命　Inochi

Happy New Year! - and a (sadly) new viral video

2012-01-14T22:54:00.000-08:00

This video has been going around like the plague:

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

Of course, this guy has proposed a fireball of a topic, right? In short though, My biggest qualm with it is that simply the guy throws around general terms without so much as a hint of a definition. "Religion" to one person, simply means something else to another. In my case it means something very specific, probably because I'm Catholic. No surprise there, I would think.

If you were to strip out the first 1:18 of the video and remove a couple of the odd jabs toward the end, the message would be at it's core indisputable by most any Christian. Instead though, the video has a very anti-Catholic vibe, of which I'm sure only Catholics would be aware.

I thought of writing a well-thought out response to the video, but in finding that someone else already has, I will play tour guide.
READ this: Why I Hate Religion, But love Jesus - The Smackdown

That is all.

Addendum: Video Response

100 Weeks, Silmarils...

2011-11-16T03:42:00.000-08:00

Where to begin?
Firstly, I am yet again being horribly unfaithful to writing anything in my blog.
I make no promises. This blog mainly for religiously-themed dissertations has been quiet because quite frankly the number of religious themed discussions I have lately has dropped to near naught.

Secondly, among other new activities in my life, I have joined a Bible study at the local Cathedral. I think I have been with them now for months (at least three if not way more than that). We are studying the entire Bible through a progression of 100 weeks. Although, I should say that "Studying" is a very loose term because we are actually reading it and then pointing out what stood out to us. It's more like we are reading the Bible on our own multiple times and then digesting it as a group. I love it.

We, unfortunately, have just entered Leviticus (レビ記) and my mind is spinning. Why? Did I mention that this Bible study is in Japanese? Yeah, I read whatever section were are going over twice in English and then as many times as I can in Japanese before we meet. I am the only non-native speaker of Japanese at our meetings and I'm the youngest member as well. You can see why my head would be spinning. I can attest to learning a lot though.

Leviticus though is not being fun for me. I want to blame it on being in Japanese, but Leviticus just really wasn't that interesting the first time I read it years ago either. On the other hand, some of my group is having trouble with the descriptions of the animal sacrifices. One of the older women didn't even get through the first five chapters of the book. To be honest, I don't know how to react to that. The descriptions seemed detailed but not necessarily gross out level to me. In fact, I think I read the chapters while eating...anyway...

Thirdly, I have finally acquired a Kindle-ready device (ASUS EEE Pad) which means my drought of reading material in English has officially ended. One of my acquisitions for Kindle has been a copy of the Catholic Ignatius RSV second edition because I didn't bring my copy with me from America (I brought my slim black NRSV).

I'm hoping Japan's Catholic peoples get a Catholic Japanese Bible up for Kindle. Until then I'm content with my 1955 translation and physical Japanese Bible. Which leaves me pondering, why are we Catholics always so behind when it comes to technology? I mean, the Pope first twittered this year I think.

Fourth and final for now, I am re-reading Tolkien related books. I am starting with the Silmarillion. Since I started seriously dabbling in writing stories and such after the last time I read any of Tolkien's books, it is weird. I used to read in the past like a adventurer with a rocket strapped to his back... fwing! done reading.

Now, I still have that rocket strapped to my back, but the adventurer now has a fine-tooth comb and a highlighter. Everything from "that description felt forced and I don't like that literary device" to "okay, if I were writing this story, how would I have come up with that?" passes through my mind well reading. I analyze and mentally tab patterns to emulate and mistakes to avoid. I enjoy this a lot but don't expect any books from me anytime soon.

My mistake in the past was to always read good, excellent books (Silmarillion, or more recently Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell). An experience reading particularly terrible fantasy that I picked up in Ireland taught me that I needed perspective. Now, I pick up all sorts of books (about three novels that were free for Kindle come to mind) and devour them. These books, both good and bad, are teaching me through their contrasts.

Example lesson: Monologues as noted in the Incredibles, are unhealthy for villains, but I would add are the dead space that will kill a good story.

That's all until next time I check in again.

(Fr.) Corapi .... blacksheepdog...

2011-06-18T04:40:00.001-07:00

I have little to say...

The best iteration on what has happened:
http://gerardnadal.com/2011/06/17/goodbye-father-corapi

A link to Fr.(?) Corapi's video on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TfhGjfHWBM&feature=player_embedded

My brief thoughts:
Philippians 2:8 "He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." I think, he's trying his best to follow this without dragging the Church down with him. He's just not doing that good with the humbling himself part. I pray no one follows him away from the Church as a result of his decision.

Though, I am going to miss him and keep him in my prayers. His message always stood out for me because he did the one thing that so many people (especially Catholics (me especially!)) find hard to do. Despite having a screwed up past, he's trying to be a positive example, and that in itself is a representation of the forgiveness with which Christ entrusted His Church.

Additionally, the responses to potential scandals tend to be something I disagree with because they feel more about image than about truth... but that is me possibly just reaching for a forbidden fruit of knowledge because I do not know what is going on in the background. Unlike Adam and Eve's basic failure, I must learn to place faith and trust in those placed in authority over me.

That's all.

Tiny Bits of Brain

2011-02-06T08:37:00.000-08:00

I think my brain exploded: An attempt at picking up the pieces.

So.. . Umm, usual Sunday. NOT.

Well, I guess... ... never mind.
Scratch that.
Starting at the beginning: Saturday.

Yesterday, I had a lot of fun. I went and hung out with a friend in the evening, and then I went home. You know, the usual thing you do after having fun, I suppose. Well, I went home, and in between doing laundry and tidying my room, I tried to make progress through "precipice of darkness" a penny arcade game (for those of you not aware of its humor... it IS off-color a lot of the time, sadly). I got sucked into the game and suddenly it was 1 am.

"Great," I thought. "I'm already tired, it's late and I have church in the morning."

So, of course, to start things off on the wrong foot, I woke up at 9:10. Mass being at 9:30 and a brisk 10-15 minute bicycle ride away. Flying down the road, I was still about five-ten minutes late. Why? Well, I had to get dressed right? So, besides that, Mass was uneventful and cold as usual (really Japan? We have 10 small heaters to warm up a small Cathedral?)

The next events are not so interesting so they will be casually retold in numbered bullet-point format:

1. Went to Matsuya and ate food.
(Pork and rice and cabbage and miso soup.)
2. Went to Round 1.
(Blew things up at Border Break)
(Am now level B1 )
3. Wandered around
4. Went to grocery store and bought food.
(I mean.. what else would I buy?)
5. Went home.
6. Realized I had 30 minutes to meet my fellow teacher.
7. Arrived five minutes late. (Pattern? Quite possibly yes. )
8. Joined meeting for one hour.

At this point the numbering must digress so that I can properly express what happened at the meeting.

First, the result of the meeting is that I have a volunteer translation task. That task though is helping alongside other volunteers to translate some 28 or so written experiences of people who were in Hiroshima when the bomb blew up. Not a problem there because I rather think this will be a good experience for me and my Japanese. However, I got handed a book to look at to help with terminology. It was to distract me while they determined some of the more complicated aspects of the meeting. It worked.

The book was titled something like "Why was the A-bomb dropped." Great... nothing like a touchy subject told from a Japanese perspective. It was surprisingly fair concerning matters of Russia getting involved, casualty calculations, and general political reasoning. However, I started to notice a certain line of thought that irritated me: America was constantly being noted as "covering up" the facts about the bombing. (ever been to the museum in Hiroshima? Most of the detailed photos were taken by the US military.)

Then it hit me. There was absolutely no mention in the book about two things: The messy experience America had in Okinawa (where Japanese civilians and soldiers killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner). Secondly, anything about the Japanese unwillingness to surrender being related to their belief that the Emperor was god was left out.

For those of you that are going to ask: Yes, I read the entire thing, but sadly, no, I didn't read the Japanese half. I didn't have that much time.

My mood was now severely downtrodden because I felt the truth was actually being covered up by the Japanese government. While I was in my funk, the teachers determined that it was best that I see the museum in Heiwa Koen (Peace Park). Why? I might learn something that would be helpful in translation, and apparently it was "nearby." With the one teacher from my school, we walked a good thirty minutes. Then we went to Peace Park's museum which, by the way, details all sorts of gruesome things about the Hiroshima bombings.

My mental position on the bombings just so you know is basically this: War sucks... sucky things happen in war. When in the museum though, my mind was more so like this: Do Japanese blame America? What is the reasoning behind this exhibit in their minds? Man, what does peace really mean anyway? Essentially, I degenerated to a questioning mass of nonsense.
(Still sorting myself out on that currently.)

Then, we left the museum.

I thought, "Yay, breath of fresh air, I can think now." Nope.

I got shown around the park and constantly reminded that this used to be a city.

PAUSE. You are thinking right now, something like "suck it up," I mean, we've all talked about the bombings before and those of us in Hiroshima have seen the sights, right? YES. Exactly. I agree.

This whole Peace Park thing was nothing more than a temporary jarring of my mind as I tried to shift around and see the whole thing from a Japanese perspective. I thought of ways to explain the logic and reasoning for why such a thing happens during war. I thought of explaining that a worldly peace is nothing more than an ideal. An ideal that if ever realized will only be taken advantage of by some sad party. I also started backtracking on my thoughts, because there is no way to explain to people connected with a tragedy anything about the tragedy. It becomes further impossible as numbers of innocent are increased: children especially.

Random: Am I the only one creeped out by the fact that Sadako holding her paper crane looks like a Cross? Besides her actual paper cranes are like the tiniest ones I've ever seen too. There full wingspan isn't even an inch!

RESTART. Wait, didn't I just do this by explaining more.

No. Sadly, I didn't.

My day is actually only beginning from here.

This next part also only deserves bullet points because it equates to the silver lining for the day.

1. Went to MotoYasu (an Italian Restaurant)
2. Discovered they had Guinness on Tap
3. Convinced the other teacher to try it.
4. Had a Guinness
(note: wearing Jameson whiskey cap at the time)
5. ... rephrase: Had the Guinness on an empty stomach.
(Bad idea)
6. Chatted about life, youth, and the future.
(blame it on the beer? nope....)
7. When leaving, I found out that there is a genuine Irishman who works at the place. He just wasn't in at the time
8. Parted ways for the day after being shown the Hypocenter for the A-bombs blast....lovely.

For those of you who have read this far, I commend you and I must tell you the real story is now.

I went and joined up with some new friends that I had never connected with before. Actually, to make this complicated there are three factors. I had only met two people in this group before, and briefly at that as they are actually the friends of another friend. Secondly, I was feeling quite relaxed from the beer (sadly). Thirdly, I had this odd feeling like I was walking into a trap because I thought I was meeting one maybe two people but now it was five unknown people.

After some typical wishy-washy Japanese decision making,

("Where do you want to go"
"I don't know, where do you want to go"
"I don't kno- HEY don't start that again.")

We went to Tullys on Hondoori. (That's like saying I went to some Starbucks knock off.) With our drinks in hand, we found our seats and started to "get to know each other better."

It started off nice. You know, the cliche barrage of "what do you do?" "oh my gosh your Japanese is great!" "How long have you been in Japan? etc etc. Then we hit hobbies. Easy enough right? Well, it was easy for me and the other guy there to talk about our gaming interests. Movie interests went over their heads. Then, music, well, let's just say I'm not a fan of most top 40 Japanese pop music, so it was a complete surechigai (miss). It did start to make me wonder just what this one "she" did for fun; So I asked.

Oh.. mistake. Wonderous, glorious what-the-heck Mistake.

I cannot translate very well what the answer was, but it basically came down to "my hobby is effecting peace into the parts of the earth that are in need of it." Yeah, I think I made her rephrase, re-say, and repeat that so many times too.

Initially, I thought she meant that she likes to sit around, like many people do, and simply discuss the problems in the world and look at the ways to help said people. Nope, that was a nice thought, but not what she was getting at.

So, foolish me and my curiosity had to ask more questions. Ask a simple question in Japan and get a long-winded explanation about everything but the actual "How."

I got asked "do you believe, well actually it really doesn't matter whether you believe or not, but .. a thing that, well "thing" isn't right either... a power for peace?" Seriously, derp? What was that supposed to mean? She back-pedaled on nearly every word of substance when she opened her mouth.

"Umm, yeah I believe in a power for peace, but could you tell me what the subject of your sentence is? Of perhaps what kind of power you are talking about?"

Progressing from the vague to the slightly less vague, after about ten minutes, I got out that they focus on peace as members of their group. AHA! So these five are a group. Yup, it's a trap... where was admiral Akbar when I needed him?

"Great... this is starting to sound like a religion" so I said that. They denied it, but informed me a little bit later that one of their original members is now passing the word on to people in a office in Brooklyn. "Therefore" they said, "our group has members in America that are just like you." Just like me? American? Or what? Foreign?

Ugh.. I didn't like the sound of that. Then, it happened...

They invited me to join... why? Because, well, anybody can wish for peace, so regardless of what I believe I can join their group. Or so they took the time to inform me.

I had to resist laughing (why this makes me laugh is because it showed to me the complete lack of thought on their part because of the "regardless of what you believe" part). I explained how that might work from their perspective but that people with religion are going to see that as a conflict. Using Islam as a example because one of their close members is apparently in Afghanistan, I explained that peace is not something you bring about, but something achieved through Allah. I could be wrong about that since I'm not a Muslim, but I thought the example would help.

Nope, it didn't communicate. So, I tried to get them to explain what "peace" meant to them. I mean, I had to start somewhere. They didn't do a good job explaining, but I think they were trying to say that peace basically consisted of "no war" and everybody sharing everything equally. Err.. isn't that a socialistic Utopia?

Using that as a sounding board, I tried to explain that the Christian and Islamic concepts for peace were radically different. I explained that this was mainly because the goal was not a simple external no-war peace but rather a next-life/internal peace. Their response? They were giving me strange looks like I had just defined a grape as as watermelon.

In fact, the lack of understanding towards other perspectives was leading me to wonder what sort of brain-washing these people had experienced. I say that now only half-joking. I chalked it up to cultural background at the time, but now I wonder otherwise.

So, I tried to explain that religions in Japan were passive towards people with their kind of thinking. Specifically, I menat Shinto and Buddhism. Either of those two would see no problem with you "effecting peace in the world" (however it was that they were doing that) but that most western religions would see that personal attitude of self-causation as in direct opposition to their religious fundamentals. This again, didn't communicate...

(I'm thinking right now: Who the heck is going to read this far...?)

This is when it got weird.. and I started getting some real information. They, personally, aren't the ones effecting peace. That was just a nuance in the wording. They act as gathering points for an unexplained(origin-wise) energy (presumably positive) using pendants that they have around their necks.

Ah, new agey wiccan type stuff, I thought. WRONG. I asked why they thought these pendants had power. (I was still foolishly thinking that they and this small office in Brooklyn were the extent of their group.)

They informed me that these pendants were inscribed with characters of "power" by a person who had power. That person is also apparently deceased at this time. They even claimed that this person and these pendants have caused miracles (they couldn't give me any real examples though).

O_O . . . I hope my eyes weren't bugging out too much at this point in the conversation, but I had to ask "who wrote on the pendants?"

Okada Mahikari.

I had it pegged it as a religion from the very beginning and, oh boy, was I right. I informed them that since my thoughts are otherwise on these matters and that I'm Catholic (as soon I as figure out what that means exactly). I apologized for the directness in my approach, but I let them know that I felt I needed to be fair.

The conversation continued on the same topic for maybe another 10-15 minutes because they were convinced that I was just plain not getting some of the Japanese they were saying. I can tell you know that I was understand every word. If anything, the toomawashi (beating around the bush) and what wasn't being said was perhaps not being communicated. The topic thankfully went elsewhere from there. However, as you can see, I'm still picking up the pieces.

What is Mahikari? Simply, it's a cult. Furthermore, it is the great DAFT cult that is stupid enough to profess a belief that Jesus is buried in Japan.

I like this link:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~skyaxe/mahikari.htm

Am I a Tolkienite

2010-10-06T08:43:00.000-07:00

I believe that as far as writing goes, I am no longer a pure Tolkienite. I have no desire to craft a medieval fairytale as epic as gold and insurmountable as time. Instead, I am in the story for the journey and the experience anymore. I want to express both the rollercoaster ride of the emotional windfall of the characters but to also emphasize the loftiness of the eternal through structures and places beyond the normal visual constructs.

Essentially, the one sliver of moondust coming from my reflection of Tolkien is limited to two beams of light. The first falls every gracefully and covers the entire realm of the story in itself. The story is the reason I write and the very focus of the words. I loathe or at least limitedly abhor the craft of books for the sake of changing minds, manipulating political opinions and purposed allegory. Those may be elements of a story, but they shall never be the target for my verbose arrows. Nor I suppose are they wholly deplorable, but they strike at the back of my righteousness in a visciously subtle way.

The second beam comes pointedly as a intermittent laser light. A radiance found in word play and masterful usage regardless of verbose difficulty as surmised by the general public must pepper my writing. If that were to vanish into the methaphorical white pit that is paper, my writing would cease to be my writing. I desire to achieve the intentional verbosity of Chestertonion writing. Although, I have no wish to pursue his propagandist approach to writing. He is truly a rare example of skill and purpose that I can admire. AMDG was Chesterton's life, and in that aspect of his we can see the nobility of Thomas More's “I am the king's good servant, but the Lord's first.”

I will separate myself from other writers by learning about them. Furthermore, I will sharpen my wit amidst hard tasks and learn to not simply flex but extend beyond my usual reach.

Hiatus

2010-07-25T21:35:00.000-07:00

Yup, I've been away from this and busy. I've been to Ireland, graduated from college, been accepted to work in Japan and cleaned my room. Yes, I know that is indeed a miracle.

While doing so, I've realized how short and limited are the memories of a single human mind. Somehow though, all the holes and fragments in my mind though are completed in the extension known as my room. Especially, now that I know the contents of my room.

While I sought to dig my room out of its disastrous state, I've incidentally done a lot of soul-searching. I found things I never knew I had written. I found letters written that were never sent. I found drawings I didn't know I could have even drawn. I even found a pack of cigarettes that I bought in Germany to remind me how horrible it was to be trapped in a small room with smokers.

The cleaning of my room, to a very limited extent, was a spiritual experience. I now feel like I know myself better, but at the same time have no clue what to do with this information. Instead of feeling like I had a limited list of abilities, I now feel spread too thin and unable to decide on a future occupation. For now though, I am supposing that I could be a writer in some limited capacity and that shred of focus gives me hope.

If you only knew.. eh?

2010-04-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

I was just here listening to this song by Shinedown called If you Only Knew. A line in the song is “If you only knew, I’d sacrifice my beating heart before I lose you.” For some reason or another, this time when I heard this part my mind segwayed, or rather, was set on a thought fancy. Follow my mental ramblings, I have concluded that this line has two solid points of implication.

To sacrifice one's beating heart, isn’t that what every guy wants to be able to say about their beloved? I mean how much more noble can you get than sacrificing your life for someone?

Incidentally, I believe that is wherein the first problem lies. Certainly, such a heroic act, if actually carried out is beyond noble; it is exquisite. However, saying a noble thing and doing a heroic act are as matters of substance, completely different. I see the expression of this extreme and noble sacrifice to overlook the romance available in the mundane. I believe that in pursuing such elevated expressions of love, we, men, overlook the literal heart of the matter.

The demand of but an instant of courage in the attempt to do something truly great is easily desired and perhaps less demanding or less likely to weigh heavily than the usual day-in day-out aspects of life. I would say that it is far easier to profess willingness to cut out one's heart in a far-off, unlikely, future instant than it is perhaps to allow little nicks and scars to develop because of the needles of the ongoing daily demands that comprise true love.

Another approach or tangent that could be taken from these words though is that of the emotive pathos of the hopeless lover. "I'd die if I can't have you" or other such controlling phrases simply have no place in the realm of romantic love. The uttering of such nonsense has no other effect than to blackmail the heart of the beloved with heavy chains. It puts her in the position of being either selfish in her own escape from your oppressive love or scared into staying to avoid a painful guilt trip knowing that she killed you. For such a lover, the beloved is naught more than a possession.

That sort of love is simply twisted. It demands, it wants and it must possess the beloved. Love, if not freely given, is of little consequence in the realm of romance.

Go and Set the World Ablaze

"To Frances"

2010-04-25T01:09:00.000-07:00

I chanced upon this epic piece of literature by G.K. Chesterton. I was astounded by the seriousness in which he presented the objects he intended to carry and the future home he sought to describe. Then the punch line came and I realized, this was a love letter written by Chesterton. Having always looked at "love letters" as something decidedly trite and unworthy of writing, my reality was jarred by the fact that one of my favorite literary figures had stooped to such a low level.

However this was not the case because then it hit me. Chesterton, in his very chestertonian fashion, had not actually written a "love letter" but instead had taken the concept, flipped it on its head, and rewrote the boundaries. He had once again, taken something so common, so basal, and in converting it, had restored it to a level of nobility once again. Just as the Bible is much like a love-letter from God to us, Chesterton took a simple setting and wrote quite exquisitely to Frances.

What is now stuck in my head is the concern as to whether I could write even to half the standard of Chesterton's. I could, if you will, easily replicate his pattern by soulfully devising my own checklist of carry-ons as I regale you of my intended flight and picturesque future. However, that would simply be me taking an already understood pattern from a highly literary individual and re-using it. It would not be me pouring out my thoughts and designs into a carefully crafted mold formed by my very heart. It would not walk the guise of my own fairyland.

I wonder in fact, how then I would translate the general points of a chestertonian love letter into my own literary fashion. It, like Chesterton's, would need to be personalized because otherwise it would still be left hollow and generic. However, the remaining content of the letter, the matters of literary value, are something that as of yet escape me. I will think on it for now, and work on something at a later date when there is a date in mind. So, for now, I leave you with this quote:

"...we come to a box of matches. Every now and then I strike one of these, because fire it beautiful and burns your fingers. Some people think this a waste of matches, the same people who object to the building of Cathedrals." ~ G.K. Chesterton from "To Frances"

Go and Set the World Ablaze

The Four+ Loves

2010-04-21T15:52:00.000-07:00

Friendship floats on the tranquil sea gently cushioning our hearts in the sails of comrades as we pass the doldrums of life.

Affection is an affliction caused by an infection to friendship.

Romance, further still, tugs at the heart strings of our souls until we unwind in a mess or tangle with another strand.

Charity with her little fingers then weaves that yarn into a quilt as exquisite as it is complex.

Eros, in its primal fixation of the beloved, consummates in the marriage bed (under the covers of romance).

Storge then provides the needed gift-love to nurture the needy gift-child.

The cycle repeats. Neither your nerves nor your heart are safe.

Eye Sea Yew

2010-04-20T21:35:00.001-07:00

It seems that it takes very little for me to get riled up about this specific hypocrisy. It's the malaise of the those who uses phrases such as "Stereotypes are wrong" & "Not all are the same" in the manner the rest of use would use "God Bless" to a social sneeze.

The same people who will tiptoe through daisy's to avoid coming even close to stereotyping or pegging someone into a category are the same kind of people who will think they know who I am and what I believe immediately after they find I am Catholic. I am pegged with a spear into a category of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Instead of asking me, things are assumed about me in the same manner a less than educated individual might imply that all Japanese are the most excellent of students.

"Ah, so you won't have sex before marriage... that's too bad" or "No sex? (complete with quizzical look)." If I respond with, "well, yeah." or "nope I won't." I'm then not even given a chance to explain why. They've received their answer and now assume that I believe sex to be some sort of abomination, or, worse socially, that I somehow think they are evil because of some personal guilt of theirs of which I am unaware.

The fact of the matter is, yes, Catholics (those who are seeking to be in accord with Christ's church) don't have sex before marriage for the completely opposite reason. Instead of sex being something dirty to be avoided in the purist of puritanical senses, sex is something wonderful, mysterious, and a gift. Instead of cheapening it by wielding it as slightly better than a handshake, the Catholic ideal is to seek to save it as something precious like a lace handkerchief that is presented at the right time to the deserving Beloved.

Or even better, let me use this analogy. Imagine for a minute that sex is like a gift-wrapped package with a fragile glass egg inside. Each time you hand that package to a new person and it is reopened, how long will it be before it becomes impossible to properly re-wrap it in its original wrapping? How much so will the fragility of the glass egg succumb to its abuse? Eventually, you the gift-giver give up on giving away anything other than a grotty gift. Eventually too, the recipient has to notice the lack of value that the package has anymore and that the beautiful glass egg that was inside has lost its luster.

This is not to say there isn't hope for those who have already handed their present away, or had their egg chipped away at. That is, in fact, a discussion for another time and is concerned with the unique expertise of Christianity: Forgiveness. However, you must recognize there is something wrong before one can even seek forgiveness.

Does this current generation, I am a part of, care so much for transient pleasures and having their desires fulfilled instantaneously that they can't engage in any noble ventures anymore? What happened to the ideal lover who saved her heart in a music box when her beloved departed on a journey for years, only to hand it back to him upon his return? What happened to the Beloveds who lock away their heart with a key of steeled resolve, so that when their special lover arrives, they can nobly open the lock on their heart?

Both the noble concepts of the Lovers and Beloveds are lost on those with secular eyes. The secular eye sees only this world and its relation to itself. It, as a matter of fact, rests on the forehead staring inward and is useless for anyone but the self and even in that fashion is severely limited. However, the Christian eye branches into a level of third-eye understanding as it stares into eternity unblinkingly equipped with love as a sword and shield to overcome its enemies. Until the secular eye can be transformed into or exchanged for the Christian third-eye, the two parties can apparently never see eye-to-eye so they can look blissfully into eternity together.

Go and Set the World Ablaze

Well... worst fears?

2010-04-14T15:48:00.000-07:00

Just to start off with, it has taken me a total of a week to start playing video games nearly everyday again. >_< I'm definitely playing less than I used to... but I can't tell if that is because of school or not. Anyway, it doesn't matter because I still haven't found an effective stress-relief method. I run-away to one or another.

The problem quite possibly is my running. Sometimes, I think that guys just need to dip their fingers into the pool of lethe's water and forget their lives for a moment. I need to.. or at least it has been my Modus operandi. So, I escape to the world of a video game, read books (okay, so that is rare right now because of all the reading I do for school... but, ), watch Tv, borrow a movie from Redbox, visit youtubeland, or go outside and run around the block a couple of times.

"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong" is not the right adage for the moment right now. Instead, the question is what do these all have not in common. That's right, they are neutral events. They are not necessarily religious nor intrinsically evil. Simply put, I need to learn to run back to God instead of just running in circles or running away.

Stand fast Stand strong
Go and Set the World Ablaze
Unsheathe your Rosary and Pray

Welcome to Holy Week

2010-03-31T23:40:00.000-07:00

Actually, this is really weird for me. Since I gave up video games for lent, I've realized how much time I wasted with them. Actually, no. That's not true. I've noticed how much time I sit in front of my computer waiting for the end of lent so I'll allow myself to play video games. I sit there trying to figure out what to do, and then end up doing nothing useful.

Now as lent comes to a close, I actually sort of fear the end of lent. Instead of feeling as though I'd be free to play video games. I feel as though I'd be entering into a form of imprisonment. I really just wonder if I can go back to normal life and not overdo video games after lent.

Of course, the first three weeks I didn't even play video games on Sunday though I could have. More recently though, in an attempt to make another sort of change in my life, I've tried to quit studying on Sunday and just enjoy God's day of rest. So, this last Sunday I probably played video games for about eight hours and watched at least three if not four movies. It seems contradictory to me too.

And because of all this time freed by not doing video games, I wonder why I can't seem to focus this semester. Before it was never an issue. I'd study and study and study based on whatever I needed to do well on. Then I'd just go home and sleep or do my own thing. This semester though, I have senioritis, I guess. However, a large part of it is that I've realized a lot of things this semester and have become disillusioned. It's probably because I have to take a huge step out into the world in the near future and I'm over thinking things again.

Go and Set the World Ablaze

Prayer in Japan

2010-03-28T12:00:00.000-07:00

My goal is for this to not turn into a rant, but if it does, forgive me.

I don't get why Japanese people pray. Well, let me rephrase that. I don't get why the typical Japanese person, especially those who are non-christian, pray. Especially when they pray to a vague "Kami-sama," I don't get it.

I understand the need that a person has to pray. Some people try to get by that need through things like meditation or scientific/psychological explanations of how the mind works. In the end though, prayer, specifically prayer directed at the one true God, is the only thing that works. So, with that understanding in mind, who/what do Japanese people call to mind when they are praying?

Is it a buddha, a seemingly fat enlightened one? Is it a Shinto god that is as fickle as the Greek ones of the past? Is it a distant kami-sama? Is it simply a force? Is it a spiritual energy grounded or stuck fast to an area? Or is it somehow the personal Christian God and they just haven't realized it yet? Or, worse-case scenario, are they imagining nothing except a way to manifest their own desires?

The fact is: I don't know. I need to ask people to find out. The problem is, if you thought religion and politics were practically taboo to talk about in America, they are way more so in Japan. I guess it is time for curiosity to kill the cat again.

Go and set the world Ablaze.

Coincidential Providences

2010-03-06T11:43:00.000-08:00

Free Will... I am left with the ability to choose.
Predestination... God knows where I will end up; heaven or hell.

These two concepts often get arrayed against each other. However, I've had an interesting couple days where they have been placed solidly together before me. Augustine convinced me a long time ago, but the facts were quite affirmed for me recently.

Starting off yesterday, a customer came in and was inquiring about a book with regard to these two concepts. I recommended a few books and after a short chat that revealed to me the heart of the issue, I sought out Peter Kreeft's website. I remembered that Kreeft had a short file on the concept and that he had beautifully summarized C.S. Lewis and Augustine on the matter. (see Kreeft on Free will) I, of course, passed off what I had found to the customer. This sparked a short discussion where we hit on the main points together. I rather enjoyed that.

The coincidences, or, if you will, providence, proceeded from there.

Last night I went to Alice in Wonderland, and saw a beautiful Hollywood depiction of the relationship between fate and free will. Alice, despite knowing exactly what was in the future, still tangled with and ultimately had to make the decisions herself. A fact that killed the suspense in the movie a bit, but it worked. I loved how it closely reflected the discussion concerning how knowledge of something, whether its God who knows or not, doesn't make you do it. We still are free, by which I mean capable, to make a decision.

Then this morning (well, 2am or so), I was reading in scripture and I ran across Sirach chapter 15. Sirach Verses 11-20 are explicitly about free will and what God's relation to it is. Ironic that I ran into this chapter? I think not. Besides I think the first half of the chapter is just plain relevant for students anyway. Seek ye wisdom.

Go and Set the World Ablaze

The Box

2010-03-02T21:25:00.000-08:00

The Box.... yes, I am speaking of the movie. I just finished watching it, so what follows is my cut and dry opinion of the movie.

*Spoilers*
Suffice to say, I didn't like the movie. The movie trailer's get you hooked with promises of a sort of moral dilemma movie. For the first 45 minutes of the movie or so, they even leave you with the sort of misguided impression that is exactly what it is about. Then with the audacity of a rug being swept out from under your feet, the movie drops into heavy sci-fi mode, even bringing in the plot element that aliens from Mars are coming to take over earth.

You find out quickly the deliverer of the box is in contact with a mysterious "them." Because of an infusion of "them" through a lightning bolt, he has been charged with limited capabilities to control our minds. With his CIA, FBI and NASA knowledge and this new power, he is called to "test" humanity to find whether it is deserving of extinction or not. I believe this movie's plot, however, has much to learn from Walker Percy's "Space Odyssey" chapters in his book Lost in the Cosmos.

Assuming you know anything about the movie, then you know that humanity's test is concerned with a box and a choice. The problem, though, is that the last thirty minutes drags you through some promising philosophical questioning only to totally disappoint you with no answers. Humanity is just plain screwed because of a hedonistic drive to press buttons in order to attain money. Altogether as an ending designed to drop you into a temporary state of despair, the movie wouldn't be half-bad, especially considering it is in the vein of the classic Twilight Zone. However, God is in the details... and I do mean God.

The cuss words in this movie were extremely limited, but with a few misuses of "Jesus Christ" the majority were aberrations of "God." Secondarily, just as you approach closer and closer to the despairing end of the movie there are two scenes of significance. In an unexplained scene, Arther comes walking out of a blinding light which aligns perfectly with the windows behind it, and then pauses just long enough to leave him standing in a cross of light. The second scene is the final one where we see Steward. He walks out of the house whose inhabitants were the latest to fail humanity, and guess what? They have a Nativity outside in their front yard.

A subtle message I believe, but the conclusion? There is no hope for humanity and that means you Christians too. A very bleak view of humanity. In the end, I'm glad this movie is just some twisted director's view of humanity and not reality.

Admittedly this could be a stretch, however, I have but one final parting observation, but to understand it, you must know that it was Norma that pushes the button. Arthur (Adam) yet again fails in his task to protect Norma (Eve). Even more so, you can see the Genesis parallel drawn out further when Arthur and Norma are separated in the library, and Norma is separated to meet Mr. Steward (Serpent?). I think this is just a classic example of how God has the last laugh.

Go and set the world Ablaze.

March already?

2010-03-01T20:27:00.000-08:00

When did this happen? I've been planning all sorts of things to fill blog pages but they are mostly started and unfinished. I'll get there eventually, but life comes first, blogging next, and God above all.

Snippet:
We are not people of the Book. We, Catholics, are people of the Word. The Word which is Jesus Christ, living and Lord of all history. (Thanks Fr. Hoesing.)

It really makes you wonder doesn't it? I mean, Muslims consider us People of the Book because they believe there are links and seqways between the Tanakh, Old Testament, New Testament, and the Koran that all point to a greater, true, book in Heaven. That's how they look at our beliefs, and sorry to say, but I can't agree with them. After all, I believe in Jesus, God and Man, not in Jesus as they see him in the simple role of prophet. If I did, I wouldn't be Catholic, now would I?

Just some food for thought.

Go and set the world Ablaze

Head coverings?

2010-02-09T00:00:00.000-08:00

1 Corinthians has these interesting points about women:

but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. (1 Cor 11:5-6)

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor 14:34-35)

What do you think the typical Bible-only Christian's reaction is to these? Well, I assure you, the reaction is not far off for Catholics too, especially me. The reaction in question is basically a slack jawed "What the.... ???" or "How is that even relevant?"

Seriously now though, these two sections form an infamous doublet concerning the roles of women in church. The most jarring part though for most people I think is the head coverings part. It just sticks out as unique.

The Catholic Church's stance seems to be that this falls into the matters of discipline and resides as a non-crucial issue. Which is a nice way of saying, women you don't have to wear head coverings in church, but we won't stop you from doing it either if you so choose. More than being concerned with head coverings, shouldn't we be more concerned with those who show up at Mass, the banquet, without proper clothes, for fear that they might be tossed out to wail and grind their teeth?

If we continue on though, chapter 14 seems to be saying here that women should keep silent in church. Quite frankly that just sounds harsh. Initially too, it could seem contradictory to verse 1 Cor 11:5 where women are apparently allowed to pray and prophesy. Or is it? What would the reasons be for silence in the church? The context for this is becoming necessary.

Chapter 14 on a whole is about prophesying and if you keep in mind the thematic discourse on interpretation and proper order, the location in question is within the church, likely even during the liturgy. Also, on the same vein of information, it goes without saying that this is a physical location because the place is contrasted to the home where women are advised to speak.

Therefore, following from verse 33 For God is not a God of confusion, I must assume there is a logic behind St. Paul's words and no relevant contradiction. Switching therefore to a broader context of St. Paul's letters we find this:

I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (1 Tim 2:12)

Now, within the context of my Catholic faith and the general themes of Timothy, it all begins to come together. For Catholics, the people who speak in church in the faculties of teaching/authority are Priests, specifically men who are Priests. Women, because of the contradiction of having a woman ordained to be "in Persona Christi," cannot supply that role.

Women instead have their own unique role to play that men cannot. I'm no expert on the role of women from a biblical perspective by any means though so I don't know exactly what that role is. So, before this turns into a gender war, I'll stop while I'm ahead. Or it will come up later when I am more knowledgeable on the subject.

Go and Set the World Ablaze

Kronos vs. Kairos

2010-02-07T00:00:00.000-08:00

No, this is not some epic fantasy like The Lightning Thief. My intended referent is not that Kronos. I am not speaking of the biggest baddest most evil Titan but am speaking of "Time" and its two variant understandings.

Thanks to technohazard for getting me going on this. Sorry it took me so long to work on it.

To be acutely honest, I think anyone can reach the same conclusions and reach accord, but there are a few obstacles in the way, namely: translation errors, time, and human error. Sometimes things just get communicated wrong. Most of the time, these are the abstract concepts or things that are steeped in phenomenology, which is a fancy way of saying that we describe phenomena differently.

Take for example, "up" and "down" don't actually make sense in space (think Ender's Game) without a reference point. If we are on Earth, though, we might be better off saying "away from the earth's core," "movement towards earth" or something along those lines because those are more reflective of reality. Up and Down are based in the phenomena of our own limited perspectives.

Additionally, does the sun really "rise"? Or is that the Earth turns and the sun comes into view? Of course, we, native speakers of English, don't have any problems understanding "the rising of the sun" despite our knowledge of modern science and how the earth revolves around the sun. My thought is that differing perspectives can thrive in most any language but they might be harder to express. We just have to take the time...

Time though is seriously against us. We, especially those of us in America, live in a world of Kronos where everything is set to clockwork. One thing to the next, we rush. Kronos time points to a cultural focus on the seconds ticking by. If only we could get everyone to understand that they need to take the time to slow down from time to time and look at the more important things in and beyond this life.

This is where human weakness comes into play. Think about it, we live in a world focused on Kronos type time, why? Partially because we are thinking only of ourselves and what we can get out of life. It is when we take that first step out to sacrifice the time that is so precious to us that we enter into Kairos.

Kairos time is the parallel to Kronos time, and focuses more on a relationship-based way of chronicling time. In some cases, it could even be translated as "God's time." After all, God, outside the boundaries of Kronos, operates on His own set of rules and brings things to their fullest when the moment is opportune. I like to think of Kairos time as somewhere in between being lazy and being impatient.

Rushing because the seconds are ticking causes many things to go to waste, but on the other hand, inaction brings nothing into existence either. Kairos is the happy medium, where one's reliance on God keeps your focus centered and you progress from one spiritual stepping stone to the next in a calm unhurried manner. That is ideal, because really, when our trust is in the Lord what need we fear? Not even the passage of time.

Sometimes a simple gut check of our own phenomenological understanding of time can help us to keep on the right track. Are you stuck in Kronos? Can you live in Kairos?

Go and Set the World Ablaze

Pause, Reset, Rewind

2010-02-05T00:00:00.000-08:00

Have you ever stopped and tried to revert your thinking to a past form of yourself? I've only just realized that was what I've been doing over and over again. Ironically, while I haven't reverted or changed dramatically, I do think I have come closer to understanding myself at the very least.

I'm not necessarily proposing this as a method of learning about yourself, but it seems to work for me. I try to pause my logic, reset my understanding of truth and then replay my current thoughts. Honestly, it could be going better.

Truth: to say of something what it is when it is
or to say of something that it is not when it is not. (borrowed from Aristotle)

Say for example, the wall is not there but we all believe it is there. Even though our beliefs are screwing with out perceptions of reality, the fact that it is not there, simply means that it is not there.

Truth in essence is that which jives with reality. The problem is that so many of us will never truly see the world from any perspective but our own. We will all each always have our own personal bias. So we must do the best we can.

ロサリオ - Rosary

2010-02-03T21:55:00.000-08:00

Okay, I have to breach this subject again because of its importance to my life and the lives of others. I have, through a lot of searching, finally amassed all the prayer parts for the Rosary in Japanese.

First let me make some blanket statements that I will try to explain better in another blog posting or two.

1. Catholics do not worship Mary, we honor/venerate her.
2. Prayer to Mary doesn't equate to worship.
3. We give far less attention to Mary than I think we should as Catholics.
4. We give far less attention to Mary than you might think.
5. The Rosary should be used as a form of meditation
6. Like any prayer form, the rosary can be used as vain repetition,
but it shouldn't!
7. The Mysteries of the Rosary aren't about the Rosary
8. The Mysteries of the Rosary focus your mind on Jesus.
9. There are 20 mysteries in 4 categories:
Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious, Luminous.
10. The origin of the Rosary is in the recitation of the 150 Psalms.

Now, without much further ado, the prayers.

使徒信経 (Apostle's Creed)
わたしは、天地の造り主、全能の父である神を信じます。
また、その独り子、主イエス・キリストを信じます。主は聖霊に
よって宿り、おとめマリヤから生まれ、ポンテオ・ピラトのもと
で苦しみを受け、十字架につけられ、死んで葬られ、よみに降り、
三日目に死人のうちからよみがえり、天に昇られました。そして
全能の父である神の右に座しておられます。そこから主は生きて
いる人と死んだ人とを審くために来られます。
また、聖霊を信じます。聖なる公会、聖徒の交わり、罪の赦し、
>体のよみがり、永遠の命を信じます。アーメン。

主の祈り (Our Father)
天におられるわたしたちの父よ、
み名が聖とされますように。
み国が来ますように。
みこころが天に行われるとおり地にも行われますように。
わたしたちの日ごとの糧を今日もお与えください。
わたしたちの罪をおゆるしください。わたしたちも人をゆるします。
わたしたちを誘惑におちいらせず、悪からお救いください。

聖母マリアへの祈り (Hail Mary)
恵みあふれる聖マリア、主はあなたとともにおられます。主はあなたを選び、祝福し、あなたの子イエスも祝福されました。
神の母聖マリア、罪深いわたしたちのために、今も、死を迎える時も祈ってください。

天使祝詞（古） (Hail Mary, Old version)
めでたし、聖寵満ち満てるマリア、主御身とともにまします。御身は女のうちにて祝せられ、ご胎内の御子イエスも祝せられたもう。天主の御母聖マリア、罪人なるわれらのために、今も臨終の時も祈りたまえ。

栄唱 (Glory Be)
栄光は父と子と聖霊に。初めのように今もいつも世々に。

ファティマの祈り (Fatima Prayer)
主イエス・キリスト
わたし達の罪をゆるしてください。
わたし達を滅びから救いすべての人々ことにおんあわれみをもっと必要としている人々を天国に導いてください。

サルヴェ・レッジーナ (Salve Regina)
元后あわれみの母わたし達のいのち喜び希望。
旅路からあなたに叫ぶエヴァの子嘆きながら泣きながらも　
涙の谷にあなたを慕います。
わたし達のためにとりなす方　あわれみの目をわたし達にそそぎ　
尊いあなたの子イエスを旅路の果てにお示しください。
いつくしみ　恵みあふれる　喜びのおとめ　マリア。

Go and set the World Ablaze

Shirley, Kindness and Mercy will follow me...

2010-01-27T22:07:00.000-08:00

"Courage is the most important of all the virtues, because without courage you can't practice any other virtues consistently. You can't be consistently kind or fair or humane or generous, not without courage, because if you don't have it, sooner or later you will stop and say, "The threat is too much. The... difficulty is too high. The challenge is too great." ~ Maya Angelo

The first time I read this, I thought it was EPIC. Then I read it again...

The second time, I felt something sink in me, like I had just discovered a vase that I thought was whole to be completely shattered when I turned and saw its broken back.
I think she is totally confusing courage with Hope. I thought Hope was that which gives us the ability to move forward. It gives us a good to strive for in the future whether that future is near or far. Courage is of a different flavor, right?
If Hope is as I've defined it, then isn't Hope contingent upon Love? Without Love, one cannot care about anything and will simply not move. When Love is lost, all is lost because despair has taken its place. Besides what happened to "And the greatest of these is love"?

The third time, I noted that this quote is really placing consistency over courage anyway. To meCourage is not the same as consistency . Courage is simply what allows you stay the course in an unusually difficult situation. It's the stuff of heroes. It is simply not of the consistency type. For the matters of consistency, we have the word fortitude.

So, nothing against Maya Angelou, but this quote is definitely not one of her best. Or at least I hope it isn't.

Chesterton is far more eloquent in matters such as these:

"To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless."

Of course, to understand what GKC is saying here you have to know that each apparent contradiction here is pointing to what society would define as "unlovable, unpardonable, unbelievable" not as something objectively "unlovable, unpardonable, unbelievable."

Welcome to 2010

2010-01-15T22:21:00.000-08:00

Or so I just realized... I just yesterday connected the fact that the "far off future" with flying cars and all those space age looking buildings used to be projected into this year: 2010. Now, here it is, and the best we have to look forward to is what? Going Green?

I find it hard to answer that question without looking at the current political trends and becoming rather depressed. Well, the negative me does that anyway. Really, as some might say, this all is a sign of our times, but the positive me must reject that notion. In fact, I would say the positive me sees the good and is relies on my negative side to keep the whole me realistic and practical. Not sure it is working really though.

Actually, what I intend to communicate this time in this little post is far more related to religion than where it looks like this is going now. In fact it might be closer to core where beliefs are.

Since last semester finished... or rather I should say that I survived the last couple weeks of school weeks scrambling to get projects done that I avoided for over a month while focusing on Japanese. My teachers were understanding and allowed my projects to be turned in when completed. I am actually pleased to note that I actually didn't skimp on the research before working on them. The problem is that one heavy thought project streamed into the next so thoroughly that I felt overwhelmed and exhausted immediately following the semester. In fact, between work, Christmas stuff, snow and everything else, I feel kind of like I've had no break. What I've been asking myself of late is why?

I want to blame it simply on all the stuff going on around me, but that can't really be the whole reason. Unlike the me six months ago, I currently watch a lot of movies (mostly from redbox), play a myriad of facebook games, hit kongregate, and watch aimless TV (CSI, random movies, NCIS, etc). These, of course, all in addition to my normal periodic reading goals that crop up, youtube-ing, and video game playing. I can't help but wonder about my massive increase in time that I dedicate to entertainment. Actually, I still partially blame this on my exhaustion. The last month me, could probably be best compared with either a zombie or a robot. It has been like I've been watching me from inside a cave waiting for the real me to stop drinking lethe's water and to awaken to reality.

So, you might be asking, what does this have to do with God, beliefs, or anything. That is actually the simple part and the punch line. It's like I've forgotten it, or have been stalling putting it back into action, but it's "render unto Caesar" and
"to God what is God's." I've been squandering time and lost focus is what it comes down to. Instead of worrying about the real problem (my lack of a goal), I've been worrying about the symptoms (my daily petty emotions).

I won't discuss the intricacies of my search for a long term goal, but suffice to say my difficulty lies in trust and hope. There are too many unknowns and when I over think things with too many unknowns I tend to drop in despair. Those of you who know me, can hardly imagine that right? Well, that's because I have a goal, a substance, a focus when I am around people. It is far more difficult for me to trust in a future goal.

Go set all Afire

P.S.
Now, in reflecting back on what I've written here, I yet again wonder if what I am doing here is simply a way to self-medicate my worries and troubles. Here out where "someone" might see it perchance gives me hope? My mind simply is going over too many possibilities. I write here because I have chosen to share my reality that others might benefit from it.

Write - Think

2009-11-29T23:13:00.000-08:00

Less than a week away from JLPT hell or is it perhaps purgatory? Either way, I'm not ready enough by my standards so I'm hoping my teachers don't hate me for obsessively focusing on Japanese one more week. Wish me luck and keep me in your prayers.

On an unrelated note: "I never know what I think about something until I read what I've written on it." Faulkner, William.

I think that sums up exactly why I do what I do on this blog. I never really thought about it, but I really do think on paper and then evaluate. That's all for now.

Sign of the Cross

2009-11-03T20:29:00.000-08:00

So, yeah, I haven't stayed away have I? Well, I guess I am not going to, but these posts are going to be significantly shorter than usual and more ad-libbed.

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out if I'm being a bad catholic somehow because I generally fail to make the Sign of the Cross before praying. Actually, that isn't wholly truthful because I do make the sign of the cross in the presence of other Catholics or before I pray the rosary while I exercise. I just don't make the Sign of the Cross clearly before I pray over my meals, or when I am in the presence of my non-Catholic Christian brethren. I do tend to do either a mental Sign of the Cross or a mini-sign with my thumb on my forehead, but those just seem lacking to me now.

My excuses are basically "I don't want to stand out," "I don't want to appear presumptuous ," or "I don't want to deal with an apologeticx argument now."

So, since most of my excuses sound pathetic when I voice them, I figure I've got to step up and step out. However, before I deal with my excuses in particular, I think you might agree with the question "why should I care?" Really, doesn't everything come down to that? As in, what's the point? Truly, if there is no reason then well... there is just plain no reason, right?

The point then of the Sign of the Cross is what? Okay, are you ready for the cookie cutter answer I've known since I was little but have been unable to explain for so long? The Sign of the Cross is the simplest profession of faith in the form of an outward sign used to mark myself as in accord with Christ's church and in communion with all of Christianity. Yeah, cute, eh? My issue has always been with what does that exactly mean? Moreover, how would I explain it to a hostile crowd that would see accord with the church as something that mindless sheep do.

The thing about having something bother you interminably is that you think about it and anytime you encounter anything related to it, it sticks. I use this approach to thought when I'm studying Japanese by creating a state of preoccupation with the language. However, I digress. Anyway, my search for information on the Sign of the Cross has been scattered at best but my thoughts on the Sign of the Cross seem to have come to a boiling point tonight and no amount of forced necessity concerning schoolwork or Japanese can seem to yank me away from expressing my thoughts.

The Sign of the Cross is significant, plain and simple. What other belief system has such a defining characteristic? Besides, the action mirrors that of the great commission, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matt 28:19 RSV That however, only deals with the form of the Sign of the Cross. The form, by the by, is very simple:

In the name of the father (Touch one's forehead)
And the Son (Touch one's chest)
And the Holy Spirit (Touch one's left and then right shoulder)
Amen (typically: fold one's hands together)

I guess you could say, the Sign of the Cross is used to log in or to log out of prayer. Why? I don't know, but it seems fitting to open and end with a fiat.

There are apparently variations that are concerned with whether you touch with your index finger, your middle finger, your thumb and forefinger together, your thumb, index and middle finger together to represent the trinity, etc etc etc. I've come to the conclusion that that part doesn't matter so much, besides its not like any of the variations previously mentioned are truly substantial matters. For personal significance, I like taking the three fingers together to represent the trinity and then, per what seems to me to be a Hispanic tradition, I kiss the three fingers at the Amen part. Especially if this action is accompanied by a genuflection, it just seems more reverent to me. I really only would use that form in a church though because it would seem excessive any other time.

So, then, because I know I haven't answered anywhere near well enough the questions that would be raised with regard to the scriptures, I must continue. First of all, it doesn't appear to be contradictory to scripture to me, so I would have trouble understanding any opposition to anything so hardcore as an external sign accompanying faith, but then again, I am the Catholic talking now. So, the best directly Biblical comparison that I can give besides the great commission is that of the seals on the foreheads of the many saved in the Revelation of John. (7:3, 9:4, 14:1 for those who want to check) However, yeah, that is a somewhat weak argument for the Sign of the Cross, but on the other hand, anything evenly slightly positive for it is far better than the negatives I have been unable to find.

Allow me for a moment to step up my explanation a notch. The Sign of the Cross is first of all, a lowercase-t tradition which means it is not doctrinal, but like the convention of chapters and verses in the Bible, it too serves a purpose. When one performs the Sign of the Cross one affirms their faith in the living God, recalls their baptism, reveals their connection with Christ's church and awakens one's senses to be better attentive in prayer. In essence, it makes you accountable.

Which, of course, brings me all the way back around to my first thoughts: Do I fail?

I don't want to stand out
Just remember the nail that sticks out gets hammered down is a prevailing notion that I have been steeped in because of my connections with Japanese culture. This excuse just smacks of my Japanese-ish side horribly. I never actually noticed till now, that when you think about, that statement is horribly accurate. How do you think the Church grew in the early days? The blood of the martyrs acted as seeds for the faith of many. They stood out and got hammered down, but what happened? More rose to take their places, and more will if it happens again.

"I don't want to appear presumptuous"
Actually, I don't have a strong argument against this one. Why? Well, because this is a rational fear that my ego will get in the way and I will be making the Sign of the Cross just so I can proclaim my own righteousness. That would be an epic fail and a good reason for me to actually not make an outward sign.

"I don't want to deal with an apologeticx argument now."
1 Peter 3:15, I think I quoted this in a previous post, but pause for a second to think about it. "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;" RSV Yeah, so I guess, what part of always don't I understand? I guess I need more faith and a willingness to trust the Lord so that I won't get tongue-tied.

I guess, I will be using the Sign of the Cross more frequently from here on out. Ooh, maybe I should start saying it in Japanese. I might then have the gumption to do it.

父と子と精霊のみなによって、アーメン。　　だって日本語のほうは短いとは思わないの？

Go and Set the World Ablaze.

Archbishop George Lucas

2009-11-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

Just some notes from a FOCUS event with Omaha's archbishop.

- Favorite Saints: St. Joseph and St. Matthew

- When asked what book he thought we should read he responded with: Well, of course, The Bible! He gave an anecdote on how when he blesses little kids Bibles that he likes to tell them that the blessing won't be activated until they open the book. Of course, that is not entirely the way it works but it's probably a good way to motivate kids to read their Bibles.

Go and set the world on Fire, ya'll. ^_^

My path

2009-10-31T23:09:00.001-07:00

What.. What. . Wait? when did this happen? When did November creep up on me??

Sorry guys, I won't be posting anything in my blog area until after the JLPT test in December. Why? Because I am that serious about passing it that I will probably be cutting out any and all semi-necessary activities to study for it... which is bad because I just found out Saturday that I have enough willpower to study until I literally fall asleep in mid-sentence. @_@

I'll have to figure out some way to inject more energy into this body of mine.... the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, no?

Also, please pray for me that I might get accepted by JET. I am applying to work in Japan starting next summer and yeah, the cut-off date is in November. Between that and the typical school stuffs are going to be classified as essentials just so that I actually remember to work on them.

So, in my absence...

Go and Set the world on Fire

Secularism

2009-10-29T00:27:00.000-07:00

So, what is secularism anyway? What is particular to French Secularism?
Am I supposed to be opposed to Secularism? These are the kind of questions I've been pondering today.

Setting aside for a moment the basic dictionary definitions which simply point to things like "of or relating to the world" or "not overtly or specifically religious," I have to mention why this is bugging me. The definition I was given by a classmate, who happens to be fluent in French, bothered me horribly.

Secularism is something, be it a person place or thing, devoid of religion or so I've heard. I, however, don't understand how anybody could think this is even a plausible theory, let alone a fact. There is no such thing as something devoid of religion (when you presume it to be talking of irremovable beliefs). No doubt, the makers of Merriam Webster's dictionary realized this fact because their definitions are pretty sanitized. Check them out sometime.

My logic comes from the basic thought that religion and philosophy are intimately intertwined. Obviously the whole topic is about 10x's more extensive than how I am going to quickly cover here, but I think I have to point out how people's professed and actual religions/philosophies can be different. However, the point of the matter is that we are all philosophical people whether we've chosen to philosophize or not. Why? Well, when you choose not to philosophize, you haven't actually chosen to not philosophize but instead have chosen to not think. That, of course, is still a philosophy even if it is a bad one.

Thinking of this in terms of the secular then, there is no such thing as a place devoid of religion (using the term loosely to mean belief) because casting out all Islamic, Christian, or Hindu symbols will still leave you with a belief system: atheism or worse any of the myriad of apathetic belief systems.

My question then to tickle your brains is whether I should be then opposed to secularism? as it is defined by Webster? OR should I be more concerned about differences in application and the definition? Ah, politics and religion....

Alice and Christopher West

2009-10-27T06:18:00.000-07:00

To start off with, this whole situation initially confused me as well, but I figured that sorting through it in words would be helpful.

First off, Exhibit A:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=2 May 7, 2009

Actually, you don't have to read that because, in fact, I find that article horribly offensive because I've read some of Christopher West's books, and even been to a talk of his (if I remember correctly). However, the ABC news piece takes snippets of what Christopher said in an interview and then twists them by putting a very scandalous spin on his beliefs. Despite the negative patterns of this interview, West is really just awesome when it comes to making Catholic teaching relevant to our current generation. Why then does this article exist? My assessment would be simply that he is too pure to notice when he is being led to the slaughter.

Now, Exhibit B:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15950 May 12, 2009

First off, before I get started on my commentary, note the date. This interview with Alice Von Hildebrand occurred right after the above ABC post which I found offensive but (Thank God!) knew enough about Christopher West as to not be scandalized. Alice's harsh critique of Christopher West, if it is truly a reaction to the ABC article, and there is evidence that it is, then I would conjecture that she is knocking down little straw men instead of constructively critiquing West. Now let me add one more piece of relevant information. She does claim to have read the following.

Exhibit C:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15928 May 9, 2009

This article is concerned with West taking the opportunity to try and set straight some of the sensationalizing that occurred in the ABC interview.

Now, before I continue, you may be wondering who Alice Von Hildebrand is, aren't you? Well, she is the wife of Dietrich Von Hildebrand who was a renowned advocate of purity. Not having read either of their books, with the exception of skimming Alice's "The Privilege of being a woman," I really can't comment any further. Except to say that they are both on the same battlefield for purity as Christopher West and have their own unique approach to teaching it.
See http://www.hildebrandlegacy.org/main.cfm?r1=1.00&ID=1&level=1 for more information.

Now, let me call your attention back to exhibit B. I was really disappointed in this article. Alice starts off by saying that she "knew the gist of the Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body." Additionally, I was disappointed to note that I could not find her mention anywhere how extensive her knowledge was of Christopher West's materials. So, it struck me that she was likely not actually qualified to be making any remarks on the matter. When you are critiquing someone who is an expert on something extensive like say the Theology of the Body (a series of 129 sermons given over a five year period) and you only get the "gist" of the thing, you have no right to give definitive remarks. It only creates unnecessary turmoil from within the Church and extends from a lack of charity.

Actually, the thing that bothered me the most was that she attacked his reverence. If her reaction was to the ABC article, then yes he did appear irreverent, but that was hardly a good presentation of West. In fact, I would say he is rather reverent and on the very same side as Alice. A fact, which might have been communicated during his two-hour interview but not in the seven-minute regurgitation.

The impression I get is that Alice and her husband's works are geared for those ready for an intense, highly conservative approach to God and sexuality. They are like the howitzers of war, the enemy can't even get close and the user has to already be strongly entrenched on their side to properly utilize them.

Christopher West's materials are more like the everyday Ak-47's, grenades or flamethrowers of war that are used in the everyday grind. He simply brings the content to the world in which the world can relate, and his materials are in the middle of the conflict on the front lines.

My overall summary is simple. These two are together in the same war fighting on the same side with no time for this sort of dissonance. I see their two approaches as different, not contradictory, but even quite possibly complimentary. I would say Christopher West is seeking to be a different face for the world. An approach best summarized in the immortal words of St. Paul "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor 9:22

For those who want to see the entire Theology of the Body talks, I give this link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm

Momentous Decisions

2009-10-23T23:54:00.001-07:00

As we all know momentous decisions are not to be made lightly. In fact they are quite the opposite, and since I have a few that I have to make here shortly, I've been trying to map out the various levels/stages/components that are key to a momentous decision. Before writing any further though, I must be acutely clear that what I am about to outline is concerned only with momentous decisions.

Normative Alliance
The decision should lead you down a path that is both right in means and end.
~if the end is not good, i don't know why you do it anyway.
~if the means are not good, you should bide your time and choose a different approach.
For example, if you wanted money and since money is not necessarily a bad thing, the ends are not bad. Although, sneaking into and stealing from someone would not be a good means. It would be better actually if you got a part-time job.

Emotional Preparation
If there is something causing you to worry about it, until a solution can be found, one should wait.
If you can't solve it on your own you should find a trustworthy friend to talk with.

Clarify Goals
Write out what you plan to do, that way if you ever have doubts you can recheck you math so to speak.

Decision Time
When it comes time for the actual decision to be made, make it unwaveringly. Being nervous is okay but you should appear calm.

Sticking with it
Stick with it, until you have thoroughly thought through reason as to why it doesn't work. Although, if you have already done the above things well, you should be able to proceed without looking back.

Religion/One's belief system
If what you believe is related to this at all, you should pray about it, or do whatever is most appropriate to your belief system. Me? I'd pray, maybe say the rosary.

I think that if you do all of the above you can approach your momentous decision without any worries. I'm still researching this though. Actually, I think that this sort of approach is quite relevant for vocational discernment.

省略：

正しさ　
結果的にと行動的に正しいと思わない決定しないほうがいいです。
～結果的には正しくなければどうしてやろうとするがわからないです。。
　～行動的には正しくなければ我慢して別の行動捜したほうがいい
　例えば金がほしかったら金は別に悪いものでもないから結果的には問題ないんです. もし自分が決めた行動は誰かの家を忍び込んで盗むと言う事だったら多分バイトとかしたほうがいいですよ。

心構え
　悩みまだあったら解決できるまで進まない方がいいです。
　ちょっとした一人で考えてから自分が解決できなかったら信頼できる友達に相談したほうがいいです。

はっきり見える目的
　自分の目的を紙には長く説明して書きなさい。　そうすれば決定の行動の悩みがあったらいつでも参考出来る物があるよ。

決定する事
　決める時ちゃんと自信を持つしかないです。　ちょっと緊張してもいいけど冷静に行動したほうがいいです。

頑張りぬかないように
　決めてから考え直してもいいけど立ち戻るまえに熟思した方がいいです。
　でも基本的に上の事をちゃんとしたなら「決して立ち戻るな」のほうがいいです。

信仰
　自分が信じる事「例えば宗教とか」によってふさわしい行動したほうがいいです。　たとえばロサリオを祈ります。

上の事ちゃんとするなら重要な決定したら心配しなくて言いと思いますよ。　　でもまだ調べ中です。

Addendum:
With regard to momentous decisions, I have figured that the section with regard to sticking to it, is probably better classified as “Flexibility.” After all, once a decision is made, the path that it goes down still is new. So, as one heads down the path, no matter how much they might have planned or known ahead of time, new things do occur and might happen. When such situations arise they must be dealt with an open mind. Which is to say, per Chestertonian logic, that opening one’s mind is in the capacity of shutting it on something solid.

ちょっとした考え直した事があります。　”頑張りぬかないように”と言いたいけど伝えたい概念はちょっと違います。　基本的にはどんな流れは現れても適用としなければなりません。　英語でいうとyou must be flexible. または柔軟な姿勢で取り組むことが大切です。　アルクのお陰でその文章が分かってきました。　　

So... I'm troubled, who doesn't have worries?

2009-10-18T21:00:00.001-07:00

This is going to be me rambling something horrible so be forewarned.

Its really just the simple things that get us down right? I mean, I think that I shatter my core system nearly every week or so. Then I stare at the ground and begin to pick up the sharp pieces. It starts off with me getting cut on something like this: "Why am I alive?" and slowly as the pieces are re-assimilated, reborn or left behind, the inquiry degrades to such questions as "What's my purpose in life?" or "What's the point of school?" If I don't have a succinct answer or something that I can dig up quickly through some logic or inspiration, I start from scratch.

Some pieces of the old me are simply left on the ground and treated as only a memory, but I believe it is through this search that I am finding out some answers.

However, no, I don't claim to have any of the answers. In fact, the only thing I can tell you are possibly some things that aren't true. Its one thing for me to identify the broken discarded pieces of self, also known as failings, than it would be for me to express what the ideal "me" is. I mean to extrapolate this towards my search for truth. I'm not some all-powerful soothsayer, some grand philosopher king, some thrilling theologian, or some sort of expert on the Bible, but I take what I can and do with what I can in my limited space and time.

Perhaps the only wisdom I have stumbled upon, and that is only because I haven't found it false yet is that there are shards of truth in everything. It is just a matter of reaching in and getting your hands dirty in the things of this world. Then and only then do you experience the truth by cutting yourself on it.

Take the Halloween season for example. We, Catholics, tend to prefer All Soul's day which falls the day after Halloween and is a celebration of all those holy men and women that have gone before us. On the other hand, Halloween, the secular holiday, is sometimes frowned upon for its glorification of the morbid. I like to look at it a slightly different way. It is only through passing through the dark of Halloween that we emerge to the light of All Saints Day and All Soul's Day. Which I suppose leads to my justification for dressing as a vampire.

Vampires, in the old Bram Stoker sense, and not in the style of Twilight, Blade or even the original I am Legend sense, actually serve as to remind us of God much like the gargoyles of old served to remind us of the hideousness of sin. Vampires, you see, in the true sense are cursed beings for their offenses to God. They are therefore not wholly unlike us in our slavery to sin. In fact, their abject abhorrence for all things holy to the point of them incurring fatal wounds is still a nod to God's power.

At least when you compare them to most modern depictions of vampires that dumb down the whole vampire mystique to often nothing more than a genetic mutation or disease. Really, it is horribly disappointing as a reflection of how much so our culture has become obsessed with science to the point of our entertainment lacking any sort of spiritual mystique. Not to deny the specific rationale of science, but could one say that denial of the spiritual is irrational?

Now that I've digressed totally, let me clarify one thing. I have worries, and I think I can come up with rational answers to them which is not wholly a bad thing. What I am having trouble remembering to do is to drop everything of my own and remember the lesson of Peter walking on water. Look at God, focus on God and the maelstrom that is the world around you will matter not. I pray that someday I will be able to leave my worries at the altar and move on.

I leave you with my ramblings.

Go and set the world Ablaze!

Mary, Mother of God?

2009-10-02T22:28:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to bring this to forefront. ^_^

Originally posted Oct 2, 2009 as a response to Random Bible thoughts of August 22, 2009

Hello Xavier.

Did you talk to your father about this one? :-)

I did not get this teaching from any theological school, teacher or books. I arrived at this conclusion independently through the study of Scripture. It is in Scripture that my assumptions are based.

If you reread my post, you will find NONE of the following assumptions: personhood begins at birth; Jesus' divinity and humanity are incompatible; Jesus could not be both God and man simultaneously, but would have to switch between the two. Indeed, I refute all three of these premises, and still arrive at the same conclusion.

How is this possible? I refer you to the following assumptions, which I apparently failed to set forth clearly before:
1) Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was simultaneously both fully God and fully man.
2) The phrase "Mother of God" is not found in Scripture, and can therefore be considered apocryphal-- i.e. that it is an invention (at least as a phrase).
3) Personhood begins at conception.
4) Before his physical conception as a human, the Lord Jesus Christ was in existence in the world as the sole, eternal, omnipotent Creator God.
5) Mary could not have contributed to God's existence as set forth in Claim 4, because God existed in the world before she did-- as HER OWN Creator.

I doubt that you would deny claims 1, 3, or 4. But what do you think of claims 2 and 5?

If you are honest with yourself and take claim 2 at face value, I think you will agree with it in principle-- despite its strong wording. All this point asks you to concede is that the *phrase* is an invention of man, which cannot be found in Scripture. Therefore it lacks ultimate theological weight.

Also, in response to your comment, I'll raise a new claim. :)

Claim A: Though not incompatible, the two concepts of Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct.

Rationale: Suppose that you reject Claim A. Then Godhood and manhood are not individually distinct. Then, because all men certainly possess manhood, all men also possess Godhood*. Thus, to reject Claim A is clearly blasphemous and against the teaching of Scripture.

*[Go ahead and try to refute this conclusion under the assumption that Claim A is false. You'll see what I mean.]

This is called proof by contradiction, and is a familiar logical progression to math-heads like myself. Let me know what you think!

Peace. --Jacob

P.s. While reviewing the virgin birth, I ran across another passage you might enjoy: Luke 1:68-75.

My response is as follows:

Cute: Did I talk to my father about this one? Which one? ^_^

May I be so bold as to ask: Why do you take pride in that you are flying solo? I try, yet often fail to admit my weakness and seek to learn through the help of others. Remember, I too believe it necessary that faith be in accord with the scriptures.

That said, you have failed to understand what it was that I was stating as I too failed to understand you as well. Let me try and clear the air a little:

I think that the assumptions that are causing conflict for us are in the implications that motherhood holds for our faith. I assume motherhood to be a status or position especially with regard to a maternal connection. Correct me if I am wrong, but you assume motherhood implicates the total "begetting" of that to which she gives birth.

I do believe I can actually agree with four of your points. With Point 2, however, I must clarify that the I do not understand what you mean by apocryphal because none of the definitions of apocryphal that I am aware of are relevant in this situation. The title Mother of God is most certainly not erroneous or without authorship. I offer one place where the concept is at the very least expressed: Luke 1:42 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

As to what you're really getting at, which is the "solo scriptura" belief. I'll say it now and clearly, I find that unscriptural. So, no doubt you know the implications of what I am saying. Scripture and Tradition (not to be confused with traditions of men) are two sides of the same coin and as such any attempts to separate the two lead to dire consequences.

In summary, I'll try and state the Catholic Church's views on this:
Mary because she is the Mother of Jesus Christ she is the Mother of God but, most agreeably for you, she is not the one to beget His existence. The Catholic Church condemns the notion of Mary pre-existing God. However, (English strikes again) the Catholic Church maintains Mary's title of mother of God as the most near translation for the word “Theotokos” (God-bearer/Mother of God) because it best maintains the expression of Mary's maternal connection to the person Jesus Christ. Not because it says Mary created God or some other preposterous notion.

Also, try and look into the church fathers sometime, they are hardly silent on the matter of Mary as mother of God. I recommend St. Cyril of Jerusalem especially.

Finally, Claim A? Actually, I see you're syllogism lacking but I don't know the most tactful way to express that. Your Claim A is lacking clarity concerning in what way and in what respect Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct. It is on that tiny piece of information that the rest of your argument hinges.

That said, I don't think I have anything to disagree with you on Claim A regardless, but I will clarify by saying that the two natures of Christ, Godhood and Manhood, are separable and distinct but that the person of Christ is not separable. As an extension of this thought, the person's of the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are separable and distinct but All three are the same God, the Trinity.

Continue Ablaze bro

P.S. So confused @_@ How are Zecharias's words related...?

This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?

2009-10-01T23:16:00.000-07:00

Let me start at the beginning.
Leaving work today, I headed over to St.Margaret Mary's over by UNO. Well, I did make a little detour to grab an Odwalla bar from Wholners but that story is beside the point and the bar is long since been inside my stomach. Anyway, I made it to the church in time to join the beginning of the Eucaristic Procession across UNO campus. Funneling my way into the line, I felt at first a complete outsider. Everyone around me possessed a candle and a song sheet. I only had my green jacket to wrap around me.

Amidst the cold air and slight wind, we made our way to a small makeshift altar set up by Memorial Park by the crosswalk. It was a beautiful sight with the Monstrance at the head of the procession. The Monstrance was complete with a mobile tent carried by four altar servers. There we all knelt before Christ our Lord and prayed for a few minutes before moving along, but it was then a thought came to me.

What do others think? What does it look like we are doing? What are we doing? No really, why am I here? My doubting Thomas had settled in and wasn't about to back off until he had his answers. Whether my mind would wait or not didn't matter. Father had started off the rosary with our creed and general intercessory prayers. Then the group began to move across the crosswalk and into the heart of campus. We began to pray the luminous mysteries of the rosary as we went on our way, so I pulled my sword(rosary) from it's sheath and hoped my mind would catch up with my actions.

While I prayed along, I tried to meditate on the mysteries one after another. First, there was our Lord's Baptism in the Jordan which I can remember pretty well because the back half of the group where I was was just far enough back that we couldn't hear the first half well enough to respond. The next was the Wedding at Cana, where I began to try to seek out my answers.

Who cares what other's think? Really? I don't, I can't, why? because this is who I am, I can't change that.

Then I became distracted because I realized that a pre-designated part of our group was kneeling in the street to allow the procession to continue uninterrupted by traffic. A couple cars were stopped in their tracks by this action. Imagining for a second what we looked like, I think anyone would have their preconceptions shaken by that unexpected sight. There were people kneeling in the street!

Then we meditated on the Proclamation of the Kingdom where Jesus made his sermon on the mount, gave us the beatitudes and announced his divine Davidic Kingship. While I recalled related images and passages, we passed in front of Kaiser Hall. I found myself somewhat giddy, partially because of the cold, but also because such an obviously catholic group had just invaded the dead secularism of UNO. I couldn't even imagine this sight in correlation to UNO. My mind went numb.

The announcement of the mystery of the Transfiguration caught me off guard and I my mind wandered into realms of Moses. Moses and Elijah, both prefigurements of Christ, one of his saving power and the other of his prophetic influence hovered amidst my mind. Then somehow my mind extended back to both Moses and the manna in the desert and Elijah and the cakes he requested. The parallels grew because both were bread-like, life saving and seemingly endless in supply.

Then it hit me like Bam! We were on the mystery of the Institution of the Eucharist. Instead of my mind leaping to the usual images of the Last Supper and various related thoughts, the road to Emmaus strode in unannounced.

My stream of consciousness went approximately as follows.
[Were not our hearts burning within us?
when He opened the scriptures for us...
When He revealed their connections.
But, why then was it in the breaking of the bread that we came to know Him.
This is hard saying, who can hear it?
This is my Body, This is my Blood. Take eat, Take drink.
Do this in memory of me (anamnesis, in doing so, you make it present once again)
Were not our hearts burning within us.
The scriptures bring the passion.
We learn of Jesus in his presence.
But, it was in the breaking of the bread... we came to know Him.
We come to know Him truly in the Eucharist.]

My poor Thomas had his fill, and shut up for the rest of the night. How could he not, there before him stood in full body, blood, soul and divinity the might of Christ veiled only by the appearances of bread and allowing Himself to be humbled to such a lowly, frail position.

My distracted Thomas stepped aside and my Peter, if you will, remembered that in focusing on Christ you too can step on waves. But if at once you remove your gaze and all focus is lost, so are you too. Everything must be about Him.

My mind cleared and I was able to focus on my God before me during the litany of the saints, during which we prayed on bended knee before the student center, and on through the rest of the procession back to the church. Sometimes God grants us the wishes for which we ought to have wished.

This is a hard teaching, who can listen to it?

You have the words of eternal life Lord:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. " John 6

Go and Set the World on Fire

Techno Waif Ramblings

2009-09-23T10:38:00.000-07:00

What is love? (Why do I even find myself thinking about this?) I mean its not like it should be all that complicated. I rather like the thought of keeping it simplistic, and keeping love as love, but then which love am I really talking about? Do I have what it takes essentially to profess the real form of self-sacrificing love for anyone? Or will I stumble and fall. I mean, philia, the format of love that deals with friendship, yeah, that’s easy. I can pass into that form of caring rather quickly, but to step into the danger zone of agape love, the format of love that Jesus most exemplified, yeah right.

The problem is expressing the forms of love in English. I can’t even properly do it in Japanese. Something in me, screams that I should express philia in words in English… but who can really turn to their buddies (either male or female) and say “I love you guys” ? I mean, do you realize how completely facetious that sounds? Or on the other hand it could be misinterpreted in various ways as a form of sexual attraction which can and should be differentiated from eros, which is the format of love pertaining specificially to the human experience of romance. Romance, of course, is not wholly devoid of a sexual love, but far from being the focus, it acts a singular aspect of Love (eros).

So, I guess what it comes to is this: English cramps my style. Seriously, the greeks had philia(friends), agape(sacrificial), eros(romantic) and storge (I like pizza). All we’ve got is “Love” and “like”. Oh and most of the time it is typical to use Love the same way we use “like”, so we effectively only have one way of expressing love. Does it come down to a need for actions to speak louder than words? I hope not, there just has to be a way to express it.

I propose a modification of a certain quote:
The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians
Who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and are armed by their lifestyles.
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

That is only slightly different from the original but I think it emphasizes more the onus for consistency and example to come from us Christians. We are armed by our lifestyles in the true mantra of St. Francis: preach always, when necessary use words. A teaching well reflected in 1 Peter 3:15.

What it comes down to is this.
φιλια We need to love our friends (philia)
στοργε We need to let go of our love of things (storge)
αγαπε We need to die to ourselves and live for God (agape)
εροσ We need to love otherworldly based in our walk in this life (eros)

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; 1 Cor 13:4-8 (All of these “Loves” are Agape)

Then note that this is Jesus’ most explicit commandment:
John 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
But what you don’t know because of English is that He is asking us to (Agape) love. Meaning he is asking us to sacrifice for others, not just (philia) love. He did it on the cross for all of us, maybe we can too learn to take up our yoke. After all, He tells us that His “yoke is easy and (his) burden light.” (Matt 11:30)

Go and set the World on Fire. /_0\/3 4/_/_

I think I got it memorized...

2009-09-20T22:50:00.000-07:00

あなたがたの抱いている希望について
説明を要求する人にはいつでも
弁明できるように備えていなさい。
　　　ぺトロ　一　　３：１５

I actually don't know what I planned to write today at all. I just think this verse sums up a lot of what I've been wondering about, but it is elaborated just as well in a DC Talk song:

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today
Is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips
Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Our examples must be a shining light.

Go and set the world on Fire

Angry Figure

2009-09-04T22:13:00.000-07:00

Just one short thing on Anger and Figs. Apparently, a non-fruit bearing fig tree can be justifiably the victim of righteous wrath.

Seriously, can anybody read the story of the Fig tree and completely understand it the first time? I mean, it makes you wonder which side of the bed Jesus got up on that day? It's just a fig tree! Don't you think he over-reacted? Not really...

Matt 21:18-19 "In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once."

Our preconceptions, I think are, of course, the problem. We hear fig tree and we think we know about trees so we think we understand. In this case, we imagine an object as "only a fig tree" when really it symbolizes something more. Perhaps it is obvious to some but given the general sub-theme concerning Jesus' condemnation of Israel as unfaithful and unfruitful, do you think this might be relevant? I think so, and following a hunch, I found something interesting.

Figs are the flowers of the tree. They aren't the fruit, the vegetable or the nut. Although, they kinda are the seeds... This only matters because my experience has shown me that flowers grow alongside the leaves on deciduous plants. The fig tree just happens to be deciduous too. Fig tree pictures on the net also seem to confirm this theory.

Although, having never grown a fig tree, I really can't confirm or deny this, but I suspect that seeing a fig tree with leaves on it is the same as seeing it in some stage of bearing fruit. If that was the case then seeing a fig tree with leaves but no fruit, not even budding ones or, as in this case, just leaves alone would have been exceptionally unusual. It would be much like encountering "God's chosen people" and instead of seeing people turned towards God, encountering people who have hardened their hearts. Which is, of course, the main message here.

Although the following verses do certainly show that faith can kill fig trees just as effectively as it can move mountains. (tongue in cheek guys, tongue in cheek!)

Be the spark, Go and set the world Ablaze.

Change over?

2009-09-03T21:31:00.000-07:00

To grow is to change: To be perfect is to change often
~Cardinal Newman

I forget which great philosopher it was that foolishly tried to define humanity as "change," but while he was obviously off the mark, he was definitely on to something. Change exists as an important factor in our lives. However, it is not what we are, but what we do. I mean, just think about how much you have changed just recently. Can you even imagine how you would go about explaining that you are the same person you were ten years ago? However, that's just it, you are the same entity but at the same time very different.

I love the above Cardinal Newman quote, but because it can easily be misconstrued, I would add but one thing to it: Change for the better, not change for change's sake!!

Custom without truth is just old error.
~Cyprian

Which is, of course, to say that Custom with truth is only eternal reality..

But from this it must follow that I extrapolate to the Bible. After all, even the beginning church experienced its own pains from change. One such example is found in Acts. Read if you will, Acts 2:44-45 "And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. "

What? When? How? Out of context, doesn't it sound like a bunch of socialists?

Then read Acts 6:1-6. Shortened version: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.... "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. ...we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit... and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

I don't know about you, but some sort of movement from an initial small community sharing everything to a more role-oriented community seems to have occurred here.

Do one thing every day that scares you.
~Baz Lermin

I'm sorry but just thinking about what kind of things this quote might inspire me do actually scares me. So, I think that means that I have done my that scares me for today. I'll have to now think about something I can actually do tomorrow.

Life is a bridge. Cross over it, but build no house on it.
~ Indian Proverb

Positively, the best advice you could get for a Christian from a secular source. Just think, it is as simple as LUKE, one, two, three, four (12:34) "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " Life is simply fleeting, and therefore the focus must be beyond this world.

Still dabbling with pilot lights? Go and set the world Ablaze, already!

(FYI: The above non-biblical quotes were taken from the book "God, I have issues")

Something Burns

2009-09-02T20:23:00.000-07:00

I think I slipped up
I should have stepped down,
instead I stepped up.
Lost without a sound

Trying to make out the words
is like catching live birds.
They float, they flitter, they splat.
it's pitter patter pat.

I think I fell down
I should have stood up
instead I sat down
Lost into the ground

Something fell from the blue sky
What is that I do spy?
Images twist, criss and cross
For words, I'm at a loss

I think I woke up
I should have slid by
Instead I froze up
Lost without a sigh

Something red burns around me
From it I can not flee
A pilot light, sparks, wanes, bursts
Maybe this is the worst

I think I failed hard
I should have gone next
Instead I hit hard
Lost without the text

Trying to escape the sand
I can not see my hand
Effervescent, float, rise, sink
Vanish into the drink

I think I started left
I should have thought right
Instead I turned left
Lost without a fight

A beat from within my soul
something cries, "It was stole--"
Internal mind, thump, bump, blaze
so begins happy days.

~ NoR3450N ~

Some arise, reborn.

2009-08-30T21:56:00.000-07:00

Haunted by a Jaded past,
never thought that love could last
Hope was but a castaway at sea
Skepticism took it's toll,
closed the windows to my soul
was fighting just to keep my sanity
~ Fearless by DC Talk

You know how you've done things that you'd rather others never learn that you did? No matter how small they are, they bring an assailant into your mind that suffocates your motion towards positive action. After all, even if you do the right, what's left in your past is there and you know it and you keep the windows closed. Sucking your thumb in a corner, you feel safe in your stealth as the blinds blot out the light. Stop fighting and seeking to keep your secrecy, God already knows. The sin you hold tightly shackles you to the ocean floor and drowns any glimmer of hope. That is the victory of the devil, that you will not act because of the mistakes he holds over your head. What is forgiven by the Lord is no longer remembered so ignore the taunts and move forward.

They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
~ Preacher in Boondock Saints

I will stand out if I do that. I might look stupid. My friends might laugh at me. But a cry in my bosom tells me to act and yet I don't. I tell myself that it doesn't really matter, that it's not that significant. At the end of the day Christ is still King and you know what I mean: move forward already.

"Always have faith in who you are."
~ Grandpa Gohan in Dragonball Evolution

Who are you? Are you a student? Are you a follower of Christ? Are you an alcoholic? Are you ready to answer? Be true to what you are because no matter what that is, if you don't know it, then you are living a moot point. In knowing yourself you can know your enemy. If your enemy to be external you can take a stance and face him/her and succeed, but if your enemy is internal you mustn't forget to deal with the demons within; recognize them and turn your guns inward for the real battle. (Yes, I did just turn DB evolution into a spiritual message.)

What you call yourself a Pyro when you just use matches? Ignite your flame and melt your impurities that you might help others. Go set the World Ablaze.

Random Bible thoughts

2009-08-22T23:13:00.000-07:00

You know how that book always makes people think. Every time you pick it up and try to further digest its contents, something affects you. Why is that? Well, the answer is simple: Jesus. No, it's not a cop-out answer. Everything in the Bible points forward, directly concerns, or points back to Him.

Starting in Genesis, 3:15 to be exact, you have:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
The seed? Yeah, the seed is Jesus while the woman likely points to Mary in one sense and to Eve in another sense.

To some point Midway in Isaiah, 52:13, you have:
"Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. "
You don't get much higher than a cross I suppose now do you? Yeah, the ever-sacrificing servant Jesus humbled to point of death on a cross rose to heights beyond imagination. Only Mary and John had faith enough to witness Jesus as the ultimate judo master when he performed his greatest feat. Jesus simply turned the devil's triumph on its head. Effectively making the whole crucifixion out to be the devil's biggest defeat.

To the more obvious locations in Luke (7:34)
"The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' "
Who else, but the "Bar Adam", a phrase which having next to nothing to do with drinking has everything to do with Him being the Son of Man, was Jesus. Ironic that the "Bar Adam" if only half translated says Son of Adam which while pointing to Jesus' divinity also points to his fulfillment of the proclamation in Genesis above.

To nearly everything in Paul's letter's like Romans 6:6
"We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin."
A verse where Jesus again stands as a sort of centralized focus that the Bible clearly possesses.

The step that is harder to take for some but only complements the bible in a fashion similar to adding the right sauce to your favorite food, is based in the many Biblical T(or t)raditions of the Catholic Church. Take, for example, what Edward Sri refers to as a representation of how the spiritual gravity of Christ exists in one of the church's basic prayers.

The Hail Mary
Hail Mary, full of grace the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou amongst women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, JESUS. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Just looking at the prayer one can see the centralizing nature of Jesus.

As a side analysis, the first part of the prayer is taken from Luke and the second half is a basic prayer for the intercession of the Queen-mother. Jesus as the Eternal King stands in fulfillment of the prefigurement provided by King David, and just as any Jewish King ought to, He has still to listen to his mother. This is easy to see if you take a look at how David acted around Bathsheba in her role as his wife and then compare that with how Solomon behaves around Bathsheba where there relationship is mother to son. Suffice to say, the Queen mother exists as one of the strongest intercessors in existence when seeking the King's help. After all, God (which includes Jesus) made the fourth commandment right? "Honor thy father and Mother."

Now, Go and Set the World Ablaze. No piddling fires please, go full pyro.

Becoming innocent again?

2009-08-20T07:41:00.000-07:00

It has in a manner of speaking occurred to me that there is an inherent flaw in Enigma’s manner in which to return to innocence. The call is to “just look into yourself” as the return to innocence. However, when one looks at an innocent child or watches the manners of an innocent child, one can't help but notice that their extreme outwardness is what makes them innocent. It is when they do things obviously for personal gain that they are, in a word, "not cute." I would therefore conjecture that an attempt to return to innocence has little or nothing to do with a mystic "power within" but rather deals directly with an outward selflessness.

Of course, this is not to say that their is no value in Enigma's Return to Innocence:

Don’t be afraid to be weak.
Don’t be too proud to be strong.

If you must then start to laugh.
If you must then start to cry.

Four points of advice that I would say point directly towards being honest with one's self.

Go and Set the World Ablaze

Audio Bibles for free?

2009-08-18T01:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com
Wow, this website is almost too good to be true!
Actually, some aspects may be just that.
Most of the versions are currently only completed through the New Testament. As I understand it though that will change over time so I am hardly complaining. ^_^

However, what I have noticed is that for whatever reason the NAB catholic version of the bible won't download. I don't know if it is because it just is not actually completed yet, or if there isn't much interest in passing it on. However, there is a button to download it for free from the store area. Ironically, clicking the download button for it allows me to download a ".dmg" file and then brings me to a section of their website on how to install the Mac version of their program. Call me crazy but I guess only Mac users can listen to the Catholic version?

On a positive note, I was able to get both an English and Japanese version of the NT downloaded before running into a brick wall. Maybe I will have to figure out later how to get it in other languages like Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Romanian. For now, I can listen to all of those directly through their website though.. . which only doesn't help me as far as my mp3 player is concerned.

Of Life and Death

2009-08-16T23:22:00.000-07:00

This is a simple matter that extends little further than a simple question of "Life: yes or no?" but the problem is knowing what path to take to make life a reality. Christianity places a strong emphasis on the integral understanding that to move in accord with God is to seek life while to fall towards sin is to descend into death. So, I don't know about you but if that is true the answer would seem simple: we must move in accord with God's will.

I propose that to know what is in accordance with God's will is to follow the words of Christ, "You are my friends if you keep my commands." John 15:14

What then did he command us to do? Well, many things, but here are some examples.

1. Go therefore and make disciples of All nations (Mt 28:19)
I don't know about you but I am certainly not doing well on this one.
2. Do this in memory of me. (Luke 22:19)
Which this? Well, I do believe it was in the breaking of bread that they came to know Him on the road to Emmaus. Perhaps that is related?
3. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (John 15:12)
He loved us so much as to spread his arms across and die. Can you pay the ultimate price for God?

So you see then... the dilemma is that to truly live, we must die. Die to this world so that we may live in the next.

"What you take won't kill you but be careful what you're given." Leonard Cohen

Baptism

2008-06-28T22:22:00.000-07:00

"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5

While being born of the Spirit is pretty clear, I've heard the argument before that Jesus is only referring to one's physical birth when he speaks of "water" or amniotic fluid, so to speak. The point of said argument being to somehow cheapen baptism as a necessity for Salvation. Personally, I see three issues with this Baptism avoiding interpretation.

Issue #1 Per Christ's teaching, Baptism is of Water and The Spirit.
Looking back at the general context of John, a mere two chapters earlier Jesus, Himself, was baptized. Jesus, Himself, did not start His public ministry until he had been baptized. However, what is key to note is that the Holy Spirit was there when Jesus was baptized. The description of John the baptist reveals an immediate collusion of Baptism with the Holy Spirit. "And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him." John 1:32 This wording is nearly the same in all four of the Gospels. See Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, and Luke 3:22 for the others. Essentially, when John speaks of one who will come to baptize with the Spirit, he speaks of baptism not to the exclusion of water but with it. Though, just to be clear, baptism is not the only place for the Spirit to act.

Issue #2 Grammatical Context
I am taking people at their word for this, but apparently in Greek the word format is such that you could not rephrase the sentence to say "Unless you are born of Water and Unless you are born of The Spirit". The wording is such that the words "Water" and "Spirit" are locked under the heading of a singular event. That is to say that the singular event referred to (Baptism) comprises two parts simultaneously occurring and not two events at separate times of life.

Issue #3 Context
The most compelling argument for me is this; "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." John 3:22 Think about it for a moment and then go back and re-read John 3. Right after having a talk with Nicodemus on water and The Spirit, Jesus goes off and spends time baptizing. Coincidence? I think not. He was definitely trying to let us know something.

Go and set the World on Fire

10 Commandments

2008-06-15T22:33:00.000-07:00

First of all, Trivial Argument Alert:
I've been told that we Catholics have the numbering of the 10 commandments wrong. So, I've been trying to look back and understand why the split in numbering.

First of all, the data for the 10 Commandments is found in Exodus 20: 1-17. Looking at that in my NRSV and RSV Bibles, I see the verses set off into 10 neat paragraphs that match up with the protestant numbering. I am, of course, mildly taken aback by this and found myself wondering what was the Catholic logic behind this difference. Most issues between Catholics and Protestants seem to drop into semantics so I wonder if it is somehow present because of things "lost in translation". Though unconfirmed, I have a hunch that Hebrew is mainly not written with paragraph type separations, but that our modern conventions in English have tacked that on. *pauses and does some looking* No, apparently that is not the case, Hebrew seems to have paragraph-like separations.

In looking at the data, something occurred to me that I was surprised about. I was wondering where we got the term "ten commandments" from. I mean, I had presumed it's biblical origin while at the same time not knowing where. A quick search at blueletterbible.com yielded three locations Exd 34:28B, Deu 4:13, and Deu 10:4.

Location 1: Exodus 34:28B reads: ... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Location 2: Deu 4:13 reads: And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Location 3: Deu 10:4 reads: And he wrote on the tables, as at the first writing, the ten commandments which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them to me.

I was intrigued to note that the Hebrew words use the same root form "dabar" for both words and commandments (the bold words above). The implications of the usage of the word "word" for commandments depends entirely on how Hebraic traditions perceived "words" within the 10 commandments. Since I really don't know any Hebrew though my investigation must stop here short of major speculations.

Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention one thing: The 10 commandments other name is the Decaloque or literally "10 words". There might be more to this.

New information: The Ten Commandments are iterated in two places in the OT: Exodus and Deut 5:6-21. I invite you to take a look at the split of the paragraphs here. There are 11 paragraphs. The what would have been #10 in Exodus is split into two parts here. This means that at the very least the splitting of the last two commands is at the very least Biblical in origin. The discrepancies in the numbering seems to stem from the confusion of the two different iterations of the Ten Commandments.

Now to take a look at the different origins of the different forms of the Ten Commandments. After spending some time searching now, the only link that I found that had a detailed amount of information to say on this topic is: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM by James Akin, a Catholic Apologist. His presentation of the data is most succinct and I would recommend that you read his article in it's entirety unlike me who only ran across it once.

However, because I don't expect anyone to really look at that link in it's entirety. I will state as best as I can the most compelling argument for me as to the difference between the two organizations of the 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments have a different format because St. Augustine(350-430) reorganized them for memorization by the youth. This does not mean that we read Exodus and Deuteronomy's accounts of the Ten Commandments in Augustine's format. Rather, we use the un-numbered scripture un-altered, but use the "normal" Catholic format for memorization purposes. We use both. Which is better do you think? I say neither, they both have their purpose and role that is all.

Also, I would like to point out that St. Augustine's organization of the Ten Commandments occurred around the same time as the Canon of Scripture was decided upon.

The last objection I would like to try and answer is that the Catholic Church omits the second commandment. This obviously is not the case. Catholic's believe that the point of the first commandment is that "You shall have no other God's before Me" and that the following paragraph was a further emphasis for the superior hierarchical value of the first commandment. Biblically speaking because of the numerous Holy examples of "graven images" in the OT such as the Golden Serpent, the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple the 2nd Commandment must have had a specific implication. I believe the specific "word"(dabar) was that you shall make no idols and that what follows is a description not of things that are idols but forms that an idol may take but doesn't necessarily take. Obviously the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant are a "form of" something that "is in heaven above" which would then make God a contradictory being. I would propose however that it is not God who is contradictory (because Truth never contradicts Himself) but us. We must align ourselves to God.

One last note: It is important for me to state here that the Catholic Church's order for the Ten Commandments is not set in stone. The Ten Commandments in the format that has Protestants protesting is mainly a memorization tool and not a dogmatic tradition, though a useful tradition none-the-less. For further reading see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm In other words, the emphasis is on the spirit and the meaning of the Ten Commandments and not on having to know the exact wording (though that can hardly be thought of as harmful).

Now, Go and Set the World on Fire

The Pain Unknown

2008-05-17T22:25:00.000-07:00

I was going to try and comment a little on C.S. Lewis's "A Grief Observed" but it is too much of a masterpiece for me to have much confidence in doing it justice. Nonetheless, I will try.

"No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear" is the first line in the book, and is rather telling of the gravity of Lewis's grief. I myself have only really encountered grief once in my life and while it wasn't a relative so nearly close as one's better half, it took me a good time to get over it. Though it could be argued that one is never completely over grief. There are certain things that might still set me off from time to time but for the most part they are simple memories. A book, per say, of his when encountered might cause me to have a strange sensation. It is something that while like fear is simply not fear. "The same fluttering of the stomach, the same restlessness, the same yawning" as Lewis puts it. I hold the memory in my mind as a glass ball and while it passes with a butterfly's shadow, the emotions linger sticky-sweet. I almost choke on the memory, but I know in time it will pass... but how much time? I try to seek comfort in that while I am still trying to stay on the straight and narrow path, I must hold the belief that he is with God. "In one sense that is most certain. She is, like God, incomprehensible and unimaginable." I cannot imagine the status of my relative, how does one "live" as a spirit? Does he await the resurrection of the dead or is time so meaningless where he is that it is as though we are already all there and Christ has come home? I don't know but then another thought bubble arises ".. was a splendid thing; a soul straight, bright, and tempered like a sword. But not a perfected saint. ... I know there are not only tears to be dried but stains to be scoured. The sword will be made even brighter."

Demons 悪魔

2008-05-10T01:59:00.000-07:00

In talking of the enemy in a direct manner it only seems fit to begin in prayer:
Saint Michael the archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell satan and all the evil spirits. Amen

The prayer that you have just read was provided in 1886 by Pope Leo XIII following a devastating vision that he saw. Though details of the vision are few, Leo was shown events surrounding a period of time when the devil was to be given free reign on the world. Before that period, it was as though the devil was being held back by chains. At the appropriate time, as a means of testing the faith of the true believers (not unlike the story of Job) the devil was to be unshackled. What exactly flashed before his eyes shook the Pope so badly he sought out paper and immediately wrote the above prayer. I, personally, think that we very likely are living with an unshackled devil.

That however is not my main topic. The topic is basically the paranormal from a catholic perspective. Many of us have encountered friends who seem to have these "powers" if you will. I, myself, would at one time readily professed a certain capability in this realm as well as having a friend with a certain ability for "healing." What bothers me is; How then are we to ascertain what is of God and what is of the evil one?

Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the head exorcist for Rome writes that "Satan has the authority to give certain powers to his faithful." (Amorth38) And he goes on to further state some of these "powers" and how hard it is to differentiate their origins. Just as Moses "magic" performed before Pharaoh was often able to be replicated by Pharaoh's magicians, the actual "power"/"magic" or whatever word you want to assign to that sort of thing does not directly identify its origins.

There is a great example that is on page 40 in Fr. Gabriele Amorth's An exorcist tells his story on this matter. The parts that are italicized are notes that were added by Fr. Amorth to the newspaper article he was quoting:

"A few years ago, I experienced the game of the glass, without realizing that it was a form of spiritism. The messages that I received during this game spoke of peace and brotherhood (notice how the devil can conceal himself under the appearance of good deeds). Sometime later, while I was in Lourdes practicing my ministry, I was given strange faculties (this is also noteworthy: there are no places, no matter how sacred, where the devil cannot enter).

Parapsychology defines the faculties that I was given as extrasensorial, that is, clairvoyance, mind reading, medical diagnosing, reading of hearts and lives of people both living and dead, and other powers. A few months later I received another faculty: the ability to take away pain merely by the imposition of hands. I could eliminate or alleviate any sort of suffering; could this be "prana therapy"?

With all these powers, I had no difficulty contacting people, but after our meetings, they would walk away, shocked at my conversation and profoundly disturbed because I could see in their soul, and condemning the sins that they committed. However, as I was reading God's word, I realized that nothing had changed in my life. I continued to be quick to anger, slow in pardoning, easily resentful, and given to take offense at nothing. I was afraid to pick up my cross, I was afraid of the future and of death.

After a long journey in search of answers and many painful experiences, Jesus directed me to the renewal movement. There, I found brothers who prayed over me, and we realized that what happened to me was of diabolical origin, and not divine. I recognized and confessed my past sins, I rejected every form of the occult. These powers came to an end and God forgave me; for this, I thank him. "

Prayer 祈り

2008-05-08T20:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry, this is not the usual fare.
I will digress to talk only of prayer
For many friends and relations and foes
what is needed just the Almighty knows.

If you were at once to attempt to list
everyone you hope that God would assist.
Spending all morning, evening and nighttime
would bring no end ever in our lifetime.

Asking for health, wealth and various things
is not just for what the mockingbird sings.
For where our treasure is so too our heart.
God wants our all, every little last part.

Much to our behest only God knows best
and seemingly leaves us often unblessed.
In times of true darkness, trust in the Lord
and He will place you square back on board

Let not this chalice pass, Thy will, Thy will
that only Your will I aim to fulfill.
Not just me Lord but that within Your plan
All have their role, every child, woman, man

I find it is best to truly unite
with any and all to pray for your plight
So to all of you I make my request
to please pray for these that they might be blessed:

A father who's healing from surgery
A friend suffering from self-injury
For these intentions and for many more
of Thee O Lord we do seek to implore

Amen

Mortal Sin　死に至る罪

2008-05-03T22:46:00.000-07:00

”死に至らない罪を犯している兄弟を見たら、その人のために神にお願いなさい。　そうすれば、神はその人に命をお与えになります。これは、死に至らない罪を犯している人々の場合です。死に至る罪もあります。これについては、神に願うようにとは言いません。
不義はすべて罪です。しかし、死に至らない罪もあります。”（ヨハネの手紙一　５：１６－１７）
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17)

I kind of had an epiphany with these verses. I was trying to understand purgatory because, while it was obvious to me that there's a need for the expiation of the temporal effects of sins, why there might be a need to forgive sins after death was beyond me. This is the answer: that we may still be alive in Christ but wounded. After all, there are sins that don't kill or rather are not mortal. So, someone could potentially die while still in a non-fatal state of sin. A soul in such a damaged state would be much like a dirty beggar who is entering into the Palace of Heaven. "But sir, might I not be cleansed first?" is all I can imagine being said by such a person. Certainly God "who makes all things new" would renew such a person. That period of renewal is what Catholics call Purgatory. As I may have mentioned before, the length of time one is in purgatory is unknown but it is a temporary state.

”神を愛するとは、神の掟を守ることです。神の掟は難しいものではありません。”（ヨハネの手紙一　５：３）
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3)

Read 1 John 5 if you ever get the chance, it's just beautiful. We all know that in order to love God we have to keep His commands, but what does this verse mean by His commandments are not burdensome? I am reminded of another verse:"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."(Matthew 11:30) I like to think this is essentially God speaking of "freedom under the law." That is to say that if you truly love God you will be keeping his commands and because keeping his command will be so natural for you, you will find no weight in that burden.
After all, just as someone who truly desires to love God will find no burden in his commandments, so too someone who wants to play a game of chess will find no burden in the rules of the game.

Worship and Veneration

2008-04-29T22:54:00.001-07:00

I am the lord thy God though shalt have strange God's before me.

The Catechism on worships says, "To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful love." (CCC 2096) Which is more or less an affirmation of what Jesus said when he quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 in Luke 4:8, "And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'""

The question that arises often enough is the difference between, worship and veneration. Worship, as noted above, is most certainly reserved exclusively for God because He is the only one deserving of it. Veneration on the other hand is the honor given to persons, places or things that draw us closer to heaven.

Through Old Testament examples such as the Ark of the Covenant and the bronze serpent, it can be seen that God does not forbid veneration of Holy things. After all, why after giving the Israelites the Commandments do these objects of veneration appear?

Thomas Aquinas sums up the proper application of worship quite well:
"Religious worship is not directed to the images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is."
Now, that may initially be kind of confusing but if one keeps in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, it becomes clear. For instance, religious worship of God through the Saints might go like this: A Holy Card is as an image of a saint that when we move toward we tend toward the Saint who is in turn also an image of God that in moving toward allows us to tend towards God Himself. The object of our worship then is clearly God.
Holy Card -> image of Saint -> image of God -> God
We must follow the chain through to God whenever we seek to worship Him. Communication with the saints, who we believe to not be dead but alive in Christ, surely seems to stop the line at the Saint but that is where the differences between veneration and worship are important.
Take for example, the honor that a painter would wish to receive at his masterpiece. If you were to only stare at the painter, he would respond, "what are you looking at???" and try to redirect your focus to his art. For by honoring his art you would actually be giving him the greater honor. However, it is very important to note that on the other extreme you could wrongfully assign the glory exclusively to the art. God, as the ultimate designer and artist, wants us to worship Him and to acknowledge the beauty He has created. Not to do as the atheists/scientists of modern times do and "(they) suppose(d) that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven are(were) the gods that rule the world." (wisdom 13:2)

Go and Set the World on Fire

Random last note: Yeah, yeah, the whole "second Canon"/deuterocanonical books or what protestants call "the apocrypha" is where the book Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon is, but I still tried fruitlessly to search blueletterbible for it. Imagine this: Coming to the realization Protestants lack Wisdom.... err.. their bibles lack wisdom?... err.. yeah, when I said it out loud the first time it just didn't sound right either.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

2008-04-24T22:57:00.000-07:00

-This post is a response to my friend's comment. By no means, am I done writing this response. I just threw this together last night and proofread it today. I will plan on editing it a little more in the future. Additionally, I am only a lay Catholic and if I have misrepresented Catholicism, I do so unwittingly and will be seeking to correct any confusion.

That is an awesome verse. I especially like John 2:2 because it gives me hope for salvation; and optimism that many can be converted.
He is expiation for our sins and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
I also like John 1:7. Look it up on blueletterbible.com. Walking in the light is the opposite of walking in darkness; anything that is dark or evil, or dishonest needs to be removed from our lives. When we walk in the light, everyone can see who we are and what we are all about. No dark secrets. I also like how its the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from our sin. This almost seems to be the exclusive remedy. Just like the blood that was poured out on the altar was a temporary remedy for the sins of the Jewish nation, Jesus Christ's blood that was poured out on Galilee is the permanent remedy for the sins of the whole world. (Heb. 10:11-12).

But if we walk in the light as he is in the light then we have fellowship with one another and the blood of his son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
Every priest stands daily at his ministry offering freguently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins But this one offered one sacrifice for sins ans took his seat forever at the right hand of god.

-Truly, honesty is a strong aspect of being a Christian, but it comes right after in verses 15-17 in which the New Covenant is mentioned. The New Covenant like any of the other Biblical Covenants had a stipulation that involved some sort of repetition. The previous covenant having of these having been circumcision. What was the sign of the new covenant? "This is my body, this is my blood."

I John 1:8 says that no one can truthfully say they don't have sin. Perhaps this is what confession is for? But if we have sin, then we also have guilt, and we deserve to die for it. Fortunately, we have the expiating death of Jesus Christ. That's why Hebrews 10:14 says that those who are sanctified by this one offering are perfected forever. There isn't anything further that needs to be done, and there isn't any need to attain to perfection. In the words of Jesus Christ, "It is finished."

- Don’t you think that is a kind of slippery slope; if sin, then guilt, if guilt then deserving of death? I don't know if you even need to put guilt into there. If sin, then death; it is what sin is after all. Guilt also can be useful however, in helping one recognize their sinful status. Although, 1 John 14-17 deals with the distinction that there is mortal sin and then there is non-mortal sin.

Therefore, instead of trying to perfect ourselves or make up for our sin in some kind of temporary way, we must confess it. (I John 1:8). No more hiding in darkness. No more struggling against ourselves. This is the key to peace, the key to being cleansed from all unrighteousness.

- Won’t argue that we need to seek forgiveness, but I think I should point out that he forgives our sins (I John 1:9), but it says nothing about removing the effects of the sin. In fact if you look at the whole of biblical history there is always a residual effect that comes from the sins we commit. Despite being forgiven for hoodwinking both the blessing and birthright that were rightly Esau's, Jacob still had the after effect of retaining both.

Also look at Romans 3:23. We all know this verse, it says that everyone has sinned. Everyone is precluded under damnation, initially. But how many people know about verses 21 and 22? That the righteousness of God is by faith.

-Yes, truly we are all precluded under damnation initially, because we enter into the family of the human race with all its inherent issues. The basic concept of Original sin. Why is a singular individual person not kept free from this? Not sure exactly, but I think it has a lot to do with the same reason we don’t get to choose what family we enter.

Now notice that this verse doesn't say, "salvation." It says, "righteousness." It doesn't say that righteousness is by the mystical body of Jesus. Or by a journey that perfects us. It says that righteousness can be ours, right this instant. And it is by faith.

- Truly, but what does it mean to have faith? Simply lip service? Jesus himself says, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” (John 15:14) Righteousness is by faith, but what else accompanies true faith?

Look at verse 24. We are justified freely. There is no cost to us. You can even check the Greek, if you want; there is a button on the left side of the verse (click on the blue "C").

-Truly, we are justified freely, that is to say there is no cost to us. Though I think you would agree that it is required that we ask for it. This is sort of a tangent but I am beginning to suspect that you completely misunderstand the concept of purgatory. It is a purging, not of sin but of the effects of sin. Forgiveness is one thing, expiation another.

-Random: When Jesus says ". . .will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) there is a strong implication an age to come. What's that age?

-I do however know that a warrior victorious will not go to the victory party without first cleaning up. "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). Additionally, Revelation 21:5 says “… Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” Essentially, Jesus wants us to be the best that we can be before we enter heaven, which is something Catholic teaching affirms. As for the time frame that purgatory has, that is unknown. It could be an instant, it could last until the last judgment, anything; we just don't know.

And verse 25 says that it is Jesus Christ himself (not His church) is the expiation, through faith in His blood. All of our sins are remitted when we put our faith in the blood that He shed as the ONLY just payment for our sin. And the conclusion? Read down through verse 28. It is faith, without any works of the law, that a man is righteous?

- Truly, Jesus died for all of our sins, and is the only payment for out sins. Did you finish reading Romans 3 though? Romans 3:31 is very key and if you skip that you will miss out and be left only with a shard of truth; “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” In faith the law is established. What is going on in Romans 3 is the expression of the removal of Circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Believers in Christ are no longer required to be first Jewish and then Christian. They can go straight to being Christians. I'm not sure where it would show up in the bible at this point but being born again through water and the spirit as necessary signs of faith is related to this.

-I have to say though that I don’t understand your extra emphasis on ONLY because Catholics believe that Jesus’ death is the perfect offering given once and eternally. Jesus' sacrifice is re-presented at every Mass in continuation of Jesus's command to "do this in memory of me" and by no means occurs again. It's the new sign of the New covenant.

But what about the 10 commandments? What about confession? What about communion? These things can never purify us. (Heb. 10:14, 10:11).

-Truly, no thing can purify us except Jesus. However, if you will, following of the 10 commandments is a natural sign of faith. It can be said that no one who commits adultery really has faith in Jesus Christ. For if he truly had faith, adultery would be anathema to him. The concept of freedom under the law. It is so completely natural for one with true faith in Christ that the law is nearly a moot point, you simply don’t need to be told that adultery is bad because you understand chastity is good.

-Next, does confession purify us or does Christ? The Catholic response is Jesus and Jesus through confession. We do not divorce the two. Confession is a sacrament which is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. No true Catholic believes that confession itself gives grace but that it necessarily does because Christ commanded it. I direct you to Matt 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” Check out the story right before that verse if you will. Why do you think that right after forgiving someone of their sins there would be the line “which has given such power unto men”. If you follow the syllogism out to it’s conclusion, then men must have the power to forgive sins and that power was given by Jesus and is in the name of Jesus. “In the name of”, of course, is a phrase we find in the Bible to refer to “in the real presence of and in the real authority of.” Man has no power except that which Jesus has bestowed upon him. Does this mean any man can give forgiveness? No, Jesus only gave the “binding and loosing” command to his Apostles, an apostolic succession that is retained only in the Catholic Church. Moreover, they only have the power through the Sacrament which again, is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

-Moving on to Communion, jeez you like to hit all the fun ones don’t you, what is Communion? The Catholic belief stems from Jesus’s own words “This is my Body” “This is my blood” among other verses. We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine; a concept we call transubstantiation. So, truly, communion if it were just bread and wine would have no purifying effect. However, no Catholic in their right mind believes that Jesus is anything less than truly present. Merely because the sacrament is inseparable from Christ is the reason it is powerful.

Instead, Jesus said that He will no longer remember our sins. (verse 17) . And the key is verse 18: "There is no more offering for sins." The idea that we can make some sort of offering for our sins is inconsistent with scripture. That's why we draw near, not with confession, not with our money, but with a full assurance of faith. What is sprinkled? The sprinkling of our hearts and the washing of our bodies here is metaphysical; it is something that Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, and can only be experienced through faith.

-Again we must have a major false dichotomy going on here or something. Sins and the effects of sins are two different things. I have no argument concerning our being washed clean. However, if you remember that confession to a Catholic is asking forgiveness of Jesus, it becomes hard to argue against it as it is a natural act of faith. Additionally, the Eucharist is not a new offering, but a fulfillment of the Covenant Jesus made with his disciples. For more clarification see the my previous comments on this.

And look what this passage says about priests. The high priest is Jesus Christ. Human priests have to stand daily and minister the same offerings over and over (verse 11). But this is unnecessary. Look at the role Jesus plays in our lives: verse 19, we enter into the holiest of holies by the blood of Jesus Christ, with full assurance. This is our key into a relationship with God: faith, and faith alone in Jesus Christ, who is identified in verse 20 as our High Priest.

-Now, I think you just lost the context entirely. Heb 10 is all about the old Covenant ways and how they break down and are fulfilled in the new covenant. Christ is the High Priest though, regardless of time. I would also have to again bring into question where you are drawing the word “alone” out of in order to modify faith. I simply don’t think that exclusivity was present in this chapter. "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Doing the will of the Father in Faith is something he commands.

The way into salvation and justification and purity and righteousness is a living way, Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me. (John 14:6)" Perhaps this is why Jesus said not to call anyone on earth "father," (Matt. 23:9).

-Truly Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Can’t argue there, but can I just skip the whole "call no man father" thing? No? Okay... Suffice to say, it can’t mean literally, call no man father. Why? Because there are many other instances where Jesus’ followers call someone “father” “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (James 2:21) Jesus’s words must have been directed at something other than the word father. I just haven’t hit on it yet. It might be the pride obtained from falsely proclaiming authority. I have to assume that God simply does not do nonsense.

I John 4:10 also says that it is Jesus Christ, Himself, that is the propitiation for our sins. There is nothing we can do, say, think or feel to be saved. Instead, it is all Christ. Christ alone is the savior, and anything else that we can depend on for salvation or justification will fail us.

- All mercy and grace comes from Christ. I have to wonder if my notions of Christians having an understanding of other religions was a misconception. Do you think Catholics depend on anything other than Christ? I am confused. I John 4:10 is an obvious reference to the fact that we cannot earn our way to heaven.

Look at I John 2:22-23. What is it to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ? It is to acknowledge Him as the sole benefactor, the only source of salvation. Anyone who denies the power and deity of Christ, and His power to completely and totally remit all sins by His death on the cross does not have the Father. Anyone who is not saved by faith and faith alone, anyone who thinks that anything other than Christ Himself is necessary for remission of sins, is not a child of God.

- Okay... okay.. I think I can agree with everything but the statement by “faith and faith alone” because by that you mean to imply that God only wants you to believe in him. Truly he does want only one's faith, but true faith is not simply blind faith. By no means does one earn their way to heaven but on the flip side of the coin “faith without works is dead”. It’s a symbiotic relationship, if you don’t have faith you don’t have works and if you don’t have Christ you don’t have the father. Though admittedly, you can say that one may have works without faith. However they truly don't even have works because the significance of those works is nothing, without Christ.

This might seem offensive, but the idea that, to be saved, you need to be in the Catholic church, is contrary to what it says here in I John 2. I John 5:12 makes is perfectly clear. You either have the Son, or you don't. You either have life, or you don't. There's nothing else to it. I may not be in the Catholic church, but I do have the Son. I have put my faith in His sacrifice. That's why I believe that I do, indeed, have life.

-To borrow your own words: this might seem offensive. Do you have the Son? What does it mean to have the Son? The Catholic belief is that there is no salvation outside the Church, but what is the Church? Even Catholicism will concede that only Jesus knows who will make it to heaven. The main issue here, as I understand it, is that Christians want dead certainty that they are saved and definitely are going to heaven. As if somehow the goal was heaven, nay the goal is Jesus. “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:22) Obedience is a necessary aspect of Faith. Truly we know not the hour nor the time but while we cannot be certain of our own personal attainment of heaven, we can be 100% secure in believing in God’s unending mercy.
- Secondly, you conjecture that “There’s nothing else to it” but that contradicts Jesus’s saying that “you are my friends if you keep my commands.” It all depends on what Jesus commanded.
-If you look at the end of Matthew at what is called “the great commission”, Jesus tells his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations”. What is interesting is that he said disciples and not, per say, followers. The difference between the two is discipline. What I was getting at exactly I kind of forgot, but suffice to say that discipline involves some sort of a set of parameters.

- Just to clarify the Catholic position: the Church is not an institution founded on mere men. No, God said He would send His Spirit to guide the apostles and they were guided to form a Church on Peter, the rock. Most of their activities that act as a model for the current church are in Acts of the Apostles.

And look at the next verse, I John 5:13-- "... that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." Your church doesn't want you to know whether or not you have eternal life until you die. Jesus Christ says that you can know right now. This verse is addressed to everyone who believes on the Son of God, and John wants them to know that they have eternal life.

- Please tell me you did not just say that. Do we know that we will be with Him simply because we believe? I John 5:13 is referencing what was just written throughout I John but what does I John say about certainty of Eternal life? I'll leave you to look through the book to disern that. However, the verse is addressed to “you that believe on the name of the Son of God.” That faith on the name is a necessary element but “faith without works is dead” and “you are my friend if you keep my commands”. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that if you follow that argument out to its conclusion, nothing short of offering everything you can offer will bring you to fulfillment by faith in Christ.

Jesus Himself said in John 5: 24, that if you accept His Word and believe on His Father, you will have eternal life. He didn't set out any other condition for righteousness. And we know that Jesus isn't a liar. If he says someone has eternal life, they have it. You can be certain. He also gets kind of rough with the Pharisees in verse 38. He says that they aren't children of God, because, if they were, they would believe in Jesus Christ instead of their dead legalistic traditions. He says, in verse 39, that we as men think the Scriptures are going to lead us to eternal life, but that it is these very Scriptures that testify of Jesus Himself. He was saying, in essence, "Here I am! The answer to all of your shortcomings, your sin, your failure. I'm standing right in front of you. But, `Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life.'"

-Actually, that is true but the condition that faith places on us is the truly excessive weight of glory. Why do you bring up verse 39, is that verse not contradictory for sola scriptura Christians who cling to scripture? Jesus was most certainly not talking about the New Testament scriptures at the time he said that but he was refering to what the Pharisees were not catching in the old testament that Jesus's presence was fulfilling.

Don't discredit Jesus Christ. Put your faith in Him now. Believe His promise that you can be saved from your sin and empowered to live a godly life. And don't just take my word for it. Read John 5, John 8, and Romans 3. Learn from Romans 8:12-17 how the Holy Spirit can give us a full assurance of life that starts now and never ends. It is not too good to be true. It's not arrogant to think that we can be perfected and know for sure what is going to happen to us when we die. It's what the Bible says, and I believe it.
And I believe that's what makes me a Christian

- I don’t discredit Jesus Christ, but perhaps I do not need to tell you that at this point. Thank your for the excellent sections of the Bible to read.

-I have, in case you hadn’t noticed, been reading them and much more of late, but in saying that I think I will inadvertently miscommunicate something. That is to say I do know the Bible way more than originally expected. Why? Because I go to Mass consistently and for a number of years went to daily Mass. What does that have to do with anything? Well, if you attend mass every day for two years you will have heard the entire bible. Every Sunday for three years will net the majority of scripture and from what I understand all of the New Testament.

-Whether I have physically sat down much in the past and read through the my personal Bible is another question because I really haven’t done enough of that by my own standards. I've read Lord of the Rings five times all the way through but I've only been through the Bible twice on my own. More often than not, I am disoriented as to locations of verses in the Bible but that’s really where modern conveniences like blueletterbible come in handy. As I have been doing more actual picking up and reading of my Bible, I am finding more and more how Bible-believing and Christo-centric the Catholic Church really is. I had this stupid misconception that somehow because Christians emphasized that they were Bible-believing that I somehow wasn’t. Quite the contrary, the prayers that I pray, as in the “Our Father” “Hail Mary” and “Glory Be”, are all found in scripture. Nearly every part of the Mass is from scripture. The "Sign of the Cross" is, for example, as simple testament to the fact that “we proclaim Christ crucified.” As a more hairy example, the "Hail Mary" is pulled mostly from Luke, but the key thing to note is how Christ is the central gravity of the prayer. Mary has no significance without Christ. Hail Mary, full of grace the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed in the fruit of thy womb JESUS, Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

- I need to say one more thing; I have to apologize for being so callous about faith in the past. I was raised to always understand my enemy so to speak. By studying other religions throughout high school, I was raised with a basic knowledge of what sets Catholicism apart from all the other belief systems of the world. This means that I’ve only recently been coming to the startling conclusion that people actually are often completely in the dark about what Catholics really believe.(Thanks Ray Guarendi and Fr. Kevin Fate) I tend to get stuck in that view because I don't perceive myself as totally in the dark about other religions. This means also that when you and I were talking religion often in the past, I for some reason was daft enough to believe we were both speaking under the same context when we really weren’t.

-Additionally, I am often quite facetious in the way I joke about the cliches that people hold about Christianity, Homeschoolers etc. Regrettably, I thought that the joke was that we, meaning whoever I was joking with, were laughing together at the stupidity of the joke with a mutual understanding of it as a falsehood. I’ve come to the conclusion that I have to be more vocal about what Catholicism is and what homeschooling is all about. Jokes and anecdotes(parables if you will) are the way people often truly express what they believe. By allowing myself to participate in erroneous jokes in the past, I fear that I have helped perpetuate or even create false beliefs or misconceptions about both Homeschoolers and Christ's church.

-Moreover, the basic issue comes down often to terminology we use to talk about faith. Too often Catholics get blindsided by questions like “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” That terminology is not natural to a Catholic, now if you to ask a Catholic “Do you believe that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead to become your Savior?” They should answer yes.

-Often I think that a Catholic basically believes very close to what he is being asked in the first question but because it is soooo basic, the question under the guise of new terminology is perceived as a trap. I know that was my initial reaction the first time I was asked that question. (edit: It is to a certain extent a trap actually, because while a Catholic can agree that Jesus died for our sins, and that we can pursue a personal relationship with him; we cannot presume to have knowledge of our own destination.)

-Eph 1:21-23 ".. and He has put all things under His feet and has made Him the head over all things for the church,which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." Christ as the head, the Church as the Body, this verse outlines the teaching of the mystical body of Christ.

-wow, if anyone actually reads this all the way to the end I will be amazed.

Go and Set the world on FIRE.

Indulgences　贖宥　しょくゆう

2008-01-08T21:45:00.000-08:00

This is the second version of this post due partially to my lack of research:

To start of with the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) defines an indulgence as

" An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, when the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and saints." CCC1471

Indulgences are the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment left by sins that have already been forgiven. They are by no means a free ticket into heaven nor are they free tickets to sin either. They come in many varieties; universal or local, perpetual or temporary, real or personal, plenary or partial. Often there is a number of days, months or years of time that a partial indulgence is said to cancel but "Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value."

Essentially, Indulgences represent a expiation the temporal punishment for a sin, but by no means do we have any clue how much is expiated. Ultimately, only God knows how much time we will have to spend in purgatory, or for that matter whether time truly applies in the afterlife.

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
"この方こそ、私達の罪、いや、私達の罪ばかりでなく全世界の罪を償ういけにえです。”ヨハネの手紙一　２：２

I admit that I could not read this entire verse in Japanese the first time I looked at it. "Tsugunau" is a word that means most nearly "atone" but could also be said to mean "to offer compensation for". Additionally, looking up propitiation and expiate I found fall into the category of synonyms for atone.

Language bits aside, John is basically saying that Jesus not only forgave our sins but is the sacrifice that can offer expiation for our sins as well. We as Catholics believe that the church is the mystical body of Christ and that flowing from that it only makes sense that the Church could offer not only forgives of sins but expiation as well. As a simple extension of Christ. The forgiveness of sins which is given in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the expiation following afterwards through indulgences(though not often indulged in. . .) or purgatory all revolve around John's words.

Go and set the world on fire!

Pilate　ピラト

2008-01-08T15:00:00.000-08:00

Today, I witnessed one friend willfully verbally debasing another friend of mine who was not present. Interestingly, he used the phrase “I wash my hands of it” in reference to his willingness to socially crucify the other. This phrase is modernly used as a way of denying responsibility. We as followers of Christ know that this saying has its origins in Scripture.

“And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man. Look you to it.” (Matt 27:24)

“ピラトは、それ以上言っても、無駄なばかりか、かえって騒動が起こりそうなのを見て、水を持って来させ、群衆の前で手を洗っていった。「この人の血について、わたしには責任がない。お前たちの問題だ」マタイ２７：２４

I just love translations. No. Actually, I am forever quibbling with the way things can be said or communicated. The way you say something with a certain level of impact in one culture cannot be said literally in another and have the same effect. For example the word for "letter"手紙, as in one you send to a friend, in Japanese is written in the same way the Chinese write the word for "toilet paper". For example, let’s take a closer look at the words “Look you to it” for I simply do not know exactly what this means in English. However, it evidently means something close to “It’s your problem” because that would be an approximate translation of the Japanese.

Essentially, Pontius Pilate is the epitomy of the good guy pagan. He is willing to help you so long as his neck is not on the line. As we see with the case here with Jesus and Pilate, Pilate could see that his tactics were not prevailing and that nothing more could be done or said to sway the crowds. In order to save this “just man” he would have to have stood up against the crowds and the pharisees, but courage would not come to him.

In the end, Pontius Pilate cracked under the pressures of the crowd. How often we too find ourselves unable to stand on our own two feet in opposition of the social crowd around us. He chose to wash his hands of the whole situation in a vain attempt to clear his own conscience. Through all of history, he is now fated to be remembered in the creed as the one whom Jesus suffered most under. “Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.”

Truly the story goes deeper. Following from Scripture into what the Fathers of the early church tell us, what goes around comes around. Tiberius Caeser had fallen ill and sent messengers to retrieve a physician from the area of Jerusalem. This Jesus, he had heard could cure with a mere touch. Pilate is greatly troubled by this news and sends the messenger back with a message concerning Jesus's death. Before the messenger returns however he encounters a woman by the name of Veronica who possesses a canvas with our lord's faith imprinted on it. She speaks with him and eventually travels with him to see Caeser who is cured upon seeing the imprinted face of Jesus.

Caeser's life is saved but Pilate's life is now in danger. Caeser calls Pilate to be tried for his crimes that nearly brought about his death. However, each time Caeser meets with Pilate his anger leaves him and cannot bring Pilate to trial. It says "Then, by a divine impulse, or perhaps by the advice of some Christians," he had Pilate stripped of his tunic and his fury returned. "It was told him that that tunic had belonged to the Lord Jesus." Pilate was tried and found guilty, but before the death sentence could be carried out he killed himself. Thus, one who took life's own life was taken.

The worst thing in the world is for good men to do nothing in response to the evil around them.

Go and set the World on Fire.

Chesterton on Charity 慈善

2008-01-07T20:11:00.000-08:00

Charity is a paradox....Stated baldy, charity means one of two things-pardoning unpardonable acts, or loving unlovable people. But if we ask ourselves... what a sensible pagan would feel about such a subject, we shall probably be beginning at the bottom of it. A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive, and some one couldn't: a slave who stole wine could be laughed at; a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed, and cursed even after he was killed. Insofar as the act was pardonable, the man was pardonable. That again is rational, even refreshing; but it is a dilution. It leaves no place for a horror of injustice.... And it leaves no place for a mere tenderness for men as men, such as is the whole fascination of the charitable . Christianity came in... startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal. The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. It was not enough that the slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly kindly. We must be much more angry with theft than before, and yet much kinder to thieves than before. There was room for wrath and love to run wild. ~ Orthodoxy

命 Inochi