144 minutes[1] (Original Italian release)
137 minutes
Country
Italy
France
Language
Italian
French
Juliet of the Spirits (Italian: Giulietta degli spiriti) is a 1965 Italian-French fantasycomedy-drama film directed by Federico Fellini and starring Giulietta Masina, Sandra Milo, Mario Pisu, Valentina Cortese, and Valeska Gert. The film is about the visions, memories, and mysticism of a middle-aged woman that help her find the strength to leave her philandering husband.[2] The film uses “caricatural types and dream situations to represent a psychic landscape.”[3] It was Fellini’s first feature-length color film, but followed his use of color in the The Temptation of Doctor Antonio episode in the portmanteau filmBoccaccio ’70 (1962). Juliet of the Spirits won a Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1966.
Giulietta explores her subconscious and the odd lifestyle of her sexy neighbour, Suzy, as she attempts to deal with her mundane life and her philandering oppressive husband, Giorgio. As she increasingly taps into her desires (and her demons) she slowly gains greater self-awareness leading to independence although, according to Fellini’s wife, the real-life Giulietta, this end result may be interpretable.[4]
Juliet of the Spirits was shot at Cinecittà Studios, Cinecittà, Rome, Lazio, Italy; Fregene, Fiumicino, Rome, Lazio, Italy; and Safa-Palatino, Rome, Lazio, Italy (studio).[6]
Juliet of the Spirits holds an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. In The New York Times, Stephen Holden wrote of a revival in 2001: “Fellini went deliriously and brilliantly bananas with the color to create a rollicking through-the-looking-glass series of tableaus evoking a woman’s troubled psyche.”[8]
Francis Schaeffer below in his film series shows how this film was appealing to “nonreason” to answer our problems.
In the book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Schaeffer notes:
Especially in the sixties the major philosophic statements which received a wide hearing were made through films. These philosophic movies reached many more people than philosophic writings or even painting and literature. Among these films were THE LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD by Alain Resnais (1961), THE SILENCE by Ingmar Bergman (1967), JULIET OF THE SPIRITS by Federico Fellini (1965), BLOW UP by Michelangelo Antonioni (1966), BELLE DE JOUR by Luis Bunuel (1967), and THE HOUR OF THE WOLF by Ingmar Bergman (1967).
They showed pictorially (and with great force) what it is like if man is a machine and also what it is like if man tries to live in the area of non-reason. In the area of non-reason man is left without categories. He has no way to distinguish between right and wrong, or even between what is objectively true as opposed to illusion or fantasy….One could view these films a hundred times and there still would be no way to be sure what was portrayed as objectively true and what was part of a character’s imagination. if people begin only from themselves and really live in a universe in which there is no personal God to speak, they have no final way to be sure of the difference between reality and fantasy or illusion.
But Bergman (like Sartre, Camus, and all the rest) cannot really live with his own position. Therefore in The Silence the background music is Bach’s Goldberg Variations. When he was asked in the filmed interview about music, he said that there is a small holy part of the human being where music speaks. Bergman also said that while he was writing the script for the film SILENCE that he had the music of Bach’s Goldberg Variations playing in his home and the music interfered with that which was being set forth in that film.
A good example is Antonioni’s BLOW UP. The advertisement for the film read: “Murder without guilt, love without meaning.” Antonioni was portraying how, in the area non-reason, there are no certainties concerning moral values, and no human categories either. BLOW UP had no hero. Compare this with Michelangelo’s DAVID–that statement of humanist pride in the Renaissance. Man had set himself up as autonomous, but the end result was not Michelangelo’s DAVID, but Antonioni’s non-hero. All there is in the film is the camera which goes “click, click, click,” and the human has disappeared. The main character snaps pictures of individual things, particulars. One might point out, for example, the models he snaps: all their humanity and meaning are gone.
After a scene in which clowns play tennis without a ball, there is at the end of the film a reverse zoom shot in which the man who is the central character disappears entirely, and all that remains is the grass. Man is gone. Modern people, on their basis of reason, see themselves only as machines. but as they move into the area of non-reason and look for their optimism, they find themselves separated from reason and without any human or moral values (pp. 201-203)
____________________
Francis Schaeffer – How Should We then Live – 07.The Age of Non Reason
Keltie Ferris was born in 1977 in Lexington, Kentucky, and lives and works in New York. Making references to Impressionism and abstract painting as well as Pop art and graffiti—from Matisse and Mondrian to Rauschenberg and Hammons—her large-scale paintings are staunchly analog, despite the ease with which they can be read digitally.
Her investigations into the relationship between her body and the canvas have resulted in signature body prints and emphasize the artist’s fixation with abstraction. Her process for these works—layering images created by pressing her oil-covered body against the canvas surface, and then brushing or spraying pigment onto it—is one of simultaneous concealing and exposing.
“Goo goo ga joob” Where did this phrase in the song I AM THE WALRUS come from? In the blog post, “I Am the Walrus,” I read these words, “Some people speculate that Lennon got these lines from James Joyce’s long poem, Finnegans Wake.”
Like Edgar Allan Poe, James Joyce was in the grips of alcoholism for most of his life and in this same song Lennon sang, “Seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.” Poe died in 1949 as a drunk. As a drunk he probably got kicked around the street as others tried to rob him of whatever belongings he had. Alcoholism and being addicted to drugs are very similar and in the song I AM THE WALRUS we have many references to drugs. When I think of both James Joyce and Edgar Allan Poe the Bible passage that comes to mind is Proverbs 23:29-35.
29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.
35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.
I am going to take a close look at the song I AM THE WALRUS and the drug references in it and then relate it some of the verses from Proverbs 23.
“See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly / I’m crying”
Quick ThoughtIn an interview with Playboy magazine, John Lennon said that this line and the one before it were inspired by two different acid trips.
Deep Thought”The first line was written on one acid trip one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko.” Just as The Beatles were the defining music group of the 1960s, acid (LCD) was the defining drug. The drug induces an altered state of perception in its users, causing distortions in physical, sensory, visual, audio, and thought processes. People sometimes feel colors and hear shapes, becoming almost synesthetic. Fixed objects seem to move or ripple, looking around causes sights to blur or leave a trail (tracers), and dull objects sparkle and shine. Some users claim to have intense religious experiences while tripping on acid. Others say that they enter other dimensions or relive their own birth.
LSD was invented accidentally by a Swedish chemist looking for a blood stimulant. It has since been used experimentally in psychotherapy to bring out repressed memories. The drug has also been used by doctors to elevate patients to a new level of self-awareness, allowing them to recognize problems that they previously denied, such as alcoholism. Although LSD was at first legal for use, it has now been banned in the US and other countries. Of course, that didn’t stop The Beatles and many other young people in the sixties and seventies from experimenting with the drug for recreational purposes. The Beatles openly admit that many of their songs were written at least in part while under the influence of LSD.
“Goo goo ga joob”
Quick ThoughtSome people speculate that Lennon got these lines from James Joyce’s long poem, Finnegans Wake, while others see them as pure gibberish.
Deep Thought James Joyce was a modernist Irish writer who was famous for his works A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses, andDubliners. Some Joyce/Beatles fans have suggested (rather dubiously in our view) that “goo goo ga job” comes from part 557.7 of Finnegans Wake: Here’s the excerpt from Finnegans Wake… watch out for that famous “googoo goosth” or you’ll miss it:
cramp for Hemself and Co, Esquara, or them four hoarsemen on their apolkaloops, Norreys, Soothbys, Yates and Welks, and, galorybit of the sanes in hevel, there was a crick up the stirkiss and when she ruz the cankle to see, galohery, downand she went on her knees to blessersef that were knogging together like milk- juggles as if it was the wrake of the hapspurus or old Kong Gander O’Toole of the Mountains or his googoo goosth she seein, sliving off over the sawdust lobby out ofthe backroom, wan ter, that was everywans in turruns, in his honeymoon trim, holding up his fingerhals, with the clookey in his fisstball, tocher of davy’s, tocher of ivileagh, for her to whisht, you sowbelly, and the whites of his pious eyebulbs swering her to silence and coort;
In our view, the odds that John Lennon actually intended his line as a shout-out to these two obscure words in the middle of this one very long sentence in the middle of a very long and challenging experimental novel are somewhere between slim and none. But it would be kinda cool, if true!
“See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky”
Quick ThoughtThis is, of course, a nod to another Beatles hit, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” from the groundbreaking album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, released a few months before “I Am the Walrus” in 1967.
Deep Thought”Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” is among the most famous of all Beatles songs. Although many fans claim that it is a song about acid (the initials spell out LSD), Lennon told an interviewer that the song is actually inspired by a drawing his son Julian brought home from grammar school:
LENNON: “My son Julian came in one day with a picture he painted about a school friend of his named Lucy. He had sketched in some stars in the sky and called it ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.’ Simple.”
INTERVIEWER: “The other images in the song weren’t drug-inspired?”
LENNON: “The images were from ‘Alice in Wonderland.’ It was Alice in the boat. She is buying an egg and it turns into Humpty Dumpty. The woman serving in the shop turns into a sheep and the next minute they are rowing in a rowing boat somewhere and I was visualizing that. There was also the image of the female who would someday come save me—a ‘girl with kaleidoscope eyes’ who would come out of the sky. It turned out to be Yoko, though I hadn’t met Yoko yet. So maybe it should be ‘Yoko in the Sky with Diamonds.'”
The two Lewis Carroll classics (Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass) were John Lennon’s favorite books of all time. It’s really not surprising that imagery from both books pops up constantly in his songs. Both “I Am the Walrus” and “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” draw heavily from Carroll’s writings. Even more interesting is that Lennon repeats the Humpty Dumpty/Eggman imagery in both songs. Drug-inspired or not, it certainly seems that Lewis Carroll was very much on Lennon’s mind when he penned these lyrics.
The real Lucy who inspired the song, Lucy Richardson, came out to the press 40 years after the song was written explaining that she was, in fact, the girl behind the immortal ballad. Evidently, Julian Lennon had a crush on her in grammar school and actually dedicated several art pieces to her, including the famous picture of the girl surrounded by a starry sky.
“Semolina Pilchard”
Quick ThoughtThis is a reference to Detective Sergeant Norman Pilcher, head of the Scotland Yard Drugs Unit. He was the most-feared drug agent in Britain in the 1960s and had an obsessive craving for the spotlight. Arresting a Beatle on pot charges is a quick way to get your name in many, many newspapers.
Deep ThoughtSergeant Norman Pilcher was the head of one of Britain’s police drug squads in the late sixties. Pilcher wanted to be famous, so he hatched a plan to go after the members of the Beatles one by one. He started with the man he suspected did the most drugs, John Lennon. Lennon and Yoko Ono were tipped off that John was on Pilcher’s hit list, but it was too late. Their flat was stormed by officer/canine units. They were arrested for possession of cannabis resin and obstructing the search warrant. John was told that Yoko, who was pregnant, would be let off the hook if he pleaded guilty. So he did so and they were released. Tragically, Yoko had to be immediately rushed to the hospital, where she had a miscarriage. John later told the press that the whole thing was set up by Pilcher as a media ploy for good photo ops. The news stations were at the flat before the police even got there! When John pleaded guilty, Pilcher told him, ”Well, we’ve got it now. So it’s nothing personal …” The picture on the back of the jacket of the album Unfinished Music No. 2 — Life with the Lions is of John and Yoko as they were being dragged out of the police station. Lennon also explained that Jimi Hendrix, who’d owned the same flat before them, had left piles of drugs when he moved out. John had tried to clean up the drugs when he found out about the raid. Apparently, he wasn’t quite thorough enough, hence the incriminating resin.
“Seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe”
Quick ThoughtEdgar Allan Poe was a very famous American writer of short stories and poetry who lived during the 1800s. He was well-known for his dark, penetratingly creepy tales.
Adrian Rogers in his sermon THE BATTLE OF THE BOTTLE notes the following:
There is the sorrow factor. There’s also the contention factor. Verse 29 says, “Who has contention?” Now, the word contention means warfare, disagreement, strife, enmity. Anybody who has done any counseling, or anybody who has lived in this world of ours, knows that voice that comes out of the mouth of the bottle. Strife comes from the bottle. Arguments come from the bottle. Violence comes from the bottle. Murder comes from the bottle. As a matter of fact, Time Magazine reported that one-half of all murders are alcohol related, one half of all murders are alcohol related. Eighty percent according to statisticians, eighty percent of all crime is alcohol involved, eighty percent of all crime.
A former ambassador and congressman, Claire Booth Luce, writing on crime in U.S. News and World Report said this, “Assuming that the present growth rate of crime, alcoholism, drug taking, and commercial sex persist in 1996, America by then will be the most drunken, drug-soaked, sex-ridden, and criminal society on earth.” And yet we’re spending $600 million a year telling people, “Just drink it, drink it, drink it.”
There is the contention factor, then there’s the foolishness factor. Look again in verse 29. “Who hath babbling?” What does this babbling refer to? Have you ever listened to a drunk talk? Wouldn’t it be good if you could just video tape people and make them watch themselves later on? Wouldn’t they be ashamed of their babbling? Shakespeare said, “What fools men are to put that in their mouths that which will steal their brains away.” The foolishness factor, nothing else, just the sheer foolishness of it.
But there’s the mutilation and death factor. Look in verse 29. “Who hath wounds without a cause?” Now, pay attention. This year in America, 200,000 Americans will die as the direct result of beverage alcohol. Did that register? Did that register? Two hundred thousand will have wounds without a cause, 200,000. Now you think for a moment. We talk about the atomic bomb, and we have those people who are trying to ban the bomb and the anti-nuclear movement and so forth. We dropped those bombs on Nagasaki. We dropped those bombs or that bomb on Hiroshima. In Hiroshima, 80,000 died; 80,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima. Nagasaki, 35,000 died. Well, I want to tell you, we have the equivalent of two Hiroshimas and one Nagasaki every year in America, every year. I mean, we’re still talking about what that bomb did. I’m telling you every year in America and the bomb that’s dropped on us, we still promote it. We still laugh about it. We still drink it. It’s still featured on television.
Now, listen, people demonstrate against the Vietnam War. They said, “Well, we lost so many American boys.” In 9 years, do you know how many boys we lost? Fifty seven thousand boys, tragic indeed, in nine years, and every one of them precious to God and precious to us. But I want to tell you at the same period of time when 57,000 lost their lives in Vietnam, 2 million lost their lives here at home from King Alcohol. Where is Jane Fonda when we really need her? Huh? Where is Ralph Nader? I’d love to see Ralph Nader get on the alcohol kick, wouldn’t you? Huh? Where are these people? I mean, I’m talking about 2 million people in nine years whose lives are snuffed out. Who has wounds without cause? This year 50,000 will die in traffic-related automobile accidents, about fifty thousand fatalities. One-half of those will be alcohol-related.
Now, dear friend, if there was something else that were doing this, there’d be telethons and talkathons and radiothons and there would be societies against it. Politicians would run on a platform to do something against it, but we don’t do anything about it, no. Because we’re deceived thereby. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Did you know that this week, as in every week, 400 Americans will die, 400 Americans will die because of alcohol, this week. Now, that’s about as many as can fly on a 747, a great big airplane. Suppose every week in America a 747 went down with four hundred people on it. Do you think somebody would organize to do something about it? I mean, every week a 747, there goes another one, and 400 more, 400 more killed. We don’t do a thing about it. We don’t do a thing about it. I mean, I want to tell you, the liquor people have sold us a bill of goods, haven’t they?
I want to tell you, the breweries, they are racking it in; they are bringing it in. There is the destruction factor, rules without a cause. I’ll tell you there’s another factor when we’re talking about the misery of the bottle, it’s the mental anguish factor. Verse 29 speaks of redness of eyes. He’s talking there about weeping. He’s talking there about anguish. He’s talking there about sorrow – unmitigated horror and sorrow come. These people are doing this to have a good time. Friend, when I have a good time I want to know about it the next day. I don’t want to have red eyes. The Bible says, “The blessing of the Lord, it maketh full and bringeth no sorrow with it.” May I give you a loose translation? I can have a good time being a Christian without a hangover. “The blessing of the Lord, it maketh full and addeth no sorrow with it.” Red eyes, white liver, dark brown breath, a yellow streak, a blue outlook.
There is the sorrow factor, the mental anguish factor, then there’s the health factor. Look again if you will in verses 31 and 32 of this chapter. “Look not thou upon the wine; when it is red it giveth its color in the cup, when it moves itself aright.” Look in verse 32, “At the last it biteth like a serpent and stings like an adder.” Now, what’s so bad about the serpent’s bite? He’s just got little teeth. What’s so bad about it? It’s what’s in the serpent’s bite, which is what? Poison, poison. Have you ever thought about the word intoxicated? Have you ever thought about that word? Do you know what toxic is? Do you know what toxic means? What? What is toxic? Poison! So if a man is intoxicated, he is what? Poisoned. You see, what people are doing is poisoning themselves. When a man is drunk he is poisoning himself. Have you ever thought why a man throws up when he gets drunk?
Because it’s poison, he’s got more sense in his stomach than he has in his head. His stomach says, “Hey, that’s poison, that’s poison.” He’s poisoning himself. I mean, we’re selling poison. It’s a narcotic. It affects the liver. It affects the heart. It affects the mind. It affects the muscles. It affects the digestion. People are literally poisoning themselves, and it is a major health factor in the United States.
Now, there are people who tell us alcoholism is a disease. No, it’s a sickness, not a disease. So, what’s the difference? Friend, we’re not in the habit of putting diseases in the bottles and advertising them and selling them across the counter and so forth. No, man, he’s sick, he is very sick, but dear friend, don’t call it a disease. It’s not like diphtheria. It’s not like polio. It’s not like some other kind of a disease. No, no, no, no, it is a sickness but it is a self-inflicted sickness that a person has poisoned himself, he has poisoned himself. “It bites like a serpent, it stings like an adder” – there’s the misery factor and yet, we’re told to drink it.
There’s the health factor. There’s the immorality factor. Look if you will in verse 33. “Thine eyes shall behold strange women.” Now, what does he mean by strange women? Does it mean she’s funny looking? No, no, no, no, look in verse 27. “For a whore is a deep ditch and a strange women is a narrow pit.” He’s talking about immorality. When a person drinks, restraint is taken away. Somebody made this little couplet, this little poem, Audrey Nash, I believe: Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker. Do you know what he meant by that? If you want to seduce a woman, use liquor. We all know that liquor removes restraint. Do you know what the brewer will say? The brewer and the beer barren and the distiller will say, “Now look, we don’t cause people to steal. We don’t cause people to kill. We don’t cause people to be reckless. We don’t cause people to commit immorality. We don’t cause that, alcohol doesn’t cause that, that was already in them.” I couldn’t agree more.
But you see, God has given something called restraint that is built into us. It is the alcohol that removes that restraint. It is the alcohol that removes and blurs the distinction between that which is right and that which is wrong and numbs that part of the brain and the conscience so that people will do that. But they ought to have restraints against them, to not do it, so they will kill and rape and maim and murder and steal and lie. The immorality factor. God only knows the homes that have been broken because of the immorality that has been brought about by someone whose inhibitions have been broken down through this thing called liquor.
(Francis Schaeffer below)
Francis Schaeffer while discussing THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES and Solomon’s view of life UNDER THE SUN noted that alcohol does not bring satisfaction to people and he uses Ernest Hemingway as an example:
In Ecclesiastes 1:8 he drives this home when he states, “All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing.” Solomon is stating here the fact that there is no final satisfaction because you don’t get to the end of the thing. THERE IS NO FINAL SATISFACTION. This is related to Leonardo da Vinci’s similar search for universals and then meaning in life.
In Ecclesiastes 5:11 Solomon again pursues this theme, “When good things increase, those who consume them increase. So what is the advantage to their owners except to look on?” Doesn’t that sound modern? It is as modern as this evening. Solomon here is stating the fact there is no reaching completion in anything and this is the reason there is no final satisfaction. There is simply no place to stop. It is impossible when laying up wealth for oneself when to stop. It is impossible to have the satisfaction of completion. What do you do and the answer is to get drunk and this was not thought of in the RUBAIYAT OF OMAR KAHAYYAM:
Ecclesiastes 2:1-3
I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy yourself.” And behold, it too was futility. 2 I said of laughter, “It is madness,” and of pleasure, “What does it accomplish?” 3 I explored with my mind how to stimulate my body with wine while my mind was guiding me wisely, and how to take hold of folly, until I could see what good there is for the sons of men to do under heaven the few years of their lives.
You know, my Friends, with what a brave Carouse I made a Second Marriage in my house; Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed, And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse.
from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Translation by Edward Fitzgerald)
A perfectly good philosophy coming out of Islam, but Solomon is not the first man that thought of it nor the last. In light of what has been presented by Solomon is the solution just to get intoxicated and black the think out? So many people have taken to alcohol and the dope which so often follows in our day. This approach is incomplete, temporary and immature. Papa Hemingway can find the champagne of Paris sufficient for a time, but one he left his youth he never found it sufficient again. He had a lifetime spent looking back to Paris and that champagne and never finding it enough. It is no solution and Solomon says so too.
James Joyce is hiding in the Beatles’ Sgt Pepper album cover!
Whose is the face hiding below Bob Dylan?
It’s James Joyce! Apparently, in the original test photos for the shoot captured the images at different angles, and you can see his whole face (bottom right).
Francis Schaeffer’s favorite album was SGT. PEPPER”S and he said of the album “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” (at the 14 minute point in episode 7 of HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? )
How Should We Then Live – Episode Seven – 07 – Portuguese Subtitles
Jeffrey with his picture of the front at Looe in Cornwall
Lancashire rock star Jeffrey Hammond is back home and about to reveal his hidden talent for art. But first, he spoke exclusively to Barbara Waite
Pleasure Beach Ramp is titled Shellfish Jeans: Evolution in Revolution
For a man who has played the world’s biggest venues as bass guitarist with 1970s prog rock giants Jethro Tull, Jeffrey Hammond is a surprisingly private man. In his second career as an artist he has studiously avoided the limelight and only close friends and relatives have ever seen his paintings – until now.
Lancashire Life was given an exclusive interview and the chance to see his works ahead of his first ever exhibition, to be held on the Fylde this month. It fulfils a promise to his late partner Tess who wanted him to share his distinctive paintings with a wider audience.
It is another important milestone in Jeffrey’s life. Born is Blackpool, he has come back to Lancashire where he grew up in a boarding house run by his parents in the shadow of the famous Tower.
He lived the rock star life from 1971-1975 and it all started with a chance encounter at Blackpool Grammar School. A fellow student, Ian Anderson, who had never spoken to him before said: ‘You look like a musician? What do you play?’ It was the start of a friendship that survives to this day.
The Lowry Centre is titled The bridge across communities
Ian and another student John Evans wanted to form a group and invited Jeffrey to go with them to see Johnny Breeze and the Atlantics at their local youth club. Watching as the bass player was being mobbed by girls, Jeffrey agreed to be the be group’s bass guitarist despite having no musical training. So it was music, not art, that became the consuming passion during his last years at school.
The group – then known as The Blades – practised in the front room of at John’s mother’s home. ‘We made a horrible racket but in time we progressed from the youth club to doing gigs at workingmen’s clubs in Fleetwood and throughout the Fylde eventually going further afield to Nottingham, Newcastle and Manchester,’ said Jeffrey.
With the repetition of the repertoire the early excitement waned for Jeffrey and he re-took Art A level and joined an art foundation course at Blackpool Tech while his friends kept playing and moved to London.
His tutor suggested he do a painting course, so to apply for college he had to produce a work as part of his portfolio. His picture of a midwife holding a newly-born baby was, in his words, ‘not good’ and, even after it was improved a bit by his tutor, it was still rejected. That meant he could stay in Blackpool. ‘I was thrilled to bits that I would be able stay.’
This view of Bowness is actually titled Queuing for relaxation
From an early age, Jeffrey knew he wanted to express himself but had no real idea how to go about it. Luck was on his side and he took up a place at Central St Martins College in London when one of the students dropped out.
Still feeling unsure about the move, he was persuaded by his tutor to go but ‘felt like a fish out of water’ for almost all of the three-year course. ‘The other 19 student already felt themselves to be artists, but I had no sense of direction and learned mostly from a fellow student who is still a good friend to this day.
‘It was not an auspicious start to a career, but during the last six months I felt I was getting somewhere – had found the “something” I was looking for. But what to do next?’
Fate intervened again. After failing an interview to get on a Royal Academy course and with Ian and John’s band – now called Jethro Tull – started taking off, they asked him to house-sit and do some decorating – painting of a different kind – while they toured in America.
On their return he was told: ‘You’re joining the band.’ So within a couple of months he found himself working on the hit album Aqualung and touring Scandinavia. ‘I thought I might last a month, but they were all good musicians and helped me through.’
Adopting the name Hammond-Hammond as a joke – adding in his mother’s surname before she married – he started wearing a black and white striped suit and played a matching guitar – his trademark look and a feature of staged performances of the album, Thick as a Brick.
‘It was fabulously exciting touring the world and I enjoyed it for five years, but inside I knew I wanted to paint – to learn to paint.And that’s what I have been doing all these years. Learning.
‘That stage of my life ended abruptly. I just blurted it out at a business meeting that I was leaving with no previous intention of saying it. It wasn’t the best way to handle it, but the band accepted my decision and moved on.’
By this time Jeffrey had married Mahmaz, an Iranian princess distantly related to the Shah of Persia, and the best friend of Ian Anderson’s wife. Together they set up home in Gloucestershire in a beautiful house with land which Jeffrey developed over the happy years they spent there.
He started painting, though his first attempt at a watercolour of the local view was abandoned. Initially, 90 per cent of his time was spent on the 11 acres of gardens but gradually art took the lion’s share of his time.
The couple travelled extensively, to Iran, Europe and America all documented in Jeffrey’s detailed paintings to give a narrative to their trips.
‘It took me a long while to get used to the slower pace of life after the hectic days of the band. Getting close to nature helped, but I wanted to centre myself and I knew I had to begin the long struggle to learn to paint something meaningful.
‘I started with still life where you have absolute control over everything. I was in the very fortunate position of not having to sell my works so I could develop my ideas exactly how I wanted to. I was very privileged.
‘I had to work hard to achieve the painting style I now have. I didn’t have natural talent and I wanted – still want – each painting to be a challenge, to seize a special moment, to tell a story.
Mahmaz, who came to this country to study at boarding school, was interested in the arts, but more theatre and literature and from their base they were ideally place to visit the RSC in Stratford, theatre in Malvern and Bristol, and Welsh National Opera in Cardiff.
Her untimely death and their son’s decision to move to London forced Jeffrey into another big decision. The house they’d both loved was too big for one – it was time to uproot and start again. ‘It was a huge wrench to leave, but I knew I had to do it.’
He had missed living by the seaside, so travelled from Bognor Regis around the coast right up to Anglesey to try and find a home that felt right, but without success. That is until he returned to the Fylde coast he had loved as a boy, setting up home near to his mother.
Painting in his studio, Jeffrey uses photographs of subjects he has taken which suggest a storyline to him. ‘The photographs are essentially an aide-memoire being unable to paint on the spot for the months it takes me to complete each painting.
‘At a certain point the real painting takes over and I no longer look at the photographs, as the picture is well on the way to becoming an autonomous entity and happily has a life of its own.
‘Each picture I paint demands a fresh approach. It is a matter of instinct and feeling to try to achieve what I want, technical aspects being subservient to that. I don’t take myself too seriously, but I do take painting seriously and hope some of the intended humour is seen.’ A good example of that is the fact he often paints himself in the crowd. Look closely and you might spot him.
‘To use a musical analogy I have been trying to write symphonies or operas rather than three-minute songs; a desire to have the space and time to give to a full narrative,’ he added.
While the painting has been an ever-present in his life there have been reminders of the rock stars days. Seven years ago group leader Ian Anderson travelled to Blackpool to unveil a plaque presented by the Performing Rights Society for Music, commemorating the debut gig of his first band The Blades.
Jeffrey, joined by early fans, attended the ceremony as the plaque was unveiled at Holy Family Church Hall, Links Road, North Shore – life coming full circle.
It was a poignant evening for Jeffrey who had found happiness with a new partner Tess, and his assured paintings show an impressive mastery that he would have hardly imagined during those early music days.
She pressed Jeffrey to organise a public showing of his work as she felt people should see his paintings, but unfortunately she died before the exhibition was organised.
It is her legacy that a small selection of his work is now going on show at the Fylde Gallery in Lytham Booths from November 3 for four weeks. He’s called it ‘All the world’s a stage’ a quote from Shakespeare’s As You Like It. He is certainly a man who has played many parts in his time.
Tull factfile
Ian Anderson, flautist and songwriter, lives in the south of England and is still recording and touring under his own name.
John Evan (correct), keyboards, had his own construction company after he left the band and now lives in Australia.
Barrie Barlow, drummer, worked with Robert Plant and Jimmy page after the band broke up and is still involved in music.
Jeffrey played on Aqualung (1971),Thick as a Brick and Living in the Past (1972), A Passion Play (1973), War Child (1974), Minstrel in the Gallery (1975)
Jeffrey Hammond (born 30 July 1946) sometimes credited as Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond, is an artist, musician, and former bass guitar player for the progressive rock band Jethro Tull.[1]
Hammond adopted the name “Hammond-Hammond” as a joke, since both his father’s name and mother’s maiden name were the same.[2] He also joked in interviews that his mother defiantly chose to keep her maiden name, just like Eleanor Roosevelt.
One of several band members from Blackpool, England, he met band leader Ian Anderson in school when he was 17 years old, eventually joining a band with Anderson and future Jethro Tull members John Evan and Barriemore Barlow. After leaving Grammar School, he opted to study painting rather than continue with music, but he was convinced to join Jethro Tull in January 1971. Before joining the band as a performer, Hammond appears to have spent much time with the band in the background. Ian Anderson wrote songs about his friend’s idiosyncrasies, of which the best known are “A Song for Jeffrey” (This Was), “Jeffrey Goes to Leicester Square” (Stand Up) and “For Michael Collins, Jeffrey and Me” (Benefit). Introducing the first song, in the days before Hammond joined the band, Anderson would portray him in slightly condescending terms as someone with emotional problems who lost his way easily, as described in the first line of the song. His eventual appearance as a band member, therefore, was something of a surprise.[citation needed] Hammond is also namechecked in the lyrics of the Benefit track, “Inside”.
Hammond is credited with creating the “claghorn”, a hybrid instrument. He took the mouthpiece and bell from a toy saxophone and attached them to the body of a flute. The result can be heard on the track “Dharma for One” on the album This Was.
During the time of Tull’s dramatic stage costumes, Jeffrey started wearing a black and white striped suit and played a matching bass guitar, and this became his trademark and a feature of Tull’s Thick as a Brick stage performance. Hammond narrated the surreal piece “The Story of the Hare Who Lost His Spectacles” on the album A Passion Play, and the related short film. He also received credit, along with Anderson and John Evan, for writing the piece.
Hammond burned the suit in December 1975 upon his departure from the band.[3] According to Ian Anderson’s sleevenotes for the 2002 reissue of Tull’s Minstrel in the Gallery, Hammond “returned to his first love, painting, and put down his bass guitar, never to play again.”[4] Hammond’s replacement as bass player was John Glascock, a professional musician.
He made one last attempt to re-join Jethro Tull in the mid-80’s, as told by Ian Anderson during Alan Freeman’s Friday Rock Show in March 1988, while providing comments for the broadcast of Tull’s show at Hammersmith Odeon which Capital Radio was airing. According to Anderson, “Jeffrey was almost about to re-join the band”, but despite one audition being made with the band, the bass player declared himself unable to play the rather difficult music of Jethro Tull and decided to give up.
Hammond attended Jethro Tull’s 25th anniversary reunion party in 1994. He participated in an interview, along with Ian Anderson and Martin Barre, that was featured as a bonus track on the 1997 reissue of Thick as a Brick.
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
__
Quote from Bertrand Russell:
Q: Why are you not a Christian?Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true._
630 × 372Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Francis Schaeffer noted concerning the IMPLICIT FAITH of Bertrand Russell:I was lecturing at the University of St. Andrews one night and someone put forth the question, “If Christianity is so clear and reasonable then why doesn’t Bertrand Russell then become a Christian? Is it because he hasn’t discovered theology?”It wasn’t a matter of studying theology that was involved but rather that he had too much faith. I was surrounded by humanists and you could hear the gasps. Bertrand Russell and faith; Isn’t this the man of reason? I pointed out that this is a man of high orthodoxy who will hold his IMPLICIT FAITH on the basis of his presuppositions no matter how many times he has to zig and zag because it doesn’t conform to the facts.You must understand what the term IMPLICIT FAITH means. In the old Roman Catholic Church when someone who became a Roman Catholic they had to promise implicit faith. That meant that you not only had to believe everything that Roman Catholic Church taught then but also everything it would teach in the future. It seems to me this is the kind of faith that these people have in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system and they have accepted it no matter what it leads them into. I think that these men are men of a high level of IMPLICIT FAITH in their own set of presuppositions. Paul said (in Romans Chapter One) they won’t carry it to it’s logical conclusion even though they hold a great deal of the truth and they have revolted and they have set up a series of universals in themselves which they won’t transgress no matter if they conform to the facts or not.Here below is the Romans passage that Schaeffer is referring to and verse 19 refers to what Schaeffer calls “the mannishness of man” and verse 20 refers to Schaeffer’s other point which is “the universe and it’s form.”Romans 1:18-20 Amplified Bible :18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative. 19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].We can actually see the two points makes playing themselves out in Bertrand Russell’s own life.
1135 × 600Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
[From a letter dated August 11, 1918 to Miss Rinder when Russell was 46]It is so with all who spend their lives in the quest of something elusive, and yet omnipresent, and at once subtle and infinite. One seeks it in music, and the sea, and sunsets; at times I have seemed very near it in crowds when I have been feeling strongly what they were feeling; one seeks it in love above all. But if one lets oneself imagine one has found it, some cruel irony is sure to come and show one that it is not really found. The outcome is that one is a ghost, floating through the world without any real contact. Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God and to refuse to enter into any earthly communion—at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd isn’t it? I care passionately for this world, and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted—some ghost, from some extra-mundane region, seems always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand the message.There was evidence during Bertrand Russell’s own life that indicated that the Bible was true and could be trusted.Archaeology Verifies the Bible as God’s WordSir William RamsayDefends the New TestamentChapter 2Sir William Ramsay, an atheist and the son of atheists, tried to disprove the Bible. He was a wealthy person who had graduated from the prestigious University of Oxford. Like Albright, Ramsay studied under the famous liberal German historical school in the mid-nineteenth century. Esteemed for its scholarship, this school also taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. As an anti-Semitic move, this would totally eradicate the Nation of Israel from history.With this premise, Ramsay devoted his whole life to archaeology and determined that he would disprove the Bible.He set out for the Holy Land and decided to disprove the book of Acts. After 25 or more years (he had released book after book during this time), he was incredibly impressed by the accuracy of Luke in his writings finally declaring that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy’ . . . ‘this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians’ . . . ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence as well as correct titles to government officials in various areas: Thessalonica, politarchs; Ephesus, temple wardens; Cyprus, proconsul; and Malta, the first man of the island. The two books, the Gospel of Luke and book of Acts, that Luke has authored remain accurate documents of history. Ramsay stated, “This author [Luke] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”Finally, in one of his books Ramsay shocked the entire intellectual world by declaring himself to be a Christian. Numerous other archaeologists have had similar experiences. Having set out to show the Bible false, they themselves have been proven false and, as a consequence, have accepted Christ as Lord.In an outstanding academic career, Ramsay was honored with doctorates from nine universities and eventually knighted for his contributions to modern scholarship. Several of his works on New Testament history are considered classics. When confronted with the evidence of years of travel and study, Sir William Ramsay learned what many others before him and since have been forced to acknowledge: When we objectively examine the evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and veracity, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Bible is true.Later Archaeologists Confirm Ramsay
New Testament
Higher Criticism
Archaeology Verifies the Bible
Luke 3:1
In Luke’s announcement of Jesus’ public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions, “Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene.”
Scholars questioned Luke’s credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 B.C.
However, an inscription dating to be in the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14-37 A.D., was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the “tetrarch of Abila” near Damascus. This matches well with Luke’s account.
Acts 18:12-17
In Acts 18:12-17, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea.
At Delphi an inscription of a letter from Emperor Claudius was discovered. In it he states, “Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . .”
Historians date the inscription to 52 A.D., which corresponds to the time of the apostle’s stay in 51.
Acts 19:22 and
Romans 16:23
In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer.Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads, “Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense.”The pavement was laid in 50 A.D. The designation of treasurer describes the work of a Corinthian aedile.Acts 28:7In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, “first man of the island.”Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical.Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed gives Plubius the title of “first man.” In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error.A.N. Sherwin-White states, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”Here is some below:
TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnotes #97 and #98) written by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop
A common assumption among liberal scholars is that because the Gospels are theologically motivated writings–which they are–they cannot also be historically accurate. In other words, because Luke, say (when he wrote the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts), was convinced of the deity of Christ, this influenced his work to the point where it ceased to be reliable as a historical account. The assumption that a writing cannot be both historical and theological is false.The experience of the famous classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay illustrates this well. When he began his pioneer work of exploration in Asia Minor, he accepted the view then current among the Tubingen scholars of his day that the Book of Acts was written long after the events in Paul’s life and was therefore historically inaccurate. However, his travels and discoveries increasingly forced upon his mind a totally different picture, and he became convinced that Acts was minutely accurate in many details which could be checked.Related posts:
Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto: Gareth Stedman […]
Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]
______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]
THE MORAL ARGUMENT BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]
Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]
Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]
Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]
THE MORAL ARGUMENT BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]
Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]
I have read over 40 autobiographies by ROCKERS and it seems to me that almost every one of those books can be reduced to 4 points. Once fame hit me then I became hooked on drugs. Next I became an alcoholic (or may have been hooked on both at same time). Thirdly, I chased the skirts and thought happiness would be found through more sex with more women. Finally, in my old age I have found being faithful to my wife and getting over addictions has led to happiness like I never knew before. (Almost every autobiography I have read from rockers has these points in it although Steven Tyler is still chasing the skirts!!).
Keith Richards wrote a great autobiography and it fits this scheme discussed above. The interesting thing about his life is that his wife and two daughters have become born again Christians and it is okay with him although he doesn’t want them to evangelize him!!!!
__________
Johnny Cash Video, mailed 4-30-16,
Sean Michel singing GOD’S GONNA CUT YOU DOWN on American Idol
Johnny Cash with Billy Graham
Keith Richards in Johnny Cash’s music video GOD’S GONNA CUT YOU DOWN
L to R: Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash
Johnny Cash Mug Shot El Paso 1965
__
April 30, 2016
Keith Richards
Dear Keith,
You and I have something in common and it is the song GOD’S GONNA CUT YOU DOWN. You were in the video and my post about that video entitled, People in the Johnny Cash video “God’s Gonna Cut You Down” is the most popular post I have done in recent years. It ranked #1 for all of 2015 and I have over 1,000,000 hits on my http://www.thedailyhatch.org blog site. The ironic thing is that I never knew what a big deal Johnny Cash was until he had died. I grew up in Memphis with his nephew Paul Garrett and we even went to the same school and church. Paul’s mother was Johnny Cash’s sister Margaret Louise Garrett.
I have a good friend in Little Rock named Sean Michel and Wikipedia reports: “Musician Sean Michel covered the song GOD’S GONNA CUT YOU DOWN during his audition on Season 6 of American Idol.” You can check out on You Tube by searching for SEAN MICHEL AMERICAN IDOL PERFORMANCE. It has almost 600,000 views already.
Stu Carnall, an early tour manager for Johnny Cash, recalled, “Johnny’s an individualist, and he’s a loner….We’d be on the road for weeks at a time, staying at motels and hotels along the way. While the other members of the troupe would sleep in, Johnny would disappear for a few hours. When he returned, if anyone asked where he’d been, he’d answer straight faced, ‘to church.'”
There were two sides to Johnny Cash and he expressed that best when he said, “There is a spiritual side to me that goes real deep, but I confess right up front that I’m the biggest sinner of them all.”
Have you ever taken the time to read the words of the song?
You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler,
The gambler,
The back biter
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut ’em down
Tell ’em that God’s gonna cut ’em down
Well my goodness gracious let me tell you the news
My head’s been wet with the midnight dew
I’ve been down on bended knee talkin’ to the man from Galilee
He spoke to me in the voice so sweet
I thought I heard the shuffle of the angel’s feet
He called my name and my heart stood still
When he said, “John go do My will!”
Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin’ in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What’s down in the dark will be brought to the light
You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
___
Johnny Cash sang this song of Judgment because he knew the Bible says in Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.” The first part of this verse is about the judgment sinners must face if not pardoned, but the second part is about Christ who paid our sin debt!!! Did you know that Romans 6:23 is part of what we call the Roman Road to Christ. Here is how it goes:
Because of our sin, we are separated from God. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
The Penalty for our sin is death. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.(Romans 6:23)
The penalty for our sin was paid by Jesus Christ! But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
If we repent of our sin, then confess and trust Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we will be saved from our sins! For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13) …if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9,10)
PS:If one repents and puts trust in Christ alone for eternal life then he or she will be forgiven. Francis Schaeffer noted, “If Satan tempts you to worry over it, rebuff him by saying I AM FORGIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE WORK OF CHRIST AS HE DIED ON THE CROSS!!!”
Little One – From the Film, “Sarah’s Choice” Rebecca St James on faith and values – theDove.us Sarah’s Choice Trailer Sarah’s Choice – Behind the Scenes Rebecca St. James on Sarah’s Choice – CBN.com Rebecca St James Interview on Real Videos Sarah’s Choice – The Proposal Sarahs Choice Pregnancy Test Sarahs Choice Crossroad Sarah’s Choice […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Lion – Rebecca St. James I will praise You – Rebecca St James Rebecca St James 1995 TBN – Everything I Do Rebecca St. James & Rachel Scott “Blessed Be Your Name” Rebecca St. James From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rebecca St. James St. James in 2007 Background information Birth name Rebecca Jean Smallbone Also […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Foster The People – Pumped up Kicks Foster the People From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Foster the People Foster the People at the 2011 MuchMusic Video Awards, from left to right: Pontius, Foster, and Fink Background information Origin Los Angeles, California, U.S. Genres Indie pop alternative rock indietronica alternative dance neo-psychedelia[1] Years active 2009–present Labels […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
‘Apple gave me advice’: Coldplay’s Chris Martin turned to 11-year-old daughter for words of wisdom ahead of Superbowl 50 By DAILYMAIL.COM REPORTER PUBLISHED: 00:58 EST, 2 February 2016 | UPDATED: 17:20 EST, 2 February 2016 n Facebook They’ve sold 80 million records and been around for 20 years. But Coldplay’s lead singer Chris Martin, 38, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
__________ Chris Martin, Lead Singer of Coldplay: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know Published 3:44 pm EDT, February 7, 2016 Updated 3:44 pm EDT, February 7, 2016 Comment By Lauren Weigle 17.6k (Getty) Chris Martin has been the front-man of the band Coldplay for about 20 years, though the band changed its name a […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 13 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 12 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 11 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 10 more on Album “Only Visiting This Planet” I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
One of my early influences as a Christian artist was Francis Schaeffer. His book, Art and the Bible, is excellent. Here is just a short excerpt from this book:
“Christianity is not just “dogmatically” true or “doctrinally” true. Rather, it is true to what is there, true in the whole area of the whole man in all of life.
The ancients were afraid that if they went to the end of the earth, they would fall off and be consumed by dragons. But once we understand that Christianity is true to what is there, including true to the ultimate environment — the infinite, personal God who is really there — then our minds are freed. We can pursue any question and can be sure that we will not fall off the end of the earth. Such an attitude will give our Christianity a strength that is often does not seem to have at the present time.
But there is another side to the Lordship of Christ, and this involves the total culture — including the area of creativity. Again, evangelical or biblical Christianity has been weak at this point. About all that we have produced is a very romantic Sunday school art.
We do not seem to understand that the arts too are supposed to be under the Lordship of Christ.
I have frequently quoted a statement from Francis Bacon, who was one of the first of the modern scientists and who believed in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system. He, along with other men like Copernicus and Galileo, believed that because the world had been created by a reasonable God, they could therefore pursue the truth concerning the universe by reason. There is much, of course, in Francis Bacon with which I would disagree, but one of the statements which I love to quote is this: “Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences.” How I wish that evangelical Christians in the United States and Britain and across the world had had this vision for the last fifty years!
The arts and the sciences do have a place in the Christian life — they are not peripheral. For a Christian, redeemed by the work of Christ and living within the norms of Scripture and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Lordship of Christ should include an interest in the arts. A Christian should use these arts to the glory of God — not just as tracts, but as things of beauty to the praise of God. And art work can be a doxology in itself.”
Abstract art: Sir Paul started painting when he was 40
The first UK exhibition of Sir Paul McCartney’s art work has opened in Bristol.The 58-year-old singer has been painting since he was 40, but he has only exhibited his work once before, in Germany last year.Featuring a selection of the 500 canvasses he has painted, the exhibition, at the Arnolfini Gallery, coincides with the publication of a book on his art.Speaking on the eve of the exhibition’s opening, Sir Paul said he had always wanted to be an artist, and felt he had missed out on formal training in his teenage years.”I always liked drawing as a kid and I liked the idea of painting but I felt there was some sort of reason why I shouldn’t, because I hadn’t been trained, because I hadn’t been to art college, because I was just a working class person,” he said.Abstract art
Sir Paul recounted how a conversation with US artist Willem de Kooning prompted him to pick up palette and brushes.
Willem de Kooning, abstract artist who inspired Sir Paul, died in 1997
While looking at one of the late painter’s works Sir Paul asked de Kooning: “At the risk of appearing gauche, what is it, Bill?”De Kooning, an abstract expressionist, replied: “I dunno, looks like a couch, huh?”
“I thought his painting looked like a purple mountain and he thought it looked like a couch, but the fact that he said that it didn’t matter what it was just freed me,” Sir Paul said.
Spat with Lennon
The exhibition coincides with the recent re-publication of an interview fellow Beatle John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone magazine in 1970.
Lennon attacks Sir Paul in the interview, but the musician pointed out that it came when the band members were going through their worst crisis.
John Lennon: Interview ‘hurt a lot at the time’ according to Sir Paul
“It hurt a lot at the time but we got back together as friends and he is on record as saying a lot of that slagging off he gave me was really just him crying for help,” Sir Paul said.“He could have been boozed out of his head, as he was during that period, he could have been crazed on this, that or the other substance.
“But we did get very friendly, and he did tell me that a lot of those things he said he didn’t mean.
“I was very lucky in as much as before he got killed we were able to tell each other we loved each other,” he added.
I want to make two points today. First, Greg Koukl has rightly noted that the nudity of a ten year old girl in the art of Robert Mapplethorpe is not defensible, and it demonstrates where our culture is morally. It the same place morally where Rome was 2000 years ago as Francis Schaeffer has demonstrated […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
__
Quote from Bertrand Russell:
Q: Why are you not a Christian?Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true._Francis Schaeffer noted concerning the IMPLICIT FAITH of Bertrand Russell:I was lecturing at the University of St. Andrews one night and someone put forth the question, “If Christianity is so clear and reasonable then why doesn’t Bertrand Russell then become a Christian? Is it because he hasn’t discovered theology?”It wasn’t a matter of studying theology that was involved but rather that he had too much faith. I was surrounded by humanists and you could hear the gasps. Bertrand Russell and faith; Isn’t this the man of reason? I pointed out that this is a man of high orthodoxy who will hold his IMPLICIT FAITH on the basis of his presuppositions no matter how many times he has to zig and zag because it doesn’t conform to the facts.You must understand what the term IMPLICIT FAITH means. In the old Roman Catholic Church when someone who became a Roman Catholic they had to promise implicit faith. That meant that you not only had to believe everything that Roman Catholic Church taught then but also everything it would teach in the future. It seems to me this is the kind of faith that these people have in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system and they have accepted it no matter what it leads them into. I think that these men are men of a high level of IMPLICIT FAITH in their own set of presuppositions. Paul said (in Romans Chapter One) they won’t carry it to it’s logical conclusion even though they hold a great deal of the truth and they have revolted and they have set up a series of universals in themselves which they won’t transgress no matter if they conform to the facts or not.Here below is the Romans passage that Schaeffer is referring to and verse 19 refers to what Schaeffer calls “the mannishness of man” and verse 20 refers to Schaeffer’s other point which is “the universe and it’s form.”Romans 1:18-20 Amplified Bible :18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative. 19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].We can actually see the two points makes playing themselves out in Bertrand Russell’s own life.[From a letter dated August 11, 1918 to Miss Rinder when Russell was 46]It is so with all who spend their lives in the quest of something elusive, and yet omnipresent, and at once subtle and infinite. One seeks it in music, and the sea, and sunsets; at times I have seemed very near it in crowds when I have been feeling strongly what they were feeling; one seeks it in love above all. But if one lets oneself imagine one has found it, some cruel irony is sure to come and show one that it is not really found. The outcome is that one is a ghost, floating through the world without any real contact. Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one seems obstinately to belong to God and to refuse to enter into any earthly communion—at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd isn’t it? I care passionately for this world, and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted—some ghost, from some extra-mundane region, seems always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat to the world, but I cannot understand the message.There was evidence during Bertrand Russell’s own life that indicated that the Bible was true and could be trusted.Here is some below:
TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnotes #97 and #98) written by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop
A common assumption among liberal scholars is that because the Gospels are theologically motivated writings–which they are–they cannot also be historically accurate. In other words, because Luke, say (when he wrote the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts), was convinced of the deity of Christ, this influenced his work to the point where it ceased to be reliable as a historical account. The assumption that a writing cannot be both historical and theological is false.The experience of the famous classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay illustrates this well. When he began his pioneer work of exploration in Asia Minor, he accepted the view then current among the Tubingen scholars of his day that the Book of Acts was written long after the events in Paul’s life and was therefore historically inaccurate. However, his travels and discoveries increasingly forced upon his mind a totally different picture, and he became convinced that Acts was minutely accurate in many details which could be checked.
Robert Utley is one of today’s leading historians of Old West lore. In his book, Lone Star Justice , he chronicles the history of the Texas Rangers from 1823 to 1910. In the Preface to his book, Utley points out that many who have attempted to portray the activity of America’s frontier days have not been diligent in getting their background data accurate.For example, in 1956 a Lone Ranger feature film was produced. It was based upon the old TV series of the same name. In the film, Clayton Moore, who played the role of the “Lone Ranger,” was wearing the typical Texas Ranger badge — a star within a wagon wheel. Utley points out, however, that this style badge was not designed until the 20th century.This item represented an anachronism (a chronologically misplaced error). It is rather inevitable that historians occasionally will slip in constructing their narratives, as careful as they try to be.
Amazing Bible Accuracy
One of the truly amazing facts about Bible history is the phenomenal accuracy that characterizes the text.Take, for example, Luke’s two New Testament documents — Luke and Acts. These books combined constitute more than a quarter of the bulk of the New Testament. Within these narratives the author is very specific with reference to historical data including persons, places, and titles.In the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands. He also lists 95 people by name, 62 of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament (Metzger, 171).In addition, Luke is intimately familiar with the constantly-changing political conditions of the Roman world. References to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Quirinius, the Herods, Felix, and Festus are recorded. In not one of these citations is there a mistake.Some early critics occasionally charged Luke with errors, a few of them even suggesting that he was quite careless. The discoveries of archaeology, however, have vindicated him in every instance.Sir William Ramsey, who initially doubted Luke’s reliability, did many years of “on site” study of these matters; he eventually classified “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14) as one of “the very greatest of historians” who ever lived (222).Noted scholar Philip Schaff once observed that the final two chapters of Acts have provided more information about the details of ancient sea navigation than any other document of antiquity (132-133).This uncanny accuracy puts the biblical record in a class of its own. Even the best historians cannot avoid that occasional slip. But the writers of Scripture, guided by the Spirit of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), were protected from the inclusion of error into their works.If their credibility is established in such seemingly trivial matters, surely it may be trusted in the great theological themes it develops.Trust your Bible. Obey its precepts.
REFERENCES
Metzger, Bruce M. 1965. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, Content. New York: Abingdon Press.
Ramsay, William Mitchell. 1896. Luke, the Physician: And Other Studies in the History of Religion Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Schaff, Philip. 2007. Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto: Gareth Stedman […]
Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]
______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]
THE MORAL ARGUMENT BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]
Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]
Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]
Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]
THE MORAL ARGUMENT BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]
Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]
I have read over 40 autobiographies by ROCKERS and it seems to me that almost every one of those books can be reduced to 4 points. Once fame hit me then I became hooked on drugs. Next I became an alcoholic (or may have been hooked on both at same time). Thirdly, I chased the skirts and thought happiness would be found through more sex with more women. Finally, in my old age I have found being faithful to my wife and getting over addictions has led to happiness like I never knew before. (Almost every autobiography I have read from rockers has these points in it although Steven Tyler is still chasing the skirts!!).
__
_
Dan Jarrell Change Point Church (seen below)
DAN JARRELL
Kerry Livgren
240 × 240Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Kansas
380 × 280Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More
Letters to Ozzy
November 16, 2018
Ozzy Osbourne,
Dear Ozzy,
I read your autobiography and the one by your wife Sharon too. I enjoyed them both and I even got to drive to Chicago recently with two of my sons and several of their friends and we had a great time at your concert!!!
I know that you have been searching your whole life for the meaning of life and the secret of satisfaction and with the help of King Solomon and Kerry Livgren of the rock group KANSAS I wanted to pass along their conclusions.
I thought of you recently when I listened to a cassette tape of a sermon by Dan Jarrell of FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH in Little Rock entitled THE PLEASURE IS MINE on ECCLESIASTES 2:1-26 (4-21-96). It was hard for me to obtain a cassette tape player but I searched through my attic and found one hidden away.
As you know the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon at the end of his life and he was discussing LIFE UNDER THE SUN. I think it is easy to compare your life to Solomon since you both are pursuing satisfaction in this life UNDER THE SUN without God in the picture.
Francis Schaeffer noted that Solomon took a look at the meaning of life on the basis of human life standing alone between birth and death “under the sun.” This phrase UNDER THE SUN appears over and over in Ecclesiastes. The Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term UNDER THE SUN — What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system and you are left with only this world of Time plus Chance plus matter.”
Here is a portion of the sermon by Dan Jarrell below:
You and I grew up with Mick Jagger singing “I CAN’T GET NO SATISFACTION.” You think of the lyrics of that song and what Jagger and the ROLLING STONES did. They summarized this philosophy that no matter how hard I tried, no matter how hard I seek it, no matter what I attempt to do, no matter which avenue I go down, there is no personal satisfaction in it for me. Personal satisfaction eludes me because I try and I try and I try but I can’t get no, no, no, no, hey, hey , hey. I just can’t get no satisfaction.
That is the idea Mick Jagger and the rest of the ROLLING STONES and an entire generation that cut it’s teeth on rock and roll never got past the frustration of that song. We tried, and we tried and we tried. We tried DRUGS, and ALCOHOL. We tried SEX in a permissive moral society. We tried EDUCATION. We tried CORPORATE ACHIEVEMENT. We tried MATERIAL DECADENCE. We tried EMPIRE BUILDING. We have even tried HUMANISTIC SPIRITUALITY. We tried anything that would move us toward satisfaction, but the result of it all is no lasting satisfaction. Even our greatest pleasures lose their luster. Life is a vapor!!!! GONE WITH THE WIND!!!
I suppose the wisdom of ECCLESIASTES could have been the inspiration for the ROLLING STONES song that marked our generation if it were not for one significant detail. You see Solomon tried and he tried and he tried but the conclusion of his song was I FOUND THE KEY TO SATISFACTION. All the things he tried didn’t get him there but those experiences led him full circle to a conclusion that he began his reign with and apparently he ended with as well.
I really believe if MICK JAGGER or if any of us for that matter would listen to Solomon’s wisdom he will teach us a different song to sing, a new chorus that will mark a new generation. Solomon will show us the key to satisfaction and he warns us of counterfeits. This is the way to go but beware of this that the vapors of life are there and pursue that and you will be CHASING THE WIND.
WHAT WAS SOLOMON’S ANSWER? Ecclesiastes chapter 2 gives us that answer. This chapter is a discussion of life’s frustrations. Let me start with the conclusion of chapter 2 and then we will go back and look at life’s frustrating moves toward that conclusion.
Ecclesiastes 2:24-25 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. This also I have seen that it is from the hand of God. 25 For who can eat and who can have enjoyment without Him?
There is some disagreement on the translation of this particular phrase “There is nothing better for a man” The NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translates it as a comparison. The idea is if you think of all the good things that a man could enjoy there is nothing better for a man or a woman than to eat or to drink and tell themselves their labor is good. In other words, it is good for us.
The Hebrew seems to indicate we may want to translate it this way. “There is nothing in a man to eat and drink and tell himself his labor is good.” In other words, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US, FOR THAT IS FROM THE HAND OF GOD. In other words, it is either a comparison or a simple statement. Either way this is the sense of the passage.
Either way you translate it, it says nothing is so good for us other than a satisfied life but nothing is as impossible for us because it is not in us to be satisfied for who can eat and enjoy life without him? The answer is NOBODY CAN!!!! So you come down to the idea that if one seeks satisfaction they will never find it. In fact, every pleasure will be fleeting and can not be sustained, BUT IF ONE SEEKS GOD THEN ONE FINDS SATISFACTION. That is my sermon in a nutshell. That is the conclusion.
__
Just like Dan Jarrell I also loved the song I CAN’T GET NO SATISFACTION by the Rolling Stones. Then in 1978 I heard the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas when it rose to #6 on the charts. That song told me that Kerry Livgren the writer of that song and a member of Kansas had come to the same conclusion that both Solomon and the ROLLING STONES had. I remember mentioning to my friends at church that we may soon see some members of Kansas become Christians because their search for the meaning of life had obviously come up empty even though they had risen from being an unknown band to the top of the music business and had all the wealth and fame that came with that. Furthermore, Solomon realized death comes to everyone and there must be something more.
Livgren wrote:
“All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
Take a minute and compare Kerry Livgren’s words to that of the late British humanist H.J. Blackham:
“On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).
_____________________________________
Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player DAVE HOPE of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and DAVE HOPE had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on youtube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. DAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.
Those who reject God must accept three realities of their life UNDER THE SUN according to Solomon. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life. FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. In contrast, Dave Hope and Kerry Livgren believe death is not the end and the Christian can face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.
Solomon’s experiment was a search for meaning to life “UNDER THE SUN.” Then in last few words in the Book of Ecclesiastes he looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”
Little One – From the Film, “Sarah’s Choice” Rebecca St James on faith and values – theDove.us Sarah’s Choice Trailer Sarah’s Choice – Behind the Scenes Rebecca St. James on Sarah’s Choice – CBN.com Rebecca St James Interview on Real Videos Sarah’s Choice – The Proposal Sarahs Choice Pregnancy Test Sarahs Choice Crossroad Sarah’s Choice […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Lion – Rebecca St. James I will praise You – Rebecca St James Rebecca St James 1995 TBN – Everything I Do Rebecca St. James & Rachel Scott “Blessed Be Your Name” Rebecca St. James From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rebecca St. James St. James in 2007 Background information Birth name Rebecca Jean Smallbone Also […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Foster The People – Pumped up Kicks Foster the People From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Foster the People Foster the People at the 2011 MuchMusic Video Awards, from left to right: Pontius, Foster, and Fink Background information Origin Los Angeles, California, U.S. Genres Indie pop alternative rock indietronica alternative dance neo-psychedelia[1] Years active 2009–present Labels […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
‘Apple gave me advice’: Coldplay’s Chris Martin turned to 11-year-old daughter for words of wisdom ahead of Superbowl 50 By DAILYMAIL.COM REPORTER PUBLISHED: 00:58 EST, 2 February 2016 | UPDATED: 17:20 EST, 2 February 2016 n Facebook They’ve sold 80 million records and been around for 20 years. But Coldplay’s lead singer Chris Martin, 38, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
__________ Chris Martin, Lead Singer of Coldplay: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know Published 3:44 pm EDT, February 7, 2016 Updated 3:44 pm EDT, February 7, 2016 Comment By Lauren Weigle 17.6k (Getty) Chris Martin has been the front-man of the band Coldplay for about 20 years, though the band changed its name a […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 13 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 12 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 11 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 10 more on Album “Only Visiting This Planet” I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Malraux, Camus and Sartre- The Golden Age of French Intellectualism (Post WWII)
Published on Jul 20, 2012
(ORIGINAL) Documentary on the rise and downfall of French Intellectuals like André Malraux, Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre are portrayed in this very rare documentary. The friendships and conflicts are examined with the backdrop of Fascism, Stalinism and Nazism, through to the turbulent 1960s, the Castro/Che Cuban Revolution, Paris 1968, modern terrorism in the Middle East and Third-World rebellions.
____________________________________
Francis Schaeffer said on page 187 of volume 5 André Malraux of france argued that art will give us the hope of some meaning to life-not the content of the art, but simply the fact that art exists. In THE VOICES OF SILENCE (1953) Malraux showed that he understood very well that modern man is the man of no absolutes. Yet he offered art as a hope, a hope of nonreason.
“Man is dead, after God”. Malraux, The Temptation of the West. (1926)
‘The artist is not the transcriber of the world, he is its rival.’ Malraux, L’Intemporel (3rd volume of The Metamorphosis of the Gods.)
‘In a world in which everything is subject to the passing of time, art alone is both subject to time and yet victorious over it’. Malraux in a television program about art, 1975.
“Art is an object lesson for the gods.” The Voices of Silence
“The art museum is one of the places that give us the highest idea of man.” The Voices of Silence
“Humanism does not consist in saying: ‘No animal could have done what I have done,’ but in declaring: ‘We have refused what the beast within us willed to do, and we seek to reclaim man wherever we find that which crushes him.’” The Voices of Silence
“The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random between this profusion of matter and the stars, but that within this prison we can draw from ourselves images powerful enough to deny our nothingness.” Les Noyers de l’Altenburg
André MalrauxDSO (French: [ɑ̃dʁe malʁo]; 3 November 1901 – 23 November 1976) was a French novelist, art theorist and Minister for Cultural Affairs. Malraux’s novel La Condition Humaine (Man’s Fate) (1933) won the Prix Goncourt. He was appointed by President Charles de Gaulle as Minister of Information (1945–1946) and subsequently as France’s first Minister of Cultural Affairs during de Gaulle’s presidency (1959–1969).
Malraux was born in Paris in 1901, the son of Fernand-Georges Malraux and Berthe Lamy (Malraux). His parents separated in 1905 and eventually divorced. There are suggestions that Malraux’s paternal grandfather committed suicide in 1909.[1]
Malraux was raised by his mother, maternal aunt Marie and maternal grandmother, Adrienne Lamy-Romagna, who had a grocery store in the small town of Bondy.[1][2] His father, a stockbroker, committed suicide in 1930 after the international crash of the stock market and onset of the Great Depression.[3] From his childhood, associates noticed that André had marked nervousness and motor and vocal tics. The recent biographer Olivier Todd, who published a book on Malraux in 2005, suggests that he had Tourette’s syndrome, although that has not been confirmed.[4] Either way, most critics have not seen this as a significant factor in Malraux’s life or literary works.
The young Malraux left formal education early, but he followed his curiosity through the booksellers and museums in Paris, and explored its rich libraries as well.
In 1922, Malraux married Clara Goldschmidt. Malraux and his first wife separated in 1938 but didn’t divorce until 1947. His daughter from this marriage, Florence (b. 1933), married the filmmaker Alain Resnais.[5]
André Malraux in 1933
After the breakdown of his marriage with Clara, Malraux lived with journalist and novelist Josette Clotis, starting in 1933. Malraux and Josette had two sons: Pierre-Gauthier (1940–1961) and Vincent (1943–1961). During 1944, while Malraux was fighting in Alsace, Josette died, aged 34, when she slipped while boarding a train. His two sons died together in 1961 in an automobile accident.
In 1948, Malraux married a second time, to Marie-Madeleine Lioux, a concert pianist and the widow of his half-brother, Roland Malraux. They separated in 1966.
Subsequently, Malraux lived with Louise de Vilmorin in the Vilmorin family château at Verrières-le-Buisson, Essonne, a suburb southwest of Paris. Vilmorin was best known as a writer of delicate but mordant tales, often set in aristocratic or artistic milieu. Her most famous novel was Madame de…, published in 1951, which was adapted into the celebrated film The Earrings of Madame de… (1953), directed by Max Ophüls and starring Charles Boyer, Danielle Darrieux and Vittorio de Sica. Vilmorin’s other works included Juliette, La lettre dans un taxi, Les belles amours, Saintes-Unefois, and Intimités. Her letters to Jean Cocteau were published after the death of both correspondents. After Louise’s death, Malraux spent his final years with her relative, Sophie de Vilmorin.
Malraux’s first published work, an article entitled “The Origins of Cubist Poetry”, appeared in the magazine Action in 1920. This was followed in 1921 by three semi-surrealist tales, one of which, “Paper Moons”, was illustrated by Fernand Léger. Malraux also frequented the Parisian artistic and literary milieus of the period, meeting figures such as Demetrios Galanis, Max Jacob, François Mauriac, Guy de Pourtalès, André Salmon, Jean Cocteau, Raymond Radiguet, Florent Fels, Pascal Pia, Marcel Arland, Edmond Jaloux, and Pierre Mac Orlan.[6]
In 1923, aged 22, Malraux left for Cambodia with Clara.[7] There, together with Clara and a friend, Louis Chevasson, he undertook a small expedition into unexplored areas of the Cambodian jungle in search of lost Khmertemples, hoping to recover items that might be sold to art museums. On his return, he was arrested by French colonial authorities for removing a bas-relief from Banteay Srei (a somewhat ironic turn of events[citation needed] given that French authorities had themselves removed large numbers of statues and bas-reliefs from temples such as Angkor Wat). Malraux, who believed he had acted within the law as it then stood, contested the charges but was unsuccessful.[8]
Malraux’s experiences in Indochina led him to become highly critical of the French colonial authorities there. In 1925, with Paul Monin,[9] a progressive lawyer, he helped to organize the Young Annam League and founded a newspaper L’Indochine.[10]
On his return to France, Malraux published The Temptation of the West (1926). The work was in the form of an exchange of letters between a Westerner and an Asian, comparing aspects of the two cultures. This was followed by his first novel The Conquerors (1928), and then by The Royal Way (1930) which reflected some of his Cambodian experiences.[11] In 1933 Malraux published Man’s Fate (La Condition Humaine), a novel about the 1927 failed Communist rebellion in Shanghai. The work was awarded the 1933 Prix Goncourt.[12]
During the 1930s, Malraux was active in the anti-fascist Popular Front in France. At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War he joined the Republican forces in Spain, serving in and helping to organize the small Spanish Republican Air Force.[13] (Curtis Cate, one of his biographers, claims that Malraux was slightly wounded twice during efforts to stop the Falangists‘ takeover of Madrid, but the historian Hugh Thomas claims otherwise.)
The French government sent aircraft to Republican forces in Spain, but they were obsolete by the standards of 1936. They were mainly Potez 540 bombers and Dewoitine D.372 fighters. The slow Potez 540 rarely survived three months of air missions, moving some 80 knots against enemy fighters flying at more than 250 knots. Few of the fighters proved to be airworthy, and they were delivered intentionally without guns or gunsights. (The Ministry of Defense of France had feared that modern types of planes would easily be captured by the Germans fighting for Francisco Franco, and the lesser models were a way of maintaining official “neutrality”.)[14] The planes were surpassed by more modern types introduced by the end of 1936 on both sides.
The Republic circulated photos of Malraux standing next to some Potez 540 bombers suggesting that France was on their side, at a time when France and the United Kingdom had declared official neutrality. But Malraux’s commitment to the Republicans was personal, like that of many other foreign volunteers, and there was never any suggestion that he was there at the behest of the French Government. Malraux himself was not a pilot, and never claimed to be one, but his leadership qualities seem to have been recognized because he was made Squadron Leader of the ‘España’ squadron. Acutely aware of the Republicans’ inferior armaments, of which outdated aircraft were just one example, he toured the United States to raise funds for the cause. In 1938 he published L’Espoir (Man’s Hope), a novel influenced by his Spanish war experiences.[15]
Malraux’s participation in major historical events such as the Spanish Civil War inevitably brought him determined adversaries as well as strong supporters, and the resulting polarization of opinion has colored, and rendered questionable, much that has been written about his life. Fellow combatants praised Malraux’s leadership and sense of camaraderie,[16] although Antony Beevor says he was criticized by the representative of the Comintern who described him as an “adventurer” for his high profile and demands on the Spanish Republican government. (This criticism is not surprising, however, since the Comintern regularly criticized anyone who did not toe the party line, and despite his support for the Republicans, Malraux was never a member of the Communist Party.)[17]Antony Beevor also claims that “Malraux stands out, not just because he was a mythomaniac in his claims of martial heroism – in Spain and later in the French Resistance – but because he cynically exploited the opportunity for intellectual heroism in the legend of the Spanish Republic.”[17]These statements are, however, very questionable since Malraux nowhere makes “claims of martial heroism”. In fact, he rarely wrote about his own military experience and when he did (e.g. in his Antimemoirs) placed very little emphasis on his own role.
As a general comment it is worth adding that Malraux’s participation in events such as the Spanish Civil War has tended to distract attention from his important literary achievement. Malraux saw himself first and foremost as a writer and thinker (and not “man of action” as biographers so often portray him) but his extremely eventful life – a far cry from the stereotype of the French intellectual confined to his study or a Left Bank café – has tended to obscure this fact. As a result, his literary works, including his important works on the theory of art, have received less attention than one might expect, especially in Anglophone countries.[18]
During the war, he worked on his last novel, The Struggle with the Angel, the title drawn from the story of the Biblical Jacob. The manuscript was destroyed by the Gestapo after his capture in 1944. A surviving first section, titled The Walnut Trees of Altenburg, was published after the war.
Shortly after the war, General Charles de Gaulle appointed Malraux as his Minister for Information (1945–1946). Soon after, he completed his first book on art, The Psychology of Art, published in three volumes (1947–1949). The work was subsequently revised and republished in one volume as The Voices of Silence (Les Voix du Silence), the first part of which has been published separately as The Museum without Walls. Other important works on the theory of art were to follow. These included the three-volume Metamorphosis of the Gods and Precarious Man and Literature, the latter published posthumously in 1977.
When de Gaulle returned to the French presidency in 1958, Malraux became France’s first Minister of Cultural Affairs, a post he held from 1958 to 1969. Among many initiatives, he launched an innovative (and subsequently widely-imitated) program to clean the blackened facades of notable French buildings, revealing the natural stone underneath.[24] He also created a number of maisons de la culture in provincial cities and worked to preserve France’s national heritage.
In 1957, Malraux published the first volume of his trilogy on art entitled The Metamorphosis of the Gods. The second two volumes (not yet translated into English) were published shortly before he died. They are entitled L’Irréel andL’Intemporel and discuss artistic developments from the Renaissance to modern times. Malraux also initiated the series Arts of Mankind, an ambitious survey of world art that generated more than thirty large, illustrated volumes.
Malraux was an outspoken supporter of the Bangladesh liberation movement during the 1971 Pakistani Civil War and despite his age seriously considered joining the struggle.
During this post-war period, Malraux also published a series of semi-autobiographical works, the first entitled Antimémoires (1967). A later volume in the series, Lazarus, is a reflection on death occasioned by his experiences during a serious illness. La Tête d’obsidienne (1974) (translated as Picasso’s Mask) concerns Picasso, and visual art more generally.
Malraux died in Créteil, near Paris, on 23 November 1976. He was buried in the Verrières-le-Buisson (Essonne) cemetery. In recognition of his contributions to French culture, his ashes were moved to the Panthéon in Paris during 1996, on the twentieth anniversary of his passing.
There is now a large and steadily growing body of critical commentary on Malraux’s literary œuvre, including his very extensive writings on art. Unfortunately, some of his works, including the last two volumes of The Metamorphosis of the Gods (L’Irréel and L’Intemporel) are not yet available in English translation. Malraux’s works on the theory of art contain a revolutionary approach to art that challenges the Enlightenment tradition that treats art simply as a source of “aesthetic pleasure”. However, as French writer André Brincourt has commented, Malraux’s books on art have been “skimmed a lot but very little read”[25] (this is especially true in Anglophone countries) and the radical implications of his thinking are often missed. A particularly important aspect of Malraux’s thinking about art is his explanation of the capacity of art to transcend time. In contrast to the traditional notion that art endures because it is timeless (“eternal”), Malraux argues that art lives on through metamorphosis – a process of resuscitation (where the work had fallen into obscurity) and transformation in meaning.[26]
1968, an international Malraux Society was founded in the United States. It produces the journal Revue André Malraux Review, Michel Lantelme, editor, at University of Oklahoma.[27]
Another international Malraux association, the Amitiés internationales André Malraux, is based in Paris.
A French-language website, Site littéraire André Malraux,[28] offers a valuable source of research and information about Malraux’s works and critical commentary.
“Man is dead, after God”. Malraux, The Temptation of the West. (1926)
‘The artist is not the transcriber of the world, he is its rival.’ Malraux, L’Intemporel (3rd volume of The Metamorphosis of the Gods.)
‘In a world in which everything is subject to the passing of time, art alone is both subject to time and yet victorious over it’. Malraux in a television program about art, 1975.
“Art is an object lesson for the gods.” The Voices of Silence
“The art museum is one of the places that give us the highest idea of man.” The Voices of Silence
“Humanism does not consist in saying: ‘No animal could have done what I have done,’ but in declaring: ‘We have refused what the beast within us willed to do, and we seek to reclaim man wherever we find that which crushes him.’” The Voices of Silence
“The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random between this profusion of matter and the stars, but that within this prison we can draw from ourselves images powerful enough to deny our nothingness.” Les Noyers de l’Altenburg
Saturne: Le destin, l’art et Goya, (Paris: Gallimard, 1978) (Translation of an earlier edition published in 1957: Malraux, André. * Saturn: An Essay on Goya. Translated by C.W. Chilton. London: Phaidon Press, 1957.)
Jordan Casteel was born in 1989 in Denver, Colorado. She now lives and works in New York. Since graduating with an MFA from Yale University in 2014, Casteel has received acclaim for her painted portraits depicting black men.
Long committed to social justice, Casteel was working as a teacher in Colorado and painting in the evenings when she realized that she needed to devote herself more seriously to her art practice. In 2015, she moved to New York for a residency at The Studio Museum of Harlem. Inspired to address ideas of black masculinity, Casteel began painting portraits of the people closest to her—family members, friends, and boyfriends—to transform the negative representations of black men often seen in the larger culture. Casteel’s vivacious renditions feature a vibrant palette that signals an undeniable joy. The artist begins her portraits by taking up to two hundred photographs of her subjects, whom now she tends to meet on the streets of her adopted neighborhood of Harlem.
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
In the first video below in the 14th clip in this series are his words and I will be responding to them in the next few weeks since Sir Bertrand Russell is probably the most quoted skeptic of our time, unless it was someone like Carl Sagan or Antony Flew.
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
__
Quote from Bertrand Russell:
Q: Why are you not a Christian?
Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.
Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?
Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true.
__
__
Person(s) in Photograph: Dora Russell, John Russell, and Katharine Russell
Archive Box Number: 6,3
Person(s) in Photograph: Bertrand Russell, John Russell, Katharine Russell
Archive Box Number: 6,6
Got this below off the internet!! It reminds me of what Francis Schaeffer said concerning an atheist may say he doesn’t believe in God or Love but then he has a family and he loves his children and his wife and he realizes that he can’t just live like we are all machines.
Lady Katherine Tait was the only daughter of late Bertrand Russell. She wrote a biography about her dad. Here are a few of her personal observations:
“He never gave his whole heart to anyone, though he tried. ‘My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship,’ he wrote. ‘The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God’,” My Father, Bertrand Russell (HBJ 1975), 46-47.
“My father’s scientific optimism was strong and he hoped tha we would share it, together with his dispassionate ability to see both sides of a question. But these things are not easy to combine; fair-mindedness puzzled our wills and muddled our hopes, and left us unable to strike out boldly against any enemy, public or private. For it was always possible the enemy was right. My father dealt with this problem by a sort of intellectual conjuring trick: when he wanted to be indignant over evil, he temporarily put away objectivity in some other compartment of his mind. We never managed to learn the trick, and I think he was a little disappointed by our hesitations, not realizing that he had taught them to us himself,” ibid. 92.
“In practice, at Beacon Hill, ‘making up our own minds’ usually meant agreeing with my father, because he knew so much more and could argue so much better; also because we heard ‘the other side’ only from people who disagreed with it. There was never a cogent presentation of the Christian faith, for instance, from someone who really believed in it,” ibid. 94.
“My parents’ marriage was founded on these principles…They believed it would be easy to live without jealousy, but it turned out that the new morality was no easier and no more natural than the ideal of rigorous lifelong monogamy it was intended to replace. Calling jealousy deplorable had not freed them from it…It took my father a long time to acknowledge that he was expecting too much of human nature. ‘Anybody else could have told me this in advance,’ he wrote later, ‘but I was blinded by theory’,” ibid. 102-103.
“We had imagined our parents to be superior in every way to the conventional: our parents would never quarrel sordidly over conjugal rights or the way to bring up children; they were far too generous and intelligent. Yet there they were, not only doing these things, but even trying to involve us in their disagreements. It was sickening. The only solution was inward withdrawal, my father’s old tactic. It was at that time that I came to regard progress, like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, as a myth of childhood, and I have never since believed in any utopian project of any kind,’ ibid. 125.
“Though I would no more prefer the extinction of humanity to the victory of world communism than my father would have, I have never regarded the mere existence of humanity as good in itself, and I can contemplate without panic a world devoid of human beings. (Unwittingly, my father was responsible for this callous point of view, having taught us that mankind was no more than an accident of evolution.)” ibid. 178.
“In Grandmother Russell’s religion, the only form of Christianity my father knew well, the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss. All hope, all joy were centered on the life after death and were to be achieved only be unceasing warfare against evil in oneself and others. My father threw this morbid belief out the window, but he was never able to obliterate the emotional pattern with which it had stamped him. All the yearnings of his powerful nature were directed to the future, to a golden age to come, if not in heaven, then on earth,” ibid. 183.
“In his many anti-Christian writings, my father attacked over and over again the cowardice of religious people who could not face life without the comfort of their irrational beliefs. He recommended instead ‘the stark joy’ to be found in ‘the unflinching perception of our true place in the world,’ the same proud passion I had offered my Harvard friend in our discussion in the library. Christians were mocked for imagining that man is important in the vast scheme of the universe, even the high point of all creation—and yet my father thought man and his preservation the most important thing in the world, and he lived in hopes of a better life to come. He was by temperament a profoundly religious man, a sort of passionate moralist who would have been a saint in a more believing age,” ibid. 184.
“I believe myself that his whole life was a search for God…Somewhere at the back of my father’s mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depths of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God, and he never found anything else to put it in. He wrote of it in letters during the First World War, and once h said that human affection was to him ‘at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God.’ After the war, finding his life more satisfying, he stopped talking that way; nostalgia for religion was quite absent from our home. Nevertheless, I picked up the yearning from him, together with his ghostlike feeling of not belonging, of having no home in this world,” ibid. 184-185.
“The religion my parents had grown up with was a dry morality without grace, a series of impossible demands that left them defeated and depressed. They escaped from it joyfully into a free life that affirmed their own goodness and expected their children’s. And yet they passed on to us the same impossible demands from which they had suffered—no, not exactly the same, for they allowed us to masturbate and talk about sex—but they still expected perfect honesty and kindness and all the rest, without showing us how it was to be done. Consequently, we in our turn were loaded down with inescapable and, to us, inexplicable guilt. The doctrine of original sin gave to me, when I came to understand it, the same sense of intoxicating liberation my father had received from sexual emancipation. It was normal for me to be bad, and I need not feel ashamed,” ibid. 187-188.
“For me, the belief in forgiveness and grace was like sunshine after long days of rain. No matter what I did, not matter how low I fell, God would be there to forgive, to pick me up and set me on my feet again. Though I could not earn his love, neither could I lose it,” ibid. 188.
“He seized on the follies, which are many, and labeled them official religion, while claiming that Christians have never taken seriously the good parts of Christ’s teaching. But he never dealt with it seriously either. When he wanted to attack religion, he sought out its most egregious errors and held them up to ridicule, while avoiding serious discussion of the basis message I found so liberating…I found no message in his books but failure and despair (for me)…the world was not what he hoped it might be, and neither was I, nor could I believe that men would ever become the intelligent paragons of his imagination,” ibid. 188.
“As I went deeper and deeper into religion, however, I found it ever more satisfying. I wished I could convince my father that it added to all I had learned from him and took very little away. I didn’t find it a denial of life, a brier patch of restrictions, but a joyful affirmation. ‘I am come that they might have life and have it more abundantly,’ said Jesus. All that I lost was my anxiety—and the option, perhaps, of sleeping with many men, which I had no desire to exercise. I was already so bound by the exacting moral code my father had taught me that I saw no new restrictions in Christianity, merely the possibility of living with those I already had,” ibid. 189.
“I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him that the search for God does not have to be vain. But it was hopeless. He had known too many blind Christians, bleak moralists who sucked the joy from life and persecuted their opponents; he would never have been able to see the truth they were hiding,” ibid. 189.
“Of course there was a failure of communication. Even from that blissful holiday I came away feeling dissatisfied, though mostly with myself. I wanted to tell him about God, to share with him the happy certainty I had discovered…But we sat at tea around the fire, the four of us, making conversation about the state of the world, and I could never break through to real talk. Too shy, too selfish, too subservient, too proud, always a follower of the tone set by others, I sat and allowed myself to be cut off from him by the small talk I had never mastered. It was only as we said good-bye that emotion broke through for a moment and I hugged him with demonstrative affection. But he was old and fragile, almost ninety; he needed to be held in tender hands, like old porcelain, and treasured for what he was. Too late for storms of emotion, too late to stand up and justify myself against him, defending my values by attacking his. Adolescent rebellion is absurd in middle age, if not cruel, and adolescent emotion is not much better. There seemed no solution but to look at each other with love as we drifted apart on our separate rafts of belief,” ibid. 196.
“I drove on to school and went on with life in a world without my father. I had told myself often: he is so old, so deaf, so cut off from me, it’s as though he were dead already; it won’t be too bad when it happens. But it was too bad, and it left me with a numb ache for a long time: now I can never tell him this, never ask him that, never straighten out old confusions,” ibid. 201-202.
Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto: Gareth Stedman […]
Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]
______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]
THE MORAL ARGUMENT BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]
Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]
Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]
Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]
THE MORAL ARGUMENT BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]
Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]
I am moving the MUSIC MONDAY to a monthly feature on http://www.thedailyhatch.org. My passion has been in the recent years to emphasize the works of Francis Schaeffer in my apologetic efforts and most of those posts are either on Tuesdays or Thursdays.
Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood – While You See A Chance
The Daylights (Music Group) Part 1 Both Ricky and Ran Jackson went to school at Ouachita Baptist in Arkansas and here is a fine story on them at this link. _______________ The Daylights – Guess I Missed You.wmv The Daylights “Terra Firma” Music Video Uploaded on Nov 7, 2007 Music Video for The Daylights and […]
These are some of the most popular posts in the last 30 days about the spiritual quest of Chris Martin of Coldplay that can be found on http://www.thedailyhatch.org: Chris Martin of Coldplay unknowingly lives out his childhood Christian beliefs (Part 3 of notes from June 23, 2012 Dallas Coldplay Concert, Martin left Christianity because of […]
B.J. Thomas – Home Where I Belong ( 1976 ) Uploaded on Sep 27, 2011 B.J. Thomas – Home Where I Belong ( 1976 ) ______________ B.J. Thomas – Testimony (1980) B.J. Thomas – Softly and Tenderly (1982) Related posts: Christian music from the 1970′s and 80′s May 7, 2013 – 2:32 pm Keith Green – Asleep In […]
Evie Tornquist – It Only Takes A Spark † Pass It On ( 1976 ) Uploaded on Sep 25, 2011 Evie Tornquist – It Only Takes A Spark † Pass It On ( 1976 ) ____________ Evie Tornquist Karlsson on Billy Graham Crusade singing her hit song Born Again EvieComeOnRingBells.avi EVIE MY TRIBUTE CROUCH Evie – […]
I saw Petra in concert in North Little Rock in the 1980’s. Here is the link for the bio. Classic Petra – 2011 – DVD Documentary Uploaded on Sep 17, 2011 The videos published here are for pure enjoyment, these videos are very inferior quality to the quality of the original DVD, please let us bless […]
I got to hear Andrae Crouch at the Billy Graham crusade in Memphis in 1978 and also a full concert at Memphis State University in 1981. The concert in 1981 was in front of a crowd of around 800 in a small room and I was on the 3rd row. The Billy Graham crusade was […]
I got to hear Andrae Crouch at the Billy Graham crusade in Memphis in 1978 and also a full concert at Memphis State University in 1981. The concert in 1981 was in front of a crowd of around 800 in a small room and I was on the 3rd row. The Billy Graham crusade was […]
I got to hear Andrae Crouch at the Billy Graham crusade in Memphis in 1978 and also a full concert at Memphis State University in 1981. The concert in 1981 was in front of a crowd of around 800 in a small room and I was on the 3rd row. The Billy Graham crusade was […]
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/A-82730-1519052220-3776.jpeg.jpg)
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from 
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 149 HH Sir Bertrand Russell (SHORT)
Francis Schaeffer noted concerning the IMPLICIT FAITH of Bertrand Russell:I was lecturing at the University of St. Andrews one night and someone put forth the question, “If Christianity is so clear and reasonable then why doesn’t Bertrand Russell then become a Christian? Is it because he hasn’t discovered theology?”It wasn’t a matter of studying theology that was involved but rather that he had too much faith. I was surrounded by humanists and you could hear the gasps. Bertrand Russell and faith; Isn’t this the man of reason? I pointed out that this is a man of high orthodoxy who will hold his IMPLICIT FAITH on the basis of his presuppositions no matter how many times he has to zig and zag because it doesn’t conform to the facts.You must understand what the term IMPLICIT FAITH means. In the old Roman Catholic Church when someone who became a Roman Catholic they had to promise implicit faith. That meant that you not only had to believe everything that Roman Catholic Church taught then but also everything it would teach in the future. It seems to me this is the kind of faith that these people have in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system and they have accepted it no matter what it leads them into. I think that these men are men of a high level of IMPLICIT FAITH in their own set of presuppositions. Paul said (in Romans Chapter One) they won’t carry it to it’s logical conclusion even though they hold a great deal of the truth and they have revolted and they have set up a series of universals in themselves which they won’t transgress no matter if they conform to the facts or not.Here below is the Romans passage that Schaeffer is referring to and verse 19 refers to what Schaeffer calls “the mannishness of man” and verse 20 refers to Schaeffer’s other point which is “the universe and it’s form.”Romans 1:18-20 Amplified Bible :18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative. 19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].We can actually see the two points makes playing themselves out in Bertrand Russell’s own life.
The Daily Hatch 
.jpg){kind=link}