|
|
|
August 18, 2008 - Monday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
I do not like the song, "Have you seen Jesus, my Lord?" I do not like it. You could put me into Dr. Seuss's book with Mr. Sam-I-Am himself and the book would play out the same way except at the end I'd hear the song yet again and would still not like it.
I think it uses poor structure and poor imagery, and I'm sad it did this without using scripture. That's not to say that one can't write a good song without scripture, but why would one write a bad song when one can use scripture as inspiration? Instead, the song song pieces together random thoughts so that it functions more as a travel brochure than a song. I'm also not a fan of Jesus being referred to as an "it." This song does not appeal to me musically, nor lyrically, nor prosaically, nor scripturally, nor spiritually.
However, while I've complained about this song in the past, I am not one to post this type of rant online without proposing a solution. Thus, I have rewritten the song. The largest difference is the approach; that is, I actually took my examples from scripture (ooh, ahh).
Have you seen Jesus, my Lord? 2 Kings 6.8-23; Mark 9.2-8; Mark 15.33-39; Acts 17.16-34
(chorus) Have you seen Jesus, my Lord? He's here in plain view. Trust in Him to open your eyes, For He'll be revealed to you.
Have you ever stood on the mountain With mighty foes all around? Seen the hills filled with His army? Then I say you've seen my Savior, my Lord.
(chorus)
Have you ever stood on the mountain With a man's clothes dazzling white? Heard the Lord say "This is my Son!"? Then I say you've seen my Savior, my Lord.
(chorus)
Have you ever stood on the mountain With a man hanging in pain? Seen the way He breathed his last? Then I say you've seen my Savior, my Lord.
(chorus)
Have you ever stood on the mountain With idols built all around? Seen the Word burn through them like fire? Then I say you've seen my Savior, my Lord.
(chorus)
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
July 23, 2008 - Wednesday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Jesus, our Lord, ascend thy throne, And near the Father sit; In Zion shall thy power be known, And make thy foes submit.
What wonders shall thy gospel do! Thy converts shall surpass The num'rous drops of morning dew, And own thy sov'reign grace.
God hath pronounced a firm decree, Nor changes what he swore: "Eternal shall they priesthood be, When Aaron is no more.
"Melchizedek, that wondrous priest, That king of high degree, That holy man who Abraham bless'd, Was but a type of thee."
Jesus our Priest forever lives To plead for us above; Jesus our King for ever gives The blessings of his love.
God shall exalt his glorious head, And his high throne maintain; Shall strike the powers and princes dead Who dare oppose his reign.
--Isaac Watts
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
July 19, 2008 - Saturday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
10.) Darth Bane 9.) Darth Nihl 8.) Darth Taral 7.) Darth Plagueis 6.) Darth Sidious 5.) Darth Nihilus 4.) Darth Kruhl 3.) Darth Ruyn 2.) Darth Stryfe 1.) Darth Tyranus
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
July 16, 2008 - Wednesday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Believe Be Good, Lest Ye be Damned
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, 09/11/1930
A Christian takes objection with this statement, of course. We believe that morality flows from God himself, so naturally a religious basis is necessary. However, that man should not "be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death" fits in perfectly with Christian theology. The Christian agrees entirely with the second half of Einstein's statement.
There is a theme in the New Testament from its beginning to its end that salvation is faith-based. It cannot be secured by works, only by faith and that through the grace of God. We are saved not because of what we do but because of what Christ did. We know that we are helpless, and by putting our hope in Christ we know that eternal life is ours.
However, that also means that if we do not gain our salvation by works that we do not lose it by works. The claim that we lose our salvation by works is also a common theme, but one certainly not found in scripture. I'm not sure if I've heard this idea more often from nonbelievers, as implied in Einstein's words, or from my brothers, but I'm sure I've heard it far too often.
Paul spends the first three chapters of Romans showing that we are all sinful. Showing that we cannot be good, he instead offers the example of Abraham in chapter four—Abraham who was saved by faith. Chapter five contrasts the example of Christ—salvation by faith—and the example of Adam—lost in works. With chapter six we are shown what our response to salvation is:
Well then, since God's grace has set us free from the law, does that mean we can go on sinning? Of course not! Don't you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living. Thank God! Once you were slaves of sin, but now you wholeheartedly obey this teaching we have given you. Now you are free from your slavery to sin, and you have become slaves to righteous living.
Romans 6.15-18 NLT We do not do our good works so that we can get into heaven. Works have nothing to do with becoming saved and it has nothing to do with remaining in that state. It is very, very important that we be like Christ in every manner, but that is not of salvation. It is because we have been saved, because we belong to God, that we find we cannot help but follow him. As Jesus said, "Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit." (John 15.5b NRSV) Good works follow from salvation. The situation is never reversed. We do not do good works because we are afraid of losing our salvation, we do good works because it is our delight to be about our father's business. Surely, "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 29, 2008 - Thursday
 |
Category: News and Politics
...and neither is McCain.
Jesus is our only hope! This is why the Church must rise up and preach Christ. Enough with this false gospel of self appeasement. Enough of this gospel of health and wealth. Enough of this gospel that our hope lies in Washington, D.C. or in who controls Congress. Enough of trying to place our faith in the schemes of men. Enough of this placing our faith in the false teachings and practices of those who call us away from the one true Jesus to the false Jesus of our own makings.
For the true Christian my hope lies in Jesus alone. In eternity it will not matter where I lived on earth nor who was my leader on earth but what will matter is the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 6:15). Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ alone is Lord of all (Philippians 2:5-11). Jesus alone is man's hope and He alone can set us free (John 8:31-36). Man is searching for salvation in all the wrong places when salvation is found only in Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-6) and without Jesus we have no hope of eternal life (Hebrews 9:27-28).
Full Article
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 9, 2008 - Friday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Warning: spoilers follow Warning: philosophy follows
I have just returned from watching Iron Man. It was a good show and an excellent way to kill an afternoon.
Iron Man gives us the tale of Tony Stark. When we are introduced to him, he's everything every man could want and to the fullest extent he is living the American dream. He has unlimited cash, unlimited resources, unlimited ability, and unlimited women. Oh does he have unlimited women. All of these are made available to him as he is the head of Stark Industries, a weapons manufacturing company.
We meet Stark as he is giving a demonstration of his latest weapon, which was freakin' awesome. Unfortunately, they come under attack and he is captured by the enemy. Taken to a cave, the enemy inform Stark that they want him to build for them that same weapon to use against the Americans. Stark is conflicted. There comes a point where Stark is taken out of the cave and has a blindfold removed making him momentarily blinded by the sun. This none too subtle allusion to the Allegory of the Cave is made complete when Stark sees that the weapons of his enemy are the weapons that his company made. His weapons being used against himself, he takes what they rightfully stole by putting together a makeshift Iron Man suit. It's not pretty, but he escapes.
He takes a break from his company--or rather, he has his company take a break from the world--and pieces together a better suit. Frustrated that his weapons are being sold to America's enemies under the table, he seeks to destroy the illegal weapons for the betterment of his country and for the civilians of other countries that are being terrorized by war lords who possess them. This goes well until his prototype falls into the wrong hands.
Stark was wounded in the attack at the beginning of the movie and has shrapnel fragments remaining in his body. Over time--no more than a week--they would work their way into his vital organs. To prevent this, he has a magnet, and later his "Ark Reactor," which acts as the same thing, keeping the pieces away from important parts. This same reactor powers the Iron Man suit. When the Iron Man prototype falls into the wrong hands--one of Stark's most trusted personnel--the impersonator cannot replicate the reactor. Instead, he goes to Stark and rips the Ark Reactor from his chest. The reactor keeps the shrapnel from Stark's heart so his foe is quite literally holding his heart in front of him as Stark begins to go into arrest. In addition, since the reactor powers the suit that Stark has used to fix his company's failings, his heart is also quite figuratively being held in front of him. Awesome scene.
Of course, a dualistic mega-battle begins between Stark who uses the Iron Man technology for good and his foe who will use it for evil. Of course, good prevails. But herein lies the rub.
The film presents a rebirth of modernism; that is, that humanity, through technology, will overcome all problems. Modernism has been popular for several centuries, but has degenerated into everything that Stark is at the beginning of the movie as he parades around having a good time gambling, drinking, and enjoying himself with women. He's self-centered and self-glorifying. His awakening at the cave reverses the trend. He represents a kinder, though no gentler, America: we'll still police the world, we'll just do a better job of it.
The movie was great, but that sub-theme is common and brings a point to be addressed: no form of modernism will ever work. Iron Man's solution to the problem--that of him solving the problem for the rest of us--works great as long as only he possesses the suit and as long as he remains good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who watches the watchmen? This all seems so reminiscent of Moore's Watchmen when, with all things said and done, Adrian asks Dr. Manhattan if he did the right thing since everything worked out in the end. Dr. Manhattan's answer is just as applicable here, "'In the end'? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."
19th century optimism about mankind will always lead to 20th century disappointment, whether it destroys 180 million people as it did before or whether it takes a new form with new, untold atrocities. Things may go well for Tony Stark, but it will only be a matter of time before the weapon is turned around or made irrelevant by a bad guy's new super weapon.
Salvation cannot come from man.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 6, 2008 - Tuesday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
I ran the register today at the Christian bookstore where I work. A young man was leaving, but before he did he asked me some of the differences between the New King James version and the English Standard Version. To the statement, "Is there that big of a difference?" another customer jumped in and started preaching the gospel of King James--that being that only the King James Version is correct and that all modern versions corrupt the Bible. I wanted to stop the man for two reasons. First, that sort of talk is absolutely not allowed in our business as we believe it is antithetical to the gospel message. Secondly, I didn't want the young man to be swayed. Unfortunately, I phrased my "stop it" statement wrong and it allowed the older gentleman to plow through me with his "facts." The tactic used by the King James Onlies is to overwhelm their opponents with things that may or may not be true, but are so over the head of the opponent that the conversation cannot be reached. This is the fallacy of Argument by Question. For the interest of the greater good, I employed a fallacy of my own: appeal to authority; that is, I nonchalantly got a manager's attention and she moved them outside. It was at this point I decided to write this blog. The King James is allegedly the only correct version because all modern translations "cut out" portions of scripture. These verses talk about the Trinity and other important topics. In truth, the modern translations have tried to cut out as much of what has been added to scripture over the years as possible. However, the defense of these doctrines are not dependent on those handful of verses and can still be found in the NIV or ESV or any other translation. This, however, is not the point of this blog. In contrast to the King James Only tactic, I re-offer Suz Tzu's: So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
Whenever you are presented with something as weird as the KJOs, simply ask, "Why?" Why would the NIV cut out all these verses? Why is the church so blind to these missing verses? If the verses were never part of scripture, they have no place in the Bible. If the verses are part of scripture, why were they taken out? Are the modern translations trying to destroy God's Word? Why are they taking out "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen" and not touching things like God created the world (note: that isn't a Genesis 1 thing, this is talked about in the majority of the books of the Bible) or the Resurrection? If these guys are trying to destroy the Bible, they are doing a very poor job of it. When presented with oddities, always question. See it from the opposite point of view. The rest of the story: The young man came back and told me that he agreed with me that translation preference is a matter of opinion. He just wanted to hear what the older gentleman had to say to better understand his side. Once again, I had already decided to write about this, how much more so now? In addition, the young man pointed out that the older gentleman quoted a passage, but certainly did not preach it. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. Eph. 4.14-16
The man was so adamant and forceful that he was far from speaking the truth in love. I was in awe at this dual-natured man: a person with a level head, capable of rational thought, and yet still concerned with love for his brothers. The kingdom of God grows by grace and through those such as these.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
April 10, 2008 - Thursday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Duel of the Fates Dualism in Star Wars By J.D. Partlow At first glance, the Star Wars universe is as unambiguous as we could ask for: good guys verses bad guys; a classic battle of fates in a dualistic universe. However, the conflict runs much deeper than that. The various sides often misrepresent themselves and more often misrepresent their opposite. It is the purpose of this paper to bring to light some of the more ambiguous truths, presented from a certain point of view, of the Star Wars universe. To do so, we will primarily use the movies and very seldom use the expanded universe, as it is the belief of the author that it holds very little authority. I. The Politics of Star Wars When we first are introduced to Star Wars, we are immediately given clues as for whom we are rooting. Darth Vader, dressed in black, confronts the beautiful Princess Leia adorned in white. We are shown the brutality of the Empire as it goes about administrating a painful truth drug to the princess, we hear that the princess is scheduled for extermination, we see Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru burned to a crisp, and we watch the entire planet of Alderaan being destroyed. However, none of these acts are considered extreme by standards of our own earthly governments. Truth drugs are commonplace. Execution of traitors is expected. So also are Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru traitors in aiding the rebellion by hiding Luke. Finally, while the destruction of Alderaan may seem reckless, it was one of the main bases of the rebellion. Princess Leia does inform us that Alderaan is peaceful and has no weapons, but every other statement made by the princess has been a lie. The destruction of Alderaan is no more terrible than the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc. These acts may not have been right—it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the morality of war—but they were certainly in keeping with human behavior. In contrast to the Empire, we are presented the Rebel Alliance. However, for all the time we spend with our heroes, we are never presented with any sort of political philosophy. Abstracts aside, we are not given any concrete ideas on what government will be laid in place of the Empire. The Rebel Alliance does not so much stand for anything so much as it stands against the Empire; that is its only purpose. The rub is this: the Senate was dissolved early in Episode IV. All power was the Emperor’s. The next link in the chain of command was regional governors. By destroying the Emperor in Episode VI, these governors became answerable to no one and found themselves with their own stockpiles of armaments. In achieving their goal of destroying the Empire, the Rebel Alliance condemned the Galaxy to war without end. This is in contrast to the Empire. While the rebels may not have any idea what they are trying to accomplish, the Empire’s goals are quite clear. "Peace. Order. Stability." The Empire never strays from this refrain. In destroying the Empire, the rebels succeeded in destroying its goals by sending the galaxy into chaos. It is difficult to see this any differently: the Empire stands for order; the Rebel Alliance stands for chaos. If we backtrack twenty to thirty years, the story is not much different. In the struggle between the Republic and the Separatists, the latter seem have better motivations. In fact, we are never given a reason why the Separatists must be stopped other than the fact that they simply must be stopped. While we could ponder the oxymoron of coerced democracy, we realize that this move by the Republic is expected as democracy has very little to do with how the government is run. We are allowed to see how it is run through the eyes of Padmé, Jar-Jar Binks, Palpatine, and even Anakin. The three of those who can actually think each see this governmental system as being massively inefficient and ineffectual. They all see the unfortunate truth that the bureaucrats are in charge and that greed and corruption rule the day. The ideals of the Separatists are small government, free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Those are the exact ideals of democracy as the Republic trumpets it. Obi-Wan can declare "my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!" but we know that he is loyal to the former to the extent that he is willing to sacrifice the latter. Instead, we have Padmé who correctly begins to question which side is the correct side. It is unfortunate that she is ignored in her wonderings. II. Religion in Star Wars Again, the Jedi are the heroes of our story and the Sith are the evildoers. Again, there is little evidence to support this. For all the propaganda of the evil nature of the Sith, the way we actually see them act we might surmise that "Sith" is a mistranslation from Basic and should instead have meant "Stoic." For all we hear about the Jedi’s "compassion," however, we seldom are graced to see that attribute. A list of confrontations and their outcomes: Victor Loser Outcome Darth Maul Qui-Gon Jinn One blow to the chest Darth Tyranus Anakin & Obi-Wan Anakin loses a hand Darth Sidious Kit Fisto, Agen Kolar, Saesee Tiin One blow to each Darth Sidious Mace Windu Blown away Darth Vader Younglings One blow to each Darth Vader Separatists on Mustafar One blow to each Darth Vader Luke Luke loses a hand Obi-Wan Darth Maul Sliced in half Anakin Sand People Genocide Mace Windu Jango Fett Decapitation Anakin Darth Tyranus Both hands lost and decapitated Obi-Wan General Grievious Torn apart and incinerated Mace Windu Darth Sidious Cornered, but interrupted Anakin Mace Windu Mace Windu loses a hand Yoda Clone Troopers Both decapitated Obi-Wan Anakin Lost other hand, both legs, incinerated Obi-Wan Creepy Mos Eisley guy Lost arm—no cauterizing Luke Darth Vader Vader loses a hand, again Darth Vader Darth Sidious Blown away We can see that both sides are brutal, but at least the Sith tend to keep their foes intact. If you go into battle against a Jedi, there is a greater than even chance that part of your body will be separated from the rest. From this list we can also see that the Sith are usually quite Stoic even in their battles with the exception of Darth Vader. It should be noted that in Episode III, the "death" of Anakin is paralleled with the death of Padmé. Similarly, the birth of Darth Vader is not complete until the birth of Luke and Leia, which is also paralleled in the movie. The brutality of Vader in Episode III as seen against the younglings and on Mustafar against the Separatists and even against his own wife—the same brutality we see Anakin use in his genocide on Tatootine—is never seen again after Anakin "dies" and is fully transformed into Darth Vader. Thus, quite curiously, turning to the Sith actually made Anakin less evil. In the Star Wars universe, there is such a thing as Force Rage. It does exactly what one would think it does: one uses ones anger as fuel in a battle. By definition, this is a dark side power. We see this used against Darth Maul by Obi-Wan, which is why the padawan was able to win where the master failed. Anakin used it when he when on his genocidal rampage. He used it again to gain the upper hand against Tyranus in the Battle of Coruscant. The last time we see it used is at the Battle of Endor when Luke unleashes everything against his father. This "dark side" power is used exclusively by the Jedi. What of anger itself? We see that Anakin and Luke have bouts of rage, but we also see these bouts in Mace Windu and Yoda while they battle Sith lords. The Sith are shown to be true to their Stoic ways. Master Yoda informs us that "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Indeed, for fear, anger, hate, and suffering are common in our Jedi heroes. None of these attributes are found in the Sith. The Sith neither fear, nor express anger, nor hate, nor suffer (save for a brief moment when Darth Vader learns of the death of his wife (which itself could be seen as the final breath, so to speak, of Anakin)). The reason why we, the viewers, are averse to the Sith is because of the lack of emotion and passion they have as they go along their business. The Sith cannot both be emotionless automatons and also the embodiment of anger, hate, etc. This consistency is almost enough for us to wonder if there is a single trait that the Sith allegedly have that is not seen in its fullest form in the Jedi. Finally, there is the matter of lightsaber battles and the initiation thereof. The only times that the Sith ignite their lightsabers first is when the battle is a continuation of an earlier battle. The first battle we see is Darth Vader against Obi-Wan on the Darth Star. Indeed, Darth Vader is ready for battle, but this is not a new conflict. So also does Darth Tyranus begin against Yoda on Geonosis, but this too is a continuation of the battle that Darth Tyranus had against Obi-Wan and Anakin. Darth Maul attacks first on Naboo, but we see that this is part of a larger conflict already in progress. Every other battle in the six movies is always begun by the Jedi. Even in the fake battle against Darth Vader on Dagobah, Luke stills attacks first. The lack of compassion is not just seen on the battlefield or else we might see it as understandable. Instead, it permeates throughout everything we ever see from the Jedi. To be sure, the Jedi are loyal; they most certainly watch after their own. However, that is not what is meant by the "compassion" of which they speak, a compassion that is self-sacrificing to all those around them. In fact, one begins to wonder if we ever see that sort of compassion from a Jedi. Even the best act done in the movie—the destruction of the Emperor—is done only when the Emperor starts to hurt one of Darth Vader’s family members. The motivation to destroy the Emperor is the same motivation Darth Vader has to destroy the Tusken Raiders, including their women and children. The question of compassion, at least for the author, becomes most important in Episode III. While Padmé and, later on, Luke know of the good that is still in Darth Vader, Yoda and Obi-Wan are blind to it. In the compassion these two Jedi exhibit, they see that Darth Vader is evil and there is only one thing that can be done: execution. We would expect from our compassionate Jedi that they would see through the same idealistic glasses that Padmé wears, but no. The Jedi can only see in absolutes—a trait allegedly Sith in nature. The compassion of the Jedi is quite obviously skewed. This is also seen in the ideal that they are not allowed to marry. This seems to be one of their worst ideas. In Episode I we learn that the Force is passed on genetically. If the Jedi do not procreate, they are effectively destroying themselves. Not only is the Republic in need of revamping in the prequel series, we can see that the Jedi needed a reboot themselves. The Jedi are usually clouded by their own arrogance and this usually results in turmoil. It is the arrogance of Qui-Gon that has Anakin trained in the first place, to the destruction of the Jedi. Obi-Wan dismisses Darth Tyranus’ truth that the Sith had control of the Senate, to the destruction of the Republic. Even the librarian in Episode II exhibits this trait, boldly claiming that the star system for which Obi-Wan was looking did not exist. It did exist and that fact ultimately led to the destruction of both the Jedi and the Republic. This leads to another truth: the Sith never or seldom lie whereas the Jedi trip over themselves in fable-fests. From the beginning, the lies pour forth. Luke is told fanciful stories of his origins. "Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough…" In fact, his father was a smoldering lump. The big lie of that conversation, of course, is that of Darth Vader killing Anakin. Yoda also deceives when he first meets Luke. Mace Windu does not let on that the Jedi are losing their power (another act of arrogance that ends poorly). In contrast, Darth Tyranus informs Obi-Wan that the Senate has been infiltrated. Darth Vader informs Luke of his true origin. Palpatine’s entire rise to power consisted of telling the right truth at the right time. To be sure, the Sith are utilitarian, but Palpatine rightly states that "The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way." The arrogance and deception of the Jedi show that they too are utilitarian. The Sith and Jedi are two sides of the same coin. Palpatine’s point in that dialogue was to present the truth that all who have power are afraid to lose it, even the Jedi. We do not want to believe Palpatine, but we know that he is right as the rest of the movie unfolds. Palpatine: "Don’t let him kill me. I can’t hold it any longer. I— I— I— I can’t. I— I— I’m weak. Anakin. Help me. Help me! I— I— I can’t hold on any longer" Mace Windu: "I am going to end this once and for all." Anakin: "You can’t. He must stand trial." Mace Windu: "He has control of the senate and the courts. He’s too dangerous to be left alive." Anakin: "It’s not the Jedi way. He must live." With that, Mace Windu, in contrast to everything that the Jedi allegedly stand for, strikes forth at Palpatine. With that, Anakin, again motivated only by his self-interest, defends Palpatine. With that, Palpatine strikes the deathblow, a blow only made possible by exposing the Jedi’s many, many flaws and allowing the Jedi to act on them and follow through with them. From a certain point of view, the Sith only rise to power because the Jedi allowed them to. What of that power? What was so important to the Sith that they rose and was so terrible to the Jedi that it had to be stopped? Reform. The Sith ideals are the exact same as that of the Empire: Peace, order, and stability. Palpatine in his moment of triumph declares "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy! And we shall have peace." At his coronation, he states, "In order to ensure the security and continuing stability the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire! For a safe and secure society." The refrain remains constant even into the original trilogy. As Darth Vader stands victorious over Luke, standing ready to finish him off, he instead offers his hand and pleads with his son. "Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." Once again, we must ask what the Jedi motivation is. The Jedi seem to be the same as the Rebel Alliance: they do not stand for anything, they only stand against the Sith. III. The Prophecy The prophecy was that the Chosen One would come and would restore balance to the force. The Jedi, reading the prophecy through their own bias, interpreted that to mean that the Chosen One would destroy the Sith. That is not what the prophecy said. Yoda was correct in assessing that this was "A prophecy that misread could have been." We have seen so far that the Jedi are far from perfect. To be sure, the Sith are also far from perfection, but this only furthers the point that the Jedi and Sith are two sides of the same coin. We have also seen that in the prequel trilogy, the Jedi are just as bloated and ineffectual as the Republic they purportedly protect. At the end of the trilogy they are cut down to size, sometimes literally, and the order is shown that they need to do some soul searching to get back to the true Jedi ideals. We can assume that at the end of Episode III, only Yoda and Obi-Wan remain of what was once the Jedi order. The expanded universe would disagree, but the movie is as firm in canonicity as one can get. In the movie, Yoda states, "Heard from no one have we." If nothing else we know that there are no Jedi after twenty years for Yoda tells Luke of Dagobah that "The last of the Jedi you will be." The very title of Return of the Jedi assumes that there are no Jedi or else they could not return. If that is so, then we can say that the force was brought into balance in Episode III. We know that the Sith always have two members; no more, no less. We know that the Jedi only had two members (Q.E.D.). Yoda and Palpatine are shown as being equal in power. Yoda ran away because when Palpatine’s reinforcements arrived, it would have swung the balance into Palpatine’s favor. Darth Vader and Obi-Wan are also equal in power—Obi-Wan won on Mustafar not due to superiority but due to Darth Vader’s tactical error. Again, neither the Jedi nor the Sith hold the key to the great mystery. Thus, it is here that the Force is brought into balance. This is the view that was held by Darth Tyranus. We normally think of force lightening as a Sith power, but in Episode II, Tyranus explicitly says it is a Jedi power. Darth Tyranus was of the opinion that one needs to grasp both the dark side and the light side to actualize the power of the Force. Darth Tyranus was no friend to the Sith, per se, for he invites Obi-Wan to join him in destroying the Sith. If Darth Tyranus was lying and was trying to get Obi-Wan to join the Sith with him, this is the first and only instance of a Sith not being truthful. We have already seen that the Sith are more than happy telling the truth, for it hurts far worse than lies ever could. This dual-natured view of the force is most succinctly put in a conversation between Palpatine and Anakin. Palpatine: "You must break through the fog of lies the Jedi have created around you. Let me help you to know the subtleties of the Force." Anakin: "How do you know the ways of the force?" Palpatine: "My mentor taught me everything about the Force. Even the nature of the dark side." Anakin: "You know the dark side?" Palpatine: "Anakin, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force." However, this is not the same Palpatine we know from watching Episode VI. Here, in Episode III, Palpatine is embracing both the light and dark sides, as did Darth Tyranus. In Episode VI, Palpatine goes on and on and on about the power of the dark side. Episodes IV-VI show the Sith lords as the emotionless automatons whereas Episodes II and III have Darth Tyranus and Sidious as personable and having friendships. Herein enters the idea of dual-fulfillment: the prophecy was fulfilled in Episode III and again, more fully, in Episode VI. In Episode III, the Force was brought into balance, but between that episode and Episode IV, the Emperor focused entirely on the dark side. The constant refrain of peace and order was the irony of the Emperor as he was unable to bring these ideals to his galaxy; that is, the Sith order in IV-VI was just as in need of a reboot as the Jedi order in I-III. At the end, then, the prophecy was fulfilled. Anakin, he who destroyed all the Jedi, also destroyed all the Sith: Darth Tyranus, Darth Sidious, and even himself, Darth Vader. Episode VI ends with everything of the old order(s) swept aside. The Sith are destroyed and so are the Jedi. In a classic vendetta, the two have annihilated each other. In the aftermath and wreckage of it all stands Luke. In a very true sense, this moment is the return of the Jedi: not a return of the glory years of the prequel trilogy, but a return to the true ideals of the Jedi. Luke does embrace a larger view of the force. He does not cling to Jedi dogma. He can feel anger and still be a Jedi. He can feel love and still be a Jedi. Luke’s philosophy of the Force is akin to that of Darth Tyranus’ and even Sidious’ in Episode III. Luke is the heir to all that is best of both the Jedi and Sith schools of thought. The Star Wars saga ends on a note both sour and hopeful. The Rebel Alliance was not run on concrete ideals but on wishful thinking. Because of that, Episode VI ends with the galaxy in chaos. Ideologically speaking, however, there is hope for the future. Gone is the Empire—whose sin was not a lack of ideals but the inability to actualize them—and gone is the Republic—which had no ideals to actualize. In the wake of the ruin of the Sith and the Jedi, the galaxy lies in darkness, but with the return of a true Jedi, the night is almost over. Ideas borrowed from The Case for the Empire, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp August 27, 2004 Philosophy and Star Wars, by Decker and Eberl Wookieepedia, http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
January 4, 2008 - Friday
 |
Category: Romance and Relationships
The Unwritten Code of Men 1.) If two men are together, they cannot be wearing the same outfits. The exception to this is a sports jacket. 2.) If you know the guy more than 24 hours, you may not date his sister. His mom, however, is up for grabs. 3.) Never sit directly next to another man. Make sure an empty seat is between you. If there is no room, stand. 4.) Never date your friend's ex-girlfriend. 5.) When your friend is talking with a girl, don't come up behind him and talk to him. Let your friend work, leave your dumb comments to yourself. 6.) If you play wingman (talking to the ugly friend while your friend talks to the hot girl), your friend owes you any favor you wish. 7.) Don't borrow clothes. If you absolutely have to, return it in decent condition. 8.) Don't steal anything from your friend. Borrowing without any intention of returning is acceptable to a point. However, if your friend notices the missing object and asks for it back, you must return it. 9.) Never ask for something back that you have loaned to your friend. This counts for everything from a coat to money. After all, if you have to ask for it, you never should have loaned it in the first place. 10.) If you have a history of not returning objects, especially money, you lose your right to complain if your friend won't loan you anything. 11.) If you are at your friend's house, never use the last of anything: milk, toilet paper, hot water, etc. Leaving one square of T.P. or one gulp of milk is acceptable. 12.) If your friend's girl is over at his house, don't even kid about stuff she wouldn't like. I.e. girls he's dated, what he did last night, etc. 13.) If anyone asks where your friend is, you don't know. As a matter of fact, you never even heard of him. 14.) Two men may NEVER share an umbrella 15.) Men do NOT carry Chap Stick; we bum it off girls. 16.) It is ok for a man to cry for the following reasons: A.) Family or close friend's death B.) Getting his credit card denied at a big dinner C.) Wrecking his boss's Ferrari D.) Losing cable/satellite TV 17.) If a man's zipper is down, that's his problem—you didn't see anything. 18.) If you are trying to get the girl, never act bigger than your friends by making them seem worse. 19.) Never let your date pay more than half for dinner. 20.) You should not be expected to pay for every dinner with your girlfriend. As the man you should pay for the first date, but this is the age of enlightenment. Men and women are equal now. 21.) Never push the above issue with your girlfriend. Better yet, don't mention it; find subtle ways to show you do not intend to pay for her. 22.) Women love sales. The question of "need" is irrelevant, so don't bother pointing it out. 23.) Women never have anything to wear. Don't question the racks of clothes in the closet; you "just don't understand". 24.) Be wary of confiding in women; they often can't keep secrets. They eat away at them from the inside. And they don't view it as being untrustworthy, providing they only tell two or three people. 25.) Men go to the bathroom by themselves, period. 26.) If a man goes on a seven-day trip, he'll pack five days worth of clothes and will wear some things twice; if a woman goes on a seven-day trip she'll pack 21 outfits because she doesn't know what she'll feel like wearing each day. 27.) Women are never wrong. Apologizing is the man's responsibility. "It's there in the Bible." After all, who was it that gave Adam the fruit? 28.) The average number of items in a typical woman's bathroom is 437. It is forbidden, and impossible, for a man to name more than 5% of these items. 29.) If it is not Valentine's Day, and you see a man in the flower shop, you can probably start up a conversation by asking, "What did you do?" 30.) Only women understand the reason for "guest towels" and the "good china". 31.) You are never to help another man unless he asks for it. If you do, you just emasculated him. You may watch him work. You may even watch him work in vain. You may even point and snicker at him as he labors. However, you may not help him unless/until he asks. 32.) When stumbling upon other guys watching a sporting event, you may always ask the score, but you may never ask who is playing. 33.) Complaining about the brand of free beverage in a buddy's fridge is forbidden. Gripe at will if the temperature is unsuitable. 34.) As a man, you are never to watch female sports. The exception is if it involves tight spandex uniforms. If you are flipping through the channels and happen to find one of these sports, you are at NO TIME allowed to know the score, team's names, or player's names. 35.) Never shower at your friend's house unless you have your own soap. 36.) Never sit around while your girl is cleaning without asking if you can help. 37.) When walking with your girl down the street, you walk on the outside. 38.) Never walk in front of your girl. 39.) You must train yourself to say "No" automatically when your girl asks you, "Do I look fat in this?" 40.) If men are present in your house and you are taking a shower, take a change of clothes with you. Never walk around in just a towel when other men are present. Nakedness is not even a thinkable option. 41.) Prioritize, never break obligations to your friends for a girl (unless she's really, really hot), and never break obligations to your wife for your friends. 42.) If a brawl breaks out, always have your friends back. Even—especially—if he's the dumb jerk who started it. 43.) When you are with your friend and a girl he has just met, always make an excuse to leave the room to give them some alone time. 44.) Unless he's breaking one of these rules (or something like robbing a bank or murder), always support your friend. No matter how dumb his idea seems, respect it. 45.) You are never obligated to baby-sit your friend kids. However, if your friend needs a place to stay, you are required to let him crash on your couch rent-free for a reasonable amount of time. 46.) During feedings, men are not obligated to talk. When eating with your girlfriend, you must find a way to nod you head in agreement in consistent intervals of time. Listening is optional, but you must honor whatever it is you just agreed to. 47.) Never let a woman know you sometimes don't listen to her. If she finds out she will be able to use it against you by forcing you to go to some chick event and telling you that you agreed, you just weren't paying attention. 48.) Any food found before noon is breakfast. 49.) Men do not argue over being best man. Best man = dead man. The best man must participate in everything the groom does, except the bride. 50.) Venting your more sensitive feelings onto another man is prohibited. If such a thing happens (God forbid) both men must deny that such a conversation ever happened. If word leaks out that this conversation happened, then you must be executed and the friend who did the listening must redeem himself by performing the execution. 51.) It is perfectly okay to drive in the car for an hour with another man and not talk. This is not possible with a woman. 52.) If you catch your friend's girl cheating, you are obligated to tell him ONCE. If he doesn't believe you, he's on his own and you can sleep with a clear conscience. 53.) If you catch your friend cheating, you didn't see anything. 54.) If your friend is talking with a girl and his game is off, don't laugh then; the girl might be buying it and your laugh could throw it off. 55.) When your friend asks "So what do you think of my girlfriend?" you are obligated to say, "Yeah, she's really nice. And you seem to connect well." 56.) Never ask for money back after losing it gambling. 57.) The Urinal Clause: A.) Never go to a urinal that is next to an occupied urinal. This will couple you with the stranger. B.) If you absolutely have to use a urinal next to an occupied urinal, you may not talk with the other person unless you know him really, really well. Simply nod and give a small smile to acknowledge each other's existence and go about your business. C.) Use the urinal farthest from the door if at all possible D.) Using common bathroom defense is acceptable and encouraged. For example, straightening your tie in the mirror while waiting for another urinal to open up so you do not need to "couple" or simply using a stall. 58.) When coming upon a fellow man who's name you know but don't know as a person that well, look away until about 5 feet from each other, make eye-contact, and either nod your head or give a small smile. If you are not sure you know him or not; look at him, and yet through him at the same time. Also, give a smile that could be confused with a sharp intestinal pain. 59.) When giving a handshake, simply get in there and get out. Don't hold on to the hand; let it go; release it back into the wild. Also, don't give the cold fish handshake. 60.) Don't be the third wheel. If you are going to go out with your friend and his girlfriend; stop, think, and don't do it.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
January 4, 2008 - Friday
 |
Category: Quiz/Survey
What Is Your Daemon?  RAVEN - Your daemon may be a member of the crow family. You are intelligent, observant, and gregarious. Just as a crow or raven picks shiny objects out of the dirt, you pick up tidbits of information or ideas and store them away. You have a good sense of humour, but sometimes lose patience with people who are antipathic to your nature. You are swift to alert others when you find the truth, and you have no tolerance for those who would hide it. Take this quiz!

Quizilla | Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|