Finding God in the godless - Can God be found even in Hell?

In my younger years and especially when I went through a more anti-religious period in my life, I indulged quite a bit in a genre of music called black metal. Though there are a few bands that stand out like sore thumbs who expound on lyrical themes other than the mainstream, the vast majority of the genre is very heavily Satanic, Pagan, anti-Christian, or all three at once. I have always found the Pagan ethos admirable and still enjoy Pagan-themed lyrics. Though some of the Church Fathers would condemn exploring Pagan myths, others saw in them a way to work an anti-venom in order to cure wounds. There is in Paganism an ethos that I've been finding wanting in a "robot Christian" world. I'm not saying all Christians are like this, but I think the obsession with political power in Christendom and the fact that Christians are not used to real persecution in the Western world has made many Western Christians stagnant in the Faith.

So I had listened to a Grecian black metal several years ago called Rotting Christ. That was the name of the band. The name always came off blasphemous. What it is particularly unusual is that their lyrical themes actually express themes of Pagan mythology, Ancient Near East religious tradition, and various other things of the sort. It's hardly the anti-Christian focus of other black metal bands. If it weren't for their name, they would probably have a bigger following. It would be incredibly difficult to find any sense of holiness in their band's name, founded by two brothers from Greek. There was, famously, a photograph taken by Andres Serrano. It was called "Piss Christ" and it was a photograph of a Crucifix which was bathed in urine (or what looked like urine). A group of Catholics attacked the image back in 2011 as part of an anti-blasphemy campaign. But a British nun, Sister Wendy Beckett, famously defended the image as a reflection of what we've done to Christ. In fact, it seems that in this world, it is people who would attack the perceived blasphemy unquestioningly who make far worse Christians. What if the name "Rotting Christ" isn't so much of a blasphemy but a reflection on what culture has done to Christ in rejecting Him? This is very similar to the "God is dead" statement of Friedrich Nietzsche. It's not so much a statement of fact, but in context of man's sentiment to removing God from the picture. If God is ultimate Creator, then even nihilism must ultimately come from Him, regardless of whatever distortions in the philosophy there are.

The album I have started listening to again is called Kata Ton Daimona Eaytoy. This is an indirect reference to the trial of Socrates where he mentions that he has a "demon" (daimonion). In ancient Greek tradition, the word does not mean the same as it came to be in Christian tradition as referring to spiritual entities who had fallen into malice. Kata Ton Daimona Eaytoy means "Unleash Your Inner Demon". Speaking of the Socratic "demon" and not of the Christian understanding of demon. This is the equivalent of saying "unleash your inner spirit". Socrates was put to death for defying the authorities of his time and for teaching children philosophy that was opposed by the authorities. The later Christian Platonists invoked the authority of Plato and Socrates very often and Plato's influence is still seen in much orthodox Christian theology today. Though the statement can also have a much more rebellious statement. I think of the statement made by Jesus that the second greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself and yet we speak of self-love as a sin because we fail to communicate that the love to your neighbor is a different kind of love than the self-love warned about. It's not that loving yourself is evil, because if you fail to do that, you cannot love your neighbor properly, but there are multiple words in other languages for love while English has the one word.

The first track on the album, "In Yumen Xibalba" is about the Mayan underworld and realm of the dead. It starts off dark, gloomy, and with a strong element of a doom metal riff that then transgresses to a power metal riff finally letting you know you've arrived at your destination. Though the underworld might not necessarily be a place you find God in, nor is getting attacked by the undead warriors and various animals seem like a place to find God in, the Prophet David says otherwise (Ps. 139:8). God is omnipresent. Even in the darkest areas. In fact the fast-tempo power metal riff seems to almost present a different mood from the first part of the song. Power metal's effect is to make the listener feel powerful in spite of overwhelming odds against his person. What could be more powerful than the knowledge that God is still present?

"P'unchaw kachun / Tuta kachun" is a Quechuan phrase that means "Let it be Day / Let it be Night". The focus on the song is about ancient cultures and cultic ritualistic practices. It's the sacred and the profane. Here we see a guarding of the sacredness. In Catholic tradition, there are certain ritualistic practices that should not be profaned. The Western world has lost a lot of its sense of the distinction between sacred and profane. Many disregard the holiness of the Lord's Body they receive in the Eucharist. While Catholic practices are not directly referenced by any means, there is in Paganism a much stronger sense of this sacred and profane distinction that most Catholics used to hold to but no longer. I actually mourn over this loss of spirit. "Grandis Spiritus Diabolis" is an inverted version of the "Our Father" directed to the Devil. This one makes me think of that part in The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis where a worshiper of Tash, the demon-god, is brought into Aslan's restored world in the end because all service that was done to Tash for honorable purposes was actually done to him. "Gilgames" also makes me reflect on the same thing. Especially their already established intuition for the distinction between sacred and profane lacking in many modern Christians.

"Cine iubeste si lasa" is a dark rendition of a Romanian proclamation against faithless lovers. "Cine iubeste si lasa / Dumnezeu sa-i dea pedeapsa" roughly means, "May God punish those who love and quit". It is a warning to never back away from a loving commitment and a calling to stay firm in one's commitment to love that which one places love in. In our world which is dominated by divorce, it is interesting to see this come up on an album involved in such an otherwise dark genre. "χξς" is mostly Biblical Apocalyptic references. "Ahura Mazda - Anjra Mainu" is a song about the Zoroastrian deities. Though there seems to be no doubt that Zoroastrianism inspired much of the Gnostic heresies, especially with concepts of ditheism, the theology of ancient Zoroastrianism has stark similarities to Christianity as well. Obviously, they aren't the same religions, but with concepts such as a battle between God and the created fallen angel (Christianity) or a good god against a bad god (Zoroastrianism) being a cosmic event and effecting the ongoing course of the material world, it shouldn't be any wonder that much of these concepts still exist in heretical forms of Christianity.

"Iwa Voodoo", "Rusalka", and "Welcome to Hel" are predominantly Pagan-themed. "Iwa Voodoo" is about the loa in the African Voodoo religion. "Rusalka" is a feminine spirit, associated with water, found in Slavic folklore, who is hostile to men and often times tries to lure them to their deaths. Much like a siren. "Welcome to Hel" is about the Scandinavian underworld (not to be confused with the Christian version of Hell). These showcase that the human individual, in various cultures, still possesses spirituality that has been endowed upon him by God from man's very creation.

Kata Ton Daimona Eaytoy is a musically strong, fast-tempo, dark, and lyrically heavy album focusing on differing ancient cultures. It starts with a Mayan underworld and finishes off with a Scandinavian underworld. While I wouldn't recommend Christians be listening to music such as this, I think that is clear that even in the darkness, God is still present. It's impossible for anyone to shut Him out, no matter how far they try to stray from Him. Especially with a melody like "Cine iubeste si lasa" in our world where we put adulterers in power and praise them as a standard to follow.

Looking for God in a godless world - Slipknot's All Hope is Gone (1)

Just the title All Hope is Gone sounds like there should only be despair and gloominess. And yet, there are several prophetic lines throughout this entire album. Indeed, perhaps the title of the album and being released in 2008 during the Obama Presidential campaign, is coincidental, but aren't coincidences God's way of remaining anonymous? There is much to be reflected on in the hope that is offered by man and the hope that is offered by God. As much of the album's theme is focused on criticism toward the State and societal decay, it seems that the hope that is gone is not the one that God offers, but the hope that the princes and the sons of men can ever hope to offer is gone. "Put not your trust in princes nor in the sons of men" (Ps. 146:3) is a line I often remind myself of and is one of the very many reasons I have been consistently libertarian in my political philosophy. Conformity and power will always lead to corruption of the good which is what many of the songs on this album discuss.

The album begins with the introductory instrumental ".execute." and then proceeds to "Gematria (The Killing Name)". With a lot of screaming, blast-beat drumming, and tremelo-picking throughout the album, you can gather extreme anger directed at societal decay. Gematria is a numerology that is rooted in ancient Judaism. It's what's referred to in the Book of Revelation when the number of the Beast is discussed. "Oh, this is so typical, apocalyptical". It then identifies America as the killing name. It doesn't feel or discriminate. "We'll burn your cities down" is a line often repeated. Before the main chorus, "What if God doesn't care?" is repeated twice. While there is an obvious reference to American foreign policy from neo-conservatism, there is also a very strong point to take the lyrical themes metaphorically. How politics corrupt and corrode religious ideals, turn things into apocalyptic references and make apocalyptic points about how voting for the "wrong" party leads to introducing all of us to the Antichrist. Etc. It gets tiresome for those living in this two-party State who have experienced oppression from both the major political parties.

"Sulfur" is another incredible track on the album. It reflects on feelings of guilt and shame, and that while life will be filled with suffering, it is to be acknowledged that "I'm not a failure but I know what it's like". Too often, repentance is conflated with the constant feeling of guilt and impending doom. But this attitude toward repentance can lead to what is called despair. It is hopelessness that there can be redemption. "Sulfur" is a song about perseverance.

Stay, you don't always know where you stand
'Til you know that you won't run away
There's something inside me that feels
Like breathing in sulfur

There is also another indirect jab at religious hypocrisy and judgmentalism. "And I'm a sinner to most but a sage to some / And my Gods are untrue". People's opinions about whether the God you worship is untrue or whether you're a sinner or a sage to some don't matter. The question is whether you've learned to stand faithfully and dismiss those views that people have of you. The only Judge Who ultimately matters in the end is God.

"Psychosocial", which immediately follows "Sulfur" is the song most relevant for today's world, especially with the happenings in Iran and the intensity of it all. There's too many themes in it. Sometimes, I find myself just thinking about the line, "The limits of the dead!" Exactly what this means is open for interpretation, but looking at the lyrical direction of the song, you see similarities to "Gematria (The Killing Name)". "I did my time, and I want out!" It's a feeling of a desperation, being crushed within a system that tries to deaden your soul. "Packaging subversion, pseudo-sacrosanct perversion" shows how our political leaders corrupt sacred ideals of freedom and religion and then pervert them for their own agendas, leading people blindly to accept that they are really fighting for righteousness and goodness when it's about their resources and power. "Go drill your deserts, go dig your graves / then fill your mouths with all the money you will save!" Our political rulers and their sheeple will often times to manipulate those who oppose wars that we overthrew a brutal dictator. In the end, the ruling class gets resources and the people often times just get a replacement puppet-dictator and the cycle continues. The chorus is done in clean vocals which gives a symbolic idea to the fact that we're still standing in light of this and we can still persevere.

And the rain will kill us all
We throw ourselves against the wall
But no one else can see
The preservation of the martyr in me

"There were cracks in the road we lay, but where the Temple fell, the secrets have gone mad!" is a reference to the corruption of religion by political leaders and the clinging to political power. This political manipulation of religion is prevalent today when I see people denouncing religious people for voting one way or the other as if acting like their vote for one party's candidate over another is an abandonment of their Faith. I think it's the people who embrace that mentality that actually end up abandoning their Faith in favor of political idolatry though. "Now there's only emptiness / venomous, insipid / I think we're done / I'm not the only one". How many of us have lost friends due to political differences? And we finally get to the most fun part of the song where we're all coming together to shout, "The limits of the dead!" It's a reflection of the martyrdom that we stand in from being oppressed into conformity with all of those trying to lead us into the societal decline. Those who refuse to go along with that decay are dead to the rest of the world but those who go along with the decay are also in a dead state as well. So what are our limits? Before the final chorus comes a full-fledged indictment against the ruling class - "Fake anti-fascist lie / I tried to tell you but / your purple hearts are giving out / can't stop a killing idea / if it's hunting season / is this what you want? / I'm not the only one!" Once again referencing how our political leaders will corrupt ideas of freedom to generate propaganda in order to get us thinking that we're actually fighting a war for a holy cause.

Honestly, this album is too good to leave a reflection off so I'm going to end up making this reflection a multi-part reflection. I will conclude for right now with "Psychosocial". 

Bones - autistic spectrum represented by the titular character

The television show Bones, known infamously for its macabre and somewhat grotesque discoveries of rotting corpses, skeletons, and murder mysteries, is actually one of the best shows, in my opinion, of representing someone on the autistic spectrum. While The Good Doctor openly declares its protagonist as an autistic person, there are some weaknesses in that portrayal. Particularly, what irritates me about The Good Doctor is the focus on a monotone voice which may relate to some on the autistic spectrum, but others on the autistic spectrum may not relate to it. Watching Bones again earlier this year, I realized many autistic traits in Dr. Temperance Brennan, and not just autistic traits, but traits that most autistic individuals can relate to having experienced at some point.

For instance, the show features her hyper-fixation on her special interest - anthropology. Dr. Temperance Brennan is a forensic anthropologist who studies the human remains and cultures of various different groups. So the show also focuses its murder mysteries on a variety of different cultures too. From Voodoo to Catholic to cannibals. In many episodes, a common phrase used by the main character is "Anthropologically speaking...". This shows her hyper-fixation in her interest in anthropology. Hyper-fixation is one common feature of autism.

Very often times, Brennan can be very literal and misunderstand certain things. Such as when a victim's ex-girlfriend talks about his interest in The Cure, she asks what the cure is for and Agent Booth has to inform her that she's talking about the band, not a cure for a disease. One of the many lines in the series is "I don't know what that means." Another example is after a character is shot and the intended victim was Booth, Booth makes it affirmative that he does not fault himself but only holds the sniper accountable. Brennan tells him that he still has blood on his hands. To have blood on one's hands is a common idiom that expresses blood-guilt, but Brennan means it literally - Booth actually has the victim's blood on his hands from trying to save the victim's life by applying pressure to the wound.

There's many instances where Dr. Brennan's comments, which can be referred to as examples of brutal honesty, come across to many characters as abrasive and lacking empathy. In her relationship with her partner at the FBI, Special Agent Seeley Booth, she comments about this quite a bit. Booth always makes it clear that she has her own approach to things. One of her interns refers to her as "abrasive". Autistic people tend to be portrayed as lacking empathy, but the reality is a lot more fuzzy. Often, what is deemed as lacking empathy by neurotypicals, to an autistic person, can be a trait of needed honesty when there is none present. Dr. Brennan calls things much more as she sees them.

She also finds security in predictability and routine. While it may not be noticeable at first, it becomes obvious whenever Booth has to step away from partnering with her on a criminal case. Whether it's because he has to be psychologically evaluated, or because he's a suspect, or because he's been called to focus on some administrative duty, she always expresses discomfort regarding the idea that she may not be working with him on the case. This is an example of a needed routine to provide security to an autistic person.

While Dr. Temperance Brennan is never formally diagnosed with autism in the show, there are overwhelming instances of a display of autistic symptoms that are common in both the high-functioning and low-functioning degrees of the spectrum that seem to indicate that she is at the high-functioning end of the spectrum. Autism is a hidden disability. No one looks autistic. But to an autistic person, the traits are visible in how they present themselves. I would say that Bones accomplishes a wonderful presentation of someone on the autistic spectrum even though the character is never formally diagnosed in the show as being on the spectrum. As being on the autistic spectrum myself, there are many instances where I find myself relating to her. 

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Review

I had been wanting to watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose for a while and last night, it went on sale via the Apple Store and so I didn't hesitate to get it. I was not disappointed. It is partially a supernatural horror and partially a legal drama with a heavy focus on the question of exorcism and the overlap between the possible realm of the spiritual and the naturalist. The movie ends up pitting the spiritual against the naturalist, the Truth against the lie, and the Church against the State. It is a State that is hostile to the Church that must be convinced of the spiritual reality of the Victory of Christ over the demonic, but the State refuses to see itself as subjected to the demonic. Right from the beginning, we see the spiritual battle unfolding.

The movie opens up right after the death of Emily Rose, the titular character, most of her story will be shown in flashback during the court questionings of the witnesses involved in the story. The priest, Fr. Moore, is at the house and a medical examiner comes in to give his conclusion of cause of death to the officer. The officer then charges Fr. Moore with negligent homicide. It now must be determined who shall prosecute. The prosecution calculates the prosecutor must be a Christian, preferably a Catholic, and that he must be seen as Church-going and friendly toward the Faith. While this is a calculative decision, it is remarkable as to how in the real world such Satanic thinking operates. We are often presented with a "devoutly Christian" politician presented to us by the media who happens to have firm agreements with the faithlessness of the World because it is only under such an appearance of light that Satan could ever deceive us. How many times have we heard the drivel that Nancy Pelosi or Tim Kaine or Joe Biden are "devout Catholics" while they openly oppose every single Church doctrine?

It so happens that the prosecuting attorney picked is a regular Church-going Methodist. A Protestant. The defense attorney is an agnostic with doubts about her own past. And it is in that remarkable mixture that we are presented with the conversion power of the Church over a heresy. Throughout the course of the trial, we see the defense attorney come under both spiritual attack and receive spiritual protection in her own time of need as she becomes more and more open to the idea that there are spiritual powers that we come into conflict with. The priest, Fr. Moore, is more focused on presenting the Truth of the story of Emily Rose and he does not fear being portrayed as a madman.

Throughout the trial, we see the materialistic side presented by the prosecution to prove the case of negligent homicide. When I consider my old Protestant views and how much of it favored the idea of syncretism of the materialistic viewpoint with Christian theology even when both were incompatible, I see the manifestations of the Enlightenment mindset which Protestantism has given birth to. The "man of faith" is ultimately seen as the faithless and the skeptic. It is he who is exposed as the unbeliever. Whereas the agnostic is shown to have much more faith than she even realizes throughout the movie. It is something that many people don't recognize among our current world how faithless those they present as faithful are. It is the Satanic nature of today's world to present as faithful those who oppose the very Faith that is claimed to represent in an effort to undermine the very essence of the Faith. And that is where the real spiritual battle in the movie lies.

The priest, we find, does not intend to defend his own self. He only intends to present what he believes is the Truth. That is the very Truth of the Victory of Christ. He wants to make it known to the jury, not that he is a martyr, but that Emily Rose is a saint. He does not fight the battle but he puts the battle into the hands of God and the saints and lets them fight the battle. The movie also contains quite a theodicy in it where Emily Rose relates in a note to the priest a brief encounter she experiences with the Virgin Mary prior to her death and how it is in that which she ultimately chose to accept her continued sufferings so that others may come to belief.

The movie is based on the real life exorcism of a German girl named Annelise Michel. Annelise Michel was a college student who went through the exact same struggles as Emily Rose. It was presumed by the Church and the clergy that she was possessed and needed exorcism. The overlap between the spiritual and the material was forgotten and she was ultimately left malnourished and died. The priests involved, and her parents, were convicted of negligent homicide by German authorities. But today, the grave site of Annelise Michel is a place of pilgrimage among many German Catholics who even ask for her intercession as a saint. Through the sufferings of Annelise Michel, many have been brought to Faith. I won't reveal the ending of the trial of Fr. Moore in the movie as that would be a spoiler, but I would strongly recommend it. There are scenes that can be frightening so I would not recommend children see it, the theological message is very important.

C-3PO's symbolism in Attack of the Clones

Recently, I watched the movie Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. I am aware that George Lucas has admitted to using C-3PO as a metaphor before. In Empire Strikes Back, he compares C-3PO's being pieced back together again as a reference to Darth Vader's being pieced back together. Vader is ultimately broken by the fact that his own son has rejected to join him and overthrow the Emperor. Luke Skywalker has emerged triumphant over Darth Vader's attempt to turn him to the Dark Side of the Force, but Darth Vader is crippled by the fact that his son has rejected him. In the meanwhile, C-3PO is blasted at by a stormtrooper and ends up in pieces. We see Chewbacca struggling to put his robot friend back together and our heart breaks for Chewbacca. After the duel on Bespin, Darth Vader is seen for the first time in Empire Strikes Back no longer punishing his subordinates for their failures. An Imperial Officer says directly to Lord Vader that the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive has been disabled, only for the Falcon to blast away right before Vader's eyes into hyperspace. Darth Vader does nothing. He has been defeated by Luke Skywalker's refusal to join him. Darth Vader has been blasted apart. He is starting to be pieced back together, but Luke Skywalker is now going to be just as frustrated, near despairing, as Chewbacca was when he pieced C-3PO back together.

Flash back nearly 25 years before the events of Empire Strikes Back and we've reached the tides of war in the galaxy. Once you understand the main plot-line behind Attack of the Clones, it becomes one of the most interesting of the prequel trilogy. Palpatine is slowly beginning to coagulate power as the Supreme Chancellor of the Galaxy. Right now, he is operating in the context of a democratically elected parliamentary republic. But there are rules he sees he can bend in order to accumulate much greater power. He has split the galaxy into two factions that don't even realize that they are both fighting for him and against each other at the same time. He has done so through his apprentice Darth Tyrannus - Count Dooku - as we will come to learn at the end of the movie. Count Dooku refuses to use his Sith name in front of the Jedi for he wants the Jedi to think of himself as the Sith Master and Maul as the Sith Apprentice whom he trained. He desires the Jedi to believe he is Lord Sidious while Maul is actually Lord Tyrannus. The Jedi are aware of both, but have not identified the Master. They won't until the end of the Clone Wars.

The Jedi, in speaking with Palpatine regarding the assassination attempt on Senator Padme Amidala view themselves as keepers of the peace. Historically, the Jedi have always maintained peace in the galaxy. But Count Dooku became more and more disillusioned with the Jedi. He came to see them as political agents for the Galactic Republic. The Separatists are disillusioned with the direction of the Galactic Republic so they form a faction with the Trade Federation and begin to declare their secession from the Republic. Senator Padme Amidala is revealed to be a dove who was going to vote on the subject of the creation of the grand army of the Republic. But the assassination attempt will drive her away and create a scenario where she and Anakin will become involved in a relationship with each other. Senator Amidala was Queen of Naboo when the Trade Federation attacked her planet and the Viceroy Nute Gunray is furious for the punishments he suffered. He was also involved in her assassination attempt. Nevertheless, Senator Amidala takes a view of not wanting conflict with the Separatists. She is not an ideologue in that matter and it infuriates both sides of the political aisle, the Loyalists to the Chancellor and the Anti-War faction. Senator Jar Jar Binks takes a Loyalist position and hands all power over to the Chancellor.

In the meanwhile, Senator Amidala and Anakin Skywalker end up on Geonosis where Obi Wan Kenobi has been taken prisoner by the Separatist Faction. Along with R2-D2 and C-3PO, Senator Amidala and Anakin Skywalker end up in a droid factory. Inside the factory, C-3PO ends up losing his head on the assembly line and it gets pieced back together onto the body of a B1 Battle Droid. A B1 Battle Droid head gets pieced onto his body. The rest is pure comedy. C-3PO ends up shooting at Jedi on the battlefield of Geonosis where he shouts, "Die Jedi! Die!" He corrects himself as soon as he says this, but the point is made. He is confused. What are his ideals? The Jedi, who were keepers of the peace, are all of a sudden becoming armed combatants of the Republic while the clone troopers show up to save them all. It is a confusing position for the Jedi. Once peace-keepers, now they will begin to be turned into soldiers. This justifies the disillusionment of Count Dooku and the Separatists with the Jedi and the Republic.

In the meanwhile, the B1 Battle Droid, who's head is on C-3PO's body, is frustrated. Not being able to move. He doesn't realize the master he serves is actually in fact the Chancellor of the Galactic Republic that he fights against. Nobody realizes this at this moment. But Count Dooku is aware of this. Count Dooku is the only one who knows all of the mystery at this point. He and Chancellor Palpatine both know the grand conspiracy. And you can hear it when you look at the formation of the clone troopers before Senator Bail Organa and Chancellor Palpatine and the rest of the Loyalists. You can see budding concern on Bail Organa's face as he looks on at the grand army and he starts to question his Loyalist commitment to Palpatine. A commitment that will erode as Palpatine disrupts the Galactic Republic and founds the First Galactic Empire in the midst of the collapsing government. Bail Organa is the B1 Battle Droid, wondering why his body isn't moving. The Jedi are C-3PO who have lost their way. C-3PO is the Galactic Republic, governed by Darth Sidious. The B1 Battle Droid is the Separatists, governed by Chancellor Palpatine. George Lucas, in this brief comedic moment in Attack of the Clones has placed in all of the symbolism that the viewer needs to see in order to know all of Darth Sidious's evil intentions for the galaxy.

Star Wars: Death Troopers

The last time I did a book review was on my other blog. But I wanted to do a book review on Star Wars: Death Troopers as it looked very interesting. It's not the first time that Star Wars has mixed into the horror genre. One would have to go to the Galaxy of Fear series to see the first time. Those were probably the first and only horror novels I could actually handle as a younger kid while others read things such as Goosebumps. That, and the more comedic horror children's novel called Bunnicula about the vampire bunny-rabbit that sucks the juices of all the vegetables. But anyway, this particular book, Death Troopers, I remember coming across at a book store when I was in high school and expressing interest in it. But I don't think we were looking into getting Star Wars books on that run though and I didn't have the money at the time. A couple of weeks ago, when I was shopping, I saw it in the book section and decided to finally get a look at it.

The topic of the book dealing with a contagious virus spreading throughout the ship gave eerie reminders of the past couple years. As we all wore masks and got vaccinated to prevent ourselves from spreading a contagious disease. Yet the medical droid in the book who was the infectious disease expert gave the sentiment that such PPE was more than likely useless. Let's face it, COVID still spread despite our best efforts to stop it. And COVID, being a disease one could get multiple times, wasn't going to be put out of business by a vaccine. That said, I've probably disobeyed more COVID rules than others, as long as I could get away with it, and have never had COVID myself. I'm not saying the virus unleashed in the book is at all like COVID. Oh no. This virus literally turns the flesh of sentient lifeforms into zombies.

There's a ton of horror fiction about zombies and much of it typically devolves into the science fiction genre. I think this is because when it comes to zombies, there is manipulation of lifeforms. Much like when it comes to Frankenstein, we see the manipulation of life by Victor Frankenstein and how that manipulation of life ends up haunting him, demanding more, and rebelling against the creator. I think much of sci-fi horror is based on this idea of how manipulation of life ends up killing the creator who thought himself God, or at least destroying that creator's loved ones. Especially with Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. And perhaps Anthony Fauci would have done well to read Death Troopers before tampering with the corona virus.

Most of the book is dark and atmospheric when you are on the prison barge, though the mood seems to change along with the atmosphere as our characters escape to the Star Destroyer that they are boarding for spare parts. It's later revealed that nothing was wrong with the barge, but it was a tractor beam that had forced the barge on board. The characters soon discover the genetic manipulation of this viral substance that ended up leaking, though some of the Imperial officers believed that it was intentionally leaked onto the crew, and exposed the entire crew of the Star Destroyer. Eating alive the flesh of its victims and then taking over their carcasses, the Empire, we learn, was actually experimenting the potential use of such a virus in the lab.

This book, if not clear already, is written from the perspective of the Empire and the criminals that the Empire had caught. We aren't given much information on two of the main characters' father Von Longo other than he was apparently acknowledged as a good man by the Imperial officer who tortured him to death. The way the book humanizes all of the characters gives you much more sympathy for them. Jareth Sartoris, who killed Von Longo during interrogation proceedings, ends up developing as a character midway through the book. As the book peers into his character, you get to see much more of his character as a human being. Trig and Kale remain as kids throughout who are put through Hell. Trig, being the youngest, has to learn to toughen up the most. Zahara Cody is the Imperial doctor who ends up being one of the central heroes in the early ongoing of the disease's outbreak, developing the vaccine that saves Han Solo and Chewbacca who happen to be prisoners as well.

And yet, despite the fact that most of these people are working for the Empire, we see in the officers a sense of human duty. Both toward each other and toward their fellow sentients. Politics and past lives of crime are put aside. Han Solo is Han Solo. He doesn't trust the Empire or anyone working with the Empire, but he softens up in the situation. This character trait of Solo's is even present throughout the original trilogy of Star Wars too. He's just a smuggler who was paid out by Obi Wan Kenobi and then out of situational awareness, decided to come back and save the friends he had just met. Death Troopers is definitely a book not like any other Star Wars book. And I think that's a huge part of it. You see the Empire in a much different light. Not as a political villain, but as fellow humans performing human duty toward each other. And the epilogue of the book brings the circle of human duty toward each other to a full closure.

The Righteous Ruth and Her Mother-in-law Naomi

The book of Ruth was probably the most frequently analyzed book in my undergraduate years studying Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Hebrew literature. It is also a moving story of a woman who places her ultimate trust in an unknown God and clings to her kinswoman in a most tragic and difficult circumstance, finally being rooted and ingrained into the everlasting kingdom of saints as an ancestor of the Heavenly Messiah. The story starts with famine, destitution, and death. It starts with a fleeing from God. But then it ends with a return to God. This return is spurned on by a former Pagan woman who desires the God of her mother-in-law, the God who her mother-in-law at first left behind.

Naomi and her husband Elimelech lived during the time of the Judges of Israel. As Israelites, they were children of the Promise. They were the Chosen race of God and their sacred duty was to place trust in God and shine the light for the world. There was more than just a famine of food in Israel. There was a famine of Holiness. Naomi fled Israel with her husband Elimelech as a reminder to her that her king was God. The name Elimelech, translated from Hebrew, means "my King is God". Names have meaning. For secularists, this is nothing more than a literary device. But for Christians, this is Divine Providence. Fleeing from Israel with the constant reminder that her God was her king, Naomi, her husband, and her two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, would end up in Moab. Moab was an enemy of Israel and once again, her sons names give an ominous foreshadowing as to what is to come. Mahlon mean "sickness" and Chilion means "wasting". Fleeing from Israel, the Church as it was in the Old Testament, Naomi sees her family wasting away even if they may now have food. For her venture into Moab, Naomi sees her husband Elimelech die. Signifying also her soon attachment to the Moabite tradition. Her sons marry two Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. Ruth is wed to Mahlon and Orpah is wed to Chilion. It is not long after her sons cling to Moabite Pagan women that they also perish.

It is in this that Naomi renames herself "Mara" meaning "bitterness" as she acknowledges the bitter hand that God has sent her. Widowed and with no children, she sadly sends her daughters-in-law to depart from her and find new men to marry. Naomi cannot bear them sons of her own to marry for even if she could still give birth, her daughters-in-law would have to wait for them to grow old enough to marry. Orpah leaves. In the New Testament, St. Paul spends time talking about the care of widows and what qualifies a widow. He permits widows to remarry but refuses to have younger widows put on the list of widows to be honored "for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry" (1 Tim. 5:11). He would rather "have younger widows marry, bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us" (1 Tim. 5:14) and any believing woman is to care for a relative of hers who is truly a widow (1 Tim. 5:16). We see in Orpah the first category of younger widow. One who is given over to her sensual desires, who runs off from her widowed mother-in-law refusing to care for her. In Naomi, we see a widow who is truly a widow. One who is to be honored for she has no sons to care for her and has reached an older age. In Ruth, we see the second class of younger widow who is managing her house, caring for her mother-in-law. For when Naomi sends her daughters-in-law away, Ruth clings to her and exclaims, "Thy people shall be my people and thy God shall be my God!" (Ruth 1:16-17) Ruth is exemplary of a younger widow, which is not to say all younger widows are required to marry, but they are required to manage their households and give the adversary no occasion to revile Christians.

Naomi, a name in Hebrew which translates to "pleasant" or "beautiful" is now left "Mara" or "bitter" after witnessing both the death of her husband and the death of her sons. When famine began in Israel, she fled with her husband Elimelech, "my God is King", to the land of Moab. Clinging to the Pagan falsities from Moab, Elimelech dies, which signifies Naomi's apostasy. Mahlon and Chilion signify God's further chastisements, for God chastises His faithful in order to bring them back into the flock. Seeing their deaths, she accepts the chastisements from God, and although bitter, returns once again to Israel, the Church. She is joined by her daughter-in-law Ruth who exhorts Naomi in her penitence. Naomi's story is one of repentance while Ruth's story is one of conversion. Orpah's story is of one who prefers the darkness to the light. Ruth, desiring the light, having observed Naomi's repentance, now desires also the God of Naomi.

When Ruth and Naomi return to Israel, Ruth seeks to glean in the fields. She does not realize it at the time, but she ends up by Divine Providence, gleaning in the field of Boaz who is a kinsman of Elimelech. By Israelite law, the next nearest kinsman would be required to provide his deceased kinsman an heir through his kinsman's widow. Boaz sees Ruth gleaning in the field and inquires about her. Understanding that she is gleaning on behalf of her mother-in-law to provide care for her, Boaz extols her. "All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before." (Ruth 2:11) Ruth is the archetype of what a believing woman is to do for any relative of hers who is truly a widow. By bringing back the grain she has gleaned for her mother-in-law, Ruth is showing that she is also managing her own household. Ruth earns the favor of Boaz and is invited to drink wine (Ruth 2:14). She is provided with superabundant care by Boaz. When she reports back to Naomi it is revealed to Ruth that Boaz is a kinsman of her mother-in-law. Naomi instructs her daughter-in-law to go out with Boaz's women in his field and to stay close to Boaz (Ruth 2:22). Honoring her mother-in-law and committing herself to her household duties, she obeys the instruction given to her.

Naomi instructs Ruth to put on her best clothes, find Boaz on the threshing floor, and to wait for him to lie down after which, she is to uncover his feet and wait for his instruction (Ruth 3:3-4). Ruth does what her mother-in-law says. It is easy for someone to make the mistake in assuming that Naomi has a higher authority than Ruth, however, Ruth's subjection to her mother-in-law and her willingness to do as her mother-in-law says is an entire act of voluntary faith on the part of Ruth. Ruth was given the option to go her own way early on but chose to remain with her mother-in-law. Ruth is willing to do what her mother-in-law says because she recognizes the dire need of her mother-in-law. Ruth is a provider for her mother-in-law. She is the youthful one who will be able to carry on the familial line and Ruth is doing her duty in managing her own household and taking care of her widowed mother-in-law. She does exactly as her mother-in-law has told her to do and Boaz blesses her for not pursuing a younger man. He then informs her of a relative closer to her and that it is not to be found that Ruth entered upon the threshing floor for there might be a scandal should an adulterous relationship be found suspected (Ruth 3:13-14). Boaz, understanding that Ruth is a provider for her mother-in-law, gives her six measures of barley to take back to Naomi (Ruth 3:16-17).

Boaz presented Elimelech's land to the next-of-kin, but on hearing that he would inherit Ruth, the widow of Mahlon, the next-of-kin refused the land and gave it to Boaz (Ruth 4:1-6). This also meant that Boaz would acquire Ruth, the Moabitess (Ruth 4:10). The people gathered and blessed Boaz that this woman be like Rachel and Leah and that his house may be like "the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah" (Ruth 4:12). The comparison to Tamar is interesting as Tamar was under a similar circumstance as Ruth. Tamar had married Judah's son Er. But Er was found wicked in the Lord's sight and was struck dead. Judah sent his son Onan to provide the heir for his brother, but upon realizing the children would not be his, Onan spilled his semen before he had relations with Tamar. The Lord found this wicked and struck him down with that. Judah refused his third son Shelah to Tamar, telling her to remain a widow until he grew up. Tamar, hoping to claim what was hers properly, removed her widow's garments and set about as an harlot, seducing her father-in-law. Through her father-in-law, she bore the twins Perez and Zarah. Zarah had stuck his hand out of the womb first and a cord was tied around his hand to distinguish him as the firstborn but then he withdrew it and Perez was born to Tamar first (Gen. 38).

Ruth conceived as soon as she came together with Boaz and the women prophecy to Naomi. Then the women said to Naomi,

“Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” (Ruth 4:14-15)

Thus, Ruth is to Naomi more than seven sons. Not just a maidservant as one could reasonably assume from the text, but rather the caretaker of her mother-in-law. She is not a subject of her mother-in-law but has presumed a role greater than Naomi. Through Ruth comes Naomi's redemption. For Ruth is to give birth to Obed, the father of Jesse who is the father of King David. In the genealogy of Matthew 1, Ruth is one of three women mentioned by name along with Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba is mentioned as a fourth as the wife of Uriah. Thus showing us that the universality of the Church. Israel was not meant to be a nation of one race, offering salvation based on one's blood inheritance. Israel was meant to graft the foreigners into the community as well. Israel stood as a light. Ruth was grafted into the Church of the Old Testament as also Christ grafted the Gentiles into the Church in the New Testament. Ruth gave birth to the genealogical line of King David (Ruth 4:17). As mentioned, Naomi's husband Elimelech died when she abandoned Israel. Elimelech, meaning "My God is King", in a way symbolized Naomi's apostasy. Mahlon and Chilion, meaning "sickness" and "wasting" married Pagan women and died. But Naomi, having returned to the Church, and bringing back with her a convert daughter-in-law, now finds herself taking God as her King once again. Her daughter-in-law is who conceives the Davidic Royal line of Israel. This is the Royal line that the Messiah is to be born unto. The incarnate God thus finds His way back into Naomi's life as she returns from her own spiritual apostasy. Ruth the Righteous, pray for us!

Loss, grief, confusion

One of my dear friends writes lovely poetry on two different blogs, both of which I have linked in my blogroll on the side of my page. Though she has disclosed her name to me in private for the sake of including it in my prayers, most of you who have encountered her probably know her affectionately as "Rae". We first encountered each other through our shared experiences in the autistic community. Though she does not have autism, she does have close family members with autism. I also bear autism as a cross. It creates a multitude of confusion, especially with social interactions. I often have a difficult time forming and making friends because of my experiences. It is difficult for people to communicate with me as a result. For those who bear this cross or know close family bearing this cross, it is difficult to see their sufferings.

Her last poem is exceptionally beautiful. I recommend reading it several times. It is about our venturing around in this world. We find ourselves wandering around in darkness, yet as we bear this baptismal garment, there is for Christians a light that remains with us at all times. We cannot hope to fully know God in this life for our minds are too feeble to understand that infinite goodness that He is. We can only begin to grasp. Yet for Christians, we return to Him. We return to the home He has prepared for us. When we return, we will experience the full fruits of our labors. Though we are often times in confusion, pain, and suffering, we will be eternally glorified, partaking in the Divine light that shines through us, even if dimly for now.

Though this poem can be applied to all of our sufferings, she mentions that she wrote it for a woman who experienced the loss of her child and husband on the same day. One of the many crosses that are given out is that of grief. We experience and deal with grief so differently. Yet for those who are bound to the Resurrection, there remains a flicker of hope. We may not see this hope clearly in the losses that we have been inflicted with, but the hope does indeed prevail. There are many examples in Christian tradition of those who have been wounded with grief, but a particular woman in the history of Christianity comes to my mind whom this poem applies so well to.

St. Cleopatra was a widow of a Roman officer, living in Egypt, during the time of the Holy Martyr Varus. She had witnessed firsthand the sufferings of Varus. He was also a Roman officer and a Christian. Cleopatra was moved by his sufferings and also extended compassion for him as he had shared the position of her deceased husband. When he was killed, she pleaded for his relics so that she could honorably bury them, stating that her husband was an officer and that she wanted to bury his relics honorably. St. Varus was not her husband, but she took his relics and gave them honorable burial, building a Church for him. Cleopatra gave herself in devotion to the Holy Martyr from that point on.

Now Cleopatra had one son named John. Once, when praying, she asked the Holy Martyr Varus to give to her son that which was beneficial in the eyes of God. Her son, who was at an age to be enlisted into the army, became ill shortly afterward and died. In her grief, being hit with the loss of her son, she cursed at the Holy Martyr whom she had honorably buried and devoted herself to all this time. Experiencing confusion from her grief, she could no longer see what was beneficial to her son. She was losing faith from this experience. It was the Holy Martyr who appeared to her in a vision then, with her son at his side. She beheld her son in the glory of Heaven, crowned with a wreath and standing next to the martyr. Varus offered her son to her but pleaded that she would reconsider having now seen her son basking in the radiant glory of eternity. Cleopatra was called back to faith in this moment and allowed her son to remain in eternity. She would enter into eternal rest with Varus and John soon.

This life is incomplete. I grieve most for those who can only see this earthly life. Often times we want to curse at God because most of the time, we only see a tangled mess. We see ourselves apart from God, distant from God, plagued with dark and depressive thoughts, sometimes blasphemous, wondering if someone will ever lift these from us. We can always ask that the burden be made lighter, but much of the time, it is the things we overcome that make us great. I have heard how Samwise is the "true hero" of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Frodo gave into temptations and Samwise pulled him aside, always directing him onward. We all have spiritual directors in this life who aid us in our lives. But it is not what our directors overcome that lead us to Heaven. They are helping us overcome our temptations. Frodo is at the helm of it all, bearing the ring. He is suffering the deepest conflict of all the Hobbits and all of the characters. He is tasked with the greatest burden of all. This is what makes Frodo the hero. If God were to take away our temptations, our sufferings, what triumph would we experience when they were finally thrown down. This is why a Christian should not fear death, for in death, we enter into the most splendid of eternal rest.

Much like St. Cleopatra, we have our moments where we become angry toward the God we love wondering why He has weighed us down with such a heavy burden, why He has taken away those we love so dearly. But as we wrestle through this, as we continue to see only the tangled mess of the incomplete tapestry, as we see through the glass darkly, we come to realize there is beauty in our sufferings. Whatever your cross may be, whether it is dealing with developmental disorders or standing by a loved one as they experience a battle to overcome their developmental disability, or if it is the loss of a loved one as was thrown upon the woman my friend wrote her poem for or even St. Cleopatra, or maybe your cross is something different, we all struggle through this life. But we remain connected to Him through His touch. We come to touch His grace in the sacraments. He provides warmth for us when a friend lights a blessed candle for us. He lifts our burdens when we confess our sins to Him and receive His grace in the sacrament of reconciliation and He fills us with His grace once more when we partake of the Holy Eucharist. This touch remains with us, even should He appear most distant at times.

Frankenstein, Pt. III

The conclusion of Mary Shelley's novel is the battle between creator and creature. It is the event where the Frankenstein monster shall show how he has ascended to be like his creator, no, greater than his creator. The Frankenstein monster begins to control his own creator. He stalks his creator where he travels, he infects the mind of his creator. Victor is completely given over to his scientific pursuits. When Elizabeth writes to him, it she questions as to whether he has found another love. Indeed he appears to have found another love. It is the endless battle between himself and his monster. It is his passion for the study of science that he has given himself over to. Elizabeth is quite right to presume he has found another love. Every bit of Victor's soul is consumed with his relationship with the monster. He has no way to escape from the monster.

Victor creates not out of love, but out of fear and his desire to control something. Instead, he has become controlled. He is under his monster's servitude yet he thinks himself free. In full imitation of Lucifer, the monster has declared his own creator to be his slave. And because his creator has failed to create out of love, indeed, the creator has become a slave. It is a warped relationship between creature and creator. The creature has coerced his creator to make for him an Eve, a companion whom he can relate to and love, and here, the creator is conflicted. Is it worth it to create another with the hopes that his creation will adhere to the promises that he has made shall he have his companion? Or would he end up creating two demons? Yet the Creator of All who created out of love imbibed his creation with the gift of free will. To create out of love implies risk for love implies risk. Victor continues to create as one who is attached to the idea of control. It was in the remembrance of the death of his mother that he first created, hoping to reverse the despair of losing a loved one. And it is in the effort to exert control over life that Victor chooses to create again.

Yet not knowing if he can actually control the new life form or if his creature will adhere to the promises made, Victor decides to destroy the project he is working on in front of his own creation. The monster is horrified. The monster has emotions. The monster expresses them in front of Victor. Recognizing that Victor is the creator though, the monster, in a pure Satanic act, goes after those Victor loves most. Misery loves company and so misery attempts to drag down those around Victor. Those whom Victor loves. This is the way the monster inflicts anguish upon Victor. This is a form of Satanic revenge. When Satan rebelled against God, he could not defeat even the Archangel Michael yet fell from Heaven. Seeing that he could not defeat his own Creator, Satan went for the Creator's own creation, distorting it and leading it into death.

The monster vows to be present on Victor's wedding day. Soon, Victor finds his friend Henry Clerval has been murdered by the monster. He finds himself on trial just as Justine has found herself on trial. Yet instead of being blamed for his monster's crime, his father comes to testify on his behalf and the judge sympathizes with him. Victor goes free for what his creation has done yet Justine died. He is given Elizabeth's letter which questions him on who it is he really loves. Victor has been trapped by his scientific explorations. Victor has been playing God. Victor has not been giving any love and he does not seem to desire to be loved. There are those who are willing to love yet refuse to be loved. They are without love. There are those who never give love and they also refuse to receive love. These men are the most unhappy. Victor finds himself among those men. The monster has become representative of Victor. Victor's life is identified by the monster and Victor finds himself identifying his own life with that of the monster more and more.

The monster will eventually be the one responsible for killing and destroying everything near to Victor yet it is Victor who has already held that responsibility. The creature is in many ways a metaphor for Victor. Much like the portrait of Dorian Gray becomes a metaphor for Mr. Gray's deterioration, the monster gradually kills everyone dear to Victor Frankenstein until there is just Victor left. Then, Victor, upon dying, is seen by the monster, and here begins the monster's own repentance. The monster, in many intents and purposes, is a model of who Victor Frankenstein is at his very core. Victor runs from himself and from others and isolates himself from others. Victor has put himself at enmity with himself and others. The monster only materializes what it is Victor has already done inwardly. The monster is an outward manifestation of who Victor is interiorly.

Frankenstein, Part II

In the second part of Shelley's work, we are confronted with the monster yet again. But the monster doesn't seem so monstrous when it first explains its narratives. Often times, a victim of abuse takes the eventual form of its own abuser. In the first part, we see how a materialistic worldview drives a man into the overarching realm of attempting to create life and bestow upon things gifts that he cannot rightfully bestow upon anyone. In the second part, we see him forced to confront the hideous beast that he created out of his desire to control what he could not possibly control. But the beast doesn't seem so hideous. The beast asks and demands a defense. The beast is in a situation where it is not monster, but abused by another monster. One wonders who the real beast is when the monster begins giving his narrative which leads to the death of William that Justine is unfortunately blamed for and executed for. Is the real monster the abusive creator, Victor Frankenstein, who scorns his own creation or is the real monster the creation? Is the real monster that which shows sympathy and affection for this family he finds in the woods, or is the real monster the family which will scorn him and run him out because he doesn't look like them?

The beast tells his story of how he comes across a family living a small house in the woods. How he acquires knowledge of both the language and the behavior of humans from studying their movements, their tongue, and their way of life. The beast realizes the father of this family is blind and cannot see. The beast has been discriminated against in his early life for how he appears to other people. In secret, he provides help to the children of this blind man in their daily tasks. The beast is successful in the first part of his story in earning one's sympathies for him. As his story continues, one is drawn to show compassion for the beast in his circumstances. How could his creator have left him in such a condition? Then, when he decides to finally reveal himself, he shows himself to the blind father. Lady Justice always wears a blindfold. It can only be a blind man who can adequately judge the character of the individual heart, and so the beast shows himself to the blind man, hoping that his character can be judged and not his appearance. But the children see him and the son of the blind man begins attacking him and beating him. The monster can do nothing but bear the punishment. It is too great. They care nothing for how he has assisted them during his time in the woods. They care only about his appearance.

In this time, he finds many works to read including the notes of Victor Frankenstein regarding his creation and the work Paradise Lost by John Milton. It is Paradise Lost that catches the beast's attention the most. He finds himself like Adam in that he has been created for a unique purpose. But he finds himself like Satan in bringing liberty to people, suffering from an oppressive Creator. Frankenstein's notes regarding this monstrous creation of his only serves to convince him more about this. Frankenstein has a rejection for his creation. Unlike God, who declares His creation good, Frankenstein declares his creation in the most downcast terms as possible. One wonders if the creation of a monster has more to do with what is felt in the creation of it or in the actual heart of the monster itself. Should Frankenstein have called his creation "good", would his creation have been "good" in appearance and in heart? It seems as if the creation here is "good" in heart, but not in appearance. Frankenstein constantly attacks the nature of the appearance of the beast over and above all other things.

But more importantly, the monster feels alone. The monster sees in Paradise Lost how God created for Adam a mate, Eve. The monster finds himself more like Lucifer because he has been abandoned by his own creator, dejected, and does not know his own creator. The monster wants to be Adam. The monster compares himself to be a monster but the monster desires himself to be a human. The monster has human emotions. This is the creation of Victor Frankenstein. Frankenstein has created "life" through a means of perversion and has abused his own creation throughout its making. As a result, he has ended up with a perversion that desires revenge on his creator. But the monster does not want that revenge. The monster wants to be given a chance to be a creation. The monster desires accompaniment because he knows it is not good to be alone.

Shelley attacks a commonly held view of God here that is found in certain strands of Protestant theology. Unironically, this strand of Protestant theology originated in Geneva where Frankenstein's hometown location is. In studying and comparing Victor Frankenstein to the God of Genesis, one sees in Frankenstein, aspects that are much more like that of the Calvinist Deity than the true God. The Gods are quite different in both nature and reason, actually. The God of the Scriptures is a God of compassion, co-suffering, seeks to benefit and know His creations, calls His creations good, and desires relation. That is a God who is Love. But the God of the Calvinists is much more like Victor Frankenstein. The God of the Calvinists despises his creations, does not desire intimacy, picks and chooses where ultimately they end up, does not view all of his creations as good, and does not care if certain creations are left alone. The God of the Calvinists is incapable of desiring an individual soul because the God of the Calvinists loves only communally. The God of the Scriptures loves according to the individual heart. The Calvinist Deity is a sharp contrast to the True God, for while God is Love, the Calvinist Deity despises certain men and blesses other men. The Calvinist Deity creates certain humans directly for the Hellfire. The Calvinist Deity is incapable of stepping outside himself and stretching down to love each unique human individual or providing for their needs.

The beast starts his mission in seeking out Victor Frankenstein in order to enact revenge on the maker for detesting him. When one is bound to the Calvinist Deity, this is only a natural act of regression. The Calvinist Deity creates to oppress. It does not matter what the creation does, everything is fixed for the creation. There can be no chance of intimacy. Thus, the beast, seeing himself rejected by both creator and man, burns down the house of the family he claimed and thought of as his friends, then he seeks to carry out vengeance upon the very one who made him. The beast seeks out Frankenstein in his hometown of Geneva and seeing the innocent William, realizes this is a Frankenstein, and has no sympathy upon the relation of Victor. But seeing the woman's picture, he begins to think of Adam and Eve again and he begins to desire that intimacy that Adam and Eve were given. He demands that Victor create for him an Eve. It is unknown whether the monster will carry out his promise after Eve is created, to leave the town alone, but Victor must comply with the demand.

Frankenstein vol. 1

Mary Shelley's classic horror novel, Frankenstein, begins with Victor Frankenstein aboard Walton's ship, explaining the creature he references as a daemon. He begins the narration of his events by focusing on his childhood and growth to the point where he would be pushed into the natural philosophies by his father. His mother's death has a very grand impact on him and he references it again once the creature he creates is resurrected. It is shortly into his studies that he begins his alchemical work on the monster. Being sucked into such work, he condemns himself for the loss of relations he suffers in its making.

"If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind."

Consumed by the task of the creation of life, he is ecstatic when he finally has completed his project. But he describes vividly in his dream how he embraces his cousin Elizabeth, only to witness her form turn into that of the corpse of his own deceased mother. There seems to be a reflection in this of the loss of life and the desire to create new life after witnessing such death and decay. People, I have noticed, seem to always want to control the things they cannot control. They try to accumulate control over these things when they've seen the moments of their own weaknesses. Hence, the death of one's mother leads Victor to begin creating life.

But he begins to see how his resistance to affections has poisoned even his own creation. When he travels with his friend Clerval, he receives a notice from his father that his younger brother William has been murdered. How dreadful that such a young one has been murdered. In Shelley's nihilism, she views death is something that severs one from the eternal presence of their loved one. There is nothing after death, this life is all there is. Thus, Clerval reflects on the Stoic position but then promptly rejects it.

"His friends mourn and weep, but he is at rest: he does not now feel the murderer's grasp; a sod covers his gentle form, and he knows no pain. ... Those maxims of the Stoics, that death was no evil, and that the mind of man ought to be superior to despair on the eternal absence of a beloved object, ought not to be urged. Even Cato wept over the dead body of his brother."

The dead may be at rest, but they are eternally apart from us. This is the emptiness that the Stoic philosophy leads. There can never be an eternity so any death must naturally perpetuate an eternal absence from our loved ones, even if they may now be in a state where there is no pain. A contrast to this is seen in Justine's response to her own death.

Realizing that the murderer of his brother had been his own creation, Victor seeks out to defend as innocent the accused Justine. But it is to no avail. The jury has been rigged against her. She is to be sentenced to death for a murder she had not committed. She confesses to the crime knowing full-well she did not commit the crime. But there is circumstantial evidence and a confession nevertheless. This is all there is needed for the jury to irk themselves to ire over what has happened to William. They seek a scapegoat, and it is Justine who is penalized. Justine is to be put to death. Elizabeth cannot fathom how her dear friend could have betrayed her so much. It is the betrayal that hurts her more than the fact that her friend has been unjustly tried. But Justine embraces a different metaphysic of the other world. It is one that acknowledges that this unjust death she will suffer will be for her sanctification.

"Dear, sweet Elizabeth, do not weep. You ought to raise me with thoughts of a better life, and elevate me from the petty cares of this world of injustice and strife. Do not you, excellent friend, drive me to despair."

It is sharp contrast to the thoughts of Clerval which are more echoing of Shelley's than Justine's are. Justine welcomes the death for this unjust cause because she acknowledges that there is an eternity to fly to. But Clerval has no knowledge of that. He rejects it. This sharp contrast between nihilism and eternity shows how the characters and the storyline plays out in the acceptance of death both in our own world and in Frankenstein. We see this even today in our own world. There is a population of people that looks forward to eternity and has no fear of death. These people are currently feared by those who fear death. The people who fear death the most are the people who try to prolong life, even by trying to create life and perform experimentations to extend and prolong the natural span of life. But such experimentations lead to evil ends and are based on evil means.

Victor, upon seeing the condemned Justine, reflects upon his own guilt. He knows that he should have been condemned, not the innocent Justine. But he refused to stand up for her. The blood-guilt of two murder victims must then be on his head for he has allowed this to happen to Justine.

"Thus the poor sufferer tried to comfort others and herself. She indeed gained the resignation she desired. But I, the murderer, felt the never-dying worm alive in my bosom, which allowed of no hope or consolation."

But one wonders why he does not confess his guilt. He knows yet another innocent will die because of him. Yet he keeps silent. He fears his testimony will not be believed. But perhaps he also takes a nihilistic approach. For is death ends all things, then there can be no repentance. If all of this life is the material, repentance is futile. There can be no more hope for man than what he can make in this life. Thus, the Hell he feels is only temporary, though he knows he is responsible for the murder of two innocent victims.