#forced to confront his sins and wrongdoing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

simplegenius042 · 10 months

Note

Betrayal, Mistake and Monster for Silva 😊 Please !

Jumping straight to the angstiest of angsts I see. Into the devastating life of Silva we go!

Also this kind of becomes like rambling because I'm very invested in my stuff. Also it's long... so read if you want, take breaks if you must.

TW: Mentions of child abuse (in all forms), a really fascist and shitty society, massacre, death, grooming (in all forms) and cult stuff. Father Adam Omar is officially his own warning. It gets kind of dark sometimes but thankfully not in the FULLEST of details. Continue below:

betrayal: Has your OC ever been betrayed by someone they thought they could trust? Has your OC ever betrayed someone who trusted them?

On the receiving end of betrayal there's only been two major ones and two minor ones. It's not in entirely detail and is slightly a summary since there's a lot more to this.

I make no subtlety in the fact that Silva and Elsa's father, Adam Omar, is an abhorrent individual who deserves to die. He is a danger to his current children, the predecessors he sired before them, and literally everyone else. Anyone who was not under his cult and dictatorship could have looked at Adam and the society he lead and immediately notice the red flags surrounding him. With that said, Silva had been born in the Congregation of Adam's Guard, so what would be deplorable and unacceptable to us was the norm to Silva and Elsa growing up. Adam was Silva's primary caretaker and the one person (barely) keeping her alive and healthy, even if it was clear that he despised her and favored Elsa. The problem was, Adam's delusions and extreme control freak nature often lead him away from his intended purpose for Silva (his plan to groom her into the "Judas" who would be the embodiment of sin and activate the Collapse vs his sick desire to groom her into the role to be his "Eve" and/or kill her for existing... neither great options), so he gave very mixed signals on how much he "cared" for Silva. His constant swings from disdainful neglect and abuse to pride, compliments and reward caused Silva to both crave for his touch and love but also to fear it. But despite his malicious intentions, Silva was caught in his narrative that he did care for her but her "sins" made it difficult, and only he could "fix" her. Silva trusted her father... what child wouldn't? Even though Adam's betrayal had come years before (nearly killing her as an infant, nearly drowning her during her first (of many) baptisms, his neglect and abuse, his grooming, forcing her to witness graphic violence, etc), the most significant events that made Silva realise she had been betrayed by Adam came in three parts; first, at the age of ten, she noticing Adam's (age 52) attention shift from her to Elsa (age 9) and overhearing his plan to get rid of her, second discovering the pile of bodies of her half-siblings (or as he called them, Silva and Elsa's failed predecessors) upon been thrown down into the cellar to be killed later, and lastly, at the age of 18 during the Tumultite Massacre, confronting Adam (age 60) in his palace seeking answers for why she didn't love her as a parent should (as Paul had shown her a parent should), he made it clear that, in the grand scheme of the Lord's plan, while Elsa and her predecessors were merely a means to an end that he could tolerate, Silva herself meant absolutely nothing to him but a constant reminder of failure that fueled his justification to be a raging, bigoted and hate-filled asshole towards her all the while blaming her for not being what he wanted (both as his "Judas" and his "Eve")[<- NOTE: This entire sentence is merely an abridged summary of what he meant and had said to Silva, Adam himself would never admit any wrongdoing nor call himself anything insulting to his self-perceived character]. Then he proceeded to chase her down in an attempt to kill her once again. Thankfully Silva, Elsa (age 17) and Persephone (a week or two old) managed to get to a boat and got away from the Archipelagos and the Congregation.

That was one major betrayal Silva had to deal with and one that still haunts her. The second major betrayal was with her adoptive father, Paul Yellowjack. Five years after escaping the Tumultite Massacre and making residence in Hope County with her sister and daughter (though the former only gets to spend the first two years with them before dying in an accident at age 19 or 20 haven't decided), Paul (age 51) visits Silva (age 23) at her residence, five years after she thought he died during the massacre that pretty much wiped out their entire community (with the exception of Kamski and Ezekiel, who survived but Silva wouldn't know that until she encounters Kamski later that year and Ezekiel during the New Dawn Arc). Despite the warm reunion, he insists for her and Persephone (age 5) to join his cult (the Apostles of Zachariah) which she refutes, because the Congregation was traumatizing and Eden's Gate has been harassing her over her late-sister's floristry. Paul initially accepted this and swiftly left... then later the next day ambushed her with the rest of the Heralds of the Orchestrator, kidnapping Persephone, and forcing Silva to go on a six-month travel across the globe hunting down these heralds looking for her daughter. So for context... Paul went a little mad after the massacre and joined a cult whose whole premise was "the individual cannot grow nor live without suffering and must be traumatised to better adapt" (plus a whole bunch of other ideals). The ultimate betrayal comes when (eventually) Silva corners Paul with Kamski's (age 55) help, though Paul (out of a combination of feeling betrayed himself, a punishing retribution to avenge his fallen adopted children, pure spite for ruining his operations and slight envy towards his granddaughter) had murdered Persephone right in front of Silva (something that would shake and reshape Silva's character drastically and lead to Paul's own life-long self-loathing and regret for his selfish actions). Paul pays this betrayal with his life upon the final month (though as you will learn in the New Dawn arc, this only ends Paul on the material plane, and grants him a doorway to a supernatural state...)

The minor betrayals Silva experiences come from Eden's Gate (a hostile takeover is not taken well by Silva, especially if the one/s committing it are pretending they aren't in any wrong) and Denise Lapis (unfortunate forced wife to Captain of the Enforcers, Oscar Lapis, who had been taken in by the Tumultites after finding her near death, though she betrays them by tipping off the Enforcers to the planned rescue mission for Elsa. Though Silva was (justifiably) mad about this at the time, especially when it gave the Enforcers an opportunity to surprise her community with a massacre that killed her lover, Persephone's mother and Kamski's daughter, Irene Neon, five to eight years later after having to reflect upon her life, Silva understood Denise was as much as a victim as she was and only did what she did out of fear, rationalizing that, had she still been under Adam's thumb and in Denise's position, she would have probably done the same thing).

Now, Silva herself betraying is only very minor, and from the (questionable) perspective of others and herself. Adam would obviously think Silva to have done this to him, even when he tried to set her up as this to the Tumultites (which failed), but from Paul's perspective, this may be the case, especially during the six-months she hunted down Paul and the Apostles, but eventually years later he realises this to be false and that he was definitely at fault for his own actions. But for Silva herself, thanks to her survivor's guilt and self-blame, she believes that if she is unable to help another community overcome an oppressive force who is way too similar to the Congregation for her to even be able to disassociate the two, if she fails in saving more lives than she could in the massacre, or worse, gives in and joins Eden's Gate (which to her, regardless if they're morally better than Adam's Guard will ever be, will never provide a safety and belonging that she wants to have with the residents of Hope County), she feels then that she would be betraying the values of Jannah's Principles, tarnished the memory of the community who gave her freedom and an opportunity to live a normal life (at the cost of their own) and breaking another promise to her loved ones, leaving their sacrifices in vain. There's also the part in which in Silva's Hope, she has a moral crisis over whether or not to keep John, who she had spared and kept as a prisoner in her bunker, alive as an opportunity to end the Reaping at the potential cost of her friends and new community's trust in her for withholding the fact she didn't kill John despite all he had done, or to kill him to legitimize the lie as truthful and keep her friends at the cost of her own morals of killing a defenseless and imprisoned enemy who she actually started to view more positively and with more sympathy and friendliness (especially after Joseph's broadcasted eulogy, something that both reaffirms her belief that Joseph is a fraudulent prophet and the Collapse truly did happen in the Archipelagos in the form of the Tumultite Massacre, and also something that sours her view on Joseph even more and actually allows her to humanize John by recognizing herself in him). There's her eventual reoccurring meetings with Faith, which is a whole other can of worms that has some people (like Tracey, Jess and Virgil) pissed at her (in Silva's defense... she tried to be manipulative to give the Resistance an advantage... but it somehow turned from vibing-tolerance trying to get the other to crack a mask and gain any information that contributes to their respective factions into bickering enemy-friends who might sabotage their factions behind their leaders back just to help the other out once or twice into some kind of amalgamation of a messy friendship that leans on borderline romantic situationship but both parties don't know how to admit they like each other nor do they think they can so they just suffer in yearning thinking if they make the first move they'll ruin whatever comfortable relationship this is... among other things).

...Moving on.

mistake: What's the worst mistake your OC ever made? What led to them making it? Have they been able to fix it? How have they moved on?

I'd say there is two major mistakes Silva makes in her life.

First and foremost is not killing Adam Omar when she had the chance. She had him at gunpoint and he may be a 7'1 sixty-year-old giant built like brick empire states building, but he was still a man who could die from a gunshot (when the Voice's charm wasn't protecting him that is). It's the facts that Silva was a) hesitant to kill her father, even when he should be on an offender watchlist (preferably past tense) and b) she's eighteen and wanted answers to just why he is the way he is/did what he did/hated her from the very beginning despite being faithful and subservient (not a good thing). Unfortunately Adam is a self-righteous and victim-blaming dick so he said a breaking speech (that I will not post here) which was complete BS and gaslighted Silva into losing confidence enough to give him an opening but with still enough determined will to have the rationality to get away from him. She managed to fix that mistake with the Apostles and Paul (but is unsuccessful due to unforeseen events out of her control) and is trying to do the same with Joseph and Eden's Gate. Though, spoilers, she might be able to confront Adam once more in the main story... a day Adam will be determined to ruin. Her entire story is trying to move on but being unable to.

Second major mistake, in her POV, was not joining Paul and the Apostles, especially if it meant Persephone got to live. She knew the cult was wrong (slavery, torture, organized crime, chemical warfare, not really good things) but they managed to ingrain rules to follow in the Apostles that Adam's Guard just didn't care about. Like no sexual violation to the body or mind, everyone is equal and valuable, and kids are off limits (the last one Silva finds is being bent by the heralds Gaius and Zhan Tiri, the former finding a loophole of what ages define a child and adult in certain countries to put them through death playgrounds that end with a sacrifice and the latter isn't discriminate on who ends up on the receiving end of her poisons) [NOTE: While Paul does kill Persephone, unlike Adam, he feels immense guilt about it and doubles-down on the rule later]. They're evil, but there is standards and a certain nobleness to them (for lack of a better phrase). The only reason she didn't was because it went against her morals to let innocent people be taken from their lives to live one that was miserable and just plain suffering (is it likely Paul would have changed the cult up a bit if it made Silva more open to joining? Zachariah be damned? Perhaps. Though whether or not Silva would have still joined him then is another question with an unknown answer).

monster: Is your OC monstrous in any way? Is there something that makes them monstrous? Are they aware of their own monstrosity? Do they accept it or reject it?

I suppose desensitization to violence and death and the lack of empathy towards her enemies may count, considering she has a very high kill count and over the course of the stories she feels very justified in those deaths. She doesn't actually like it but no one has ever told her (in her very black and white view of the world) that its wrong so she's very aware its apart of her in some way, shape or form. Though this line of thought is muddied by her fight against the Seeds and Eden's Gate (including Nadi and Alexander) which introduces her to the gray in morality, something I'll explain another time. She accepts it at first but ultimately decides to reject it to not be like Paul and the Apostles or her father's Enforcers in the end.

Sorry this was long and not as refined as I would have wanted it to be, but I hope it gave enough insight. I do hope it is as understandable as I could make my ramblings be. Chow!

#far cry the silver chronicles #far cry 5 #oc: silva omar #oc ask game #whump asks #trigger warnings for a lot of stuff

4 notes · View notes

chaotic-theatrical-weaver · 1 year

Text

An analysis of David Kushner’s “Daylight” music video:

Under a cut for being long, detailed, and self-indulgent:

The video starts with David chopping up wood, which brings to mind the idea of displacing anger at himself.

He sets the chopped wood back onto the tree stump. This could probably already be showing us that he wants to undo some kind of damage that he knows he cannot.

He is then seen walking into a church with a young boy, evoking imagery of a father bringing his son, perhaps.

He starts to sing and taps his chest with an open hand. Could this be a reference to the hand movements Catholics make during the Penitential Act at “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”? A bit of a stretch considering that movement is closed-handed, but considering the lyrical themes, not that far off.

We see the boy’s face, and it’s partially blurred out.

He looks up at David with something like disappointment. This could be a son disappointed in his father’s misdeeds (which I personally believe the lyrics to read as a sexual one, but it can be anything). More likely, however, it’s his younger self disappointed in the person he’s become; the lyrics don’t indicate that anyone other than the speaker, the person he’s wronged, and God know what he’s done.

The other members of the congregation have blurred faces as well.

We don’t know who these people are, but the one we get a closeup of is an old man, who seems disapproving or judgmental. This might have been the point of the blurring--it doesn’t matter if these people are loved ones or strangers; there’s a terror that they might know your wrongdoings and see you differently.

David pulls out a dagger as the camera moves up from his torso. There seems to be a focus on his neck, evoking perhaps the idea of him causing his own violent death. Nothing like that happens, but considering the song’s themes of the self-destructive sin nature, it’s not that much of a stretch. It could also reference the idea of dying to self and becoming a living sacrifice, where his consideration of dying violently misses the point--Rick Warren says that as living sacrifices, we have the tendency to “crawl off the altar.”

A large, dark shape appears during the prechorus before the line “There’s darkness in the distance” plays.

David’s expression is unclear; it looks ambivalent, worried, or even a bit frustrated.

He finally reaches out to this darkness.

The scene changes to the church again, which is darkened and empty. He’s in what appears to be specifically one of the back pews and adopts a stereotypical pose associated with prayer while crying out.

Back to the forest, where his axe is notably lodged in the tree stump. Perhaps his destruction is lodged within him in a similar manner, doing harm that he wishes to undo but knows he cannot? I could be reading too much into it, but whatever.

We’re at the church again, and now he sits at the altar with a more downcast, resigned expression. Perhaps the juxtaposition of pew/altar and stereotypical prayer/stereotypical resignation is saying he cries out for God when he feels farther from Him, but doesn’t know how to handle being closer because he then becomes more aware of how wrong his sin is. What’s also interesting is that there is light coming into the church in the wideshot of David at the altar, and it even seems to hit just outside where the altar is, but it doesn’t reach him and he’s not coming towards it either. God and His light are so close, but the speaker can neither come to terms with that nor confront his sin.

Again with the hands on chest thing, with a more intense movement this time. Perhaps if this is a reference to the Catholic Penitential Rite, then the reason his hands are open is because he doesn’t feel or doesn’t want to feel the weight of his sin at full force.

The second verse begins, and two men are seen dragging David into some secluded room--something like a torture chamber.

They become more visible and drop him. Interestingly, their postures at this screenshot suggest storming out during an altercation, even though in context, they’re supposed to be more cruel and cold and harsh due to separation and indifference. Perhaps it’s both--perhaps they’re meant to represent warring self-states that hate him personally sometimes and feel disconnected from him at other times. They can feel both ways at once, too; people can be complicated like that.

Back at the church, he’s in the back pew. There’s less of a crying out than in the chorus, but it’s still written on his expression. Some light goes past him and even onto him, but he is mostly in the shadows. He might be almost hoping for forgiveness and salvation but denying himself that hope out of fear that it isn’t true for him.

People with blurred faces start beating him up and throwing some spiky ball-like objects at him. As with the similarly blurred-out congregation, we don’t know who these people are or whether or not they’re close to him. Are they even real people or are they representations of other states of self? We just know that they’re causing him harm and distress. Perhaps the spiky ball-like objects are meant to be similar to morning star weapons, which look like that but are attached to the ends of chains and sticks. Wikipedia says he’s being stoned, which also makes sense.

The person who gets the most focus is noticeably wearing a cross necklace. This could be what David imagines to be God’s judgment, judgment by a religious hypocrite, or his own judgment.

There’s a shot of what seems to be David outside when it’s raining...

but it’s revealed that the rain is inside his own home. He’s drowning in shame and, as his poorly-postured position on the couch (a stereotypical way of showing indolence or indifference) suggests, his unwillingness to act on it exacerbates the problem. What’s interesting is that, like in the shots from church in the chorus, he has a lamp on and the light even reaches him. Here, God is there, waiting for him in his own home, but he does not accept.

We return to David, now with noticeably bleeding hands, in the torture chamber. It’s likely that he’s been fighting the others, as his knuckles are the injured part. However, it also seems to bring to mind the image of punching a wall (or in this case, more likely the floor) in frustration or to cause oneself pain. This might be a stretch, but to me, it also calls back to the opening with him chopping the wood as a displacement of anger. In that case, he thinks of his hands as instruments of only destruction and might be punishing himself for it. This isn’t as likely as the other interpretations because the torture chamber scene depicts him as the victim, but then again, he’s also a victim of his own behavior and the other people might be other self-states, so it’s still plausible.

The shot continues to show us that he has a cross tattooed on his hand, which was visible in the previous one but less clear. This can have plenty of different interpretations depending on which of the above contexts we’re going with. If he’s been fighting the others and they’re “[persecuting him] for righteousness’ sake” or for trying to become better, maybe having the cross with him strengthens him. It could also remind him of his failure to overcome them, though, which seems a bit more likely because this song does not have a triumphant arc. If he’s caused his own hand to get hurt, then having the cross there reminds him that his self-destruction is harming his relationship with God. If he thinks of his hands as only destructive, perhaps the cross reminds him that he has the potential to be better and use them for good--perhaps the cross is even being used as a force to destroy his sin. It might also be destructive to him in a different way if he thinks, as Martin Luther once put it, of Christ as “the jailer and hangman of [his] poor soul.” However it goes, there’s clearly some significance to showing it to the audience.

He gets up somewhat and the others prepare to fight him again.

In what appears to be a home library, a burning man reaches out to David. The part of focus is the burning man, who would realistically be in pain from the burning, but we don’t know what his expression is. His reaching seems pretty calm and restrained, though, almost beckoning. The burning man seems to represent the speaker’s sin itself, and his seeming lack of pain might indicate a seared conscience or a pretense of indifference (the speaker’s sin affects his soul greatly and fills him with fear; perhaps he pretends he doesn’t care when he’s about to do it). A point of interest aside from the burning man is the setting: why specifically a home library? To me, it evokes imagery of a learned man sitting in his study, someone like a theologian or philosopher. Maybe the speaker theoretically knows everything in these books, or at least a good amount of what’s in them, but yet, he cannot apply what he’s read to help himself.

David has a conflicted expression when considering whether he should take the burning man’s hand, similarly to how he approached the darkness in the first prechorus.

He sings the chorus while sitting on the church altar again in the same resigned position. There’s a bit more light than the first chorus had, and it extends across the altar now, but it’s not reaching him. God continues to extend mercy that the speaker won’t take.

He finally takes the burning man’s hand, and he is set on fire himself, symbolizing his choice to sin again. The library is also ablaze, which brings to mind imagery relating to hell. Going back to the symbolism of a library, he may have read the books and known what they said, but his inability to apply that has made him forget his knowledge--this is similar to C.S. Lewis saying “The more often he feels without acting, the less he will be able ever to act, and, in the long run, the less he will be able to feel.”

We go back to David in the torture chamber, and his forehead is bleeding now. This might be a reference to Jesus’ crown of thorns, in which case, David links their suffering in the battle against sin.

He is seen striking at his chest with a closed hand, which now confirms the reference to the Penitential Rite and uses the proper hand shape--considering his open hand before might have suggested an unwillingness or inability to feel his sin at full force, the closed hand now feels it completely.

David’s mouth has also been injured in the shot where his forehead was hurt, but it’s not that visible without looking closely, so here’s a closer shot. I’m not entirely sure what it means that his mouth specifically was injured, but my guess is that Jesus is often described as the Word and the Holy Spirit as a breath or wind, with the Father being, of course, the one who speaks. Spoken word and breath are literally inseparable, but a mouth injury might impair David’s capacity to speak. Perhaps this might mean that David does not feel God is within him; he cannot understand the speaker if he has neither breath nor words to speak. As a tangent, it’s often a symptom of anxiety to feel short of breath, and our narrator is definitely anxious over the state of his soul. He might also feel out of breath from fighting.

One of the last shots has him in the back church pew with some light reaching him. Considering that this is the back pew and not the altar, this demonstrates his feelings of distance from God. David is no longer crying out as he was when we last saw him in the pew. While this could be read as a seared conscience, it’s not the best reading because the closed hand as opposed to an open one about two shots ago shows him understanding and feeling his sin at full force. It’s more likely that he’s not crying out because he’s expended his energy on this battle. Interestingly, the light is actually touching him now, which might suggest that he’s on the brink of readiness to accept grace. Sure, the final shot shows him in the torture chamber (I’ve already shown it to you, so I see no point in putting it here again), but he could be at the bottom and realizing that he only has one option if he wants to survive.

Well, that’s it, I hope someone reads and likes this because I should have been working on a Spanish project in the time it took me to make this but this hit my massive Enneagram 1 self too much to not do this LOL.

#david kushner #daylight david kushner #ellie's song analysis

10 notes · View notes

seekfirst-community · 2 years

Text

Meditation: What is the best protection which brings lasting security to our lives? Scripture tells us that true peace and security come to those who trust in God and obey his word. "Obey my voice and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you" (Jeremiah 7:23). The struggle between choosing to do good or evil, yielding to my will or God's will, God's way or my way, cannot be won by human strength or will-power alone. Our enemy, the devil, conspires with the "world" (whatever is opposed to God and his truth and righteousness) and our "flesh" (whatever inclines us to yield to hurtful desires and wrongdoing), to draw us away from the peace, joy, and security which God provides for those who put their trust in him.

Peter the Apostles tells us, Our adversary, the devil prowls the earth seeking the ruin of souls (1 Peter 5:8-9). The devil is opposed to God and he seeks to draw us away from God's plan and will for our lives. God offers us grace (his merciful help and strength) and protection (from Satan's lies and deception) if we are willing to obey his word and resist the devil's lies and temptations. Because you have made the Lord your refuge, the Most High your habitation, no evil shall befall you, no scourge come near your tent. For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways (Psalm 91:9-11). The Lord offers us the peace and security of his kingdom which lasts forever and which no other power can overcome.

God's kingdom brings healing and freedom from the destructive forces of sin and Satan

Jesus' numerous exorcisms brought freedom to many who were troubled and oppressed by the work of evil spirits. Jesus himself encountered personal opposition and battled with Satan when he was put to the test in the wilderness just before his public ministry (Luke 4:1-13). He overcame the evil one through his obedience to the will of his Father. Some of the Jewish leaders reacted vehemently to Jesus' healings and exorcisms and they opposed him with malicious slander. How could he get the power and authority to release individuals from Satan's power? They assumed that he had to be in league with Satan. They attributed his power to Satan rather than to God.

Jesus answers their charge with two arguments. There were many exorcists among the Jews in Jesus' time. So Jesus retorted by saying that they also incriminate their own kin who cast out demons. If they condemn Jesus they also condemn themselves. In his second argument he asserts that no kingdom divided against itself can survive for long? We have witnessed enough civil wars in our own time to prove the destructive force at work here for the annihilation of whole peoples and their land. If Satan lends his power against his own forces then he is finished. How can a strong person be defeated except by someone who is stronger? Jesus asserted his power and authority to cast out demons as a clear demonstration of the reign of God.

Jesus' reference to the finger of God points back to Moses' confrontation with Pharoah and his magicians who represented Satan and the kingdom of darkness (see Exodus 8:19). Jesus claims to be carrying on the tradition of Moses whose miracles freed the Israelites from bondage by the finger of God. God's power is clearly at work in the exorcisms which Jesus performed and they give evidence that God's kingdom has come.

Is Jesus the Master of your life?

Jesus makes it clear that there are no neutral parties. We are either for Jesus or against him, for the kingdom of God or against it. There are two kingdoms in opposition to one another - the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness under the rule of Satan. If we disobey God's word, we open to door to the power of sin and Satan in our lives. If you want to live in freedom from sin and Satan, then your "house" - your life and possessions (all that you rely upon for livelihood, peace, and security) - must be occupied by Jesus where he is enthroned as Lord and Savior. Is the Lord Jesus the Master of your home, heart, mind, and will?

"O Lord, our God, grant us, we beseech you, patience in troubles, humility in comforts, constancy in temptations, and victory over all our spiritual foes. Grant us sorrow for our sins, thankfulness for your benefits, fear of your judgment, love of your mercies, and mindfulness of your presence; now and for ever. (Prayer by John Cosin) "

“o come, all ye faithful”

“Faithfulness has disappeared; the word itself is banished from their speech.” —Jeremiah 7:28

Our heavenly Father is the Faithful One. Jesus Christ is “the faithful Witness” (Rv 1:5), “the Faithful and True” (Rv 19:11). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, that is, of faithfulness (see Jn 16:13). The triune God is perfectly faithful (see 1 Thes 5:24). Even “if we are unfaithful He will still remain faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tm 2:13). It is God’s nature to be faithful.

God calls us to be holy, to be like Him. That means that we must be faithful. Have you been faithful to your baptismal promises? This is the fundamental responsibility to which we must be faithful. Have you been faithful to your vocations as married, lay single, clergy, religious, parent, child, worker in the world, or church worker? Have you been faithful to the Church, including to the Pope, bishops, pastors, and brothers and sisters in Christ? Have you been faithful in keeping your word and your promises to those people the Lord has given you to love?

If you have been faithful, give God the glory, for it is only by His grace that you have been faithful. If you have not been faithful, repent, go to Confession, receive God’s mercy, and become faithful. On Judgment Day, the Lord wants to say to each of us: “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Mt 25:21, 23, RSV-CE).

Prayer: Father, this Lent make me faithful in life, till death.

Promise: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” —Lk 11:23

Praise: Fr. Joseph, a Ugandan priest serving as a missionary to the Sudan, has baptized 15,000 Sudanese people into the Catholic Church in the last six years.

Reference: (For a related teaching on Hold Fast to the Faith, listen to, download or order our CD 71-1 or DVD 71 on our website.)

Rescript: "In accord with the Code of Canon Law, I hereby grant the Nihil Obstat for the publication One Bread, One Body covering the time period from February 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023. Reverend Steve J. Angi, Chancellor, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio June 15, 2022"

The Nihil Obstat ("Permission to Publish") is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the contents, opinions, or statements

0 notes

terrisocial · 2 years

Text

Fire man quotes

Failing that, the player may also attempt to lure the Fireman away from the support of his allies. When confronting a Fireman with group of enemies, it is advisable to focus on eliminating the Fireman first at range. Sections of their metal suit, such as the pieces on their limbs and back, will glow red with heat when priming an attack, making it even easier for the player to evade harm. Ideally, Firemen should only be fought at a distance, as the slow travel time of their fire bombs makes them highly inaccurate at longer distances. Firemen are far more threatening when encountered with other groups of enemies, as their area-of-effect damage attacks and aggressive combat style can force players to abandon cover. Though powerful in close-ranged combat, a lone Fireman can be easily defeated without taking any damage at all. It is from this Fireman that Booker acquires the Vigor Devil's Kiss. The first Fireman is encountered in Shady Lane, after Booker fights his way through several police officers. The exact appearance of Firemen underneath their suit is unknown, though the nature of their punishment implies that the suit helps keep them alive. Metallic masks with glowing slits conceal their faces. The boilers use a bottle of Devil's Kiss as a source of thermal energy, providing the Firemen with their ability to manipulate fire. The padded suits they wear are linked to an iron exoskeleton that serves to conduct heat from the boilers strapped to their backs. They will use their final moments to charge at their target, attempting to catch them in an ensuing explosion.įiremen are denizens of Columbia sentenced to constantly be set aflame as penance for the sins they have committed in life. When critically wounded, Firemen will initiate a self-destruct mode, emitting a high-pitched whining noise as the flames engulfing their body intensify. In close quarters combat, they can project a powerful explosion of flame to burn nearby foes. They are capable of utilizing Sky-Lines to increase their mobility and to reach otherwise inaccessible locations. Behavior įireman, as seen in the Beast Of America Trailer.įiremen are surprisingly agile and will relentlessly attempt to close distance with their target, lobbing Vigor-infused fire bombs as their primary mode of attack. They use the Devil's Kiss Vigor in combat, allowing them to attack Booker with the fire that surrounds them. Firemen are trapped inside Iron Maiden-like devices that are constantly burning them for their wrongdoings in life.

#Fire man quotes

1 note · View note

trustze · 2 years

Text

Best bioshock infinite backgrounds

When the Fireman initiates his suicide bomb, a timer will appear above him. Failing that, the player may also attempt to lure the Fireman away from the support of his allies. When confronting a Fireman with group of enemies, it is advisable to focus on eliminating the Fireman first at range. Sections of their metal suit, such as the pieces on their limbs and back, will glow red with heat when priming an attack, making it even easier for the player to evade harm. Ideally, Firemen should only be fought at a distance, as the slow travel time of their fire bombs makes them highly inaccurate at longer distances. Firemen are far more threatening when encountered with other groups of enemies, as their area-of-effect damage attacks and aggressive combat style can force players to abandon cover. Though powerful in close-ranged combat, a lone Fireman can be easily defeated without taking any damage at all. It is from this Fireman that Booker acquires the Vigor Devil's Kiss. The first Fireman is encountered in Shady Lane, after Booker fights his way through several police officers. The exact appearance of Firemen underneath their suit is unknown, though the nature of their punishment implies that the suit helps keep them alive. Metallic masks with glowing slits conceal their faces. The boilers use a bottle of Devil's Kiss as a source of thermal energy, providing the Firemen with their ability to manipulate fire. The padded suits they wear are linked to an iron exoskeleton that serves to conduct heat from the boilers strapped to their backs. They will use their final moments to charge at their target, attempting to catch them in an ensuing explosion.įiremen are denizens of Columbia sentenced to constantly be set aflame as penance for the sins they have committed in life. When critically wounded, Firemen will initiate a self-destruct mode, emitting a high-pitched whining noise as the flames engulfing their body intensify. In close quarters combat, they can project a powerful explosion of flame to burn nearby foes. They are capable of utilizing Sky-Lines to increase their mobility and to reach otherwise inaccessible locations. Behavior įireman, as seen in the Beast Of America Trailer.įiremen are surprisingly agile and will relentlessly attempt to close distance with their target, lobbing Vigor-infused fire bombs as their primary mode of attack. They use the Devil's Kiss Vigor in combat, allowing them to attack Booker with the fire that surrounds them. Firemen are trapped inside Iron Maiden-like devices that are constantly burning them for their wrongdoings in life.

#Best bioshock infinite backgrounds

0 notes

south-park-meta · 2 years

Text

I wrote this mostly as a response to the last reblog but It felt argumentative as a response when I do get what the person I reblogged was saying and I'm just trying to get that I don't get the big picture of it all.

Anyway, this is why I don't understand seeing Cartman as redeemed:

He dismissed Kyle as 'same old Kyle' instead of acknowledging any wrongdoings, forced himself into Kyle's home despite knowing he was unwelcome because he knew Kyle was a kind enough person to cave, had loud sex in Kyle's home, yelled at Kyle when confronted for giving him AIDS, then went back to having loud sex in Kyle's home instead of trying to be a kind guest for the duration of the stay, made his sermon at Kenny's funeral about Kenny not being Jewish but having 'Jewish qualities'/made the speech about himself and his Jewish family, and only wanted to go back in time when his daughter said she didn't want to be like Kyle-- not because it's some greater good. Just...Kyle's an asshole, don't be like Kyle. I do think Cartman genuinely loved his family. I just can't get from there to the redemption part. If his life is only the way it is because he's lied, then he's not redeemed. There's no redemption without the atonement of sins. And when Yentl first comes into the picture: Kyle Yentl? Her name is Yentl? Can we fucking stop this and talk about Kenny, please?! Yentl Oh, is that, uh…? Cartman Yeah, that's-that's Kyle, yeah. I'm sorry, honey, could you just give me a couple minutes? I just need a few more seconds with them and I'll be right out to the car. which seems to be pretty clear that he's talked about Kyle not just in an omission sense but in a way that makes himself the victim and Kyle the unreasonable aggressor, built on actual lies rather than just not talking about his life in South Park at all. And this is carried through in how he responds to Kyle saying he gave him AIDS when he says it's just 'lashing out' at Yentl. I just really really don't get it because it feels like 'Cartman is happy and genuinely loves his family and therefore is redeemed even though he lies about his past to that family, acts like Kyle is crazy when accused of any of the sins he's meant to be redeemed for, antagonizes Kyle throughout even after acknowledging he knows Kyle's bothered by his presence (which should be obvious from their first interaction anyway), and only agrees to help because it will insult Kyle MORE'. Very sincerely I don't understand the redemption even in a both sides have a point way because the redemption of Cartman relies on giving him a pass for not doing the actions that show he's sorry for the things that made him need redemption in the first place. He's continuing to be cruel to his primary victim and lying to his family throughout to facilitate the cruelty. It's not redemption it's just Cartman learned to be an asshole in a way that's harder to call out.

#Legitimately if there's kindness i'm missing on his end feel free to tell me #but i just don't understand at all #and i don't mind the idea of Cartman having his family in the good timeline btw #it's just not a redemption arc lol

83 notes · View notes

mostly-mundane-atla · 3 years

Note

Hi, I'm just curious... What do you think would have happened between Ursa and Azula after the Search if Azula hadn't run? Not immediately after, I feel like we got the end of that confrontation, but more if Azula had gone back to the Capital (or asylum?) with Zuko. (I personally like to think Zuko would keep Azula closer after the confrontation where he assured her that he loved her, but I totally understand if you think he wouldn't.) PS Your Ursa thoughts are fair and valid! Oh, and nuanced.

I've mentioned before that I really like the idea of an Azula recovery arc (because, again, I don't think she's going to understand the extent to which she has hurt people and the extent to which it's wrong until she understands and accepts that she was abused and she didn't deserve it) where Ursa steps up and tries to make up for lost time by treating her more as a human with dignity than a princess or a danger.

And that would entail this situation where Azula can see that her mom doesn't fear or hate her or want to keep her from her potential or any of that. She gets to see her mom as someone who sees that she's hurt and wants to help her. She gets to be reassured and cared for and given space to heal, and gradually understand that father or not, Firelord or not, Ozai had no right to demand perfection from her, especially not to the point that she snapped. And once she's allowed to acknowledge "that hurt and I didn't deserve that" she can start to see that everyone she attacked was hurt by her and they didn't deserve it either. And then from that understanding she can start making genuine ammends, even just small ones.

I've said this before: trauma normalizes itself and that's how you survive. It is not in the best interest of your survival to get stuck on the hurt you didn't deserve, and so the brain does what it can to keep you alive. A great strategy so long as you aren't sentient, but as a member of both some kind of society and an incredibly social species, it can have some nasty effects and alter your relationship to both other people and the world around you. It won't be until Azula's trauma is adressed and thoroughly denormalized that she can make any progress on being, for lack of a better term, a good person.

(Sorry for the impromptu rant, it's just bizarre to me how people can say Azula needs to be redeemed of her sins and wrongdoings without bringing up that she needs a moment to heal? Like turning her to the good side but not addressing what made her Daddy's Little Conquering Machine to begin with logically won't make her a good person, just someone who has to be kept on a shorter leash. I don't have to be Azula's biggest fan to think that's more than a little fucked up.)

I don't know if that's exactly how the scenario would play out, but I do think Ursa knows trauma a little more than the fandom gives her credit for. Neither ever asked to be a princess or to live in the palace, and neither of them had as smooth and merciful a life as one would expect. How do you see someone broken down by the same thing that tormented you and not want to help? When you know the exact monster that warped them into something so full of shame in the alleged weaknesses of being a child and disdainful of those who couldn't match up to the standards they shouldn't have been held to, how do you keep yourself from trying to make it better? If someone was trapped in the same hell you escaped, would you not jump at the chance to give them all the comfort you needed?

And when that person was only a child being given what was forced on you in your twenties? When you wanted to spare them all that pain and take them with you but it only got worse for them?

I think Ursa gets placed in a neat little mom box too often, both by canon iself and fan readings of the text. Ironically, i think if she was allowed to be more her own character than Zuko and Azula's imperfect mommy, we'd get to see more of how she feels about her kids and knowing very intimately the motivations behind the abuses they faced. We might even get to hear from her own mouth exactly what she thought about Azula as a child, but at this point that might be asking too much.

#response #i have a lot of feelings about this #controversal opinions apparently but if *those* fans were five years younger they'd be steven universe discourse bloggers #you know the ones that think korra invented queerness in cartoons #speaking from experience there's a unique bond when you and your mother are abused by the same person #it's not always a positive or comforting relationship but it is a dynamic that should be explored through ursa and her daughter

92 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 3 years

Note

Robert allowed Tywin to get away with Elia and her children murders which forced Ned to hide Jon identity, he was abusive to Cersei and negligent parent to Joff, was obsessed with Lyanna and unfaithful to Cersei, failed at Trident as king by allowing two innocents death. Yet Ned(35) romanticised their friendship. Sansa(11) is evil or selfish to romanticised Joff despite seeing his cruelty but Ned is true friend to not acknowledging Robert crimes.

There are a lot of things feeding into Ned's view of Robert.

Ned has not only the brother relationship with Robert but the nostalgia for a happier time which can be a very powerful thing and make you miss or dismiss a lot.

Ned's personality which is one that isn't inclined to confrontations, tends to deny uncomfortable things and not deal with them until necessary.

Ned’s guilt over having a life that was meant for his older brother.

Ned's guilt over lying to Robert/committing treason.

Ned's fear about the consequences of the above.

Ned’s hatred of Cersei which made it easier for him to blame her than Robert.

Robert and Brandon were a lot alike and I wonder if that plays into Ned’s attachment. Brandon died in a horrific way and Robert not only dethroned a tyrant king, because of the war, he got justice for Ned's family.

Of course, this brings us back to the guilt issue. If Ned knew that Lyanna willingly went with Rhaegar, he’d have even more trauma around the death of his father and brother, the devastation of the war, and death of Elia and her children.

...you get the idea. And of course, none of that excuses Ned, does it?

I think the point being made is that people are formed by experiences. Ned’s version of Robert is stuck on who the man was, not who he is. Lyanna’s fate dictated a lot about the future for both Ned and Robert, one because he is consumed with hatred for Rhaegar, the other because he chose to love and care for Rhaegar’s son, and both of those are a different fallout for the love they had for Lyanna. That’s an interesting way to look at love and what it means for different people, what it does to them, what they do to others in the name of their love.

Anyway, the contrast of this/them, the mercy that Ned wants to offer and Robert’s inability to give justice, how Ned is complicit in injustice and a sin against the old gods, it feels wrapped up in that. People who refuse to acknowledge the wrongdoing of either man (even though Ned is a much much much much much better person than Robert) are ignoring Ned’s inner life (tortured, painful) because Ned knows he’s wrong. Ned knows he failed.

Even Robert knows he was wrong at the end. He admits his failures, so, if our dudes can do that, the fandom can too.

And, if, as you point out, the fandom ignores all of that, they can keep their mouths shut about Sansa.

#ask dot

38 notes · View notes

hiswordsarekisses · 3 years

Text

"Godly sorrow works teshuvah (repentance) unto salvation" (2 Cor. 7:10). This deep sorrow is more than just sadness or regret over some sin or wrongdoing of your past. Genuine godly sorrow expresses inner poverty - being "poor in spirit" - wherein the heart realizes that sin is not something "out of character," as if it did not really come from you, but rather that it is a dreadful sickness of your own soul, an inner power or corrupting force from which you need divine intervention and deliverance (Jer. 17:9). We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners...

The Puritans prayed for the "gift of tears" by which they meant the healing virtue of experiencing genuine repentance before God. They asked God for help because doing teshuvah - really doing it as opposed to just thinking you did - requires a miracle, a profound change of direction, a new way of seeing. In general our lives are a tangled web of deceit, self-deception, ignorance, folly, and so on, and when we are confronted with a particular sin, we are quick to rationalize and even deny our responsibility. Jean Paul Sartre would call this mauvaise foi, or “bad faith,” that is, the habit of denying that our actions have real consequences for which we alone are responsible. Often it takes many years to truly understand the depth of our inner corruption, the sickness of our souls, the way we deceive ourselves and make excuses for the sorrows and pains we have caused others and ourselves.

So how long has it been since you have wept over your sinful condition? Not how long has it been since you have revisited some regret from your past - but how long has it been since you have “collapsed in on yourself,” confessing the horror and revulsion over your forlorn and desperate soul? Do you feel in your bones the awfulness of your sinful life? Or are you quick to make excuses for your wretchedness? Do you find fault in others to justify your own hardness of heart? Do you harbor secret resentment enabling you to hold on to your sickness? These are “worldly sorrows” that work death (2 Cor. 7:10). We may give lip service that we are sinners, but do we feel the grief and weight of our sin? Do we abhor ourselves and repent in dust and ashes? (Job 42:6). Dear friend, how can God wipe away every tear from our eyes in the next world if we have not wept in this one?

On the other side of our confession of brokenness we discover that God consoles us for the wounds we suffer in this life. It is written in our Scriptures: "You have kept count of my miseries; store my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your book?" (Psalm 56:8). The LORD "numbers" or "recounts" the heartaches and wanderings of your life; He keeps an account or a record of your trouble in His “scroll of remembrance” (Mal. 3:16). God does not overlook the anguish of your heart but carefully numbers each of your tears, storing them “in His flask,” which may allude to the ancient custom of putting tears shed for the death of someone into a small container (i.e., “tear bottles”). The picture is one of profound intimacy and comfort, when in the world to come the LORD will personally console you for your sorrows. Not one pain of your life will be overlooked by heaven.

May our hearts be both softened and full of conviction as we ponder these things. Amen. [Hebrew for Christians]

6 notes · View notes

gascon-en-exil · 4 years

Note

I’m the anon who was directed here from teaveetamer. I have 4 questions. 1. What are your tags for the posts about Rhea and the Blessed Mother? 2. I’ve seen several in the fandom connect Rhea as the goddess that Edelgard wishes to get rid of, despite Rhea’s connections to Mary (particularly with a name like The Immaculate One), and her never claiming to be the goddess. Why or how do people mistake this? 1/3

3. What do you make of the potential for a cultural clash of ideas of purity within 3H? Edelgard seems to be presented as innately pure, as in Shinto all humans are pure until corrupted by outside forces. Edelgard had that Hegemon Cipher card and as her stans argue most of her sins are caused by TWSITD. While Rhea is probably more corrupted by her own sins of commission/omission. Or maybe she still has the symbolism of innate purity??? I’m not sure where the Original Sin of the Agarthans plays i

if it does. 2/3 4. I’ve heard that Satan is sometimes referred to as the hero of Paradise Lost, despite being, well, Satan, because he stands up to God and is the underdog and underdogs are heroes, along with his heroic presentation. And I wonder if such a similar occurrence has happened that people view Edelgard as heroic despite the devil symbolism. Thoughts? 3/3

1. I don’t use tags for Rhea too often,and when I have I don’t think it was for anything too substantial.

2. Edelgard herself either outright makes this accusation or implies it, and as has been established her diehard fans take everything she says at face value. They could also be reading into her claiming that humanity has no need for gods as she kills Rhea. From a cultural context, anti-Catholic Protestant rhetoric likes to harp on our veneration of the Blessed Mother, that we call her the mother of God in the Ave Maria and that she’s really a pagan mother goddess with a Christian gloss. Both of these are true to some degree - I personally consider the pagan-inspired elements of Catholicism to be a feature rather than a bug, and one that most of us are freely aware of - but the negative perception as well as the misconception of how we actually regard her could be fueling this interpretation of Rhea.

3. I don’t know anything about Shinto theology, although Catholics believe that humans are innately good and are corrupted by original sin which is removed in the sacrament of Baptism so it sounds a little familiar. As the Agarthans hold themselves apart from other humans it’s difficult to ascribe a representation of original sin to them, although the slaughter of the Nabateans and the creation of Crests and Relics did lead directly to much of the systemic inequality in Fòdlan so it’s still there somewhat. Edelgard’s perceived purity is a messy subject, one tied up inextricably with her appeal as a love interest which itself plays into perceptions of femininity across cultures, but from my perspective the confrontation of wrongdoing is the main thing that separates her morally from Rhea. Rhea literally and symbolically confesses her sins at the end of two routes, and in her S rank resolves to atone for them and receives absolution in the form of hot sex with her child/grandchild/siblng/mother because this is still a dating sim with a lot of kink under the table. Edelgard meanwhile never even acknowledges that her actions or her choice of allies might be flawed, to the point that one could say that her tragic flaw is her morally self-centered, uncompromising nature.

4. What I think is important to remember about Paradise Lost is that it was written by a Protestant, and it features some anti-Catholic rhetoric typical of Milton’s time. From a literary perspective Satan is absolutely the protagonist of the poem and could be considered an antihero (or a proto-Byronic hero, as the Romantics who popularized that archetype were very fond of Milton’s Satan). I haven’t read it in years so I can’t recall specific passages, but the thrust of this positive interpretation of Satan is that it’s a fundamentally humanist one which perhaps not coincidentally aligns with some of the stated goals of the Reformation positing a more personal relationship with God for individuals in contrast to the austerity and corruption of the Catholic Church. I don’t think that works too well in practice as a framework for understanding Edelgard - she has zero interest in reforming the church even if she claims not to hate the religion itself, and she demonstrates little genuine interest in commoners and never abolishes the nobility - but it remains about the only way to spin the darker imagery associated with her as being actually heroic. Besides, that she’d rather obliterate the church completely than reform it probably endears her even more to anti-theistic fans, and as such a figure like Milton’s Satan is a better fit than likening her to someone like Martin Luther or John Calvin.

#Fire Emblem #FE16 #Fire Emblem Three Houses #Rhea #Edelgard von Hresvelg

6 notes · View notes

shizekarnstein · 5 years

Text

Zeke is determinated to save his brother from the shackles of Grisha's poisonous influence. If Eren is refusing to go along with their dream the only reason is more than obvious: their wretched father has brainwashed him and only Zeke himself is able to free him of that burden. Only once he manages to undo the damage will the two of them stand together as brothers and put an end, once and for all, to the cursed fate of the eldian people.

Xaver stoods in his mind as Zeke's personal saviour. From his pov he was his real father: a father who listened and played with him, an adult with whom he felt safe and comfortable. The person who finally opened his eyes to the monstruos nature of his birth parents characters, and encouraged him to turned them over to the marlean authorities instead of joining them in utopia.

Zeke has never questioned his mentor's motives or the type of person he was. He only saw one side of him: the loving man who had his best interest in mind. To this day he never pondered over the fact that this very man basically turned him into the executioner of his own parents and how terrible is to put that burden on a child. How cruel and manipulative is to tell a seven years old that his own parents never loved him.

Claiming that Grisha has brainwashed and mistreat Eren as he did with Zeke himself all those years ago, refusing to even consider the possibility that he could have been a better parent to Eren, and not even listening to Eren's thoughts on the matter, he goes ahead and brings their foreheads together. To show his brother the truth.

But forcing your ideals and pov into another person is no different from what both his parents and Xaver did to him. So I have to ask: by using the FT powers to force his own convictions onto Eren, at the end, is he really that different from those he claims to loathe? Who is really trying to brainwash Eren at this point?

The brothers enter Grisha's memories and witness how this man interacted and raised his younger son.

This quest objetive is to reveal the true face of Grisha and all his wrongdoings. But along the way I can't help but wonder if what Zeke was really looking for, on an unconciouss level, was seeing their father again. Zeke was conditionated and encouraged by Xaver to hate and despise his father, but little Zeke loved him more than anything. He tried to put up with all the things he and Dina asked of him. Even when he thought those things were wrong and put him in danger, he did soldier on. What really brought him to a breaking point was not only his parents neglect, but the possiblity of all of them together being shipped off to paradise. For someone who to this day is still craving affection as a starved animal, I have no doubts that even if he convinced himself of hating him, a part of him is still that little boy who adored him. In order to move forward he had to believe his father was a monster.

When confronted with the reality that Grisha really seemed to care for his new wife and son, his bitterness and denial are palpable. He's jelous bc some part of him still wished he could have had something like that. Eren himself is going along this painful trip down memory lane, having to endure witnessing all those dear and simpler days with a deep sense of longing.

But no matter how hard he searchs, nothing seems to match Zeke's expectations. He's desesperatly trying to find the instances when Grisha acted as a selfish man who puts his own ideals ahead of the safety of his family. The months pass and all he can find are wholesome family moments. They get to see how Eren was clearly loved and doted upon, how his father spent countless hours playing with him, taking him on walks, witnessing his very first steps. The tranquil family dinners where no talk of politics or revolution ever graced the table.

Even then Zeke keeps searching for the devious facet that he knows must exit. Grisha infiltrated the walls to locate the FT and restaure the Eldian Empire. His new family is an accessory, just like his previous one.

Eren himself is done with this futile quest. Unlike Zeke, he knows the two sides of the story. He knows his father's faults, even believed for a time the worst of him when Rod Reiss triggered the memories of the chapel massacre. He has come to terms with the fact his father was a flawed man who payed dearly for his dreams and came to repent and love his new family in all the ways he couldn't with his former one. Eren knows all about his guilt, about his sins and regrets. About how much he cherished him and his mother, and how he never forgot about Dina and Zeke.

But what good does it do to argue with someone who's utterly convinced of his own truth? Trying to force his biased version on Eren is nonsense and Eren is very aware of this fact. Of course father is a demon, isn't that what you want to hear? We can move on and euthanize our own people next now that I know your true Zeke. What an evil man! Forcing your vission onto others without giving a damn about their own side of the story or experiences is such a wonderful and foolproof plan. Can't you see how the brainwashing is coming undone thanks to you showing me all these things? It's useless to try to talk with someone who doesn't listen.

But then both Eren and Zeke learned that they didn't even knew all there was to know about Grisha and how far he had evolved from his younger self.

He gave up on his old dream. He learned from his faults. When faced with the choice between his mission and his loved ones, this time he made the right choice. He was able to cast away his old self and previous mistakes and return to his family, finally deciding what was really more precious to him and clinging to this choice.

Humans change and grow. But without taking the time to sit down and listen to other people we are unable to trully grasp who they really are as persons. We allow our own missconceptions and prejudices to blind us to the facts. What Zeke is experiencing now is a total subversion of what he was convinced was an absolute fact. But in order to allow himself to consider this possiblity, he had to witness it with his own eyes. Ignorance itself is a formidable enemy after all. That is the brothers motto, but the only one living by those words was Eren.

All the doubts Zeke still harboured and his last sanity rope was the utter conviction that his father never loved him. Mister Xaver told him so. It has to be true. Even if he changed in regards to his other son, Grisha never cared for Zeke. He was nothing more to him than a tool, a royal blood vessel that would help him to make his dream come true. Grisha found happiness with his new family, merrily forgetting all about his past one and the hell he put them through. Listening to Grisha utter "I'm sorry, Zeke" has began to utterly shatter this view.

While Zeke was blabbing, Eren noted how his father still gazed and kept close his only memento of Dina and Zeke. He never forgot about them. How could he?

Kruger himself said that anyone can become a god or a devil, all it takes is for someone to believe in it. For Zeke and Rod Reiss Grisha Jaeger was a monster who gladly crushed children and anything that stood on his way. Marley and Willy Tybur convinced the whole world that Eren Jaeger is a demon hellbent on destroying everything in his path. We as readers were convinced that the Beast Titan was a devil who utterly lacked even an ounce of human compassion. Xaver appears to Zeke as a wonderful person; we as readers know better than to believe such a thing of someone who installed the idea in a child that his parents hated him and forced him to tarnish his hands with their blood. Just going by the flashes we saw this chapter about Grisha, an uninformed party would conclude that he was a good man with not a single fault to his name. To trully grasp others we need to get rid of our bias and missconceptions and learn to actually listen and see for ourselves what's true and what isn't. That has always been a theme in SnK. Zeke's journey isn't different.

Now both brothers experienced radically differnet sides of Grisha. Just bc he came to regret his previous actions and worked to better himself as a man, spouse and father doesn't mean all is forgiven. Zeke has the right to still resent him and the way he treated him. But he can only make that choice freely once he knows for certain all there is to his father's story. And the journey has only started.

I find intriguing how at the beginning it was Zeke who command the pace of their journey and kept selecting to continue. Now that his convictions have been shaken, and not Eren's, is Eren himself who seems to be in charge of the itinerary.

If inside paths realm the stronger mental will is the one who prevails, then the outcome of this little journey is very much on Eren's favour.

What's Zeke going to do? It's there a way to make him give up on his dream too? Or is he still fully convinced of the true of Xaver words? Memories of the previous shifter have a degree of influence on the current one. If Zeke can say with security that Eren was being controlled by their father, then how deep is the real hold of Xaver in all of this? Is this really only Zeke's dream? Xaver shared this dream with him when he still lived, and the two of them agreed to make it a reality. Even now he remains a dear person and highly respectable in Zeke's mind and heart. At the end I don't think it trully matters if his hold on Zeke is being reinforced by his memories living in him. The only one who can decide what to do is Zeke. Time may be infinite inside paths realm, but even so the clock is still ticking.

This chapter was monumental and has so many things to comment upon. I plan to do another post pondering over something I've been wondering for a long time: can shifters actually sense when someone down the line is witnessing/reviving some of their memories? Going by Frieda and Grisha this chapter, my tentative answer is yes. Hint: Grisha sees Zeke in front of him, but there was someone else behind Grisha who had the same view as him, and that someone would later be the vessel that holds all of Grisha's memories.

#snk #snk spoilers #snk 120 #snk meta #part three i guess #eren jaeger #zeke jaeger #grisha jaeger #snk analysis

200 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years

Link

Understanding what drives the revolution that is destroying the American republic gives insight into how the 2020 election’s results may impact its course. Its practical question—who rules?—is historically familiar. But any revolution’s quarrels and stakes obscure the question: to what end? Our revolution is by the ruling class—a revolution from above. Crushing obstacles to its growing oligarchic rule is the proximate purpose.

But the logic that drives the revolution aims at civilization itself.

What follows describes how far along its path that logic has taken America, and where it might take us in the future depending on the election’s outcome.

…

The U.S. Constitution had codified as fine a balance between the powers of the Many, the Few, and the One as Aristotle may have imagined by arming the federal government’s components, the States, and ordinary citizens (via the first ten Amendments as well as elections) with means to maintain the balance. Its authors, however, were under no illusions about the efficacy of “parchment barriers” to prevent interests from coalescing into factions against the common good. During the 19th century, interests and opinions in the South and the North coalesced into antagonistic ruling classes that fought the century’s bloodiest war. In the 20th, the notion that good government proceeds from scientific expertise, as well as the growing identity between big business and government, fostered the growth of a single nationwide Progressive ruling class. Between the 1930s and the early 21st century, the centralization of administrative power in this class’s hands did much to transform the American republic established in 1776-89 into an oligarchy.

…

The European tradition of government by experts reaches back beyond Napoleon and Hegel to royal techno-bureaucrats. Being essentially amoral, it treats transgressors as merely ignorant. It may punish them as rebellious, but not as bad people. That is why the fascists, who were part of that tradition, never made it as totalitarians. People—especially the Church—remained free to voice different opinions so long as they refrained from outright opposition. America’s growing oligarchy, however, always had a moralistic, puritan streak that indicts dissenters as bad people. More and more, America’s ruling class, shaped and serviced by an increasingly uniform pretend-meritocratic educational system, claimed for itself monopoly access to truth and goodness, and made moral as well as technical-intellectual contempt for the rest of Americans into their identity’s chief element. That, along with administrative and material power, made our ruling class the gatekeeper to all manner of goods.

Progressivism’s foundational proposition—that the American way of life suffers from excessive freedom and insufficient latitude for experts to lead each into doing what is best for all—is the intellectual basis of the oligarchy’s ever-increasing size, wealth, and power. The theme that the USA was ill-conceived in 1776-89 and must be re-conceived has resounded from Woodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government (1885) to the campaigns of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden: “listen to the scientists!” The criticism’s main point has been constant: America’s original conception validated the people’s right to live as they please, and made it hard to marshal them for Progressive purposes.

But the Progressive critique adds a moral basis: the American people’s indulgence of their preferences—private ease and comfort, focus on families, religious observance, patriotism—has made for every secular sin imaginable: racism, sexism, greed, etc. Because most Americans are racist, sexist, un-appreciative of real virtue or refinement (these are somehow rolled together), because these Americans resist knuckling under to their betters, America is a sick society that needs to be punished and to have its noxious freedoms reformed.

…

The moral class critique from above was always implicit. It largely stayed in the background of the campaigns for social improvement into which Progressives have led the American people ever since the 1930s, and especially since the 1960s. The ruling class chided Americans for insufficient commitment to education, to well-being for the poor and disadvantaged, to a healthy natural environment, and to public health, as well as for oppressing women, and, above all, for racism. The campaigns for remedying these conditions have been based on propositions advanced by the most highly-credentialed persons in America—experts certified by the U.S. government, whom the media treated as truth-telling scientists, their opponents as enemies of the people.

But each and all of these campaigns produced mostly the ostensible objectives’ opposites while increasing the numbers of the oligarchy’s members and their wealth and power, endowing them with socio-political clienteles as well as with levers for manipulating them. As its members’ powers grew, they developed a taste for disdaining independent Americans and acquired whips for punishing them.

…

Race (and sex, etc.) is yet another set of excuses for transferring power to the ruling class. The oligarchy is no more concerned about race than it is about education, or environmentalism, or sex, or anything else. It is about yet more discretionary power in the hands of its members, for whom not all blacks (or women, or whatevers) are to be advantaged—only the ones who serve ruling class purposes. In education, employment, and personnel management, co-opting compatible, non-threatening colleagues is the objective. As Joseph Biden put it succinctly: if you don’t vote for him, “you ain’t black.” A ruling class of ever-decreasing quality is a result.

…

I noted that this revolution’s logic leads to no logical end. That is because “the logic that drives each turn of our revolutionary spiral is Progressive Americans’ inherently insatiable desire to exercise their superiority over those they deem inferior.” Its force, I observed, “comes not from the substance of the Progressives’ demands,” but rather “from that which moves, changes, and multiplies their demands without end. That is the Progressives’ affirmation of superior worth, to be pursued by exercising dominance: superior identity affirmed via the inferior’s humiliation.” Affirmation of one’s own superiority by punishing inferiors is an addictive pleasure. It requires ever stronger, purer doses of infliction, and is inherently beyond satisfaction.

In short, the Progressive ruling class’s intensifying efforts to oppress those they imagine to be their inferiors is not reversible. It is far less a choice of policy than it is the consequence of its awakening to its own identity—awakening to the powers and privileges to which they imagine their superior worth entitles them. It is awakening to its deep resentment—indeed, to hate—for whoever does not submit preemptively.

Let there be no doubt: the ruling class’s focus on Donald Trump has been incidental. America’s potentates do not fear one pudgy orange-haired septuagenarian. They fear the millions of Americans whom they loathe, who voted for Trump, who gave his party control of House and Senate, and who will surely vote for folks these potentates really should fear.

…

The people who killed one another in 1861-65 respected each other as individuals and shared standards of truth, justice, and civility. But as our ruling class put the rest of America beyond the proverbial pale, what remained of friendship among the American republic’s components drained away.

By 2016, most Americans preferred either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders over ruling-class candidates for president. And of course, they increasingly despised one another. In short, the popular basis for constitutional restraint had ceased to exist on all sides. But mostly the ruling class, unaccustomed to outright opposition to its presumption of authority, deemed the voters’ recalcitrance to be illegitimate. That began the revolution’s active phase.

At that time, I wrote that, regardless of who won the upcoming election, the United States of America had crossed the threshold of a revolution, and that though no one could know how that would end, we could be sure only that the peaceful American way of life we had known could never return. Hilary Clinton’s or Donald Trump’s victory in the election would merely have channeled the revolution onto different courses. We would look back on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as relics from an age of moderation.

…

The oligarchy’s offensive to forcibly disable the voters began as a mere protest against—and explanation and excuse for—the 2016 elections’ outcome. But, as its identity unfolded according its logic of hate, one thing led to another.

Official and unofficial ruling class confluence in the Resistance turned the Democratic National Committee’s July 2016 throwaway lie that the Russians had hacked its emails into a four-year national convulsion about Trump’s alleged conspiracy with Putin. Ruling class judges sustained every act of opposition to the Trump administration. Thousands of identical voices in major media echoed every charge, every insinuation, nonstop, unquestioned. The Resistance made it official ruling class policy that Trump and his voters’ “racism” and a host of other wrongdoings made them, personally, illegitimate. In 2016 Hillary Clinton had tentatively called her opponents “deplorables.” By 2018 the ruling class had effectively placed the “deplorables” outside the protection of the laws. In any confrontation, the ruling class deemed these presumed white supremacists in the wrong, systemically. By 2020 they could be fired for a trifle, set upon on the streets, and prosecuted on suspicion of bad attitudes, even for defending themselves.

This happened because the Resistance rallied the ruling class’s every part to mutually supporting efforts. Nothing encourages, amplifies, and seemingly justifies extreme sentiments as does being part of a unanimous chorus, a crowd, a mob. Success supercharges them. The Resistance fostered in the ruling class’s members the sense that they were more right, more superior, and more entitled than they had ever imagined. It made millions of people feel bigger, and better about themselves than they ever had.

Ruling class violence started on inauguration day 2017 and grew unceasingly, at first an ominous background to all manner of bureaucratic, oligarchic, and media attacks on the election’s winners. But note well that the black-clad burners and looters were the very opposite of a proletariat and that, Marxist rhetoric aside, they never attacked the wealthy or the powerful—not Wall Street, nor major corporations, certainly not any government, never mind Google, Facebook, or Twitter, America’s most powerful monopolies, or corporate officials. Instead, they received financial contributions from these sources. The violent ones were as troops in the service of the powerful, out to crush the spirit of rebellious subjects. Some Marxists!

…

Most remarkable has been the unbroken consistency with which every part of the ruling class’s entourage joined the campaign while piggybacking its own priorities to it—to the complaisance of all the others. That is the meaning of “intersectionality.” Teachers’ unions, for example, conditioned returning to the classroom on the government banning charter schools; Black Lives Matter (BLM) claimed that “White Racism” must be treated as another public health menace. All other components supported them. All signified solidarity by demanding that all Americans wear masks outdoors, and that those who don’t be jailed. Meanwhile, they insisted that persons convicted of rape, robbery, and murder be released. The world turned upside down.

The riots that began depopulating America’s major cities in late May are intersectionality’s apotheosis. Since blacks commit homicides at five times and other violent crimes at three times the rate of whites, confrontations between black criminals and police are quotidian. Violent reactions to such confrontations are common. Any number of personalities and organizations, mostly black, have made fortunes and careers exploiting them, e.g. New York’s Al Sharpton. Increasingly since 2013 BLM has become the most prominent of these, founded as a project of a hardline Communist organization based in Cuba and funded lavishly and unaccountably by a high percentage of America’s major corporations. Its stated goals of protecting the black community against police brutality notwithstanding, it functions to mobilize black voters on the Democratic Party’s behalf. Along with Antifa, an organization of violent Marxists and anarchists, BLM organized the physical side of the ruling class’s campaign of intimidation against the American people.

The patently counterfactual claim that months of burning, looting and personal attacks by mobs professionally armed, marshaled, and effectively authorized are “mostly peaceful protests” doubly serves the ruling class by warning the victims that they are alone, can expect no help, and that even resenting the mobs is culpable.

Yet the riots may be intersectionality’s downfall because ordering people to tell each other things they know are not true is the most hazardous of political power grabs.

…

The major question overhanging our revolution is how all this has affected the Right side of American society. Since recognizing that the ruling class’s oligarchy surrounded them circa 2008, they sought to keep it at bay. In 2010 their Tea Parties elected the most heavily Republican Congress in a generation. But the Republicans they elected mostly joined the ruling class. Rather than voting for one of them—Mitt Romney for president in 2012—many stayed home.

Then in 2016, sensing that the barbarians were at the gates, they gave short shrift to whoever would not denounce Republicans as harshly as Democrats and elected the loudest denouncer, Donald Trump. By 2020, Trump notwithstanding, the barbarians had proved to be the gatekeepers. They cowed the deplorables, punished them to convince them that they are evil and isolated, deprived them of normal social intercourse, and made them dependent on media that pushed politically correct reality down their masked throats.

The deplorables are angry. But so what?

Why have conservatives mostly obeyed perverted authority? Did the ruling class succeed? Is the revolution over? A minority seem to believe that example may lead leftists once again to recognize their opponents’ equal rights. In short, they are conservatives who yearn to preserve something already gone. They are not yet revolutionaries for their own cause.

…

No one could know for sure how much the empowered oligarchy had cowered ordinary people’s resentment or inflamed it. The fact that some two thirds of respondents told pollsters that they are afraid publicly to voice their views suggests much.

Whatever may happen, it is safe to say that, on the Right side of American life, conventional conservatism is dead, as is political moderation.

…

When the American people vote on November 3, they—like the proverbial husband who walks in on wife in flagrante—will choose whether to believe what they are told or what their senses tell them.

The ubiquity, depth, and vehemence of the ruling class’s denigration of Donald Trump is such as to render superfluous any detailing thereof. Suffice it to note that not a day in four years has gone by without the news media hyperventilating or ruminating on some allegation of Trump’s wrongdoing or wrongbeing. For what? Again, the list of subjects is so exhaustive that it is easier to note that there is hardly any mortal transgression of which he has not been accused. Suffice it to say that, to the extent one depends on the media’s narrative, one cannot help but believe that Donald Trump is the enemy of all good things, that nothing he has done has been any good, that he is responsible for all that is bad.

…

Since 2016 the ruling class have had the luxury of acting as if the deplorables were lifeless punching bags. On November 3 they will find out to what extent that may not be so. Its leaders have already discovered that their “intersectional” entourages are not entirely controllable. After the election, the politicians bidding for leadership of conservatives will make Trump look like milquetoast. As the ruling class tries to suppress them, it will also have to deal with uncontrollable allies, whose violence will spur the conservatives to fiercer resistance.

…

The revolution long since destroyed the original American republic in the minds, hearts, and habits of a critical mass of citizens. They neither want nor are any longer able to live as Americans had lived until so recently. Loudly, they declare that the rest of us are racists, etc., unworthy of self-government. No one can undo that. Chances are against the undoing happening on its own. The longer we pretend to live under precisely the same laws, the likelier we will end up killing one another. We must not do that. And yet regional differences notwithstanding, we are mostly intermingled. Sorting ourselves into compatible groups is part of the American genius and tradition. More of that has been happening and more will happen yet. If we want to live in peace, as we should, we must contrive to agree to disagree to accommodate peace.

#angelo codevilla #the american mind

2 notes · View notes

soliloquiumanimae · 5 years

Text

“THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND THE POOR MAN (2 SAMUEL 12:1-6)

OVERVIEW: Nathan’s shrewd manner of confronting David with his own words and then by open rebuke is an effective strategy for taking the powerful of this world to task (GREGORY THE GREAT). David’s harsh verdict against Nathan’s figurative rich man is met with his immediate and pointed indictment, yet David’s prompt confession of guilt is met with assurance of the Lord’s forgiveness and the repeal of his self-condemning sentence (CHRYSOSTOM). David’s lust was a one-time sinful fall rather than a habit as suggested in the metaphor of the guest. Nathan used the sharp scalpel of David’s own words to remove the diseased tissue of his heart (AUGUSTINE).

12:1-6 Nathan’s Story and David’s Judgment

CHALLENGING THE POWERFUL. GREGORY THE GREAT: But at times, in taking to task the powerful of this world, they are first to be dealt with by drawing diverse comparisons in a case ostensibly concerning someone else. Then, when they give a right judgment on what apparently is another’s case, they are to be taken to task regarding their own guilt by a suitable procedure. Thus a mind puffed up with temporal power cannot possibly lift itself up against the reprover, for by its own judgment it has trodden on the neck of pride; and it cannot argue to defend itself, as it stands convicted by the sentence out of its own mouth.

Thus it was that Nathan the prophet, coming to chide the king, to all appearance asked his judgment in the case of a poor man against a rich man. The king first was to deliver judgment and then to hear that he was the culprit. Thus he was completely unable to deny the just sentence which he had personally delivered against himself. Therefore, the holy man, considering both the sinner and the king, aimed in that wonderful manner at convicting a bold culprit first by his own admission and then cut him by his rebuke. For a short while he concealed the person whom he was aiming at and then at once struck him when he had convicted him. His stroke would, perhaps, have had less force if he had chosen to castigate the sin directly the moment he began to speak. But by beginning with a similitude, he sharpened the rebuke which he was concealing. He came like a physician to a sick man, saw that his wound had to be incised, but was in doubt about the endurance of the patient. He, therefore, concealed the surgeon’s knife under his coat, but drawing it out suddenly, pierced the wound, that the sick man might feel the knife before he saw it, for if he had first seen it, he might have refused to feel it. PASTORAL CARE 3.2.1

THE GOOD OF A PROMPT CONFESSION. CHRYSOSTOM: Therefore, Nathan went to David and wove a dramatic act for judgment. And what did he say? “My king, I want your judgment. There was a certain rich man and a certain poor one. The “rich person possessed herds of cattle and many other flocks; and the poor one had one ewe that drank from his glass, ate from his table and slept in his embrace.” Here Nathan revealed the genuine bond between a husband and wife. “When a certain stranger arrived, the rich man desired to keep his own animals, and he took the poor man’s ewe and slaughtered her.” Here, do you see how Nathan wove the dramatic act, mysteriously concealing the weapon in the glands of David’s throat? Then what did the king say? Thinking that he had to pass judgment against someone else, he decided most severely. For such are human beings. When it concerns other people, they gladly and abruptly render decisions and publicize them. And what did David say? “As the Lord lives, the man who did this thing is worthy of death. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold.” Therefore, what did Nathan reply? He did not allow the wound to be relieved for many hours; rather, he quickly stripped it naked and sharply embedded the knife deeply into it, so as not to rob it of the painful sensation. “You are the man, my king.” What did the king say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” He did not say, “Who are you who censures me? Who sent you to speak with such boldness? With what daring did you prevail?” He did not say anything of the sort; rather, he perceived the sin. And what did he say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore, what did Nathan say to him? “And the Lord remitted “your sin.” You condemned yourself; I [God] remit your sentence. You confessed prudently; you annulled the sin. You appropriated a condemnatory decision against yourself; I repealed the sentence. Can you see that what is written in Scripture was fulfilled: “Be the first one to tell of your transgression so you may be justified”2 How toilsome is it to be the first one to declare the sin? HOMILIES ON REPENTANCE AND ALMSGIVING 2.2.9.3

THE FLEETING CHARACTER OF DAVID’S SIN. AUGUSTINE: And with what moderation and self-restraint those men used their wives appears chiefly in this, that when this same king, carried away by the heat of passion and by temporal prosperity, had taken unlawful possession of one woman, whose husband also he ordered to be put to death, he was accused of his crime by a prophet, who, when he had come to show him his sin, set before him the parable of the poor man who had but one ewe lamb, and whose neighbor, though he had many, yet when a guest came to him, refused to take of his own flock but set his poor neighbor’s one lamb before his guest to eat. And David’s anger kindled against the man, he commanded that he should be put to death and the lamb restored fourfold to the poor man; thus unwittingly condemning the sin he had wittingly committed. And when he had been shown this, and God’s punishment had been announced against him, he wiped out his sin in deep penitence. But yet in this parable it was the adultery only that was indicated by the poor man’s ewe lamb. About the killing of the woman’s husband—that is, about the murder of the poor man himself who had the one ewe lamb—nothing is said in the parable, so that the sentence of condemnation is pronounced against the adultery alone. And hence we may understand with what temperance he possessed a number of wives when he was forced to punish himself for transgressing in regard to one woman. But in his case the immoderate desire did not take up its abode with him but was only a passing guest. On this account the unlawful appetite is called even by the accusing prophet, a guest. For he did not say that he took the poor man’s ewe lamb to make a feast for his king, but for his guest. In the case of his son Solomon, however, this lust did not come and pass away like a guest but reigned as a king. And about him Scripture is not silent but accuses him of being a lover of strange women; for in the beginning of his reign he was inflamed with a desire for wisdom, but after he had attained it through spiritual love, he lost it through carnal lust.4 CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 3.21.5

DISEASED TISSUE IN DAVID’S HEART. AUGUSTINE: For I admit my wrongdoing, and my offense confronts me all the time.6 “I have not thrust my deed behind my back; I do not look askance at others while forgetting myself; I do not presume to extract a speck of straw from my brother’s eye while there is a timber in my own;7 my sin is in front of me, not behind my back. It was behind me until the prophet was sent to me and put to me the parable of the poor man’s sheep.” What the prophet Nathan said to David was this: There was a certain rich man who had a large flock of sheep. His neighbor was a poor man who had only one little ewe lamb; she rested in his arms and was fed from his own dish. Then a guest arrived at the rich man’s house. The rich man took nothing from his flock; what he wanted was the little ewe lamb that belonged to his neighbor, so he slaughtered that for his guest. What does he deserve? Angrily David pronounced sentence. Obviously the king was unaware of the trap into which he had fallen, and he decreed that the rich man deserved to die and must make fourfold restitution for the sheep. It was a very severe view, and entirely just. But his own sin was not yet before his eyes; what he had done was still behind his back. He did not yet admit his own iniquity and hence would not remit another’s. But the prophet had been sent to him for this purpose. He brought the sin out from behind David’s back and held it before his eyes, so that he might see that the severe sentence had been passed on himself. To cut away diseased tissue in David’s heart and heal the wound there, Nathan used David’s tongue as a knife.

EXPLANATIONS OF THE PSALMS 50.8

NATHAN CONFRONTS DAVID (2 SAMUEL 12:7-12)

OVERVIEW: Nathan’s foretelling of the evils to befall David on account of his adultery and murder illustrate one of the three classes of prophecy, namely that which refers to the earthly Jerusalem as distinguished from the heavenly Jerusalem and from both the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem (AUGUSTINE). That God sees and judges actions committed in secret is proven by the exposure of David’s grave sins, thereby warning sinners of impending punishment (SALVIAN). Although a virtuous man through whom Christ would descend, David was punished for his adultery, even though he was repentant and was declared forgiven (ISAAC OF NINEVEH).

12:10-12 Nathan Pronounces the Lord’s Judgment

CLASSES OF PROPHECY. AUGUSTINE: Thus, the prophets’ sayings are of three classes: one class refers to the earthly, a second to the heavenly Jerusalem, and a third to both simultaneously. It will be best to support this assertion with illustration. The prophet Nathan was sent to accuse King David of a grave sin and to foretell what evils were to befall him on this account. Now no one can fail to see that this prophecy refers to the earthly city. There are others like it, sometimes addressed to the people at large for their profit and well-being, and sometimes to an individual who merited a word from God to foreknow some event for the guidance of his temporal life. CITY OF GOD 17.3.1

GOD SEES AND JUDGES SECRET ACTIONS. SALVIAN THE PRESBYTER: But that you may clearly know that his censure and sacred considerations deal more with actions than with persons themselves, hear how God, the judge, who many times gave sentences favorable to his servant David, often gave decisions unfavorable to him. This happened in a transaction which did not involve many men, or perhaps, what would have aroused God more, in a transaction involving holy men. It happened in the instance of one man, a foreigner, where the action rather than the person demanded punishment.

When Uriah the Hittite, a member of a wicked race and of an unfriendly nation, had been killed, the divine Word was immediately passed to David, “You have killed Uriah, the Hittite, with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Thus said the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor. For you did it secretly: but I will do this thing in the sight of all Israel and in the sight of the sun.’

What do you say to this, you who believe that God does not judge our actions and who believe that he has no concern whatsoever for us? Do you “not see that the eyes of God were never absent even from that secret sin through which David fell once? Learn from this that you are always seen by Christ, understand and know that you will be punished, and perhaps very soon, you, who, perhaps in consolation for your sins, think that our acts are not seen by God. You see that the holy David was unable to hide his sin in the secrecy of his inmost rooms; neither was he able to claim exemption from immediate punishment through the privilege of great deeds. What did the Lord say to him? “I will take your wives before your eyes, and the sword shall never depart from your house.” THE GOVERNANCE OF GOD 2.4.2

TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT REMAINED. ISAAC OF NINEVEH: And David, who was a man after God’s own heart, who because of his virtues was found worthy to generate from his seed the promise of the Fathers, and to have Christ shine forth from himself for the salvation of all the world, was he not punished because of adultery with a woman, when he held her beauty with his eyes and was pierced in his soul by that arrow? “For it was because of this that God raised up a war against him from within his own household, and he who came forth from his loins pursued him. These things befell him even after he had repented with many tears, such that he moistened his couch with his weeping, and after God had said to him “through the prophet, “The Lord hath forgiven thy sin.”3 ASCETICAL HOMILIES 10.4

DAVID CONFESSES HIS SIN (2 SAMUEL 12:13-14)

OVERVIEW: That, as king, David frankly confessed his sin and humbly repented in sackcloth and ashes admonishes the private person to offer no less of an expression of remorse (CYRIL OF JERUSALEM). While Matthew presents Christ’s kingly descent through Solomon, Luke presents his priestly ascent through Nathan, because it was through Nathan the prophet that David obtained the annulment of his sin (AUGUSTINE). Those who are rightly accused of a great sin may take heart that they will be forgiven if they admit their guilt as David did (AMBROSE). While the reward of David’s great penitence for his misdeed was the avoidance of eternal punishment, he did not merit full pardon: the child died because of David’s sin (SALVIAN). That God responded differently to the similar confessions of David and Saul reveals the dissimilarity of their hearts. For the baptized who have deserted or violated the faith, forgiveness may be obtained through the heartfelt repentance exhibited in uttering a confession of sin, doing genuine penance and living good lives afterwards (AUGUSTINE). While we should be ashamed to sin, we should not be ashamed to repent, as this is the means of deliverance and healing (PACIAN OF BARCELONA). Confession alone is not sufficient for the penitent, but must be accompanied by correction and humility, as David exemplifies (PAULINUS OF MILAN).

12:13-14 Nathan Responds to David’s Admission of Guilt

AN EXAMPLE OF REPENTANCE. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: If you like, however, I will give you further examples relating to our condition. Come then to the blessed David, and take him for your example of repentance. Great as he was, he suffered a fall. It was in the afternoon, after his siesta, that he took a turn on the housetop and saw by chance what stirred his human passion. He fulfilled the sinful deed, but his nobility, when it came to confessing the lapse, had not perished with the doing of the deed. Nathan the prophet came, swift to convict, but now as a healer for his wound, saying, “The Lord was angry, and you have sinned.” So spoke a simple subject to his reigning sovereign. But David, though king and robed in purple, did not take it amiss, for he had regard not to the rank of the speaker but to the majesty of him who sent him. He was not puffed up by the fact that guardsmen were drawn up all around him, for the angelic host of the Lord came to his mind and he was in “terror “as seeing him who is invisible. 1 So he answered and said to the “man that came to him, or rather, in his person, to the God whose messenger he was, “I have sinned against the Lord.” You see this royal humility and the making of confession. Surely no one had been convicting him, nor were there many who knew what he had done. Swiftly the deed was done and immediately the prophet appeared as accuser. Lo! The sinner confesses his wicked deed, and as it was full and frank confession, he had the swiftest healing. For the prophet Nathan first threatened him, but then said immediately, “And the Lord has put away your sin.” And see how quickly lovingkindness changes the face of God! Except that he first declares, “you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” as though he said “you have many that are your foes because of your righteousness, from whom nevertheless, you were kept safe by your upright living. But as you have thrown away this best of armors, you have now, standing ready to strike, these foes that are risen up against you.”

So then the prophet comforted David as we have seen, but that blessed man, though he received most gladly the assurance, “The Lord has put away your sin,” did not, king as he was, draw back from penitence. Indeed he put on sackcloth in place of his purple robe, and the king sat in ashes on the bare earth instead of on his gilded throne. And in ashes he did not merely sit, but took them for eating, as he himself says, “I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.”2 His lustful eye he wasted away with tears; as he says, “every night I wash my bed and water my couch with my tears.”3 And when his courtiers exhorted him to eat food, he would not, but prolonged his fast for seven whole days. CATECHETICAL LECTURES 2.11-12.4

THE ANNULMENT OF HIS SIN. AUGUSTINE: But just as Matthew, presenting Christ the king as if descending for the assumption of our sins, thus descends from David through Solomon, because Solomon was born of her with whom David had sinned, so Luke, presenting Christ the priest as if ascending after the destroying of sins, ascends through Nathan to David, because Nathan the prophet had been sent, and by his reproof the penitent “David obtained the annulling of his sin. ON EIGHTY-THREE VARIED QUESTIONS 61.5

ON ADMITTING ONE’S GUILT. AMBROSE: Are you ashamed, sir,6 to do as David did—David, the king and the prophet, the ancestor of Christ according to the flesh? He was told of the rich man who had a great number of flocks and yet, when a guest arrived, took the poor man’s one ewe lamb and killed it; and when he recognized that he was himself condemned by the story, he said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore do not take it ill, sir, if what was said to King David is said to you, “You are the man.” For if you listen with attention and say, “I have sinned against the Lord,” if you say, in the words of the royal prophet, “O come, let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker,”7 then it will be said to you also, “Because you repented, the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die.” LETTER 51.7.8

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT AVERTED. SALVIAN THE PRESBYTER: You see what instant judgment so great a man suffered for one sin. Immediate condemnation followed the fault, a condemnation immediately punishing and without reservation, stopping the guilty one then and there and not deferring the case to a later date. Thus he did not say, “because you have done this, know that the judgment of God will come and “you will be tormented in the fire of hell.” Rather, he said, “You shall suffer immediate punishment and shall have the sword of divine severity at your throat.”

And what followed? The guilty man acknowledged his sin, was humbled, filled with remorse, confessed and wept. He repented and asked for pardon, gave up his royal jewels, laid aside his robes of gold cloth, put aside the purple, resigned his crown. He was changed in body and appearance. He cast aside all his kingship with its ornaments. He put on the externals of a fugitive penitent, so that his squalor was his defense. He was wasted by fasting, dried up by thirst, worn from weeping and imprisoned in his own loneliness. Yet this king, bearing such a great name, greater in his holiness than in temporal power, surpassing all by the prerogative of his antecedent merits, did not escape punishment though he sought pardon so earnestly.

The reward of this great penitence was such that he was not condemned to eternal punishment. Yet, he did not merit full pardon in this world. What did the prophet say to the penitent? “Because you have given occasion to the enemies of the “Lord to blaspheme, the son that is born to you shall die.” Besides the pain of the bitter loss of his son, God wished that there be added to the very loving father an understanding of this greatest punishment, namely, that the father who mourned should him self bring death to his beloved son, when the son, born of his father’s crime, was killed for the very crime that had begotten him. THE GOVERNANCE OF GOD 2.4.9

GOD INSPECTS HEARTS. AUGUSTINE: Similarity of words, dissimilarity of hearts. We may hear the similarity of the words with our ears, but we can only know the dissimilarity of hearts by the angel’s declaration. David sinned, and when he was rebuked by the prophet, he said, “I have sinned,” and was immediately told, “Your sin has been forgiven you.” Saul sinned, and when he was rebuked by the prophet, he said, “I have sinned,” and his sin was not forgiven, but the wrath of God remained upon him. What can this mean but similarity of words, dissimilarity of hearts? Human beings can hear words, God inspects hearts. SERMON 291.5.10

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE SYLLABLES. AUGUSTINE: Baptized people, though, who are deserters and violators of such a great sacrament, if they repent from the bottom of their hearts, if they repent where God can see, as he saw David’s heart, when on being rebuked by the prophet, and very sternly rebuked, he cried out after hearing God’s fearsome threats and said, “I have sinned,” and shortly afterward heard, “God has taken away your sin.” Such is the effectiveness of three syllables. “I have sinned” is just three syllables; and yet in these three syllables the flames of the heart’s sacrifice rose up to heaven. So those who have done genuine penance, and have been absolved from the constraints by which they were bound and cut off from the body of Christ, and have lived good lives after their penance, such as they ought to have lived before penance, and in due course have passed away after being reconciled, why, they too go to God, go to their rest, will not be deprived of the kingdom, will be set apart from the people of the devil. SERMON 393.1.11

NO SHAME IN REPENTANCE. PACIAN OF BARCELONA: May we by all means be filled with revulsion for sin but not for repentance. May we be ashamed to put ourselves at risk but not to be delivered. Who will snatch away the wooden plank from the shipwrecked so that he may not escape? Who will begrudge the curing of wounds? Does David not say, “Every single night I will bathe my bed, I will “bathe my bed, I will drench my couch in my tears.”12 And again, “I acknowledge my sin, and my iniquity I have not concealed”13 And further, “I said, ‘I will reveal against myself my sin to my God,’ and you forgave the wickedness of my “heart”14 Did not the prophet answer [David] as follows when, after the guilt of murder and adultery for the sake of Bathsheba, he was penitent? “The Lord has taken away from you your sin.” LETTER 1.5.3.15

CONFESSION AND CORRECTION. PAULINUS OF MILAN: Indeed, to the penitent himself confession alone does not suffice, unless correction of the deed follows, with the result that the penitent does not continue to do deeds which demand repentance. He should even humble his soul just as holy David, who, when he heard from the prophet: “Your sin is pardoned,” became more humble in the correction of his sin, so that “he did eat ashes like bread and mingled his drink with weeping.”16 THE LIFE OF ST. AMBROSE 9.39.17

THE CHILD DIES DESPITE DAVID’S FASTING (2 SAMUEL 12:15-19)

OVERVIEW: David’s repentance and fasting, offered not for his sin’s sake but for his child’s, does not atone for sin but encourages abstinence from all evil (CHRYSOSTOM). That David’s prayerful and humble repentance did not move the Lord to spare his child’s life shows that no crime deserves greater guilt than those that give others cause for blasphemy (SALVIAN). “12:15-17 David Pleads to God for the Child’s Life

ABSTAINING FROM ALL EVIL. CHRYSOSTOM: And I do not say this to overturn fasting (God forbid!) but to exhort you that with fasting you do that which is better than fasting, the abstaining from all evil. David also sinned. Let us see then how he too repented. Three days he sat on ashes. But this he did not for the sin’s sake but for the child’s, being as yet stupefied with that affliction. But he wiped away the sin by other means, by humbleness, contrition of heart, compunction of soul, by falling into this sin no more, by remembering it always, by bearing thankfully every thing that befalls him, by sparing those that grieve him, by forbearing to requite those who conspire against him; yes, even preventing those who desire to do this. HOMILIES ON 2 CORINTHIANS 4.6.1

CAUSING OTHERS TO BLASPHEME. SALVIAN THE PRESBYTER: How particularly difficult it is to atone for the evil deed of handing over the name of the Lord to the blasphemy of the heathen, we are instructed by the example of the most blessed David who, because of the intercession of his acts of justice, deserved to evade eternal punishment for his offenses through one confession only. Yet he, with penance as his protector, was unable to obtain full pardon for his sin. When Nathan the prophet had said to David, who was confessing his own sins to him, “The Lord has taken away your sin, you shall not die,” he added immediately, “nevertheless, because you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this word, the child that is born to you, shall die.”

And what happened next? Having laid aside his crown and put away his jewels, all splendor of royal dignity being removed, he was relieved of the purple. For all his sins he shut himself up alone, weeping, filthy in sackcloth, soaked in tears and soiled with ashes, and sought the life of his little child with the voice of many lamentations and beat upon the Most Holy God with great fervor or prayer. Thus asking and imploring, he believed he could in this manner obtain what he sought from God. Yet he was unable to obtain his request through what is the most forceful aid to those who ask.

From this it can be understood that there is no crime deserving of greater guilt than to give to the heathen a reason for blaspheming. For, whoever has erred gravely without giving cause for blasphemy to others brings damnation to himself only, but he who makes others blaspheme drags many to death with himself, he will, of necessity, be guilty of as many as he shall have drawn into guilt. Not only this, whatever sinner so sins that he does not cause others to blaspheme by his sin, his sin is injurious only to him who sins, but does not insult the holy name of God with the sacrilegious curse of those who blaspheme. But he who, by his sin, causes others to blaspheme, his sin is, of necessity, beyond the measure of human crime, because he has done unthinkable harm to God through the curses of many. THE GOVERNANCE OF GOD 4.18.2”

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel

4 notes · View notes

wisdomrays · 5 years

Text

Concord and Alliance Once More

QUESTION: The noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, stated that his supplications to God about his followers not being destroyed by a wholesale disaster and their not remaining constantly under others’ dominance were accepted, but the supplication about his followers’ not falling into discord and disunity was not accepted. Could you elucidate the aspects that these points share and the messages they convey to us?

ANSWER: In order to educate believers, the Qur’an related many different stories about the lives of the Prophets. An important point relayed in these stories is the destruction of people who refused to believe in the Messengers that God sent to guide them. The people of Prophet Noah, were destroyed by a flood after they obstinately denied him and oppressed his followers. The people of Prophet Hud (Eber in the Old Testament) were destroyed by an inauspicious storm; the people of Prophet Salih by a terrible blast, and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were sunk into the ground.

Whether these acts of God were restricted to a certain region, or whether the destruction included all humanity, we do not know. However, when we consider the fact that the Prophets before the Pride of Humanity (Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him) were each sent to a particular people, then it is possible to discern that every act of destruction was limited to that particular region. Therefore, if people did not believe in the Prophet sent to them and insisted on their unbelief and oppression, ultimately facing destruction, it was limited to that group of people. However, accordingly, as the seal of the Prophets was sent to all humanity then the entirety of those who refused to accept his message but insisted on denial and oppression should be destroyed.

The accepted petition

It is for this reason that the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, supplicated so that his followers would not face such a wholesale destruction.

“But God would not punish them so long as you were among them; and God is not to punish them (or other people) while they implore Him for forgiveness for their sins” (al-Anfal 8:33).

This verse indicates that his prayer was accepted.

There are certain distinctive features that are unique to the Final Prophet, (peace and blessings be upon him). One of these is that for as long as he spent his blessed life among his followers and led them, they would not face total destruction as befell peoples of the past. According to the apparent meaning of the verse, this truth is apodictic. It is also possible to infer the following implicit meaning from the verse: As long as the Prince of the Prophets lives in the hearts of Muslims, God will not punish them as He did earlier peoples; he will not sink them into the ground. If there is a sound Muhammadi spirit among the believers, just as God Almighty forgave the followers of the Final Prophet during his lifetime and after his demise, God will forgive and protect them until the end of the world.

In the rest of the world, it is also stated that another means of believers’ protection from destruction is realized by their asking for forgiveness. If Muslims ask for forgiveness immediately after committing sins, God will save them from misfortunes that could befall them from above, below, from the right and left; He will not sink them into the ground. In short, God Almighty accepted the Prophet’s prayer about Muslims’ not facing total destruction. The Qur’an stated this truth and history has evidently revealed this.

Temporary periods of subjugation in the cycles of history

Secondly, the Final Prophet supplicated to God asking that Muslims’ not stay under the invasion of an exploitive state. God’s Messenger saw with his Prophetic sight that could reach the unseen, that believers would sometimes face invasion, but this would not continue forever. Some 4–5 centuries after his blessed life, Muslims faced successions of crusades. After that the Mongols came, invading Baghdad, the center of the caliphate, but none of these invasions became permanent. None of the invasions by the crusaders, the Mongolians, or by the oppressors and transgressors in later periods lasted. A day came and all were finished by God’s permission and grace.

In our time, the Islamic world is suffering from invasions of a different nature. Where as in the past, invasions were realized by brute force, these days they are operated by means of pawns within the Islamic world. These pawns are administering the Muslim geographies. Tyrants with a nature that suits others’ purposes are selected and used to subjugate the Islamic world.

As has always happened in the past, and will happen again after this, people will gain their independence, with the permission of God, and the period of tyrants will come to an end. Who knows which ants will once more bring down the palaces of Pharaohs, and which mosquitos will make Nimrods fall flat on their faces. The noble Prophet petitioned God about this matter and God Almighty accepted his prayer and gave him the glad tidings that his followers will not remain under invasion forever.

The source of disunity: Human weaknesses

Lastly, with his Prophetic sight which could reach the unseen, the Pride of Humanity saw that feelings of greed, envy, rivalry, ambition for fame, love of status and desire to be the center of attention would cause discord among his followers and bring them to loggerheads with each other. He entreated God to save them from such a danger but did not receive a positive reply because this is a direct test of individuals’ free will. Although God Almighty did not totally reject the petition of His beloved Messenger, neither did He decree that they would confront one another. God left believers’ living in unity to their willful choice. God did not create people as—forgive the expression—beasts, or not as trees to remain standing in peace when put side-by-side; He created them as human beings and endowed them with willpower. Hence, human beings must give their willpower its due and constantly struggle against their negative feelings such as jealousy, grudges, hatred, malice and intolerance, so that they can progress. In other words, the issue of maintaining concord and unity was not given to Muslims as an unmerited favor. On the contrary, God Almighty made Divine guidance and assistance on this issue conditional to their giving their willpower its due.

In this regard, if believers wish to make a consensus, agree with and embrace one another, they must open their arms to everybody in the same way that Abdulqadr al-Jilani, Abu Hasan al-Shazili, Jalaluddin Rumi did. In terms of their personal rights, they should be without hands against those who strike them, without speech against those who curse them and without bitterness against those who break their hearts. They must keep the door to agreement and unity open all the time. If they achieve this by giving their willpower its due, they will have established unity and togetherness in this world; and in the Hereafter, they will receive the surprise blessings of God. Such endeavors they make in this world will bring very different returns in the next one.

Like a rocket on a launcher

Remember that giving one’s willpower its due against lustful feelings turns that person into a monument of morality; or, not giving in to envy and greed despite the good things granted to others makes that person a hero of dignified contentment. In the same way, in order to maintain concord and alliance, individuals’ using their willpower to act in spite of themselves will make them into monuments of virtue.

Some might act with incredible malevolence against you despite their claiming to be believers. They might throw stones and thorns on the path you tread. They might render your roads impossible to walk on and destroy the bridges in front of you. They might wish to completely isolate you from society. However, if you are to become a paragon of virtue for the sake of concord and alliance, you must overlook all of these acts and keep walking, saying, “This too shall pass.” When the bridges in front of you are destroyed, you must make new bridges from ropes and wood somewhere else. Without falling into separation from God, in spite of those who willfully took the path of separation from Him, you must keep walking with God’s permission and grace.

The day will come when some of those who did these evils to you will regret their actions. When they come with regret, it is very important that they should find you where they are standing. Even when they voice their regret, what falls to you is to give a gentlemanly response and say, “Good heavens! We have no knowledge of this. We always felt that you were near us.”

In truth, you will know that they had drifted kilometers away from you from jealousy and envy, that they had made remarks as: “Bring the movement to a halt. Do not let them survive. Finish them off!” You will know that they committed all of these wrongdoings without any serious and reasonable explanation. On the contrary, the motive behind this was the feeling of rivalry, jealousy and envy. Even inside the most innocent one of them, there was the feeling of competing. They were trying to gain a bigger share of the pie. For journeyers to the Truth, overlooking all of these evils and standing where they had been as if nothing had happened will be a great virtue.

Understanding human nature correctly

It should not be forgotten that it is not always possible to keep up concord and alliance; that certain disagreements may arise all the time, for human nature is prone to this by creation. Hence, even if we personally run after the loftiest ideal for the sake of concord and alliance, we should realize that we might encounter most unexpected attitudes and behaviors so that we do not lose hope through the profound disappointment we feel when we face heart-rending events.

For the sake of preserving the spirit of unity and togetherness, some may act like the Rightly Guided Caliphs and establish close ties of fraternity with those around and virtually form a structure as sound as steel. Such a concord and alliance was once formed between the Companions of the noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. However, as different understandings and different philosophical considerations were included in the issue in later periods, it is not possible to say that the same purity was maintained.

Every person has some certain weaknesses. Some may display particular behaviors in order to upset the general harmony of the collective they are in. Some may commit certain wrongs and sins to harm the general harmony. Some may fail to melt their ego like a cube of ice in the pool of the collective and fail to gain a consciousness of forming a whole. What falls to us in the face of all of these is to evaluate issues with a big conscience, not to drive people away from us by being furious with their wrongs. On the contrary, we should try to win them, make efforts to help them up, and thus take these people entrusted to us as far as we can take them.

Many verses of the Qur’an command believers to respond to evil with goodness, and to be forgiving and tolerant. Thus, we need to act in accordance with these principles taught by the Qur’an, and overlook faults as much as we can. Otherwise, we make most people run away from us, and this harms the acts of goodness we try to realize for the sake of God’s good pleasure. If we wish to retain concord and alliance, we should not dismiss anyone on account of their mistakes and faults; on the contrary, we should seek and find ways to reach everybody’s heart, and try to help them up by embracing them with compassion.

1 note · View note