It is not true that God is our only good. It is the fact that God is the only good and thus, He is our only good. There are three responses to the goodness of God.
1) To be God
2) "To be like God and to share His goodness" (Lewis, 18)
3) To be miserable
As a part of creation it is impossible for us to be God. The creature cannot be the creator. Thus, we are left with two alternatives - we must either be like God and share in His goodness or we must not be like Him and have no share in His goodness. By having no share in God we have no share in goodness; thus our only option is to live in misery.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Catching up with CS Lewis
I'm still not hitting the everyday goal with A Year With C.S. Lewis. But, I'm going to play catch up before I'm too far behind.
January 5
Lewis hits hard when he writes of people "playing with religion". I know that I'm saved, but I still like to tread the middle ground and dabble in religion. C.S. Lewis is not messing around and playing with religion. His theology is severe and rightfully so.
January 6
Lewis continues to pound against those that are playing with religion and only half-heartedly accepting God as some impersonal force. He sees those who look at God as something as a great mysterious force behind the universe trying to create a tame God that gives all the benefits of religion with none of its costs.
January 7
Christianity is not pantheistic in its worldview. "It thinks God made the world - that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of His head' as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again" (Lewis, 9). C.S. Lewis calls Christianity a 'fighting religion'. It has solid beliefs that one cannot play with, accepting the benefits without the cost or accepting them some of the time and not the other based on what is personally convenience. Christianity demands adhering to solid beliefs and what is more, those solid beliefs demand action on our part. Christianity is not some passive religion.
January 8
Christians can see past the basics of our religion. At first it seems to only be about morality and duty. But, as a Christian delves deeper into his or her faith they realize that there is something beyond this where moral beauty exists without ever having to think about it.
January 9
The Moral Law that God has put into the heads of man reveals more about God than does the universe in general. Listening to and becoming in tune with that innate idea of morality will reveal more and more about the nature of God.
January 10
Many people want a heavenly Grandfather rather than a heavenly Father. Once again, Lewis' faith demands correct belief and correct theology. We all (including Christians) want a grandfather in Heaven that smiles down with benevolence and hopes that a good time will be had by all. But, as Christians we must believe that God is Love and we know through his Word that He is our Heavenly Father and not some Heavenly Grandfather hoping that we will all get along all right. We need to correct our faith and force ourselves not to see God as such.
January 11
God is love and this means God is more than merely kindness. Kindness hopes that one will escape suffering and achieve happiness at any level. This is a weird form of contempt. One who is kind to animals will often kill animals so they avoid suffering. This is not the love of God. "If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense" (Lewis, 13).
Lewis reminds me in every single portion so far that faith in God is serious business. Yes, there is joy and happiness in God, but it isn't just warm fuzzies all day long. It is a serious relationship that one cannot simply just play at. I struggle with this. I play with the relationship and the religion.
January 12
Lewis again reminds us that God's love is not just Him trying to make us happy. It is a passionate love, a jealous love from the "consuming fire Himself". It is not something to be taken lightly.
January 14
"When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows more of Himself to some people than to others - not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be rejected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one" (Lewis, 16). There is a lot packed into that little section. First, it's a reminder that knowing God comes from Him, not from anything we are doing. Second, it reminds us that we must get ourselves into the right condition to receive the blessing of knowledge of God. He pours out his light like the sun pours out its light, but if we are dusty mirrors we won't reflect and absorb that light the way we were intended to.
January 15
A good point on the philosophy of religion - "If He who in Himself can lack nothing chooses to need us, it is because we need to be needed" (Lewis, 17).
"Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire: to experience it in the opposite way is, as it were, a solecism against the grammar of being" (Lewis, 17).
It is hard to wait on God. It is hard to be only responsive. It takes a submissiveness and a breaking of pride to admit that I must respond to God and not that God will respond to me. It takes humility that I sorely need. Grant me this humility so that I can achieve the highest activity I was made for - responding to you.
January 5
Lewis hits hard when he writes of people "playing with religion". I know that I'm saved, but I still like to tread the middle ground and dabble in religion. C.S. Lewis is not messing around and playing with religion. His theology is severe and rightfully so.
January 6
Lewis continues to pound against those that are playing with religion and only half-heartedly accepting God as some impersonal force. He sees those who look at God as something as a great mysterious force behind the universe trying to create a tame God that gives all the benefits of religion with none of its costs.
January 7
Christianity is not pantheistic in its worldview. "It thinks God made the world - that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of His head' as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again" (Lewis, 9). C.S. Lewis calls Christianity a 'fighting religion'. It has solid beliefs that one cannot play with, accepting the benefits without the cost or accepting them some of the time and not the other based on what is personally convenience. Christianity demands adhering to solid beliefs and what is more, those solid beliefs demand action on our part. Christianity is not some passive religion.
January 8
Christians can see past the basics of our religion. At first it seems to only be about morality and duty. But, as a Christian delves deeper into his or her faith they realize that there is something beyond this where moral beauty exists without ever having to think about it.
January 9
The Moral Law that God has put into the heads of man reveals more about God than does the universe in general. Listening to and becoming in tune with that innate idea of morality will reveal more and more about the nature of God.
January 10
Many people want a heavenly Grandfather rather than a heavenly Father. Once again, Lewis' faith demands correct belief and correct theology. We all (including Christians) want a grandfather in Heaven that smiles down with benevolence and hopes that a good time will be had by all. But, as Christians we must believe that God is Love and we know through his Word that He is our Heavenly Father and not some Heavenly Grandfather hoping that we will all get along all right. We need to correct our faith and force ourselves not to see God as such.
January 11
God is love and this means God is more than merely kindness. Kindness hopes that one will escape suffering and achieve happiness at any level. This is a weird form of contempt. One who is kind to animals will often kill animals so they avoid suffering. This is not the love of God. "If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense" (Lewis, 13).
Lewis reminds me in every single portion so far that faith in God is serious business. Yes, there is joy and happiness in God, but it isn't just warm fuzzies all day long. It is a serious relationship that one cannot simply just play at. I struggle with this. I play with the relationship and the religion.
January 12
Lewis again reminds us that God's love is not just Him trying to make us happy. It is a passionate love, a jealous love from the "consuming fire Himself". It is not something to be taken lightly.
January 14
"When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows more of Himself to some people than to others - not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be rejected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one" (Lewis, 16). There is a lot packed into that little section. First, it's a reminder that knowing God comes from Him, not from anything we are doing. Second, it reminds us that we must get ourselves into the right condition to receive the blessing of knowledge of God. He pours out his light like the sun pours out its light, but if we are dusty mirrors we won't reflect and absorb that light the way we were intended to.
January 15
A good point on the philosophy of religion - "If He who in Himself can lack nothing chooses to need us, it is because we need to be needed" (Lewis, 17).
"Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire: to experience it in the opposite way is, as it were, a solecism against the grammar of being" (Lewis, 17).
It is hard to wait on God. It is hard to be only responsive. It takes a submissiveness and a breaking of pride to admit that I must respond to God and not that God will respond to me. It takes humility that I sorely need. Grant me this humility so that I can achieve the highest activity I was made for - responding to you.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Assessment of The Eleven Thousand Rods
The Eleven Thousand Rods by Guillaume Apollinaire was the first book I read in 2017. What a doozy of a book! Reading surrealist literature is like playing Russian Roulette. Some times your going to get fascinatingly weird books like Rene Daumal's A Night of Serious Drinking or Andre Breton's classic Nadja. Other times your going to get disgustingly weird books like this or Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye.
There is something admittedly admirable about Apollinaire's craftsmanship in this book. It is obviously well written. But, it isn't a fun read. It's not quite as gross as Bataille's Story of the Eye. But, I think that is only because it is so over the top and because Apollinaire obviously has a sense of humor. If there was any humor in the Story of the Eye I completely failed to see it. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone I didn't wish to scar. (That is not some error of omission in that last word. I didn't accidentally leave off an 'e'.)
I won't quote much of this book here because I'm a bit embarrassed to admit to having read it. But, as a testament to the craftsmanship in Apollinaire's work and as a nod to his sense of humor (which is funny, but again embarrassing to admit I find it funny), I will note one thing. After engaging in a bit of murder and worse Mony (the main character) slips off the train. "The double murder not he Orient Express supplied the papers with news for six months. The murderers were not found and the crime was attributed to Jack the Ripper, whose back's broad enough" (Apollinaire, 53). I laughed an audible laugh at this line. There are a lot of little asides like this in this twisted novella. I'd write more about it; but, I must go shower...
There is something admittedly admirable about Apollinaire's craftsmanship in this book. It is obviously well written. But, it isn't a fun read. It's not quite as gross as Bataille's Story of the Eye. But, I think that is only because it is so over the top and because Apollinaire obviously has a sense of humor. If there was any humor in the Story of the Eye I completely failed to see it. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone I didn't wish to scar. (That is not some error of omission in that last word. I didn't accidentally leave off an 'e'.)
I won't quote much of this book here because I'm a bit embarrassed to admit to having read it. But, as a testament to the craftsmanship in Apollinaire's work and as a nod to his sense of humor (which is funny, but again embarrassing to admit I find it funny), I will note one thing. After engaging in a bit of murder and worse Mony (the main character) slips off the train. "The double murder not he Orient Express supplied the papers with news for six months. The murderers were not found and the crime was attributed to Jack the Ripper, whose back's broad enough" (Apollinaire, 53). I laughed an audible laugh at this line. There are a lot of little asides like this in this twisted novella. I'd write more about it; but, I must go shower...
The One Eyed Porter - Book Report
A while ago I finished a short story collection by Voltaire. Given that I'd like to study Voltaire more closely I set about writing "Book Reports" on each story. I did a grand total of one. But, it is a new year and everything is made anew and so I'm setting out to make my book report goal anew. This time the book report is on The One Eyed Porter. This is a great little story; full of the wit and absurdity that makes me really enjoy Voltaire.
The story opens up, "Having two eyes does not improve our lot; the one serves to show us the good things in life, the other its evil" (Voltaire, 5). It finishes with the assessment of Mesrour, after attaining many great things and then losing them - "but then Mesrour lacked the eye which looks on the bad side of things" (Voltaire, 10).
Some of the highlights of this little story:
-"One would have had to be blind not to see that Mesrour was one-eyed" (Voltaire, 5).
-"Mélinade (the name of the lady, which I had my reasons for withholding, not having thought of it until now)..." (Voltaire, 7).
Voltaire seems to poke fun at the 'high society' or the 'morals' of the day in this little tale. Mesrour lacks an eye (he lacks the ability to see the dark side of things). He is simple and, as such, unencumbered by the trappings of a higher life. The princess he falls in love with sees an inscription at a gate as a warning to go away. But, Mesrour only sees the figures as 'Knock without Fear'. Mesrour (though having two eyes at the time) has only been able to see from one eye and is thus saved by his simple understanding of the world.
The story opens up, "Having two eyes does not improve our lot; the one serves to show us the good things in life, the other its evil" (Voltaire, 5). It finishes with the assessment of Mesrour, after attaining many great things and then losing them - "but then Mesrour lacked the eye which looks on the bad side of things" (Voltaire, 10).
Some of the highlights of this little story:
-"One would have had to be blind not to see that Mesrour was one-eyed" (Voltaire, 5).
-"Mélinade (the name of the lady, which I had my reasons for withholding, not having thought of it until now)..." (Voltaire, 7).
Voltaire seems to poke fun at the 'high society' or the 'morals' of the day in this little tale. Mesrour lacks an eye (he lacks the ability to see the dark side of things). He is simple and, as such, unencumbered by the trappings of a higher life. The princess he falls in love with sees an inscription at a gate as a warning to go away. But, Mesrour only sees the figures as 'Knock without Fear'. Mesrour (though having two eyes at the time) has only been able to see from one eye and is thus saved by his simple understanding of the world.
Assessment of The African Trilogy
In November and December of last year I read the African Trilogy: Things Fall Apart, No Longer at Ease and Arrow of God by Chinua Achebe. Things Fall Apart has been one of my favorite books since I first read it. Much to my embarrassment and delight I never knew it was part of a series. While neither of the two quite matched the first, both No Longer at Ease and Arrow of God were fantastic works. Here are my humble GoodReads reviews.
Things Fall Apart
This is among the ranks of my favorite books. Firstly, the writing in it is sublime. Its economy and pace just highlight the tragic elements of the story. Secondly, it touches on a favorite subject of mine - the blending of cultures that occurs in the Christianization of the world. I cannot recommend this book enough. I have read it numerous times but have not read the other books in the series. I am however, about to remedy that.
No Longer at Ease
While this isn't quite as good as Things Fall Apart, it is only slightly less great of a read. Achebe's storytelling and prose are truly remarkable. And its bitterness and sadness is palpable; yet, the work is enjoyable to read. You feel for Obi Okonkwo more than you feel for his grandfather in the previous novel, which makes his tragedy all the more heart wrenching. I can't wait to start the third book in this series.
Arrow of God
While not as good as the other two in this trilogy, Arrow of God does not disappoint in its tragic story. I love stories, fictional or otherwise, of the coming together of two cultures and the aftermath it brings. The ending of this book however is so sudden it's almost as jarring to the reader as it was to Ezeulu.
What makes these books so great is that you can read them individually or as part of a series. Achebe is a masterful storyteller and the crafting of these books is truly remarkable. They are tragic and of course, sad. But, it isn't just a tragic and sad event following a tragic and sad event. Achebe paints a portrait of humanity that is true to life and even in the most tragic of lives, there is some elements of success, humor and positivity. I would truly recommend all three of these into a must-read list.
Things Fall Apart
This is among the ranks of my favorite books. Firstly, the writing in it is sublime. Its economy and pace just highlight the tragic elements of the story. Secondly, it touches on a favorite subject of mine - the blending of cultures that occurs in the Christianization of the world. I cannot recommend this book enough. I have read it numerous times but have not read the other books in the series. I am however, about to remedy that.
No Longer at Ease
While this isn't quite as good as Things Fall Apart, it is only slightly less great of a read. Achebe's storytelling and prose are truly remarkable. And its bitterness and sadness is palpable; yet, the work is enjoyable to read. You feel for Obi Okonkwo more than you feel for his grandfather in the previous novel, which makes his tragedy all the more heart wrenching. I can't wait to start the third book in this series.
Arrow of God
While not as good as the other two in this trilogy, Arrow of God does not disappoint in its tragic story. I love stories, fictional or otherwise, of the coming together of two cultures and the aftermath it brings. The ending of this book however is so sudden it's almost as jarring to the reader as it was to Ezeulu.
What makes these books so great is that you can read them individually or as part of a series. Achebe is a masterful storyteller and the crafting of these books is truly remarkable. They are tragic and of course, sad. But, it isn't just a tragic and sad event following a tragic and sad event. Achebe paints a portrait of humanity that is true to life and even in the most tragic of lives, there is some elements of success, humor and positivity. I would truly recommend all three of these into a must-read list.
CS Lewis and the Limpets
Not a very good start - I've already missed two days of the 365 day devotional. Here are the make up days for the 2nd and 3rd.
On January 2nd's reading, Lewis imagines a mystical limpet in describing man. This limpet has some sort of direct experience with man and his followers gain from this mystical experience. But, the philosophers of the limpet race disconnect the mystical experience and give pure philosophical analysis of man. This is how we treat God if we're not careful. We disregard what we see as the primitive notion of God and follow some cold, intellectual model rather than the living, breathing God of Christianity.
We, as rational beings can only describe God negatively. He is not finite, he is not material, etc., etc. But, we as beings who have the possibility of intuiting God can experience the concrete realness of Him. By relying too much of our own rationality we lose the realness God offers to us. We are blinded by our own rationality. The mystical is necessary to truly experience God.
"As long as we remain Erudite Limpets we are forgetting that if no one had ever seen more of God than we, we should have no reason even to believe Him immaterial, immutable, impassible and all the rest of it. Even that negative knowledge which seems to us so enlightened is only a relic left over from the positive knowledge of better men - only the pattern which that heavenly wave left on the sand when it retreated" (Lewis, 6). Our reason as men does not lead us to the totality of God. But, our reason invites us to experience. "When it becomes clear that you cannot find out by reasoning whether the cat is in the linen-cupboard, it is Reason herself who whispers, 'Go and look. This is not my job: it is a matter for the sense" (Lewis, 6). Lewis says it is the same with God. Reason cannot get us all the way; but, it is reason itself that says go and experience God. Mystical experience is a necessary function of a experiencing God.
On January 2nd's reading, Lewis imagines a mystical limpet in describing man. This limpet has some sort of direct experience with man and his followers gain from this mystical experience. But, the philosophers of the limpet race disconnect the mystical experience and give pure philosophical analysis of man. This is how we treat God if we're not careful. We disregard what we see as the primitive notion of God and follow some cold, intellectual model rather than the living, breathing God of Christianity.
We, as rational beings can only describe God negatively. He is not finite, he is not material, etc., etc. But, we as beings who have the possibility of intuiting God can experience the concrete realness of Him. By relying too much of our own rationality we lose the realness God offers to us. We are blinded by our own rationality. The mystical is necessary to truly experience God.
"As long as we remain Erudite Limpets we are forgetting that if no one had ever seen more of God than we, we should have no reason even to believe Him immaterial, immutable, impassible and all the rest of it. Even that negative knowledge which seems to us so enlightened is only a relic left over from the positive knowledge of better men - only the pattern which that heavenly wave left on the sand when it retreated" (Lewis, 6). Our reason as men does not lead us to the totality of God. But, our reason invites us to experience. "When it becomes clear that you cannot find out by reasoning whether the cat is in the linen-cupboard, it is Reason herself who whispers, 'Go and look. This is not my job: it is a matter for the sense" (Lewis, 6). Lewis says it is the same with God. Reason cannot get us all the way; but, it is reason itself that says go and experience God. Mystical experience is a necessary function of a experiencing God.
Sunday, January 1, 2017
A New Year
So, 2017 is upon us. Last year was not what I would call a vintage year. I experienced a little bit of trauma, to put it mildly. Couple that with the fact that said trauma was self-inflicted and we have a recipe for a double manifestation that is wholly unappealing. Inwardly I become self-loathing and trap myself in a vicious cycle that only produces more bad decisions and thus, more self-loathing. Outwardly, I mask it with a self-righteous haughtiness that is very unattractive. However, after a very rough patch of months things seemed to stabilize a bit and is looking up. Of course I battle the old demons, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon anyway. A new year brings a new opportunity and I'm excited about it. However, that is the work world and this is my intellectual world and sadly I haven't found a way to combine the two as of yet.
As for the intellectual world that this here blog represents, I have a number of goals. Firstly, it is to finish the digitizing project of all my notebooks. It's not glamorous; it's not fun. But, once completed it should guide me on further studies and if I ever do get around to writing anything of note, I'll have some foundations to stand on. Secondly, I'm going to read 55 books this year. I think I can do about 70, but I'm setting the goal at 55. I did 50 last year and I figured an increase of 10% is a good goal. If I do however hit 70 this year, 77 will be a lofty goal for 2018. Thirdly, I'm going to do A Year With C.S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works as a way of becoming God-focused. I should do more; but, this is a tangible goal for me to set and achieve. Hopefully, I will be open to guidance from Him as I go through this book and I'll expand my religious life as well as my intellectual one.
Today's reading is entitled Supposing We Really Found Him?
Lewis writes, "There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion ('Man's search for God!') suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He has found us?" (Lewis, 3). I have been dabbling in religion all my life and I am confident that I am saved and redeemed through Jesus Christ. But, I do understand that thought process - I never meant it to come to that. I also understand that seeker's hope to find an impersonal God or better, "a subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads". The realness of God is something that I've experienced. It's something I can't deny. I've felt Him. He found me. But, lately I've been dabbling in religion as a mental exercise. I want that God who is truth and goodness; he doesn't even have to be subjective. Personally, I'm more apt to want a universal God who is personal in concept only. But, I want to seek God on the real level. It's much more fulfilling to find him (or rather be found by Him) on that personal level than on the intellectual level. I'll approach this as vulnerable as I can and try not to put God into a Chris-head-shaped-box through this journey. But, God I'm asking you to come and meet me this year. Reawaken my desire for you on a more visceral level than my intellectual one.
As for the intellectual world that this here blog represents, I have a number of goals. Firstly, it is to finish the digitizing project of all my notebooks. It's not glamorous; it's not fun. But, once completed it should guide me on further studies and if I ever do get around to writing anything of note, I'll have some foundations to stand on. Secondly, I'm going to read 55 books this year. I think I can do about 70, but I'm setting the goal at 55. I did 50 last year and I figured an increase of 10% is a good goal. If I do however hit 70 this year, 77 will be a lofty goal for 2018. Thirdly, I'm going to do A Year With C.S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works as a way of becoming God-focused. I should do more; but, this is a tangible goal for me to set and achieve. Hopefully, I will be open to guidance from Him as I go through this book and I'll expand my religious life as well as my intellectual one.
Today's reading is entitled Supposing We Really Found Him?
Lewis writes, "There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion ('Man's search for God!') suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He has found us?" (Lewis, 3). I have been dabbling in religion all my life and I am confident that I am saved and redeemed through Jesus Christ. But, I do understand that thought process - I never meant it to come to that. I also understand that seeker's hope to find an impersonal God or better, "a subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads". The realness of God is something that I've experienced. It's something I can't deny. I've felt Him. He found me. But, lately I've been dabbling in religion as a mental exercise. I want that God who is truth and goodness; he doesn't even have to be subjective. Personally, I'm more apt to want a universal God who is personal in concept only. But, I want to seek God on the real level. It's much more fulfilling to find him (or rather be found by Him) on that personal level than on the intellectual level. I'll approach this as vulnerable as I can and try not to put God into a Chris-head-shaped-box through this journey. But, God I'm asking you to come and meet me this year. Reawaken my desire for you on a more visceral level than my intellectual one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)