Today, I was watching one of my favorite movies, The Craft. It’s probably not really that good of a movie, but I find myself watching it at least once every week or two. It’s about four girls who are into witchcraft. Long story short, three of the girls gang up on the other girl, and they fight each other using their magical powers.

This movie reminded me of something I read online once about the three ways a person can approach life. I wish I could remember EXACTLY where I saw it so that I could properly cite the author. I just hope I’m not ripping off anyone of a supernatural nature, especially someone who could exact magical vengeance in defense of their intellectual property. Anyway it was about the ways people can approach life. There are roughly three ways to do so.

First, you can just let things happen to you. Be reactive all the time. Be afraid to the point of being completely immobile. Crave sedation because looking inside yourself is just too tough. Or instead, you can take matters into your own hands before someone does something to you. Attack others, steal from them and continually seek to exploit other’s weaknesses. Let fear, hate, anger or whatever overtake you in this pursuit. Either of these approaches add up to the same state, one of slavery. Either you are a slave to yourself or to your situation.

Second, you can be aware of the outside world. Develop a keen focus on what’s going on, but know what’s going on inside yourself as well. From this self-knowledge and understanding of external realities, you make a judgment. Then, you act. Without infringing upon other’s ability to be free, you then stretch out your will to change the world around you. This way may be viewed as the way of the magician, the wizard or the occultist.

Finally, you can rise above whatever you’re experiencing — suffering, hunger, pain — almost like it’s not even happening. It’s mind (or spirit) over matter. To this person, the world does not exist — it is all a dream from which to be awakened. This is the way of the mystic or ascetic.

Like anything in life, I suspect it’s up to every individual to determine how they will approach life. I also suspect most people are actually in one of the variations of the first state of slavery. While some may falsely view slavery as safe, the other approaches are also filled with great danger. Rising above things can lead you to lead to self-centeredness and the forsaking of opportunities to love others and pass on any wisdom gained from enlightenment, while changing the world to match your vision of the way it should be can lead to the path of predation and disregard for others freedoms.

I think I’ve tried all three ways at various points in my life. In hindsight, the first twenty years seemed to be a time of just reacting to things. Childhood seems to be a perfect complement to slavery, right? My “old age” and failure at previous attempts to change the world to be some kind of Shambhala has made me a bit more pre-disposed to following mysticism as of late. Get in touch with myself, God or some combination thereof, then living in this world might be bearable. Whether this is my final state or just a brief retreat before a transition to another approach is yet to be seen though.

I was watching a show on the History Channel called God vs. Satan. It seems that they’re playing a lot of end-of-the-world specials since the start of the new year (and just before the Obama inauguration). While I would like to say that it was a great watch, it was kind of boring since I read the book and know who wins.

But in all seriousness, the show focused a lot on the Book of Revelations, the Rapture and related concepts. Revelations is my least favorite book of the Bible. I suspect that it, along with Genesis, is the most read book of the Bible, even among non-Christians. It’s probably because folks want to find out how the story begins, get antsy (or bored), skip to the end to find out what happens. And better yet, the ending intimately involves the reader because there’s a bonus of eternal life or something of that sort.

The view of the end (according to the show) roughly goes as follows:  People disappear — accidents abound as cars and planes crash (an awesome reason to not give Christians driver’s or pilot’s licenses). Satan props up a false military leader and a false spiritual leader. People suffer. Armies are gathered by both sides. Violence breaks out in Israel (again, surprise, surprise). Jesus shows up, this time as a military leader. He opens his mouth and magically destroys Satan’s minions. The Devil’s false servants are cast into a fire. The Devil is chained up for 1000 years (the clock’s ticking). Jesus is now a political figure who reigns during this time as a king (good to see the perfect Christian world isn’t a democracy). Satan is way too tough, escapes and has the actual final show-down with Jesus, followed by the real judgment of everyone. Why Jesus doesn’t end evil the first time, is beyond me, although I can speculate (see below). Anyway this is the condensed version. Different versions exist among different Christian groups.

Somewhere during the telling of this story, my “bullshit radar” is activated. First, there are many interpretations of the Book of Revelations. One is the “preterist” interpretation that has Revelations being a coded book about what happened during the first century of the Christian era. This seems to be a plausible explanation and is the view to which I personally subscribe. However, I definitely wouldn’t discount any of the competing versions, since history frequently repeats for those who ignore its warnings.

The part that concerns me is the portrayal of Jesus in this story. A warrior-king? Jesus killing his enemies?! This reminds me more of the way God is portrayed in the Old Testament, you know — smoting folks left and right for whatever reason God had at the time. And then, instead of being a peaceful teacher and servant-leader, Jesus is cast in kingly terms, just like “God” in his most maniacal O.T. moments. The virtues of authoritarian rule in a material world, with a hat tip about how strong evil really is. Seems to me like a perfect polemic in favor of a universal church that espouses Jesus as the violent and capricious God of the Old Testament.

But here’s the real rub. Revelations 22:18 and 22:19 explicitly provide guidance to not add or subtract from the text. If I were a figure of ultimate evil, what would I do? I would do this:  create a book that no one seeking the path of righteousness may question, advocate violence and unquestionable religious authorities, juxtapose matter and spirit, make Evil into Good and make it my goal to spread these beliefs throughout the entire world.

So, it comes to this:  in the war between God and Satan, Satan wins because people are unwilling to see the deception right in front of their eyes. Too bad. And the world keeps rolling on.

The most disturbing thing about the recent Middle East conflict in my mind, other than the pain those in Gaza and Israel are experiencing, is how this relates to America. The situation in the Middle East is ripe for turmoil to be a constant. First, there are a lot of people who are close together. That makes rocket exchanges across borders fairly easy. Then, there is Israel, a country with hostile neighbors (who just happen to claim land owned by Israel). And, Israel has more than enough military power to deal with most threats from those neighbors.

Israel requires military service for most citizens. Whether this is a reaction to having a host of hostile neighbors or as a deterrent to having hostile neighbors is unimportant. What is important, at least in the context I’m describing, is that Israel has the perfect system for perpetual military conflicts and border skirmishes. It’s a war without end against numerous shadowing terrorist organizations who want to destroy a divinely-ordained way of life. Similar to the way American politicians, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, portray America’s so-called “War on Terrorism.”

The similarities of the situations (as portrayed,not as a reality) is a cause of a great deal of distress. Especially when I hear Rahm Emanuel, chief cheerleader for mandatory civil defense service, speak. Civil defense (according to Wikipedia) is “…an effort to prepare civilians for military attack.” Here’s Rahm on the subject, in his own words (unfortunately the way he is laughing at the interviewer’s concerns makes him sound like a real dick):

While I am a fan of being self-reliant, wearing camo and shooting guns, and would defend my home and family against enemies (both foreign and domestic) even if it meant my own death, a few questions beg to be answered. First, why would anyone want to force military service upon all American citizens anyway? How much more effective would a part-time waitress be at stopping an invasion than an actual soldier, for instance? Are our military forces stretched too thin around the world? Or does the Obama administration, and it keys staff members, simply intend to create an Israeli-like war-without-end situation?

But moreso, the fact that this is not new also makes me wonder who in the Democratic Party (other than the pro-Israel contingency) wants this type of policy to be implemented by his or her candidate. I recall that back in 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate, Aaron Russo, made stopping a draft disguised as seemingly innocuous “service programs” or “volunteer opportunities” a central point in his campaign. Consequently Democratic nominee, John Kerry, removed any mention of such a concept from his website. Too bad this year’s Libertarian nominee didn’t even come close to effectively addressing this issue.

But whether it is a required period of military service or a “mandatory volunteerism” requirement, it is still wrong. Fortunately (or unfortunately if the plan is now to quietly implement such policies) the Obama administration seems to be backing away gently from such ideas. Only time will tell, but if the goal is to bring an Israeli-style defense society about, we know what the results could look like — just look at what Israel has to go through every day.