The First Day of Christmas? Part II

Welcome to Part II of the First Day of Christmas, definitive answers to these four perennial questions inspired by the classic song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas:"

What is the first day of Christmas? In other words, on what day did the original singer's first present of a partridge in a pear tree arrive? Answer: December 26th!

What do we mean by the Christmas Season? I see that phrase interpreted so many ways. Does it have any definitive, commonly understood meaning? Or is it just a broad, sweepingly indistinct term? Is there value in defining the season, or should we let it be open to interpretation? 

Thinking about the song and all the gifts on each of those days, how many presents arrive in all? Think about it for a second. Five golden rings on days 5 through 12 amounts to 40 rings!  Coming soon in Part III

And speaking of gifts, is there any significance behind the seemingly random gift choices?  Coming soon in Part IV

We tackled the first question in Part I of the series. Missed it? Get caught up HERE.

And now, 

Onward and Upward 

with Part II

What, exactly, do we mean by the Christmas Season? I know the answer (smile), but before I reveal it, let's discuss why there is even a question. Opinions vary, as they say. To understand the over-arching Christmas Season question a bit more deeply, let's list and define some distinct periods of time that take place within the season:

• Advent: Interpreted on the liturgical calendar as 4 Sundays and weekdays before Christmas Eve. Each of the four weeks are often represented by a colored candle representing Advent themes of Hope, Love, Joy, and Peace, respectively. These colored candles surround a pure white Christ candle. Messages of Hope, Love, Joy, and Peace are discussed and celebrated in successive Sundays of Advent, and the Christ candle is lit on Christmas Eve. 
• In 2014, the Advent Season was November 30 through December 24, or 25 days, inclusive. Advent can range from 22 to 28 days in length. 
• However, if you buy an Advent Calendar, you'll see it usually includes the first 24 days of December, counting down the days to Christmas and, with treats of chocolate, building anticipation for the birth of the Savior. 
• Of course, there is the coincidental fact that 24 is also the number of beers in a case of beer. and 24 different winter beers would make a wonderful adult Advent calendar!  
• But, I digress...
• Christmas Season: 
• According to the liturgical calendar, Christmas Season begins after Advent, i.e., at midnight on Christmas Day, and continues for 3 Sundays and weekdays after. So for 2014, the Christmas Season is Thursday December 25 through Sunday January 11, 2015.
• Some others say the Christmas Season begins with Black Friday sales on the day after Thanksgiving and ends when the last of the wrapping paper is wadded up in the trash, 
• This year, for the first time, I saw Christmas decorations up in stores before Hallowe'en. Personally, I find that the crass commercialization of Christmas reflects poorly on our National values, but to each his own. Ayn Rand would say that the commercialization of Christmas reflects perfectly on our crass National values. 
• But again, I digress.... Ayn Rand is the subject of a different blog post.
• And can we please recycle the wrapping paper?
• Christmas Octave: 8 days from December 25 to January 1, inclusive. I do not hear this one mentioned much except among musicians. (That was a joke.) Seriously, this is an archaic term, except without it we would never understand the next term... 
• Octave of Epiphany: The period of time from Epiphany to the 3rd Sunday after Christmas, inclusive, is a period of about 8 (actually anywhere from 3 to 9) days depending on which day of the week Christmas lands on. The only reason the liturgical Christmas season runs past Epiphany is so that Advent plus Christmas Day plus Christmas Season gets us to 40-ish days (actually 43 days, regardless of which day of the week Christmas lands on. Of course 40-ish days is parallel to the 40-ish days of Lent and the 40 days Jesus spent in the wilderness.
• Christmastide. Adding to confusion about the meaning and duration of the Christmas Season, we have a new term with even more variation around it. The dictionary compounds confusion with two different definitions of Christmastide
• the festival season from Christmas to after New Year's Day. Note that this is the same period of time that has already been called the Christmas Octave.
• the 14-day period from Christmas Eve to Epiphany, especially in England.
• don't forget the so-called Twelve Days of Christmas which ends on Epiphany and so must begin on December 26
• My birthday falls between Christmas and New Years Day. Growing up, I always felt that my birthday got lost in the seasonal sauce, There is a season of quiet reflection in the week between holidays. I call it Happy New Christmirthday Year.    

To see this image full size, click HERE

All of these different terms have meaning and value, even if they overlap or cause confusion. Here is the bottom line for me. Tradition. I celebrate Thanksgiving. Then a break in time happens and maybe a subtle hint of the Advent is detected. I finally get into the cookie-baking, package wrapping, tinsel-hanging, card-writing Christmas spirit with Saint Nick on December 6th. The anticipation builds until midnight between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, or whenever the Christ Candle is lit, or whenever the baby Jesus is placed in the manger of the Nativity scene at home, or whenever the youngest person in the household places the Angel atop the Christmas tree. Christmas Day is quiet and holy with presents for everyone and plenty to eat. Then, the Twelve Days of Christmas begin on the 26th, but unlike the song we do not continue with gifts. Instead, the season of Christmas is extended past birthday and New Years to Epiphany with reflection about the year passed and plans for the year ahead. The fact that the season extends past Epiphany is usually lost on me. In Casa del Foam, my humble abode, the Christmas Season is the 32-day period from December 6th through January 6th, inclusive. 

By tradition in my household, it is bad form to decorate for Christmas before December 6 or after January 6. I am fine with Advent calendars and of course Advent-themed worship services before December 6th. In fact, I am pretty much fine with the idea of celebrating Christmas and Christian ideals year-round. It's just that Christmas music and some of the decorations and list-making and shopping should begin no earlier than December 6th. This gives space around Thanksgiving, acknowledges the original "St Nick," and includes the celebration of Epiphany which is when the wise men following a celestial compass finally found the Christ child and offered Him gifts, according to the Gospel of Matthew (2:11).

If I send or receive a Christmas card a few days after Christmas, I don't think it's "late." But a Christmas card before Dec 6 seems in poor form, even if Advent has already begun. The only Christmas cards I got before Dec 6 this year were from businesses and universities hoping to catch me in a giving mood. The timing caused the opposite reaction! And a card sent or received after Jan 6 reflects poorly on the management skills of the sender. For these reasons, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone Christmas year-round, but only decorated between Dec 6 and Jan 6.

Recapping Parts I & II:

• December 26 is the First Day of Christmas. The Twelve Days of Christmas conclude on Epiphany 
• The "Official" Christmas Season begins on Saint Nicholas Day and ends on Epiphany. This 32-day period of time exists inside the 43-day liturgical events of Advent, Christmas Day, and the Christmas Season. But only a Cretin would send a Christmas Card before Dec 6 or after Jan 6! 

Feel free to comment or share how your traditions are different! 

The First Day of Christmas?

We all know the song. Most of us have sung it many times and heard it sung at Christmas many times more. 

On the first day of Christmas

my true love gave to me:

a Partridge in a Pear Tree

But, have you ever really thought about the implications of this classic Christmas song? In the spirit of joy and in the quest for understanding, let us consider the following questions:

• What is the first day of Christmas? In other words, on what day did the original singer's first present of a partridge in a pear tree arrive? Twelve days before Christmas? Beginning on Christmas Day (but then ending before Epiphany)? Beginning on the first day after Christmas and culminating on Epiphany, the day the magi found Jesus? 
• What do we mean by the Christmas Season? I see that phrase interpreted so many ways. Does it have any definitive, commonly understood meaning? Or is it just a broad, sweepingly indistinct term? Is there value in defining the season, or should we let it be open to interpretation? 
• Thinking about the song and all the gifts on each of those days, how many presents arrive in all? Think about it for a second. Five golden rings on days 5 through 12 amounts to 40 rings!  
• And speaking of gifts, is there any significance behind the seemingly random gift choices? I mean, if I wanted to demonstrate my true love in the same way, my lady would need a barn for all the cows, swans, geese, birds, hens, doves, and partridges. Not to mention a very large house and food budget for all the drummers, pipers, lords, ladies, and maids. Why not sweaters, pajamas, and music CDs? Oh, wait, the song was written before CDs, or cassettes, or albums, or...

The aim of this post is to provide some rational answers to these questions. That and to stretch the Christmas season out to its full extent. I want definitive answers, if possible, or at least answers that make sense to me. Inquiring minds want to know--and if knowing is not possible, pragmatic inquiring minds will take an answer that makes sense until a better one comes along.

Here we go!

December 26th, not the 14th and not the 25th, is the First Day of Christmas. If you are going to celebrate the Twelve Days of Christmas with, say, one new winter beer for twelve days in a row or a series of gifts for your true love, and if you want to follow the tradition, start on December 26th. How do I know this? Follow this logic trail: Advent culminates on Christmas Eve (more on that later). Advent is a time for preparation, not celebration. Christmas Day, when Jesus was born, is a holy day--a day of reverence and gratitude. Traditionally, the gift-giving and celebration commenced on the 26th with the first of twelve successive Days of Christmas. This party culminates on January 6th with the Feast of Epiphany. If you start the Twelve Days on the 25th, the Twelfth Night falls on January 5th. But January 6th must be included in the period of celebration, because that is the day that the magi found Jesus and gave him gifts. That the Twelve Days of Christmas is interpreted differently by many is due in part to the fact that so many time segments are contain in what we call the "Christmas Season." Which brings us to question number two.

Hmmmm....   I just decided to turn this post into a series of posts. That move limits the individual posts to a readable length while furthering the goal of stretching the Christmas Season--whatever that means--to its fullest extent.

We'll tackle the Christmas Season question in Part II of this series.

Stay tuned! 

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God? A Look at Eric Metaxas' Recent WSJ Article

Recently a friend posted an article by the evangelical author and Intelligent Design proponent, Eric Metaxas. In the article, published by the Wall Street Journal, Metaxas argues that scientists have determined that life is so improbable it must have been created.

“Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life [and] every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.”

To which my friend, a fellow Christian, added, "Amen and Hallelujah." And that is the precise moment when the proverbial excrement hit the cosmic wind tunnel.


First, if you are not already familiar with it, please follow this link and read the article:
Eric Metaxas: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God - WSJ:

Next, please have a gander at the rebuttal which the WSJ wouldn't publish, but Richard Dawkins did:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/letter-to-the-editor/


What follows below is a lightly edited transcript of an online conversation that broke out between my friend and fellow believer, I'll call him "PM," our mutual friend, a geophysicist and theology student I'll call "CW," a Christian apologist called "TMD," and the author of PhilosFX a.k.a. "PFX." I love this conversation so much that I wanted to share it. But if you don't have time to read the whole thing, the bottom line for me in all of this is that:


The human race is dividing between those who trust science and those who hold a pre-Copernican view of life and death. Why must these camps be mutually exclusive? Why can't believers trust science? And why must scientists refuse to accept the possibility that the truth is bigger than our human powers of perception?

A Friendly Discourse on Religion, Science, and God

Inspired by a Recent WSJ Article

CW: Nice column. Well, aside from the fact [Metaxas] significantly misinterprets both history and science. Two brief examples. First, the "parameters" debate over habitable planets has been around for decades. Even Sagan, along with Shklovskii co-wrote the technical book "Intelligent Life in the Universe" in the early 70's that discussed the range of probabilities and problems. As for "tuning" at the subatomic level, at the risk of over simplifying a mind-numbingly complex topic, that discussion is a bit ridiculous since we don't as of yet completely understand the relationship between the various "constants" in physics. The weak force and electromagnetic force are actually manifestations of the same thing, so to treat them as independent values as many ID proponents do is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Note that I am *not* arguing either for atheism or against religion at this point, only that the ID folks are stretching or outright misinterpreting the science. FWIW IMNSHO as a practicing scientist, the science at best only restricts the religions that are potentially true (which is, to be honest, most of them). However, science does not exclude *all* religions (including core Christianity), contrary to the assertions of atheists. But science itself is agnostic.



TMD: Science is only agnostic if you isolate each scientific fact or line of reason. If you look at science as a whole, the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that there has to be a Creator.


CW: Most Christians and Atheists fall into the same trap, starting with a conclusion then looking for evidence to support that conclusion at the exclusion of other possible theories. Your statement that "the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that there has to be a Creator" is one I strongly disagree with. In my field of expertise (geophysics/atmospheric science) I can state that as an "expert"(FWTW!) there is none. I am also unaware of any such evidence in any related fields about which I am knowledgeable enough to assert an opinion (physics, astrophysics). Not saying there is no God, just that there is no unambiguous evidence of one. As for Aquinas he certainly has been influential on Western theology - but is not accepted in the Orthodox Churches. His ethical views (slavery, inferiority of woman) could be argued to be a product of his time and forgiven, but his other views and strongly cataphatic theology, and his distinction between the natural and supernatural, are more problematic.


PFX: We don't know that there is not life on other planets, only that we have not yet found what we are looking for, i.e., life that we recognize as more sophisticated than bacteria. I like science, AND I like God. I EVEN like logical attempts to connect the two. Aquinas' argument from design is a good case in point, but then again, I'll settle for Pascal's Wager. What I do NOT like is the assertion that by not finding life on other planets, "science increasingly makes the case for God." For one, science does not prove, science either rejects or fails to reject. Science is objective, agnostic, not interested in making a case. For another, what if we DID find life on other planets? How would that reject the hypothesis of God? Why can't a Creator start life on lots of planets? Bottom line, I am comfortable with my belief in God. That belief is based on faith which is outside the realm of science.


CW: What PFX said (mostly). [W]hile I am a student of theology I'm far from an expert on it (I'm a lot more comfortable talking about quantum mechanics!), but here's an abbreviated try: The "Argument from Design" is essentially a version of the "God of the Gaps" theory, and suffers from the same fatal flaw: the more we understand, the narrower the "gaps" get until at some point they disappear. It is directly related to the cataphatic theology western theologians are so fond of because it essentially argues God's creation and interactions with nature are understandable and definable on a human level. A related aspect is that Aquinas' arguments (such as the division between natural and supernatural) and the legalistic theological worldview of the West set the stage for the Calvinistic perspective that creation is apart from the creator, and in the wider Protestant view "depraved", rather than merely fallen. (As an aside, the aphophatic theologies, and the distinction between essences and energies, prevalent in Eastern Christianity did not make those distinctions, and didn't end up in that trap.) Regarding ethics, as I said in the earlier post his views are simply a product of his time, but it is unfortunate and disturbing that so many Saints and Doctors Of The Church are ethically no more advanced than the societies in which they lived. The Christian argues they were just being human, but the Atheist uses that fact to say they are not better than the rest of humanity because there was no outside influence (e.g. God).



TMD: Most geophysics/atmospheric science people fall into the same trap. They only believe in things that they can see and touch. If they are right that there is no God, then they are right. If they are wrong, it's a mistake with eternal consequences. Faith is believing without seeing. I have faith.

PFX: What CW said (mostly, except the parts that I cannot claim because I do not understand them yet).


CW: With respect, TMD, it isn't the same "trap." You are equating scientists with atheists, and drawing incorrect conclusions from that false equivalence. Science is entirely agnostic with respect to any religion or the existence of any particular God or Gods. It does, however, severely constrain which religions are rational, and which God(s) might exist. An atheist would argue that *all* God(s) that have been posited have been rationally excluded. They are wrong, because they do not understand (and in many cases don't want to understand) the God as defined by traditional Christianity. However, they are right in that many of the definitions of God as put forth by many Christian denominations (especially evangelical Protestants and their derivatives like Mormonism) are excluded by the evidence. The formal Catholic definition of God is in a little bit of trouble, largely due to recent innovations, but the traditional definitions still held by the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in pretty good shape.

PM: Out of popcorn and out of energy to continue. Besides, we are now wandering dangerously close to a debate regarding the merits of cataphatic v. apophatic theology, and I will not willing enter that briar patch..... That is at least a 3-beer discussion. Now I'd love to have that conversation in person - you guys would make for a very lively & interesting discussion!


PFX: I think TMD summed up Pascal's Wager nicely in his comment. I believe the fact that not all scientists are atheists is a nice summation of CW's last comment. But I believe PM has wisely directed us to curtail the conversation until we can meet in person--preferably over a beer or three. It's been fun!

The End...?

And now, these Wikipedia end-notes are for those of you who, like me, needed a refresher on cataphatic (positive) and apophatic (negative) theologies.

Cataphatic (sometimes spelled kataphatic) theology is the expressing of God or the divine through positive terminology. This is in contrast to defining God or the divine in what God is not, which is referred to as negative or apophatic theology. The word cataphatic itself is formed from two Greek words, "cata" meaning to descend and "femi" meaning to speak. Thus, to combine them translates the word roughly as "to bring God down in such a way so as to speak of him."

• God is omnipotent
• God is omni-present
• God is omniscient
• God is light
• God is love

In Apophatic descriptions of God through negative theology, it is accepted that experience of the Divine is ineffable, an experience of the holy that can only be recognized or remembered abstractly. That is, human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of reality. As a result, all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false and conceptualization should be avoided. In effect, divine experience eludes definition by definition:

• Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent). 
• God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.) 
• God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context). 
• Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse). 
• God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity). 
• God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location. 
• God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time. 

Even though the via negativa essentially rejects theological understanding in and of itself as a path to God, some have sought to make it into an intellectual exercise, by describing God only in terms of what God is not. One problem noted with this approach is that there seems to be no fixed basis on deciding what God is not, unless the Divine is understood as an abstract experience of full aliveness unique to each individual consciousness, and universally, the perfect goodness applicable to the whole field of reality. It should be noted however that since religious experience—or consciousness of the holy or sacred, is not reducible to other kinds of human experience, an abstract understanding of religious experience cannot be used as evidence or proof that religious discourse or praxis can have no meaning or value. In apophatic theology, the negation of theisms in the via negativa also requires the negation of their correlative atheisms if the dialectical method it employs is to maintain integrity.

“God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute however, the negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; ...it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite. (The Guide for the Perplexed, 1:58.)”

Pixies: Greens and Blues

"Greens And Blues"

I'm not together, and you know it's true.
My bits all wander in the trees.
And if I ever seem a little strange,
Would you excuse me please?

I said I’m human, but you know I lie.
I'm only visiting this shore.
I'll soon be leaving in the outbound tide
I pray again we will meet.

I’m wasting your time, just talking to you
Maybe best you go on home.
I'll leave you alone, fade from your mind,
Slip into the greens and blues.

I said I'm human, but you know I lied.
I'm only visiting this shore.
I'll soon be leaving in the outbound tide.
I pray again we will meet.

I’m wasting your time, just talking to you
Maybe best you go on home.
I'll leave you alone, fade from your mind
Slip into the greens and blues.

Greens and blues...

I’m wasting your time, just talking to you,
Maybe best you go on home.
I'll leave you alone, fade from your mind,
Slip into the greens and blues.

I’m wasting your time, just talking to you,
Maybe best you go on home.
I'll leave you alone, fade from your mind,
Slip into the greens and blues.

Mark your calendar: March 14, 2015 at 9:26.53

March 14, 2015 at 9:26.53

or, in other means of expression

3.14 '15 9:26:53

the first 10 digits of Pi

100,000 Digits of Pi

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006

Sanitized for Your Protection

Are you ready for some FOOTBALL?

Today is the season finale for my local professional football team. They host their arch-rival and, after defeating the Philadelphia Eagles last week, hope to extend their winning streak to two games.  

But as you know, the controversial names of some sports teams have gotten more press than the athletes representing the teams on the field or the games they play. In this age of enlightenment, we can do better! 

The term "Cowboy" is highly offensive. The diminutive "boy" should never be applied to an adult male. "Cattlemen" is better, but the preferred gender-neural term is "Cattle-persons." 

Please join me now in the PC cheer of the day: 

"Go, Washington Fighting-persons of Native American Descent! Score slightly more sports-points than the Dallas Texas Cattle-persons!"

(But don't hurt their feelings.)

My hometown Washington Redskins close out the season today with a 1 p.m. game at FedEx Field against the Dallas Cowboys. Some interesting game day notes and nuggets from the Washington Post are available HERE.

Enjoy the game!

The basics:
Kickoff: 1 p.m. at FedEx Field
TV: Fox (Ch. 5, 45 locally) | Radio: 980 AM; 92.7 and 94.3 FM.
Line: Cowboys by 5.5

The Power of the Crystal

All these days I’ve been broken and hopeless

And I, and I don’t feel like I’m coping, I’m hoping

That I, that I can live and let go

So I can get through it

Yeah, I can live and let go

So I can get through this

Hilltop Hoods: Live and Let Go

See more HERE