#So I will continue to pray we see that to its logical conclusion and achieve world peace through human extinction

[toastling]

Imagine if another nation invaded your country but they didn't burn your towns or kill your civilians or drive in any tanks. They didn't even do the sensible thing and solely kill off the politicians and the wealthy.

No. They just. Set up shop and started distributing their respective services and resources like the town they marched into was already part of their country. No violence, just a free trial of "Hey here's what it'd be like to live in my homeland, your guys kinda suck".

You could get the entire population to *want* to leave their country in favor of yours without having to fire a single bullet. You could convince an entire people to demolish their government and end their nation by just, casually showing them you can do better. And then boom. Free territory and resources.

Humans are just really really stupid and way too desperate to find an excuse to rape and kill each other. It would be way more effective and cost infinitely less to both sides economically and in terms of life to do it literally any other way. But no. We gotta pop those heads like red balloons.

[bisexualfelicity]

No Other Version of Me - Chapter One (2/?)

Amalia Queen was once said to be so important that the universe made sure she happened. Yes, it was her mom who said that but it still counts. Now, she's an adult and struggles to be worthy of such sentence. She doesn't want to be a vigilante and make so many sacrifices like the rest of her family, but it doesn't mean she doesn't want to save the world.

Sequel to "Five Lives"

October 2045.

There is something going on.

September was an oddly busy month, one of her roommates decided to move, it was her birthday and then there was her job, which she might have been overdoing. The work she’s been doing in QC isn’t ideal, overseeing their whole process and all of their associated companies to make sure its work was ethical. She doesn’t feel comfortable working in such a capitalist environment, even if it was her family business. But she had no experience, her mom happened to be the CEO of a big company and allowed her to make any changes she felt were needed, so Amalia felt she could do more change by working in the system, changing QC and pressuring other companies to do the same, instead of working outside of it. That being said, she didn’t imagine how much it would have to change when she started and she’s been dedicating her heart to do it.

And, of course, there were all the high holidays which took a lot of the time she didn’t have. So Amalia isn’t sure for how long something has been happening until it came to her attention. The fact that Mom didn’t nag her about not showing up on Shemini Atzeret should have tipped her about where her family’s mind had been on. But Mom never liked bringing vigilante business into holidays, so, for at least a little time, Amalia was living blissfully unaware of anything that happened on Team Arrow.

Continue to read on AO3 or under the cut!

She has no reason to know more than your average Starling citizen. Despite her entire family being intertwined with vigilantism, Amalia prides herself for having nothing to do with it. They do good work, but she’s more interested in changing the cause of the problems instead of the symptoms. They fight crime, she wants to stop them from happening in the first place. Not that she’s doing any world-changing work as of now, but she’s still building her career so that she can, eventually, do her best.  There has never been any bad blood over this, which is why it’s so weird that they are avoiding the subject in such an obvious way.

First, no one mentioned anything. Not even Libbi, who has no concept of what a brain-to-mouth filter even was. Then, there are the looks. The out of context questions on whether she won’t go out of town, maybe study something new or just take a vacation. And, to confirm it, the very much not subtle deflection when she asks about Arrow business during Sunday lunch. 

“Now, is the city about to be blown up or what?”

Libbi almost jumps to the question, Amalia just narrows her eyes. Mom and Dad are gone to the kitchen to wash the dishes, being way too eager to stop the conversation Amalia is trying to have.

“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” is all Libbi had to say, shaking her head and trying to look convincing.

Amalia prays that no one ever arrests her sister, because Libbi’s the worst liar she’s ever seen. Amalia continues to stare at her, knowing her little sister has never been good at keeping her mouth shut and is the weakest link of this secret.

“If there was something like this going on, surely we would tell you. Obviously. We wouldn’t want you to get hurt.”

“Tell me, Libbi.”

If Amalia wasn’t sure before that her family was keeping something from her, the guilty look in her sister’s eyes would be enough to confirm it. Libbi bites her lips and looks back to the kitchen, seeing their parents talking and not paying attention at them. Amalia takes a step forward, closer to Libbi.

“It’s nothing you need to worry about,” Libbi continues, and tries to step away. “Just vigilante business. You know how it is… Crime! Never stops. Always dangerous. New stuff. Bad guys. Murder.”

“Whose murder?” Amalia presses.

“People.”

“Then why don’t you want me to know?”

“Why wouldn’t I want you to know? I’m telling you right now. People are being murdered, it’s crazy.”

“Yes, very. Next thing you know they’ll also start robbing.”

“Ha, funny! See, nothing to talk about, seems like you get the deal,” Libbi smiles and almost runs to the kitchen, under their parents’ wings.

Amalia sighs. She wonders if she can try to manipulate Will into telling her, pretending Libbi already told her something to get information out of him. But that would be too risky. They would all be too defensive right now, realizing she was on to them. Deciding to change her course of action, she gets her phone and tries searching the recent sightings of Team Arrow on the streets.

She knows all the most reliable websites, used to check on them frequently during her first year of college, whenever she felt it was a little too much of not knowing. But it has been a while since she had to check again, being back in Star City and seeing her family almost every week it was not necessary. Until now.

It isn’t surprising to find many pictures of Libbi in her suit, she is the newest vigilante and still causes a lot of rampage around the vigilante-obsessed citizens. Apparently, they started calling her by Lynx, Libbi’s choice for a codename, which is new. Last time they talked, Libbi was complaining about being called “Catgirl” or other names; in Amalia’s opinion it was her own fault for deciding to dress up as a cat, she should have just followed the archer theme, but no, her sister had to dress as an animal to “reflect her identity”. Amalia personally thinks it’s a bit ridiculous, they are supposed to be heroes not furries, but her parents prohibited her from repeating it declaring it “bullying”. The fact that Libbi hasn’t announced to her the achievement of being recognized as Lynx is one more indication that her thoughts are somewhere else – or at least that she’s avoiding talking about Arrow things with her sister.

She has to dig deeper to find something out of the ordinary. But then finally she finds a blurry picture of the Green Arrow being spotted in the past week, the online community is wondering if it’s someone new or if the old one returned. Amalia doesn’t have to wonder, she can recognize her dad in a suit, even if it has been years since she’s seen him wearing one.

If Dad is back on the streets after five years of retirement, it’s either really bad or something personal.

From where she is, Amalia focuses on her family’s voices, hoping they’ll let slip something when they think she isn’t listening. She should know better than that, her parents are no amateurs in the art of secrets and soon Mom is back, sitting next to her on the sofa and bringing up a different subject. Amalia doesn’t fight it; it’s not the time. Libbi might have inherited the vigilante genes, but if there is one thing she learned from her parents was how to strategize.

She waits a couple days before doing anything. Taking this time to dig a little deeper, she searches the latest news reports, even the ones happening outside of Star City. She can’t find anything out of the norm, there seems to be a new gang in Star City responsible for some recent conflicts, but she can’t find how it would relate to her. The more she thinks about it, the more it seems personal. It isn’t anything too dangerous for their family, her parents would have told her if that was the case and, besides, she imagines Will would take the twins out of town if there was any risk at all.

Is one of her roommates involved in crime? Amalia thought back to the two girls she shares an apartment with, thinking it is highly unlikely any of them would get caught up in anything worthy of Team Arrow’s time, especially without Amalia realizing. She does spend a lot of time at work though, so who knows what Ilana and Emma do when she isn’t there? Their own work, Amalia answers herself. This is a futile exercise; it’s not like her Mom didn’t do a background check on them before they moved in together anyway. And if her friends were murderers or anything dangerous, they wouldn’t want her living with them.

She wonders if it’s related to her work, but that’s her area of expertise. Amalia would know if anything illegal or morally corrupt was happening in her work, that’s a big part of her job. She has a moment of panic where she questions where she’s somehow doing something really wrong and helping crime, but after a few breaths she convinces herself that’s not the logical conclusion. No need to spiral into anxiety.

She needs to know the truth. That is why instead of driving home on a Wednesday night after a full workday, Amalia makes her way to the bunker. Although her default mode is to overthink all of her actions, her need to know everything speaks louder so Amalia lets her curiosity guide her for once. Besides, it’s not like she’s doing anything wrong by coming to the bunker, no one ever told her to stay away.

As if to confirm her thoughts, the doors open to her, recognizing her DNA without any problem. If her family didn’t want her there, she’d be blocked. Or at least there’d be an alarm going on so everyone would know she was there. None of that happens. In fact, no one notices her entering at all, all of them too busy discussing something near the computers, no one facing the entrance.

Her original plan was to arrive before anyone else so she could snoop in the computers to see if she’d find anything, but, surprising not even herself, work took too long for that. And now, after 8pm, not only the entire team is there but her parents as well. She’s lucky she knew about Dad suiting up again before coming or else her shock might have given her away. Mom being there isn’t so weird, she still comes every so often to “help” William, especially since she started spending less hours on QC and is bored out of her mind at home without anyone around.

Making the best out of her situation, Amalia gets close enough to hear what they are saying, making sure she can’t be seen. Libbi, the newest member of the team, is spinning on Mom’s chair, much to everyone’s annoyance, especially Will’s who is sitting next to her, showing them something on the computer. Becky Merlyn and JJ Diggle are the ones closest to Will, both paying a lot of attention to what is going on and ready to hit the streets at any time. Zoe Ramirez, Rene’s daughter and currently the oldest of the team, is a little farther away, keeping an eye at her cousin Elliot, who has decided, on his own accord, he was Team Arrow’s newest intern, much to Aunt Thea’s despair considering he’s still seventeen.  Mom and Dad are on the other side, looking worried.

“We should just go there if we know all of that,” Libbi says, still spinning. “What’s the worst that could happen?”

Variations of “Are you serious?”, “You’re gonna get yourself killed” and a kick on her chair all happen at the same time. Dad’s hand is all over his face and he’s probably considering how effective grounding his 20 years-old daughter would be.

“First of all, that’s bullying, respect my opinions,” Libbi continues, not shaken at all by everyone else’s disapproval. “Second of all, I wasn’t suggesting going without a plan.”

“Thank God,” Mom comments, making Libbi roll her eyes, “We are waiting for Sara to finish the plan, Libbi, you know that.”

“But why can’t we start without her? We have all the information we need.”

“I agree we should just start planning, Aunt Sara is not really a part of the team anymore,” Becky chimes in.

“Like she’s going to listen to us if she doesn’t agree. Let’s be real, guys, we are helping the League in that, not the other way around,” JJ declares.

“But we did all the research!” Elliot blurts, making all the heads turn to him for the first time. “I know I’m not in the team yet, but this doesn’t sound fair.”

“Because it isn’t!” Libbi uttered, “If this was anyone else, we wouldn’t be waiting so long.”

“It’s not anyone else, so stop complaining,” Zoe decided to assert her place as the team’s non-official leader. “We already told Sara we were waiting for her. This is not any mission, this is family.”

“Zoe is right. We don’t have time for disagreements right now. Sara already has a plan, after she’s finished the perimeter study, she’ll let us know how we can help. We’re here to help her, it’s her daughters we’re talking about.”

Amalia freezes at that. When Zoe had mentioned family, she thought they were just considering Sara part of the family in the broadest definition. She didn’t think they meant Sara’s family. Is Naila in trouble? All of Amalia’s body wants to go forward and question her parents about that. Suddenly, it makes sense why they are avoiding the subject with her. They don’t want her to know. Maybe they want to protect her feelings or they just don’t trust her with this after everything that happened. A lot of theories start popping in her mind, but before she can do anything impulsive like revealing she’s there, she’s retreating to the door.

She needs to think.

She needs to breathe.

Even though her car is fully automated, Amalia focuses on the road instead of thinking of what she just heard. Emma and Ilana are in the living room, watching something together on TV. Amalia only nods at them, heading straight to her room before any of them can start a conversation. She thinks she hears a “rude!” coming from Emma but doesn’t bother to check. Her roommates will get over her lack of manners.

Closed off in her room, she throws herself on her bed and counts to herself ten deep breaths. She tries counting the facts she knows in her head and immediately regrets running away. She doesn’t know anything besides it involves Sara and the League of Assassins. She doesn’t even know if it had anything to do with Naila at all, she shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions. Maybe she can come back to the bunker and get Mom and Will by themselves while everyone else is in the field. It’s far from ideal, but it’d definitely catch them off-guard. She’s sure any of them would tell the truth if she just confronted them, but part of her is not sure she wants to know the answer. Does she even want to get involved with Team Arrow? Maybe it’s just normal business and she’s getting it all wrong from hearing just bits of the conversation. It has nothing to do with her. But now her curiosity is winning and she’s not sure she can cope with just not knowing.

Before she can think of a plan, there’s a knock on her window. The window which is most definitely on the fifth floor of a building. It says something about the kind of people she hangs around that her first thought is who would be climbing her window and not how anyone would do that. Without opening it, she reaches the window and sees a person in dark clothes, looking the other side, not worried about standing in a wall. Her brain recognizes the League’s clothing, but it’s her heart that opened the window without a thought first. All those years of safety training and she opens the window for the first assassin she sees, a part of her mind notes, but curiosity spoke louder.

The person enters and Amalia doesn’t have to wait for her to take away her hood to recognize her. It might have been over five years since they last saw each other, but she recognizes Naila anywhere.

“Amalia,” Naila whispers, approaching her, her face serious, “I need your help.”

 June 2032.

It’s a sunny day in the middle of June when Amalia goes to her first funeral. She’s almost eleven years-old, which means she feels almost grown up most of the time, but standing in the Merlyn’s living room, surrounded by people wearing black, Amalia never felt so much like a little child. All she wants is to go to Mom and hide herself in her. But Mom told her to find Will and is on the other side of the room now, next to Dad, talking to Aunt Laurel. They all have sad faces and Amalia doesn’t need that explained to her.

Quentin Lance is dead. She had never seen a dead person before and now his face won’t leave her alone. She’s seen people in hospitals, has seen her father unconscious in a hospital bed and she thought looking at a dead person couldn’t possibly feel worse than that. She was wrong. Deadness is very physical and she wished she had accepted to stay behind with Will and Libbi like Dad had suggested.

Her grandma Moira died when she was little, but Amalia doesn’t remember that. She doesn’t know if her parents received people in their house, like Uncle Tommy and Aunt Laurel are doing right now. She wonders if her dad looked as sad as Aunt Laurel looks right now.

 “If you want to know, it’s those damn vigilante’s fault,” Amalia hears an old man she has never seen talking. “I told Lance a million times to not get involved with them, that they were trouble, and look what happened! I don’t mind if they end up killing themselves, but getting one of ours killed?” He seems angry and a couple people around seem to agree with him, while others told him to be quieter, they wouldn’t want Lance’s daughters hearing about that.

Amalia freezes where she is. She doesn’t think about what if it was her dad’s funeral instead of Aunt Laurel’s dad. She doesn’t think about how vigilantes dying means her entire family dying.

She can’t think of any of that. She might be almost a grown up, but the almost here is vital.

Today, she’s ten years-old and she doesn’t want to think about her parents being in danger. So she starts walking, searching for her siblings. Libbi was too little to go to the funeral, so Will was taking care of her and would meet them here.

Amalia thought she was big enough to handle it, that she should go to the funeral like the adults were, but maybe she was wrong. She doesn’t even want to be in this room now, with people that say vigilantes should be dead.

Not seeing her brother anywhere, Amalia’s heart starts beating faster. It’s ridiculous, she tells herself, she is in no danger. She knows exactly where her parents are and there are at least a dozen of other adults she knows here. But something wants to go out of her chest and she doesn’t want it.

Almost as instinct, she goes to Becky’s room. Rebecca Merlyn is only three years older than her and she has spent many nights playing with her here. She hopes the room is empty, having seem Becky and her brother Ben both on the living room, receiving condolences for their grandfather’s death. Normally, she would have gone to talk to them, they were family friends, Ben is a funny boy and Becky used to be her friend before she became a teen, they could make her feel better. But they had just lost their grandpa and Amalia wasn’t sure if she knew what to say. She only remembers her grandma Donna and can’t imagine what would be like to lose her. She’d rather hide herself until someone else found her.

As she opens the room, Amalia finds it’s not empty at all. But it’s not Becky there, but another girl around her own age.

“Who are you?” The girls asks and Amalia recognizes her defensive posture, ready to fight. She almost does the same, but decides it’s only going to look more threatening.

“Who are you? I’ve never seen you before. I was looking for Becky,” she adds the lie, thinking it explains her better. The girl continues to stare at her suspiciously, like she doesn’t understand. “Rebecca. This is her room,” Amalia clarifies and the girl seems to relax.

“Oh, right. I’m her… cousin,” she suffices, speaking in an accent Amalia has never heard, and Amalia frowns because she has never heard about any cousin before.

The girl doesn’t look at all like Becky or Ben. Her skin is darker, her eyes are bigger and brown. She tries to remember Becky’s aunts Sara and Nyssa and thinks that maybe the girl looked a little like Nyssa, though not much. She isn’t sure because it has been too long since she had seen them. And they didn’t have a child back then. But she knows Uncle Tommy only sister is Aunt Thea, and this girl is not her cousin.

“Are you Sara’s?” Amalia decides to ask. The girl just nods. “I don’t remember meeting you.”

“It’s my first time here,” she says, her voice so quiet it’s difficult to hear, “Rebecca is outside. But I can leave you here alone if you want,” the girl says suddenly, and Amalia has to remember she said she was looking for Becky so she understands.

“It’s okay,” Amalia answers, blushing with her lie and wonders if she should leave, “Can I just stay here for a while? Too much people out there.”

“Okay,” she says.

“I’m Amalia, by the way. Amalia Queen. My parents are friends with yours.”

“I’m Naila,” she answers, not looking Amalia in the eyes.

“Was your grandpa Quentin? I’m sorry for your loss,” Amalia adds, realizing that Sara was also Quentin’s daughter.

“I guess,” Naila answers, confusing Amalia so much that she decides to just stay quiet. “I’ve only met him once. But he was Sara’s father.”

Amalia doesn’t ask why she’s calling her mom by her name, even though the question burns in her tongue. She wonders if she’s not really Sara’s daughter. Amalia knows people can be dangerous, and they can lie about who they are. But Naila doesn’t look dangerous, she just looks lost.

They both sit in silence next to each other without saying anything else, until someone else opens the room. It’s a teen girl who looks a little like Naila, so Amalia assumes it’s her sister. She has thick eyebrows that make her look angry and she stares at Amalia without a hint of kindness, some mix of judgement and threat.

“Naila,” it’s all she says, turning to her sister, nodding at the younger girl to approach.

Naila goes up immediately, not looking back at Amalia until she’s almost at the door. She hesitates and then gives her a little wave, so shy that Amalia would miss it if she wasn’t staring at the girl. At that, she leaves, not saying goodbye.

As weird as that encounter was, it makes Amalia’s mood change a little. She’s no longer thinking of death and Lance’s face, instead she wants to find Becky and ask about her weird cousins. Deciding that staying by herself in a room isn’t fun after all, Amalia leaves as well.

Outside, she finds both her siblings chatting with the Diggle kids and joins the conversation. It’s still a funeral and even Libbi is quieter than normal, but Amalia takes a breath, focuses on her family and friends and, if for at least a few minutes, she allows herself to forget where she is. 

[emaanali16-blog]

*Aristotle: Ethos and Pathos and Logos*

In this entry I will examine the critical questions: What is the main purpose of this artifacts message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve this message? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I examined Bill Clinton's speech “I Have Sinned” as my rhetorical artifact. Clinton’s “I Have Sinned” speech evokes feelings of forgiveness and compassion in his audience by using all three rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos. He uses these rhetorical appeals in an unethical way since the majority of his speech focuses on religion and this can be seen as the end all be all of arguments.

On September 11, 1998, former United States President Bill Clinton spoke at the annual White House prayer breakfast to an audience of more than 100 religious leaders. The speech “I Have Sinned” is an apology to America for his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton had testified in court for his actions on August 17, 1998 and gave a speech afterwards but was faced with criticism for not being contrite enough. The “I Have Sinned” speech was seen as a redemption opportunity for the former president.

James A. Herrick (2013) explains the three artistic proofs of rhetoric coined by Aristotle: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos refers to the credibility of the speaker and their ability to provide phronesis (intelligence), arete (virtue), and eunoia (good will) (Herric, 2013). Pathos according to Herrick, is the speaker's ability to make the audience feel an emotion in order to affect their judgement (Herrick, 2013). Lastly, logos refers to the logical reasoning found in arguments (Herrick, 2013). These three aspects are seen as the art of rhetoric and are proofs used to persuade people into believing certain ideologies which in turn should lead to a betterment of society. 

In the speech “I Have Sinned” by Bill Clinton, he uses these three artistic proofs to persuade his audience into forgiving him. He uses logos by using the logic of growing from one’s mistakes as a way to continue leading this country. Clinton remarks, “I cannot move beyond or forget this - indeed, I must always keep it as a caution light in my life - it is very important that our nation move forward” (President Bill Clinton, n.d.).  He uses the logic that even though something terrible has happened, it is important that everyone together as a nation moves forward to have a better future. Furthermore, Clinton creates a logical argument when he talks about what constitutes someone to be forgiven. He recognizes that to be forgiven, not only does it take sorrow, but it also takes genuine repentance and a “broken spirit”. He goes on to say that he will seek forgiveness by having a vigorous defense that will not hide the fact that he has done wrong, continuing to repent, and strengthening his efforts to make this country better. In saying this he creates a logical step by step process on what is needed to forgive a person and what actions he will take to get that forgiveness from the American people. The ethical issue here is that he should only be asking the audience to forgive him, not telling them to forgive him. When he tells them to move forward it seems like he is trying to brush this off as something that can be forgotten about quickly (President Bill Clinton, n.d.). 

Furthermore, Clinton uses ethos to reiterate his credibility. Even though the audience knows that this is the president giving the speech he still needs to remind the people that he is still a good leader. He chooses his words wisely, by saying “Hillary and the vice president and I” giving himself credibility by associating himself with prominent people. Also by saying, “in the hope that with a broken spirit and a still strong heart I can be used for the greater good,” Clinton shows that he will bring good to America. Lastly, throughout the speech he uses the words “we,” “us,” and “our” to show that he is included in the nation. For example, he never says, "this country" or "my country" he says, "our country." This is a great example of ethos in this speech since he is reminding the nation that he is a part of us, the American people, and that he is not going anywhere. The use of ethos in this instance is unethical because he is using his rhetoric to remind the audience that he has power, thus making it easier to forgive him (President Bill Clinton, n.d.). 

Pathos is found in multiple places in this speech. The first example we see is when he says, “I was up rather late last night thinking about and praying about what I ought to say today” (). Clinton tries to guilt his audience into feeling sorry for him since he did not get much sleep the night before.Moreover, this is his first mention of religious affairs. Throughout the speech his use of religious rhetoric enables the audience to identify with the religious beliefs he is referring to. When he later asks, “In this, I ask for your prayers and for your help in healing our nation” he is appealing to the people’s religious identity and asking them to use their emotions and belief in God to forgive him. Furthermore, not only does he appeals to the Christian audience, but also the Jewish by reciting an excerpt from Yom Kippur literature. Towards the end of his speech he remarks, “I ask once again to be able to love my neighbor - all my neighbors - as my self, to be an instrument of God's peace” (President Bill Clinton, n.d.). By focusing on religion in his speech, it is Clinton’s way of saying that since I have repented, God has forgiven me, and since almighty God has forgiven me then you can too. It doesn’t give the audience the option not to forgive him since they know God has forgiven him, and therefore the appeal is seen as unethical. 

Christopher Chapp (2012) goes into further detail on religious rhetoric and the effects on emotion, pathos. He says, “religious political rhetoric can overwhelm citizens with an array of different emotions, leading individuals to identify with a broad and varied range of groups and identities” (Chapp, 2012, p.17). He goes on to say that this type of rhetoric “is often associated by its glowing optimism about the future of America democracy… Given this, it is certainly possible that religious rhetoric is more conducive to a spirit hope than to political division” (Chapp, 2012, p. 61). We can see this in Clinton’s speech when he continuously ties in God and religion into his speech. His rhetoric is positive and hopeful that with God’s help people will forgive him and move on so that he can “lead our country and the world toward peace and freedom, prosperity and harmony…” (President Bill Clinton, n.d.). The religious rhetoric used by Clinton was manipulative because people who belong in faith groups associate God and their religion with positive and hopeful feelings thus associating their speaker in that same light. Audiences can be blindsided by religious rhetoric and must critically analyze whether or not the rhetoric being used is to persuade them into

In conclusion, Bill Clinton’s Speech “I Have Sinned” is unethical since he focuses on religion by using ethos, pathos, and logos to provoke feelings of sympathy and forgiveness towards him for having an affair. His logical arguments, use of power, and focus on religious beliefs were meant to get the public on his side, and for many people his speech did just that. However, in the end, Bill Clinton was impeached him for his actions. This goes to show that no matter how good your speech is, having an affair while being a United States President can have dire consequences.

References

Chapp, C. B. (2012). Religious Rhetoric and American Politics: The Endurance of Civil Religion In Electoral Campaigns. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Herrick, J. A. (2013). The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction (5th ed.). New York ; London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

President Bill Clinton "I Have Sinned". (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/clinton-sin.htm

[dailyaudiobible]

08/05/2021 DAB Transcript

Ezra 1:1-2:70, 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5, Psalm 27:7-14, Proverbs 20:22-23

Today is the 5th day of August, welcome to the Daily Audio Bible, I am Brian, it is great to be here with you today. Just like it's great to be here with you every day because we get to come into this little place that we've made for ourselves that we call the Global Campfire and having that place, at least for me in my life, this one place that's gonna be the word of God washing over us, ah, an oasis of calm in the storm. So glad to be in that place with you today as we take our next step forward in the Scriptures. We concluded 2 Chronicles yesterday and so that has us opening up a new book in the Old Testament.

Introduction to Ezra:

This is called Ezra and just in terms of like the history picking up where we left off. So, where 2 Chronicles ends Ezra pretty much picks up. The children of Israel and are in exile in Babylon. They were carried away. They rejected God, chased after other gods and now they live in Babylon, away from their homeland. And this book of Ezra, it’s about 80 years of time that’ll be covered in this book, and there will be three different kings involved: Cyrus the Great, Darius and then Artaxerxes, who begins to allow some return to the homeland. So, Cyrus starts things literally wanting the temple to God, rebuilt in Jerusalem for the worship of God. So, over 40,000 Israelites who had been in exile in Babylon, finally, make the trip back under the leadership of Zerubbabel to rebuild…rebuild Jerusalem. Now, Jerusalem’s been in ruin for a while now and so, you have a major city that's been depopulated and lies in ruins and so you imagine that nearby peoples will kind of move in and begin to take over, over time, and that's indeed the scenario here. And so, you have these…these exiles returning to their homeland, who then face opposition and intimidation and politics, imagine that. But we’ll watch that despite that they have a mission. They have a test and they continue to move forward in that direction which becomes really, really helpful for us in our own lives, because these things happen to us, right. There’s politics involved at work or wherever, there's intimidation, there’s opposition in this world and it's really easy to get pulled in or sucked into things that really actually pull us off our task, off the direction that we’re going in. All kinds of distractions we get ourselves into, over the course of life that wastes so much of our energy and time. In this case we’ll see that despite it all, they’re gonna stay true to what they’re trying to accomplish and that can help us. And then Ezra will come back again with a second group of exiles before we reach our conclusion. And so, let's dive in, we’re reading from the God's Word Translation this week, Ezra chapters 1 and 2.

Commentary:

Okay, so in 1 Corinthians today, Paul talks about the gospel's nonsensical values or properties. So, let's just kind of sit with that for a second because what he's saying is the truth. If we simply sit down and try to reason with logic, what we know and what we've experienced in this world, then you know, God coming to earth and being born of a woman and living a life and being executed and dying and rising from the dead, even though none of that is not…even though it’s so much different than nonsense to us, if we were just trying to make an intellectual exercise out of it, we’d say ‘yeah, that doesn't really make sense,’ even as Gentiles, even as Gentiles, we say, yeah, I believe in Jesus, but we have not immersed ourselves in the Hebrew story from which Christianity came. There's plenty of stuff even in the Scriptures that we’re like why is that…like what is that matter? Why is that important now? That doesn't make sense until you have context and then you say ‘okay I see what's happening here.’ I see why these things matter. So, what Paul's doing is essentially acknowledging the elephant in the room, yeah, basically it doesn't make any sense. That's how it's supposed to be. Essentially Paul is saying you can pursue human wisdom all you want but God is well beyond anything we will ever be able to grasp or control, or even figure out fully. In fact, the least of God's wisdom is greater than any human wisdom. So, God is choosing, according to Paul, to use the foolishness of mankind's wisdom to reveal Himself. So, just quoting Paul here “the world with its wisdom, was unable to recognize God in terms of his own wisdom. So, God decided to use the nonsense of the good news we speak to save those who believe. Jews asked for miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but our message is that Christ was crucified. This offends Jewish people and makes no sense to people who are not Jewish.” In other words, Gentiles. So, Paul’s saying that Jews wants signs and wonders, and the Gentiles, they don't really want anything it doesn't make any sense. So, there's a lot to go on, a lot of directions that we could go but as far as just like letting this seep in become a part of our thought processes today as we revisit what we've read and move through our day. It would be that we will not be able to hold God in our minds. We will not be able to sort out the mystery or the vastness of the most High, because we are not equal to the most high, and we do not have the capacity of the most High. Paul says God's nonsense is wiser than human wisdom and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. And so, at the outset of this letter here, we can begin to get into that posture, where he's coming from. By the standards of the world, we are talking nonsense when we talk about the good news. But when…when we have received the gift of eternal life and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, then, as Jesus says, we open our eyes, we open our ears and we see how things have flipped and how much of the world is complete nonsense. Just because we've been doing things for centuries a certain way doesn't mean it's not nonsense it just means it’s centuries of it. The good news brings us a better way of being a human being, a different way of looking at everything and we’ll be diving into that as we continue this letter.

Prayer:

And so, Holy Spirit come into that. And we certainly have made an intellectual exercise of it at times, really trying to get our theology right, trying to get all of the statements correct, jump through the hoops and do the steps correct. When the nonsense of the gospel is that You came for us and You achieved Your goal of rescuing humanity and anyone who chooses to participate is welcome and we choose to participate. And so, come Holy Spirit, and lead us into all truth. We ask in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Announcements:

dailyaudiobible.com is home base, it is the website. It’s where you find out what’s going on around here. Of course, if you’re using the Daily Audio Bible app you can find out what’s going on around here from…from within the app. So, check it out. Check out the Community section, this is where to get connected. This is where the different links to social media channels that we are involved in are as well as the home of the Prayer Wall where you can always go, always ask for prayer, always share what's going on. But also, you can always pray. Pray for one another, which is a beautiful thing. It's very distinctive about the community that we share around the Global Campfire, so check that out.

If you want to partner with the Daily Audio Bible, you can do that at dailyaudiobible.com. There is a link on the homepage and thank you, thank you profoundly as we navigate these warmer months of the summer. Thank you for your partnership. If you're using the app, you can press the Give button in the upper right-hand corner. Or the mailing address is P.O Box 1996 Springhill, Tennessee 37174.

And as always if you have a prayer request or encouragement, there are a number of ways: you can hit the Hotline button in the app and share from there, no matter where you are in the world. Or there are a number of numbers: in the US. or the Americas 877-942-4253 is the number to dial. If you are in the UK or Europe 44 2036 088078 is the number to dial. And if you are in Australia or that part of the world 61 3 8820 5459 is the number to call.

And that's it for today, I’m Brian, I love you and I'll be waiting for you here tomorrow.

Prayers and Encouragements:

Family, this is Saved by His Grace in Happy Valley with three very urgent prayer requests. Sort of a court of last resort. The first one is a young man named Carson, he’s about 10 years old, I think. He has successfully battled Lymphoma twice. And his family was rejoicing and suddenly another form of cancer has struck him and the people at St. Jude have said there’s nothing more we can do. We’ll arrange Hospice Care. Please, family, pray for Carson and complete healing. Another one is a little guy named Levi who is 3. He and his sister got into someone’s pool and he saved her but he drowned except that brought him back and now they’re struggling to bring all of him back. It has been a struggle. Please pray for Levi. And finally, my son Evan and his wife Lauren are having a divorce hearing tomorrow. There’s a five-year-old grandchild, Ronan involved and I pray that there will be forgiveness and healing and kindness and compassion. And that, I would love to see the marriage healed but if not at least let Ronan be cared for. Thank you.

Hello, today is August 1st and I was listening to July the 23rd and the lady called in The Disciple that He Loves from Ohio requesting prayer for her daughter that’s 15 and going through depression. Just wanted to pray for her daughter. Father, we do, just agree for all of us in this community for this daughter, Father. That’s just undergoing such depression Father, God that You would intervene. Father, that she would be set free that her mind would be renewed. Father, that she could get the help she needs, we know that You can supernaturally intervene. Or that You would just open doors that no one could open for her mom under the helps that she needs Father. We just lift her up, we do just pray for Your protection, that You will send guardian angels around this girl. We know that you will bring healing for deliverance that could only come from You. Father, for this ladies 15 year old daughter but also for other teenagers and other people God that are just desperate Father that don’t want to be here anymore. Lord, we know that’s such an attack from the enemy. We just pray that they would be able to take every thought captive Father. That You would bring healing and deliverance that only You can. In the name of Jesus Christ we pray. Amen.

Hi DAB family this is GG from Gville. I’m pregnant. I’m in my second trimester and I don’t feel like I can do this. I can’t do this, I need…I need help. I need God’s help. My family’s really supportive my husbands really supportive but I have nursing school to go to in just a couple weeks and I’m hardly making it each day. And, it’s…I need…I need so much help. I, I need encouragement but I also need help that it’s gonna get better and that I’m gonna be able to go to school and I know that it’s not that bad, I don’t…I know other people, you know, just would be so happy to be having a baby right now, I just, I feel, I don’t know, a lot of mixed emotions. Ashamed and upset at myself for I don’t know, not dealing with this better. But, I don’t know what else to do. I feel like I’ve been trying everyday, anything I can do. And it’s such a struggle. If you guys could please pray for me to, if there’s something I could do. Lord help please. Amen.

Hi, this is Ivy it’s been a while since I put in a prayer request but I wanted to just mention that I am just so blessed and honored to have been apart of DAB for so long, I had no idea how long until I found an old note in my bible that referred to the date November 29th 2010 that's when I started and I wished I would've stayed with that but as life goes on with so many it seems that we just either get busy, life gets in the way, I'm not sure what but. Today I am grateful that I'm back into it. I have been searching through my Bible for so many notes and again I’ve been so blessed with so many notes that I’ve kept in there, God has been so true to me. I am going to ask for prayer for my family, because it seems like it’s been under attack and I know why now because I'm back into the word and it seems like when you’re following the Lord, as you should Satan doesn’t like it and I'm just very blessed to know that God is on my side and my family’s side so I ask prayer for my family. There's so much going on I can't even begin to explain, please, please just pray for my family. My mother especially, she's 91. She's been attacked with all the prayers that she's been praying for all of us so bless her Lord Jesus in your name I pray, and lift her up and everyone else on this site. Thank you.

Hello, I’m calling for the first time I’ve been a listener since 2011. I just want to first thank Brian and Jill for this ministry and this ministry has been such a blessing for me, and all those that are around me are affected by it also. And I just want to give praise and honor to our heavenly Father for this ministry also. Thank God for the DAB listeners and everything that we do daily together and help our walk in this life. And so, I want to pray for all the DAB listeners. Okay, and I want to pray that God would just meet every need whether it be spiritual, physical, mental or financial need or whatever the need be, I’m just praying that God would meet every need. And I just want to share this scripture for DAB members. I want to share this scripture that says Isiah 45 and 12: I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it and with my hands I stretch out the heavens. All the stars are at my command. And that’s the scripture coming from 45 Isaiah verse. I just want you to pray for my strength in the Lord. This has been a rough year. This is one of the roughest years of my life. And so, I’ve lost 3 members of my family. And I would just pray you guys would keep me in prayer. May name is Waters, I’m calling from Virginia. Have a blessed day, DAB members, DAB listeners and all the families. Look forward to hearing from you, so keep me in your prayer. Thank God for you. Chow.

[sxpiosexualx]

What bothers me a lot about dorito fans claiming her “kween” and “the rightful ruler” is that she never do an actual job as a queen? I never saw her holding a paper and a quill, all she does is ride drogon and yell “dracarys”. Tell me again how is the “queen”. At least Cersei did her job!

Exactly, Cersei may not be the best candidate but she does know a thing or two about ruling, although she’s definitely straying from that after her whole wildfire act. Still, it irks me to see Dany stans say she deserves the Iron Throne. You could argue that it wouldn’t matter considering the past rulers we’ve seen managed to keep the realm considerably stable with the help of their counsel but wouldn’t that further reinforce the notion that Dany does not know a thing about ruling by herself? Even Joffrey faced backlash from the people in S2E06, the only difference is he didn’t have the dragons to intimidate people to think twice. What makes her worthy of the throne then? Her gentle heart? Tommen had a gentle heart, he still managed to be manipulated and lost the one thing that mattered to him, driving him to suicide in the process.

Speaking of Tommen, let’s examine the exchange he had with Tywin:

Tommen: “Wisdom makes a good king.”

Tywin: “Yes, but what is Wisdom? […] A wise king knows what he knows and what he doesn’t. You’re young. A wise young king listens to his counselors and heeds their advice until he comes of age. And the wisest kings continue to listen to them long afterwards.”

Preceding the exchange in S4E07 above, Tommen explores ideas of holiness, justness, and strength before finally concluding that “Wisdom makes a good king.” So let’s dissect this further:

Could Daenerys be considered as holy? This could be shot down with one quote; “Do you know what kept me standing, through all those years in exile? Faith. Not in any God, not in myths and legends. In myself. In Daenerys Targaryen.” We never see her attempt at praying, and in this speech she gives Jon in S7E03, she mentions that she places faith in herself above the Gods. I’m not sure about you, but that line in particular screams hubris(defined as extreme pride and arrogance shown by a character that ultimately brings about his downfall).

Is Daenerys just? I believe we’ve been expected to see her that way, yes. She did in fact abolish slavery, no? However interestingly enough, if you examine her methods, she rules as an absolute monarch. As a person in such position of power, what you say is law. And we see Daenerys practice this time and time again, burning and crucifying potentially innocent men in Mereen for example. So, I assume Daenerys truly believes what she’s doing is just, but we’re also given the exchange between her and Ser Barristan Selmy in S5E02 to ponder upon, “the mad king gave his enemies the justice he thought they deserved, and each time it made him feel powerful and right, until the very end.” Ironically enough, Daenerys insists she’s not her father preceding that exchange, and Ser Barristan goes on to mention that he “murdered sons in front of their fathers,” something we see her do in Eastwatch(S7E05).

Does Daenerys wield strength? Considering she has dragons at her command, yes(arguably). But in what world does having dragons make you the most deserving candidate to sit on the Iron Throne? The Westeros that saw a Targaryen dynasty that was only able to hold their rule because of the fear their dragons commanded? Would that make a satisfying conclusion to the story? A restoration of a dynasty that faced rebellions time and time again? Who dares challenge the authority of the mother of dragons? Observe what Tywin says about Robert Baratheon and his strength in S4E07, “a man who thinks that winning and ruling are the same thing.” This is the main problem with Daenerys, she conquers easily with the help of her army and her dragons, but she has no talent for issuing any reform. And when you conquer a place through war, you shift the power dynamics creating chaos. At least Littlefinger knew that reform must come after chaos, and he plans ahead unlike Daenerys who refuses to even give thought to an heir.

Alright, I hear you, none of that matters as much as long as she’s wise - as Tywin had pointed out, “A wise young king listens to his counselors and heeds their advice until he comes of age. And the wisest kings continue to listen to them long afterwards.” But does she? We see her attempt to in Mereen, but she still resorts to the harsh measures she deems as just, despite it being what her counsel advices her against. We see her do this again with Tyrion in season 7, even questioning his loyalty(and Varys’) as soon as his plans fail. Not only is she not the wisest, she also is impressionable - she listens to Jon over her actual counsel in which path to take, and she favour’s Olenna Tyrell’s advice in being a dragon over what Tyrion tells her, and again, she refuses to reason with Tyrion and decides to burn the Tarlys alive. In other words, she places herself above the Gods, does what she thinks is just, and has the power to silence those who question her authority with her dragons, leaving very little room for her counsel to reason with her. This is why the exchange between Tyrion and Varys in season 7 was so important: these two are already starting to see her for who she really is, instead of the propped up version that was sold to them by her blind supporters.

But who else could be a contender, seeing as no one else(still living)’s arc revolves around their quest for the Iron Throne? Well, the Iron Throne is an ugly thing and I for one hope it no longer exists at the end of the series but since we’re on this topic, who did we just discover is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne? Jon. 

The show has made a point to withhold that from us up to this point, just as J*nerys was starting to sail. Why? Because he now contends everything she’s worked for, everything she believes she’s entitled to. This is why I believe Daenerys’ arc serves as a foil to Jon’s instead of cinematic parallels meant to establish an otherwise poorly executed romance.

We see both these characters rise to power but there are stark differences in place. Daenerys feels entitled and rises up due to her name(and her dragons which also link in with her lineage), meanwhile Jon finds himself in positions of power because the people elect him, he doesn’t try to claim his right, he has no right. We’re meant to notice how fundamentally different these two are.

Let’s examine Varys’ speech from season 5:

“The Seven Kingdoms need someone stronger than Tommen but gentler than Stannis. A monarch who could intimidate the High Lords and inspire the people. A ruler loved by millions, with a powerful army, and the right family name.”

Jon is certainly stronger than Tommen, evident in him being referred to as “the greatest swordsman who ever walked,” by Ramsay in S6E09. He is definitely gentler than Stannis, showing Alys Kastark and Ned Umber mercy in S7E01. He’s gotten enough support from the Northern Lords and have inspired them enough to name him King in the North, surely an army would follow too. But what does he lack then? The right family name. And how can he get that? By also achieving what he’s always wanted: to be a Stark. Cue Sansa.

We are reminded that the North is wary of outsiders, especially Targaryens, “A Targaryen cannot be trusted.” - Lord Royce, (S7E02). They are too traumatised by Targaryen rule at this point that the only logical decision to maintain their support and reinforce Jon’s Northern side is if he takes the Stark name via a political marriage with Sansa. Say what you want about eggon tamale, he was raised by Ned Stark, Stark blood flows in him, and he’s lived an observed how to rule in Winterfell via being around Robb all these years. The show may have downplayed his ability to practice politics but he speaks like a true Northerner and it’s made apparent in the books during his exchange with Stannis of just how much he knows of the North and its people.

But even if you’d like to view this purely based on the show, Sansa is the perfect match for him. She has learnt from the best political players - Cersei, Margaery, and Littlefinger - while Jon is better known as the “military man.” You can see me explore why Sansa would make a better Queen than Daenerys here: https://sxpiosexualx.tumblr.com/post/165837328667/who-would-make-a-better-queen 

Say what you want about Jonsa, it makes the most sense. Jon is a good bet as king, but he would not be as nearly as successful without Sansa by his side. This is why the show spent so much time developing their dynamic(even if it wasn’t necessarily romantic though the tropes are heavily suggested and weaved into those scenes), to show us how effective their rule would be if they ruled together. It translates on screen even through the deliberate set design of the hall: Jon and Sansa sit on an equal level with their small table or counsel of Lords, allowing for there to be easy discussion. Unlike the throne we see Daenerys sit on at Dragonstone - a larger than life throne propped up and meant to intimidate those who enter the hall.

Finally, I’ll leave you with a criticism GRRM made on the Lord of the Rings:

 “Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?” – (GRRM on Tolkein)

So again, I believe the best bet on who should rule at the end of the series, be it the entire 7 Kingdoms or just the North, would be JonSa. After all, the story did begin with the Starks, and I’d much rather see a restoration of a house who’s downfall was brought upon being honourable, than the restoration of a dynasty who’s demise was largely brought upon their own doing.

Thank you for the ask anon! x

[lilysmytheuk]

“A Critical Analysis of Humbert Humbert’s Psychological State in Vladimir Nabokov’s Modern Masterpiece Lolita” by Lily Smythe

Purchase on Amazon UK here

Vladimir Nabokov’s 1952 Modern classic Lolita[1] does little to refute the image of a deeply disturbed, unpredictable, widowed stepfather from its readers; his words encapsulate a maelstrom of emotion riddled with contradictions. 

Narrator Humbert Humbert, is undoubtedly accountable for his seditious crimes ranging from paedophilia to murder and abduction, yet still begs for compassion ‘Please reader, no matter your exasperation’[2] and the chance to explain himself: ‘do not skip these essential pages!’[3] Despite acknowledging his ‘incomplete and unorthodox memory’,[4] Lolita’s narrative provides sufficient textual evidence to suggest that his inability to retell events coherently is nothing more than a clever ruse to mitigate his crimes. Humbert emits a dubious reluctance to explore the ‘deeper and darker waters’[5] of himself; an unwillingness to reveal his true character as if afraid of exposing something nefarious. Inferred by the reader early on, this is in fact the crux of the argument: is Humbert Humbert insane or is he simply pleading insanity as an attempt to diminish responsibility for his crimes? A fundamental technique used to achieve this lies in Humbert’s expertise in ambiguity. Considered a shield against his own self-loathing and the realisation of his wrongdoing,[6] it negates his ability to recall events accurately despite his claim as a ‘very conscientious recorder’[7]. The fallacy of his memory is prevalent in his confusion in chronology, companions and even locations. There is scope to suggest that this could well be an attempt to obscure important facts from the reader that may encroach on Humbert’s true nature and are therefore deliberate actions to achieve his overarching objective: to rid himself of the burdens he carries from engaging in an immoral and illegal relationship with a twelve-year-old girl. 

Another example of the aforementioned ambiguity occurs shortly after Humbert proclaims is love for Lolita, when he receives a letter. Humbert teases the reader: ‘The hollow of my hand was still ivory-full of Lolita.... She had a message for me… an unstamped, curiously clean-looking letter in my shaking hand. This is a confession: I love you (so the letter began; and for a distorted moment I mistook its hysterical scrawl for a schoolgirl's scribble) … Pray for me —if you ever pray. CH’[8]. He leaves the original author unknown until the very last minute: ‘CH’[9] (Charlotte Haze). For the entirety of the passage, the reader may be forgiven for believing the letter to have come from Lolita, thus suggesting a longing inside Humbert’s to cling to the fantasy of a requited and accepted relationship with the young girl, consequently offering a glimpse at the ‘darker’ side of his character. Moreover, it reveals a craving to tell the story as he desires, even if it means bending the truth in order to achieve a more wholesome image of himself, thus fuelling the case against him as not insane, just unreliable. Though Humbert does state, in his own defence: ‘such suffusions of swimming colours are not to be disdained by the artist in recollection’[10], implying any errors, omissions or misconceptions are inevitable when creating art to which he considers his manuscript to be. Still, not long after this admission, Humbert again contradicts himself on the vague nature of his own work, stating he felt his ‘slippery self-eluding’[11] his responsibility to not only tell the story but also to explain his actions. His alliterative choice of lexis could have multiple connotations, for instance the whole phrase could have simply been a Freudian Slip[12], returning in support to the argument that Humbert may be intentionally masking aspects of his character.

Nonetheless, in true Humbert style, Lolita proves he subverts his own defence that his work is unavoidably erroneous whilst expanding his considerations of himself as a ‘very conscientious recorder’[13]. Whilst explaining his plans to marry Charlotte over the phone to Lolita, he discusses his ‘artistic duty’[14], priding himself in his capability to recall events straight from his journal accurately. Furthermore, there are frequent occasions where his memory is uncannily precise. He even goes so far as to claim the ‘courtesy of a photographic memory’[15]. Entire diary entries are included as well as half of the aforementioned confessional letter written to him by Charlotte, to which he claims to remember verbatim but then later refutes[16]. The reader is informed that he chose to remove the part about Charlotte’s brother[17] and it is suggested that the letter going into ‘the vortex of the toilet’[18] may have been a total fabrication altogether. Ultimately, this implies Humbert considers himself practically omnipotent in terms of his narration; it becomes clear that he chooses what he does and does not inform the reader of, inevitably leading to doubt not only in Humbert’s reliability but also his judgement and moral character. Having changed parts of Charlotte’s letter and his continuation to confuse events, arguably in an effort to gain the reader’s sympathies, his unreliability soon leads to a questioning whether his altering of the facts is limited solely to Charlotte’s letter. Nabokov has often been heavily criticised for the text supposedly advocating an ‘aesthetic bliss’[19] that encourages a structure in which the reader sympathises not with the so-called victim of the crime but with the perpetrator instead. In On a Book Entitled Lolita,[20] Nabokov stated that he does not share Humbert’s morals and disagrees with him on several other subjects[21] yet Lolita essayist Ellen Pifer[22] argues that many critics remain unconvinced, simply because they have missed the subtleties Nabokov intended.

The origin of the notion that Humbert may actually be suffering from more than just dishonesty, and rather mental instability, is first hinted at during the fictional foreword[23] by John Ray[24]. Here it is implied that the dreadful events of Lolita could have been averted had Humbert sought psychiatric help or remained inside a sanatorium during the summer of 1947[25]. Whilst the text does inform the reader of Humbert’s numerous visits to sanatoriums, they do not appear to generate a change in his behaviour. Psychiatrists deem him fit for release each time, arguing in favour of Humbert’s sanity. He believes his opportunities to leave the sanatoriums came from his ability to fool his psychiatrists, he sought happiness from watching them make false conclusions concerning factors such as his sexuality[26]. This does not suggest mental instability but rather a talent for deceit, and could lead the reader to believe Humbert is merely creating a façade, using the excuse of insanity as means to rid him of guilt or responsibility for his crimes. A prime example of his actions speaking louder than his words occurs as he claims, shortly after his third stay in a sanatorium, that the ‘reader will regret to learn that soon after my return to civilization I had another bout with insanity’,[27] again suggesting that Humbert’s consistent mention of his own mental state, as insane, are an elaborate cover up. His words continually make reference to a disturbed psychological state but his ability to plot rationally and manipulate on such a large scale do not support this. Thus one may argue that Humbert is either consciously or subconsciously inventing a reason to excuse himself from responsibility and his total lack of self-control. Such allusions are an attempt to keep the reader on side; one would only attempt to excuse something if they knew it were wrong.  

With reference to these few examples of Humbert Humbert’s behaviour, there is sufficient scope to suggest, though an unreliable narrator, that he is not insane. Humbert admits to an imperfect memory and it is clear that despite biased revisions, he feels it his duty to retell them precisely, often producing a confused structure. The novella continues with confused dates, blurred facts and mistruths despite Humbert claiming to have a photographic memory; he also appears to believe it is acceptable and somewhat necessary to lie and deceive in order to get what you want. Overall Lolita provides little to support the conclusion that Humbert’s portrayal of himself and of others is entirely accurate and could be considered a ruse to fool the reader into excusing him for what he has done, at one stage even begging for compassion, referring to himself as: ‘tender-hearted and morbidly sensitive’.[28] In order to achieve this convincingly, he overplays his allusions to insanity with several mentions of visits to sanatoriums without any clear outcome of him going there. However, the text does show the occasional sign of repentance for his crimes: ‘Had I done to Dolly, perhaps, what Frank Lasalle, a fifty-year-old mechanic, had done to eleven-year-old Sally Horner in 1948?’[29] Here Humbert sees passed his own desires and to the consequences of his actions and what his actions and their effect could have on his beloved Lolita. His rhetorical questioning implies a sense of disbelief; an acknowledgement that he may consider Frank’s actions monstrous and couldn’t possibly consider his own in the same light. Recognition of the depravity of his crimes demonstrates that he is able to rationalise them, proven in his desire to alter his retellings, thus suggesting logical thinking, which is not a behaviour consistent with a man suffering from insanity.

CITATIONS

[1] Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita (London: Penguin Classics), 2000.

[2] Ibid., 131.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 217.

[5] Ibid.,308.

[6] Joseph C Goulden.  “Prologue: How We Began.”  The Best Years.  (New York: Atheneum), 1976) 3.

[7] Ibid., 72.

[8] Ibid., 66-68.

[9]  Ibid., 68.

[10] Ibid., 236.

[11] Ibid., 308.

[12] ‘An unintentional error regarded as revealing subconscious feelings’ and, in this case, ‘slippery’ could refer to being uncontrollable. Humbert has an uncontrollable side to himself.

[13] Ibid., 72.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 40.

[16] Ibid., 68.

[17]  Ibid., 67.

[18] Ibid., 68.

[19] Jessica Joan Goddard. Realizing and Imagining "Aesthetic Bliss" in Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and Pale Fire. Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 23(2), 2011.

[20] Vladimir Nabokov. A Book Entitled Lolita. Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, 23, 2012.

[21] Ibid., 4.

[22] Ellen Pifer. “The Lolita phenomenon from Paris to Tehran”. The Cambridge Companion to Nabokov. Ed. Julian W. Connolly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 185-199.

[23] Nabokov. Lolita. “Foreword”. 3.

[24] Written by the fictional John Ray Jr., Ph.D., the foreword informs us that the author of this manuscript, entitled Lolita, or the Confession of a White Widowed Male, died of heart failure in 1952, while imprisoned and awaiting trial.

[25] Nabokov. Lolita. “Foreword”. 35.

[26] Nabokov. Lolita. 34.

[27] Ibid., 34.

[28] Ibid., 131.

[29] Sarah Weinman. "The Real Lolita." Penguin Random House. http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/longreads/real-lolita (5th February 2015). Lasalle has kidnapped Horner after a chance encounter at a bookstore and moved from state to state with her for almost two years before she managed to escape. Lasalle plead guilty to the charges and remained in prison until death.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source

Nabokov,     Vladimir. London: Penguin Books, 1995.

Secondary Sources

Bennett,     Tony, ‘Texts in History: The Determinations of Readings and Their Texts’,     in Reception Study: From Literary Theory to Cultural Studies,     ed. by James L. Machor and Philip Goldstein (New York: Routledge, 2001),     pp. 61-74.

Bodroghkozy,     Aniko. “Television in Black-and-White America: Race and National     Identity” Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Volume 38.     Issue 1 (2007). Project Muse. <accessed: 9th February 2015>

Goddard,     Jessica Joan. Realizing and Imagining "Aesthetic Bliss"     in Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and Pale Fire. Berkeley Undergraduate     Journal, 23(2), 2011.

Goulden,     Joseph C.  “Prologue: How We Began.” The     Best Years.  (New York: Atheneum, 1976), pp.  3-1.

Keen,     Suzanne. Narrative Form. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Lacan,     Jacques. “The Meaning of the Phallus.” The Critical Tradition: Classic     Texts and Contemporary Trends 2.1 (2007).

Nabokov,     Vladimir. A Book Entitled Lolita. Berkeley     Undergraduate Journal, 23(2), 2011.

Olson,     Greta. “Reconsidering Unreliability: Fallible and Untrustworthy     Narrators”. Narrative. 11.1 (January 2003).

Pifer,     Ellen. “The Lolita phenomenon from Paris to Tehran”. The Cambridge     Companion to Nabokov. Ed. Julian W. Connolly. Cambridge: Cambridge     University Press, 2005. 185-199.

Rimmon-Keenan,     Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Routledge,     1989.

Weinman,     Sarah. "The Real Lolita." Penguin Random House.     http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/longreads/real-lolita (5th February     2015).

[pope-francis-quotes]

10th September >> Pope Francis Homily During Mass in Colombia: ‘Peace requires healing of sins’ (photo ~ Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Colombia - AP) (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Cartagena’s port area on Sunday at the conclusion of his Apostolic Visit to Colombia. The Holy Father reflected on the peace that Jesus brings through the community and how necessary it is for Colombian society. “For decades Colombia has yearned for peace”, he said, “but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins.” He said people cannot be ignored when making peace, in placing reason above revenge, and in respecting “the delicate harmony between politics and law”. “Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups. Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties,” he said. Please find below the official English translation of the Pope’s prepared homily: Homily: “The Dignity of the Person and Human Rights.” Cartagena de Indias Sunday, 10 September 2017 In this city, which has been called “heroic” for its tenacity in defending freedom two hundred years ago, I celebrate the concluding Mass of my Visit to Colombia. For the past thirty-two years Cartagena de Indias is also the headquarters in Colombia for Human Rights. For here the people cherish the fact that, “thanks to the missionary team formed by the Jesuit priests Peter Claver y Corberó, Alonso de Sandoval and Brother Nicolás González, accompanied by many citizens of the city of Cartagena de Indias in the seventeenth century, the desire was born to alleviate the situation of the oppressed of that time, especially of slaves, of those who implored fair treatment and freedom” (Congress of Colombia 1985, law 95, art. 1). Here, in the Sanctuary of Saint Peter Claver, where the progress and application of human rights in Colombia continue to be studied and monitored in a systematic way, the Word of God speaks to us of forgiveness, correction, community and prayer. In the fourth sermon of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus speaks to us, who have decided to support the community, to us, who value life together and dream of a project that includes everyone. The preceding text is that of the good shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to go after the one that is lost. This fact pervades the entire text: there is no one too lost to deserve our care, our closeness and our forgiveness. From this perspective, we can see that a fault or a sin committed by one person challenges us all, but involves, primarily, the victim of someone’s sin. He or she is called to take the initiative so that whoever has caused the harm is not lost. During these past few days I have heard many testimonies from those who have reached out to people who had harmed them; terrible wounds that I could see in their own bodies; irreparable losses that still bring tears. Yet they have reached out, have taken a first step on a different path to the one already travelled. For decades Colombia has yearned for peace but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins. The Lord tells us in the Gospel: “If your brother does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you” (Mt 18:16). We have learned that these ways of making peace, of placing reason above revenge, of the delicate harmony between politics and law, cannot ignore the involvement of the people. Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups. Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties. It is always helpful, moreover, to incorporate into our peace processes the experience of those sectors that have often been overlooked, so that communities themselves can influence the development of collective memory. “The principal author, the historic subject of this process, is the people as a whole and their culture, and not a single class, minority, group or elite. We do not need plans drawn up by a few for the few, or an enlightened or outspoken minority which claims to speak for everyone. It is about agreeing to live together, a social and cultural pact” (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 239). We can contribution greatly to this new step that Colombia wants to take. Jesus tells us that this path of reintegration into the community begins with a dialogue of two persons. Nothing can replace that healing encounter; no collective process excuses us from the challenge of meeting, clarifying, forgiving. Deep historic wounds necessarily require moments where justice is done, where victims are given the opportunity to know the truth, where damage is adequately repaired and clear commitments are made to avoid repeating those crimes. But that is only the beginning of the Christian response. We are required to generate “from below” a change in culture: so that we respond to the culture of death and violence, with the culture of life and encounter. We have already learned this from your own beloved author whom we all benefit from: “This cultural disaster is not remedied with lead or silver, but with an education for peace, built lovingly on the rubble of an angry country where we rise early to continue killing each other... a legitimate revolution of peace which channels towards life an immense creative energy that for almost two centuries we have used to destroy us and that vindicates and exalts the predominance of the imagination” (Gabriel García Márquez, Message About Peace, 1998). How much have we worked for an encounter, for peace? How much have we neglected, allowing barbarity to become enfleshed in the life of our people? Jesus commands us to confront those types of behaviour, those ways of living that damage society and destroy the community. How many times have we “normalized” the logic of violence and social exclusion, without prophetically raising our hands or voices! Alongside Saint Peter Claver were thousands of Christians, many of them consecrated… but only a handful started a counter-cultural movement of encounter. Saint Peter was able to restore the dignity and hope of hundreds of thousands of black people and slaves arriving in absolutely inhuman conditions, full of dread, with all their hopes lost. He did not have prestigious academic qualifications, and he even said of himself that he was “mediocre” in terms of intelligence, but he had the genius to live the Gospel to the full, to meet those whom others considered merely as waste material. Centuries later, the footsteps of this missionary and apostle of the Society of Jesus were followed by Saint María Bernarda Bütler, who dedicated her life to serving the poor and marginalized in this same city of Cartagena.[1] In the encounter between us we rediscover our rights, and we recreate our lives so that they re-emerge as authentically human. “The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic. This common home of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature” (Address to the United Nations, 25 September 2015). Jesus also shows us the possibility that the other may remain closed, refusing to change, persisting in evil. We cannot deny that there are people who persist in sins that damage the fabric of our coexistence and community: “I also think of the heart-breaking drama of drug abuse, which reaps profits in contempt of the moral and civil laws. I think of the devastation of natural resources and ongoing pollution, and the tragedy of the exploitation of labour. I think too of illicit money trafficking and financial speculation, which often prove both predatory and harmful for entire economic and social systems, exposing millions of men and women to poverty. I think of prostitution, which every day reaps innocent victims, especially the young, robbing them of their future. I think of the abomination of human trafficking, crimes and abuses against minors, the horror of slavery still present in many parts of the world; the frequently overlooked tragedy of migrants, who are often victims of disgraceful and illegal manipulation” (Message for the World Day of Peace, 2014, 8), and even with a pacifist “sterile legality” that ignores the flesh of our brothers and sisters, the flesh of Christ. We must also be prepared for this, and solidly base ourselves upon principles of justice that in no way diminish charity. It is only possible to live peacefully by avoiding actions that corrupt or harm life. In this context, we remember all those who, bravely and tirelessly, have worked and even lost their lives in defending and protecting the rights and the dignity of the human person. History asks us to embrace a definitive commitment to defending human rights, here in Cartagena de Indias, the place that you have chosen as the national seat of their defence. Finally, Jesus asks us to pray together, so that our prayer, even with its personal nuances and different emphases, becomes symphonic and arises as one single cry. I am sure that today we pray together for the rescue of those who were wrong and not for their destruction, for justice and not revenge, for healing in truth and not for oblivion. We pray to fulfil the theme of this visit: “Let us take the first step!” And may this first step be in a common direction. To “take the first step” is, above all, to go out and meet others with Christ the Lord. And he always asks us to take a determined and sure step towards our brothers and sisters, and to renounce our claim to be forgiven without showing forgiveness, to be loved without showing love. If Colombia wants a stable and lasting peace, it must urgently take a step in this direction, which is that of the common good, of equity, of justice, of respect for human nature and its demands. Only if we help to untie the knots of violence, will we unravel the complex threads of disagreements. We are asked to take the step of meeting with our brothers and sisters, and to risk a correction that does not want to expel but to integrate. And we are asked to be charitably firm in that which is not negotiable. In short, the demand is to build peace, “speaking not with the tongue but with hands and works” (Saint Peter Claver), and to lift up our eyes to heaven together. The Lord is able to untie that which seems impossible to us, and he has promised to accompany us to the end of time, and will bring to fruition all our efforts. [1] She also had the wisdom of charity and knew how to find God in her neighbour; nor was she paralyzed by injustice and challenges, because “when conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process” (Evangelii Gaudium, 227)

[frederickwiddowson]

Genesis 1:1 comments continued: How do you know that God exists?

The second question that begs itself is, “How do you know that God exists?”

There have been lots of arguments in history regarding God’s existence. There is everything from Pascal’s Wager. It goes like this in a shortened way. If I believe in God and He doesn’t exist I won’t know because I will cease to exist. If you don’t believe in God and He does exist, you’re fried.

There have been arguments from Aesthetics, Desire, Conscience, the Moral Argument, the Ontological Argument, and on and on for thousands of years. But, really, the argument for God’s existence breaks down to where we live. The most important proof of God’s existence is that there is something rather than nothing and since stuff doesn’t create itself it had to be created, and that’s where God comes in.

Of course, faith cannot be based on this idea. Faith is based on your experience with Him and on the truth of what He has said in His book. Not only have I encountered a risen Saviour in prayer, Bible reading, answered prayer, and in the creation and reality around me but I completely trust His book containing His ministry of reconciling mankind to Himself. I have no doubts. God speaks to my heart through His book changing me without me hearing words in my ear but working on me from the inside in His special way.

You may not find me a credible witness. Unbelievers become adamant, raving even, that as a person of faith you are a lunatic, or weak, or small-minded. They cannot accept that a perfectly rational scientist, businessman, or scholar of any type could believe in and love a God who has not revealed Himself to them.

These are things outside of our personal experience with God, a personal experience that no unbeliever can understand or accept unless God Himself touches their hearts, that suggest or even prove His existence.

Let’s take something as complex as life. The astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was born in Yorkshire, England on June 24, 1915. He was conferred a master's degree from Cambridge in 1939 and then was elected Fellow, St. John's College, Cambridge in the same year. He worked his way to become a Professor of Astrophysics and Natural Philosophy in 1958. He was a leading contributor in the discovery of how the elements from lithium to iron are synthesized inside stars.

Professor N. Chandra Wickramasinghe was born in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on January 20, 1939, studied astrophysics at Cambridge, and was a student of Hoyle's. He received a Ph.D. in 1963 taught at Cambridge. He later became a Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at the University College, Cardiff, Wales. He is an expert in the use of infrared astronomy to study interstellar matter.

These are no lightweights although Wickramasinghe has gone a little bonkers in the last few years. But, they both came to the logical atheist conclusion that life came from outer space. Why? Because it was impossible for it to have happened by random chance on earth, not in 15 billion years or a hundred billion years. Let me read you a quote published recently by Dr. Wick…

“Improbability of Life

The blueprint for all life from bacteria to plants to animals was discovered in the 1950s by Watson and Crick to reside in DNA – in particular in the precise arrangements of the nucleotides A,G,T,C that effectively code for proteins that in turn control cell function. In a series of books and articles published in collaboration with the late Sir Fred Hoyle, I have argued that highly specific arrangements needed for the operation of living cells cannot be understood as arising from random processes. For the simplest bacterium (Mycoplasma genitalium) the probability that its few hundred genes will be discovered by random shuffling of their amino acid components gives a figure of 1 in 10 to the 1000th power or smaller. Hoyle and I have compared such horrendous improbabilities to the odds against a ‘tornado blowing through a junk yard leading to self-assembly of BOEING 707 airplane.’”[1]

1 in 10 to the 1000th? These types of scientists estimate there is only 10 to the 80th power number of atoms in the universe. Saying that life came about by random processes is like me saying that I’m getting handsomer, wealthier, and smarter as I get older. You would just look at me and go, what? I’m joking, right? But, scientists who believe in spontaneous generation, I mean abiogenesis, or life by accident are serious.

So, proof that God exists, step one. Life could not have happened on earth by chance. It’s not mathematically conceivable, not by any stretch of your Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Dr. Who imagination. But, what about it coming from somewhere else? That’s called panspermia and that’s what Dr. Wick believes in.

Well, NASA scientists Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, in their book, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, explained that it is also highly unlikely that life came from someplace else as this planet, located where it is, is the best and most likely place for life to exist and, in fact, probably could not exist anywhere else.

So, proof that God exists, step two. Life could not have happened anywhere but on earth. But, it couldn’t happen here by chance. So, something else, or someone else rather, must be happening than mere material processes randomly achieved, or if you don’t like my use of the word random, then how about without purpose or intent, by accident.

Who could it be?

You know if they could have proven that life could have come together by random events on earth like Miller-Urey’s experiment tried to do and failed in the 1950s it would be astounding. But, you’d have to have nothing and then have something suddenly come into existence for it to simulate God without God. After all, Miller-Urey made something happen with the equipment and chemicals they introduced making themselves in the place of God. But, they did not create life and established conditions that evolutionists do not believe were present in their fantasy of early earth anyway. So, it worked as a publicity stunt but was not good science.

Then, there was Dr. Wimmer in the latter part of the twentieth century who supposedly made a virus out of synthetic DNA. Now he admitted in an interview that he did not create life as a virus isn’t alive, it can’t reproduce itself and needs a host, and he used synthetic DNA.

None of these experiments or any other created life or proved that it could be created by random processes without an intelligent mind involved.

So, now you have the gorilla in the living room. You have something as complex as life and you shouldn’t have it if there were no one to inject their intelligence into it. Life isn’t possible without God.

You have the atheist or the doubter demanding, “How do you know God exists?” and you have your own testimony, if you have one, and you have this incontrovertible fact, “Because without God life could not exist.”

You see, we are not just alive. We are aware that we are alive. Science has a huge problem with conscious self-awareness. Step three to proving that God exists. I am.

It has been said repeatedly that consciousness is the window through which we understand. Science has failed to pinpoint the actual brain processes that are behind our awareness. Some neuroscientists and philosophers of science express a deep pessimism that we will ever find an explanation for consciousness. But we know. Every car mechanic or customer service rep, a farmer or bank teller can know what a neuroscientist does not know. We know where consciousness comes from, that function of our spirit.

Zechariah 12:1 ¶  The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Scientists say that a good theory, a theory that must supplant other theories, doesn’t have to answer every question. But it must answer more questions than its competitors. The belief in God answers far more questions than theoretical science can even come up with.

God is the greatest of all self-aware beings.

Exodus 3:14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

He made us. He formed our bodies, our souls, and our spirits. In these verses are all three; body, spirit, and soul.

Genesis 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1Thessalonians 5:23  And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He uses our spirit to see us from the inside.

Proverbs 20:27  The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

We are made self-aware and our soul is the seat of our self-identity and will and our spirit makes us aware of it, of God, and of all things. It is our understanding, our skills, our drives, our emotions, our yearnings.

It is sad that the atheist or doubter will question your testimony as to whether or not you are a credible witness for God’s existence. That was how I came to Christ, the mechanism He used, the testimony of others. I vacillated between atheism, happy to believe in any religion at all, and really, God just being irrelevant to my life or thinking. But, over time I saw the truth of Christianity in the lives of people around me.

No, it wasn’t because of someone screaming Bible verses at me on a street corner. It wasn’t from someone handing me a gospel tract. It was the testimony of Christians, filled with faith and goodness, relying completely on God for their very survival, trusting in Christ’s righteousness and not their own for eternal life. Their faith was real, and it took time but God impressed on me that reality until I accepted it myself and received Christ on March 19, 1986. It was a Wednesday evening I believe.

The question of whether or not God exists has been a subject of deep philosophical debate for thousands of years. But, even outside of our experience we know.

Psalm 19:1  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

The proof of God’s existence is all around us. Without God’s existence no reality makes sense for very long.

Ask yourself, if there was no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? Why is something as complex as life here in this space of earth?  If God doesn’t exist why do I know that I am? Where did that come from, o’ wise one? How can we have this conversation?

The universe is finely tuned, so finely tuned that something as rare and fragile as life can live in it. Things like the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, the density parameter, the cosmological constant, and a bunch of other intelligent sounding stuff make many scientists insist that the universe is just so and because of that you, me, and that little chipmunk you saw on your deck this morning can exist.

Other scientists invent all sorts of nonsensical things to counteract this belief. They will resurrect the multidimensions of the occult of the late 1800s which impacted theoretical physics then and say there is a multiverse, many universes where things are different and anything is possible. I might even be handsomer, wealthier, and smarter on one of them, in their imagination only of course.

But, the universe is fine-tuned. Now, how does something get tuned? Have you ever seen a radio tune itself? Never mind. In today’s world I suppose that is possible. But, at some point a person was involved; an engineer or someone to tune that radio. How do you think the universe was tuned so close and exact? Who did it? Who maintains it? We all know that if you leave your car in the driveway without maintaining it for thirty years the tires will rot and it will become undriveable. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things fall apart. Oh, and there is this;

Colossians 1:17  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Scientific papers have expressed alarm at the harmful mutations produced in each generation of people. One of them was entitled, “Contamination of the Genome by Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations: Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over?” But, we’re here, our biology is preserved, life goes on and the planet is not yet cold and dead.

Again, I say ask yourself, if there was no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? Why is something as complex as life here in this space of earth?  If God doesn’t exist why do I know that I am? Why is the universe so finely tuned as to permit us to exist?

You know, our government has spent millions of dollars searching for extraterrestrials, life on other planets, even microbial. They will continue to do so but will probably never find it. The scientific community has a hunger, a lust, to overthrow God. They are searching for microbes and water on Mars.

In the Rosetta Mission they recently learned that water in space can be vastly different than water on earth so they feel confident in at least admitting that our water didn’t come from comets. But, they will keep searching, hoping to be able to drive the nail in the coffin for belief in the God of the Bible.

There are two other things that scream the truth of the existence of God. One is the very desperate desire to prove beyond all doubt that He does not. Let me read you part of the short religious history of man that God has provided in Romans.

Romans 1:19 ¶  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 And in another context an ancient warning;

 Isaiah 66:4  I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

 Remember what King David thought of atheists in about 1000 BC.

 Psalm 14:1  « To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. » The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 Finally, evolutionary biologists admit an astounding thing. Belief in God, according to some of them, is hard-wired into the human brain. A neuroscientist and the author of several books, Andrew Newberg, wrote a book entitled Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. He is called a neurotheologist, studying how religious belief and prayer affect the brain.

 On page 129 he wrote, “…evolution has adopted this machinery, and has favored the religious capabilities of the religious brain because religious belief and behaviors turn out to be good for us in profound and pragmatic ways.”

 As evolutionists often do he refers to evolution as he does in other places with natural selection almost as a god in itself rather than just a process or a mechanism by which new species of dog, cat, or deer are produced by environmental stresses or opportunities or human cross-breeding efforts (There are more than two dozen scientific definitions of species.) The fact is that all of the genetic information necessary for a creature to adapt to its environment are present within the creature’s DNA and no dog ever became a cat and no alligator ever became a trout. But, Newberg, like other of his ilk, refer to evolution as a sort of inert god who unfeelingly adopts and favors in the passage I quoted. In a preceding page he refers to natural selection as not tolerating something. So, it is almost humorous to see how these kinds of scientists use language, at the least, in a very interesting way.

 Susan Mazur, a science writer and journalist who doesn’t appear to be a fundamental Baptist (said in a tongue-in-cheek manner), wrote in her book The Altenberg 16: An Expose’ of the Evolution Industry that, “Evolutionary science is as much about posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying as it is about actual scientific theory.” (v)

So, to summarize, if you want to look outside of your own experience for proof that God exists I suggest starting with life. There are many other topics we could talk about that prove or at least suggest His existence but for brevity sake let’s review the points I’ve made.

 One, there is something rather than nothing and since space dust did not create itself then something or someone did. Two, life could not have begun here on earth and probably not on some distant planet by chance. Some intelligent being had to create it. Three, self-awareness and consciousness imply a reality greater than the physical universe. Four, we are apparently “hard-wired” to believe in God. It is part of our make-up.

 We believe in God because He has communed with our spirit so that we can. We experience Him in our prayer and in the answers to it, the way the Bible speaks to us, in the truth found in it, the way He molds and changes us by our reading and hearing it read, by the reality arounds us that is confirmed in the Bible, and by His miraculous intervention in our lives.

[1] Chandra Wickramasinghe & Robert Bauval, Cosmic Womb: The Seeding of Planet Earth (Rochester, Vermont:Bear & Co., 2017), Kindle ed., chap. 1.

[catholicwatertown]

Pope in Colombia at Mass: ‘Peace requires healing of sins’

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Cartagena’s port area on Sunday at the conclusion of his Apostolic Visit to Colombia.

The Holy Father reflected on the peace that Jesus brings through the community and how necessary it is for Colombian society.

“For decades Colombia has yearned for peace”, he said, “but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins.”

He said people cannot be ignored when making peace, in placing reason above revenge, and in respecting “the delicate harmony between politics and law”.

“Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups. Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties,” he said.

Please find below the official English translation of the Pope’s prepared homily:

Homily: “The Dignity of the Person and Human Rights.”

Cartagena de Indias

Sunday, 10 September 2017

In this city, which has been called “heroic” for its tenacity in defending freedom two hundred years ago, I celebrate the concluding Mass of my Visit to Colombia.  For the past thirty-two years Cartagena de Indias is also the headquarters in Colombia for Human Rights.  For here the people cherish the fact that, “thanks to the missionary team formed by the Jesuit priests Peter Claver y Corberó, Alonso de Sandoval and Brother Nicolás González, accompanied by many citizens of the city of Cartagena de Indias in the seventeenth century, the desire was born to alleviate the situation of the oppressed of that time, especially of slaves, of those who implored fair treatment and freedom” (Congress of Colombia 1985, law 95, art. 1).

Here, in the Sanctuary of Saint Peter Claver, where the progress and application of human rights in Colombia continue to be studied and monitored in a systematic way, the Word of God speaks to us of forgiveness, correction, community and prayer.

In the fourth sermon of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus speaks to us, who have decided to support the community, to us, who value life together and dream of a project that includes everyone.  The preceding text is that of the good shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to go after the one that is lost.  This fact pervades the entire text: there is no one too lost to deserve our care, our closeness and our forgiveness.  From this perspective, we can see that a fault or a sin committed by one person challenges us all, but involves, primarily, the victim of someone’s sin.  He or she is called to take the initiative so that whoever has caused the harm is not lost.

During these past few days I have heard many testimonies from those who have reached out to people who had harmed them; terrible wounds that I could see in their own bodies; irreparable losses that still bring tears.  Yet they have reached out, have taken a first step on a different path to the one already travelled.  For decades Colombia has yearned for peace but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins.  The Lord tells us in the Gospel: “If your brother does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you” (Mt 18:16).

We have learned that these ways of making peace, of placing reason above revenge, of the delicate harmony between politics and law, cannot ignore the involvement of the people.  Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups.  Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties.  It is always helpful, moreover, to incorporate into our peace processes the experience of those sectors that have often been overlooked, so that communities themselves can influence the development of collective memory.  “The principal author, the historic subject of this process, is the people as a whole and their culture, and not a single class, minority, group or elite. We do not need plans drawn up by a few for the few, or an enlightened or outspoken minority which claims to speak for everyone. It is about agreeing to live together, a social and cultural pact” (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 239).

We can contribution greatly to this new step that Colombia wants to take.  Jesus tells us that this path of reintegration into the community begins with a dialogue of two persons.  Nothing can replace that healing encounter; no collective process excuses us from the challenge of meeting, clarifying, forgiving.  Deep historic wounds necessarily require moments where justice is done, where victims are given the opportunity to know the truth, where damage is adequately repaired and clear commitments are made to avoid repeating those crimes.  But that is only the beginning of the Christian response.  We are required to generate “from below” a change in culture: so that we respond to the culture of death and violence, with the culture of life and encounter.  We have already learned this from your own beloved author whom we all benefit from:  “This cultural disaster is not remedied with lead or silver, but with an education for peace, built lovingly on the rubble of an angry country where we rise early to continue killing each other... a legitimate revolution of peace which channels towards life an immense creative energy that for almost two centuries we have used to destroy us and that vindicates and exalts the predominance of the imagination” (Gabriel García Márquez, Message About Peace, 1998).  

How much have we worked for an encounter, for peace? How much have we neglected, allowing barbarity to become enfleshed in the life of our people?  Jesus commands us to confront those types of behaviour, those ways of living that damage society and destroy the community.  How many times have we “normalized” the logic of violence and social exclusion, without prophetically raising our hands or voices!  Alongside Saint Peter Claver were thousands of Christians, many of them consecrated… but only a handful started a counter-cultural movement of encounter.  Saint Peter was able to restore the dignity and hope of hundreds of thousands of black people and slaves arriving in absolutely inhuman conditions, full of dread, with all their hopes lost.  He did not have prestigious academic qualifications, and he even said of himself that he was “mediocre” in terms of intelligence, but he had the genius to live the Gospel to the full, to meet those whom others considered merely as waste material.  Centuries later, the footsteps of this missionary and apostle of the Society of Jesus were followed by Saint María Bernarda Bütler, who dedicated her life to serving the poor and marginalized in this same city of Cartagena.[1]

In the encounter between us we rediscover our rights, and we recreate our lives so that they re-emerge as authentically human.  “The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic. This common home of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature” (Address to the United Nations, 25 September 2015).

Jesus also shows us the possibility that the other may remain closed, refusing to change, persisting in evil.  We cannot deny that there are people who persist in sins that damage the fabric of our coexistence and community: “I also think of the heart-breaking drama of drug abuse, which reaps profits in contempt of the moral and civil laws.  I think of the devastation of natural resources and ongoing pollution, and the tragedy of the exploitation of labour. I think too of illicit money trafficking and financial speculation, which often prove both predatory and harmful for entire economic and social systems, exposing millions of men and women to poverty. I think of prostitution, which every day reaps innocent victims, especially the young, robbing them of their future. I think of the abomination of human trafficking, crimes and abuses against minors, the horror of slavery still present in many parts of the world; the frequently overlooked tragedy of migrants, who are often victims of disgraceful and illegal manipulation” (Message for the World Day of Peace, 2014, 8), and even with a pacifist “sterile legality” that ignores the flesh of our brothers and sisters, the flesh of Christ.  We must also be prepared for this, and solidly base ourselves upon principles of justice that in no way diminish charity.  It is only possible to live peacefully by avoiding actions that corrupt or harm life.  In this context, we remember all those who, bravely and tirelessly, have worked and even lost their lives in defending and protecting the rights and the dignity of the human person.   History asks us to embrace a definitive commitment to defending human rights, here in Cartagena de Indias, the place that you have chosen as the national seat of their defence.

Finally, Jesus asks us to pray together, so that our prayer, even with its personal nuances and different emphases, becomes symphonic and arises as one single cry.  I am sure that today we pray together for the rescue of those who were wrong and not for their destruction, for justice and not revenge, for healing in truth and not for oblivion.  We pray to fulfil the theme of this visit: “Let us take the first step!” And may this first step be in a common direction.

To “take the first step” is, above all, to go out and meet others with Christ the Lord.  And he always asks us to take a determined and sure step towards our brothers and sisters, and to renounce our claim to be forgiven without showing forgiveness, to be loved without showing love.  If Colombia wants a stable and lasting peace, it must urgently take a step in this direction, which is that of the common good, of equity, of justice, of respect for human nature and its demands.  Only if we help to untie the knots of violence, will we unravel the complex threads of disagreements.  We are asked to take the step of meeting with our brothers and sisters, and to risk a correction that does not want to expel but to integrate.  And we are asked to be charitably firm in that which is not negotiable.  In short, the demand is to build peace, “speaking not with the tongue but with hands and works” (Saint Peter Claver), and to lift up our eyes to heaven together.  The Lord is able to untie that which seems impossible to us, and he has promised to accompany us to the end of time, and will bring to fruition all our efforts.

[1] She also had the wisdom of charity and knew how to find God in her neighbour; nor was she paralyzed by injustice and challenges, because “when conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process” (Evangelii Gaudium, 227).

(from Vatican Radio)

from News.va http://ift.tt/2wR0qBj via IFTTT from Blogger http://ift.tt/2xYam9X