunity for Monsignore
to read from the Scriptures
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Normal and pixilized Images
Some one, smarter than I am, wrote to me and told me that the word is not "pixilized", but "pixilated".
Okay, shoot me...
What's more, this audacious person wanted to see the original image, the one prior to my, as he put it, vandalizing it. Actually I probably, to remain with his criticism, did not "vandalize" but "vandalate" this image.
However this may be. Here are the original pictures and the ones I "vandalized"... or is it "vandalated":
Okay, shoot me...
What's more, this audacious person wanted to see the original image, the one prior to my, as he put it, vandalizing it. Actually I probably, to remain with his criticism, did not "vandalize" but "vandalate" this image.
However this may be. Here are the original pictures and the ones I "vandalized"... or is it "vandalated":
a single pedal of a rose, wind driven, on our lawn.
This same image, pixilized to make a square rose pedal.
roses are roses, (above)
but not if they become "vandalated" (below)
Friday, June 13, 2014
Is a rose always a rose ?
well, as mentioned earlier, Gertrude Stein claimed that
"A Rose is a Rose is a Rose !"
I suppose that Gertrude did not have an opportunity to fool around with the picture of a rose on a computer.
I took a picture of a single rose pedal on our lawn and then I "pixilized" the image.
Fascinating to find that such a computer image ( a picture taken with a digital camera and transferred to a laptop ) consists of uncountable little squares, called "pixels" ...
so I wondered: If a single rose pedal, lying on the lawn looks like that, how would a number of roses look ?
Down here are the results of this tomfoolery.
"A Rose is a Rose is a Rose !"
I suppose that Gertrude did not have an opportunity to fool around with the picture of a rose on a computer.
I took a picture of a single rose pedal on our lawn and then I "pixilized" the image.
Fascinating to find that such a computer image ( a picture taken with a digital camera and transferred to a laptop ) consists of uncountable little squares, called "pixels" ...
so I wondered: If a single rose pedal, lying on the lawn looks like that, how would a number of roses look ?
Down here are the results of this tomfoolery.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
3 out of 10 ?
A friend told me the old joke about God trying to interest some people in his Commandments. He was not having much luck until he met an Israelite, who, when told that these commandments were for free, said: "In this case gimme ten".
I must have heard this joke 50 or more years ago, but, being a courteous man I listened to the very end and then dutifully laughed and said: "That's a good one".
Through this hackneyed story, I became interested in the subject, since I had not given it much thought lately, and started to read up on the 10 Commandments in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church".
Exodus 20 2-17
Right off the bat, God tells the Israelites that
"I am the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage".
Here, God tells his people not to forget who he is. He is counting on their gratitude, since he has "brought them out of the house of bondage.
He then continues to fortify his singular position amongst the people:
"You shall have no other Gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth."
Does that mean that all the pictures you may see in every Catholic church are a transgression of this Commandment? Surely one cannot miss the pictures of an elderly gentleman with a flowing white beard !
And since it is clearly stated elsewhere that Jesus is, at the same time, the Son of God, as well as God himself, the display of him languishing and dying on a cross absolutely must fall in the prohibition expressed above.
The prohibition not to make a graven image of anything that is "in" the earth or in the water "under" the earth would surely condemn every painter and sculpturer whose work graces every church, museum, art gallery and most homes. ( I am not sure of the meaning of "in" instead of "on", nor of the expression: ...in the water "under" the earth.) Certainly every Church I have ever visited is jam packed full of transgression of this commandment.
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them."
This seems to forbid the adoration of such "graven images", while the foregoing forbids the very "making" of such likenesses.
"For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God"
Once again he reminds the people of his standing: "I the Lord, your God"
And now He reveals a very human weakness: ...
I am a jealous God...
Do I get something wrong here ? 'Jealousy' surely is a result of a feeling of inadequacy.
Why would I be jealous of another man, because my Wife, my Beloved seems to pay attention to him ?
If I felt certain of myself, certain of my qualities (in the case of the Lord "superior" qualities) then the very human feeling of jealousy, coupled with a fear of losing my Wife, my Beloved, would never arise.
So why would the Lord be "jealous" ? Or is there another interpretation of the word ?
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me"
For a moment I feared that 'iniquity' is something which can be inherited, stuck in the genes, but No, every dictionary tells me it means 'wickedness, immorality, evil' and a few more of that ilk.
So, our "all loving" "all forgiving" "All Just" Lord, our God, will take a man's transgressions out on his children, grand children, great grand children and great great grand children. He, the jealous one will seek revenge on the fourth generation after the sinner, although they may be as pure as the driven snow and may lead an exemplary Christian Life.
"but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
So there you have it: The Lord, God, the Creator loves his creation very very conditionally.
In His book there is no 'unconditional love'.
If you're good, and that means if you do as He says, he will show you "steadfast love"
But if you're bad, forget it ! The Lord's vengeance will reach out not only for you but for all your yet unborn children and children's children... and so on... Is this what we call "Justice"?
"You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
So, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, I must not ever cry out: Jeeeesus Chriiist.
Seriously though, this commandment again speaks of the vanity, jealousy, and self centered attitude of the Christian God.
I believe that the Lord of the Bible has all these human attributes, because the Book was written by men, who probably asked themselves: How would I feel ? What would I do ?
"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work.
but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord, your God...
There is more to this commandment. Details, details, but it is a little like this:
I, The Lord, your god, rested on the seventh day, and so shall you.!
So far we have heard how Great I am and how you must adore me or else.
It has all been about Me, Me, Me
The rest of the commandments, almost after thoughts, are about some of the things we must do or not do because they would hurt our neighbours:
Honour your parents, don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, don't make eyes at your neighbours mate....
and there is an interesting point: The commandment actually says:
"You shall not covet your neighbours wife"
What about coveting your neighbour's HUSBAND ?
It seems that according to those commandments it's perfectly Okay for a woman-neighbour, to have the hots for her male neighbour. Isn't that precious ?
Just another example that this Book was written by a bunch of guys on a lazy Sabbath afternoon.
I find it interesting that there is no suggestion in the 10 commandments that we should
"do unto our neighbours as we would wish them to do unto us."
that would pretty well wrap it up.
so thinks
Bertstravels.
I must have heard this joke 50 or more years ago, but, being a courteous man I listened to the very end and then dutifully laughed and said: "That's a good one".
Through this hackneyed story, I became interested in the subject, since I had not given it much thought lately, and started to read up on the 10 Commandments in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church".
Exodus 20 2-17
Right off the bat, God tells the Israelites that
"I am the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage".
Here, God tells his people not to forget who he is. He is counting on their gratitude, since he has "brought them out of the house of bondage.
He then continues to fortify his singular position amongst the people:
"You shall have no other Gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth."
Does that mean that all the pictures you may see in every Catholic church are a transgression of this Commandment? Surely one cannot miss the pictures of an elderly gentleman with a flowing white beard !
And since it is clearly stated elsewhere that Jesus is, at the same time, the Son of God, as well as God himself, the display of him languishing and dying on a cross absolutely must fall in the prohibition expressed above.
The prohibition not to make a graven image of anything that is "in" the earth or in the water "under" the earth would surely condemn every painter and sculpturer whose work graces every church, museum, art gallery and most homes. ( I am not sure of the meaning of "in" instead of "on", nor of the expression: ...in the water "under" the earth.) Certainly every Church I have ever visited is jam packed full of transgression of this commandment.
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them."
This seems to forbid the adoration of such "graven images", while the foregoing forbids the very "making" of such likenesses.
"For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God"
Once again he reminds the people of his standing: "I the Lord, your God"
And now He reveals a very human weakness: ...
I am a jealous God...
Do I get something wrong here ? 'Jealousy' surely is a result of a feeling of inadequacy.
Why would I be jealous of another man, because my Wife, my Beloved seems to pay attention to him ?
If I felt certain of myself, certain of my qualities (in the case of the Lord "superior" qualities) then the very human feeling of jealousy, coupled with a fear of losing my Wife, my Beloved, would never arise.
So why would the Lord be "jealous" ? Or is there another interpretation of the word ?
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me"
For a moment I feared that 'iniquity' is something which can be inherited, stuck in the genes, but No, every dictionary tells me it means 'wickedness, immorality, evil' and a few more of that ilk.
So, our "all loving" "all forgiving" "All Just" Lord, our God, will take a man's transgressions out on his children, grand children, great grand children and great great grand children. He, the jealous one will seek revenge on the fourth generation after the sinner, although they may be as pure as the driven snow and may lead an exemplary Christian Life.
"but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
So there you have it: The Lord, God, the Creator loves his creation very very conditionally.
In His book there is no 'unconditional love'.
If you're good, and that means if you do as He says, he will show you "steadfast love"
But if you're bad, forget it ! The Lord's vengeance will reach out not only for you but for all your yet unborn children and children's children... and so on... Is this what we call "Justice"?
"You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
So, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, I must not ever cry out: Jeeeesus Chriiist.
Seriously though, this commandment again speaks of the vanity, jealousy, and self centered attitude of the Christian God.
I believe that the Lord of the Bible has all these human attributes, because the Book was written by men, who probably asked themselves: How would I feel ? What would I do ?
"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work.
but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord, your God...
There is more to this commandment. Details, details, but it is a little like this:
I, The Lord, your god, rested on the seventh day, and so shall you.!
So far we have heard how Great I am and how you must adore me or else.
It has all been about Me, Me, Me
The rest of the commandments, almost after thoughts, are about some of the things we must do or not do because they would hurt our neighbours:
Honour your parents, don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, don't make eyes at your neighbours mate....
and there is an interesting point: The commandment actually says:
"You shall not covet your neighbours wife"
What about coveting your neighbour's HUSBAND ?
It seems that according to those commandments it's perfectly Okay for a woman-neighbour, to have the hots for her male neighbour. Isn't that precious ?
Just another example that this Book was written by a bunch of guys on a lazy Sabbath afternoon.
I find it interesting that there is no suggestion in the 10 commandments that we should
"do unto our neighbours as we would wish them to do unto us."
that would pretty well wrap it up.
so thinks
Bertstravels.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Not Just Roses
You couldn't be more wrong !
We've got Fuchsias.
Have a look :
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Roses in our back garden
William Shakespeare said :
A Rose, by any other name, still smells as sweet !
Gertrude Stein was more to the point, when she said:
A rose is a rose is a rose !
I, being not in their class, just say:
Ain't they just beauts ?
A Rose, by any other name, still smells as sweet !
Gertrude Stein was more to the point, when she said:
A rose is a rose is a rose !
I, being not in their class, just say:
Ain't they just beauts ?
Friday, June 6, 2014
The 6th day of June
On this day, in 1944, the liberation of Europe commenced in earnest.
It was later called "D-Day"
The day on which the first of 160,000 troops landed on the beaches of France, right into a murderous cross fire of German defenders. The Allied Forces had about 12,000 casualties, including 4,400 confirmed dead.
The German troops lost approximately 1,000 of their soldiers.
I could belabour you with unending statistics, but all of this information you may find in numerous entries in 'Wikepedia'.
Let me just discuss, briefly the oft debated question:
Was Germany 'liberated' or was the country 'defeated' ?
There is no question that the rest of Europe was indeed 'liberated' from Germany's brutal occupation.
Many of my contemporaries are steadfast in their opinion that Germany was not liberated but defeated.
I think I may have the answer: The 'National Socialist' regime and its army were defeated.
The People of Germany and Austria were 'liberated' !
Liberated from the cruelest dictatorship modern history has known. Liberated from the Nazi slogan:
"Our struggle is for Peace, Freedom and Bread". (Frieden, Freiheit und Brot), when, in fact the people of Germany (and that included Austria) rarely had less of those, in fact, they had No Peace, No Freedom and very little Bread.
In May of 1955 the then Austrian Foreign Minister, Leopold Figl, from the balcony of Belvedere Castle, in Vienna, waved the "Staatsvertrag" and announced to one and all: "Österreich ist frei."
When, I believe, he should have said: "Österreich war befreit am 8. Mai 1945, (Austria was liberated on the 8th May 1945) and this document is the final affirmation of its Liberty".
Bertstravels.
It was later called "D-Day"
The day on which the first of 160,000 troops landed on the beaches of France, right into a murderous cross fire of German defenders. The Allied Forces had about 12,000 casualties, including 4,400 confirmed dead.
The German troops lost approximately 1,000 of their soldiers.
I could belabour you with unending statistics, but all of this information you may find in numerous entries in 'Wikepedia'.
Let me just discuss, briefly the oft debated question:
Was Germany 'liberated' or was the country 'defeated' ?
There is no question that the rest of Europe was indeed 'liberated' from Germany's brutal occupation.
Many of my contemporaries are steadfast in their opinion that Germany was not liberated but defeated.
I think I may have the answer: The 'National Socialist' regime and its army were defeated.
The People of Germany and Austria were 'liberated' !
Liberated from the cruelest dictatorship modern history has known. Liberated from the Nazi slogan:
"Our struggle is for Peace, Freedom and Bread". (Frieden, Freiheit und Brot), when, in fact the people of Germany (and that included Austria) rarely had less of those, in fact, they had No Peace, No Freedom and very little Bread.
In May of 1955 the then Austrian Foreign Minister, Leopold Figl, from the balcony of Belvedere Castle, in Vienna, waved the "Staatsvertrag" and announced to one and all: "Österreich ist frei."
When, I believe, he should have said: "Österreich war befreit am 8. Mai 1945, (Austria was liberated on the 8th May 1945) and this document is the final affirmation of its Liberty".
Bertstravels.
Monday, June 2, 2014
A Dying Breed
The profession of 'chimney sweeps' fortunately is slowly dying out, due to heating being achieved more and more by electric power, gas and oil and less and less by coal.
In the 17th, 18th and 19th Century the Chimney Sweep was a most needed and respected profession.
A master sweeper would engage a number of young boys, some as young as 6 years of age, since 4 & 5 year olds were not strong enough for this grueling task. The boys were taught to climb up chimney stacks, by using their back and knees to wedge themselves up a soot-laden chimney.
If you read the history of these children you will find it hard to believe how they were mistreated:
They were either obtained from a "home for parentless youth", or purchased from their parents for about 7 shillings. They were then trained to climb chimneys and by wearing a hat with stiff bristles, and by wire brushes in their hands it was their task to loosen the soot from the walls of the chimneys. After having cleaned 4 to 6 chimneys they would be taken to the Masters home where they slept in the basement.
They were given sufficient water to wash themselves, at the best of times once a week and in some cases only 3 times a year:
At Christmas, Easter and one other religious holiday.
The cruelty with which these children were kept almost as slaves and prisoners is today incomprehensible.
For their labours they received no pay, but were fed by their masters.
When they had suffered an injury or grown too big to climb inside these chimneys, they were simply put upon the street, or sent back to their parents.
Today, sweeping is a rare and dying profession and 'sweeping boys' are of course no longer used.
In the 17th, 18th and 19th Century the Chimney Sweep was a most needed and respected profession.
A master sweeper would engage a number of young boys, some as young as 6 years of age, since 4 & 5 year olds were not strong enough for this grueling task. The boys were taught to climb up chimney stacks, by using their back and knees to wedge themselves up a soot-laden chimney.
If you read the history of these children you will find it hard to believe how they were mistreated:
They were either obtained from a "home for parentless youth", or purchased from their parents for about 7 shillings. They were then trained to climb chimneys and by wearing a hat with stiff bristles, and by wire brushes in their hands it was their task to loosen the soot from the walls of the chimneys. After having cleaned 4 to 6 chimneys they would be taken to the Masters home where they slept in the basement.
They were given sufficient water to wash themselves, at the best of times once a week and in some cases only 3 times a year:
At Christmas, Easter and one other religious holiday.
The cruelty with which these children were kept almost as slaves and prisoners is today incomprehensible.
For their labours they received no pay, but were fed by their masters.
When they had suffered an injury or grown too big to climb inside these chimneys, they were simply put upon the street, or sent back to their parents.
Today, sweeping is a rare and dying profession and 'sweeping boys' are of course no longer used.
Two Chimney Sweeps ( one a young woman ) in Vienna.
Today, the actual sweeping is accomplished by motorized brushes from above.
Source: Wikepedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)