christians

Asperger's syndrome (thing) by shadomatic Sat Jul 12 2003 at 0:40:24

Some might wonder what it’s like to suffer Asperger’s Syndrome. A few thought experiments might make the experience of this disorder a little clearer to those who only see its surface manifestations.

Imagine that you are sealed permanently in a box. It looks just like a human being, but it is a box, and you spend all your time inside it, and you cannot escape. Within the box you have a control panel of switches and levers and dials which operate and monitor such things as your facial expression, tone of voice, gait, posture and other media of nonverbal communication. You must maintain constant vigilance over this panel of indicators and controls. Every few seconds a snapshot drops into the box… pictures of such things as somebody’s knit brows, a smirking or laughing mouth, a person yawning or winking at you. At the same time as you analyze these clues for some idea what’s going on outside the box, you listen carefully with headphones to things that are being said. Unfortunately, all the transmissions you receive have been automatically translated into a foreign language and then back into English, so all you hear are mechanically stilted phrases, lacking nuance, but awash with confused connotations and subject to confounding interpretations; consequently, you don’t easily recognize sarcasm, and many forms of humor and irony are lost on you. Remember, at the same time as you are poring over the pictures-- trying to put together the story-- also while listening to, and examining transcripts of the strained syntax coming over the headphones and trying to make sense of all that, you must simultaneously maintain conscious control of the panel. Does this sound difficult?

There’s more. Growing up in the box, you’ve become increasingly aware that you’re “different” from the people around you, or, I should say, the people around your box. You inevitably get teased and bullied a lot in school. Others don’t appear to suffer the strain you endure in trying to deal with people from within the box; for them, “reading” other people is natural, easy, and “fun”. You are called a bookworm (and many other less innocuous names) because, for you, even higher mathematics and particle physics are easier to comprehend than the idly chattering people around you. Thus, you become a sort of “walking encyclopedia” of various subjects you’ve retreated into… books never shunned you, and they have become your only reliable friends. People comment that you often appear absent-minded or lost in thought, speak in a pedantic or artificial way, and generally lack “common sense”. Passengers in your car notice that you appear to have great difficulty conversing and driving at the same time. You acquire a reputation for saying precisely the wrong thing at the worst possible moment. People avoid you; they don’t understand how a demonstrably intelligent person could at the same time be such a blithering idiot and social washout. They don’t understand how much work it is trying to manage in the box, how easily you can be overwhelmed by all the fragmented pictures and illogical phrases-- each requiring close analysis and evaluation-- which inundate you. Do you think you might feel very lonely, bitterly lonely, under these circumstances?

You do your best to assuage the loneliness by constructing an acceptable demeanor, built up of all the things you’ve learned-- learned the hard way-- about managing interpersonal relations from within the box. You learn some routines which can be punched into the control panel by rote, all for the purpose of feigning normality. The veneer is very brittle, though, and has to be repaired constantly and at great effort to maintain the façade. For instance, a new acquaintance might mention the beautiful weather; you, delighted at meeting someone who shares your interest in meteorology, discourse on the high-pressure system recorded via satellite a few miles away, and are bewildered that your newfound friend appears to be trying to get away from you. But you learn from this. You program a macro into the control panel which automatically replies “Yes, what an effing gorgeous day! I can’t wait for the weekend!” to any mention of attractive weather, though you know you’ll be indoors, all by yourself that weekend, just like every other weekend. You might start feeling a bit insincere and empty after doing this for a while. Do you think you could get used to that?

Affectations of normality only go so far, though, and you don’t get invited to many parties. This might come as a relief, given the stress dealing with groups of people creates in the box. However, there is one particular social gathering which remains memorable. It is the one where you discover that you’re not just “different”, but that you truly don’t belong. At this gathering, you find yourself surrounded by laughing people, all or most of their attention being focused on you. You feel a bit flattered that all these friendly people find you so interesting and entertaining. At first. Then a few of the snapshots which drop into the box start to reveal a different story… they appear to be signaling to one another as if to say “get a load of this dork” and you begin to realize you are being humiliated with the sarcasm you don’t comprehend, and are being set on display for ridicule. That’s the reason you were invited, in fact: it is a circus, and you are the clueless sideshow freak. You begin to falter as you go over the evidence which has now piled into the box, and tears fill your eyes as you look over the snapshots you’ve collected, searching desperately for some other interpretation. You can’t believe that people would be so cruel. Deep inside the box, you start sobbing, uncontrollably, and you drop the pictures, throw the headphones aside and turn away from the control panel, in abject hurt and pain. But the box isn’t crying… the control panel has been left unattended, so the box is left staring blankly into space, twitching nervously, and rocking back and forth in silence. Sweet, numbing silence.

Had enough?

Then try this one on for size. Imagine that you have a grotesque deformity… but not just one particular deformity, because people can get used to those, and, depending upon the character of the afflicted person, some may come to find big scars and missing parts colorful and endearing. No, imagine that you have some sort of constantly-changing deformity, such that, say, a rhinoceros horn would grow out of your cheekbone for a period of five minutes, then recede only to be replaced a half hour later with a third-degree burn which consumes your nose and right ear, and then a few minutes later this scar in turn fades away, but after another twenty minutes your lower jaw drops off, making you look like a hagfish. This process continues throughout your life, and you have absolutely no control over it. Your job-- which you must perform every day-- is to go out and meet people while pretending that absolutely nothing is wrong. Clearly, your working life would be hell. But what would your social life be like during your non-working hours? What about your sexual life? Where would you go, and what would you do? How would you feel?

Well, that’s the way I feel every day. The deformity is a pervasive developmental disorder on the autistic spectrum. It affects my personality and everything I do and everyone I meet on any more than a casual basis. Some would deny that there is any sort of “disorder“ here; I know I sure did. In previous years I’ve told my self I was merely “shy,” “melancholic,” or “hypersensitive”. I even called my habit of sitting in a corner rocking back and forth for two or three hours per day-- a trait I share with my fully autistic brother-- a form of “meditation”! But I don’t lie to myself anymore. The best I can do is reassure those close to me (a very precious few) that, though I’m alarmingly whacked, I’m not at all dangerous. Did I mention that AS is no more treatable nor curable than any other form of mental retardation?

Saint Anselm (person) by Asphodel Wed Dec 22 2004 at 19:04:04

linked by The Lush

St Anselm
1033 - 21 April 1109
He is most famous for his ontological argument for the existence of God, but was also an important figure in late 11th century politics and held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury for 15 years in the eventful time following the Norman conquest when the Normans were trying to keep hold of the land they had only recently won.

The beginning

He was born in the town of Aosta in the Piedmontese mountains in 1033, son of Gundulf and Ermenberga, a Lombard and a Burgundian. His mother was very religious and instilled the same feeling in Anselm who grew up with a strong sense of mysticism, influenced by the great mountains around his home. In his teens he wanted to become a monk but the Abbot refused as Anselm's father (said to have been a stern authoritarian) disapproved.

By the time he was 23, his mother had died and his relationship with his father had become unbearable so he left home for France, living in Burgundy and Avranches before moving on to the abbey of Bec. Lanfranc was the prior there at the time and they soon became lifelong friends, and he encouraged Anselm to enter the cloister there in 1060. According to contemporary accounts, Anselm was well-liked and respected by his fellow monks for his intelligence, integrity and good nature, making his rise through the ranks of the church close to inevitable.

When Lanfranc was made Abbot of Caen in 1063, Anselm was appointed over the heads of many more senior monks to the position of prior which he then held for 15 years, during which he wrote his most famous works, the Monologion and the Proslogion. He had always preferred a life of quiet contemplation and study, and when Herluin, Abbot of Bec, died in 1078, the monks of the abbey begged Anselm to take up the post while he pleaded with them not to press it upon him. Ultimately, however, he reluctantly agreed and went on to make the abbey an important centre of mediaeval scholarship. After that time his involvement in state affairs only grew: he visited England many times, often going to see the Archbishop of Canterbury (Lanfranc again, moving up in the world). On his first visit there he met a young monk, Eadmer, who would later become his biographer and an important church historian in his own right.

Worldly influence

On Lanfranc’s death in 1089, Anselm was overwhelmingly popular as the choice for Archbishop of Canterbury but the king, William Rufus, wanted the see’s revenues for himself and kept the post vacant until he became seriously ill in 1093. Anselm was deeply unwilling to step into Lanfranc’s shoes anyway, but ultimately the people’s will triumphed and when the sick king was finally persuaded that he had no choice other than to name Anselm Archbishop, Anselm was dragged before him and the staff of office was forced into his closed hand, then he was carried to mass to be consecrated. At this, he could only accept - although on his own terms. One of these was that he had to have the pallium (a mark of the pope's approval), and this caused the first of many clashes with the king, who soon recovered enough to regret giving way and appointing him.

At the time the Antipope Clement III and Pope Urban II were contesting the papacy and William was not ready to declare his support for either until it suited him, so no English embassy was permitted to go to either Pope. But Anselm refused to act as Archbishop without the pallium, so in the end several envoys went back and forth between England and the Vatican, constantly hindered by William Rufus’ uncooperativeness, until Anselm was forced to leave for Rome himself. He seized this chance for a return to the quiet life he preferred, travelling incognito as an ordinary monk with some friends. While in Italy he completed “Cur Deus Homo”, often considered his greatest work, and only just prevented William Rufus from being excommunicated by the religious council in Bari which debated his problems with Anselm. However, while he was still away in France the following spring, he heard that the king had finally died (in mysterious circumstances) and the new king, Henry I, summoned him back to England.

The relationship between church and state was no less turbulent with Henry on the throne, despite Anselm’s best efforts. Henry wanted to marry a saxon princess, Edith, to cement his hold on the country, but she had entered a convent and it was widely thought that this prevented the marriage. However, she had not actually taken vows to become a nun, and Anselm held a council which decreed that she was free to marry and blessed the union himself, allowing Henry to get his way. The relationship between Henry and Anselm seems to have been quite cordial, but personal feelings were of little importance in the constant competition for power between the institutions they represented, something that was particularly the case in one of the most contentious issues of the day – investitures.

The investiture controversy

Since the beginning of the 11th century it had widely been customary for European monarchs to appoint bishops and archbishops themselves, selecting or rejecting candidates at will and investing them with their office in a formal ceremony. This gave the monarch both symbolic and actual power over the church as it meant that the highest churchmen in the land were seen to hold their offices at the king’s pleasure, and at the same time this went some way towards legitimising the control the king often had over church lands and revenues. In a time of growing papal power at the expense of the monarchies, this could not be allowed to continue (quite apart from the theological problem of holy men being granted their authority by laymen and warriors), and both Pope Urban II and his successor, Paschal II, decreed against this practice. However, the kings of England and Germany in particular fiercely resisted giving up any measure of control, so it was inevitable that Henry and Anselm would clash. As soon as Anselm was back in England, Henry wanted him to receive a new investiture from him as the new king, but Anselm refused and would not reconsecrate the other bishops who had already been re-invested by the king. This rebellion quickly spread, with bishops handing back the staff and ring they had accepted from the king and refusing consecration from anyone other than Anselm.

The king held out as long as he could but soon had to ask Anselm to go to the pope, not to plead his case directly as Anselm would not do this, but simply to present the facts as Henry saw them. Needless to say, the pope was unmoved, and responded only by excommunicating Henry’s advisors (though he stopped short of excommunicating Henry himself). However, Anselm now demonstrated an unexpected talent for worldly guile, stopping to visit Henry’s sister, Adela of Blois, on his return from Rome and telling her that he was on his way back to England to excommunicate Henry. She immediately set to work to orchestrate a meeting between Henry and Anselm and a temporary peace was reached between them, though it was not until a council in London in 1107 (two years later) that a compromise was reached on investitures. Here Henry finally abandoned any claim to invest bishops and abbots, but the church allowed them to continue to answer to the king’s authority in temporal matters. Although the king kept much of the power he had had before for all practical purposes, the essential victory was Anselm’s and the church’s, as the church was freed from one of the few claims the monarchy still had on it.

With the worst of the church/state conflicts he would experience behind him, Anselm’s remaining years were comparatively peaceful until his death in 1109.

Theology

His ontological argument or proof for God's existence has caused a great deal of perplexed argument ever since he first developed it; one modern critic compared its effect on readers as similar to an audience watching a conjurer pull a rabbit out of a hat - "they cannot explain how the rabbit got there, but they are pretty certain that the conjurer introduced it somehow"*. To condense (and simplify) it greatly, Anselm started from a definition of God as the greatest being that could be imagined, perfect in every way. He went on to say that existence in reality must be greater than existence in the imagination alone, and therefore for God to be the greatest conceivable being he must also exist (see the ontological argument node for much more detail). Theologians and scholars from that day to this have been divided as to whether there is genuine and valid theological truth in it or whether it is simply linguistic trickery.

His work "Cur Deus Homo" was less a philosophical and more a purely theological work on the atonement, and he also wrote meditations on the holy spirit and precursors to much later debates on free will, ultimately being declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Clement XI in 1720.

He was never a political animal by inclination but the combination of his peers’ insistence and his own sense of responsibility ensured that he was at the centre of religious and secular affairs in England and beyond for much of his life, while his writings have remained relevant and much-debated in theological thought throughout the intervening centuries.

He was canonised in 1494.

Sources:

Anselm’s life:
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01546a.htm
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anselm.htm

The pallium:
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htm

The investiture controversy:
The Oxford History of Medieval Europe edited by George Holmes

* From "A Beginner's Guide to Ideas" - William Raeper and Linda Smith - p 33

Faust (idea) by The Lush Wed Dec 01 2004 at 19:02:08

A Beautiful Struggle: Suffering and Salvation in Goethe's Faust

"A good man in his darkling aspiration / Remembers the right road throughout his quest" (89).

These lines suggest that though “Man errs as long as he will strive,” that the imperfections of humankind are conditional, that the human mind has the capacity to make moral judgements even when one acts against one’s conscience (87). In Faust, Goethe infuses this sentiment with the notion that salvation is dependent on one’s own efforts and an individual relationship with God. Furthermore, Faust possesses an insatiable hunger to transcend human limits and comprehend something greater than himself, and this is the driving force that leads him down opposing paths, seeking fulfillment through both the pursuit of sacred Knowledge and the enjoyment of profane earthly delights, the result of which is mental anguish. And it is this untiring aspect of Faust’s personality that is at once the root of all his suffering and the source of his salvation.

If nothing else, this is a play about a quest–-or more accurately, a beautiful struggle, “to strive and strive” for self-fulfillment (141). However, there is a tragic ambiguity inherent in the nature of this quest. What Faust desires, what he aches for is not possible. He cannot “tear open the eternal portals,” and humankind cannot transcend human limits (117). When Faust contemplates his suicide by poison, that he should “offer this last drink with all [his] soul / Unto the morning as a festive high salute,” he is flirting with eternal damnation (119). The abandonment of the struggle is in essence a rejection of God. Yet, Faust does not abandon the quest. He is saved by the “deeply humming strokes” of a choral song, “the sweet consoling hymn” of the Easter message, “confirming the new covenant” (119). In the resurrection of Christ, “One who victorious / Over laborious / Trials has risen,” Faust sees the possibility of his own resurrection from the brink of death, he sees hope in continuing the struggle (121). But the fact remains, he must keep on going.

The pact that Faust makes with Mephisto parallels this suicidal motif. Should he ever find such complete fulfillment in selfish earthly pursuits that he would “recline, calmed, on a bed of sloth,” Mephisto may “destroy [him] then and there” (183). Nevertheless, in his final moments, Faust declares “As I presage a happiness so high, / I now enjoy the highest moment” (469). Mephisto strikes him down. This belies the context of the exclamation though; Faust does not die anguished and tormented, nor does he turn his back on God. Rather, he recognizes that “Freedom and life are earned by those alone / Who conquer them each day anew” (469). Faust finds joy in the struggle, in understanding his relationship as an individual in society, and as one man in the face of God. There is an overwhelming sense of satisfaction in Faust’s resurrection, so much so, that the tragic sense of ambiguity pervading The First Part of the Tragedy is overshadowed by the “supernal love” and redemption at the conclusion of The Second Part of the Tragedy (493).

Thus, Goethe responds, one may not find tragedy in salvation. The tragic elements of Faust’s story, his apparent desolation, his utter despondency, and the seductive temptation of Mephisto’s promises serve as a motivating force. Although his toils cause suffering, this suffering guides Faust in the right direction. His mistakes create a map for all of humanity. This is not a map that illustrates the Way, for every individual must strive to comprehend their own relation to God. Instead, this map of Faust’s tireless efforts acts to manifest the indefinite number of missteps that result in a course that deviates from God’s path.

All page numbers are in reference to the 1961 English Language Translation by Walter Kaufmann.

Bible Contradictions (idea) by Mod Tue Feb 26 2002 at 18:02:31

linked by iambic

I am going to create a virtual bible. In this bible I shall put:

Assorted Aristotle physics notes.
Assorted Leonardo da Vinci physics notes.
Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis
Albert Einstein's work on the Theory of Relativity
Niels Bohr's work
Stephen Hawking's work
The collected works on Chaos Theory

I'm not sure how big this bible is, but as you can see, its a fairly good representation of how physical things interact with one another. We have two distinct sections here Classical Physics, and Modern Physics. Old and New. Are there contradictions? You bet there are! The most obvious ones are: these:

The book of Newton Chapter 7 verse 1:
"Space and time intervals are absolute and the speed of light is relative"

The book of Einstein Chapter 2 Verse 1:
"The speed of light is absolute, and space and time intervals are relative"

The book of Einstein Chapter 16 Verse 18:
"God does not play dice with the Universe"

The book of Hawking Chapter 2 Verse 1:
"Not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen"

See! Contradictions in the Bible of Physics! Ha! The bible of physics is wrong! Therefore physics is wrong!. How can fools believe in science, when it can't even get its own story straight??

I think you see the point I'm trying to make. Of course the bible has contrary opinions, ideas and events. Not only is it a series of books documenting historical events, but it is also over 40 different people's opinion on the nature of God and His representatives. If the bible had no contradictions in it, I would severely doubt its quality as a source since it would have been obviously compiled by somebody who wanted you to agree with it.

Now one more point, the story of Snow White has changed considerably from its original as it was written hundreds of years ago, and has morphed in each telling. Aesop's Fables change all the time, the teachings of Buddha change depending on what the point of the story is - writings of Basho are translated in a thousand different ways. But in each case, the message is the same, even if previous teachings contradict the current one watch out for those trees, they'll stop you from seeing the wood.

Slow Train Coming (thing) by 18thCandidate Thu Aug 19 2004 at 22:28:39

linked by Lometa

I tried to kill myself twice in my life.

The first time was the day after Thanksgiving, 1993. My parents went out to visit some friends, everyone else was gone, and I sat alone in the house. I no longer wanted to live; I felt like my life had no purpose. I did not believe in anything at all, essentially. I proceeded to swallow somewhere between seventy and eighty Advil and then fell asleep, hoping that I wouldn't wake up. I did, of course; I lay there convinced for the first time in a long time that my life had some sort of purpose. I didn't understand it then; I was still quite proudly an atheist.

The second time was at the end of finals after my fourth semester in college. I failed organic chemistry and I also believed I was about to lose my scholarship. I was becoming the failure I had worked and prayed and hoped for years that I wouldn't become. I ate a very large handful of Valium, washed them down with some absinthe, and drifted off to sleep. I didn't move for thirty six hours, but again I lived through it.

This second attempt was a bit different, however. I had a dream that I was in a giant park where there were thousands of children playing as far as I could see in any direction. A clean-shaven German looking fellow came over and sat down next to me, and somehow I had this sense that the man was Jesus Christ. Without looking at me, he said, "You have a gift inside of you. That gift is going to enable you to touch the lives of all of these children during their lifetimes. Don't give it up because the road isn't easy." With that, he got up and walked away, leaving me to my observations of the children.

I woke up not knowing what to believe. I knew a fair amount about Christianity but before that dream I wasn't convinced that there was even a God, let alone that His Son had come to Earth. I spent a few hours by myself, then I went to visit a friend of mine who was a Christian, someone I trusted very much. I told her what had happened, and she just told me I would have to figure things out myself, but that this might help. She gave me a record. On the weathered, brown paper front, there was a sketch of a train in which workers were laying the tracks. Along the top, it said Slow Train Coming and underneath that, Bob Dylan. I took it home for a listen.

S l o w T r a i n C o m i n g
Bob Dylan goes... Christian?

Release Date: August 20, 1979
Label: Sony
ASIN: B0000025GW

For music, I would say that Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" is the best Christian album ever recorded. I've certainly never written anything that says as much and I'd be most impressed if he ever surpasses it himself. I wish every Christian who likes modern Gospel music would buy a copy of "Slow Train". Then they'd have an idea of what Christian music is capable to communicating.
- Larry Norman

Track Listing

1.  Gotta Serve Somebody                   5:22
2.  Precious Angel                         6:27
3.  I Believe In You                       5:02
4.  Slow Train                             5:55
5.  Gonna Change My Way of Thinking        5:25
6.  Do Right To Me Baby (Do Unto Others)   3:50
7.  When You Gonna Wake Up                 5:25
8.  Man Gave Names To All The Animals      4:23
9.  When He Returns                        4:30

All songs written by Bob Dylan

Gotta Serve Somebody (5:22)

Bob Dylan has guts, I'll give the man that much. He leads a folk revival in the early 1960s, then almost on a dime switches over to electric guitar based rock tunes, then just as quickly swerves into the Nashville sound. For those fans who managed to hang on through the whiplash, he recorded a gem in the mid 1970s, and then...

Well, he became a Christian, and he wasn't afraid to sing about it.

I wasn't a Dylanphile in 1979, so I can't comment on the impact of this album; I was too busy learning where I was supposed to go to the bathroom. But I have seen his performance on Saturday Night Live from that time where the crowd sat in stunned silence, and I've heard a bootleg in which the crowd spends two hours heckling Dylan while he runs through this entire album and some Christian standards.

Regardless of your religious feelings, you have to give the man credit for an unbelievable amount of courage to be willing to stake his near-legendary reputation on a wide expression of his newfound religious faith.

I remember dropping the needle on this album for the first time and laying down on the bed, face down, trying to figure out where in the hell my life should go from here. I closed my eyes and thought of the vision I had while I lay dying, and how I had somehow reawakened from that darkness.

And then Dylan spoke to me, as he had many times before. He spoke to me through Blonde on Blonde when I was struggling with my political perspectives. He spoke to me through Blood on the Tracks when I didn't know how or what to love. And he spoke to me again.

This opening track is deeply infused with a soul music sound, something that comes as a bit of a change of pace for those raised on 1960s Dylan. The female backing vocals evokes some of the great soul records of the '70s, as Dylan takes the moral choices we make on a daily basis and breaks them down. Breaks them down into a choice between right and wrong. Between the devil and the Lord.

Now, you see, there is still a part of me inside that is constantly questioning every aspect of my faith. I hear this, and a part of me screams inside, "Bullshit! Moral issues don't have a black and white! They aren't judged by 'serving the devil' or by 'serving God'!" My response to this is simply one thing: something inside of you tells you what's right or what's wrong. When you consider doing something, you evaluate it: is it the right thing to do, or is it the wrong thing to do? Here, Dylan just poses this question again, putting the devil in the role of the wrong thing, and God in the form of the right thing. By making a choice at all, you're choosing to serve one another.

Leave it up to Dylan to make me start desperately bloviating.

Precious Angel (6:27)

Dylan continues with the rock-soul sound here, aided by the Muscle Shoals players. The fusion of rock, soul, and gospel sounds that Dylan and his backing players are trying to accomplish are perhaps best presented on this track.

Dylan's fan base didn't like this album, for the most part, and it wasn't aided by the fact that he went on tour playing only hymns and songs from this album. People paid good money to see Dylan to hear the oldies; they wanted to hear Like A Rolling Stone or Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts, not an old man raving about his religion. They heckled, they booed, and deservedly so. This was not the Bob Dylan they paid to hear.

One can't help but wonder, however, if any of them actually sat and listened to the lyrics of this song. Sure, the verses are full of Christian apocalyptic imagery, but look past that. What is he saying in the chorus? Shine your light, shine your light on me / You know I just couldn't make it by myself / I'm a little too blind to see

He's spot on, as he usually is. It's a matter of faith, and it takes a leap of faith to get there. You shouldn't believe it if you don't want. He openly states that he didn't just come up with this idea alone, that it took a spiritual leap that he was willing to take. Others might not be.

Dylan sang about the war because of his belief that war was wrong. They cheered him.
Dylan sang about libertarianism because of his belief that people should be free to do what they want. They cheered him.
But when Dylan sang about faith because of his belief, they booed him.
I fail to understand this.

There I was, alone, face down on the bed and I realized that the precious angel had spoken to Dylan just like Jesus had spoken to me in my dying haze. It is up to me to take the hand that is extended, but it's my choice; all someone else can do is advise me.

I Believe In You (5:02)

This track takes a bit of a different turn, cutting down to little else but the barest instrumentation and Dylan's voice, always his voice, carrying things through to the end.

It's all about conviction here; how strongly can you believe in something? In context, the belief is in Jesus Christ, of course, but let's take this song out of context for a moment. Excepting the vague allusions to Christian stories, this song could be about belief in anything.

What do you value as an individual that is enough to lose friendships? What do you believe in strongly enough that you're willing to challenge every other belief you hold because of it? What is the idea at the core of your being right now?

Dylan sings, Don't let me change my heart / keep me set apart / from all the plans they do pursue. Now, how do you read this? My first reaction, I remember, was that Dylan's completely lost it and he's irrationally sticking to his faith and this turned me off; I turned my head and looked at the wall, feeling empty.

But is that what Dylan's trying to say here? It took me a long time to really understand what he's saying, but it's the farthest thing from irrationality. All he's trying to say with this song is that it is fine if your central beliefs change, just don't lose those central beliefs, whatever they might be. Don't follow whatever drummer comes down the street, he says, but he does not say never follow that drummer.

It's not at all irrational; in fact, it's the most rational way one can have a belief. Be willing to challenge your own beliefs, but don't just toss them aside if you find a chink in the armor that you can't resolve immediately.

Dylan is building his case for faith with this album, painting with brush strokes as delicate as any he's ever used.

Slow Train (5:55)

Here, we have a Dylan political song with underlying Christian themes; it's probably the most accessible song in terms of the "traditional" Dylan sound, harkening back to his Blonde on Blonde days. This song builds a bridge between his protest years and his modern faith.

The first thing that many people think of when Christianity and politics intersect is strongly conservative beliefs, like those espoused by Jarry Falwell and Pat Robertson and promoted by groups like the Christian Coalition. But, as with many things, the loudest voices often get the most attention. I am a liberal-bending anti-globalization social libertarian, for example, and based on this song, I think it would be fair to describe Dylan's perspective (at the time, at least) as being much the same.

The lyrics bear this to be true: Man's ego is inflated / his laws are outdated / they don't apply no more; or People starving and thirsting, grain elevators are bursting / oh, you know it costs more to store the food than it do to give it; or maybe All that foreign oil controlling American soil / ... deciding America's future from Amsterdam to Paris. These aren't what I would call modern conservative perspectives in any way. Dylan's stating here, in the midst of a Christian album, that globalism is terrible, that we should invest resources into fighting world hunger, and opposing outdated laws. Is this the conservativism that you attribute to Christianity?

This album doesn't bastardize Dylan's earlier espoused belief structure; instead, it merely gives the beliefs a Christian context. All of the tales and messages that Dylan delivered in the past are being framed here, framed within a religious faith that others might not agree with. But didn't a lot of people disagree with the many things he's stood for over the years?

As I lay there on the bed, trying to sort through things, everything Dylan stated here agreed with what I felt in my heart. People should always be free to follow their own path, and transnational corporations are at least as restrictive as governments. I closed my eyes and let Dylan keep carrying me onwards on this journey.

Gonna Change My Way of Thinking (5:25)

Here we have something that sounds like a southern fried rock song with horns, something you could almost imagine musically being a Lynyrd Skynyrd b-side. Yet Dylan brings it all back home again; here, he almost comes off like a crazed fire-and-brimstone preacher, something that he's done a time or two in the past and would come to again often in his later career.

Neil Young's Southern Man was probably the defining song of my childhood, even though I wasn't truly from the south (just downstate Illinois, a stone's throw from Missouri). I understood what the man meant; the Klan was somewhat active in my childhood area and the bitter stink of racism was everywhere, even driving one of my closest friends out of town. The biggest workers for the Klan were the loudest singers in church each Sunday, or so I was told.

Dylan opens by addressing this very thing, at least to my fragile mind and ears: Gonna change my way of thinking / make myself a different set of rules / gonna put my good foot forward / and stop being influenced by fools. To this point in my life, I felt that by completely deriding Christianity, I was deriding the Klan and all the hatred and malaise that I witnessed over the years, but by doing that, I was just falling into the same social traps as everyone else. A faith in Jesus Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with the lies and venom spouted by people who choose to drape themselves in the cloth.

It is up to me to figure out my own rules and do what's right inside of me, not blindly following what someone else does and someone else thinks. All of the supposed intellectuals who ridiculed the church for being backward and full of bigotry were in fact no different than the bigots they themselves despised. A truly powerful person would hug the bigot on his way out of the church, then hug the person he was bigoted against without skipping a beat. What is love without the ability to show you care for someone even if they disagree with what you believe to be right? The best thing you can do is be an example, not stand around and taunt.

Yet the moment on this album that got me then, and always gets me now, is when Dylan sings the following: I got a God-fearing woman / one I can easily afford / she can do the Georgia crawl / she can walk in the spirit of the Lord.

You see, I married my best friend after dating her for six years. She was a devout Christian when we started dating; I didn't expect that things would work because I assumed that, by being a Christian, she'd "preach" to me all the time. Well, that's not how she worked. She'd just smile at me and say, "Your heart is in the right place; you'll make up your own mind eventually," and she'd take my hand in hers and not say anything else about it.

She didn't need to. Her example as a human being shot every preconception I had about Christianity right in the foot. She'd go to gay rights rallies; she would storm the stage at anti-racism concerts; she made it a point to find out what people from vastly different cultures and religions actually believed, then share what she thought on equal ground. That's nothing like the Christianity I had previously seen or understood.

It was just like Dylan said: Gonna put my good foot forward / and stop being influenced by fools. She lives that every second of her life; I only hope that I can. She was in my heart and in my mind that day as I lay on the bed listening to this record, confused as I could be.

Do Right To Me Baby (Do Unto Others) (3:50)

This is a very mellow, almost jazzy number that somehow evokes a smoky nightclub in my mind. It doesn't come as a surprise that this was the first song Dylan wrote as he was becoming a Christian, as he performed it during his last tour before Slow Train Coming; it has a very tentative feeling throughout it.

The feeling here is summarized right off the bat: Don't wanna judge nobody, don't wanna be judged / don't wanna touch nobody, don't wanna be touched / don't wanna hurt nobody, don't wanna be hurt / don't wanna treat nobody like they was dirt. In essence, this song is about the Golden Rule, which is explicitly stated in the chorus to the song.

Throughout my life, I remember quite often being seen as an outcast among others my age because I had no interest in Christianity whatsoever and, as I got older, I was quite willing to argue vehemently about my atheist perspective, causing my sociology teacher to weep more than once at the rage-filled arguments people would throw at me as I batted away the Christian beliefs they'd held all their lives. "Show me your God," I would calmly ask, even as their blood began to boil and they repeated yet again that it was all a matter of faith.

If I figured out nothing else laying on the bed, listening to this record, I had figured out that such things were a waste of the gift of life. What use is there in ridiculing the belief structure of others to the point of driving them to tears? It gains me absolutely nothing other than a smug sense of superiority and it makes everyone else feel substantially worse, not only about themselves, but about me. In the end, it's a huge net loss; I don't even gain over the long run, even if I enjoyed making someone else hurt.

The golden rule is as simple as morality gets; it's more than a zero sum game, and in the end, that's the fundamental lesson of Jesus. What do you lose by loving someone?

When You Gonna Wake Up (5:25)

This is a driving but still mellow little rock number with some horn section flares and an amusing bridge featuring some keyboarding, demonstrating clearly the Muscle Shoals sound that appears on this album.