restless time

"You have made us for yourself and our heart is restless until it rests in you." So says Augustine in his Confessions. This restlessness is evident in a lot of contemporary society, most notably in the area of sexual conduct. I found it a bit surprising at first that sex is a major topic in the Confessions, considered to be a spiritual classic. All this proves, I guess, is that sex is a spiritual matter. Some theologians have noted that sexual yearning is a sign or symbol of our desire for something more than our insular selves, a desire to join in some kind of physico-spiritual bond that transcends simple physical pleasure. Concupiscence is not simply a concern of the body but also of the soul. Augustine pulls no punches in describing his struggle with his sexual desire. After his conversion to Christianity, his view of sex was a favourable one, namely that sex provides for the survival of the human race through procreation and that this procreative impulse is a gift of the creator.
There are in my view four options regarding sex (there are others I’m sure, but my imagination is a bit limited). I) Unbridled sex anytime with anybody for any reason and damn the consequences ii) Sex within a monogamous, non-marriage relationship, with changes in partners at various times iii) Sex within a faithful, marriage relationship iv) chastity. The fourth option can be seem to be a difficult one. Whether it is a struggle may depend on what passes through one’s mind at any given time. But there is a peculiar phenomenon that occurs that can take the edge off some difficulty. Augustine also refers to nocturnal emissions in Book X. This seems to be the body’s method of housecleaning, just as dreams may be the mind’s method of mental housecleaning. That fact that erotic dreams and emissions invariably occur together may also point to the physico-spiritual nature of sex (assuming the mind is a component of the soul and not merely the byproduct of the brain, in which case mental and spiritual phenomena can be reduced to merely physical processes. I think though, that there are good reasons for believing in the existence of the soul.)
There are two things that all people have in common: sex and time. Every person has a sex (not has sex, but has a sex), either male or female. Every person exists in time. What is time? Good question. Augustine’s view was rather prescient given the fact that he didn’t have the benefits of modern physics. Time is a created entity (ie. it had a beginning. This was confirmed by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose about 35 years ago) and God sees all of time as an eternal present. This brings to mind the debate among philosophers about what is God’s relationship to time. Is He timelessly eternal or temporally eternal? Is He wholly outside of time or does He exist within time? These sorts of discussions can get rather abstruse, what with all the talk about the correctness of the A-theory or the B-theory of time, etc. and I’m not really smart enough to evaluate their merits, but reading various philosophers’ views on the matter is an interesting mental exercise (and trust me, my mind needs the exercise. Sometimes I think my mental flabbiness is an irreversible trait.)

Lame Poem 1

Questions and answers reside together on a
bubble of ignorance and knowledge. A sliding scale
of tacit sureness invades every mind then leaves a
coal-coloured mark. Love comes and goes. The grass seems
to whistle in the strong wind. The breath of memories
glistens in the cold enclaves of longing.
A sure way to die is to remember. The mists of
times past, angry words, hateful thoughts. If to hate is to murder
then I deserve the death penalty. The odious demeanour
penetrates and occupies my
soul as emperor of all. A revolution must take
place. The tyrant must be overthrown.
My thirst must be slaked. But rain cannot penetrate
the skin. Cut me quickly for my blood boils and must
release its steam. Don’t shoot until the visual whites
appear. I’ve not yet begun my flight, my journey to
oblivion. I’m waiting for a reprieve. Body pummeled
hard. Mind saunters unmolested. Spirit quakes, a trembling
of terror unspoken. The world is gained but the earth
will eventually come to an end.

Conversation

So you see a woman you like. She’s pretty, seems nice. Many a young fellow (or old for that matter) have fallen (hard) for a face and body, only to find out later that the person behind the figure was not for him. (The same probably applies to women who may fall head over heels for a good looking guy. I guess there’s no danger of this happening in my case. The only reason a woman would fall head over heels because of me would be because she was trying to get away from me and tripped). The adage of getting to know the person and not just the body is a good one, I think.
Conversations over a period of days and weeks (months even) could help solve a lot of future relationship problems. If no relationship develops, these conversations would result in no relationship problems at all since there would be no relationship to which problems could adhere. If the relationship goes forward, you can get a feel for what kind of person she is and act/speak/emote appropriately. How often has a guy assumed something about a woman that could have been made clear by a good conversation, only to have it surprise him later (and often in a negative way)?
People always try to put their best face/foot forward. Foolish is the lad who falls for the façade rather than the foundation. What is the best foundation? A kind heart. An intelligent mind. Good character. From these qualities spring the words that you want to listen to, the thoughts you want to interact with. From these come the continuing desire to encourage the relationship. You just have to be able to tell her your thoughts, to have her agree, disagree, correct, encourage. The beauty of her words will reflect the beauty of her soul. The beautiful soul is the foundation of the house of relationship that you want to build. What will the future hold? Perhaps she will become one of your closest friends and confidants. Perhaps she will even become your wife. Perhaps she may move away to a distant city and leave you lonely and disappointed. But when the loneliness comes, the words will be there for you to remember, and you’ll feel well again. Even then the bonds of communication are not severed. Letters, e-mails, even phone calls can rekindle that flame of desire, not for the body but for the mind; not for the flesh but the spirit. One day the two may become one flesh, but until then, the two minds can become one. This is reward enough.

When Faith is not Enough

When Faith is not Enough by Kelly James Clark(Eerdmans, 1997)

After a fresh snowfall, the world seems a magical place. The brightness of it all is almost mesmerizing (at least it is out here where it doesn’t snow too much). After a couple of days the dirt and car exhaust tinge the white to such an extent that the dovish covering becomes stale and the spell is broken. When the dirt of daily existence darkens the magical landscape of life, faith is the thing that helps us endure the dingy and ugly parts.

I think it’s safe to say that every Christian encounters doubts about his or her faith at some time or another. In one of his essays in Christian Reflections, C.S. Lewis notes that believers, so inured with the material and physical in their everyday experience, are prone to wonder whether Christianity may be just one big delusion. He goes on to note that doubt works in the other direction as well. Often, atheists, in moments of reflective pondering, wonder whether or not there may be more to life than just what they can see and touch and taste.
The fact that there is so much that’s wrong with our world may leave many people to be in a state of continued perplexity over the question of God and his goodness. Clark states the main purpose of his book: "How should we understand faith in the midst of our ambiguous, ambivalent, and suffering world?"

Why is it that the (or at least, a) common response of the church is to blithely gloss over tragedies and simply trot out the common "happy" texts such as Romans 8:28 or Psalm 23? (Your experience in this matter might be different than what mine has been) Maybe all things don’t work out for the good of those who love God (at least not in this life). I’ve never heard Psalm 88 read in a church service; but it may be the one of the most honest of all the psalms. I often feel that people would be better off if they just realize that life sucks.

"Christians, of all people, should be honest about their plight, but they are curiously silent on the topic of honest and sincere doubt. It is, for many, an unspeakable sin."

Clark has written a very readable and thoughtful book on the dilemma of fear and doubt that Christians often face. He goes out of his way to be honest about his own problems and failings. This honesty has a way of drawing the reader into his discussion. In one anecdote he recalls how, as a college student full of intellectual hubris and "feasting my pride", he was humbled by an unpretentious, illiterate, hardworking janitor. As he puts it, "I was humiliated by his humility."

In two chapters, "Moments of Light" and "Moments of Darkness", he contrasts the vast distance between what we perceive to be God’s goodness, and what we experience by way of suffering. All of our good and uplifting experiences, the birth of a child, the beauty and wonder of nature, the exquisite design of the universe, all affirm our belief in a beneficent creator. I read somewhere that Albert Einstein, after hearing pre-teen violin prodigy Yehudi Menhuin play a concert, went backstage and exclaimed, "Now I know that there is a God!" That was before the Holocaust. And the hydrogen bomb.

"I realize, of course, that I may be have been deceived by all my moments of light – that all my glimpses of the divine are just illusion. Part of the terror of life in this age of uncertainty is the realization that all of my most fundamental beliefs might be utterly wrong. My entire life might be structured around a lie."

Could it be that Christians are a little too optimistic about their faith? There are those in the ‘prosperity gospel’ camp who don’t think so. God is the god of blessings. Any bad things that happen are a result of your own lack of faith. If you just have enough faith you’ll be blessed till you can’t take it anymore. Is this the proper view of faith? Clark takes a more realistic approach: "The resolution of doubt and the embracing of faith involve the entire individual, heart as well as mind. Commitment to the person of Christ entails much more than understanding and believing a set of propositions. Genuine faith involves the entire character of a person. Faith is a lifelong process of development that involves the complete transformation of the whole person. Fundamentally, it involves a terrifying and total denial of self."

Faith is a complex thing. Suffering and doubt linger heavily in the hearts of many people. There are no pat answers. Anyone who thinks there are is just fooling himself. The nice thing about this book is that it doesn’t try to provide pat answers. It tries to help the reader to think hard about issues surrounding faith and then tries to point her in the direction of viewing faith as a journey. This journey will contain periods of suffering for which the easy answers are no longer helpful (if they ever were. I’ve heard some pop apologists respond to the problem of evil by saying, "Well, if God were to eliminate all evil in the world, He’d have to eliminate you too, since you’re by nature a sinner." Easy to for them to say). We have struggles but we also have hope. It would be unbearable to live in a world of suffering with no hope.

Clark includes a number of good quotes from various writers, including this one from Flannery O’Connor: "What people don’t realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is a cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe. If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God."

In the end Clark views the benefits of faith to be so great that "in spite of life’s darkness, faith ought to be pursued." Strangely, even though the book is titled When Faith is not Enough, he seems to be saying that in the end faith is in fact enough (this is not a complaint, just an observation).
Since I usually don’t know what I’m talking about, you should read the book for yourself.

wrong number

Someone called me. It was a wrong number. Why do people sometimes call wrong numbers? Do they know the correct number but simply punch an incorrect digit? Do they begin with an incorrectly copied number and then punch each digit correctly? Do people ever a call wrong number on purpose? One can imagine a lonely person, a rejected and despised soul, purposely dialing up a stranger simply to hear another human voice. Most times the person at the other end will politely inform the caller of her mistake. If called again, many will probably respond just as politely, possibly even laughing a bit, partly at the coincidence of two consecutive wrong calls, partly at the ineptitude of the caller (can’t you read numbers correctly?). The third time is when irritation creeps into the voice.
This planet we live on may be a wrong number. In the midst of a hostile universe, there exists a blue dot, an oasis in a dark and scary and lifeless galactic desert (though there is a certain beauty in deserts). On this dot there exist minds capable of discovering mathematical theorems, designing cathedrals and space shuttles, writing poetry and philosophy. These minds are also capable of the greatest of evils: torture, abuse, genocide. Why should such beings as us exist when there is scant, if any, evidence of any similar such beings elswhere in the cosmos? Scientists and non-scientists alike hold out hope that non-terrestrial life exists, but so far the search for extraterrestrial intelligence has come up short. In fact, given the factors required for intelligent life to develop, the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere than earth is very low (a book to read is Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee).
Perhaps we aren’t a wrong number. We may in fact be the one number which is dialed correctly. If indeed our planet is the only one that contains life, then we are the most fortunate of beings. We hold a privileged place in the universe. We can observe the cosmos and appreciate the beauty and wonder of it all. Only intelligent, sentient beings can do this. But can intelligence come from non-intelligence? It seems more reasonable to believe that we’re the product of an intelligence far greater than we can possibly comprehend.

the question of god

I just watched a recording of PBS’s special, The Question of God, on the religious views of CS Lewis and Sigmund Freud. While interesting at times, it can only be judged a disappointment. The book by the same name is a better choice for people who want to find out about the spiritual views of these two influential thinkers. The major problem of the show lies in the use of the discussion panel. The biographical segments with commentary by various people (eg. Peter Kreeft on Lewis) was much more interesting and informative. What we have are bunch of people, obviously intelligent, and asking good questions, but coming to the conclusion that there are no good answers to the problems brought up in the show. Of course when I say good answers, ‘good’ is in the eye of the beholder. One exchange (and the only name I remember is Michael Shermer’s) on the problem of evil was telling. One panelist, a theist, brought up free will as the solution to evil in the world as though (and perhaps one should not judge too harshly considering the limitations of the format, such as time constraints) that were the only answer available to be given. Another panelist, a skeptic, pointed out that free will would not explain the occurrence of natural evil and suffering such as that caused by earthquakes or hurricanes. There are two problems here. First, the impression was given that no other answer was available. Second, the impression was given that even if there were an answer, the panelists who were theists were not in possession of that answer.
One might ask if there are any good answers to natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides and the like). Well, that may depend on who you ask and how much certainty you want in the answer. My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful god to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how god would allow evil. Perhaps the models are inaccurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why god would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. I’m inclined to think, though, that few atheists would be convinced by a model provided by a theist. Why should they? Few theists, at first blush anyways, would probably not give up belief in god at the first instance of evil or suffering that they face. This type of problem goes both ways. But that doesn’t mean either side ought to give up trying to convince the other.
So, one model for looking at natural evil is through the use of the natural law theodicy. A theodicy is any explanation that tries to justify the presence of evil in light of a good and powerful god. An atheist may put it this way: If god is all powerful he would be able to eliminate all evil. If god is all good he would want to eliminate all evil. However, there is evil. Therefore, there is no good and powerful god. The theist could try try to backtrack and say that there is in fact a god but that he isn’t so good or so powerful as to eliminate all evil that people experience. Christian theists, however, would probably not want to go down this route. Christians believe that god is indeed all good and all powerful. (I’ll get back to this at a later date; not that anyone’s that interested, I’m sure).

Break's over

Well, after moving to a new home I figured it was time to get back to writing my inane thoughts and letting the world have a good laugh. The topics begging to be written about are legion. For example, during the presidential debates, did anyone else notice just how ridiculous both candidates looked? Both of them trying not to pull a Bush scowlfest by constantly grinning stupidly while the other spoke? The second debate had a shot of Bush that, had I not known it was the leader of the free world, I could have imagined would have morphed into a Texas version of a street mime, what with all that makeup caked on the man’s face. Please, just let those pores breathe properly. What about gay marriage? I support the traditional definition of marriage. For my reasons see the next entry.

writing

The SATs will now have an essay component. Back in the day when I was writing entrance exams all you had to do was be able to fill in a bubble sheet. The instructions were pretty simple. They even included examples of how not to fill in a bubble: partially filled bubbles, pencils marks outside the bubble, etc. According to a news story on the subject, some educators are concerned that today’s students don’t know how to write. Young folk are so used to sending cryptic emails and text messages loaded with emoticons and other symbols that it may be difficult for them to put together two or three coherent sentences, the kind that professors like to see in papers. It seems that technology has caused the devolution of human communication from forms that require highly abstract skills such as writing whole sentences to those forms which mimic the most simple of speech skills. Many emails move more like speech than writing. Emoticons, for example, do nothing more than replace facial expressions.
The beauty of writing is in the capacity of written words alone to capture, non-verbally, all the irony and figurative qualities of language, all the winks, smiles, grimaces, and eyerolls that would otherwise be seen if you were talking to someone face to face. As a matter of fact, I’m rolling my eyes right now.

full moon

There’s a full moon. They say that the moon can make people do strange things. This seems a rather peculiar notion. Perhaps it’s the gravitational influence on the earth’s inhabitants. Maybe some of our neurons get pulled toward the heavens, making us somewhat light-headed and loopy. Perhaps it’s the fact that there, right in the middle of a dark sky, is a bright eye looking down on us. We usually regard darkness to be prime time for hidden agendas. But if someone is watching us, perhaps a little bit of the performance artist in us comes out. The moon is watching, a celestial sentinel.
Is there, regardless of time of day, someone truly watching us? And can this someone see not only our actions but also our motives, our thoughts, our desires? Is this watcher benign or hostile? Will he make us do things we don’t want? Or does he simply watch our pathetic lives and laugh at our arrogant folly? What will all of human achievement be worth when, in a number of billion years, the universe is nothing but a lifeless mass of cold particles?

Intro

Intro

I feel like I’ve finally crossed that bridge to the 21st Century. Let’s just say I’m a late adopter. I don’t even own a CD player. But it seems that everyone and her grandmother has a blog. It’s free, so I figured I’d blog too (I’m assuming blog can be used as both a noun and a verb). Not that there’s anything interesting that I have to say.
Notwithstanding the label "new", this century doesn’t seem all that different from
the last one. No amount of high-tech toys can eradicate the same ol’ human nature that plagues us. High-definition only shows our flaws even more clearly.

The way to correct the excesses of modern life is, I believe, to read (and since there is much in my life that needs correcting, I read as much as possible). Books, old and new, can tell us things about life, love, happiness, and truth that we would have a hard time figuring out on our own. It seems that the human race has been endowed with intelligence and insights as a whole with no single person having all the answers. This reminds me of St. Paul’s claim that the church is like a body with each member doing its part. Of course, there are also those who are paragons of poor thinking (your truly included). There are even those who dispense large doses of intellectual silliness under the guise of intelligence (me again). However, maybe we can all learn a little something from each other if we keep an open mind (I may not be able to learn much since I’ve been accused of having a closed mind).

So, I don’t really know what I’m going to be writing here; maybe a book review now and then (acknowledging that "review" is probably the wrong term. When I think of reviews I think of those 20000 word essays found in the the Atlantic Monthly (yes, you Christopher Hitchens) or the New York Review of Books). Maybe some really bad poetry (and when I say bad this is no exaggeration), or maybe just some, er, random rambings of a poor…well, you know.

P.S. errors in spelling, grammar, syntax, and punctuation are a regular occurrence for me. My apologies in advance.

launchpad

This is just a test to see how this things looks.

Miscellaneous

Other stuff nobody is interested in
Intro
Writing
Break's Over
Wrong Number
Conversation
Rain
Jesus or Horus?
Semicolons
Does Blogging Make You Smarter?
First Church of Fenway
Narnia Interview
Meet the Jolly Blogger
Briefly on Marriage
Early Narnia Review
Thankful for Everything?
Drive by Pedantry
Are Computers Bad for Students?
More C.S. Lewis
Anne Rice
Still Laughing
Will Going to Church Make You Rich?
Book a Film
Brits Give
Critiquing Richard Dawkins
We are...amused
The Father of Ireland
Why Cultural Elites Attack Religion
A Prayer
Thought for Thinkers
Written like a True Academic
A History of Pizza
A Voice from the Past
Power to Will
The axeman cometh

Movies
Finding Neverland
Redeeming Movies

Television
Unreality TV

In the News

Politics



Miscellaneous
Locked Out (Just like all of Ned Flanders's Cable Channels)
No Fly Zone

Church Life

Church
Some Thoughts About Church
Women in the Church
Shiny happy Evangelicals
A Pentecostal Looks at Anti-Intellectualism
Colson Commentary on Christian Music


Generally Religious in Nature
Polar Ice Caps are Melting
Youth Trends

Music
On Hymns
Favourite Hymn #20
Thine is the Glory
Favourite Hymn #18
Favourite Hymn #17
Favourite Hymn #16
Favourite Hymn #15
Favourite Hymn #14
Favourite Hymn #13
Favourite Hymn #12
Favourite Hymn #11
Favourite Hymn #10
Favourite Christmas Hymn
Favourite Hymn #9

Sermons
Tim Keller's 9/11 sermon

Other
Is the Hype Worth It?
Bible Translations
Gospel of Judas
Articles on Jesus
Gospel of Judas pt.2
Prayer Study
Good Friday 2006
Easter


Evangelism
A Method of Evanglism

Poetastery

Poems
Lame Poem 1
Time Waits For No Man


Not Quite Poems
Full Moon

Books and Reading

Reviews
When Faith Is Not Enough
Visions Aplenty on Patmos

Summaries
The Great Depression
Reformed Dogmatics part one - Intro
Death in the City - Chapter One
Death in the City - Chapter Two
Death in the City - Chapter Three
Death in the City - Chapter Four

Thoughts on Books
Restless Time
On Books
Lewis on Reading
Why Bother with Harry Potter
Sermons on Narnia
In Defense of Narnia
Interesting Narnia Article
Alan Jacobs on Lewis
What if Christmas Never Happened?
Amazon Reviews
To Live Happily Ever After
Da Vinci Inquest
Book Meme
Republic
I Gotta get me some book learnin'
Books to Read
What Kind of Reader are You?
What's next
A Scholar's Books
Blurbing Books

Miscellaneous
Will's Way with words
New C.S. Lewis Encylopedia

Letters

Letters to Editor
Are Christians Intolerant? (cont.)

Miscellaneous

Intellectual Wannabe

Sort of Philosophical/Apologetical
Norman Geisler vs. Alvin Plantinga
Do Christians Impose Their Beliefs?
God and Hurricanes pt.1
God and Hurricanes pt.2
God and Hurricanes pt.3
God and Hurricanes pt.4
What If God Didn't Exist?
Are Christians Intolerant?
Who Made God? Pt.1
Who Made God? Pt.2
Who Made God? Pt.3


Sort of Theological
To Hell and Back
On the Reading of Verses
Will there be a Party in Hell?


Bioethical
Some Thoughts on Embryos
Addendum to the Last Post(on embryos)



Miscellaneous
A Case for Traditional Marriage
Natural Presdispositions
The Question of God
Veritas Lectures
Is Religion Bad For Society?
Witherington on 'critical scholarship'
Read This
Refusals as Resolutions
Jesus: An Inconvenient Truth