Thursday, October 30, 2014

This Just In:
The Pillars of Hell Are Shaking

(Samson visiting the Dagon Temple)
"Do you know about the prophet, Joseph?" Thomas inquired.
"yes, he's one of my favorites; he's the dreamer." the man replied.
"Have you had any dreams of significance?" Thomas asked the son.
"No, but my mother has. . ."
His mother excitedly broke in: "Ever since he was a child I've had dreams of a man in glowing white hugging my son. In the last dream he was crying, and his tears were coming down his beard and on to my son's head. I have such a warmth for this prophet," she continued. "I know he is a prophet."
" I know who that person is in your dream," Thomas said with assurance.
The woman's eyes widened with intense interest. "Who is it?"
"It is Jesus."

More

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Shaking The Pillars Of Hell



In the dense rain-forests of Ecuador, on the Pacific side of the Andes Mountains, lives a tribe of Indians who call themselves the Huaorani ("people" in their language, Huao), but whose neighbors have called them the Aucas ("savages" in Quechua). For many generations they have been completely isolated from the outside world, disposed to kill any stranger on sight, and feared even by their head-hunting neighbors, the Jivaro tribe.

In 1955, four missionaries from the United States who were working with the Quechas, Jivaros, and other Indians of the interior of Ecuador became persuaded that they were being called to preach the Gospel to the Huaorani as well.

Nate Saint was 32 years old (born 1923), and devoted to flying. He had taken flying lessons in high school and served in the U.S. Air Force in WWII. After the war, he enrolled in Wheaton College to prepare for foreign mission work but dropped out to join the Missionary Aviation Fellowship. With his wife, Marjorie Farris, he established a base at Shell Mera (an abandoned oil exploration camp in Ecuador) in September 1948, and flew short hops to keep missionaries supplied with medicines, mail, etc. Once his plane crashed, but a few weeks later he returned to work in a cast from his neck to his thighs.

The other three, Ed McCully, Jim Elliot, and Peter Fleming, all Plymouth Brethren, came to Ecuador in 1952 to work for CMML (Christian Missions in Many Lands).

Ed McCully was 28 years old (born 1927). He had been a football and track star at Wheaton College and president of his senior class. After Wheaton, he enrolled at Marquette to study law, but dropped out to go to Ecuador. He and his wife, Marilou Hobolth, worked with the Quechuas at Arajuno, a base near the Huaorani. Half a dozen Quechuas had been killed at the base by Huaorani in the previous year.

Jim Elliot was 28 years old (born 1927) and an honors graduate of Wheaton College, where he had been a debater, public speaker, and champion wrestler. In Ecuador, he married Elisabeth Howard. They did paramedic work, tending broken arms, malaria, snakebite. They taught sanitation, wrote books in Quechua, and taught literacy.

Peter Fleming was 27 years old (born 1928), from the University of Washington, an honor student, and a linguist. With his wife, Olive Ainslie, he ran a literacy program among the Quechuas.

Nate and Ed found a Huaorani settlement from the air in late September 1955. Nate made four more flights on Thursday, 29 September, and found a settlement only fifteen minutes from their station. They told Jim and Pete, and the four planned their strategy.

They would keep the project secret from everyone but their wives, to avoid being joined by adventurers and the press, with the chance that someone not dedicated to the mission would start shooting at the first sign of real or imagined danger, and destroy the project.

They had one language resource, a Huaorani girl, Dayuma, who had fled from her tribe years earlier after her family was killed in a dispute. Dayuma, who spoke both Huao and Quechua, was now living with Nate's sister Rachel. From her the missionaries learned enough of the language to get started.

They would fly over the village every Thursday and drop gifts as a means of making contact and establishing a friendly relationship. Eventually they would try for closer contact. Nate had discovered that, if he lowered a bucket on a line from the plane, and flew in tight circles, the bucket remained almost stationary, and could be used to lower objects to the ground. He had devised a mechanism to release the bucket when it touched down.

On Thursday, 6 October, one week after locating the village, they dropped an aluminum kettle into an apparently deserted village. On the next flight, several Huaorani were waiting, and the missionaries dropped a machete. On the third flight, they dropped another machete to a considerably larger crowd. Beginning with the fourth flight, they used a loudspeaker system to call out friendly messages in Huao.

Soon the Huaorani were responding with gifts of their own tied to the line: a woven headband, carved wooden combs, two live parrots, cooked fish, parcels of peanuts, a piece of smoked monkey tail.... They cleared a space near their village and built platforms to make the exchanges easier.

After three months of air-to-ground contact, during which they made far more progress than they had hoped, the missionaries decided that it was time for ground contact. They feared that they could not keep their activities secret much longer, and that delay risked a hostile encounter between the Huaorani and some third party.

They decided that the expedition needed a fifth man, so they brought in Roger Youderian, a 31-year-old (born 1924) former paratrooper who had fought in the Battle of the Bulge (a major German offensive in Belgium in the last stages of WWII) and had been in General Eisenhower's honor guard. Roger and his wife, Barbara Orton, were working with the Jivaros, and Roger was thoroughly at home in the jungle, accustomed to living like the Jivaros and blessed with acute survival instincts.

They located a beach that would serve as a landing strip, about four miles from the village, and decided to go in on Tuesday, 3 January 1956. After some discussion, they decided to carry guns, having heard that the Huaorani never attacked anyone who was carrying a gun, and having resolved that they would, as a last resort, fire the guns into the air to ward off an attack, but would shoot no one, even to save their own lives.

On Tuesday they flew in and made camp, then flew over the village to invite the Huaorani to visit them. The first visitors showed up on Friday: a man, a woman, and a teen-aged girl. They stayed for several hours in apparent friendliness, then left abruptly. On Saturday, no one showed, and when the plane flew over the village, the Huaorani seemed frightened at first, but lost their fright when presents were dropped. On Sunday afternoon, 8 January 1956, at about 3 PM, all five missionaries were speared to death at their camp. A search party the next day found no signs of a struggle, and the lookout who was to be stationed in a tree-house overlooking the camp at ground level had come down, so it appeared that the meeting had originally seemed friendly, and that the attack had been a surprise. Ed McCully's body was seen and identified, but was swept away by the river and not recovered. The other four, at the request of their wives, were buried at the site of the camp where they had died. Besides their wives, they left behind a total of nine children.

The effort to reach the Huaorani was not abandoned but rather intensified. Within three weeks, Johnny Keenan, another pilot of the Ecuador Mission, was continuing the flights over the Huaorani village. More than twenty fliers from the United States promptly applied to take Nate's place. More than 1000 college students volunteered for foreign missions in direct response to the story of the Five Martyrs. In Ecuador, Indian attendance at mission schools and church services reached record levels, and the number of conversions skyrocketed. A Jivaro undertook to go at once to another Jivaro tribe that had been at war with his own tribe for years, bearing the Christian message, and his visit brought peace between the two tribes. Truly, as Tertullian said 1800 years ago, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

In less than three years, Rachel Saint (sister of Nate Saint) and Elisabeth Elliot (widow of Jim Elliot) had not only renewed contact but had established permanent residence in a Huaorani settlement, where they practiced basic medicine and began the process of developing a written form of the language.

Nine years after the murder of the five missionaries, two of those who had killed Nate Saint and his companions baptized two of Nate's children, Kathy and Stephen Saint. In June 1995, at the request of the Huaorani, Nate's son Stephen moved to the settlement with his wife, Ginny, and their four children, to assist the Huaorani in developing greater internal leadership for a church committed to meeting the medical, economic, and social needs of their own people as a means of showing them God's love and his desire to provide for their eternal needs as well.

Why did the Huaorani suddenly turn hostile? Much later, one of the Huaorani who had helped to kill the five martyrs explained that the tribe, who had had almost no contact with outsiders that did not involve killing or attempted killing on one side or another, wondered why the whites wanted to make contact with them; and while they wanted to believe that their visitors were friendly, they feared a trap. After the killings, they realized their mistake. When they were attacked, one of the missionaries fired two shots as warnings, and one shot grazed a Huaorani who was hiding in the brush, unknown to the missionaries. It was therefore clear that the visitors had weapons, were capable of killing, and had chosen not to do so. Thus, the Huaorani realized that the visitors were indeed their friends, willing to die for them if necessary. When in subsequent months they heard the message that the Son of God had come down from heaven to reconcile men with God, and to die in order to bring about that reconciliation, they recognized that the message of the missionaries was the basis of what they had seen enacted in the lives of the missionaries. They believed the Gospel preached because they had seen the Gospel lived.

written by James Kiefer, Mission St Clare





Friday, October 24, 2014

The lost Gift of Friendship



If you've been over at Gagdad's place, and I know you have, you've likely read about the essay in First Things talking about the social construct of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy and it's invalidity. The writer has stripped away the narrative that has influenced the western world for over a century now and has breathed a good dose of Classic Christian logic into the discussion.
If you haven't read it yet, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

Against Heterosexuality

I'll admit that I had to slow down and reread parts of it to grasp what he's saying but found it very worth while.

And if that's not enough to give you a fresh look on the subject (and if you have another 20 minutes to invest) here is another great essay along the same thoughts.

Friendship

If read some comments at One Cosmos and would love to read your further thoughts on the subject.

For myself, my understanding is still growing. The more I learn about Church history and Medieval  thought the more I appreciate what has gone before us and question much about the narrative I grew up under. My thinking kind of coincides with my understanding of Plato. Several years ago I became interested in his writings and read several of his works. The one that most sticks in my mind is the Symposium. The first time I read it, I'll have to admit, I thought, "these guys are all gay".  But, I couldn't reject out of hand the other brilliant insights into love and beauty that are put forth. Socrates, as usual has the last and best word on the subject and after rereading it a few times I began to realize that Socrates did not participate in the pederasty of his companions. He was indeed Socrates the chaste and gave us the idea of "Platonic relationships". It's impossible to say if he approved of their actions or not (I tend to think he did). Though he didn't condemn the actions of his companions, he did show them the higher thing they were really searching for.


Wednesday, October 22, 2014



It’s movie trivia Wednesday.

Big Trouble in Little China by John Carpenter and staring Kurt Russell.

John Carpenter is a vastly underrated cinema graphic genius. George Lucas is a drooling, knuckle dragging idiot in comparison. The real difference between the two is that Lucas was willing to sell out his artistic integrity and do anything, I mean anything to get the money for his over wrought, over produced steaming pile of Star Wars. I mean, can you imagine what it would have been like if Hollywood had had an artistic bone in their corporate body and hired Carpenter to direct and Russell to play Han Solo? The style! The direction! The special effects! The artistic possibilities that can be imagined are enough to make one’s head explode. What a feast for the senses it would have been. There would have been no need to “remaster” anything. 37 years later we would still be filling the theaters.

I will grant you that not all of Carpenter’s efforts were top notch. Halloween comes to mind. But among his classics, Escape From New York (with Adrienne Barbeau), Starman and the Thing, Big Trouble stands tall. If you don’t agree with me, it’s okay. You have every right to be an ignorant, uneducated slob with no appreciation of the higher arts. I won’t hold it against you. On the other hand, if you've ever seen the movie, you know what I’m talkin’ about.

Here are a few of my favorite Jack Burton Quotes:

“When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he looks you crooked in the eye and asks you if ya paid your dues. You just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol’ Jack Burton always says at a time like that: “Have ya paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check’s in the mail.”

“It’s all in the reflexes”

Jack: "Can I ask you a serious question?"
Gracie Law (Kim Cattrall): "Absolutely not."
Jack: "Well then would you ever consider just jumpin' right into...."
Gracie: "Sure, but never with a person in your condition."
Jack: "Let's talk about my condition. Just what's wrong with it?"
Gracie: "You should try standing down wind where I am."
(Wouldn’t that have been a great exchange between Han and Leah? Much better than, “scruffy nurf herder”).

And my favorite comes at the end of the movie and I will have to pull from memory because IMDb are a bunch of idiots.

Jack: (talking with Wang) “We really shook the pillars of Hell, didn't we Wang?”
Wang: “No horse shit, Jack”

Here’s a thought for today:

Wouldn’t it be great if, when we get to Heaven and stand before our Lord we could say, “We really shook the pillars of Hell didn't we?” And Jesus, looking us right back in the eye would say, “Yes we did.” 

Tuesday, October 21, 2014


(written a few weeks ago)

Luke 5:12-13
While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him.”

I’m home today wrestling with back pain which has kept me immobile for a few days now and this scripture in today’s daily office is speaking to me.

Back in the days of our Charismatic involvement some of the popular preachers of the day would explain this scripture something like this, “The leper came to Jesus in doubt kneeling and begging saying, ‘if you will’ but Jesus dispelled his doubt by saying, ‘I will’. Therefore, we don’t come to Jesus wondering if it’s His will. We come boldly, being fully persuaded that it is always His will to heal His children.”

I think this interpretation misses something vitally important. The leper did not come to Jesus fearfully or in doubt so much as he came in reverent submission. This is a picture that is a little hard for me to grasp. I consider myself to be self sufficient and tend to be independent in my thinking. As a result I have never seen myself bowing down or falling on my face before anyone or having to submit myself to someone I would consider my superior. It is a foreign concept to me. Coming boldly is much more appealing.


I need to learn the lesson of the leper. If I am truly His then He is truly free to do with me as He wills. I believe that it is His will to heal me. I also believe that the timing and the method are His. I also believe that, as a loving Father, His desire for me is much more than just physical healing. He wants to heal the inside as well as the outside and the tools for that healing are in His hands. 

Friday, October 17, 2014



Okay, I'm in a time warp kind of mood today and for some reason I remembered a job interview I had a while back:

The job was teaching Microsoft products, database stuff mainly, at the employer's training center. The classes would be typically 5 days of lecture and demonstration. I don't know if anyone is still doing this but it's a total scam. Employers would pay $1200 to send their employees for a one week training session. The classes would typically have 20 to 30 attending. Do the math.

Potential Employer: So, tell me Rogelio, if you could have your absolute dream job, what would it be?

(Do people still ask these utterly retarded questions of their potential employees?)

Rogelio Bueno: (without hesitation) Captain Ron!

They had no clue what I was talking about. As a result, I was absolutely sure that I could never work for someone who was so uncultured to have never taken the time to watch one of the most profound and thought provoking movies of our time.

What? You too have never seen it? Two words -  NetFlix. Go watch it and get back to me.

Thursday, October 16, 2014


Worth the read

"As regards sexual morality, we have reached a point at which it is no longer sufficient for us to criticize modernity’s poor answers. Like our Lord in the gospel narratives, we must also correct its terribly impoverished questions. Rather than struggling to articulate how to live as a “homosexual Christian”—or, for that matter, the even more problematic question of how to live as a “heterosexual Christian”—we should be teaching our Christian brethren, especially those in their most formative adolescent years, that these categories are not worth employing."
- Michael W. Hannon 

Wednesday, October 15, 2014



What are you gonna do When That Meat Wagon Comes For You?
(I'm mixing throw-back Thursday with meddling Miercoles.)

Or, to put it into more genteel vernacular, what do you think Heaven is really going to be like? Jesus says that in His Father’s house are many mansions. Taking a look at our earthly congregations you’d think Heaven is going to have a Baptist mansion, a Catholic mansion, an Anglican mansion, a Pentecostal mansion, a Hispanic mansion, an African mansion, etc. The old folks will be in the South Florida mansion keeping the kids off the lawn. The liberals will be in the Magic Kingdom mansion (forgive me, that was a cheap shot). The social conservatives will be in the all Caucasian all the time mansion. . . . You get my point.

Having said that, let me clarify something. I have two views of the plethora of Christian denominations. Roman Catholics consider all Protestants to be heretics and schismatics. They conveniently forget that the Eastern Orthodox considers them to be the same. I’m not criticizing either the Catholics, Protestants or the Orthodox. I only use the example to illustrate the general opinion that the multitude of different denominations is a result of rebellion against “True Christianity”. There is some truth to that opinion but I don’t hold that it is the only reason. I also opine that, just as it take billions of people to express God’s diversity of creation, so to it can take thousands of flavors of Christianity to express His love for them.

Never the less, why is it so difficult for each of us to reach across cultural divides to our brothers and sisters? Do we think we don’t need them? Do we really think that Heaven is going to be like “our” church, only better? Or, do we have the notion buried in the back of our mind that when we cross that river and get to the other side that we will be suddenly transformed, not only in body but also in mind and heart? Where Jesus sprinkles forget-me dust on us and all of our prejudices, opinions and attachments to the world will magically disappear?  

I don’t have an answer to that one but I tend to lean very strongly in the direction of CS Lewis and George MacDonald in the belief of God’s severe mercy. Not severe in the sense that we will be punished for our sins, Jesus already paid that price, but more in the sense of the difficulty each of will have in letting go of everything we found comfort with in this life. For some it may be a trial as if by fire.

So, what are you gonna do when that meat wagon comes for you?

If God’s Heaven is going to be populated with billions of diverse people with billions of different life experiences and stories it seems to me that our transition will be a lot easier if we begin to live out Jesus command to love one another in the here and now. 

Monday, October 13, 2014



Imagine the Prodigal Son story with a different ending. Suppose he chose not to return to his father's house.

You remember the story, he lives with his father and older brother enjoying all that his father has provided for him and realizing that one day, he would receive his portion of it all as his inheritance.  Keep in mind that all that he had and knew including any opportunity for success was provided for him by his father.

For whatever reason (pride), he was tempted to strike out on his own, taking all that was legally his including his inheritance. As we know he did not manage his resources very well and squandered his wealth on carnal pursuits. In the story, once out of resources he finds himself eating with the pigs - in the Jewish mind pigs were the absolute lowest of God's creation. He hit bottom, came to himself and returned home.

But, what if he didn't? What if, instead he came to a revelation of himself and said, "I think, therefore I am", or "What the mind can conceive man can achieve" or some other modernistic self-motivating statement he had heard from Tony Robins, or Deepak Chopra. He raises himself from the trough, and instead of knocking on his father's door, he knocks on the doors of fiends he met on the way down to the trough. Most reject him but one finally gives him an opportunity. He excels at his work, builds a life, raises a family and is considered successful.

He tells his children of his father but because he left that home and family he was now forced to make his own way, as a result his children also have no way of return. And so, generations after generations are born, live and die separated from the father's house. Some, feeling the effects of the broken relationship seek to return but the older brother - the law - convinces them that they must behave themselves and obey him if they are to be allowed in. Unfortunately, they found that when they had fulfilled one law he would give them another and another. Because of this, many of the children gave up and like their father, the Prodigal, turned away.

Some tried to convince themselves and others it was all a lie, a social construct, a conspiracy to keep the children in fear and poverty - an "opiate for the masses". Others turned to simple distractions, amusements and self-destructive behaviors to shut out the memories of their forefathers and their true origins. Others decided to make the most of their life away from the father's house. They would take the pieces of the law that they liked and apply them, and modify them and distort them to their on purpose. They would justify themselves and others that thought the way they did and would call themselves "public benefactors", "leaders" and "unifiers".

And many, many other sophistries and strategies would the children pursue to convince themselves that they were not, in reality, still feeding at the pig trough.


All the while, the father of the house waits with open arms, looking, longing for the return of his son and grandchildren. Patiently he waits with loving care, peace and comfort. Waiting for his children to come to themselves and come home. 

Friday, October 10, 2014


A few days back the daily reading was the story of the woman who cleansed Jesus feet with her tears and hair. – Luke 7:36-50. I’m still pondering this. Perhaps breaking down the story will help to clarify my mind:

Parallel stories are found in Matthew 26:6-13 where this story or a similar story takes place in the house of Simon the leper and it’s the disciples who are rebuked. The story in Mark 14:3-9 is almost identical to Matthew’s telling. John does not recount this story at all.

In the Lucian story Jesus is invited to dinner by a Pharisee named Simon and according to Matthew and Mark, he is a leper. As we know, Jesus spends most of his rebukes and criticisms on the Pharisees. If it’s true that God is a loving father that disciplines his children and that Jesus is the personification of the Father then I can’t help but think that Jesus chided the Pharisees as he did because he loves them, not because he hates them.

We know that the Pharisees were of the ruling class. Israel was under Roman rule but they allowed Israel a degree of autonomy. Under this shadow of foreign authority existed the Sanhedrin, the counsel of local government which was made up of Pharisees and Sadducees. It was the Sadducees that held the greater power by virtue of their being the one per centers of their day. The Pharisees, though well off, were much more middle class. A similar picture would be the British Parliament. The Sadducees would make up the Upper House of Lords and the Pharisees would make up the Lower House of Commons. A little like the senators and representatives of our congress. It is interesting to note that Jesus had very little interaction with the Sadducees.

A woman, who was a “sinner” found out about the dinner. Tradition tells us that this was Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons were cast out, who was first to see Jesus resurrected from the grave and the first to tell the disciples about it. She may have been but the Scriptures never tell us that.

She brings a jar of spikenard, an essential oil, possibly lavender, that Mark tells us was worth three hundred denarii, a denarii being the daily wage for a laborer. This she brings in an alabaster jar which was apparently sealed. After washing his feet with her tears and drying them with her hair she breaks open the jar and anoints his feet (Matthew and Mark say she pours it on his head).

At this point, I think it’s important to consider that the parable Jesus speaks to Simon is not so much for his benefit as for ours. In fact, this story, start to finish, is for our benefit. It was very likely one of the Gospel stories told and retold from church to church where ever Christians congregated in the early days before it was formally written and canonized as Scripture.

Jesus knew what the Simon was thinking. Perhaps he knew by divine insight but it’s just as likely he overheard him murmuring to another guest or perhaps he read the Pharisee’s body language. In response, Jesus tells the parable of the two debtors, one owing fifty denarii and the other five hundred. Neither could repay and both were forgiven their debt. Jesus then asks, “Which will be more grateful?” After his answer, Jesus then reveals to Simon the depravity of his heart by thinking he had little or no need of forgiveness.

There is a submission that is based in resignation to one more powerful. This is the weakling’s obeisance to the bully, Lee’s surrender to Grant or East Germany’s “alliance” to the Soviet Union. It is based in force and force only. When that force is diminished the weaklings exact their revenge.

This is, unfortunately, the way many people understand the Christian concept of submission to God. They see an Old Testament god of wrath exacting judgment and punishment on his peon slaves from whom he demands worship. Granted, the world was a pretty rough place four thousand years ago but if that is all you get out of reading the Exodus story you need to re-read it.

Submission to a greater power is absolutely not what the Bible teaches about our submission to God or to Christ. God does not rule by power but by authority. God is powerful but it is contrary to His nature to force His will on anyone.

We do not submit to God because we fear Him but because we recognize His authority and we come to a place of understanding that He deserves our submission and worship. We surrender, not because He has conquered our flesh but because He has conquered our heart.


This sinful woman exemplifies Christian submission. She is not begging or sucking up. She is not attempting to exchange her sacrifice of nard for Jesus’ favors or forgiveness. She recognizes who he is. Her heart has been conquered. She acknowledges his authority over her and pours out a year’s wages, perhaps all she owned, on his feet in worship. “Your faith has saved you”, Jesus said, but it was not faith in His forgiveness, it was her faith (trust, confidence, assurance, rest) in Him.

In a very real sense, Jesus does not forgive sins, He forgives sinners. 

- Rogelio Bueno

Thursday, October 9, 2014



"Every time I watch The Oscars, I cringe when some famous movie star – trophy in hand – starts to deconstruct the secret to happiness. It’s always the same thing, and I can never hit “mute” fast enough to escape the inevitable cliches. “Don’t give up on your dreams kids, no matter what.” “Don’t let anyone tell you that you don’t have what it takes.” And of course, “Always follow your passion!”
- Mike Rowe

http://yellowhammernews.com/faithandculture/alabamian-gets-schooled-mike-rowe-dirty-jobs/

Well said Mike. Well said.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

If I can't write something inspirational I can at least write about an overheard conversation that illustrates the perfect antithesis of what it means to be an Urban Hermit:

A middle aged man is talking to someone about his car/financial woes, "What I want to do is trade in one of my three cars. I'll keep one because I like it. One I'll trade, and the third one I'll let the finance company repossess because I'm paying $600 a month for it. But, I want to trade the second one before they repo it and wreck my credit."

That, my friend, is a snapshot of our world today.

In effect, he's gotten himself in deep pluff-mud and wants out. He was told, like all of us are told, that he and his deserve that car, the first one, the second one and the third one, so he made an impulse purchase - three times, and now two out of three of them ain't lookin so hot. So his strategy is to keep one, trade one (by the way, he's what we call in the business "up side down" on the second one. That is to say, he owes more - much more - than it's worth) and dump one on the bank.

I don't judge the guy. He is making a logical economic decision based on how today's world operates. The outcome of his strategy? He'll get a dealer and finance company somewhere to take his second car in trade on a vehicle he'll finance for seven or eight hears, which is five or six years longer than he'll keep it. The dealer and finance company will structure the deal in such a way that he will be refinancing his negative equity from his trade along with the new car. He'll then keep and drive the third one as long as he can without making a payment on it until it goes back to the finance company and his credit takes a hit.

And, in two or three years he'll do it all again.

And, the dealership and finance company will welcome him back with open arms knowing that he'll likely repeat the process. Why? Because they make money doing so.
Well, the muse gave me the inspiration for the blog name, now all I need is for her show back up and inspire me again in the profundities of why I'm doing this. Maybe if I paid more attention to her and romanced her a little more. She's a great muse but I'm so negligent in my affections towards her that I'm, at times, surprised that she comes around at all.
I promise that this blog will not, in the long term, be a cut-and-paste location but yesterday's post by the Chief Raccoon, Bob Godwin was so relevant to the ideals of the Urban Hermit that I couldn't resist. Enjoy:

"This brings to mind what may be my favorite letter of Meditations on the Tarot, The Hermit. The hermit is a properly right side-up man, and for this reason will appear upside-down to the worldly. This blog is proudly upside-down, and always will be. We're here, we're queer, and we're not going away.
Such a man does not deny the world but sees it -- and its contents -- in its proper perspective and order. He does not place what is both priceless and of urgent importance above what is ephemeral and insignificant. Which is why The common man lives among phantasms; only the recluse [i.e., hermit] moves among realities (Aphorisms of Don Colacho). Now, there was an invert!
Furthermore, the hermit is the cosmic locus of the synthesis of heaven and earth, i.e., their union, not polarization. He represents the harmony of intellect, emotion, and will; or mind, heart, and strength.
But again, such a man will appear upside-down to the hypnotized mob and tenured rabble, for Modern society works feverishly to put vulgarity within everyone’s reach (DC), and largely succeeds now that so many of us attend college, those somnambulant secular seminaries of factsimian sophistry."
- Bob Godwin, One Cosmos


Tuesday, October 7, 2014

"When the morning falls
On the farthest hill
I will sing His name
I will praise Him still"
- Fernando Ortega

Monday, October 6, 2014

"The heavens, revolving under His government, are subject to Him in peace. Day and night run the course appointed by Him, in no wise hindering each other.

The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation.

The fruitful earth, according to His will, brings forth food in abundance, at the proper seasons, for man and beast and all the living beings upon it, never hesitating, nor changing any of the ordinances which He has fixed.

The unsearchable places of abysses, and the indescribable arrangements of the lower world, are restrained by the same laws.

The vast unmeasurable sea, gathered together by His working into various basins, never passes beyond the bounds placed around it, but does as He has commanded. For He said, Thus far shall you come, and your waves shall be broken within you. The ocean, impassable to man and the worlds beyond it, are regulated by the same enactments of the Lord.

The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, and winter, peacefully give place to one another. The winds in their several quarters fulfil, at the proper time, their service without hindrance.

The ever-flowing fountains, formed both for enjoyment and heath, furnish without fail their breasts for the life of men.

The very smallest of living beings meet together in peace and concord.

All these the great Creator and Lord of all has appointed to exist in peace and harmony; while He does good to all, but most abundantly to us who have fled for refuge to His compassions through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory and majesty for ever and ever. Amen."


-          Clement of Alexandrea, Letter to the Corinthians (ca. 200ad.)