Odd Music

People seem to be thinking that my musical tastes are completely restricted, especially to metal and punk. Now, because I don't let everyone see my iPod, and noone sees my iTunes, they don't really know what bullcrap that actually is. To the end of education, then, I hereby am posting twelve "odd" musical groups and artists that I listen to that I think everyone should check out. I'm going by alphabetical order, not by how I consider the artist in question.

1. The Adventures
Formed in 80s Ireland, Belfast, to be precise, they are early pop rock, with their lyrics generally focusing on love and romance and pain. That sounds emo, but it isn't. I think they effectively use mildly distorted guitar and blend it with acoustic, as well as a subtle but reasonably complex bassline.

click here for their song "Sea of Love"

2. Andy M. Stewart
Andy is of both Scottish and Irish ancestry, with a Scottish citizenship. Known for his previous work with the famous Scottish band Silly Wizard, on his own, Stewart worked less on popular ballads and more on writing his own music. His music often deals with themes regarding Scottish/Irish history, the struggles with the English, the in fighting, and the fleeing to America that is so prevalent in Scottish and Irish history, as well as composing many love ballads.

"Take Her in Your Arms"

3. Altan
Also an Irish band, they are an example of Irish folk that goes a little bit (being hyperbolic there. By a little bit, I mean a LOT) beyond the pub songs that everyone knows and loves. A good half of their music is in Gaelic and is left untranslated. You can read the lyrics, but if you can read Gaelic, more power to ya, I certainly can't. Even when singing in English, Mairead Ni Mhaonaigh's gentle yet thick Irish accent makes the English sound almost foreign.

Stor a Stor a Ghra

4. The Cult
Now we venture a little bit into the pop music sphere, but I still think a 17 year old who listens to the Cult counts as a little bit weird. The Cult are my alternative to Aerosmith, with me much preferring the sound of Ian Astbury to Steve Tyler (plus, Ian's antics on stage are more amusing to watch than Steve Tyler's horrifically large mouth terrorizing the camera. I also prefer the more aggressive sound of the Cult to Aerosmith.

Fire Woman

5. The Dead Milkmen
If you want just plain old friggin' hysterically bizarre, there is not a band out there that can beat the Dead Milkmen. Imagine Weird Al meets Frank Zappa, both on an acid trip and simultaneously getting drunk and you still haven't approached the level of bizarre that the Milkmen routinely enjoy. With classics like "Bitchin' Camaro," "Stuart (What the Queers are Doing to the Soil)" and "Cousin Earl," the Milkmen are less music and more comedic stream of consciousness musing.

Cousin Earl ( a must listen, if this is the only thing you listen to in this post, let it be this one)

6. Enya
I've admitted before that I listen to Enya, but I'll reconfirm it here. Talent goes far beyond genres, and it is often mis-attributed, such as to Nirvana. However, Enya's talent is vast, the woman has an absolutely amazing set of pipes on her, and for mellow music, I don't think you can get better than Enya.

Book of Days

7. Mike Oldfield
For someone like me, who generally LOATHES (I use the word because I can't think of a more emphatic one) progressive rock, liking Mike Oldfield isn't something I would like to admit. However, his Tubular Bells series (three albums) are absolutely amazing. Most people know the basic Tubular Bells motif as the themesong of The Exorcist, but there is so, so, so, so much more to the song than that little bit of it. The first album is over 45 minutes long, involving over 50 different instruments, and is one of the most complex non-vocal progressive pieces in history. It serves as evidence that "classical" music is not necessarily superior just because it is old.

Tubular Bells I track 1 part A

8. Socratic
I first started listening to Socratic when I accidentally met the lead singer/guitarist at a metal show and had no idea who they were or why they were there. I later learned that Socratic is a local (relatively) band from North Jersey, with a gentle piano rock/emo sound. Emo, by the way, was originally a musical genre and has nothing to do with fat whiney goth-wannabes. Mark Hoppus of Blink-182 produced their last album, and I heard more about them on his podcast, and I liked their song so much I downloaded it ASAP (Legally, mind you) and have been listening to Socratic ever since.

Boy in a Magazine

9. Thurston Moore
Formerly of Sonic Youth, I expected Thurston to have more of a punk sound about him, but when I listened to his album "Trees Outside the Academy" I was pleasantly surprised. While the lyrics are a little out there, the talent that is exhibited by Thurston more than makes up for my usual dislike of stream of consciousness. The gentle sound he exhibits also defied my expectations, but made it very endearing to me.

The Shape is in a Trance

10. The Ting Tings
This probably means I'm gay, but I like the Ting Tings a lot. I have no reasonable or rational explanation that anyone would want to hear, but I just like them. End of discussion. lol

"Shut up and let me go"

11. Voltaire
I.like.Goth. I do not mean I like slamming heavy metal (though sometimes I do) I mean I like real Goth music, Goth as a genre. The genre of Goth is generally a mixture of post-punk, New Wave, Pop-Rock, Electronica, and, surprisingly, Folk. Voltaire falls into the last category, sounding more like a mix of dark Cabaret and gypsy music. His lyrics are often wonderfully macabre, calling to mind Edgar Allen Poe, Flannery O'Connor, and similar writers. Always lighthearted, Voltaire's lyrics skirt the lines of society, sometimes crossing over, and are delightfully dark and bizarre.

"When You're Evil"

12. 1927
Aussie 80s Pop music ought to have its own musical category, imao. They got the good pop music where we were left with Madonna. 1927 deal with love, loss, pain...the usual. I just think they did it with more originality and talent than the Americans or British did.

"All The People"

Faded Glories-Inglorious Basterds

To start with, I generally hate Quentin Tarantino. While I applaud his skill as a filmmaker, and I enjoy a violent movie as much as the next bloke, I find his glorifying of the scum of society somewhat (and by somewhat, I mean very) annoying. I enjoyed Pulp Fiction as a movie, but disliked its themes. So when I heard that Tarantino was making a World War II movie, I was not a little apprehensive. When I heard it involved Hitler, my prophetic prediction was "He's gonna kill Hitler, isn't he?" Well, as I'm sure everyone knows now, he did. Inglorious Basterds stands as a well-done movie, and a great Tarantino film, but it still has some issues.

To start on a positive note, the caliber of the acting was superb. Even Brad Pitt (whose performances I have loathed for years) more than impresses with his drawling on about "Natsees." Christoph Walt's role as a Nazi Colonel is absolutely astonishing, as he plays an almost (and sometimes definitely) comically evil villain in such a fashion as to make the role bone-chilling. Not one role was badly cast, and each and every scene was brilliantly executed.

The story, alas, is less original. I have never thought Tarantino possessed much skill as a story teller, never have, never will. "Basterds" gives me absolutely no reason to change this belief. The plot can best be described as "Guns of Navarone" meets "Valkyrie"-infiltrate Germany, kill Hitler. Now, there are some interesting twists, such as Lt. Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) demand for the scalping of Nazis, or the Jewish girl escaping the Nazis and years later planning their downfall, but as a whole, I knew the whole time what was going to happen. I even guessed the famed "secret ending" before it was confirmed: I knew they'd kill Hitler. It was Tarantino, and that was the best "twist" he could pull. It was the only "original" part of the movie, and it was predictable.

Another downside of the movie was that it contained nothing thought-provoking. Valkyrie, the only Tom Cruise movie I like (Tropic Thunder is not a Tom Cruise movie) was thought provoking, as it showed a side of the Germans that many (including every single member of the Jewish side of my family save my Dad) deny could even be possible. Defiance (with Daniel Craig) was also thought provoking-what would you do in the Bielski's position? Downfall (A German movie on the last days in the Fuhrerbunker that I think is a must watch) was truly thought provoking as it showed the firsthand accounts of the true evil that was Hitler and his Reich, and how that evil lasted up to very end. Basterds has not a shred of a thought-provoking theme. This is the downfall of Tarantino-he doesn't like to make you think, he would sooner rely on violence. Which is fine, if you're in the mood for blood (And I ALWAYS love watching Nazis get killed. Bastards.) but not if you want anything more.

The final downfall I saw to the movie was it's lack of emotional attachment. In "Boondock Saints II" when the father dies, you feel something. In "The Punisher," you feel it when his family are murdered in front of him. I like movies where I connect with the characters, and I think it can be done in action flicks. Do I expect to be as emotionally moved by an action film as by a drama? No. Do I still expect some connection with the characters? Yes. I felt cheated, therefore, by Basterd's lack of any empathetic character. Aldo Raine is hysterical to watch (I was dying when I him speak Italian believing "Germans are bad with Italian accents) but difficult to empathize with. Yes, I absolutely love that he kills Nazis and scars the survivors, but there is a difference between approval and empathy. The one character that I feel the audience definitely should have empathized with was Shoshanna Dreyfuss. The character had every trait that could lead one to empathize with a character, but somehow, we don't. We sympathize, yes, and we want her to succeed, but when she is shot, neither I or any of my friends who watched it with me felt anything. It was just "She's dead. That blows." I WANTED to empathize with Shoshanna, but the character's emotional deadness just ended irritating the hell out of me. When Hannibal Lecter is more of an empathetic character than you, there is a problem.

All in all, the movie was a fun watch, and I'd definitely see it again. However, I would not classify it as anything but a fun movie, and think that Basterds must bow to Valkyrie, Downfall, and Defiance as the much better war movies, and Basterds must simply rest as an action movie.

*** out of ***** (With apologies to Chris Boyajian, I'm using your star thing now :P)

Top Ten Albums

Seeing as everyone else is doing these, why the heck not? They're just my opinions, btw, no need to whine about them if you don't like 'em

1. Dragontown-Alice Cooper











2. Social Distortion-Social Distortion











3. Fire in the Glen-Andy M. Stewart











4. Enema of the State-Blink-182












5. Man of Colours-Icehouse











6. Rocket to Russia-The Ramones













7. The Last Temptation-Alice Cooper











8. Sex, Love, and Rock n' Roll-Social Distortion










9. In My Tribe-10,000 Maniacs











10. Let it Enfold You-Senses Fail

Hold on to your Horcruxes

I am a huge Harry Potter fan. I'm just going to get that out of the way. I made my own wand, my own broomstick, my own robes that no longer fit me, and haven't since I was 11....the works. Since I was 10, I have read and reread the books, and when the movies first came out, I was ecstatic. The first two movies were amazing. I even bought a poster for the fourth movie. However, then, I saw it. I was dissappointed. The changes it was bringing were not welcome. But that was nothing compared to the fifth abomination. The longest, richest book in the series was castrated and condensed into the shortest and shallowest movie. That was the last Potter movie I saw in theaters. When "Half Blood Prince" came out, therefore, I was more than wary. I waited til it was released on dvd, and then I watched it.

The movie was dissappointing. Certainly, I understand that long, rich books cannot be completely represented in film. However, there is a difference between cutting out the occasional unimportant detail, or maybe condensing a couple of events, and castrating a story. Half Blood Prince does the latter. While I was more entertained by it than by the fifth movie, I still found myself resentful of how it treated the book. It was made for those who'd read the books. No explanatory details were given at all. You understood what was happening if you had read the book, but not otherwise. This lack of explanation left me very much unsatisfied, and very much resentful of the story.

Another serious PLOT SPOILER AHEAD omission from the movie were the other memories of Dumbledore. Instead of the backstory of Voldemort being revealed, painting his past and corruption as gradual, and his entire journey to creating his horcruxes (the objects in which he hides pieces of his soul), you simply see Dumbledore meeting him and him asking about them. One is left wondering "what the hell is happening and what the hell are horcruxes" rather than actually figuring anything out. Dumbledore is also much less powerful than he was in the book, requiring much more help then the Dumbledore of the book. As for his funeral, that is also taken out of the movie, taking out most of the dramatic and emotional impact of Dumbledore's death. Dumbledore dies, yeah, but the lack of the funeral scene takes away Harry's, and therefore the audience's, ability to deal with the death.

On to the stylistic criticism. The movie also was shoddily edited. throughout the first and second movies, and even into the third and fourth, the movies told a whole story. However, in the fifth and especially the sixth movie, the movie seems more to be a collection of random scenes that have some relation to each other. There is no continuity. When Harry attacks Draco, leaving him bleeding on a floor, the scene simply ends, and we never hear about it again. If I hadn't known the result of that attack in the book, it would have been an even bigger "WTF??" moment than it was. Transitions are completely abrupt, leaving no time for adjustment at all. Though two hours long, it still gave the impression, due to the crappy editing, that it was a short movie.

Another huge stylistic problem I have is with costuming. When the series started, everyone was wearing the same style of school uniform. Then the uniforms themselves changed a little bit in the third movie, and that got a bit annoying. Now it seems that everyone in Hogwarts is wearing jeans and t-shirts, or, if you're Draco Malfoy, a black three piece suit that looks more like it belongs in a Tim Burton film. In the books, the difference between Wizard and Muggle clothing is stressed again and again, and they attempted to show the differences in the first few films. Now wizards are dressed so that if we saw most of them on the street, we'd either think them slightly eccentric or Goth, not weird.

Acting was the only thing I didn't find sub par, even if I did find it underused. Alan Rickman gives quite a different interpretation of Snape then I was expecting, but not one that at all clashes with the character of the novels, as much as it may occasionally differ from the actions of the character. Sir Michael Gambon also gives a quite powerful performance as Dumbledore, despite the bad script he was given, he still gave the role his best and the film shows it. The "kid actors," most of whom are now adults, also gave quite good performances, particularly Emma Watson, playing Hermione dealing with Ron's idiocy and Harry's stubborness. Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy, while I applaud Mr. Felton for his acting talent, portrays the character as slightly too whiny for my tastes. While I'd say there are no bad actors in this movie, I did feel that Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, was nowhere near as good as he's been in the other movies.

Special effects were nothing special. Myself, the scene in which Slughorn transformed from couch to human was amusing less because of the idea of a human being a sofa, but instead because the special effects were horrible. Similarly, the effect used to show Apparition looked like it came right out of photoshop. Even the inferii had a distinctly "computer" look about them. The sets, besides Hogwarts, were also sub par, especially the "locket cave." The locket cave looks like something out of a 70's Doctor Who serial, not a multi million dollar movie.

All in all the movie, while better than the 5th, was still dissappointing. If you want to see relatively clever depictions of a collection of scenes from a great book, then the movie is fine. However, if you, like me, want to see a visual representation of the STORY of the books...well, you're S.O.L.

Dracula-The Undead

Myself, I'm a big Vampire fan. Dracula, Hellsing, Angel, Buffy, Van Helsing, even the occasional bit of True Blood, I even play "Bite Me" on facebook. I love vampires. Real ones. Twilight "vampires" are freaking fairies, in both senses of the term. So naturally, when I discovered that Dacre Stoker, a descendant of Bram Stoker, was writing a sequel to the classic "Dracula," I was thrilled. Until I read it. Now I'm kinda mad.
To start with, the idea of a sequel to a book means, to my mind, it is a sequel to the ORGINAL book. Not the movie based on the book, not the myths that have sprung up around the book. "Dracula; The Undead" is not a sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula. Rather, to my mind, it conjured up the idea of a decent fan fiction, not a worthy successor to a horror classic. "The Undead" starts off with the account of Jack Seward, from third person, not the diary/letter/newspaper format of the original which made it so endearing. Jack Seward is an opium addict, yet simultaneously a vampire hunter. He is hunting the vampiress Elizabeth Bathory. While the historian in me appreciates the shout-out to a real-life Transylvanian (the "real Dracula," Vlad Tepes, was Wallachian, a different part of Romania) who's exploits call vampirism to mind (she murdered upwards of 600 virgins, raping them and bathing in their blood) I found the way she was presented to be utterly predictable. Also, while yes she enjoyed the sexual pleasure of females (undeniable from history) she is better classified as a bisexual then a lesbian, as the book shows. As the book progresses, we meet the rest of the band that killed Dracula. Jonathan Harker is an alcoholic adulterer, his wife Mina part Vampire, their son Quincy an actor at odds with his parents. Van Helsing is a frail old man, at the point of heart failure, living from nitroglycerin pill to nitroglycerin pill, and Arthur Holmood, now known only as "Lord Godalming" is stuck in a loveless marriage, desiring nothing more to join his beloved Lucy in death. Not a single one of the band is a hero anymore. Their encounter with Dracula turned them all into pathetic whiners. I found this annoying, especially how Seward and Harker, both strong-willed men in the original work, are turned into pathetic nobodies.
The plot gets worse. SPOILER ALERT Dracula turns into a hero. He was not killed in the original, and every event in the original is re-interpreted to show him as a hero, hunting down the other Vampiress, Bathory. Dracula is a warrior for God, prideful, but not evil. This is intolerable to me. Yes, Vlad Tepes was a hero. Ok, he impaled a few thousand people, but compared to Richard Lionheart, the man was nothing as far as cruelty, and Tepes defended the church and his people against impossible odds for years. Dracula the character, however, is a soulless evil monster. He is not a good character. "Undead" took the character of Alucard from Hellsing and applied it to the original Dracula, and then made it bad.
The other plot point I cannot stand is Mina's loving Dracula. This comes from Francis Ford Coppola, NOT from Bram Stoker. Never did Mina call Dracula her "Dark Prince" in the original book. Never did they have sex. The scene where Dracula reveals that he and Mina had sex before she was married, and that Quincy Harker is actually Dracula's son, was so corny I laughed. The dialogue and plot of this novel are so corny and predictable I was outraged and amused simultaneously.
The other problem with this novel is that it's too blatant. Bram Stoker's novel was dark and sensuous, but much was left to the reader's imagination. None of this subtlety is in the "sequel." Sex and gore are blatantly described. Anne Rice, this ain't, but neither is it a novel worthy of carrying the name "Stoker" on it. Instead, it rates with halfway decent fanfiction, but not even in the same universe as the original Dracula. If you wana sequel to the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by Francis Ford Coppola, this is right for you. You want a sequel to the book? You face dissappointment.

Christian Manhood

I wrote this speech for the ICC Master's conference I will be attending next week. Hopefully it goes well lol.

“C’mon, be a man!” “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do!” Everywhere a man goes today, he’s bombarded with phrases telling him what is and isn’t manly. “Football is a man’s game!” “Real men don’t cry!” The list goes on and on. However, despite all this blithering and advice-giving, the end result is still that the amount of real, Christian men is decreasing significantly. In today’s world, what is and isn’t “manhood” is defined less by scripture, and more by popular, and often fallacious, maxims as to what does and doesn’t constitute manhood. The decreasing amount of Christian men will lead to the downfall of the church as we know it. If the church wishes to survive, and more Christian men are to be raised, the problem must be stopped.

Before identifying what is threatening Christian manhood, one must identify what Christian manhood is. To find what a Christian man is, one should look less to ideals like Vision Forum and more to the Bible, where all our truth is taken from. Surprisingly, the Biblical ideal of a man differs from the one that many Christians think of today. The mark of the man of scripture is less that of a warrior, hiding their emotions and protecting their “weaker” wives, and more that of spirituality and maturity. Yes, Scripture has its “Jocks” in men like Samson and Gideon. However, many of the men of scripture are not as “manly” as would be supposed. David wept and wrote poetry. St. Paul was a scholar, not a literal warrior. Even Jesus wept. The men of scripture who God has given us to emulate are men of learning, men of wisdom, men of spirituality. When one looks at the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-11, the virtues extolled are poorness in spirit, spiritual mourning, meekness, hungering for righteousness, mercy, purity, peacemaking, even persecution for righteousness’s sake. Despite what many modern Christians put forth, the Christian man is not defined by a list of “do’s” and “don’t’s” but rather by principles, and these are less the principles of “chivalry” and more the principles of scripture.

The threats to Christian manhood are on two fronts, the church and the world. The world’s threats are numerous. Everywhere you look, the real and fictional men our society holds ideal are seen. James Bond-a womanizing assassin. Iron man-a womanizing alcoholic. More womanizing, drug using rockstars than can be counted. George Gilder, speech writer to Ronald Reagan, wrote in his book “Men and Marriage” about these role models. “It is the notion of the male deserter, lovin’ and leavin; that glamorous pattern of every male fantasy hero.” Christian society is not immune from this threat, as many christian youth idolize these secular rolemodels. Another threat of the world is the idea of the Sexual Revolution. With the sexual revolution came homosexuality, and with homosexuality died perhaps one of the most important parts of Christian manhood; friendship. To quote Doctor R. Albert Mohler of Answers in Genesis, “the most vulnerable victims of friendship’s demise are boys. Boys are no longer free to develop close friendships....because of fears that they will be tagged as homosexuals...Instead, in today’s world, they are left with surface relationships that do not edify or help them become better men.” Boys cannot be too close a friend with another boy without being labelled as “gay.” Boys cannot show physical affection for another boy unless there is enough violence involved to make even Quentin Tarantino happy. Hugs must involve pummelling the receiver’s spine into jello, and even then, if it lasts any amount of time, it is “gay.” With its sexual confusion and depictions of men as shallow, sex obsessed cavemen, the secular world has definitely played its part in destroying the notion of Christian manhood.

The other, more insidious threat to Christian manhood comes from inside the church. Our ideals as Christians have been misplaced. Those who lead the Christian pack are not the theologically educated, but instead the most charismatic. It is less important in the modern church that one can defend ones faith than whether one can pummel a ball into some assigned area. Spiritual gifts are no longer relating to how one can reason, how one prays, whether one feels connected to God, but rather-can you play music? And considering that I co-lead my church’s youthband and am the electric guitarist of my church’s praise band, I’m not speaking simply out of jealousy, but rather experience. Theology and spirituality, the traits that should be the mark of a Christian man, have been booted out and replaced with temporal and, ultimately, irrelevant skills.

The other attack from the church comes in the establishment of concrete gender roles. While yes, men and women are different beings, many modern Christians hold a notion of boyhood that, if one finds oneself outside, one is considered weird. Clipped hair, “proper” dress, and a general obsession with the culture of the last century mark this other branch of “manhood.” Never should a boy even consider wearing long hair. The proper wont of a boy should be weapons and heroes, and all sorts of things of a “chivalrous” nature. Even in ones scholarship, one should, according to such people, focus on the entire “warrior” image. It is well to notice that not one of the apostles was a warrior. The closest one, Peter, only is documented using a sword once, and judging by the fact that he could only cut off an ear, it is very doubtful that he was a trained soldier. He was a fisherman. The great missionary, Paul, was not a warrior, not a soldier, but a scholar, perhaps the best educated man in history, fully educated by the Rabbis and by the secularists. Not one of the bearers of the New Covenant has born a sword or slain thousands. To say that Christian manhood equates with being a warrior is also a fallacious picture of manhood. Some boys, myself included, like their hair longer. Some do not enjoy “manly man” activities. Some could not possibly care less that chivalry is dead, and are not obsessed with painting “the days of yore” as a picture of perfection.

Christian manhood is disappearing. The attacks from the world and from the church are killing it quickly. Now, not of the things that “attack” manhood are bad. Some can be good things. Maybe you enjoy playing sports, and love the idea of “the days of old when knights were bold.” That’s not in itself a bad thing. But if Christian manhood, and therefore the church, is to be preserved, we need to stop and refocus our ideas of what Christian manhood are. Until Christian men really “man up” and learn their theology, learn to defend their faith, until they put down their baseball bats or their toy swords and pick up their bibles, the idea of real Christian manhood will perish.

In Defense of the Trinity

In nomine patris et filli et spiritus Sancti-Catholic Invocation of the Trinity

Invoking the Trinity has been a part of Christianity since the days of the Apostles. The idea of a triune God, three in one, “Father, Son, Holy Ghost,” would seem to be an important doctrine. Indeed, since the days of the Church father Athenaseus, belief in the Trinity has been a pivotal enough doctrine that those who do not believe in it are oft-considered outside salvation. Today, in this age of unitarianism and compromise, Christians are even now being driven to this point of compromise, citing “unity” as their great goal. Indeed, even in the Pentecostal church, which I like to refer to as “New Rome,” the idea of the Triune God is no longer considered necessary, as “There is no clear scriptural proof for it.” To challenge the Holy Trinity has, historically, resulted in expulsion from the Christian faith. While true, the trinity is not EXPRESSLY put forth in the Bible, the idea is. Nonbelief in the Holy Trinity puts one into the realm of apostasy, and therefore outside salvation.

“Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God is one.” That verse, from Deuteronomy, has been used to attack the idea of a Trinity since the days of the apostle. Now, Pentecostal apostates are using it again to attack the idea of the 3 in 1 God. However alien the idea may be to them, the Bible is only completely authoritative in Hebrew. In the Hebrew, Deuteronomy 6:4 reads “Shema Israel Adonai Elohainu, Adonai Echad.” Echad is Hebrew for one, true enough, but it does not mean “one and only one.” It is, in fact, the same word used to denote married couples, when they “become one” in sexual union. Obviously, crass jokes and urban legends aside, a man and a woman in the act of sex are not one body. Therefore, the “Shema” is NOT the ironclad defense against the trinity that some would hope. Nor would any proper defender of the Trinity claim that it is false. The great “Shema” is true and ironclad. There is only one God. However, our God exists in three persons. Tertullian, a very early Church Father, constructed the doctrine that the more famous Augustine made concrete that “The son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son from All Eternity.” Third-century Church Father Athanasius, the writer of the first concrete creed of the Christian faith and a defender of it against Arianism, a doctrine which denies the Trinity in a similar way that modern Jehovah’s witnesses do, wrote the following in his creed. “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic (true, not Romish) Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic (true) Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.”
Athanasius was perhaps the greatest of the early church fathers, and his creed was designed for the purpose of defending the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. From the early third century, the trinity was being challenged. The idea of attacking the trinity is hardly new or original. Unfortunately, in Christianity today, it is chique to believe in the a pseudo post-modernism that allows for Christians to believe in “different things” for the sake of “unity.” This heretical, pussy-footing spirit, put forth by men unworthy of their metal or the y-chromosome their DNA carries, has lead to the heresies (shock! I dare to use the term heresy! That might OFFEND someone) I state again for emphasis, heresies of framework, direct revelation, and theistic evolution. There is, thank the Triune God, absolute truth, and no amount of false truth, no amount of false grace, no amount of whining about “unity” can change that–Christianity is built and founded upon the rock of the Triune God. It is vain and sinful to allow apostates like this the floor in Christianity. The faith of our fathers is NOT up for grabs, nor for deliberation, nor for dispute. The presence of God in the sacrament, the baptism of infant’s verses professor’s baptism, even the idea of who is to receive communion are all debatable within the sphere of salvation and semi-orthodox Christianity. The idea of Christ’s divinity and the Holy Trinity are most definitely not.
Let us look at some of the “alternate theories” to the Orthodox Holy Trinity. One of the ones that attacks the faith at its heart is the idea that the Jehovah’s Witless, er, Witnesses put forward. The idea that God is the Father, Jesus is Michael (for the sake of generality we will insert “created being”) and that the Spirit is somehow God’s “force” that he uses. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14: 16-17 KJV Jesus does not seem to be talking about a “force” but rather a person, a literal person. Christ also talks about baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Why would you baptize in the name of two people who don’t exist? The popular counterargument to this is that the Bible is wrong, but if you believe that, then you have no argument against any thing in the Bible, because you have no absolute truth.
There is no “ironclad” defense of the Trinity, per se. Evil will always think of another way to attack the truth. However, if Christians who consider them such have any true love for God, they will not pussyfoot around issues like the Trinity. We must defends ourselves. We must defend the Lord’s name, and therefore the name of every single member of the Trinity. If one does not defend the Trinity, then one has not only failed oneself, but the God one serves.