I find this amusing

This is an interesting article on a very interesting story. These dudes in France/Switzerland are about to fire off the most powerful cannon the world has ever seen in order to smash together two particles so small we can't even see them with our most powerful optics in order to find out if something exists which we won't be able to see even if we do find out it exists. And on top of that, 5 minutes of data collecting will give them 50 years of data analysis, at least. Anyhow, that's all well and good, and I'm all about some dark matter (just read some of Augustine's thoughts on Creation and you'll find that he'd go absolutely crazy over this stuff, saying that it proved God), but the response from "skeptics" is what entertains me. The article notes "that some skeptics fear [the experiment] could create micro "black holes" and endanger the planet."
First off, if you think an experiment is going to destroy the frippin' world, does that classify you as a "skeptic," or an "objector on basis of desiring to exist?" I mean honestly, could we get a better description here?
Secondly, micro black holes. Black holes get bigger the more they suck in, and they suck in stars, planets, and galaxies. I'd say this isn't really "endangering the planet" so much as destroying the world. Anytime the world gets turned inside out because of an anti-matter hole somewhere in Europe, we've got problems.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think this cautionary science-talk is absolutely hysterical. And, in the end, it has to be rather nerve-wracking, being a pagan in the middle of all this. After all, we know we aren't going to destroy the planet. They can only hope.

Update: Wouldn't you hate to be this guy and lay part of that track backwards and blow the whole thing up? That whole thought makes me laugh very much. 9.8 billion (that's right, with a b) of the hardest-earned goes up in smoke because some random dude mislaid a 1 foot long magnet.

Sigur Rós

This is a video of Sigur Rós, one of my favorite bands. Sigur Rós is an icelandic band and their name means "Victory Rose." This particular song is entitled "Saeglopur." Some of its lyrics are in Icelandic but the rest of it is in Vonleska or "Hopelandic" in English. This is a made-up language consisting of nonsense syllables. In this way, we as the listeners are not hampered by our conceptions of the meaning coming from the lyrics. The vocals of the band are merely instruments, not special tools of meaning. The song definitely has meaning, but not a definite meaning and it certainly cannot be found as easily as looking for it in the vocals. Listen for a great increase in intensity several minutes into it, it is truly magnificent.

I had my modern conceptions of fairness blown far, far away

So I'm perusing - no, strike that, try break-neck speed reading - Augustine's City of God, and I come across a quotation of Genesis 17:13-14:

[God spoke to Abraham] "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Let's get this straight: a baby boy who is not circumcised by his parents has already broken the covenant with God. If he dies at nine days old and has not been circumcised, he dies outside the covenant of grace. Whoa.
Then Christ comes and renews the covenant, replacing circumcision with baptism. But does this change the principle? Obviously there is enough condemnation in original sin to damn a babe in arms. Again, the burden must be on the parents.

"No One Knows"

"A poem is never finished, only abandoned"
-Paul Valery


This is, I think, the state I want to abandon this poem in. I'm titling it "No One Knows" or "Uncertainty". I'm still not sure what I want to call it. You could give me suggestions if you want. I spent a long time with just the first two stanzas written (and slightly different) not knowing what exactly I was going for in this poem. It was in some ways an idea without any background to lend it meaning.

I see before me a locked door encased in a splendid mansion
I have been through every open room (and they were all magnificent)
But this is an expansion which utterly befuddles my mind;
I am bent upon the questions of, “What if . . .?”, “What if . . .?”
Sometimes my mind seems like a log that is made to drift.

No man has the gift to break down this oaken door, and I have not the key.
But I know the cool air that bleeds from under its threshold;
I have felt it in the breeze that runs beneath the shelves of an old bookstore.
The cold dead breeze that once flew around Edgar Allan Poe as he wrote
His “Raven” evermore breathes monotonous death from underneath that door.

It is the air of uncertainty that kills many a conversation,
( “Who could know what such a cryptic comment means?”)
One would find more certainty in a bustling Station. But this place. . .
Here there are reams of scribbled paper but nothing linking it together,
Trace the lines and you will find no picture whatsoever.

No one knows.

Numa Numa Dane

I have no words.

A whole new meaning to "deadly"

By popular demand (sort of, not really), I am now going to write a post dealing with the issues raised by the movie "Seven". This is not a movie I would recommend to the weak of heart, and this is not a post I'd recommend to anyone avoiding spoilers. In other words, don't watch the movie if you don't like gory stuff, and don't read this post if you would be mad if I gave away the ending. This being said, let's just dive right into it shall we?

Actually, there's too much plot for me to adaquately explain it all. Therefore, you can disregard what I said earlier because I'm just going to assume that you've already watched the thing. What's that you say? Why not go back and delete what I wrote earlier? That's a stupid question. I'm not even going to answer that.

I thought the movie was well thought out, excellently shot, and masterfully acted. The contrast between the characters of Somerset and Mills is perfect. We know astonishingly little about their biography so we learn about them through their reactions to the events of the movie. Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is a calm character, an experienced detective who wishes to retire because he no longer wishes to view the filth of humanity under a microscope. Mills (Brad Pitt) is a young and cocky detective who is very quick to annoyance and anger. The story moves quickly through the murders and the movie leaves very little time for character development. I think this is, however, a device that is intentionally employed by Fincher and Walker. They force their audience to make the same kind of assumptions about the detectives that "John Doe" (the murderer) makes about his victims. Our knowledge of the characters is shallow in almost the same way as our knowledge of the victims and their sins. I think it's partly a critique of the narrow mindedness of people who appoint themselves as judges of other people's sins. Perhaps, the director is trying to make the point that judgment is not that simple.

The director leaves the audience in an awkward position when he ends the story with Mills killing John Doe, as Doe himself urged him to do. "Become Wrath." And Mills did exactly what Doe told him to do, he became sinfully wrathful and killed Doe himself, rather than let him be justly punished for his wrongs. So, the audience must fill in the aftermath themselves, and give a verdict upon the outcome of the movie.

Were the "ritual killings" just, based upon the victim's deadly sins? Was John Doe justly punished for his crimes and sin of "Envy"?

My answers would be no, and no. John Doe went wrong when he thought that he could act as God, it was not his job to punish the wicked. And I don't think that's what the Roman Catholic church means by "Deadly Sins."