Write - Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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...

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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