A Good Movie

Series: A Good Movie

Part 1: On Box Office Hits

            Throughout the years since TV was first invented, the public has been submitted to a variety of movies and theater presentations from silent films and musicals to epics and thrillers. Over time, our special effects, computer software and HD cameras have set the bar high in the technical department of the movie industry. With the invention of airplanes and faster modes of travel, film studios are now able to fly their cast and equipment to any set they choose, giving them the benefit of both equipment and location. Peter Jackson filmed both the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit epics in New Zealand, Spielberg filmed The Raiders of the Lost Ark in France, England and Tunisia, and more recently, Thor 2: The Dark World was filmed in England and Iceland. Unrestricted and unlimited, the modern film industry has been able to produce some of the world’s most advanced films in its history, creating movies with stunning special effects and stunts. However, is technological advancement the prerequisite of a good movie? And is it the reason that a movie is able to claim the title of a ‘classic’ as it grips the hearts and emotions of its viewers?

This, then, is the question before us: What gives a movie the necessary power to shock its viewers and send them out of the theater unable to forget what they have just seen? There are different ways that movie producers and directors attempt to make a movie memorable. Graphic movies, horror movies, suspense thrillers and dramas are a few of the ways, but is that kind of remembrance the one a good director or producer wants to leave with his audience? There are some who think that, but while I agree that you will definitely make the audience remember you, it is not just remembrance that you need to make a box office hit, and it is not just being a box office hit that makes a movie good.

In order to get on that chart of ‘top ten grossing movies’, your movie has to not only make it to the theaters, it also has to be watched by millions of people. In order to get that kind of audience, the movie doesn’t just have to be good—it has to be advertised and in order to do that you have to have connections, and not a little bit of money. There have been many good movies produced over the years that would have made more money if more people had known they existed. Not everyone in the world checks the theater every week to find out if any new movies have come in, and not all good movies even make it there. To be accepted to a theater, your movie has to be attractive and prospective to the owners of the theater. They have to believe that it will attract enough people to be worth their time, and if they don’t think it is going to do that, then they will replace it with a different movie. Once the movie makes it to the theaters, it will have to be advertised enough to get its initial audience. Once it does, the snowball starts rolling.

Once a movie makes it to the theater, it will be subjected to a variety of praise or criticism depending on the movie and popular culture at the time of its introduction. If the initial response is positive, then people will start talking about it and if enough people go to see it and share it on Facebook and other similar social media sites, the larger media will very likely pick up on it, and the snowball of fame will start growing. More people will go to see it, more people will praise or criticize it, more people will write reviews, and consequently, more people will hear about it and repeat that process. Assuming that the popular reaction to the movie is positive throughout all these stages of the process, it will become a box office hit. The purpose of the next section of this article is to define ‘positive’ in the phrase ‘positive reaction’ and to show you what that means and how it changes. The purpose of the third section of this article will be to show that being a box office hit can be an indication of a good movie, but it is not the fundamental or necessary factor in determining the quality of a movie. In the fourth section, we will discuss heroes and work on identifying the qualities that transform a protagonist into a hero. I will use the fifth section to wrap up my arguments and present them in an outlined fashion.

Angkor Vat-A Narration

Introduction

Richard Halliburton was a young American Princeton graduate with a passion for adventure, danger and the beauty of magnificent and unreachable sights. He began his ‘globe trotting’ journey in England and France in his early twenties and continued traveling and seeking romance and adventure until his disappearance in 1939 on the Pacific Ocean. Some of the places he traveled to include Cairo, Iraq, Afghanistan (illegally) the Matterhorn, Mt. Everest, Nepal, Delhi, Memphis, Greece, France, Hong Kong, and the Taj Mahal, many of those being in the worse possible seasons for visiting. A few of his most daring exploits were his attempt to enter Mecca, the night he spent illegally in the Taj Mahal, and the one which ended his brilliant life: attempting to sail across the Pacific Ocean from Hong Kong to San Francisco in a Chinese junk. He also attempted the Matterhorn in the winter time and nearly fell over 10,000 feet down Mt. Everest when he tried to throw a rock over the edge when he was half-way up and find out when it would hit the bottom. He nearly became the guinea pig for his own experiment. He was imprisoned at least three times and was notorious from Egypt to India for not paying numerous train fares. Following is a short narration of one of his adventures in Thailand.

Narration:

“It was rather a noisy railroad trip northward from Chumpon. We passed through Bangatore, Bangatang, Bang Peunom, Bang Bang and finally into the loudest of the Bangs, Bangkok.”

Thus I came into the capitol of Thailand. Upon discovering that I was an American and a Princeton graduate, I was invited to dine at the American Legation (embassy) and enjoyed all the comforts of civilized life for a short time. However, I detested long periods of civilized life and felt a calling back to the temples and ancient ruins in uncharted wastelands that still waited to be discovered. Mine would be the life of the nomad, the life of wandering in wildernesses till some unfortunate but well-deserved death took me to greater adventure. So on went the borrowed trousers’ and a new khaki shirt and I boarded a French coastal steamer bound up the Mekong River. I soon found out that I would be joining the dull tourists were I to travel this way, and finding out from a local  that the 350 mile boat ride to Saigon could be reduced to 150, I decided upon cutting across country on an alternative route. I was carried overland by bus and was finally deposited at Phnom Penh in time to catch a steamer from Saigon bound for Angkor. At last the steamer entered the Great Lake, on the other side of which the city of Angkor stood in undisturbed silence and mystery inhabited only by bats and unknown wild creatures who haunted its long forgotten walls and hallways. We were not there yet, though, and at one moment it appeared as if we would have to trek our way back to Saigon empty handed, for the steamer could go no farther because of the low water and as soon as we stepped foot in the little vessel provided for us, we were drenched to the skin by a sudden and infernal deluge. Along with our silent guide and a screaming woman and her daughter who learned to gradually appreciate my presence which they had absolutely detested on board the ship, we stumbled our way through the jungle. On an on we went until finally we saw the dim lights of a Ford up ahead and practically crawled up to it. Expecting to be told that Angkor was just around the corner, we were disappointed immensely when we were told that it was another fifteen miles. On we went however, and at last we reached the city of Angkor.

            Early the next morning I went down softly from the city to the ancient temple of Angkor Vat. It was said to have been built by some supernatural beings for the pillars and walls were of enormous dimensions and the walls were covered with chiseled figures. On one wall alone there were 15,000 little armed figures battling each other on a bloodstained field. The temple was said to have been occupied by the Khymers and that they lived there from 400 to 1300 when it fell to another invading army, but nobody knows for sure what really happened. How did it really fall? What mighty catastrophe, invasion or sickness was able to subdue all the inhabitants of this land from 1300 even up to the present age? For Angkor is still largely unpopulated and the only person I saw was a Brahman priest in a yellow robe wandering about the ruins of the Angkor Vat, the greatest of the temples. Over fifteen acres were covered by this city and one of the temples could boast of fifty towers! I stayed until twilight and was eager to go when the time came, for it was a wild place and left me with a strong feeling of loneliness and mystery.

Matthew 10:16-42

 This is a much revised edition in place of my last post about Matthew. Enjoy and tell me what you think!

I recently read Matthew 10:16-42 and wanted to post my thoughts on it since I was struck by some of the things it said which had not occurred to me before. For those of you not familiar with the passage:

 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.  Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,  for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.  

You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.  When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
“The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master.  It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!

 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.  What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
   a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

I would like to start with verse 34, where he says that he has not come to bring peace but a sword. For some reason, I had always thought that the message of the Gospel was peace and of course, in a sense it is, but I had always thought that peace was the ultimate virtue, something we should be always eager for like it was a sin not to be at peace. But really, peace is one of the things that we are not going to encounter very often in our walk as believers if we are preaching the Gospel because the average non-believer cannot accept Christ. Paul states it clearly that until the Holy Spirit has opened the mind of a man he cannot receive the Gospel and believe it because Satan is the ruler of this world and he has taken over man’s soul as John Bunyan said so wonderfully in his book ‘The Holy War’. We should try to be at peace with the world so far as it is in our power, but the non-believer cannot accept Christ and therefore cannot accept us, which causes the strife and conflict which so many martyrs and missionaries have endured and died because of.

However, it should not be our person which causes the strife. We should not be arguing or causing conflict. Christ’s deity and person itself should be the only thing that causes the conflict, because it will cause conflict whatever we do because he cannot be accepted by the person whose mind has not been opened as I said before. Of course, after I thought about this it was clear to me how Christ could not come to bring peace because His person is the cause of the conflict! And I felt that this passage would be very encouraging to missionaries. (I mean, this chapter was devoted to instructing the disciples before he sent them out into the world to preach the Gospel. Verses 26-29 and verses 38 and 39 talk specifically to encourage the missionary and those preaching the Gospel, and to warn them.) He also goes on to say that whoever loves his father or mother more than Him is not worthy of Him and tells us that, ‘brother will turn against brother and father against his child’ because of Him and it is because of Him as I said before and Paul said and Jesus said in Matthew 5 in the last verse of the Beatitudes that they will do this. As missionaries we should not be afraid of the conflict but be steadfast through it all for great is our reward. We should not be afraid to offend for the sake of the Gospel, even if it means alienation from our family, relatives and closest friends for unless we do that we are not worthy of Him. I love this passage because I have been thinking a lot about missionaries and martyrs lately and this sums up so perfectly what is required of those preaching the Gospel to the unbeliever.  

               

Before I finish up here, I’d like to add also that we are definitely to be peacemakers amongst ourselves, in the Body of Christ, but just like when preaching to the unbeliever, we should not be afraid to offend if one of those in the Body goes astray. We should always do everything in love which means lovingly bringing those who go astray back to God’s truth without asserting that our way is ‘THE ONLY WAY’ and condemning those who do not follow us all the way through the intricacies of principles and theology. Paul mentions a group of people in Philippians who were preaching the Gospel out of wrong motives and said at least the Word of God was being preached. These are the same people whom he addressed as dogs in Galatians, yet he said it was enough that they were preaching the Gospel. If we differ in opinion with another good person (not in any way a ‘dog’) over a technicality of theology, should we argue over it? Should we make denominations and alienate ourselves from other members of the Body who are of a different denomination just because they have slightly different views then us? Isn’t it enough that they are preaching the Word of God and that they are saving lives? If they agree with us on the resurrection, crucifixion, removal of sins by Christ’s blood on the cross and other such fundamental teachings isn’t that enough? We should not be at war among ourselves in the Body. We are supposed to be an example to the entire world! Everyone is watching the Christian and what he does and how are we supposed to save people if what they see when they look at us is bickering and arguing over ‘slight technicalities”? to quote Princess Bride. I cannot stress how much I dislike the separation I see in the Church through denominations. I believe I once heard that there were three thousand denominations in America but that can’t be true. How could we have done that? It is incredible. We must be at peace amongst one another in the Body.

It is late and I ought to be in bed so I will have to stop. I would LOVE to continue to discuss this and would really like my followers and readers to share their opinions with me. Also, check out my post on Martyrs and my clarification post on Revenge. I love to discuss and debate but the only opportunity I get is being an attorney at Teen Court.  Thanks for reading and please share your opinions I will !

gwyn

Life of Francis Bacon

Some of my readers may not know who Sir Francis Bacon was but I will soon enlighten them. Francis Bacon was the son of Sir Nicholas Bacon, knight and Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England. His mother was Anne Cook, a woman skilled in Greek and Latin. Francis was given a very good education and knew Greek and Latin. He was sent to Trinity College in Cambridge at an age younger than most people and was tutored by the afterwards renowned Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor John White-gift. He fell into dislike of Aristotle' philosophy at sixteen, not for worthlessness but for unfruitfulness. He ascribed to Aristotle's teaching high attributes but he said it was barren for the advancement of the life of man. He was sent with the ambassador lieger into France to learn the arts of state after his education at Trinity. On his return he took up the study of law and became a judge later on in his life. the largest blot on Francis Bacon's character would be his decision to speak against his great friend the Earl of Essex when that unfortunate man stood in court for minor treason. Bacon's actions were not the main reason Essex died, but he had betrayed a trust which he should have kept more carefully. Bacon came to his greatest fame not under Elizabeth but under James I under whom his fortune escalated and he held the titles of Counsel Learned Extraordinary to His Majesty, King's Solicitor General, His Majesty's Attorney General, Counselor of Estate, Lord Chancellor and keeper of the Great Seal of England. He married Alice but they had no children. Bacon's name was more famous in foreign countries than in England and was considered a very learned man in Italy and France. Bacon died of a fever at sixty-six after pursuing an experiment in freezing meat to preserve it. To him may be attributed our modern way of refrigeration. He died in Earl Arundel's house on April 9, 1626.
I have read several of Bacon's essays and some of his quotes I really like. I'll post some of his quotes in my next post. 

"Lastly, I would address one general admonition to all; that they consider what are the true ends of knowledge, and that they seek it not either for pleasure of the mind, or for contention, or for superiority to others, or for profit, or fame, or power, or any of these inferior things; but for the benefit and use of Life; and that they perfect and govern it in charity."   --General Preface to the Great Instauration by Bacon 

A.J

Clarifing and Simplifying My Revenge Stand

As I promised, here is my follow-up post in response to some comments, and to clarify where I stand. In this post, I’m going to give a definition of revenge and justice and give my stance on both. I’ll start off with revenge. Revenge is, according to the Encarta dictionary, ‘the desire or urge to get even with somebody’ or, ‘the punishment of somebody in retaliation for harm done.’ It says that retaliation is, ‘to deliberately harm somebody in response or revenge for a harm he or she has done.’ I’m sure that everybody can agree that these definitions are correct, and after reading it they should be able to agree with me that revenge is wrong, period. Revenge has never been right, and never will be. When god mentions revenge in the Old Testament, I think that He meant justice. Now you might say, “God never said anything he didn’t mean.” That is also correct, but do you honestly think that God carried out the revenge which was just described by the dictionary? No, I’m sure you don’t. That’s because God didn’t carry out revenge, he carried out justice. Now, I’ll give a definition of justice and we’ll establish the difference between the two.

Justice: ‘fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made’

Justice: ‘the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law’

Now, we all see justice as this, but we also see it in a little deeper sort of way. We see justice as the ‘fair and reasonable’ way of punishing criminals, e.g. they administered justice on him. I made a mistake in my last post by calling it ‘of revenge’ instead of, ‘Of Revenge and Justice’. What I was really getting at in my last post I’ll sum up in five points.

• Revenge is wrong. Today the majority of us see revenge as an act of anger with a motive to get even. That is generally what we think of when we think of revenge. According to Leviticus 19:18, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

Leviticus 19:18
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.
Romans 12:19
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

• Justice should always be performed out of righteous anger and should be well considered before any action is taken. The basis of this point lies in the definition of justice. There is a huge difference between justice and revenge. People can get easily confused by what revenge and justice really are. There are people who think they are carrying out justice but are really only feeding their pride and carrying out their revenge, and there are people who are honestly trying to establish justice. Justice must be reasonable and fair, ‘especially in the way people are treated or decisions made’. Justice should never, in my opinion, be an ‘on the spot’ action. Meaning, of course, not that some decisions should not be made hurriedly when the criminal is running away, etc. but that it should not be an act done because of the sudden urge of emotion after a death, theft, or other such things.
• I would not set a right-or-wrong law for self-defense. This is totally in the individuals hands. We have a right to defend ourselves if we are attacked, we don’t have to let somebody come up and kill us obviously. If you think you could make a difference by sparing the other man’s life, then by all means do so. If you think that this is what you should do, go ahead. Nobody except God should judge on the subject of self-defense. Don’t go looking for trouble though. “It is an honor for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling” from Proverbs 21. Christ was killed and died for all of us. When His murderers are judged in heaven they will get their full due, he didn’t rise to defend himself.
• Government was provided for establishing justice by God. Now, I strongly believe that many of the government’s laws about murder and adultery are too slack and that the government doesn’t always carry out its job right. But nevertheless, if everyone goes out to establish their own justice we’d be back in the chaotic days of the Wild West. If people simply hand their private revenge over to the government’s public justice, they would not have the responsibility or the weight of the decision. I also have strong beliefs on the role of government, and how it has been corrupted, I am open to that topic at any time. 

• What is past is irrevocable. We have control of our future, and the future of the person we decide to terminate. Wrongs that have been done to us cannot be reversed. No amount of tears, threats, or revenge is going to replace what we lost or what was done. Proverbs says that it ‘is a man’s glory to overlook a fault. Make the decision to live for The One, and to let things pass. What good are you going to get out of killing the offender? At the risk of taking away his salvation? I don’t mean that murderers should be allowed to roam the streets freely, they should be punished, but don’t get involved in private quarrels. “God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns?” Romans 8               I hope this clarifies my stand, and I thank all the readers who read this.

          A.J

Of Revenge Part 2

An important point to realize is that when you take a life, you have just cut off that person’s chances of salvation. Think about that, you just sent someone to Hell. Let me give you another example. Dick comes into Bob’s house. Dick points a gun at Bob’s kid and says, ‘your money or his life and the money.” Bob’s wife is standing around the corner with a .223 rifle. Does she shoot the man in the head or the leg? The point of this example is to show you that there’s a big difference between the prideful attitude of, “you set foot in my house, I’m gonna kill you,” and the necessary action of saving your children, (or your wife, husband, brother, sister etc.) by disabling the man and calling the police. Remember that when you strike someone down, you have just taken away a chance of salvation. You have just ignored the cost of Christ’s dying on the cross to save all men. Do you think He’s going to be very happy with you?

           

Now don’t think that killing is never necessary, in fact, doesn’t the bible say in Numbers 35: 30,
‘If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”? That means anyone. There is a time for killing someone who murders because the value of human life is incredible and that privilege cannot be taken away and made light of. But where do we draw the line between justice and revenge? Now you might say, well since I’m not angry I am obviously just carrying out justice. This issue is sooo difficult to debate/argue/discuss about that I shall save it for the question I would ask God when I enter Heaven, as I am sure that I will. 

           

If you are in a situation where somebody is going to kill you unless you kill them, this situation is brought to the level of self-defense. At this level everyone has to make their own decision. In June of this year I poked my head into a debate between my eldest sister and her friend and told her that if someone was going to shoot you, and you have to shoot back, they’re sending themselves to wherever they go, Heaven or Hell. I basically said, ‘look, someone has already made the decision to kill you, they have already battled their conscience and have made up their mind to kill you, so is it your fault if they go to Hell?”  Which is a good point, but who said that person makes the last decision? There are millions of people who made up their minds to turn away from God and then came right back again. It has been man’s continual choice to turn away from God since Adam fell. That is human nature, but that doesn’t make it acceptable or moral or right. My mind is still not quite made up on that subject completely, but at this moment I would say yes. It is your fault. Now this is personally. This is for me. If I was attacked during the night and had a gun on me, I would probably shoot the person out of mere fright. If I could collect my thoughts, think about it for a few seconds I would probably take the bullet. I pray that I am never in such a situation.

 You know, maybe by dying I can be an example because what would you think if you’re pointing a gun at me and I lay down the gun I have and take your bullet. Wouldn’t you be dumbfounded? Here’s another example: Jason is standing in front of a firing squad about to be shot for murder on three occasions. William rolls along in his new Mercedes and gets out, hands the keys to Jason and takes his place. Jason drives away, and William gets shot. That would be truly incredible. That’s exactly what Jesus did for us, and what happened in the Narnia Chronicles, ‘when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the (Stone) Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.” How amazing is that? Can we do what was done for us? And are we worthy of His Name?

Some people are sensitive as to their family and friends and would say something like, “well, I know what I should do, but this is my brother,” or something along those lines. Some people wouldn’t kill for the neighbor down the street, but would kill anyone who even threatened the life of their family member or friend. What kind of logic is that? Your brother isn’t more important than right or wrong, the neighbor down the street or God’s laws!

Maybe people are thinking, if there is no law for the punishment of a wrong, and the person who did it is outside of the law, then things change. Where is the line to be drawn between necessity and vengeful character? Honestly, I don’t think humans have an answer to that question, so I’m not going to address that issue. Maybe in the future I will post my beliefs and thoughts on the issue because that moves to another level, Necessity and Motives. Here are some basic questions I would ask myself before I took a vengeful action.

1. Am I right? - This means, am I right in the first place? Am I avenging an innocent person, someone who was wrongly accused, or killed without reason? Or am I defending someone who needs justice?

2. Am I angry? - If I’m really angry, to clear up my thinking I should consider Thomas Jefferson’s maxim, “If angry, count to ten before speaking, if very angry, one hundred.”

3. Is it important? –Is my action really necessary? Am I feeding my pride? Being stubborn? Does it matter what I do? If I do it, are things going to be better than they were before? 

4. How am I going to feel later? – This question is very important. Am I going to feel sorry, bad, disappointed or depressed when you’ve taken the vengeful action? If you are, this action probably won’t be necessary or moral. 

5. What are your Motives? - Why are you doing it? There is a host of questions that can go in this category and if I listed them all, the average person who did something out of revenge wouldn’t be able to answer them. This category is so broad and changes for each person. Every person has different thoughts about revenge and has different motives but if your actions are prideful, stubborn, angry, selfish, unnecessary, un-biblical and sinful then maybe you should check yourself. Each situation is different and every decision is different. Sometimes God speaks to a specific person and tells them to do certain things, to kill certain people and to revenge him or his people. Every vengeful action should be prayed about and thought about carefully, in the end, whatever you decide is none of man’s concern. What you do is between you and God, nobody can judge you. Live for an audience of one. You can decide if that’s going to be one, or The One, it’s your decision.

God is the Judge, of the people who committed the wrong and of your resulting actions. God uses people to carry out His will in different situations. Before I take a vengeful action I would clear my motives and my actions. Motives aren’t everything though, as in Jurassic Park III, ‘some of the best motives have brought about the most disastrous things.’ I would pray and look at the Scriptures before I took any actions.

I hope I haven’t utterly confused you. I’ll sum up this argument in conclusion: Revenge is wrong, period. Don’t get revenge mixed up with necessity or justice though. The arguments for the justice side of this argument are endless. I hate to even think about them. I’ve had quite a long discussion with two people about this before and we have never even made dents in this aspect of it. Try it yourself. You’ll be led to the role of government, the Bible, Faith and a host of other things. Maybe someday I’ll undertake to write a book about these ominous subjects: Revenge, Justice, and Necessity.

Of Revenge

The notable knight, Sir Francis Bacon, and renowned scientist, wrote over thirty essays; one of which I recently read and found quite identical to my own beliefs on the subject. Below is his essay, OF REVENGE:

"Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out. For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong, putteth the law out of office. Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior; for it is a prince's part to pardon. And Solomon, I am sure, saith, ‘It is the glory of a man, to pass by an offense. That which is past is gone, and irrevocable; and wise men have enough to do, with things present and to come; therefore they do but trifle with themselves that labor in past matters. There is no man doth a wrong, for the wrong's sake; but thereby to purchase himself profit, or pleasure, or honor, or the like. Therefore why should I be angry with a man, for loving himself better than me? And if any man should do wrong, merely out of ill-nature, why, yet it is but like the thorn or briar, which prick and scratch, because they can do no other. The most tolerable sort of revenge, is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy; but then let a man take heed, the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else a man's enemy is still before hand, and it is two for one. Some, when they take revenge, are desirous, the party should know, whence it cometh. This is the more generous. For the delight seemeth to be, not so much in doing the hurt, as in making the party repent. But base and crafty cowards, are like the arrow that flieth in the dark. Cosmus, duke of Florence, had a desperate saying against perfidious or neglecting friends, as if those wrongs were unpardonable; You shall read (saith he) that we are commanded to forgive our enemies; but you never read, that we are commanded to forgive our friends. But yet the spirit of Job was in a better tune: Shall we (saith he) take good at God's hands, and not be content to take evil also? And so of friends in a proportion. This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal, and do well. Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that for the death of Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more. But in private revenges, it is not so. Nay rather, vindictive persons live the life of witches; who, as they are mischievous, so end they unfortunate.”

I will first talk about what Bacon said according to my interpretation and what I think about it, and then what I think on the matter as a whole. revenge, according to Bacon, ‘is a wild kind of justice’ and ‘puts the law out of office’. Revenge is a selfish, arrogant way of making the other feel your anger, a striking back in pride. As Bacon wisely said, ‘Solomon, I am sure, saith ‘it is a glory of a man to pass by an offense’. Wise men have enough to trouble about with the future and the present to also busy themselves with past grievances and offenses which are entirely irrevocable, to take the words from Bacon’s own mouth. Bacon also says that the ‘most tolerable’ sort of revenge is that kind which there is no law to punish and also that, “public revenge is the most fortunate…”

When I think of revenge I always think of it being a way to get even, to show yourself as prideful in not letting a grievance against you pass. For when we try to get even, we are stooping lower than the level of the person who offended us. Now, I’m talking about simple revenge, as in a joke, or losing a game, or something that humiliated you etc. But what about the bigger things, murder, theft, things which are serious, and need judgment? What do you do then, things against your family? Not necessarily against your pride? I have talked with people who think revenge is a necessity, a way to bring justice upon the heads of those who committed a crime against you. These people would kill any person who killed a family member or loved one and what I find worse, in that situation they would overpass what God said about revenge, ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.’

Leviticus 19:18
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

Romans 12:19
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

These are just a few of the verses in the bible about vengeance. From these verses I get the interpretation that vengeance is God’s responsibility and that, as Romans says, we must ‘leave room for the wrath of God.’ When people start taking the law into their own hands, chaos reigns. What I find unbelievable is that these people I talk to will not bow to the will of God, as written clearly in His Word. Can we claim His Name if we won’t listen to his commandments? Do we doubt God’s ability to give justice and to uphold our cause?

Here I’ll give you an example of a case which, by his writings, seems to us done out of pure motives. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a devout Christian, attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler during WW II. Dietrich was caught and executed, firm to the last in his Christian beliefs and the morality of his decision. I have not read a biography of his life but this is the main premise. Dietrich believed that Hitler had to be stopped. He believed that he was going to kill the murderer of six million Jews. Dietrich failed. I wonder why? As humans we can’t make the decision why he failed, in fact, it’s not even right to try to judge him at all. What I thought when I heard about it, was, why did he fail? And why was Hitler allowed to go on for so long? I wondered why God didn’t allow Dietrich to carry out his plans. We don’t know Dietrich’s motives and we can’t point fingers at what he did, but this got me thinking, you know, many people tried to kill Hitler, none of them succeeded. Why? I think this is an example of God taking his own revenge. He will judge every person in the end, whether we did it on earth or not and we don’t want to be judged for judging others on earth.

Sometimes God uses other people to execute justice and revenge, as in this passage, “Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD’S vengeance on Midian.”

Here is a verse which clearly states that the Israelites were used by God to execute his justice. Obviously, man is often used to execute justice. I mean, what do governments do? We have a legal justice system for punishing criminals. I won’t get into the complicated theories of government responsibility and why they are just the same as us, but this is my point; we shouldn’t take justice into our own hands. By that I mean that it is not moral or right for us to go looking for the criminal. It’s one thing to defend yourself or your family but after the wrong is done and you go looking for the criminal, it becomes different. Did you notice that I said ‘looking for’? This is an important point. When you want to take vengeful action, ask yourself this, “am I seriously just about to go looking for the person who did this to me?” Sometimes being right isn’t enough, you have to let things go, ‘pass by an offense’ and for the bigger things you have to trust that God will judge them and provide justice. This is a bit vague and you may not exactly get my point. My point is what Bacon said in his essay, “It is the glory of a man to pass by an offense.’ That which is past is gone and irrevocable, and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come; therefore they do but trifle with themselves that labor in the past matters.” In my opinion, we shouldn’t go looking for someone who has done us wrong. The wrong is done, it’s ‘irrevocable’. Nothing we can do will change it and if we are seriously going out looking for someone who did us wrong, most of the time it’s out of revenge. We cloak it with words like ‘justice; ‘moral punishment etc. We need to realize that yes, maybe that person deserves to be killed, maybe it would be just and moral punishment but who says we decide? God gives life, cursed be the man who takes it away needlessly. “God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns?” (Romans 8) Now don’t think that I’m saying that justice should always be left to God and the government, no way! God has placed a government among men to execute His justice, HIS justice, not ours. We should realize that the government and all of mankind is on earth to glorify Him and we are just his tools for establishing justice.

To be continued...