Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
So as I was sitting listening to the music at the Taps at Twilight Memorial Day celebration, a thought occurred to me. This was one of those things where you tell people what that thought is and they respond, “Only you would think of that!” It’s probably true.
The thought was this: “Wow, there is a lot of apocalyptic imagery in this song.” The song in question was the Battle Hymn of the Republic by Harriet Beecher Stowe. If you (like me) graduated from Glynn Academy than you are probably not too fond of this school. I however, still like it, and know the words (to all four verses). I knew them long before I had to sing the song at my graduation. Anyway, a brief analysis of the lyrical content of the Battle Hymn will illustrate what I am talking about.
Most of the apocalyptic imagery is concentrated in the first and third verses but there is a good deal of insight to the mindset of the people in the other verses so I will go over them as well.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.
He hath loosed the faithful lightning of His terrible swift sword
His Truth is marching on
The first line is fairly simple, the writer believes that the “end is nigh”, so to speak and the return of Christ is imminent. While most people associate the Apocalypse with death, mayhem and destruction on a cataclysmic and catastrophic scale, that is not the main point of the book. The word apocalypse is from the Greek apokolypsis for “unveiling, or a revealing” hence the title which the Apocalypse of St. John is better known as, the Book of Revelation. In 90 A.D. the Apostle John was imprisoned on Patmos and wrote letters to seven churches in Asia, with the goal of strengthening them in their trials and persecution under the Emperor Domitian. The main message was that in spite of all the tribulations, Christ, the Lamb, was in control and that He would return to personally defeat the evil ones and free the Christians from their persecutions. The writer of the Battle Hymn clearly believed that the abolition movement was a righteous crusade and that Christ not only approved their efforts but was actually the driving force behind them.
So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and cut the earth’s vintage. He threw it into the great wine press of God’s fury. The wine press was trodden outside the city and blood poured out of the wine press to the height of a horse’s bridle for two hundred miles -Revelation 14:19-20
This “fury of God” is then poured into seven bowls and given to seven angels, who pour this fury out onto the earth, resulting in violent plagues and other calamities which punish the enemies of God and save His servants. John Steinbeck titled his novel The Grapes of Wrath for a similar reason. It is filled with biblical references, and as the reader shares the tragic exodus of the Joad family, one fills that God’s righteous anger is rising against all those in power who are taking advantage of them and one has the expectation that by the end of the novel, justice will be served. It was the same case with those fighting to end slavery. They saw slavery as an injustice that called out to heaven for vengeance and saw in the escalating conflict on the issue and the civil war that followed the wrath of God being poured out on the nation for allowing slavery to continue.
SPOILER ALERT: at the end of Revelation, after all the judgments, Jesus gloriously returns to earth, to judge the nations and usher in a thousand years of peace.
Out of His mouth came a sharp sword to strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod and He Himself will tread out in the wine press the wine and the fury of God Almighty -Revelation 19:15-16
I have seen Him in the watchfires of a hundred circling camps
They have built Him an altar in the evening’s dew and damps
I can read His righteous sentence by their dim and flaring lamps
His day is marching on
In the writer’s eye, Christ is the true leader of the movement to end slavery. He is with the troops and among them and more importantly, the have built him an altar. They are honoring him by their service and their desire to end slavery. Of course, the writer does not literally see Christ in the midst of the assembled army but she sees the saving power of Christ acting through this force. The third line is most significant in the fact that their lamps, a necessary article of war, are the light that shines on Christ’s words so that they can be seen and understood. Essentially, the writer sees God through the actions of these fighting men.
He hath sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat
Oh, be swift, my soul to answer Him, be jubilant my feet
While God is marching on
In his second letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul states,
For the Lord Himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air.
-II Thessalonians 4:16-17
A trumpet, or more accurately, a bugle, was used to call commands in war giving the signal to either charge or retreat. The writer is stating that she believes that Christ can never be defeated. Furthermore, this final trumpet is the last call for the entire world because it signals the return of Christ and, as Revelation indicates, the final judgment immediately follows His return. She knows that when this return comes, she must be ready to answer Him and prays that she will be swift because that would mean that she “is right with the Lord” and will not hesitate to answer for shame or knowing that her answer will condemn her. Further, if her feet are jubilant, than she is most likely dancing for joy.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!
As God is marching on
I am not sure what “beauty of the lilies” refers to, since they are not native to Judea, “across the sea” where Christ was born, but they probably refer to his purity and sinlessness and that of His Virgin Mother. What is more important is the third line. Christ died to save us from the slavery of sin and this last verse equates that redemptive death with the death of the men fighting to end actual physical slavery. It is great motivation.
Behold, I am with you always, even until the end of the world.
-Matthew 28:20
In conclusion, we do not really know if Harriet Beecher Stowe actually believed that end of the world was upon her and that Christ was personally returning to lead the slaves to emancipation. People in every day and time see the Apocalypse around them, whether it was the Holocaust and World War II, or the violent wars of religion following the Protestant Revolt, or the Muslim conquest of Europe, everyone thought that their time would be the time, “The End Times,” even the Apostles. It is clear that the early church took Christ’s prophecies about the destruction of the Temple to apply to them and believed that Christ would return in their lifetimes. Peter and John say that “now is the end times” in their epistles and Paul says to “wait but a little while.” But it clearly was not the time. Even in this case, however, the lessons of Revelations apply to all times and all places. The people of God, doing his work, will always face trial and tribulation. The Church has said as much. And more importantly, the message of God’s saving power, that one day Christ will return to (literally) save the world from evil and destruction and “wipe away every tear” will always resonate and will both comfort those oppressed and inspire others to end the oppression.
Who said religion never accomplished anything good?
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
So I have something that I need to admit.
I watch American Idol.
Well, I don’t really watch it. The show does too much looking at the background of the contestants and self-promotion and talking about how great their celebrity “mentors” are that I usually just look at the performances on YouTube the next day. I was not that big into the show at all during its first few seasons but a couple years back I caught an episode my mom was watching. It was about the time I started getting into music, so I figured that I should at least check it out if I was serious about being a music fan since this was supposedly the newest talent in the music biz. I quickly found that “talent” is a term best used loosely and since I am primarily a classic rock fan, most of the time I would finish viewing an episode full of righteous indignation at whatever contestant butchered some classic. (I still remember Sanjayah Malakar’s god awful cover of the Kink’s “You Really Got Me” way back in season 6.) However, once I stopped bitching about how the contestants sucked at doing classic rock (and Motown for that matter) covers and how all the hot chicks got eliminated early (it’s true), and could pay attention I usually found a contestant I could root for.
This year it was Lee Dwyze (who won incidentally). I liked his style, music choices and the fact that he wasn’t a pretentious douche (yes, Casey James, I am talking about you). For his Top 3 performance, he had to do two songs, one of his own choice and one picked by the judges. Lee was assigned Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” by Simon Cowell.
Here is his performance:
It was freaking amazing. I was not surprised that he pulled off the song well.
Simon himself said that “we have seen this song before.” That’s an understatement. Past contestants Tim Urban, Adam Lambert and Jason Castro have all done it. In my humble opinion, Lee did the best version of “Hallelujah” ever on Idol (Jason Castro was pretty good but not as much emotion as Lee had. Adam Lambert sounded like a woman. Seriously, I couldn’t tell he was a dude. Now, Adam, I know that’s your thing but it doesn’t really do it for me. And Tim Urban- don’t even get me started. He changed the lyrics! He sang I know that there’s a God above rather than Maybe there’s a God above. Seriously? That changes the whole meaning! I understand that Tim may be a Christian, and the agnostic lyric might have bothered but than he needed to pick a different song! The only time a lyrical change should be allowed is when singing the original would make the singer appear to be a homosexual. Wait, no, even than no change is authorized! It doesn’t seem to bother Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. If it does bother, than again, PICK A DIFFERENT SONG! Seriously, you suck, Tim Urban. You were that guy I hated in high school who thought he was cool but wasn’t. But I digress.)
Lee Dwyze’s performance of “Hallelujah” might rank up there with some of the best in all of music. In order to be able to say that I listened to as many different versions as possible (i.e. all the ones I could find on YouTube). And there are quite a number of them. Wikipedia reports that at present count there are 200 versions recorded in various languages. As evidenced by its abundant usage (some might say over-usage) on American Idol, “Hallelujah” has seen a boom in usage in recent years. It appeared in movies such as Shrek and Watchmen. I don’t know what it is about the song but it seems that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to cover it. (Even some that shouldn’t) Bon Jovi (yes, Bon Jovi) did a version of it. Justin Timberlake tried. (seriously, Justin just stay with your crappy music) I think everyone accept the cast of Glee cast has done it. (Note to Glee: fix that) Some of the better versions include one by the Canadian Tenors, k.d. lang (I don’t know who that is either) Jeff Buckley and the most famous cover of all (perhaps even more famous than Leonard Cohen’s original version) by Rufus Wainwright. In my humble personal opinion, Wainwright’s is the best version, with Buckley’s as a close second and the Canadian Tenors a distant third. I might be biased, however, in my analysis since for me, Wainwright’s version is the original as it was the first I heard. It is in my Top 5 favorite songs, up there with Don McLean’s “American Pie,” the Beatles’ “Let It Be” and Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing.” Like all this songs, it feature piano riffs and like “Don’t Stop Believing” it’s overplayed. But most importantly, it features allusions like “American Pie.” While “American Pie” has allusions to many different figures in popular music, “Hallelujah” has allusions, as you would expect, to Scripture.
Now let’s get things straight for a quick second. Don’t know exactly what “Hallelujah” is about? Look at the lyrics: There was a time you let me know/ What’s real and going on below/ But now you never show it to me, do you?/ Remember when I moved in you/ The holy dove was moving too/ And every breath we drew was Hallelujah.
Yeah. Still wondering?
Now some may scream “Blasphemy!” at the combination of sexual imagery with Biblical allusions in this song. For some people, those two things are like oil and water. (Thankfully, my very religious mom left it at my explanation of “It’s not exactly a hymn” when I was playing “Hallelujah” on the piano.) My answer to this: Have you read the Song of Songs? (a.k.a. Song of Solomon) That book of the Bible is all about sex. This is the divinely inspired Word of God we’re talking about here! (Granted, it almost didn’t make it in. But that’s not the point) And it’s about sex in a good and holy context.
Now, before we get into ancient fertility rites, Hieros Gamos, and other sorts of holy sex shenanigans, let’s clear a few things up. Many cultures have seen sex as good and sometimes even holy. It is, after all, how new life is brought into the world. The Church teaches, that God made sex, just like He made everything else, and like everything else He made “He saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:31) In fact, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body teaches that sex allows a married couple to join with God in the act of creation. So this connection with “Hallelujah” makes sense. It is when sex is used outside of God’s plan for it that things go awry.
Which I think is the point of the song. Someone pointed out to me that “Hallelujah,” at least the version I was listening to, is almost a dirge, a funeral song. It is clearly plaintive and mournful. And if you listen to the lyrics, the singer is mourning the loss of a relationship, a loss so profound he has lost all faith in love, God, anything. The song alludes to King David I heard there was a secret chord/ that David played and it pleased the Lord. Almost everyone knows the story of David and Bathsheba which is alluded to in the next verse: You saw her bathing on the roof/ Her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you. After he saw her bathing on the roof, David lusted after Bathsheba but she was married to Uriah, one of his generals. He had his way with her, as they say, but she got pregnant. Back in those days, they didn’t have paternity tests, so David ordered Uriah back from the battlefield and told him to go home and sleep with his wife, so he would think the baby was his. Uriah refused, citing that his men were still in the field. They didn’t have Planned Parenthood back than either, so David couldn’t have the baby killed so he had Uriah killed. He than married Bathsheba, so it would look legit. This is considered the low-point of David’s reign. God turned his back on him and although David repented, his unborn child died as a result of his sin. In the song, this allusion to David is mixed with that of Samson She broke your throne/She cut your hair, referring to the infamous tale of how Samson confided in Deliah that the secret of his strength was his long hair and how Deliah than cut his hair and betrayed Samson to his Philistine enemies. In both these stories, great men and leaders are brought to their knees by their sexual attraction to an alluring woman. They do stupid stuff which leads to their downfall because of the controlling power of sex.
The song “Hallelujah” is in the first person but he is obviously singing to someone else. In the second verse he appears to be singing as a Uriah figure, perhaps to another who stole his lover. In a way he could be singing to himself, telling himself how foolish he was to be caught up with her. At any rate, he understands that she has broken him she broke your throne, tying him down and taking away his strength as Deliah did from Samson, that she still has power over him: From your lips she drew the Hallelujah. He says faith was strong/but you needed proof and that proof was when he meet the woman he is singing about. This man, the singer, has put his faith in love, even more specifically, in the physical aspect of love, and now he has nothing, since his lover has left him. She weakened him and controlled him, but than left so that he says Love is not a victory march/It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah. For him, this rejection is almost as if God Himself abandoned him. He doesn’t even care if God exists or not Maybe there’s a God above because when she left he had nothing left to live for. If she was stolen from him by another, the singer has gained revenge, perhaps. All I ever learned from love was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you. But it still is not enough, since she has not returned to him and he states It’s not a cry you hear at night/It’s not somebody who has seen the Light/ It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah. The man still holds his reverent view towards intimate love, which is why the song is almost liturgical, but he is broken beyond repair. He can never love the same way again, and all he remembers from it All I ever learned from love is hate and anger at how it ended.
At least that’s may interpretation
I watch American Idol.
Well, I don’t really watch it. The show does too much looking at the background of the contestants and self-promotion and talking about how great their celebrity “mentors” are that I usually just look at the performances on YouTube the next day. I was not that big into the show at all during its first few seasons but a couple years back I caught an episode my mom was watching. It was about the time I started getting into music, so I figured that I should at least check it out if I was serious about being a music fan since this was supposedly the newest talent in the music biz. I quickly found that “talent” is a term best used loosely and since I am primarily a classic rock fan, most of the time I would finish viewing an episode full of righteous indignation at whatever contestant butchered some classic. (I still remember Sanjayah Malakar’s god awful cover of the Kink’s “You Really Got Me” way back in season 6.) However, once I stopped bitching about how the contestants sucked at doing classic rock (and Motown for that matter) covers and how all the hot chicks got eliminated early (it’s true), and could pay attention I usually found a contestant I could root for.
This year it was Lee Dwyze (who won incidentally). I liked his style, music choices and the fact that he wasn’t a pretentious douche (yes, Casey James, I am talking about you). For his Top 3 performance, he had to do two songs, one of his own choice and one picked by the judges. Lee was assigned Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” by Simon Cowell.
Here is his performance:
It was freaking amazing. I was not surprised that he pulled off the song well.
Simon himself said that “we have seen this song before.” That’s an understatement. Past contestants Tim Urban, Adam Lambert and Jason Castro have all done it. In my humble opinion, Lee did the best version of “Hallelujah” ever on Idol (Jason Castro was pretty good but not as much emotion as Lee had. Adam Lambert sounded like a woman. Seriously, I couldn’t tell he was a dude. Now, Adam, I know that’s your thing but it doesn’t really do it for me. And Tim Urban- don’t even get me started. He changed the lyrics! He sang I know that there’s a God above rather than Maybe there’s a God above. Seriously? That changes the whole meaning! I understand that Tim may be a Christian, and the agnostic lyric might have bothered but than he needed to pick a different song! The only time a lyrical change should be allowed is when singing the original would make the singer appear to be a homosexual. Wait, no, even than no change is authorized! It doesn’t seem to bother Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. If it does bother, than again, PICK A DIFFERENT SONG! Seriously, you suck, Tim Urban. You were that guy I hated in high school who thought he was cool but wasn’t. But I digress.)
Lee Dwyze’s performance of “Hallelujah” might rank up there with some of the best in all of music. In order to be able to say that I listened to as many different versions as possible (i.e. all the ones I could find on YouTube). And there are quite a number of them. Wikipedia reports that at present count there are 200 versions recorded in various languages. As evidenced by its abundant usage (some might say over-usage) on American Idol, “Hallelujah” has seen a boom in usage in recent years. It appeared in movies such as Shrek and Watchmen. I don’t know what it is about the song but it seems that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to cover it. (Even some that shouldn’t) Bon Jovi (yes, Bon Jovi) did a version of it. Justin Timberlake tried. (seriously, Justin just stay with your crappy music) I think everyone accept the cast of Glee cast has done it. (Note to Glee: fix that) Some of the better versions include one by the Canadian Tenors, k.d. lang (I don’t know who that is either) Jeff Buckley and the most famous cover of all (perhaps even more famous than Leonard Cohen’s original version) by Rufus Wainwright. In my humble personal opinion, Wainwright’s is the best version, with Buckley’s as a close second and the Canadian Tenors a distant third. I might be biased, however, in my analysis since for me, Wainwright’s version is the original as it was the first I heard. It is in my Top 5 favorite songs, up there with Don McLean’s “American Pie,” the Beatles’ “Let It Be” and Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing.” Like all this songs, it feature piano riffs and like “Don’t Stop Believing” it’s overplayed. But most importantly, it features allusions like “American Pie.” While “American Pie” has allusions to many different figures in popular music, “Hallelujah” has allusions, as you would expect, to Scripture.
Now let’s get things straight for a quick second. Don’t know exactly what “Hallelujah” is about? Look at the lyrics: There was a time you let me know/ What’s real and going on below/ But now you never show it to me, do you?/ Remember when I moved in you/ The holy dove was moving too/ And every breath we drew was Hallelujah.
Yeah. Still wondering?
Now some may scream “Blasphemy!” at the combination of sexual imagery with Biblical allusions in this song. For some people, those two things are like oil and water. (Thankfully, my very religious mom left it at my explanation of “It’s not exactly a hymn” when I was playing “Hallelujah” on the piano.) My answer to this: Have you read the Song of Songs? (a.k.a. Song of Solomon) That book of the Bible is all about sex. This is the divinely inspired Word of God we’re talking about here! (Granted, it almost didn’t make it in. But that’s not the point) And it’s about sex in a good and holy context.
Now, before we get into ancient fertility rites, Hieros Gamos, and other sorts of holy sex shenanigans, let’s clear a few things up. Many cultures have seen sex as good and sometimes even holy. It is, after all, how new life is brought into the world. The Church teaches, that God made sex, just like He made everything else, and like everything else He made “He saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:31) In fact, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body teaches that sex allows a married couple to join with God in the act of creation. So this connection with “Hallelujah” makes sense. It is when sex is used outside of God’s plan for it that things go awry.
Which I think is the point of the song. Someone pointed out to me that “Hallelujah,” at least the version I was listening to, is almost a dirge, a funeral song. It is clearly plaintive and mournful. And if you listen to the lyrics, the singer is mourning the loss of a relationship, a loss so profound he has lost all faith in love, God, anything. The song alludes to King David I heard there was a secret chord/ that David played and it pleased the Lord. Almost everyone knows the story of David and Bathsheba which is alluded to in the next verse: You saw her bathing on the roof/ Her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you. After he saw her bathing on the roof, David lusted after Bathsheba but she was married to Uriah, one of his generals. He had his way with her, as they say, but she got pregnant. Back in those days, they didn’t have paternity tests, so David ordered Uriah back from the battlefield and told him to go home and sleep with his wife, so he would think the baby was his. Uriah refused, citing that his men were still in the field. They didn’t have Planned Parenthood back than either, so David couldn’t have the baby killed so he had Uriah killed. He than married Bathsheba, so it would look legit. This is considered the low-point of David’s reign. God turned his back on him and although David repented, his unborn child died as a result of his sin. In the song, this allusion to David is mixed with that of Samson She broke your throne/She cut your hair, referring to the infamous tale of how Samson confided in Deliah that the secret of his strength was his long hair and how Deliah than cut his hair and betrayed Samson to his Philistine enemies. In both these stories, great men and leaders are brought to their knees by their sexual attraction to an alluring woman. They do stupid stuff which leads to their downfall because of the controlling power of sex.
The song “Hallelujah” is in the first person but he is obviously singing to someone else. In the second verse he appears to be singing as a Uriah figure, perhaps to another who stole his lover. In a way he could be singing to himself, telling himself how foolish he was to be caught up with her. At any rate, he understands that she has broken him she broke your throne, tying him down and taking away his strength as Deliah did from Samson, that she still has power over him: From your lips she drew the Hallelujah. He says faith was strong/but you needed proof and that proof was when he meet the woman he is singing about. This man, the singer, has put his faith in love, even more specifically, in the physical aspect of love, and now he has nothing, since his lover has left him. She weakened him and controlled him, but than left so that he says Love is not a victory march/It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah. For him, this rejection is almost as if God Himself abandoned him. He doesn’t even care if God exists or not Maybe there’s a God above because when she left he had nothing left to live for. If she was stolen from him by another, the singer has gained revenge, perhaps. All I ever learned from love was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you. But it still is not enough, since she has not returned to him and he states It’s not a cry you hear at night/It’s not somebody who has seen the Light/ It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah. The man still holds his reverent view towards intimate love, which is why the song is almost liturgical, but he is broken beyond repair. He can never love the same way again, and all he remembers from it All I ever learned from love is hate and anger at how it ended.
At least that’s may interpretation
Sunday, November 29, 2009
So I Had This Anthropology Essay
There is a long standing debate among anthropologists on the question of how organized governments came into existence. Many wonder what would cause the early humanity to abandon the egalitarian life style of hunter-gatherer societies in favor of governments which were decidedly non-egalitarian. Two dominant theories have emerged. The first, the Theory of Conflict, holds that the rights of these egalitarian societies were taken away violently, by armed force or the threat of armed force to which resistance was futile. The second, the Theory of Integration, argues that these rights were voluntarily relinquished by the society as a whole. Like much in the field of anthropology, the answer most likely lies somewhere in between the two extremes. Historical evidence suggests that rights were given up voluntarily at the beginning of civilization but these rights were not returned as the leaders of these new societies gained more power.
In his seminal work Leviathan, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote about a “state of nature” in which humanity existed before governments were formed. He described this state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and stated that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.[i]" He further argued “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself."[ii] This is a very compelling argument for the integration theory and history supports it. The idea of the strongest in combat leading the nation has roots in many cities. Clear examples can be seen in pre-Homeric Greece, where kings not only lead their armies in battle but many times were the chief combatants, fighting one on one against the royalty of the opposing armies, as seen in the duel between Hector and Achilles in the Illiad[iii]. Other examples exist among the Celtic and Germanic tribes, where a king had to win the loyalty of the chieftains and warlords in order to control a kingdom because the warlords controlled the armed men of the region. Frankish kings like
The people soon found out that it is extremely difficult to convince someone to give up power, especially when that person has armed men at his disposal. The
In light of the historical evidence from many different cultures, it becomes clear that a composite of the conflict theory and the integration theory most accurately describes the process by which egalitarian societies acquired the leaders we now refer to as chieftains and kings. The relinquishment of sovereignty to these men was a necessary evil for survival but once these men had the power securely in the grasp, the instruments of survival became the chains of slavery. This situation is summed up succinctly by the old adage of Winston Churchill, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
[i] Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan. 1651 Edwin Curley (Ed.) 1994. Hackett Publishing.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Professor Thomas Brennan, US Naval Academy, The West in a Global Context, Fall 2008
[iv] Brennan
[v] Sherman , Dennis. "Pride in Family and City:
[vi] Ibid, 127-128
[vii] Ibid, 26
[viii] The New American Bible, 1 Samuel, Chapter 8, verses 11-17
[ix] The New American Bible, 1 Kings, Chapter 12, verse 14
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Antichrist and the Eucharist
"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him."- John 6:66
Here's a fun fact.
This verse, from the Gospel reading this Sunday, is the only one in the New Testament that corresponds to the infamous Number of the Beast found in the book of Revelations: 666. People have been trying to figure out what the meaning of that number is since Revelations was written. John states:
"Wisdom is needed here; one who understands can calculate the number of the beast for it is a number that stands for a person." -Revelations 13:18
This verse seems very dark and mysterious to us reading it two millenia later. It has lead to a lot of confusion and more than a few crazy theories as to the identity of the man that will be known as Antichrist. Some thought it was Ronald Wilson Reagen because he had three names of six letters each. Some people even created a fictional papal title Vicarius Filli Dei and used to identify the Pope as the Beast because the numerical values of the Roman numerals in the title add up to 666. (Never mind that Pope has never used the title "Vicar of the Son of God". Ever.) In reality the answer is quite simple for a Christian or Jew living in the late first century, which is the intended audience of the Book of Revelations.
Gematria was a wide-spread practice in the classical world, especially among the Jews. (For an example of its continued use among modern Jews, look in Chaim Potok's The Chosen.) In it, a numerical value is assigned to each letter of the alphabet. At the same time, different numbers are given mystical properties. Thus, any word and any name has a numerical value which may or may not be mystically significant. John takes the Greek name of Caesar Nero and replaces the Greek letters with their Hebrew equivalents in a process known as transliteration. The sum of the numerical values of Nero's name is 666. That is why John says that wisdom is needed to calculate the number-it is a code telling the readers the identity of the antagonist without explicitly mentioning the name. Most, if not all, of the imagery in the Apocalypse is attacking the Roman Empire, specifically the Cult of the Divine Emperor. Therefore, the name attached to the number 666 is that of the Roman Emperor Nero. Case closed.
But the Church teaches that the symbolism in the book of Revelations is multi-layered. It may be meant to tell of a past event, or a tribulation yet to come or both. The Church teaches that the Antichrist will come during the final days before Christ's Second Coming in glory. He will be an individual person who will set himself up as a god and persecute the Church as ruthlessly as the Roman Emperors before him and who will ultimately be defeated by Christ Himself when He returns. I will not speculate as to the identity of this final archenemy of Christ and His Church. But the Church also teaches that there are and have been many antichrists (notice the little c) who are the manifestations of the spirit of antichrist in the world.
Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the word Antichrist anywhere in the Book of Revelations. In fact the only place that the word is used in the Bible is in the Epistles of John.
"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist."- 2 John :7
"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming; so many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the final hour. They went out from us but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us...Who is the liar. Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."- 1 John 2:18-19, 22
This is very interesting in light of the first verse from the Gospel of John. (Modern Biblical scholars will try to tell you that the authors of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Epistles and the Book of Revelation are three separate people. I don't buy it. I think they were all written by Jochannin bar Zebedee, John the Beloved Disciple.) In the preceding verses, Jesus has stated emphatically that "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true flesh and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." The crowd is shocked by Jesus' words but He does nothing to calm them down, instead He repeats Himself, saying "Amen, amen I say to you" to drive the point home. John even states that Jesus knew that many would reject His teaching on His Body and Blood and that Jesus used it as a test to see who His true followers were. Finally, in the verse that shares the Number of the Beast, Jesus' followers leave because they find His teachings hard to accept.
Could there be a connection?
If, as I believe, the verses examined thus far were penned by the same divinely inspired man, could it be a sign of some deeper meaning?
The only book of the Bible used more often than Revelations when talking about the End Times is the book Daniel. Both are apocalyptic literature, full of terrifying symbolism. Just as John was written for Christians living under the persecution of Domitian, Daniel was written for Jews living under the persecution of the Seluecid king Antiochus Ephianes. The following verses were written because Antiochus banned the sacrifices in the Temple during his persecution, but many believe it also applies to the final Antichrist:
"For one week, he shall make a firm compact with the many; half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation." -Daniel 9:27
"It's power extended to the host of heaven, so that it cast down to earth some of the host and some of the stars and trampled on them. It boasted even against the prince of the host, from whom it removed the daily sacrifice, and whose sanctuary it cast down, as well as the host, while sin replaced the daily sacrifice."
-Daniel 8:10-12
The Protestants have this funny idea. They believe that the future Antichrist will abolish sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem. The only problem with this theory is that the Temple was burned down by the Romans in 70 A.D. and has yet to be rebuilt. Therefore they hold that the Jews will eventually build a Third Temple on the Temple Mount (nevermind that the Dome of the Rock is already there or that Jesus said that "no stone will be left upon another." Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the Temple to prove Jesus and failed epically.) only to have it absconded and desecrated by the Antichrist, who will than proceed to outlaw all sacrifices within. Again. Than, and only than, will Jesus return to earth and defeat the Antichrist a neat and tidy seven years to the day that the Antichrist signed a peace treaty with Israel, kicking off the whole party in the first place. (This rather flawed interpretation of Daniel is one of the leading causes of our nation's unqualified support for the state of Israel, thanks to all those fundamentalist, evangelical Christians who think if Israel dies as a nation, the Temple will never be rebuilt and if the Temple is never rebuilt, Jesus will never return.)
All this confusion and hoop-lah is a direct result of the Protestant rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and a misunderstanding about the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death. No one needs to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem or re-instate animal sacrifices because there already is a Temple in which a sacrifice is offered, not only daily, but perpetually.
All over the world, at all hours of the day, priests are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics believe that the Mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi:
"For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations; and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering." -Malachi 1:11
This is echoed in the Eucharistic prayer although unfortunately the Latin occidentis and oreintis was mistranslated as "from to East to West" when it really means "sunrise" and "sunset." The Mass is generally believed to be the "daily sacrifice" referred to in Daniel as well.
Protestants miss this because of a faulty understanding of the words of St. Paul:
"Just as it is appointed that men die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time." Hebrews 9:27-28
Protestants argue that the Mass is offering Jesus as a sacrifice again and again, which is impossible since He was offered once. They say that the priest is essentially killing Christ again and again. This is not true. Christ instituted the Mass at the Last Supper, mystically connecting his coming death with the Passover meal of bread and wine. Although we are constrained by time, God is not and the sacrifice of Jesus on Golgotha is timeless. Thus we can unite ourselves in the sacrifice that occurred 2.000 years ago every day at Mass. The Baltimore Catechism explains:
The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood, and was physically slain., while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfaction for us, while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross.
Thus, we can see that the daily sacrifice is the Mass and the Temple which the Antichrist will enter and defile is the Roman Catholic Church. He will outlaw the sacrifice of the Mass and will persecute those who celebrate it. His Mark is the rejection of the basic doctrine of the Eucharist. Just as John wrote, the spirit of antichrist is to deny that Christ come in the flesh, first as a man to save and redeem us; secondly that He comes in the Flesh to us, every day, in the Blessed Sacrament.
The spirit of antichrist is already at work in the world and even in the Church. John saw it in the first century and it has been paving for its final manifestation for some time. John said that many of the number of Christians belong to the Antichrist and in Revelations he shares a vision of the Dragon casting down a third of the stars from the sky. Daniel states that "the little horn" shall cast down to earth some of the heavenly host. St. Paul speaks of a gradual falling away from the faith, also called the Great Apostasy:
"We ask you brothers, with regard to the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with Him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in this way. For the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition."
-2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
We see this falling away evident as Catholics reject more and more basic teachings of the Church. None is more clear than the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ. 70% of Catholics claim that they do not believe that Jesus is present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Could be this be the beginning of the foretold Great Apostasy. No one knows for sure. But if the spirit of Antichrist so vehemently hates the Eucharist no doubt it will strive to eradicate all traces of belief in the Real Presence in order to make it easier for the Abomination of Desolation to enter the Sanctuary of the Church founded by Christ. John Paul the Great stated that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the spiritual life of the Church. It is what identifies us most as Catholics.
"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him."- John 6:66
The Number of the Beast is 666.
The Beast is the Antichrist.
The Spirit of Antichrist rejects that Jesus came in the flesh.
The Antichrist shall abolish the "daily sacrifice."
Daily, Jesus comes in the flesh in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
70% of Catholics do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The spirit of the Antichrist is to deny the truth of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Let us pray for a return to devotion to the Holy Eucharist
Here's a fun fact.
This verse, from the Gospel reading this Sunday, is the only one in the New Testament that corresponds to the infamous Number of the Beast found in the book of Revelations: 666. People have been trying to figure out what the meaning of that number is since Revelations was written. John states:
"Wisdom is needed here; one who understands can calculate the number of the beast for it is a number that stands for a person." -Revelations 13:18
This verse seems very dark and mysterious to us reading it two millenia later. It has lead to a lot of confusion and more than a few crazy theories as to the identity of the man that will be known as Antichrist. Some thought it was Ronald Wilson Reagen because he had three names of six letters each. Some people even created a fictional papal title Vicarius Filli Dei and used to identify the Pope as the Beast because the numerical values of the Roman numerals in the title add up to 666. (Never mind that Pope has never used the title "Vicar of the Son of God". Ever.) In reality the answer is quite simple for a Christian or Jew living in the late first century, which is the intended audience of the Book of Revelations.
Gematria was a wide-spread practice in the classical world, especially among the Jews. (For an example of its continued use among modern Jews, look in Chaim Potok's The Chosen.) In it, a numerical value is assigned to each letter of the alphabet. At the same time, different numbers are given mystical properties. Thus, any word and any name has a numerical value which may or may not be mystically significant. John takes the Greek name of Caesar Nero and replaces the Greek letters with their Hebrew equivalents in a process known as transliteration. The sum of the numerical values of Nero's name is 666. That is why John says that wisdom is needed to calculate the number-it is a code telling the readers the identity of the antagonist without explicitly mentioning the name. Most, if not all, of the imagery in the Apocalypse is attacking the Roman Empire, specifically the Cult of the Divine Emperor. Therefore, the name attached to the number 666 is that of the Roman Emperor Nero. Case closed.
But the Church teaches that the symbolism in the book of Revelations is multi-layered. It may be meant to tell of a past event, or a tribulation yet to come or both. The Church teaches that the Antichrist will come during the final days before Christ's Second Coming in glory. He will be an individual person who will set himself up as a god and persecute the Church as ruthlessly as the Roman Emperors before him and who will ultimately be defeated by Christ Himself when He returns. I will not speculate as to the identity of this final archenemy of Christ and His Church. But the Church also teaches that there are and have been many antichrists (notice the little c) who are the manifestations of the spirit of antichrist in the world.
Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the word Antichrist anywhere in the Book of Revelations. In fact the only place that the word is used in the Bible is in the Epistles of John.
"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist."- 2 John :7
"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming; so many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the final hour. They went out from us but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us...Who is the liar. Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."- 1 John 2:18-19, 22
This is very interesting in light of the first verse from the Gospel of John. (Modern Biblical scholars will try to tell you that the authors of the Gospel of John, the Johannine Epistles and the Book of Revelation are three separate people. I don't buy it. I think they were all written by Jochannin bar Zebedee, John the Beloved Disciple.) In the preceding verses, Jesus has stated emphatically that "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true flesh and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." The crowd is shocked by Jesus' words but He does nothing to calm them down, instead He repeats Himself, saying "Amen, amen I say to you" to drive the point home. John even states that Jesus knew that many would reject His teaching on His Body and Blood and that Jesus used it as a test to see who His true followers were. Finally, in the verse that shares the Number of the Beast, Jesus' followers leave because they find His teachings hard to accept.
Could there be a connection?
If, as I believe, the verses examined thus far were penned by the same divinely inspired man, could it be a sign of some deeper meaning?
The only book of the Bible used more often than Revelations when talking about the End Times is the book Daniel. Both are apocalyptic literature, full of terrifying symbolism. Just as John was written for Christians living under the persecution of Domitian, Daniel was written for Jews living under the persecution of the Seluecid king Antiochus Ephianes. The following verses were written because Antiochus banned the sacrifices in the Temple during his persecution, but many believe it also applies to the final Antichrist:
"For one week, he shall make a firm compact with the many; half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation." -Daniel 9:27
"It's power extended to the host of heaven, so that it cast down to earth some of the host and some of the stars and trampled on them. It boasted even against the prince of the host, from whom it removed the daily sacrifice, and whose sanctuary it cast down, as well as the host, while sin replaced the daily sacrifice."
-Daniel 8:10-12
The Protestants have this funny idea. They believe that the future Antichrist will abolish sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem. The only problem with this theory is that the Temple was burned down by the Romans in 70 A.D. and has yet to be rebuilt. Therefore they hold that the Jews will eventually build a Third Temple on the Temple Mount (nevermind that the Dome of the Rock is already there or that Jesus said that "no stone will be left upon another." Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the Temple to prove Jesus and failed epically.) only to have it absconded and desecrated by the Antichrist, who will than proceed to outlaw all sacrifices within. Again. Than, and only than, will Jesus return to earth and defeat the Antichrist a neat and tidy seven years to the day that the Antichrist signed a peace treaty with Israel, kicking off the whole party in the first place. (This rather flawed interpretation of Daniel is one of the leading causes of our nation's unqualified support for the state of Israel, thanks to all those fundamentalist, evangelical Christians who think if Israel dies as a nation, the Temple will never be rebuilt and if the Temple is never rebuilt, Jesus will never return.)
All this confusion and hoop-lah is a direct result of the Protestant rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and a misunderstanding about the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death. No one needs to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem or re-instate animal sacrifices because there already is a Temple in which a sacrifice is offered, not only daily, but perpetually.
All over the world, at all hours of the day, priests are offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics believe that the Mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi:
"For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations; and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering." -Malachi 1:11
This is echoed in the Eucharistic prayer although unfortunately the Latin occidentis and oreintis was mistranslated as "from to East to West" when it really means "sunrise" and "sunset." The Mass is generally believed to be the "daily sacrifice" referred to in Daniel as well.
Protestants miss this because of a faulty understanding of the words of St. Paul:
"Just as it is appointed that men die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time." Hebrews 9:27-28
Protestants argue that the Mass is offering Jesus as a sacrifice again and again, which is impossible since He was offered once. They say that the priest is essentially killing Christ again and again. This is not true. Christ instituted the Mass at the Last Supper, mystically connecting his coming death with the Passover meal of bread and wine. Although we are constrained by time, God is not and the sacrifice of Jesus on Golgotha is timeless. Thus we can unite ourselves in the sacrifice that occurred 2.000 years ago every day at Mass. The Baltimore Catechism explains:
The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood, and was physically slain., while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfaction for us, while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross.
Thus, we can see that the daily sacrifice is the Mass and the Temple which the Antichrist will enter and defile is the Roman Catholic Church. He will outlaw the sacrifice of the Mass and will persecute those who celebrate it. His Mark is the rejection of the basic doctrine of the Eucharist. Just as John wrote, the spirit of antichrist is to deny that Christ come in the flesh, first as a man to save and redeem us; secondly that He comes in the Flesh to us, every day, in the Blessed Sacrament.
The spirit of antichrist is already at work in the world and even in the Church. John saw it in the first century and it has been paving for its final manifestation for some time. John said that many of the number of Christians belong to the Antichrist and in Revelations he shares a vision of the Dragon casting down a third of the stars from the sky. Daniel states that "the little horn" shall cast down to earth some of the heavenly host. St. Paul speaks of a gradual falling away from the faith, also called the Great Apostasy:
"We ask you brothers, with regard to the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with Him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in this way. For the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition."
-2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
We see this falling away evident as Catholics reject more and more basic teachings of the Church. None is more clear than the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ. 70% of Catholics claim that they do not believe that Jesus is present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Could be this be the beginning of the foretold Great Apostasy. No one knows for sure. But if the spirit of Antichrist so vehemently hates the Eucharist no doubt it will strive to eradicate all traces of belief in the Real Presence in order to make it easier for the Abomination of Desolation to enter the Sanctuary of the Church founded by Christ. John Paul the Great stated that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the spiritual life of the Church. It is what identifies us most as Catholics.
"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him."- John 6:66
The Number of the Beast is 666.
The Beast is the Antichrist.
The Spirit of Antichrist rejects that Jesus came in the flesh.
The Antichrist shall abolish the "daily sacrifice."
Daily, Jesus comes in the flesh in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
70% of Catholics do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The spirit of the Antichrist is to deny the truth of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Let us pray for a return to devotion to the Holy Eucharist
Friday, June 26, 2009
Optimus Prime is a Chrisr figure
So I saw the new Transformers movie the other day.
It is amazing.
It has everything.
Good looking girls, explosions, humor, plot continuity and most importantly ***SPOILER*** (but not a huge one) a battle between two enemies one of whom is an ancient Cybertronian referred to only as The Fallen who rebelled and abandoned his brothers because he hated humanity, the first Primes and serves as Darth Sidious to Megatron's Darth Vader. The other is Optimus Prime, a hero with two names but who is usually referred to by the last (which turns out to be a title), a leader who dies to save Earth, and than is resurrected to defeat the Fallen. (See where I'm going with this?)***SPOILER END*** And the U.S.S. John C. Stennis C.V.N. 74 was in the movie, the ship that I had my Youngster cruise on!
But I noticed something very interesting. It has to do with the way that the government handles the Decepticon threat. In the first movie you had the character of the Secretary of Defense played by the awesome Jon Voight (one of my favorite actors) who is extremely proactive, doesn't take any shit from anyone, lest of all a talking robot and even wields a shotgun when the time comes. He is an example of the kind of reaction one would expect from a member of the Bush administration.
Incidentally, while Bush is never named in the first movie, the President, seen briefly when Air Force One is attacked, is clearly meant to resemble W. Obama is, in fact, named in the second movie in a news report after the Decepticons sink an aircraft carrier (not the Stennis).
In the second movie, Sam Witwicky has all the knowledge from the AllSpark downloaded into his brain when he touches a shard of the AllSpark. After utterly pwning most of the planet, including the US Navy, the Fallen hi-jacks most of Earth's communication system in order to broadcast a demand to surrender Sam to them. (Sounds like the terrorists) They want the information in Sam's head, so the can find the Matrix of Leadership, which will activate a Sun Harvester, which has the capability to wipe out life on Earth (this entire plan if the reason the Fallen fell in the first place).
A government agent, who is a liason to the Autobots, actually suggests that they might hand Sam over to prevent another Decepticon attack. This is after he suggests that the Autobots go home, alleging that their presence is the reason that the Decepticons did not leave Earth after the AllSpark was destroyed.
This is exactly what the Obama administration would do in a situation like this! In order to prevent conflict they would negotiate with the people who JUST SANK A FUCKING AIRCRAFT CARRIER! They would be naive enough to believe that the Decepticons would go away if their enemies the Autobots went away too. Wrong! They would just finish the job and destroy the planet. The Obama administration would dialogue with these evil, destroying robots from outer space.
In its characterizations of both of the last two Presidencies, the Transformers movies have been spot on.
Like I said, this new Transformers is awesome! It might be better than the original. Unfortunately, however the same was said about X-Men 2, Dead Man's Chest, and Spider-Man 2 and we all saw how well that turned out. (One alright, another okay and one absolutely awful)
See well just have to wait and see and hope that the Transformers movies turn out like the Lord of the Rings movies.
It is amazing.
It has everything.
Good looking girls, explosions, humor, plot continuity and most importantly ***SPOILER*** (but not a huge one) a battle between two enemies one of whom is an ancient Cybertronian referred to only as The Fallen who rebelled and abandoned his brothers because he hated humanity, the first Primes and serves as Darth Sidious to Megatron's Darth Vader. The other is Optimus Prime, a hero with two names but who is usually referred to by the last (which turns out to be a title), a leader who dies to save Earth, and than is resurrected to defeat the Fallen. (See where I'm going with this?)***SPOILER END*** And the U.S.S. John C. Stennis C.V.N. 74 was in the movie, the ship that I had my Youngster cruise on!
But I noticed something very interesting. It has to do with the way that the government handles the Decepticon threat. In the first movie you had the character of the Secretary of Defense played by the awesome Jon Voight (one of my favorite actors) who is extremely proactive, doesn't take any shit from anyone, lest of all a talking robot and even wields a shotgun when the time comes. He is an example of the kind of reaction one would expect from a member of the Bush administration.
Incidentally, while Bush is never named in the first movie, the President, seen briefly when Air Force One is attacked, is clearly meant to resemble W. Obama is, in fact, named in the second movie in a news report after the Decepticons sink an aircraft carrier (not the Stennis).
In the second movie, Sam Witwicky has all the knowledge from the AllSpark downloaded into his brain when he touches a shard of the AllSpark. After utterly pwning most of the planet, including the US Navy, the Fallen hi-jacks most of Earth's communication system in order to broadcast a demand to surrender Sam to them. (Sounds like the terrorists) They want the information in Sam's head, so the can find the Matrix of Leadership, which will activate a Sun Harvester, which has the capability to wipe out life on Earth (this entire plan if the reason the Fallen fell in the first place).
A government agent, who is a liason to the Autobots, actually suggests that they might hand Sam over to prevent another Decepticon attack. This is after he suggests that the Autobots go home, alleging that their presence is the reason that the Decepticons did not leave Earth after the AllSpark was destroyed.
This is exactly what the Obama administration would do in a situation like this! In order to prevent conflict they would negotiate with the people who JUST SANK A FUCKING AIRCRAFT CARRIER! They would be naive enough to believe that the Decepticons would go away if their enemies the Autobots went away too. Wrong! They would just finish the job and destroy the planet. The Obama administration would dialogue with these evil, destroying robots from outer space.
In its characterizations of both of the last two Presidencies, the Transformers movies have been spot on.
Like I said, this new Transformers is awesome! It might be better than the original. Unfortunately, however the same was said about X-Men 2, Dead Man's Chest, and Spider-Man 2 and we all saw how well that turned out. (One alright, another okay and one absolutely awful)
See well just have to wait and see and hope that the Transformers movies turn out like the Lord of the Rings movies.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A Father's Day Message from the (Catholic) Bible
Many people, especially Catholics, hold up Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, as the role model for all fathers. I find the inherent comparison to be unfair. Saint Joseph was married to the Immaculate Conception and, one episode of adolescent rebellion in the Jerusalem Temple notwithstanding, Yeshua bar Joseph was, by all accounts, the perfect Child.
Aside from Joseph, most fathers in the Bible were abject failures at fatherhood. Noah's son laughed at him when he passed drunk and naked. Abraham banished his first son into the desert and than almost sacrificed his remaining heir. Jacob's favoritism toward his youngest children led his other sons to sell their brother into slavery. David's firstborn son and heir apparent raped his half-sister while another son, Absalom, plotted a coup against his father. Most Biblical fathers are an example of what NOT to do.
That is why Catholics are lucky. We have a positive example of fatherhood in the book of Tobit, a book which the Protestants reject as apocryphal. It is the story of a righteous Jew whose family was carried off to Nineveh when the Assyrian armies conquered the kingdom of Israel. While still in Israel, Tobit traveled to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple, while most of his fellow Israelites worshipped in Samaria or in high places which were not dedicated to God. While in Nineveh, Tobit follows the dietary laws, which most of his countrymen ignore. He also makes sure that the Israelites who were executed by Sennacherib in revenge for his defeat at the hands of King Hezekiah of Judah. are given proper burials. He leaves a feast in order to bury a corpse of his country man. In short, Tobit follows the laws of God scrupulously and always does the right thing.
But bad things still happen to him. He had to go into hiding when the king finds out that Tobit is the one who is burying his victims. His neighbors, including fellow Israelites, ridicule him. To top it all off, he is blinded when a bird poops in his eyes while he is sleeping outside because he is unclean due to contact with a corpse. Even his marriage becomes strained. Life is so bad that he prays for death.
In anticipation of the fulfillment of his prayer, Tobit sends his only son Tobiah off to Rages in Media to collect a very large sum of money from Tobit's cousin. After a chapter's worth of paternal advice, Tobit sends Tobiah on his journey, along with a guide named Azariah, who just happened to be hanging out at the city gate, looking for a job, when Tobiah came by. The author of Tobit (who isn't Tobit) quickly informs the readers that Azariah is really the archangel Raphael in disguise, sent by God to heal Tobit as well as a relative of his, Sarah, who lives in Media.
Sarah is a beautiful young woman who has been married seven times. In each case, the husband died mysteriously before consummating the marriage. The author states that the demon Asmodeus strangled the men. That sounded almost as ludicrous as it would today and Sarah's servant accused her of murdering her husbands. Sarah is in such despair that she, like Tobit, prays for death.
While on the road, Tobiah goes to swim and bath in a river. In the water, he is attacked by a large fish. Azariah instructs him to kill the fish by grasping its gills and than gut it and remove the gall, liver and heart, which apparently are useful as medicines. The pair arrives in Media and need a place to stay. Azariah insists they stay at the home of Raguel, Sarah’s father, who greets the duo excitedly when he learns that Tobiah is Tobit’s son.
When they enter the house, Tobiah notices Sarah and falls in love. She is his kinswoman, a member of the same tribe and he is her closest living relative, which according to the Levirate law, gives him the undisputable right to marry her. Tobit had instructed his son earlier to only marry a woman from their tribe of Naphtali. Tobiah’s only hesitation in the matter arises from the fact that a demon has killed the last seven men she married. Fortunately, Tobiah is friends with an archangel which comes in handy when dispatching a demon.
After Raquel agrees to allow Tobiah to marry his daughter, Raphael instructs Tobiah to burn the heart and liver on the brazier so that the smoke will ward off Asmodeus. Tobiah does so and prays along with Sarah in the bridal chamber on their wedding night. He asks for God’s protection and blessing on his marriage. At the same time Raphael chases Asmodeus into Upper Egypt and chains him there in the desert. (I wonder of anyone noticed that Azariah was missing?) Raquel and his servants secretly dig a grave for Tobiah but joyfully find him alive after which Raquel has his servants fill the grave back in (sucks to be those servants).
Sarah’s family was so happy that they gave the couple a fourteen day wedding feast. Azariah went to Tobit’s cousin to collect the money and bring him back for the feast. When Tobiah left to return to Nineveh, Raquel gave him half of his property as a wedding gift.
Meanwhile, Tobit and Anna are terrified that their only son had died. As they approached Nineveh, Azariah told Tobiah to smear the gall of the fish on Tobit’s eyes. Tobiah does so and the cataracts fall off his eyes him to see. Tobiah tells everything that happened to him to his father and both men praise God. (And have another wedding feast. These guys knew how to party!) When Tobiah attempts to give half of what he brought back from Media to Azariah as payment, Azariah outs himself as an archangel. “I am Raphael, one of seven who serve before the Glory of God,” he says, before ascending back into Heaven.
The moral of the story goes like this: bad things happen to good people but God uses these bad things to accomplish even better things for His people. If Tobit had never been blinded, Tobiah would never gone to Media, never would have met Sarah, never collected the money and gotten rich and most importantly Tobit would have never had a visit from an archangel to affirm his heroic faith. Sarah probably would have hung herself and Tobit would have died without grandchildren because Tobiah would have never married. Tobit’s glorification came about through his son, but it is called the book of Tobit because it is about him. He trusted in God no matter what. He never spoke against Him or questioned His ways. At least three times is praised as an outstanding and noble father. Tobit should be a model for all fathers on Father’s Day.
Aside from Joseph, most fathers in the Bible were abject failures at fatherhood. Noah's son laughed at him when he passed drunk and naked. Abraham banished his first son into the desert and than almost sacrificed his remaining heir. Jacob's favoritism toward his youngest children led his other sons to sell their brother into slavery. David's firstborn son and heir apparent raped his half-sister while another son, Absalom, plotted a coup against his father. Most Biblical fathers are an example of what NOT to do.
That is why Catholics are lucky. We have a positive example of fatherhood in the book of Tobit, a book which the Protestants reject as apocryphal. It is the story of a righteous Jew whose family was carried off to Nineveh when the Assyrian armies conquered the kingdom of Israel. While still in Israel, Tobit traveled to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple, while most of his fellow Israelites worshipped in Samaria or in high places which were not dedicated to God. While in Nineveh, Tobit follows the dietary laws, which most of his countrymen ignore. He also makes sure that the Israelites who were executed by Sennacherib in revenge for his defeat at the hands of King Hezekiah of Judah. are given proper burials. He leaves a feast in order to bury a corpse of his country man. In short, Tobit follows the laws of God scrupulously and always does the right thing.
But bad things still happen to him. He had to go into hiding when the king finds out that Tobit is the one who is burying his victims. His neighbors, including fellow Israelites, ridicule him. To top it all off, he is blinded when a bird poops in his eyes while he is sleeping outside because he is unclean due to contact with a corpse. Even his marriage becomes strained. Life is so bad that he prays for death.
In anticipation of the fulfillment of his prayer, Tobit sends his only son Tobiah off to Rages in Media to collect a very large sum of money from Tobit's cousin. After a chapter's worth of paternal advice, Tobit sends Tobiah on his journey, along with a guide named Azariah, who just happened to be hanging out at the city gate, looking for a job, when Tobiah came by. The author of Tobit (who isn't Tobit) quickly informs the readers that Azariah is really the archangel Raphael in disguise, sent by God to heal Tobit as well as a relative of his, Sarah, who lives in Media.
Sarah is a beautiful young woman who has been married seven times. In each case, the husband died mysteriously before consummating the marriage. The author states that the demon Asmodeus strangled the men. That sounded almost as ludicrous as it would today and Sarah's servant accused her of murdering her husbands. Sarah is in such despair that she, like Tobit, prays for death.
While on the road, Tobiah goes to swim and bath in a river. In the water, he is attacked by a large fish. Azariah instructs him to kill the fish by grasping its gills and than gut it and remove the gall, liver and heart, which apparently are useful as medicines. The pair arrives in Media and need a place to stay. Azariah insists they stay at the home of Raguel, Sarah’s father, who greets the duo excitedly when he learns that Tobiah is Tobit’s son.
When they enter the house, Tobiah notices Sarah and falls in love. She is his kinswoman, a member of the same tribe and he is her closest living relative, which according to the Levirate law, gives him the undisputable right to marry her. Tobit had instructed his son earlier to only marry a woman from their tribe of Naphtali. Tobiah’s only hesitation in the matter arises from the fact that a demon has killed the last seven men she married. Fortunately, Tobiah is friends with an archangel which comes in handy when dispatching a demon.
After Raquel agrees to allow Tobiah to marry his daughter, Raphael instructs Tobiah to burn the heart and liver on the brazier so that the smoke will ward off Asmodeus. Tobiah does so and prays along with Sarah in the bridal chamber on their wedding night. He asks for God’s protection and blessing on his marriage. At the same time Raphael chases Asmodeus into Upper Egypt and chains him there in the desert. (I wonder of anyone noticed that Azariah was missing?) Raquel and his servants secretly dig a grave for Tobiah but joyfully find him alive after which Raquel has his servants fill the grave back in (sucks to be those servants).
Sarah’s family was so happy that they gave the couple a fourteen day wedding feast. Azariah went to Tobit’s cousin to collect the money and bring him back for the feast. When Tobiah left to return to Nineveh, Raquel gave him half of his property as a wedding gift.
Meanwhile, Tobit and Anna are terrified that their only son had died. As they approached Nineveh, Azariah told Tobiah to smear the gall of the fish on Tobit’s eyes. Tobiah does so and the cataracts fall off his eyes him to see. Tobiah tells everything that happened to him to his father and both men praise God. (And have another wedding feast. These guys knew how to party!) When Tobiah attempts to give half of what he brought back from Media to Azariah as payment, Azariah outs himself as an archangel. “I am Raphael, one of seven who serve before the Glory of God,” he says, before ascending back into Heaven.
The moral of the story goes like this: bad things happen to good people but God uses these bad things to accomplish even better things for His people. If Tobit had never been blinded, Tobiah would never gone to Media, never would have met Sarah, never collected the money and gotten rich and most importantly Tobit would have never had a visit from an archangel to affirm his heroic faith. Sarah probably would have hung herself and Tobit would have died without grandchildren because Tobiah would have never married. Tobit’s glorification came about through his son, but it is called the book of Tobit because it is about him. He trusted in God no matter what. He never spoke against Him or questioned His ways. At least three times is praised as an outstanding and noble father. Tobit should be a model for all fathers on Father’s Day.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Why Christianity is awesome
First of all lets get one thing straight-I am not a big fan of the Gathering Place. I find rampantly militant Fundamentalist Christianity offputting and frankly-somewhat disturbing-probably has something to do with the fact that I am a practicing Roman Catholic. But this battle isn't being fought over the Gathering Place. This battle is about the Christian faith (not religion) and its unique claim to the truth. 1) Many people and religions have claimed their founder was a divinely inspired prophet or even a god. But very few have made the claim that their founder rose from the dead. Fewer still can back up that claim. Halie Saliese, the Messiah of the Rastafarians is dead-that is an undisputed fact. Mohammed is buried in his tomb in Medina. Buddha attained Nirvana, but he's still dead (reincarnation does not count as resurrection). Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans and buried in a stone tomb. Three days later his body was missing. His followers claimed He had risen from the dead. The Jewish authorities maintained that someone had stolen the body. Put the body was never found! Christianity could have been brought to a rather abrupt end if someone came forward with the body of Jesus. No one did. The best the Jewish priests could do was to bribe the guards at the tomb to say that someone stole the body. And in two thousand years, no archaeologist has uncovered the bones of Jesus. The closest anyone can claim is an ossuary with scratches on it that could be the (very common Jewish) name Yeshua bar Joseph. Therefore the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead holds itself up to scrutiny. Relics like the Shroud of Turin lend credence. 2)People have died, are dying and will continue to die for believing in the resurrection of Christ. From prison, the Apostle Paul stated that the Christian faith was worthless without the truth of the resurrection. As far as founders of religions go a Jewish carpenter turned itinerant preacher who got Himself crucified by the Romans after only three years of spreading His Message is not very impressive. Yet from the beginning, people were willing to die for Him. This makes absolutely no sense if Jesus had not risen from the dead. The Apostles were thrown in jail and flogged only 50 days after Jesus' death and yet they rejoiced that they "could suffer for His name." Surely if anyone would know the circumstances of Christ's death and his Resurrection it would be his twelve closest friends. If it had been faked, they would know, they probably would have perpetrated the fraud. Yet all but one wound up suffering deaths of varying brutality for refusing to deny their Lord. It is a miracle that Christianity survived three hundred of systematic albeit off and on persecution at the hands of the most powerful force in the known world at the time: the Roman Empire. The witness of these martyrs was so great that their own tormentors were converted many times and the plans of their persecutors backfired as the martyrdoms led to more Christians rather than less. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" Iraneus said and even today martyrs in Iran, China, India and Africa bear testament to the veracity of Christ's resurrection. 3)Furthermore, Christianity-in particular the Catholic Church-has survived for 2,000 years against every single storm imaginable. Christianity stared defiant in the face of Nero, Diocletian, Atilla the Hun, Robespierre, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Obama and have not blinked-and have won. That is a claim that Muslims, Rastafarians, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Raelians and Zorastrians can not and never will be able to mak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)