![]() ![]() It is leading followers into the institution and not out on paths of discovery. In extreme cases, the institution itself–the Church, if you will–becomes a 7-headed beast. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case–some “religions” have chosen to make man-made “rules” by which one becomes a believer rather than a fellow-explorer with congregationalists on the path of discovery. Religion– as we usually use the word to describe an organized religion that has an established set of principles and tenets by which they abide–should be always one of the points of life–that place where we can freely examine our own nature and use as a reference and guide the life of Jesus (if you are a Methodist, as I am). We all fight beasts–the worst ones being those which live inside us–and we need all of the tools known to man to overcome them. I ask myself if I do this as a saintly, deeply devout man who is showing his flock the way to go, or am I the charlatan–a blasphemer– who gives forgiveness in the name of God so the receiver can ease his conscience and simply continue in ungodly ways.” “I have to believe that I am the son of my true father, on earth, and the Father in Heaven or I would go mad.” Reply I have God’s power to take the burden of sin off of the back of the communicant. He said (paraphrase, of course) “I consider this deeply when I am listening to confession. Many years later, his mentor asked him if he knew which twin he actually was. There was a fire and only one child escaped he joined the priesthood. The twins were mirror images, but one exhibited the nature of his father and the other the nature of his mother. She was beautiful, but unpredicable, a bit of a charletan, and acknowledged no religion to be hers. New thought for Sarah– I think a “parable” short story by Isak Dinesen, written many years ago, illustrates the basic dilemma found in any organized group that claims to be a “religion.” There were twin sons born to a wise and devout king and his young, tempestuous wife. But, as Gamache proves time and again, it’s also in our nature to cherish decency. ![]() If you have read The Nature of the Beast, you know a major plot point revolves around man’s apparent predisposition to make war. To the right is a woodcut by Albrecht Dürer depicting the Beast as interpreted from the Book of Revelation (17:7). “Un monstre.” His French wasn’t very good, but it was good enough for that. “Is it a beast?” Rosenblatt asked, finding it difficult to breathe. “Oui,” said Beauvoir, caution creeping into his voice. “Oui,” said Beauvoir, standing up slowly at his desk in the Incident Room. Here is the moment, from The Nature of the Beast, when the investigators begin to get an inkling of what they might be up against: The biblical beast, who waged war against God in the New Testament’s Book of Revelations. In Louise’s novel, it is both a reference to human nature, and a haunting evocation of something far more malevolent. The origin of the idiom is murky and has been interpreted in many ways since it was first uttered. The Oxford Dictionary defines the expression as “The inherent and unchangeable character of something” and the phrase itself first appeared in John Ray’s Collection of English Proverbs which was published in the 1600’s. It’s the only time the phrase, the nature of the beast, is used within the novel but the power it conveys is so strong it titles the book. ![]() It’s the nature of the beast.” ( The Nature of the Beast,, Trade Paperback Edition)įor those of you who have read the 11th installment in the Louise Penny canon, you know that this retort, directed at Gamache, comes at a crucial moment in the plot. “There’s been weapons since there’s been man,” said Delorme.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |