Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Tarkovsky Tuesday

A "childhood" sequence from Tarkovsky's Mirror (1975) (which in a Tarkovsky film frequently also means a "mother" sequence in some ultimate sense):

B and 6B

Monday, December 16, 2013

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The law of non-contradiction declaims thus: if you say that a certain label is vague and impenetrable and then you apply that label to yourself and say you are proud of it - or conversely, if you take a certain label and apply it to yourself, saying you are proud of it, and then turn around and say that the label is vague and impenetrable - well, the law of non-contradiction says that you have just broken the law of non-contradiction, for your applying the label to yourself and saying you are proud of it clearly indicates that you comprehend what that label means. Thus, saying the label is vague and impenetrable is to break the above-mentioned law, and in a manner of speaking, your left hand is trying to obscure what your right is in fact doing with full knowledge, which is to say, you are by your own craftiness putting yourself in an inextricable bind.

Some of us need to realize the lacy webs we have spun and get back to basics - get away from the internet, get some fresh air, get back to real life.

Update: I quite like this post (and agree with it too) about "Save the Liturgy, Save the World" by Catholic in Brooklyn.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

The Good Shepherd

You have met with seriously ill children on more than one occasion. What do you have to say about this innocent suffering?

“One man who has been a life mentor for me is Dostoevskij and his explicit and implicit question “Why do children suffer?” has always gone round in my heart. There is no explanation. This image comes to mind: at a particular point of his or her life, a child “wakes up”, doesn’t understand much and feels threatened, he or she starts asking their mum or dad questions. This is the “why” age. But when the child asks a question, he or she doesn’t wait to hear the full answer, they immediately start bombarding you with more “whys”. What they are really looking for, more than an explanation, is a reassuring look on their parent’s face. When I come across a suffering child, the only prayer that comes to mind is the “why” prayer. Why Lord? He doesn’t explain anything to me. But I can feel Him looking at me. So I can say: You know why, I don’t and You won’t tell me, but You’re looking at me and I trust You, Lord, I trust your gaze.” --Pope Francis in La Stampa interview

Friday, December 13, 2013

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Reverse Processor

Analogy prompts in us a comprehension beyond process and logic, not so much by the poetics of its approximations between things, but by an incorporating power which causes a certain evocation.

Analogy incorporates realities - true and earthly realities such as, for instance, marriage - by which incorporation alone we understand, without being told, within the analogous statement something invisible: we know those incorporated realities are no longer being spoken of as they are, in their suchness, nor in their ends, for they are now serving as sorts of lenses, and in becoming lenses, those words and names for earthly realities - such as "marriage", "bridegroom", "banquet" - have changed in that there is a substitution of significance.

This unspoken but undeniable substitution of significance is in the mind of the one comprehending. It engages his reflective imagination.

This incorporation of earthly, God-created realities and the substitution of significance that results within analogy, gets us to see, if in a kind of flash, that which is so large and transcendent that logic cannot contain it; it contains us, and only analogy will serve for our limited minds - like, for instance, St. Augustine seeing a little boy pouring sea-water from a pail into a hole dug in the beach sand.

It does not mean that those realities, such as marriage, in themselves, as such, fail us insofar that they fail to have that significance which is evoked by their use within analogy. In Christopher West World, the ends of these realities, such as marriage, are in their serving as the lenses in analogy. They are there to serve an analogous sense of themselves. Which is nuts.

What is in the mind here, in the delicate composite of the reflective imagination, Christopher West reverses back out into those earthly realities, so that those earthly realities, such as the body and marriage, in their suchness and in their ends, have been reduced to the analogous signs that are only legitimate in the reflective imagination. And insofar as he does that, those earthly and Sacramental realities are bereaved of their actual significance and become esoteric signs. Which is de facto depersonalization of God. For God speaks through His creation. To turn His creation into esoteric signs is to turn God into an alien (by "alien" I am referring to "stranger" or something similar, and not extra terrestrials.)

West says that their ends - such as the end of marriage - is to point us towards God. What he actually implicitly means by this is that these realities are good insofar that they point us towards analogy - that is, their use in analogy. Which is to say, those realities, such as the body and marriage, are nothing but analogies for us to read aright, and if we read them aright then we will inevitably not be sinning, and we will inevitably be holy, and we will inevitably have mature purity. He reverses reality and analogy. He is a reverse processor.

He takes the analogous sense and imposes it upon the reality which precedes the analogous sense, making the analogous sense its reality. He takes the reality that precedes the analogous sense and imposes it upon the ascendent movement within analogy, thus "blocking" any substitution of significance from taking place. Which is to say, he drives the ascendent movement downward. He reverses them. He is a reverse processor.

Just look at what he does with Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen's quoting of Augustine and speaking of the Church beginning with nuptials. Is it possible that what was possible for a generation just a few decades ago - the ability to read substitution of significance within the ascendent movement of analogy - is totally confused for a certain sector of Catholics today?

Christopher West reverses the ascendent movement within analogy. He does this foremost by an aggressive and adolescent processing of something that demands a presence rather than an approach, a stillness and a maturity - a maturity that is at one and the same time child-like. In other words, what Lady Alice von Hildebrand says holds true: his "approach" has no reverence. Reverence is not an optional pietistic addition. It is of the essence. Reverence is the hot blood of life. Christopher West's "approach" is the proverbial swine trampling on pearls. I'm speaking analogically there.

Analogy is at one and the same time very weak and very powerful. This doesn't at all mean that Christopher West can never say that he is "only speaking analogically" and that analogy is very limited; for he does say so, but that doesn't matter because he makes such admissions only in a dualist context. When he makes admission of the limitations of analogy, he does so after he has reversed reality and analogy.

In other words, he says that what marriage is - in its vital child-bearing, family-making, God-willed path for people's sanctification of themselves and of the world, in which we ourselves become sacraments, in which our wasting away is the aggregation of Christ in this world and thus our ultimate union with Christ in the next - what marriage is in this sense, he will place into the plane of limited analogy, into the plane of merely being a sign that points towards. He will then take marriage in its "vital" sense and cut it down at the ankles as limited and analogous, while forcing the analogical and subjective into the "vital" plane that is reserved for poopy screaming children and spaghetti on the stove (or in other words, reserved for our becoming sacraments), replacing it as the paramount significance of marriage - that is to say, making the analogical and limited to take that place of marriage which is not limited and analogical. Forcing an analogical sense down thus, we can "rocket-pack" towards our target - to the stars. To the unending celestial orgasm.

Christopher West makes analogy into something both all-dead and all-omniscient. In his pearl-trampling abuse of analogy he consistently alternates between all-dead and all-omniscient. He does this within an overall trajectory towards an isolated individualism that is bound to failure at reading the "sign language" of an alien God (and being failure-bound is precisely the point, for that is what the Christian wants who wants to fornicate or do something similarly sinful), and the saint is someone who has learned to read the esoteric signs.

For Christopher West has turned reality into an analogy, and turned the subjective ego, the subjective "I", into God becoming flesh. This subjective "I" must use the analogy that is in fact real reality, for the purpose of his own enfleshment, the enfleshment of his ego. His penis in its erect state being the nearest enfleshment of his appetitive ego, he will see vaginas around every corner he turns, awaiting the decoding of this saint-in-the-making who is learning to read the sign language of God the alien who left us ineffectual esoteric signs and not Sacraments.

Which is why Christopher West in his seminar on Saturday, November the 9th, at Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish in Surrey, British Columbia, defined the Sacraments as "signs that point us towards". And he did not breathe one single word about the Sacraments being signs that are what they signify.

Not one single word did he breathe about the prime definition of the Sacraments, but defined them as "signs that point us towards".

Anyhow, these realities, such as marriage and the body, are not meant to serve analogy as their absolute ends. They are meant to serve God. These realities, by virtue of being so deep, because they are created, willed, sustained by God, lend themselves to our reflective imaginations for a kind of theological sub-creation, which we call analogy, which in its way, also helps to serve God.

The analogous sense is there because of the deepness of God's creation and the freedom He has bestowed His creatures with. It is something we can draw out, thinking on everything that is good, beautiful and true - and which Christ the storyteller and speaker of parables did indeed draw out. The analogous sense is not there as the essence of creation itself. God created reality; He did not create an analogy. The fact that analogy can be drawn out of darn near everything does not work backward to declare this world a dualist world that is an analogy of Heaven the non-analogy.

Christopher West takes the delicate sub-created composite of analogy, whose home is in the reflective imagination, and imposes it upon that reality in its actuality, as its definitive suchness. It is thus that he says that "marriage is meant to point us towards God" by speaking of the Bridegroom and the context of Christ's first miracle. It is not merely that the meaning he imposes on marriage is bereft of everything else of which marriage is constituted, but that in being bereft of everything else of which marriage is constituted, he changes what is meant by saying "marriage is meant to point us towards God." He has, in short, turned it into an esoteric sign as part of the "sign language" left to us by an alien God.

End note: when I use the word "earthly" I am not using it to say either "originating from earth" or "earth-bound" etc. I am using it in its mere sense to connote suchness.

Update: Kevin O'Brien has an excellent post in response to the above, which is really a great clarification of what I'm saying.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Monday, December 2, 2013

HB and there might be 2B

A tough streak

In relating a piece of information about how Pope Francis was at one point a bouncer, Fr. Z ends the post with this:

And Australian former-priest Greg Reynolds is still excommunicated.

You have to hand it to Fr. Z. He has a great sense of humour. I like it.



Sunday, December 1, 2013


"It is no good my saying: “I wish I were like Joan of Arc or St. John of the Cross.” I can only be St. Evelyn Waugh—after God knows what experiences in purgatory." --Evelyn Waugh

Hmmm, let's see here...

It is no good my saying: "I wish I were like Evelyn Waugh Flannery O'Connor Walker Percy Thomas Merton G.K. Chesterton Hilaire Belloc J.R.R. Tolkien cantankerously responding in Latin during a vernacular Mass like I was born in 1892 or imagining myself in the glory days of Cluny Joan of Arc or St. John of the Cross." I can only be Sign Name Here - after God knows what experiences and my decision to accept His graces here in this life, which is built up of present moments.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Limbaugh and Sirico take issue with Benedict XVI

"It is alarming to see hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism....

".... Peacemakers must also bear in mind that, in growing sectors of public opinion, the ideologies of radical liberalism and technocracy are spreading the conviction that economic growth should be pursued even to the detriment of the state’s social responsibilities and civil society’s networks of solidarity, together with social rights and duties. It should be remembered that these rights and duties are fundamental for the full realization of other rights and duties, starting with those which are civil and political.

"One of the social rights and duties most under threat today is the right to work. The reason for this is that labour and the rightful recognition of workers’ juridical status are increasingly undervalued, since economic development is thought to depend principally on completely free markets. Labour is thus regarded as a variable dependent on economic and financial mechanisms. In this regard, I would reaffirm that human dignity and economic, social and political factors, demand that we continue “to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.” If this ambitious goal is to be realized, one prior condition is a fresh outlook on work, based on ethical principles and spiritual values that reinforce the notion of work as a fundamental good for the individual, for the family and for society. Corresponding to this good are a duty and a right that demand courageous new policies of universal employment."

--Pope Benedict XVI, Message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2013 

Just reading Francis through Benedict - that's all.

Monday, November 25, 2013

3B, HB and another one

Saturday, November 23, 2013

HB and the nub of another one

Friday, November 22, 2013

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Monday, November 18, 2013

Bill on Bitcoin again - Feds Love Bitcoins

"Guess who the newest supporters of Bitocin are? The Obama gang! The FBI, Justice Department, and today, even the Fed!"

"It's eminently traceable."


Saturday, November 16, 2013

Friday, November 15, 2013

Tuesday, November 12, 2013



Tarkovsky Tuesday

A painting and a drawing that Andrei Tarkovsky did in his younger days:

Sister, by Andrei Tarkovsky (age 15)

War, by Andrei Tarkovsky (age 11)

Found here

Monday, November 11, 2013

Christopher West, etc.

"Flowers are nature's most beautiful reproductive organ."

Christopher West said that at the seminar in the sanctuary after going up to the altar and pointing at it, saying in a high-strung tone, "Do you know what this is?! Do you know what this is?! This is the marriage bed where the bridegroom comes down to the bride!"

Of course, with all things analogical which West penetrates: yes in a different context, but absolutely no in West's penetration; in West's utterly depleting and deleterious use of analogy - or, to be more accurate, his wrenched and tortuous abuse of analogous language. He is what I call a "reverse processor". It would initially sound like a compliment, like he was some kind of genius, except that it's not.

Anyways, it was after this that he picked up the bouquet of flowers sitting in front of the pulpit and proclaimed, "Do you know what flowers are? Flowers are nature's most beautiful reproductive organ! Why does a bride walk down the aisle with flowers? They are reproductive organs. When we visit someone in the hospital we bring them reproductive organs."

And on and on, being the breathless example of how "When you have the ears to hear it, the eyes to see it, the Song of Songs is everywhere!"

It was while he was talking about how flowers are nature's most beautiful reproductive organ (of course if he said "vagina" or even "genitalia" it would have been game up for Christopher West) that my mind went back to first walking into the church where in the narthex piles of Christopher West's latest book were waiting to be sold.

This book.

Which kind of reminds me of this:

That's what you call subliminal messaging.


Sunday, November 10, 2013


"Because of this, it is important to go to Communion, it is important that children be baptized soon, that they be confirmed, because the sacraments are the presence of Jesus Christ in us, a presence that helps us. It is important, when we feel ourselves sinners, to approach the sacrament of reconciliation. Someone might say: “But I’m afraid, because the priest will thrash me.” No, the priest won’t thrash you. Do you know who you will encounter in the sacrament of reconciliation? You will encounter Jesus who forgives you! It is Jesus who awaits you there; and this is a sacrament that makes the whole Church grow." --Pope Francis' address, On Sacraments, Charisms and Charity

Christopher West part 2

Remember that story about the bishop who - having Christopher West's bogus version of "mature purity" which has nothing to do with what Pope John Paul II wrote about in TOB - gazes upon a half-dressed prostitute and sheds tears over the beauty of her body being so wasted? Remember that Christopher West totally made this story up and that the actual story he cited has absolutely nothing whatsoever resembling West's mutilated "extrapolation"?

Yesterday, on Saturday the 9th, at a parish in my hometown, Christopher West told what he called an "apocryphal" story about St. Francis. He said we can't know if this story is true or not, but that it doesn't matter because the story itself has such meaning to it as you will see. This is the story he told about St. Francis.

One day St. Francis was walking along with one of his brothers and a woman who was a prostitute approached St. Francis and said to him, "Let's go into the woods over there and I'll show you what you're really looking for."

To this St. Francis says, "No, come with me into the woods over there and I'll show you what you're really looking for."

When Christopher West said those words by both the prostitute and St. Francis - about showing each other what they're really looking for - he spoke the words with particular sexual relish. It was quite creepy.

So the prostitute goes with St. Francis into the woods, where St. Francis proceeds to build a big bonfire. Then St. Francis takes off all his clothes - as was his wont to do (Ha ha! So funny Chris!) - and begins dancing naked around the bonfire before the gaze of the prostitute.

As she gazes upon St. Francis' body glowing warmly in the firelight she was overcome, and she finally says, "Yes, you have shown me what I'm really looking for."

And then Christopher West adds with baloney reverent breath, "And she became a nun."

I didn't add any details.

And, well, the fact that he even pretended that this story could even remotely possibly be true about St. Francis...what a joke, what a fraud.

Update: See Terry's post and my comment. West butchered the original apocryphal story.


Saturday, November 9, 2013

Christopher West

Remember a number of years back when one of the criticisms made about Christopher West was that during his talks/seminars he would take a person from the audience and bring that person on stage and then he would tell the audience to look at that person's body?

Today while he gave a seminar at a parish in my hometown he asked if there were any "consecrated celibates" in the audience. There were two. One was a Carmelite nun and one was a Redemptorist priest. He brought them on "stage", which was before the sanctuary of the church. Then Christopher West walked a ways down the center aisle so that he was with the audience, and then he told the audience, "Look at their bodies."

He did that to a priest. And a nun.

A nun.

He brought them forward for the express purpose of saying to hundreds of people, "Look at their bodies."

Anyways, there's quite a bit to tell. This seminar was done today, which is Saturday the 9th of the month of November, year 2013. You know how all those disciples of Christopher West try the old, "Oh, you're making criticisms of one of his older books - that's so passe; maybe you should read his latest book and attend one of his talks to get in on what he's actually saying."

Yeah, well, I'm here to tell you that Christopher West has not changed one damn thing.

Anyways, just to make note, among other things: at the start of the second half, Christopher West said that during the lunch break he asked the parish priest if the Blessed Sacrament could be put back into the tabernacle for the second half of his seminar. The Eucharist had been appropriately removed for the seminar. Though even then, there's a church hall on the property. The seminar could not have been done in the hall?

So the Blessed Sacrament was put back for the second half of Christopher West's seminar which involved all sorts of profanations and him saying "S-H-I-T" several times, as though saying it that way, saying each letter of the word, excused him from the profanation of saying "shit" multiple times in the very sanctuary of the church in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

Friday, November 8, 2013



So, financialization is nothing other than the translation of production, labour, GDP, capital, into terms of debt, into the terms used by the octopi monster that is the debt-money system, with parties being owed and parties owing - the parties owed being owed more and more, and the parties owing, owing more and more. And the insistent force of this translation goes to show how debt is the number one problem, and not financialization, which is basically just the symptom of the underlying cause.

I'm pretty sure that is a correct summation.

I mean, Michael Hudson explains it right here (from Wikipedia):

  • Michael Hudson described financialization as "a lapse back into the pre-industrial usury and rent economy of European feudalism" in a 2003 interview:

"only debts grew exponentially, year after year, and they do so inexorably, even when–indeed, especially when–the economy slows down and its companies and people fall below break-even levels. As their debts grow, they siphon off the economic surplus for debt service (...) The problem is that the financial sector’s receipts are not turned into fixed capital formation to increase output. They build up increasingly on the opposite side of the balance sheet, as new loans, that is, debts and new claims on society’s output and income.
[Companies] are not able to invest in new physical capital equipment or buildings because they are obliged to use their operating revenue to pay their bankers and bondholders, as well as junk-bond holders. This is what I mean when I say that the economy is becoming financialized. Its aim is not to provide tangible capital formation or rising living standards, but to generate interest, financial fees for underwriting mergers and acquisitions, and capital gains that accrue mainly to insiders, headed by upper management and large financial institutions. The upshot is that the traditional business cycle has been overshadowed by a secular increase in debt. Instead of labor earning more, hourly earnings have declined in real terms. There has been a drop in net disposable income after paying taxes and withholding "forced saving" for social Security and medical insurance, pension-fund contributions and–most serious of all–debt service on credit cards, bank loans, mortgage loans, student loans, auto loans, home insurance premiums, life insurance, private medical insurance and other FIRE-sector charges. ... This diverts spending away from goods and services."

"A lapse back into the pre-industrial usury and rent economy of European feudalism."

Financialization is  just a membranous "middle-man" between the inception and final chapter of the epic story of money-as-debt. It is merely debt enabling itself into the myriad and natural complexities of our economic activities to be our final overlord.

The problem is not "finance", but money-as-debt.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Monday, November 4, 2013

Saturday, November 2, 2013


“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.” --Jaroslav Jan Pelikan

Quick sketches from times waiting in car

Ballpoint pen

Friday, November 1, 2013

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Time stamped

LOL! The crown, oh no, the crown! See the shoe that stepped on the crown? That was the most frightening part of this movie. Man, what an ugly shoe! And all that 70's stuff they're wearing! Gah! Well, fortunately there's a snowbeast to put an end to all this horror! LOL!

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Still scary

Some aspects of the film - both in content and style - are quite dated, but that tanker truck...man, it's still scary as ever.

The menacing aura of the truck throughout the film has to do largely with it having that aura from the very first frame in which we see it. The subtlety and quiet understatement of the truck's appearance is disquieting; you know it forebodes ill. From there it gets worse and worse.

Spielberg introduces it slickly at the end of a five minute sequence of Dennis Weaver driving and listening to the radio. First he does this short leftwards pan towards Weaver's face in the mirror:

Then after a few other shots the next time we see the road ahead is via pan to the right (sort of reverse echo of the previous pan):

and there's the truck.

Then quickly it goes to this:

I'm not sure, but I think there is a technical term for that kind of shot, the name of which I forget. I'm pretty sure it's one in which they do something with the lens to close off the space between a foreground object and whatever is in front of the foreground object. It achieves a kind of super depth that makes whatever is in front of the foreground object appear looming and towering.

Irvin Kershner does it right here with Darth Vader:

I might be mistaken in thinking them the same. Anyways it's probably employed to the point of hack cliche in the horror genre, just like Hitchcock's infamous simultaneous zoom-in/zoom-out device for Vertigo (which of course Spielberg took to another level in Jaws - after which point it was basically open season on the device. LOL!)

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

For beer too!

Who do we think we are?

"The question is, who do we think we are? Bloggers, arm-chair theologians, canon-lawyers, historians and politicians. What possesses us to offer an opinion on the acts of the pope?...

...When you don't assume the best it is because you assume you know better, which means you do not think very highly of the person in question, or, even worse, you think quite highly of yourself."

--Colin Kerr in his post Piety towards the Pope

Just a friendly reminder: Rorate Caeli is the "Traditional" blog that on the very heels of the election of Pope Francis posted "The Horror" as their reaction. They thought it was funny or witty or something. To my knowledge they never made any public apology stating their filial obedience and charity towards our Holy Father. Therefore, anything they write, post, disseminate, can be immediately dismissed out of hand by faithful Catholics as unworthy of trust whatsoever without second thought or any self-recrimination.

Colin Kerr's post articulates stuff that I have been thinking about. I remember reading sarcastic caustic comments from priests about Pope Francis in the comment boxes of certain blogs. I think to myself, what's going through your mind during Mass when during consecration you say the words "together with ______ our Bishop and Francis our Pope..."?

Gives me the creeps.

If as a Catholic, layperson or religious, your primary stance towards the Pope is one of questioning suspicion which you then use as the basis for articulating what constitutes real orthodoxy and traditionalism...yeah, you might want to take that to confession.

That is, take it to confession - not take it to Fr. Z after hyperventilating into a paper bag.

People writing to Fr. Z after every single thing Pope Francis says or does...it's like Fr. Z is their little pope.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Why are people so obsessed with pointing out that what Pope Francis said is non-magisterial?

Are they immanentizing the eschaton by disincarnating the pontificacy?

This is not raw organic cane sugar

Friday, October 18, 2013

I know a place where the birds are used to humans, trusting them as bringers of food and not arrows or cages. As with the most trusting, they are the littlest - the smallest birds. If you hold out your hand in a cusp, even if your hand has naught in it, the birds will alight on your fingertips. Their clawed feet of leather are so delicate; they perch so delicately that it goes straight to your heart. One time when a bird was on the tips of my fingers, I imagined that Jesus had put His sacred heart into my hand. Is this the way He wants us to be - soul to soul? this gazing empty-handed, this meeting that is to say, I give you nothing and everything.

Some real things to consider

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Monday, October 14, 2013

Max Monday

"...I would meander through all the sewers of the world, through degradations and humiliations, in order to paint. I have to do this. Until the last drop every vision that exists in my being must be purged; then it will be a pleasure for me to be rid of this damned torture." --Max Beckmann

Photo: Max teaching in Brooklyn. My favourite photo of him.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Mother watching through the night,
prepare us for the morning light;
seclude us with your vigil flame
until the sounding of our names
upon the lips of Son you bore,
whose wounds and face we'll then adore,
and with glad oil running down
our brows, we'll run upon the roads to sound
new mornings in the furthest bounds:
Christ growing with us, as a flame
elongates at the draught of air:
Mother watching through the night
be our air, breach our bounds with air
and feed the flame of Christ our light.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Open for business

I'm proof against there being a Universalist heaven - that is to say, one in which everyone, everyone, will eventually get there, and that therefore there is no eternal hell, and that it's nuts to think that anyone would choose to refuse to go to [Universalist] heaven.

How am I proof? Because I refuse to go to the Universalist heaven.

There. I just proved it doesn't exist.

By my refusal to go there, I prove there is no such thing as a heaven in which everyone will be saved.

But why do I not want to go to the Universalist heaven? What am I, nuts or something?

Well, I don't want to go there because in the Universalist heaven there is a group of men who gang-raped a nine year old girl to death and then threw her body to ravenous dogs to be torn into pieces and eaten. And they did not have to personally repent of their horrible sins. Their gang-raping of the nine year old girl was merely a stage in their getting to heaven.

It's too bad the nine year old girl happened to be in their way while the men were making their journey to heaven, but it's all good. She didn't need to forgive them. And if she did forgive them, it was quite meaningless, for there was no need.

They went through automatic purgation in spite of their not repenting (which is of course an impossibility, but let's just go along with this fantasy for the time being.)

And in this Universalist heaven these men who gang-raped the nine year old girl and did not repent encounter the nine year old girl, and they say to her, "Oh, hey there. It was too bad you were in our way when we lived out hell on earth. But it appears we went through the automatic purgation. It was kind of like a drive-through car wash. We heard you did a neat little thing called "forgiving us". Looks like all that "forgiveness" you did was really just a bunch of huff and puff; it was for all of us! and well, they always did say God has a sense of humour - since we all got here anyways! Ha ha! Now old Bob who was in our group, he went and "repented" as they say, confessed and fasted and wore a nail belt and the whole nine yards, and that, it was all for naught; oh, what a look on his face when he saw us here. Boy we had a good laugh! Anyways, I guess we'll be seeing a lot of each other around here. See you later!"


Time stamped

B pencil