The deceptively named Minority Report movie, a classic by the way, is one of those movies that addresses sin (and its potential eradication) in society. What if we could technologically (with some mystical help) eliminate murder or very serious crimes? In the film, with the help of special humans with precognitive abilities, we are able to foresee certain crimes, and have empowered agents of the department of pre-crime to intervene before the crime occurs. The premise is that these precog humans see the future, not a possible future. Thus, the commission of the actual crime is a given.

Of course, this raises all sorts of moral questions, including the question of human autonomy and some form of determinism. Is it not possible that people can change their minds at the last moment in process of commiting a potential crime? On the other hand, why risk only assigning culpability when it's too late? If we knew for a fact that someone was more than likely going to commit murder then, given the consequences, shouldn't we err on the side of preventing crime?

Worthwhile ethical discussion, but there's also the broader issue. Our primary natural quest is to optimize our flourishing in a society that is structured with the right balance of restrictions and constraints that sets condition for the most people flourishing. (Certainly not our supernatural or spiritual quest.) And in so doing are we not muting or undermining the very faculty that would enable us to rise to a greater consciousness of good and freedom? If society takes away the burden of self-regulation and attainment of the good, and, instead, sets up structures that relieves us of the moral training that comes from understanding the world (raw and brutal) as it is, and learning to eventually rise above it, then do we not remain moral infants?

Perhaps this is too weirdly Hegelian in the sense that the coincidence of theses and antitheses yield a new equilibrium that introduces a new stage of human development and consciousness. And it perhaps ignores the pesky little detail that is original sin and our inability to do the good we know to do because of sin that reigns in us. Or it might diminish the role of grace that signals that in our wretchedness, the power to be actualized comes from beyond, from God through the cross of Christ.

Yes, I grant all that. Still, it stands to reason that there is a sense of moral good and evil that is/can be trained and can habituate us to seek and cherish the good. The analogy works in many other sphere's of life. If we never knew danger, suffering, death, pain, we wouldn't learn to avoid them, innovate around them, cooperate to avoid them, etc. 

Now, this may be the paradox of civilized society. It builds a city for us, gives us comforts, and dulls our senses, ultimately rendering us impotent and dependent on cultural technology. We grow in one sense, but diminish in the most important sense of all. Perhaps this is why Babel had to be destroyed.

The now infamous Oval Office shouting match between Trump and Zelensky seems more bizarre in hindsight. It is clear that Trump wanted the mineral deal according to the NYtimes and there's no clear indication that this was a setup or ambush.

The whole thing degenerated when VP J D Vance interjected and took over. The question is why? There was nothing to lose. Well, nothing, but the presidency. Ever since President Trump said JD Vance is not the obvious, slamdunk heir apparent, it's put Vance on a course to show that he is in fact the heir apparent. And the only way to do this is to bring on the crazy. Trump set the model of crashing norms and being brazenly outlandish. JD Vance has learned the lesson and is unapologetically applying the lessons he's gleaned from his mentor.

Paul (Saul) of Tarsus, the famed Apostle of the New Testament was a fascinating figure. He was a very devout Pharisee who participated in the persecution of followers of Jesus until he encountered the risen Jesus and became a follower. Something profound happened in his theology, such that he went from being a stickler to the law of Moses, to fully embracing freedom in the Spirit in Christ, and thus dissociating himself from strict adherence to the Mosaic law.

Whatever it was, Paul proclaimed freedom from aspects of the Mosaic law, like most other followers of the faith who preceeded him. However, there was something about his message that seemed to lead to deep misunderstandings about the role of grace and the obligation to do good and holy works. 

James chapter 2 gives evidence to this concern. James famously challenges those who emphasize faith and reject works as an obligation of the Christian life. He declares that faith without works is dead. It is a not-so-subtle reference to Paul. Perhaps even a rebuke, not to Paul but to the flavor his reputed doctrine. 2 Peter also explicitly mentions Paul and his wisdom, but noting that his doctrine is hard to understand and that people have twisted his words.

Now, it would seem that this concern with Paul being misinterpreted was the concern of those from a distance, but Paul himself recognized that his teachings and practices were being misinterpreted.

Romans 3 
"5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved!"

Paul's misfortune was in the fact that his teaching was very much tied to his personal testimony. He understood his prior theology and practice and it is in the context of understanding the value and blessing of the Torah, that he can teach grace and freedom in the Spirit. Paul's preaching was as much about being a daily banal witness for Christ, as it was about declaring grace and truth in Christ through his proclamation. Now if one got the latter without the forner, then one misinterpretes Paul.  

So before anyone speaks about faith, grace, and freedom in the Spirit in Paul, one must first commit to imitating Paul. And what would that look like?

Romans 2:7 "7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;"

Seems like works--doing good--wins out and the overdone emphasis on faith and grace, slanders Paul.

So Jesus tells this parable in Luke 15, the Parable of the Lost Sheep:

"15 Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.”3 So he told them this parable: 4 “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

​
It's a very sweet parable of the irrational love and dedication of a shepherd seeking a lost, disoriented sheep. However, it would have struck the listeners as weird. Jesus says, "Which one of you . . . does not  . . ." He speaks as though this is normal practice and it would make sense to the average person. No!  In a normal world, 100 out of 100 people would shake their heads, no. Why risk the other 99? You have plenty of sheep, they'll mate and you'll get more. And to make matters more absurd, when the shepherd gets home, he throws a party for a lost sheep that no one else had any idea was missing in the first place (I wonder if they killed a fatted lamb or something--would be ironic).

Jesus' parables stick because they are sweet and profound on the face of them (in many cases) but also very strange.

Finally, The Clay Queen, Book 1 in The Children of Clay series, is ready for re-release. This revised story will provide the background hinted at and will provide deeper foundations for upcoming books in the series.

E-Book available on Amazon

Queen Nouei's past, present, and future selves are in conflict. They want to erase each other. But when Nouei's future and present self conspire to change their history, her past fights back.

To save her human creation, Nouei must prevent the Almighty, Lord Rynae, from destroying the world and starting over again. But Nouei is not powerful enough to withstand Lord Rynae unless she can return to her past, rewrite her history, and make herself more powerful.

But when Nouei attempts to recreate her past, she finds that Bridget, her past self, has a mind of her own. Bridget, instead, is consumed with love for Lord Rynae, the very god who wishes to annihilate Nouei. It's hard not to love Lord Rynae, but Nouei has found out the hard way that loving Rynae is a death sentence. If Bridget's devotion to Rynae continues, then Nouei's future will end.

Nouei wants to live, Bridget wants to die. Two women, one history, who will prevail?

​So far in The Children of Clay series, I've released:

• She Died in My Arms (Prequel--Currently free on some retailers)
• The Clay Queen
• Clay to Ashes
• Icon of Clay

Books 4 and 5 are in the works. Titles and covers to be revealed later.

Book 4 is complete, but needs editing. Book 5 is 70% complete and of course will need editing. I've completed another book in the universe which is going to need editing work also.  After that, I anticipate three more books and the series would be complete.

Book 4 was a real bear. I had to work hard to make it work. Why? I've had the entire story in my head for over 10 years and before I began publishing, I had what I thought was books 1-4 all set. These covered the 9,000 year history of the series, But as I set out to publish book one, I realized the backstory, which was in my head, needed to be told. That backstory became the trilogy out now, The Clay Queen, Clay to Ashes, and Icon of Clay.  All three were initially just a long chapter in the originally conceived book 1. Then there was a transition chapter between what is now Icon of Clay and what was to be my book 1. That transition is the current Book 4 and it jumps ahead 20 years after Icon of Clay and sets up Book 5, which was the original book 1.

Everything seemed good up until I began to revisit the original book 1 which is now book 5 and I realized that I needed to dig deeper foundations for this book to make sense. In the original conceived series, I had a short-story length prologue that set up Queen Nouei's ultimate dilemma and what triggered the series. But as I wrote The Clay Queen and even, She Died in my Arms, I avoided that story because I listened to people who thought that the post-Apocalyptic fantasy-esque vibe of that story (set 9,000 years in the future) did not fit the contemporary sci fi feel of The Clay Queen.

Now I realize I have to tell that story which has percolated in my head for years. So what does this mean? I'm rewriting The Clay Queen. The story as is will remain but I am adding three elements. First, I've added the five days Jeremy and Bridget Blade spend in Paris on their disaster of a honeymoon to give us more about them. Second, I think I'm adding just a little more about the parallel world (Index 100) that the nun, Sister Kaypore hails from. And then, third, much, much more about the world in the future that Queen Nouei is from and how her situation triggered her reincarnation as Bridget. When it's all said and done, The Clay Queen will be triple its current length.

Clay to Ashes (book 2) will expand but not by much. Icon of Clay (book 3) might get a smidgen or two of revision, but only if it's absolutely necesssary. Icon of Clay is complete as I conceive it. 

I don't have a timeline for when the revision will get done but I hope it'll be in the next 2-3 months for the revised The Clay Queen and Clay to Ashes. And then I'll resume releasing the other books and get the entire series out hopefully by the conclusion of 2019, God willing.

Sacrifices must be made.

On a desert planet, all citizens must cooperate to survive. The scientific organization, Pallagen, protects the colony city of Exordia--whether they want it or not. 
 
Rebels must be broken. 
 
Ex-Pallagen researcher Lena Ward isn’t going down without a fight. Her team of Exordia rejects is ready to pierce Pallagen’s benevolent exterior and expose the truth of their horrible agenda.
 
Loyalty must be programmed. 
 
Amnesiac Alex Kleric is reclaiming her life as an Enforcer dedicated to Exordia and Pallagen. But the records aren’t jogging her memories. Something is wrong--and all questions point to Lena Ward and her underground rebellion.
 
Progress must continue. 
 
To save Exordia. At any cost.

Available on:  Amazon   B&N   iBooks    Kobo     Goodreads         Uncommon Universes

Author Bio:

Sarah E. Ott lives and breathes stories that involve high stakes and character-driven plots. When she’s not chasing plot bunnies or emoting over good literature, she can be found doing one of the following things: a) working as a kids ministry office administrator, b) driving her Prius to Dunkin’ Donuts, or c) curled up on a couch with a book and covered in live cats.  
​
Website: http://www.saraheott.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Ott2Write
Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/sarahlizzieo/
 
Facebook Launch Party: https://www.facebook.com/events/343546106139971/

Mad Max: Fury Road and Apocalypto are two awesome movies. Strangely connected by Mel Gibson. He was the original Mad Max and then he directed Apocalypto. One great feature of both movies is the idea of chase, and flight. In both cases, just about half the movie is chasing/fleeing at high speed. In Apocalypto, the chase is on foot through a jungle, in Mad Max it is with vehicles through a post-apocalyptic wilderness.

Both feature religion in fascinating ways. In Apocalypto you get the full force of the Inca religion and then it runs smack into Catholicism, literally. There's a great scene at the end. Here it is. 

(Stop at the 1:35 mark or go on to the end)

In Mad Max, they mix in different religious elements including, Valhalla, the Nordic after life. When the War Boys are about to die, they call out to the others, "Witness Me," and then then go out in a blaze of glory. We get the first taste of this in this following scene.

In the film, one of the War Boys is captured by Furiosa and Max who are fleeing their captors. Nux is spared and he joins them and one of the women with him takes to him. The plan is, along with the few others with them, to destroy the sole path through a natural stone arch and return the community and run it differently. But of course, things go wrong and it is clear that Nux is going to die. And so in that moment, in an absolutely fantastic scene, he calls out to the others to witness him.

When we think of death, there are two poles. On the one hand, we die alone. No one dies or can die with you or for you. That is the stark reality. On the other hand, we want people to share that death. But only if they want to. So only in a moment, when you are witnessed in death, is the cycle complete in a sense. Just as we're never born alone, when your death is witnessed, you don't die alone.