A Song No One Knew Could Be About John the Baptist
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that “One More Try” by
George Michael could have one interpretation as being about John the Baptist.
This would indeed a highly compelling interpretation of the song. The song
seems to depict a man, sung in first person narrative (I interpret as being John the Baptist), upset by his previous
teacher (I interpret here as Jesus), and trying to reason with another person he wants as his lover. This third person, (the lover),
for the sake of my interpretation could be Salome, or someone else. The way
that the video depicts him confined in a room with stained glass windows makes
me feel like it’s John singing from prison before he was beheaded. He’s saying
that it’s too bad he can’t see Jesus any longer, and could she please give him
one more try even though he’s behind bars.
I happen to like this interpretation a lot, because it makes
John the Baptist look like a rockstar. He was indeed said by Christ as being “Elijah
who was to come” Matthew 11:14. Jesus and John had separate ministries with
separate groups of followers. Upon John’s imprisonment, it stands to reason he
would be upset at never getting to see Jesus. Matthew 11:2-3 says that John
send one of his followers to talk to Jesus about the miracles he was doing. The
line in George Michael's song “Cause teacher; there are things that I don’t want to learn,” makes
it sound like John talking about his own impeding execution and/or the
crucifixion.
I am not trying to say that John had homosexual feeling towards Jesus, but I speak only of the respect and admiration John had for him. I don't think the song's lyrics really depict the "first teacher" that way, either, so I think the interpretation works. When Michael sings "the last one I had made me cry," this would be interpreted as John the Baptist saying the last teacher that he had, Jesus, did that.
There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood. Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered. Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam). In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus. That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this. The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one," Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604 , 344 U. S. 619 (1953); Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 391 U. S. 135 (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), that ...
See my comments below...... Let me explain further. According to Catholic dogma/teaching, they must oppose abortion "in all forms." See the Catholic Catechism, which clearly states in 2272 "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" Therefore, Catholics CANNOT vote for Hillary Clinton. If they don't like Donald Trump they have to find an independent party they agree with and vote for that person. They would be sinning according to their own religious worldview if they actually voted for Hillary Clinton. link to Catholic Catechism (on abortion) Catholics should also consider the Catholic sin of "scandal." It is a sin for them to vote for Hillary Clinton. To quote the Catholic Catechism, "Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the c...
Comments
Post a Comment