Podcasts about miscellanies

A new MP3 sermon from The Narrated Puritan is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: God's Moral Government Over His Creation Subtitle: Miscellanies Speaker: Jonathan Edwards Broadcaster: The Narrated Puritan Event: Audiobook Date: 10/13/2024 Length: 10 min.

Welcome to Episode 215 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.This week we continue our discussion of Book Two of Cicero's On Ends, which is largely devoted Cicero's attack on Epicurean Philosophy. Going through this book gives us the opportunity to review those attacks, take them apart, and respond to them as an ancient Epicurean might have done, and much more fully than Cicero allowed Torquatus, his Epicurean spokesman, to do.This week before we go forward we are going to go back over several basic aspects of the Epicurean view of happiness.Here are some relevant excerpts from Diogenes Laertius, starting around line 117[117] As regards the principles of living and the grounds on which we ought to choose some things and avoid others, he writes the following letter.But before considering it let us explain what he and his followers think about the wise man. Injuries are done by men either through hate or through envy or through contempt, all of which the wise man overcomes by reasoning. When once a man has attained wisdom, he no longer has any tendency contrary to it or willingly pretends that he has. He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom. A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation.[118] And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament. The wise man will not have intercourse with any woman with whom the law forbids it, as Diogenes says in his summary of Epicurus' moral teaching. Nor will he punish his slaves, but will rather pity them and forgive any that are deserving. They do not think that the wise man will fall in love, or care about his burial. They hold that love is not sent from heaven, as Diogenes says in his . . . book, nor should the wise man make elegant speeches.Sexual intercourse, they say, has never done a man good, and he is lucky if it has not harmed him.[119] Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work On Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life. He will feel shame in the presence of some persons, and certainly will not insult them in his cups, so Epicurus says in the Symposium. Nor will he take part in public life, as he says in the first book On Lives. Nor will he act the tyrant, or live like the Cynics, as he writes in the second book On Lives. Nor will he beg. Moreover, even if he is deprived of his eyesight, he will not end his whole life, as he says in the same work.Also, the wise man will feel grief, as Diogenes says in the fifth book of the Miscellanies.[120] He will engage in lawsuits and will leave writings behind him, but will not deliver speeches on public occasions. He will be careful of his possessions and will provide for the future. He will be fond of the country. He will face fortune and never desert a friend. He will be careful of his reputation in so far as to prevent himself from being despised. He will care more than other men for public spectacles.[121] He will erect statues of others, but whether he had one himself or not, he would be indifferent. Only the Wise man could discourse rightly on music and poetry, but in practice he would not compose poems. One wise man is not wiser than another. He will be ready to make money, but only when he is in straits and by means of his philosophy. He will pay court to a king, if occasion demands. He will rejoice at another's misfortunes, but only for his correction. And he will gather together a school, but never so as to become a popular leader. He will give lectures in public, but never unless asked; he will give definite teaching and not profess doubt. In his sleep he will be as he is awake, and on occasion he will even die for a friend.[122] They hold that faults are not all of equal gravity, that health is a blessing to some, but indifferent to others, that courage does not come by nature, but by a calculation of advantage. That friendship too has practical needs as its motive: one must indeed lay its foundations (for we sow the ground too for the sake of crops), but it is formed and maintained by means of community of life among those who have reached the fullness of pleasure. They say also that there are two ideas of happiness, complete happiness, such as belongs to a god, which admits of no increase, and the happiness which is concerned with the addition and subtraction of pleasures. Now we must proceed to the letter.OTHER FRAGMENTSLETTERS TO INDIVIDUALS.To Anaxarchus.23. But I summon you to continuous pleasures and not to vain and empty virtues which have but disturbing hopes of results.

I don't know if he was was an American Patriot or a British Loyalist. All I know is that he owned a 1726 edition of “The Gentleman Angler,” a leather bound book on fly fishing.That book was 50 years old when Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.Speaking of Jefferson, that same fly-fisherman bought a first edition of the complete, 4-volume leather bound set of “Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies” written by Thomas Jefferson and published in 1829. This leads me to believe that our fly-fishing friend purchased his 103-year-old copy of the 1726 edition of “The Gentleman Angler” at about that same time, roughly 200 years ago.There were no modern books in his collection.I just realized something. Our fly-fishing friend was obviously an American Patriot, or he would not have purchased Thomas Jefferson's “Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies” in 1829.“Hang on a moment, Roy, you identified that man as a ‘Fly-Fishing Fanatic' in the title of today's MondayMorningMemo. What led you to call him that?”I call him a “Fly-Fishing Fanatic” because the majority of the 18 books in his collection were about fly fishing, including a 1750 edition, a 1760 edition, and an 1823 edition of “The Compleat Angler” by Izaak Walton.I bought his entire collection because books are cool, especially books that are centuries old.What would have been REALLY cool, though, is if this lover-of-books who lived during the years of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington also owned an original, 1605 first-edition of Don Quixote de La Mancha. Wouldn't that have been cool?There are only 10 known copies of that book in all the world, and the last one to change hands sold 35 years ago for 1,500,000 dollars. There are no universities that own a copy, and there are no copies available to public view except the one that is owned by the citizens of the United States of America, and that one is closely guarded in our Library of Congress.Did you guess already?Our colonial fly-fishing friend did, in fact, own a 1605 edition of Cervantes' masterpiece, and I bought it with the rest of his collection.The mystery is that my copy is roughly 8 inches by 11 inches, much larger than the 4-inch by 6-inch edition owned by the Library of Congress. My copy is, without question, extraordinarily old. The attributes that bring me to this conclusion are not easily faked.The cover is wrapped in the remains of old, brittle vellum – tightly stretched animal skin – and the pages are substantial and thick. It is not, however, the unauthorized pirated version published in Portugal in 1605, because mine has the correct 1605 frontispiece and title page, identical to that of the 4-inch by 6-inch 1605 edition held by the Library of Congress.My copy has the vellum cover and ties, like the 1605 Portuguese edition and the 1620 English edition, but it is neither of those.It appears to a centuries old Presentation Edition, if such a thing existed so long ago.The print seems to occupy about the same dimensions as the smaller, first book, but the pages themselves are bigger and more substantial, as if the original press was used on larger paper, leaving a lot of unprinted paper bordering the...

Loaghtan Books have published a book that takes us to many unexpected corners and fascinating facts about the Island and its people. It's called 'Manx Myths, Mysteries and Miscellanies'. It's based on the research and articles of journalist and author, the late Robert Kelly. We hear about Robert and his work from his friend, Neal Hanson, and from Matthew Richardson of Manx National Heritage, who undertook the editorial work. We also hear from Grainney Sheard, who organises the Manx presence at the Festival Interceltique de Lorient which is now taking place, and briefly from Annie Kissack, speaking from the stage of the Eisteddfod Genedlaethol earlier in the week.

Wolfert's Roost, and Miscellanies

Miscellanies Upon Various Subjects

Phallic Miscellanies Facts and Phases of Ancient and Modern Sex Worship, as Illustrated Chiefly in the Religions of India

A new MP3 sermon from Grace Reformed Baptist of Pine Bush is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: A Strange Encounter and Other Miscellanies Subtitle: Questions & Answers Speaker: Paul Gordon Broadcaster: Grace Reformed Baptist of Pine Bush Event: Sunday School Date: 9/4/2022 Length: 43 min.

Dr. Matthew Bunson discusses the life, times and teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria Born: 378 AD, Alexandria, Egypt Died: June 27, 444 AD, Alexandria, Egypt For more on St. Cyril of Alexandria and his teachings Clement of Alexandria – Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? – Exhortation to the Heathen – The Instructor – The Stromata, or Miscellanies – Fragments From ... Read more The post DC12 St. Cyril of Alexandria – The Doctors of the Church: The Charism of Wisdom with Dr. Matthew Bunson appeared first on Discerning Hearts Catholic Podcasts.

Dr. Matthew Bunson discusses the life, times and teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria Born: 378 AD, Alexandria, Egypt Died: June 27, 444 AD, Alexandria, Egypt For more on St. Cyril of Alexandria and his teachings Clement of Alexandria – Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? – Exhortation to the Heathen – The Instructor – The Stromata, or Miscellanies – Fragments From ... Read more The post DC12 St. Cyril of Alexandria – The Doctors of the Church: The Charism of Wisdom with Dr. Matthew Bunson appeared first on Discerning Hearts Catholic Podcasts.

Welcome to the Reformed Classicalist. This is the audio format of Matt Marino's lectures, classes, and sermon series found on YouTube and elsewhere. Find out more, at https://www.reformedclassicalist.com

Kingdom & State: Separation of Church and State -- Link to full show notesMain source: Wallbuilders.comFirst Amendment says... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Clearly you can see here that the first amendment creates two distinct points dealing with religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety. So, clearly the phrase "separation of church and state" is no where in the First Amendment. Where did it come from? How did that phrase become the standard for every debate you have with your liberal friends?A bit of history Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Facts. The Petitioner in his status as a taxpayer filed suit challenging the ability of the Respondent to reimburse funds to parents of parochial school students for the transportation of their children to and from school. The Petitioner brought suit alleging that the New Jersey reimbursement statute respects the establishment of religion, by allowing the parents of parochial school students to benefit from the reimbursement scheme. The New Jersey Court of Appeals held that the statute did not violate the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) granted certiorari to consider the issue. Issue. This case considers whether the parents of parochial school children can benefit from the same services afforded to the parents of public school children. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case stands for the proposition that, while no law respecting an establishment of religion will stand under the United States Constitution (Constitution), neutral laws, which afford benefits to children will be upheld. Held. Affirmed. In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court found the statute was not unconstitutional because it was designed to provide a benefit to the parents of all school children, distinct from any religious function in which the children engaged. In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became PresidentThe election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.  Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him how thankful they were they he was elected president.However,  in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”: "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights." Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Separation of Church and State about making sure the GOVERNMENT NEVER creates a national denomination and forces you to follow it. In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. Jefferson said the following about government's inability to influence religion: [N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.  Kentucky Resolution, 1798.  The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.  Second Inaugural Address, 1805.  Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78,  March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. [O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.  Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808.Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.  Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808.Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion.Separation of church and state is not necessarily concerned with keeping religious influence out of government, rather it establishes a wall to keep government out of religion.Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only  to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush: [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would neverbe interfered with by the federal government. As he explained: Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the  Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. Jefferson's reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried: And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. PUT SIMPLY.......In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant. Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “wall” of the Danbury letter was NOT meant to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.It is important to note.... If Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did. Earlier SCOTUS decisions long understood Jefferson's intentEarlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded: "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." (emphasis added) [12] That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for “separation of church and state”: "[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State." [13]That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

Daily Quote We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. (Aristotle) Poem of the Day 己亥杂诗·浩荡离愁白日斜 龚自珍 Beauty of Words D.H. Lawrence to John Middleton Murray

I'm reading to you from "Wolfert's Roost and Miscellanies" by Washington Irving. Please enjoy listening to "The Birds of Spring" and sleep well tonight, my friends.

God how can ya as ya delves into my complexities;

Here I build on my last episode by sharing some additional life-insights, emphasizing, in particular, the nature and significance of habits. I am also introducing a new introductory segment "Miscellanies" during which I hope to share in the future significant things that I stumbled upon in the preceding week: questions, insights, resources, etc.EPISODE SECTIONS00:05 - Updates and Announcements00:49 - Miscellanies: Noreen Khawaja on Existentialism08:36 - Today's ThemeEPISODE REFERENCESNoreen Khwaja, The Religion of Existence James Clear,  Atomic HabitsCharles Duhigg, The Power of HabitsWendy Wood, Good Habits, Bad Habits * * * * * NEW TO THE CHANNEL? Hi, I am Ante Jeroncic, and on this channel, I explore different matters existential. Thus, the name: Artis Vivendi—The Craft of Living. I am interested primarily in the overlapping spaces where theology, philosophy, wisdom traditions, literature, behavioral sciences, and self-development literature meet on the question of the good life. I teach ethics, philosophy, and theology at Andrews University.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thecraftofliving)

During the last week of September an Azerbaijani offensive re-ignited a decades-old conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh (‘Mountainous Karabakh’) region. The Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan is sometimes explained as a result of ‘ancient hatreds’. In reality, it is nothing of the sort, despite both sides using history to bolster their claims to the region. This article was part of our Miscellanies series. Sign up to receive this free weekly long read in your inbox, at https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies.Written by Jo Laycock. Read by Paul Lay.Image: 'We Are Our Mountains' monument north of Stepanakert, 1978. Completed in 1967, it is a symbol of Armenian heritage in the region. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Life and death in a Viking battle depended not on military prowess, but on the favour of the valkyries. Why were these mythical figures, who decided a warrior’s fate, female?This article was part of our Miscellanies series. Sign up to receive this free weekly long read in your inbox, at https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies.Written by Jóhanna Katrín Friðriksdóttir. Read by Greig Johnson. Music: Kai Engel. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Alexandria, in Egypt, was the intellectual capital of the Greco-Roman world, and as the second century turned to the third it emerged as an influential center of Christian thought. Its first impression was spectacular — and it all came from a teacher named Clement. He was a seeker after truth, and had traveled the Mediterranean to study under the greatest Christian teachers. He settled in Alexandria, the site of a newly founded school, and eventually he came to lead the school. Several of Clement's works have survived, including his great trilogy on the spiritual and moral life. Any Christian who has pursued the life of prayer in the great Christian tradition has encountered ideas developed by Clement. Links Who Is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved? https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1650 Exhortation to the Heathen https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1658 The Instructor [Paedagogus.] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1659 The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Books I-II https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1660 The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Books III-V https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1661 The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Books VI-VIII https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1648 Mike Aquilina on the school of Alexandria https://fathersofthechurch.com/2006/10/24/out-of-egypt/ More works by the Fathers https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/ Mike Aquilina’s website https://fathersofthechurch.com Theme music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of http://www.ccwatershed.org.

  In May 1840 London was scandalized by the murder of Lord William Russell, who'd been found in his bed with his throat cut. The evidence seemed to point to an intruder, but suspicion soon fell on Russell's valet. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll follow the investigation and trial, and the late revelation that decided the case. We'll also marvel at Ireland's greenery and puzzle over a foiled kidnapping. Intro: Marshal Ney directed his own execution. Lewis Carroll invented an alphabet he could write in the dark. Sources for our feature on the murder of Lord William Russell: Yseult Bridges, Two Studies in Crime, 1959. Claire Harman, Murder by the Book: The Crime That Shocked Dickens's London, 2019. Thomas Dunphy and Thomas J. Cummins, Remarkable Trials of All Countries, 1870. J.E. Latton Pickering, Report of the Trial of Courvoisier for the Murder of Lord William Russell, June 1840, 1918. William Harrison Ainsworth, Jack Sheppard: A Romance, 1839. "Remarkable Cases of Circumstantial Evidence," in Norman Wise Sibley, Criminal Appeal and Evidence, 1908. Samuel Warren, "The Mystery of Murder, and Its Defence," in Miscellanies, Critical, Imaginative, and Juridical, 1855, 237-271. "Trial, Confession, and Execution of Courvoisier for the Murder of Lord Wm. Russell: Memoir of F.B. Courvoisier, Lord W. Russell's Valet [broadside]," 1840. "Russell, Lord William (1767-1840)," in D.R. Fisher, ed., The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1820-1832, 2009. "The Practice of Advocacy: Mr. Charles Phillips, and His Defence of Courvoisier," Littell's Living Age 25:313 (May 18, 1850), 289-311. "English Causes Celebres," Legal News 14:39 (Sept. 26, 1891), 310-311. O'Neill Ryan, "The Courvoisier Case," Washington University Law Review 12:1 (January 1926), 39-46. Michael Asimow, "When the Lawyer Knows the Client Is Guilty: Legal Ethics, and Popular Culture," Law Society of Upper Canada 6th Colloquium, University of Toronto Faculty of Law 10 (2006). J.B. Atlay, "Famous Trials: The Queen Against Courvoisier," Cornhill Magazine 2:11 (May 1897), 604-616. Paul Bergman, "Rumpole's Ethics," Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law 1:2 (April 2012), 117-124. Abigail Droge, "'Always Called Jack': A Brief History of the Transferable Skill," Victorian Periodicals Review 50:1 (Spring 2017) 39-65, 266. Albert D. Pionke, "Navigating 'Those Terrible Meshes of the Law': Legal Realism in Anthony Trollope's Orley Farm and The Eustace Diamonds," ELH: Journal of English Literary History 77:1 (2010), 129-157. Matthew S. Buckley, "Sensations of Celebrity: Jack Sheppard and the Mass Audience," Victorian Studies 44:3 (2002), 423-463. Elizabeth Stearns, "A 'Darling of the Mob': The Antidisciplinarity of the Jack Sheppard Texts," Victorian Literature and Culture 41:3 (2013), 435-461. Ellen L. O'Brien, "'Every Man Who Is Hanged Leaves a Poem': Criminal Poets in Victorian Street Ballads," Victorian Poetry 39:2 (Summer 2001), 319-342. Matthew Buckley, "Sensations of Celebrity: Jack Sheppard and the Mass Audience," Victorian Studies 44:3 (Spring 2002), 423-463. "This Day's Examination of the Valet for the Murder of Lord William Russell, M.P.," 1840, English Crime and Execution Broadsides, Harvard Digital Collections. Peter Dean, "Death by Servant," Daily Mail, May 18, 2019, 12. Robert Douglas-Fairhurst, "The Victorian Melodrama That Led to Murder and Mayhem," Spectator, Nov. 10, 2018. Hannah Rosefield, "The Strange Victorian Murder of Lord William Russell," New Statesman, Oct. 31, 2018. "Look Death in the Face," [Liverpool] Daily Post, Sept. 1, 2018, 12. Alexandra Mullen, "Bloody-Minded Victorians," Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2013. Dalya Alberge, "Vital Clue Ignored for 50 Years," Independent, Dec. 9, 2012. "Murder of Lord William Russell -- Confession of the Murderer," Sydney Herald, Oct. 20, 1840, 3. William Makepeace Thackeray, "Going to See a Man Hanged," Fraser's Magazine 128:22 (August 1840), 150-158. "Murder of Lord William Russell," New-Orleans Commercial Bulletin, June 16, 1840. "Further Evidence Concerning the Murder of Lord William Russell," Spectator, May 23, 1840, 7. "Francois Benjamin Courvoisier: Killing: Murder," Proceedings of the Old Bailey, June 15, 1840 (accessed Aug. 4, 2019). Annalisa Quinn, "Could A Novel Lead Someone To Kill? 'Murder By The Book' Explores The Notion," National Public Radio, March 27, 2019. Listener mail: "Local Elections Results," Irish Times, Aug. 17, 2019. Wikipedia, "List of Political Parties in the Republic of Ireland," (accessed Aug. 8, 2019). Wikipedia, "List of Political Parties in the United States" (accessed Aug. 9, 2019). Wikipedia, "United States Marijuana Party" (accessed Aug. 9, 2019). Wikipedia, "United States Congress" (accessed Aug. 8, 2019). Justin McCurry, "South Korea Mulls Ending Arcane Age System to Match Rest of World," Guardian, June 2, 2019. James Griffiths and Yoonjung Seo, "In South Korea, You're a 1-Year-Old the Day You're Born. Some Want to Change That," CNN, June 3, 2019. Beatrice Christofaro, "In South Korea's Unique Aging System, Some Babies Turn 2 Years Old the Day After They Were Born. A Bill Is Trying to Change That," Insider, Jun. 3, 2019. "Life Term in Murder Contested; Culture Cited on Age," KDKA Pittsburgh, Aug. 7, 2019. James Halpin, "Killer Claims Ignorance of Korean Age Custom," Citizens' Voice, Aug. 8, 2019. James Halpin, "Killer Blames Culture Quirk for Age Miscalculation," Citizens' Voice, Aug. 7, 2019. Wikipedia, "National Assembly (South Korea)" (accessed Aug. 11, 2019). Penelope's drawing: This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Ken Murphy. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

Ben Schott designed 'Schott's Original Miscellany' as a whimsical Christmas present to his closest friends, and after much pushing and prodding, finally published it to the world. Over the next few years, he had created a series of bestselling works providing an entertaining and informative analysis of the year's events.He's releasing his debut novel 'Jeeves and the King of Clubs', an homage to PG Wodehouse - a writer many see as the greatest comedic novelist of the 20th Century, perhaps even of all time. We talk about how he braced himself to write for the characters of such a legendary literary icon, and how he designed the best chance to do him justice. Also, we learn about how Ben dealt with the language and plot that Wodehouse dealt with so creatively, why there's no perfect writing day, and how the initial idea for his story came on a long train journey, while musing about Donald Trump.We'll get a top writing tip from one of the most successful authors still working today AND you can win $2000 worth of book marketing.PLUS... save 20% on Scrivener, the writing software that makes telling your story soooo much easier.@writerspodwritersroutine.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jeff Waddington speaks about his chapter in the new festschrift for Vern Poythress, Redeeming the Life of the Mind (Crossway). Jeff's chapter, titled, "Jonathan Edwards on God's Involvement in Creation," is an examination of "Miscellanies," no.

This time around, I have a bad cold so it's time for a music podcast. From a gay-oriented Sinatra song to the dirty boogie, from Nina Simone to Lalo Schifrin. There will be bongo drums. Go, Daddy, Go! Support the podcast via Patreon- Daddy needs web hosting.

On today's episode of THE FOOD SEEN, we learn facts, not fiction about April Fools' Day from the man of miscellany, Ben Schott. In Mr. Schott's books, from annuals of Schott's Almanacs to volumes of Schott's Miscellanies, which include a Food & Drink edition, you'll find all the needed trivia for your next dinner party. Lately, Mr. Schott's exploration of the “Secret Languages” in bars and the restaurant world has appeared in the New York Times Op-Ed. This program was sponsored by The Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. “It's the footnotes of life that are the things that stick with me.” [03:00] –Ben Schott on The Food Seen

Much popular music of the eighteenth century is found in poetic miscellanies. But how was it performed? Giles Lewin explores the popular music of the eighteenth century, and the challenges it provides for a modern performer.

Dr Abigail Williams, Director of the Digital Miscellanies Index, explains how these popular collections of poetry designed to suit contemporary tastes were used in the 18th Century.

Dr Abigail Williams, Director of the Digital Miscellanies Index, explains how these popular collections of poetry designed to suit contemporary tastes were used in the 18th Century.

Acts 18:18-23 - "Miscellanies in Christian Living" - Rev. Wes Holland

This podcast looks at the relationship between tobacco and poetic inspiration, through some popular comic poems.

This week's episode is titled “Hammering out the Details. ”That group of guys known as the Early Church Fathers for the most part were pastors. They were leaders of churches who had a pastoral concern for both the Faith & their people.The later 1st through 3rd Cs saw the Church expand around the Mediterranean basin, in a few places up into central Europe, across North Africa, across the Middle East and into Mesopotamia and the Persian East. While believers contended with periodic outbursts of persecution in Roman controlled territory, the great threat was that presented by aberrant sects that kept rising up aiming to hijack the Faith.It's understandable why this was such a problem in these early centuries. Christian theology was still being hammered out. In fact, it was the threat posed by aberrant groups that forced church leaders to formalize precisely what it was Christians believed. Just as today, some new wind of doctrine blows thru the church and most Christians have little idea what's wrong with it; they just sense something is. It doesn't sound or feel right, but they couldn't say precisely what it is. It takes some astute pastor, Bible student, or theologian to show HOW said doctrine is contrary to Scripture. Then everyone's clued in and has an idea of why & how that aberration or heresy is off.Multiply that process by many years & lots more of those winds of doctrine, and you can see how a large & detailed body of Christian theology developed. Most times, church leaders turn to the Bible to compare the new idea to what's already known to be God's Word & Will. But sometimes what's needed is some new words – or at least to make sure we know what the words we're using when we explain something mean! And we need to make sure we all mean the same thing by those words. We see how important this is today when dealing with the cults. Two people can say they're Christians, and both believe in & follow Jesus. But while one person's “Jesus” is the eternal Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin Jewish teenager named Mary, the other person's “Jesus” is really just a manifestation of the archangel Michael, or à the human son of a god named Elohim who used to be a man on another planet a long time ago who ascended into being a god with a heavenly harem by which he produces spirits looking for human bodies. Believe it or not, that is what a couple prominent pseudo-Christian cults believe today.My point is è we need to make sure we pour the same meaning into the words we use, especially when we're talking theology, because what we believe about God is the most important thing about us.We'll see how complex & what a major deal this all was when we get to the debates about the trinity & the nature of Jesus in the 4th & 5th Cs. For now, realize that even earlier, during the latter 1st thru 3rd Cs, it was usually pastors who did most of the theological work as they dealt with the challenge of goofy teachings about God & Jesus confronting the people they led.Let's take a brief look at some of the major doctrinal challenges & groups that challenged the early church.We already considered the threat of Gnosticism. We spent a whole episode on that topic because it was a huge challenge that a few letters of the NT addressed.We considered the challenge Marcion presented, with his virulent anti-semitism & attempt to separate the God of the OT from the God of the New.We took a brief look at Montanus and his, what we might call, early Charismatic Movement. Ws saw that while there were indeed some aberrant elements in Monantism, they did not rise to the level of heresy the Early Church ended up labeling them with.A group we've not looked at yet was a kind of anti-Marcionist sect called the Ebionites. They emerged toward the end of the 1st Century & continued into the 4th.  Their beliefs smack of the error the Apostle Paul deals with in his Galatian Epistle.Ebionites said Jesus wasn't the Eternal Son of God; he was just a successor to Moses whose mission was to enforce a strict legalism.  They claimed Jesus was just a Jew who kept the law perfectly. And because He did, at his baptism, the Spirit of God descended on him, empowering him to be a prophet. This sounds a lot like one of the many Gnostic sects.Ebionites were ascetics who avoided any & all forms of pleasure, assuming if it was pleasurable, it had to be wrong.  They practiced poverty, ultra forms of self-denial, & elaborate religious rituals. They abhorred the Gospel of Grace. Their name, “Ebionites” comes from the Hebrew word meaning “Poor Ones.” They likely took this name to honor their founder, Ebion, who spurned his given-name in favor of the title “Poor One.”What little we know about the Ebionites comes to us from the accounts of their opponents. The first Christian to write about them was Irenaeus who mentions them in his work, Against Heresies. Origen also mentions them, his account matching that of Irenaeus.They rejected the NT in favor of a scroll known as “The Gospel According to the Hebrews.” Keeping the Jewish flavor of their origins, they met in synagogues. As would be imagined, they considered the Apostle Paul with his emphasis on salvation by grace through faith to be a dangerous heretic. To Ebionites, Jesus wasn't the Savior; Moses was because he gave the Law. Jesus was nothing but a Solomon-like figure who proved people COULD obey the law.When the Romans Titus laid siege to Jerusalem, the Ebionites join forces with the Gnostics. And a close reading of Paul's letter to the Colossians gives a hint that it was this Gnostic-Ebionism that was troubling the church there.Another group that presented a challenge to the Early church were the Manichaeists. I'm not going to go into a lot of depth here. Suffice it to say Manichaeism was a rather bizarre cousin to Gnosticism. Like the Gnostics, they were dualist; meaning they considered the spiritual realm to be unalterably good while the material world was hopelessly corrupt.Their founder was the 3rd C mystic Mani. He proposed two opposing forces, light & darkness, forever locked in eternal combat. Salvation was defined as the victorious struggle of the Children of Light overcoming the darkness by a life of self-denial and celibacy. If some of this sounds a lot like the Zoroastrianism of Persia – Give yourself a gold star; you figured out where it came from!Mani was a Parthian who'd grown up in a home that was nominally Christian. He was loath to give up the ancient Zoroastrianism of his peers and homeland, so he decided to mix the two. And once he'd begun, he decided to go ahead and add a dash of Buddhism, some Hinduism, & a sprinkle of Judaism. Mani's religion was an ancient version of Baha'i – you know, just snag whatever seems most appealing from a handful of major religions, toss it all in a bowl, mix thoroughly, cook at 350 for 20 minutes, let cool, and serve with a cup of Koolaid.But it's not hard to understand WHY Manichaeism would appeal to so many people at that time. The Romans had brought dozens of different people under one political & economic system. Since religion was a crucial part of most people's lives in that day, the diversity of faiths was a potential stress point that could lead to conflict. A religion that seemed to appeal to everyone because it contained a little bit of them all seemed a good move.Let's turn now to take a look at another key Church Leader; Clement of Alexandria.Titus Flavius Clement was born in Athens to pagan parents. He became a Christian by studying philosophy. He settled in Alexandria in Egypt & attended a school there because he was impressed by the director's interpretation of Scripture. When that director retired in AD 190, Clement succeeded him as head of the school, the same Origen would later take over.Now, I hope you find this as interesting as I did. This school, while run by Christians & dedicated to Christ, was anything BUT a narrow-minded academy aimed at spitting out mind-numbed followers. The school reflected the cultural mixture of Alexandria. It welcomed Christians, pagans, and Jews who wanted the best education the time could field. The Christian directors of the school believed that the Christian faith, given a fair hearing, would prevail over other ideas. So among others, the non-Christian philosopher, Ammonius Saccas taught there. Among his students were both Origen and Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism.During his years as a teacher in Alexandria, Clement wrote most of his works. He followed the example of Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish scholar who'd used Greek philosophy to interpret the Old Testament. Clement adopted Philo's allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, often quoting him at length.Now, I need to pause & define a term I've used a lot, not just in this episode but in several previous = Pagan. Today, in popular usage the word ‘pagan' is fraught with a shipload of negative baggage. If you call someone a “pagan” it's an insult; you're saying they're godless & immoral.That's NOT what I mean here when I refer to someone as a pagan. I mean it as it's come to be used by a growing number of alternative religious groups today. Pagans are those who've returned to a worldview that sees the forces of nature as worthy of worship. Witches & Wicca are pagan and draw their inspiration from the ancient world that believed in a plethora of gods & goddesses who controlled the forces of nature and exerted dominion over only certain regions. By pagan, I mean it in this technical sense; the worshippers of the Greek & Roman gods. People who believed the myths & legends of the Greco-Roman civilization.I pause to define “pagan” because Clement wrote specifically to them, seeking to reason with them about why they ought to put their faith in Christ. In his Exhortation to the Gentiles he used the same arguments employed by the Apologists, but with more sophistication.  By cherry-picking quotes, he showed an ascending revelation upward through poets, philosophers, the Cybeline oracle, & Hebrew prophets to the highest revelation; Christ.Clement's major work was titled Miscellanies. As the title suggests, Clement said that the seeker has to go through a “patchwork” of ideas to get to the truth, like winnowing wheat through a sieve. He called philosophy a “schoolmaster” to bring the Greek-thinker to Christ. He believed God used philosophy to lead pre-Christian Gentiles to a knowledge of the truth of Christ. Although the teaching of Christ was complete in itself, philosophy served Clement as a kind of “wall for the vineyard” to defend the truth of Christianity.What's of interest to us about Clement of Alexandria is the impact he had on Origen. It was his ready use of philosophy and allegorical style of interpreting Scripture that had a far-reaching consequence in the Early & Medieval Church.Clement fled Alexandria during persecution under the Roman emperor Septimius Severus in 202 and died in Asia Minor.Next up is Tertullian.Tertullian was born in Carthage, North Africa, about AD 160. While his pre-christian life is sketchy, it seems he was a scholarly lawyer who was won to Christ in his 30's.Tertullian is reckoned one of the more important church fathers because he wrote a long list of apologetic and theological works in both Latin & Greek.  His Apologeticus was addressed to the Roman governor of Carthage. It refuted the charges leveled against Christians, demonstrated the loyalty of Christians to the empire, and showed that persecution of Christians was foolish because they multiplied when persecuted.Tertullian is rare among the Church Fathers in that he wasn't a pastor as most were. He did teach at Carthage, but he remained a layman who devoted himself to writing works aimed at presenting the reasonableness of the Faith, both to believers and outsiders.Tertullian became concerned over the way holiness was being neglected in the Church. When his appeals to church leaders fell on deaf ears, he decided to join the growing Montanist movement. You'll remember it was their aberrant views about asceticism that got them into trouble with the Church. Well, their moral discipline appealed to Tertullian. In his mind, if it was a choice of staying in a spiritually lethargic & morally compromised but doctrinally-right church or joining a Spirit-filled, morally excellent group that held some questionable practices, he'd rather be part of the later and use his influence to bring them in line. His influence had been rejected by the apostolic church at Carthage so he jumped ship. Tertullian remained doctrinally orthodox until his death. His followers rejoined the church at Carthage several decades later.Soon after conversion, Tertullian began a massive output of Christian writings occupying his last 25 years. A good part of these manuscripts, 31 Latin works, have survived to our time. These can be divided into 3 groups: Apologetics, Doctrine & Ethics.In his apologetic works, Tertullian answered the charges against Christians made by their enemies. He refutes accusations of, get this à infanticide and incest.Some of Christianity's most time-honored sayings are quotes from Tertullian, such as . . .Christians are made, not born.See, they say, how these Christians love one another, for the pagans are animated by mutual hatred; how the Christians are ready even to die for one another, for the pagans themselves will sooner put to death.We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed.Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading.Truth does not blush.Out of the frying pan into the fire.He who flees will fight again.It is certainly no part of religion to compel religion.We worship unity in trinity, and trinity in unity; neither confounding the person nor dividing the substance It's in Tertullian that the phrases, “If God will,” “God bless,” & “God grant” make their first appearance in writing.Tertullian helped provide a theological position others would later draw on in the looming debates that occupied the Church for generations. It was Tertullian's treatment of the Trinity as being 3 persons in 1 substance; the divine and human natures of Christ; the subjection of man to original sin; and Christ's virgin birth and bodily resurrection that helped later generations articulate a cogent position on these difficult subjects.Both Athanasius & Augustine, as well as a whole host of later church fathers, look back to Tertullian for a clue how to proceed. Tertullian appears to be the first one to use the Latin trinitas as a descriptor for the doctrine of God as 3 person in 1 Substance.The what, when, & where of Tertullian's death is unknown. Jerome says he lived to a great age, but we have no record of him after 225 in Carthage, making him 65 at the time of his graduation to glory.