As I was watching the movie "Dogma" yet again (hey, I've been sick, it's how I cope, OK?) I realized two things. The first thing is that I never noticed that the nun that Loki corrupts can be seen cavorting about in the background a few shots later on as Loki and Bartleby are leaving the airport. More importantly, I realized that despite hearing over and over about how Satan rose against God in heaven and how the Morning Star was thrown down to hell for his presumption and pride, I have never seen any real evidence of this in the Bible.
Hmmmmm.... now the TV evangelists go on and on about Satan. Ole' Slewfoot is just waiting to catch you with your faith down. Lucifer, the Morning Star, had a starring role in John Milton's "Paradise Lost", a very long poem that is on everyone's greatest classic books of all time. Most people have never read it. The Devil made me do it. Lucifer revolts against heaven and eventually, after losing the battle for paradise, he is cast out along with the angels who foolishly allied with him.
The trouble is, there just isn't a lot of basis for Satan's existence as a rebel angel. Certainly not in the according-to-Holyle tried and true King James Version or the New King James Version which I happen to have sitting here next to me. Yup, its time for fun with scriptures.
Before I torture anyone any further, I have to admit that my motivation for this little exercise is the basic problem I have with the biblical version of good-and-evil, or the lack thereof. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. "Then God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good." Genesis 1:31. "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." Genesis 3:1. Now the obvious question is: where the hell did the serpent come from? Did God make the serpent? Why is the serpent evil? If God created everything and it was good, where did the evil come from and why did God create the tree of knowledge and then stick it in the garden and tell the children he had created not to mess with it? Sorry, sorry, I digress.
Back to it, where did the serpent come from? Almost every tale I have ever heard tell about the tempting of Eve in the Garden by the serpent included the assumed fact that the serpent was Satan. I mean, Satan is all through the Bible, right? The entire story is based on the struggle between good and evil in the world, yes? Well, actually no.
There is the serpent, of course, in Genesis. But no mention of the serpent being Satan or the Devil or Lucifer until way at the end of the story, in Revelations. Just a serpent. Ok, there is a single mention of Lucifer in Isaiah 14, right after the Fall of the King of Babylon. The word "Lucifer" is from the latin. The latin of Saint Jerome, mostly, whose translation from previous latin translations and greek versions of the bible became the Vulgate. The Vulgate became the vesion of the Bible officially sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. The King James is based directly on that. Lucifer comes from latin for "light" and "to bear or bring". Light bringer, hence Morning Star.
Isaiah 14 starts with the fall of the King of Babylon, then verses 12-21 that deal with Lucifer and the back to the rest of the destruction of Babylon, Assyria and Phillistia being destroyed because this was the wrathful God. The problem with reading Lucifer as Satan as Devil into these passages is that the author of Isaiah is taunting the enemies of the Tribes of Israel. First he is taunting the downfall of Babylon, then a swift change to Lucifer, then back to Babylon. This is only in the King James Version and the New King James. It doesn't read well as a sudden history of Lucifer, but it is a nice taunt of the same King of Babylon.
The role of Satan as the God's tempter seems to be deserved. In the book of Job God 's sons (Job 1:6) assemble and Satan also. There is no mention of the fall of Satan or any rebellion. Satan is God's servant. He tempts Job per God's direction. We have to go all the way to the New Testament for the next mention of Satan, Matthew 12:26 when Jesus casts out demons and annoys the Pharisees and of course the temptation of Christ which is in all of Gospels save that of John. Satan, again, is God's tempter. Satan as the servant of God? There is lots of evidence for that scenario.
And lastly, as it should be, Revelations. This is where Jesus gives a prophecy of things to come through the Apostle John. Things to come. Prophecy. Revelations 12:9 does, indeed, describe the battle in heaven but it is a thing to come and to be rejoiced over. It does name Satan as "that serpent of old" which could be revisionist or it could just be Satan in his normal role as God's tempter, his old left-hand-man. And in 20:1 Satan is bound for a thousand years. This is a prophecy.
So I am left without a justification for a heavenly battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. If all was the void and in the beginning was the word, who created evil? Who created Satan? Was Satan's job, all along, to tempt human beings and then report back to God on if they passed the test. If we humans were not supposed to have free will, why put the tree and the serpent in the garden to begin with. Why not just stick with the void and save a whole lot of trouble.
Be careful if you trot out the notion of a dualistic deity. That one will get you burned to a crisp.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Day # 169 No Reason
I have maintained the news boycott almost half of a year. Regardless, some things quickly become known without the benefit of the news media.
According to President Obama, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Within hours of the event I had heard about it by means of an email from a friend.
I gather that there is celebrating occurring in some quarters. I cannot imagine why. The world will not be a safer place tomorrow because of this. Regardless of how justifiable it might seem, the government sanctioned killing of anyone should be cause for sombre assessment, not celebration.
Whether you believe that war is terror or that the USA is at war with terror, nothing will be fundamentally change because of the death of one individual. Osama Bin Laden alive was a bogey man that the advocates of the war on terror could hold up as an object of fear and hatred. Now others can hold up the same man as a martyr to their cause. Live bogey man or dead martyr, either is just a focal point to deflect from the larger events of a collision of cultures.
While I do not mourn this man's death I find not reason to celebrate it.
According to President Obama, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Within hours of the event I had heard about it by means of an email from a friend.
I gather that there is celebrating occurring in some quarters. I cannot imagine why. The world will not be a safer place tomorrow because of this. Regardless of how justifiable it might seem, the government sanctioned killing of anyone should be cause for sombre assessment, not celebration.
Whether you believe that war is terror or that the USA is at war with terror, nothing will be fundamentally change because of the death of one individual. Osama Bin Laden alive was a bogey man that the advocates of the war on terror could hold up as an object of fear and hatred. Now others can hold up the same man as a martyr to their cause. Live bogey man or dead martyr, either is just a focal point to deflect from the larger events of a collision of cultures.
While I do not mourn this man's death I find not reason to celebrate it.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Day # 168 Tribes
The English language is a funny thing. Ask Professor Higgins.
"There even are places where English completely disappears.
In America they haven't used it in years."
Somewhere in the course of the evolution of our mother tongue, some person or persons had to decide what to call groups of things. Bananas, when finally encountered in the plural, were bunches. Shoes, for the well-to-do what could afford, them came in pairs and donuts were by the baker's dozen.
Groupings of our non-human friends created all sorts of opportunities for naming and that opportunity was not missed.
Some groupings of the members of the animal kingdom seem less than imaginative, perhaps only by dint of common usage. A pack of dogs is nothing out of the ordinary, nor is a school of fishes, regardless of their subject matter. Herds of ungulate mammals do not raise an eyebrow and a gaggle of geese is quite common, especially here in the GreyNorWet where the Canadian geese have long since ceased to migrate and wander about in said gaggles hissing and pooping in every public park.
Pause, however, to consider that a group of gorillas, upland or lowland, are called a band. There is also a band called the Gorrillaz. A group of giraffes, should you be lucky enough to see one, are properly referred to as a tower and, of course, a bunch of whales in the same bit of ocean are called a pod. A band I understand and a tower is evocative but I think that a pod is reaching somewhat. What do peas and cetaceans have in common?
When you gather a group of goats together you have a tribe, complete with the bearded elders and thousands of bats add up to a colony (and tons of guano). Should one be successful in an attempt to herd cats one would have a clouder, which has to be theoretical for the most part.
If you pass under a tree full of crows, a not uncommon occurrence hereabouts, you will have just seen, and likely heard, a murder. The etymology of the term "murder of crows" is something of a debated item which you can research yourself but the term is still the correct one.
Yet when faced with a group of porcupines, our language creating forebears came to perhaps their finest hour. In their wisdom they forever after dubbed a grouping of porcupines to be a "prickle". This wondrous bit of linguistic charm would allow one to say "My God Bob, look out for the prickle of that porcupine!" or, alternatively, "My God Bob, look out for the prickle of porcupines!" and to be equally correct in doing so.
"But use proper English and you're regarded as a freak...."
There, there Professor. It will all be fine and you will get the girl in the last act.
"There even are places where English completely disappears.
In America they haven't used it in years."
Somewhere in the course of the evolution of our mother tongue, some person or persons had to decide what to call groups of things. Bananas, when finally encountered in the plural, were bunches. Shoes, for the well-to-do what could afford, them came in pairs and donuts were by the baker's dozen.
Groupings of our non-human friends created all sorts of opportunities for naming and that opportunity was not missed.
Some groupings of the members of the animal kingdom seem less than imaginative, perhaps only by dint of common usage. A pack of dogs is nothing out of the ordinary, nor is a school of fishes, regardless of their subject matter. Herds of ungulate mammals do not raise an eyebrow and a gaggle of geese is quite common, especially here in the GreyNorWet where the Canadian geese have long since ceased to migrate and wander about in said gaggles hissing and pooping in every public park.
Pause, however, to consider that a group of gorillas, upland or lowland, are called a band. There is also a band called the Gorrillaz. A group of giraffes, should you be lucky enough to see one, are properly referred to as a tower and, of course, a bunch of whales in the same bit of ocean are called a pod. A band I understand and a tower is evocative but I think that a pod is reaching somewhat. What do peas and cetaceans have in common?
When you gather a group of goats together you have a tribe, complete with the bearded elders and thousands of bats add up to a colony (and tons of guano). Should one be successful in an attempt to herd cats one would have a clouder, which has to be theoretical for the most part.
If you pass under a tree full of crows, a not uncommon occurrence hereabouts, you will have just seen, and likely heard, a murder. The etymology of the term "murder of crows" is something of a debated item which you can research yourself but the term is still the correct one.
Yet when faced with a group of porcupines, our language creating forebears came to perhaps their finest hour. In their wisdom they forever after dubbed a grouping of porcupines to be a "prickle". This wondrous bit of linguistic charm would allow one to say "My God Bob, look out for the prickle of that porcupine!" or, alternatively, "My God Bob, look out for the prickle of porcupines!" and to be equally correct in doing so.
"But use proper English and you're regarded as a freak...."
There, there Professor. It will all be fine and you will get the girl in the last act.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Day # 166 The Envelope
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh Frabjous day, Callooh! Calley!
And I shall chortle in my joy. The genetic envelope arrives this evening and will, once greeted, utter his favorite phrase: "Food!" And we shall feed him, for to do otherwise would be to deny his raison de etre. He being an almost six foot three inch tall teenage boy this side of sixteen years of age, his two sole occupations in this world that I care to know about are eating and growing.
Of course, a time we will have. Perhaps not at Pacific Raceways. No matter that this is where I am supposed to be this weekend. The microbes have robbed me of half of my brain and as such I may not be a benefit to the sport of motorcycle road-racing. Consequently The Kid may be relieved of his Pit Bob duties. We shall see, but a time we will have nonetheless.
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson saw publication of his book "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There" in 1872. At the time it probably did not occur to him that one of the words he coined, the word "chortle", would live on and become a part of the English language. Other words used in the poem "Jabberwocky" were not so lucky and today one seldom hears "vorpal" or "brilllig" or even "frumious". I suppose having even a single made-up word survive and become a part of the mother tongue is no small achievement.
While today the only thing that The Kid goes galumphing after are victuals, he certainly understands the adjective "beamish" although generally not without an eye-roll when he hears the word directed at himself.
In the meantime it is my strongly held opinion that the sooner we promote the wide-spread use of the word frabjous the better and happier a world it will be.
Callooh! Calley!
Oh Frabjous day, Callooh! Calley!
And I shall chortle in my joy. The genetic envelope arrives this evening and will, once greeted, utter his favorite phrase: "Food!" And we shall feed him, for to do otherwise would be to deny his raison de etre. He being an almost six foot three inch tall teenage boy this side of sixteen years of age, his two sole occupations in this world that I care to know about are eating and growing.
Of course, a time we will have. Perhaps not at Pacific Raceways. No matter that this is where I am supposed to be this weekend. The microbes have robbed me of half of my brain and as such I may not be a benefit to the sport of motorcycle road-racing. Consequently The Kid may be relieved of his Pit Bob duties. We shall see, but a time we will have nonetheless.
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson saw publication of his book "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There" in 1872. At the time it probably did not occur to him that one of the words he coined, the word "chortle", would live on and become a part of the English language. Other words used in the poem "Jabberwocky" were not so lucky and today one seldom hears "vorpal" or "brilllig" or even "frumious". I suppose having even a single made-up word survive and become a part of the mother tongue is no small achievement.
While today the only thing that The Kid goes galumphing after are victuals, he certainly understands the adjective "beamish" although generally not without an eye-roll when he hears the word directed at himself.
In the meantime it is my strongly held opinion that the sooner we promote the wide-spread use of the word frabjous the better and happier a world it will be.
Callooh! Calley!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Day # 165 Gore
OK, in my defense, I am delerious, my brain and body taken captive by tiny microbes bent on my complete destruction. The little bastards have forgotten that if they kill the host, they die too!!!
Ok, ok, blog already:
In the early 1960's, Truman Capote had a famous rivalry with Gore Vidal. What the prize was, no one has ever surmised.
In 1968 Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley (the "F" stands for Frank, by the way) were asked to provide political commentary during the party conventions of that election year. During the commentary things got a little heated after Gore referred to Bill as a "Nazi" and Bill got pissy and called Gore a "Queer". Fair enough on both counts.
In 1968 Allen Ginsberg sings "Hare Krishna" to Bill on Firing Line.
In 1969, on the air, William F. famously offers to punch Noam Chomsky in his "goddamed face" if he doesn't behave. Conservativism in action I suppose.
1971 finds Gore Vidal, Janet Flanner and Norman Mailer on the Dick Cavett show. It ends up with the crowd cheering for Vidal, Cavett and Flanner versus a somewhat inebriated and pugnacious Norman Mailer. (I used to love the Cavett show!! His interview with David Bowie is like a collision of two worlds, oh, but I digress.)
If we take this as a full circle conflict does this mean that Norman Mailer had a crush on Truman Capote? Or, when Allen Ginsberg is chanting "Hare Krishna" to Bill Buckley on Firing Line, is it actually some sort of mating ritual?
Or were these all just folks with amazing, dangerous minds, capable of conducting discourse on a level we can only regard as endangered? Well, Norman was dangerous a lot but that's a different story. Discourse and content, even if they were calling each other names. All of them gone now but Mr. Cavett. Oh well, I guess I'm stuck with 2011 and the Tea Party folks touting "Atlas Shrugged"
Damn. The microbes are staging a counter-attack. I am going to retaliate with my Toshiro Mifune face!!!
Run you little bastards!!!
Ok, ok, blog already:
In the early 1960's, Truman Capote had a famous rivalry with Gore Vidal. What the prize was, no one has ever surmised.
In 1968 Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley (the "F" stands for Frank, by the way) were asked to provide political commentary during the party conventions of that election year. During the commentary things got a little heated after Gore referred to Bill as a "Nazi" and Bill got pissy and called Gore a "Queer". Fair enough on both counts.
In 1968 Allen Ginsberg sings "Hare Krishna" to Bill on Firing Line.
In 1969, on the air, William F. famously offers to punch Noam Chomsky in his "goddamed face" if he doesn't behave. Conservativism in action I suppose.
1971 finds Gore Vidal, Janet Flanner and Norman Mailer on the Dick Cavett show. It ends up with the crowd cheering for Vidal, Cavett and Flanner versus a somewhat inebriated and pugnacious Norman Mailer. (I used to love the Cavett show!! His interview with David Bowie is like a collision of two worlds, oh, but I digress.)
If we take this as a full circle conflict does this mean that Norman Mailer had a crush on Truman Capote? Or, when Allen Ginsberg is chanting "Hare Krishna" to Bill Buckley on Firing Line, is it actually some sort of mating ritual?
Or were these all just folks with amazing, dangerous minds, capable of conducting discourse on a level we can only regard as endangered? Well, Norman was dangerous a lot but that's a different story. Discourse and content, even if they were calling each other names. All of them gone now but Mr. Cavett. Oh well, I guess I'm stuck with 2011 and the Tea Party folks touting "Atlas Shrugged"
Damn. The microbes are staging a counter-attack. I am going to retaliate with my Toshiro Mifune face!!!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Day # 164 Treatment
There is only one thing to do when I am this sick: poison the little microbes that are doing this to me. Make them pay!! I do this by pouring the hottest chilies down my gullet that I can stand.
Picture Ash in the immortal classic "Army of Darkness" when he pours a kettle of boiling water down his throat to kill one of the little Ash clones: "Ok, little fella, how bout some hot chocolate, huh?!?"
Ash, my one true hero, I think I'm going to die. Where is that 5-star curry stand?
Picture Ash in the immortal classic "Army of Darkness" when he pours a kettle of boiling water down his throat to kill one of the little Ash clones: "Ok, little fella, how bout some hot chocolate, huh?!?"
Ash, my one true hero, I think I'm going to die. Where is that 5-star curry stand?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Day # 161 PEEPS!!!
First off, let me come clean and say that I am sick and staying at home and inside during one of the only sunny spring days we have had so far this year. If you were expecting insightful commentary from me, well, on virtually any day that would make you delusional, but particularly so today. I am not even going to be able to work up a good rant. So, given the circumstances, I am going to go all heavy-weight and talk about something of dreadful importance to us all: PEEPS!!
Peeps are one of those things that sound really good until you actually bite into one. Just like donuts, they are a great concept and a horrid reality. Sort of like shellac for one's mouth. While I will tear apart cake and pie with gluttonous glee, Peeps just aren't my thing. But regardless of whether you hate the little bunnies and chicks, love them, or just want to buy a big ole 16-pack to do horrible things to them, its good to know that the little marshmellow critters come in green, blue, lavendar, orange, pink or yellow. If you are really daring you can get them in dark or milk chocolate and even chocolate mousse.
Peeps have become a cultural phenomenon. I do not believe that I have ever eaten an entire peep, at least not since I've been sober, but each year I love the peep photos that are churned out in response to newspaper and online contests. And for good times there is nothing like micro-waving a nice grouping of peeps into twisted alien blobs from hell.
If you like a cleaner ending for your peep, here is what happens when you shoot one with a pellet gun:
Pretty Cool, huh?
According to the website for the makers of Peeps, "In 1953, it took 27 hours to create one PEEPS® Marshmallow Chick. Today, thanks to advances in technology, it takes six minutes." Good thing too, what with all of the Peeps getting shot and made into dioramas and whatnot.
The popularity of the marshmallow critters should not be underestimated. Again, says the website: "Just Born produces enough PEEPS® Brand Marshmallow Candies in one year to circle the earth twice." That is a 50,000 mile long Peeps conga line. Who wouldn't love that?
If you are a more vertically oriented human being, this might be of greater interest: "If you had 8,000 PEEPS® bunnies, and you stood them in a straight vertical line, you could reach the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago." Before you try this I would recommend having a large supply of toothpicks on hand to lend structural stability to your peeps tower. Also, alternating colours will give it a pleasing visual aspect.
The true joy of Peeps, however, is their amazing ability to make a political statement. My favorite in the last few years is the image that I will leave you with, Wide-Stance Peep, in honour of the I-am-not-gay ex-Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig.
This one's the Peep
This one's the Perp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)