A couple of weeks ago I read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It was amazing. I hadn't read anything of his since my Year 6 romp through "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"; now I'm determined to read everything this man has ever written.
The book is a collection of BBC radio talks that Lewis gave to the British people during World War II. He begins by making a case for the Christian faith and then looks at how a Christian should behave. In this process, he addresses the fundamental tenets of Christianity upon which all denominations agree.
Lewis begins his defence of the Christian faith by appealing to morality and natural law. He says that there is such a thing as moral rights and wrongs of which human beings are innately aware. These rules transcend differences in culture, time and place: they may differ in content across the board, but these differences are not as great as their similarities. They are a real part of our everyday lives: we use them to assert our rights, to argue for fairness and justice, and to discern between what is right and wrong, good and bad. These rules have not been created or contrived by human beings; thus they must have been endowed to man by a higher being.
He then argues that pantheism is incoherent and atheism too simple. He arrives to the person of Jesus Christ, and considers three different reactions to Jesus' claim of being the Son of God/God: that He really was who He said He was, that He was deliberately lying, or that He mistakenly thought Himself to be that which He claimed (which would make him crazy). Lewis says that the latter two possibilities are inconsistent with Jesus' character, and that it is most likely that He was being truthful in saying that He was the Messiah.
Because of its sinful nature, humanity consistently fails to keep the moral law which forms the foundations of life, and Jesus is the answer. By God becoming a man in the person of Jesus, and through Jesus' death and resurrection, humans are cleansed of their sins and can become tight with God again, as He had intended us to be from the start. So Jesus paid mankind's debt by dying for our sins, and thus made reconciliation between us and God possible. God doesn't force this upon anybody, it's up to individuals themselves to accept Jesus out of their free will. Sometimes I think, 'Wouldn't it be easier if God just forced salvation and eternal life upon everyone?' But that's silly. Because that's not true love; it's God loving humans but humans being forced to love God back, and that's not what God wants. Automatism and coercion are not good things, whereas free will and freedom to make choices for oneself are.
Lewis then explores Christian ethics: how Christians should behave. He talks about the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. And then he talks about the theological virtues of hope, faith and charity. He also looks at topics like forgiveness, sexual morality and Christian marriage. He talks about the triune God and how he thinks time works with God. He says that pride is "the great sin", and that Christians are all called to love their neighbours as themselves. This means that they need to love themselves, and treat others as they would treat themselves. You can love yourself even if you don't like yourself from time to time, and this is how you should behave toward other people. If you act like you love someone, you will come to love them in due course, even though you don't love them to begin with.
So that's the basic outline of the book. It's funny, but it was really awesome to be reminded of the key aspects of what I believe in. I mean, I know what I believe in, but it's so deep and vast and demands all of me that from time to time I need to be reminded of the really important stuff. And I liked how Lewis used lots of analogies and examples to illustrate his points. I also really liked his straightforward, direct style of argument. He'll say things like, "Christianity says X, the world says Y, either X is wrong or Y is wrong because the two ar eincompatible, and these are the reasons why I believe X is right and Y is wrong." And of course he doesn't sound like a self-righteous, sanctimonious prig; he uses his words so intelligently and humbly that it's impossible not to like him.
I want to share with you parts of the book that really intrigued me but I'm afraid I'll end up typing out huge chunks of it here which isn't really what I want to do. So for now I'll just say that I found the chapters on morality and psychoanalysis, sexual morality and forgiveness particularly profound. Lewis says that Christian morality is to do with the moral choices we make regardless of our individual psychological make-up, and it's these choices that turn our central persons into either a heavenly creature or a hellish one, which is what matters to God. He says that our sexual instinct has "gone wrong" and there are lots of reasons to think that obsessing over it and giving into our so-called "healthy" and "natural" sexual urges without restraint is actually a bit warped (he analogises sex to food a lot). He also says that forgiveness encompasses hating the sin but not the sinner, which can amount to punishing evildoers for their evildoings but with a sorriness for them in our hearts and a real hope that they will be cured and made human again in the future. Oh, and I also really liked the chapters titled "Counting the Cost" (God wants t ohelp us to become perfect, as He had always intended us to be - what the wow) and "Nice People or New Men" (he talks about Christians and "niceness"). The chapter on time was also really interesting: the idea that God is outside and above our human Time0line; our past, present and future are all the "now" for Him. These ideas are only the tip of Lewis' wisdom iceberg. And it's a big berg.
I found "Mere Christiainty" a witty, insightful, useful and accessible read. I'd highly recommend it to everyone and anyone, particularly people who are curious as to what Christianity is all about. I'm going to try and read through it a couple more times before this year is up to become a lot more familiar with it, it's a real gem. Please read htis book yourself and then let me know so we can talk about it after I've tackled it again.
G.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Friday, 28 January 2011
Never let me go
So on the plane back from LA to Auckland I watched "Never Let Me Go". It's a film based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro (for all you law kids who have done Ethics, that guy who wrote "The Remains of the Day", the story about a butler who was so consumed by his role as the butler that he couldn't bring himself to tell his lady butler friend that he loved her as that would be unprofessional). Anyway, I enjoyed the film, and it made me think about some stuff.
The film is about three people named Kathy (Carey Mulligan whom I don't really know much about but liked her performance), Tommy (Andrew Garfield - he's so pretty) and Ruth (Keira Knightley with her unfortunate mandible situation). As kids, the trio grew up in Hailsham, a seemingly ordinary English boarding school. The children are taught in classes, they're made to exercise, fed well and made to create art for the headmistress' gallery. But as is revealed to the children by a young new teacher, they are all destined for the same fate: they are to grow up and donate organs to sick people who need them. None of the children are likely to survive beyond their mid-twenties, as most donors "complete" after their third or fourth donation. Some may grow up to be carers of donors, which would prolong their lives for a few years, before they are inevitably made to become donors themselves and complete after a few donations. The kids aren't shocked by this news, and all accept their destiny. It turns out that the kids don't have biological parents; they have been modelled on exiting persons and created in a lab. Nothing is kept a secret, everything's out in the open and everyone just lives with the fact that this is going on.
At Hailsham, young Kathy develops feelings for young Tommy, but young Ruth gets in the way and steals him from her (passive-aggressively). They all remain friends, and when they turn 18 they move out of Hailsham and into the Cottages, where they are designated to live until they begin donating their organs. Tommy and Ruth are still a couple, and Kathy is the awkward third wheel. But you can tell that Tommy and Kathy get along really well and they have a lot more genuine affection for each other than Tommy and Ruth. They hear about the possibility of donor couples who are in love to defer donations for a few years so that they can spend some time together, but brush it off as rumours. As time goes on, Kathy becomes a carer, and Tommy and Ruth split up before they start donating their organs. They all lose touch.
Years pass by and Tommy and Ruth have completed a couple of donations. Kathy serendipitously finds out Ruth's whereabouts, and reconnects with her. The girls also track down Tommy and the three of them become reunited. They take a trip together to the coast, and Ruth apologises for having gotten between Tommy and Kathy all those years ago. She admits to having been jealous and insecure when she saw the two of them getting along so well as kids in Hailsham. To make it up to them, she gives them the information of the person to speak to about deferring donations as a couple in love. After their trip, Ruth donates for the last time and dies. Kathy and Tommy visit the woman, but it turns out that the deferrals were indeed just a rumour, and there is no way to postpone donations once a donor has begun to donate. Kathy watches Tommy on the operating table, about to donate for the last time. The film ends with Kathy reflecting on her existence and on Tommy.
So yeah, a pretty bleak story. But I thought it had some interesting themes and messages. The first was the idea of "duty before self", similar to the butler story. These characters ultimately didn't question the purpose of their lives; they accepted their role as donors without resistance. They got frustrated from time to time and tried to get around donating for a little bit, but they didn't really do anything to change their fate. Perhaps it was because they didn't know any better? Maybe they thought it was impossible for them to change the system? That their calling in life as donors was a noble thing? I thought it was sad how the characters failed to recognise that they were entitled to normal lives as well, just like the people they were donating their organs to, even though they had been created for that purpose and that purpose alone. They were still human in every sense of the word. I reckon if I had been Kathy, I would've tried to fight my very foreseeable future. I would've tried to run away or something. Maybe I'm not noble enough.
On a related point, the notion of "self-worth and identity" spoke to me. At one point in the film, Ruth thinks she has found her "original" (the person that the donors are modelled on) but after realising that this is not the case, she gets really angry and bitter, saying that they're all modelled on human trash like junkies and prostitutes. In another scene, Kathy looks through a porn magazine to try and spot her original. These characters didn't really know who they were, or what they were truly worth as individuals. They didn't realise they had souls of their own, regardless of the fact that they were created in a lab to function as donors. And I guess a relevant thematic question to the ideas of self-worth and identity is, "What does it mean to be human?"
Another concept that the film addresses is, "What does a significant life look like?" What does it mean to lead a meaningful life? Living to die for the wellbeing and happiness of others probably fits the bill. But if you have no real choice in the matter, is it still significant and meaningful? Or is it just cruel? Who are we to say that one life can be discounted for the sake of a few others?
Finally, "death" (more specifically, impending death) was also another key theme of the film. To me, the fate of the three main characters was shocking because they are all doomed to die so young. I mean, we all know that we're all going to die someday, but for most of us that thought isn't really immediate. It's a far-off, "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" sort of thing. But for these characters, death was always a very near and real thing, despite their youth. This aspect of the film reminded me of Ecclesiastes 12:1, which says, "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years approach when you will say, 'I find no pleasure in them.'" The movie made me think about the importance of keeping our ultimate end in mind and living faithfully, each and every day. Because if you wait until you're old and about to die, it's too late.
I did have one issue with the story though. Tommy didn't exactly reject Ruth's advances, and they did stay together for years. If he really liked Kathy he should've either never gone out with Ruth at all, or ended things sooner. I thought it was unfair how Ruth blamed herself wholly for keeping Tommy and Kathy apart.
Overall, I thought the film was pretty good. The music and cinematography were really beautiful. I'm going to read the book soon, looking forward to it.
G.
The film is about three people named Kathy (Carey Mulligan whom I don't really know much about but liked her performance), Tommy (Andrew Garfield - he's so pretty) and Ruth (Keira Knightley with her unfortunate mandible situation). As kids, the trio grew up in Hailsham, a seemingly ordinary English boarding school. The children are taught in classes, they're made to exercise, fed well and made to create art for the headmistress' gallery. But as is revealed to the children by a young new teacher, they are all destined for the same fate: they are to grow up and donate organs to sick people who need them. None of the children are likely to survive beyond their mid-twenties, as most donors "complete" after their third or fourth donation. Some may grow up to be carers of donors, which would prolong their lives for a few years, before they are inevitably made to become donors themselves and complete after a few donations. The kids aren't shocked by this news, and all accept their destiny. It turns out that the kids don't have biological parents; they have been modelled on exiting persons and created in a lab. Nothing is kept a secret, everything's out in the open and everyone just lives with the fact that this is going on.
At Hailsham, young Kathy develops feelings for young Tommy, but young Ruth gets in the way and steals him from her (passive-aggressively). They all remain friends, and when they turn 18 they move out of Hailsham and into the Cottages, where they are designated to live until they begin donating their organs. Tommy and Ruth are still a couple, and Kathy is the awkward third wheel. But you can tell that Tommy and Kathy get along really well and they have a lot more genuine affection for each other than Tommy and Ruth. They hear about the possibility of donor couples who are in love to defer donations for a few years so that they can spend some time together, but brush it off as rumours. As time goes on, Kathy becomes a carer, and Tommy and Ruth split up before they start donating their organs. They all lose touch.
Years pass by and Tommy and Ruth have completed a couple of donations. Kathy serendipitously finds out Ruth's whereabouts, and reconnects with her. The girls also track down Tommy and the three of them become reunited. They take a trip together to the coast, and Ruth apologises for having gotten between Tommy and Kathy all those years ago. She admits to having been jealous and insecure when she saw the two of them getting along so well as kids in Hailsham. To make it up to them, she gives them the information of the person to speak to about deferring donations as a couple in love. After their trip, Ruth donates for the last time and dies. Kathy and Tommy visit the woman, but it turns out that the deferrals were indeed just a rumour, and there is no way to postpone donations once a donor has begun to donate. Kathy watches Tommy on the operating table, about to donate for the last time. The film ends with Kathy reflecting on her existence and on Tommy.
So yeah, a pretty bleak story. But I thought it had some interesting themes and messages. The first was the idea of "duty before self", similar to the butler story. These characters ultimately didn't question the purpose of their lives; they accepted their role as donors without resistance. They got frustrated from time to time and tried to get around donating for a little bit, but they didn't really do anything to change their fate. Perhaps it was because they didn't know any better? Maybe they thought it was impossible for them to change the system? That their calling in life as donors was a noble thing? I thought it was sad how the characters failed to recognise that they were entitled to normal lives as well, just like the people they were donating their organs to, even though they had been created for that purpose and that purpose alone. They were still human in every sense of the word. I reckon if I had been Kathy, I would've tried to fight my very foreseeable future. I would've tried to run away or something. Maybe I'm not noble enough.
On a related point, the notion of "self-worth and identity" spoke to me. At one point in the film, Ruth thinks she has found her "original" (the person that the donors are modelled on) but after realising that this is not the case, she gets really angry and bitter, saying that they're all modelled on human trash like junkies and prostitutes. In another scene, Kathy looks through a porn magazine to try and spot her original. These characters didn't really know who they were, or what they were truly worth as individuals. They didn't realise they had souls of their own, regardless of the fact that they were created in a lab to function as donors. And I guess a relevant thematic question to the ideas of self-worth and identity is, "What does it mean to be human?"
Another concept that the film addresses is, "What does a significant life look like?" What does it mean to lead a meaningful life? Living to die for the wellbeing and happiness of others probably fits the bill. But if you have no real choice in the matter, is it still significant and meaningful? Or is it just cruel? Who are we to say that one life can be discounted for the sake of a few others?
Finally, "death" (more specifically, impending death) was also another key theme of the film. To me, the fate of the three main characters was shocking because they are all doomed to die so young. I mean, we all know that we're all going to die someday, but for most of us that thought isn't really immediate. It's a far-off, "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" sort of thing. But for these characters, death was always a very near and real thing, despite their youth. This aspect of the film reminded me of Ecclesiastes 12:1, which says, "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years approach when you will say, 'I find no pleasure in them.'" The movie made me think about the importance of keeping our ultimate end in mind and living faithfully, each and every day. Because if you wait until you're old and about to die, it's too late.
I did have one issue with the story though. Tommy didn't exactly reject Ruth's advances, and they did stay together for years. If he really liked Kathy he should've either never gone out with Ruth at all, or ended things sooner. I thought it was unfair how Ruth blamed herself wholly for keeping Tommy and Kathy apart.
Overall, I thought the film was pretty good. The music and cinematography were really beautiful. I'm going to read the book soon, looking forward to it.
G.
Everyone is looking for the same thing
Everyone is looking for the same thing. Regardless of their skin colour, family background, religious beliefs, political views, hobbies, interests, profession, ambitions, hopes, fears and quirks. They're all looking for the same thing.
Everyone is looking for love.
To love and be loved. To know someone inside out and still like them enough to want to be with them, and vice versa. To find happiness through love. We're wired this way. It's not a coincidence that love as a theme is central in our conversations, songs, books, films and poetry. It permeates our beings.
I hope we all find what we're looking for.
G.
Everyone is looking for love.
To love and be loved. To know someone inside out and still like them enough to want to be with them, and vice versa. To find happiness through love. We're wired this way. It's not a coincidence that love as a theme is central in our conversations, songs, books, films and poetry. It permeates our beings.
I hope we all find what we're looking for.
G.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
So this is the new year. And I don't feel any different.
It's 2011. I don't feel like a new person, nor have I set my New Years resolutions yet. But I do feel obliged to write up a blog post to commemorate the occasion.
I had a very pleasant New Years. I was in New York, but I didn't attend the Times Square ball drop. I didn't want to wait outside in the freezing cold for half the day, surrounded by 999,999 hyped-up tourists, probably hungry and needing to go to the bathroom but prevented from going anywhere by the sea of people, and wishing I was somewhere else for the whole time apart from the last half hour of 2010. Instead, my friends and I went to the Guggenheim, strolled through Central Park, watched "The Nutcracker", went to MoMA, enjoyed breathtaking views of New York at night time from atop the Empire State Building, had an incredible Korean feast, and drank champagne at a bar before doing the 10-second New Years countdown. Hello, 2011. Not a bad start to the year.
We did go to check out Times Square at around 2:00am. It was empty, and the ground was covered in rubbish and dirty confetti. I generally tend not to get too excited about New Years celebrations because the fuss, glitz and glamour is all fleeting and fake. I reckon the more significant part of New Years is the mindset you adopt in embracing the new year, which is embodied in the goals you set for yourself. I guess you should always strive to improve various aspects of your life regardless of whether or not it's the beginning of the year, but there is a certain meaningfulness to setting New Years resolutions: it's like you get a new start in a way.
Like I said, I haven't set my New Years resolutions yet. I'm going to say it's because I've been caught up in travelling. I'll get onto it when I return home. Last year was a joke, because I wasn't serious about the resolutions I set for myself. But I think this year it'll be different. I have a really good feeling about 2011 and I want to make realistic goals that'll set a positive tone for the whole year and provide me with tangible objectives to work towards. I did make a New Years wish though. I wrote it down on a piece of blue confetti to be placed inside the Times Square ball and released as soon as the New Years countdown was over. I guess it would've gotten trampled under thousands of feet after the big party. But I'm not going to see that as being ominous in any way. I can't tell you what I wished for; I'll let you know if it comes true.
I'm going to spend my last few days in Los Angeles on my own, and to be honest, I'm quite ready to go home. I want to enjoy the summer heat and spend time with the people I love. Man, I can't wait. So far I've not been impressed with LA: 2-hour shuttle ride from the airport to the hotel (that journey was longer than my flight here from San Francisco), scary people out on the street (I walked past this man who was yelling at passers by and talking aloud to himself), and way-too-wide roads (it takes ages to walk around). Hopefully tomorrow will be better.
Happy year of the rabbit, you guys. I hope you're able to keep your resolutions, and that any wishes you make come true. Praise be to God.
G.
I had a very pleasant New Years. I was in New York, but I didn't attend the Times Square ball drop. I didn't want to wait outside in the freezing cold for half the day, surrounded by 999,999 hyped-up tourists, probably hungry and needing to go to the bathroom but prevented from going anywhere by the sea of people, and wishing I was somewhere else for the whole time apart from the last half hour of 2010. Instead, my friends and I went to the Guggenheim, strolled through Central Park, watched "The Nutcracker", went to MoMA, enjoyed breathtaking views of New York at night time from atop the Empire State Building, had an incredible Korean feast, and drank champagne at a bar before doing the 10-second New Years countdown. Hello, 2011. Not a bad start to the year.
We did go to check out Times Square at around 2:00am. It was empty, and the ground was covered in rubbish and dirty confetti. I generally tend not to get too excited about New Years celebrations because the fuss, glitz and glamour is all fleeting and fake. I reckon the more significant part of New Years is the mindset you adopt in embracing the new year, which is embodied in the goals you set for yourself. I guess you should always strive to improve various aspects of your life regardless of whether or not it's the beginning of the year, but there is a certain meaningfulness to setting New Years resolutions: it's like you get a new start in a way.
Like I said, I haven't set my New Years resolutions yet. I'm going to say it's because I've been caught up in travelling. I'll get onto it when I return home. Last year was a joke, because I wasn't serious about the resolutions I set for myself. But I think this year it'll be different. I have a really good feeling about 2011 and I want to make realistic goals that'll set a positive tone for the whole year and provide me with tangible objectives to work towards. I did make a New Years wish though. I wrote it down on a piece of blue confetti to be placed inside the Times Square ball and released as soon as the New Years countdown was over. I guess it would've gotten trampled under thousands of feet after the big party. But I'm not going to see that as being ominous in any way. I can't tell you what I wished for; I'll let you know if it comes true.
I'm going to spend my last few days in Los Angeles on my own, and to be honest, I'm quite ready to go home. I want to enjoy the summer heat and spend time with the people I love. Man, I can't wait. So far I've not been impressed with LA: 2-hour shuttle ride from the airport to the hotel (that journey was longer than my flight here from San Francisco), scary people out on the street (I walked past this man who was yelling at passers by and talking aloud to himself), and way-too-wide roads (it takes ages to walk around). Hopefully tomorrow will be better.
Happy year of the rabbit, you guys. I hope you're able to keep your resolutions, and that any wishes you make come true. Praise be to God.
G.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)