iPandora

What does it mean to be human?

This question has amazing implications and considering it can affect ones life in so many ways. In this day we see so many issues vying for the attention and approbation of people and society: euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research, life purpose, evolution, biology, history, life after death. You name it and a carefully thought out belief system regarding the nature of humanity can at the very least assist in the formation of your opinion on the matter.

Of course this is not to say that I have any special dispensation of knowledge regarding the nature of humanity, merely a few ideas that thought floating around in the nebular regions of the cranium. And I doubt that any of you do not at least have some idea of your own thoughts on the matter. Even if you’ve not consciously thought: “hmm, I wonder what it means to be human?” You’ve at least thought at some time, usually in the midst of a spate of bad luck and in a voice fraught with emotion, “Why me?”

“Why me” indeed. And the answer: “because, just because.” I am reminded of Job’s anguished cry: “Why me, God, Why me?” Here he was, a holy man by any measure known to man or God, blameless even to the point that he was apparently God’s favorite human, and that’s something to be proud of, a laurel you can really hang over the mantel. “Why me?” he asks and the answer comes back from God: “Because, because I’m God and you’re human.” God didn’t enjoy watching Job squirm under the Devils’ special ministrations like an hapless any under some cosmic magnifying glass. God is not some super-bully who piques his dirty henchys’ ire towards the little kid on the playground. No, God is Love. God said to Job, because I’m holy and you’re not, and I’m sovereign and you’re not, and you’ll never understand the full reason, but this you will: that you will be holier because of it.

As though we could ever be Holy in the sense that God is Holy. No, the best we’d ever get is a lower-case holy. But God, being loving to all and Love to His children, overlooks our fault and sees only holiness. Holiness that is not out own,either, but that of His Sons gift of blood. So holy Job, realizing that for all his holiness is reminded that he must still watch for the pride, that sense of self-entitlement, that seeks to hold what he’d earned close. God allowed it to be taken away to show He was the reason behind it all.

So what makes us human? Is it language? Self-awareness? Social nature? Rational thought? One could argue for and against each of these and many others and only when the root answer is reached will it ever make sense. We are human because, because God is God and we are not, because God Loves us even so and made us first in His own image with an eternal soul and with a never-ending desire for a relationship with him. Hell will be hell because those in it will be forever separated from the object of their deepest need and that without remedy. That will be inhuman.

I’m disappointed. A friend of mine recently gave up.

He’s in his first real job, he’s going through junior college, he’s been on summer missions a couple times. By all accounts he’s progressing and growing, learning and choosing and standing. But he doesn’t live in reality any longer.

Is it his workmates and their common, liberal bent? He’s gotten along with them pretty well from what I see. He worked with them for a while and then left to do summer missions and then returned and they hired him back on the spot. So he feels important and needed there.

Is it his college classes? It’s only a junior college but one filled with few dreams and many lies. I remember my JC years as ones of constant grating, constant fighting. I guess it helps that I’m a rather passionate guy, and I hold my beliefs tight to me. I believe that the purpose of debate and argument is to present two beliefs and weigh their strengths and weaknesses against each other. The result may be that either one or the other or a combination of the two that is found to be accurate, or even that neither hold up to the truth. This kept me combative and while I made few friends there I held truth close (because of course I was always right), and that was more important because I did not lose myself. I did not understand why I was different, to an extent I did not even know I was different. I just thought the others did not try as hard. The friends I did have were different like me so I never seemed too different from those I knew best. Perspective being what it is, I was saved from the constant chipping that wears down many.

He loves to debate and argue and has an incredibly sharp mind. He can understand things quickly and grasp the root of a matter quickly. His mind is difficult to keep up with and therefore many people find it hard to keep up with what he’s saying. Even his mother says she cannot understand him at all most of the time. I can only imagine he feels like he’s the only one in the world. I can understand him most of the time and can keep up well enough to ask questions and learn those things he’d jumped over. But I don’t particularly enjoy hanging out with him, and I definitely don’t have time to even if I had the desire what with our differing schedules.

I honestly believe that he could be president if he learned how he differs from us and learned to communicate in ways we all can understand. He has charisma and brains, he’s tall too. Give him a few years and he’ll look pretty good. Photogenic, charisma and smarts. What more do we need? Values and backbone.

I can only think that he was constantly faced with the dismissal of his ideas and beliefs by people he respected or at least wanted to get along with. When one has no friends it is easy to make concessions until someone finds enough to like. I can only think that his teachers dismissed his ideas and ideals and his classmates are just mediocre enough that he sees the gap between himself and them and, not seeing either the danger inherent in their position or the reasons for the disparity, tries to close that gap at least a little. Whatever the reason, mediocrity has set in and I hope to God he recovers a little over the holiday season as he has more time at home around strong people and lives.

How did I open this Pandora’s Box? I have turned the key in the lock just as surely as I have ten fingers on our hands. I have opened the door peeking in just to see what it was hidden by that mysterium, hoping to only get a glimpse of the inside, little knowing the inside was the future. I am irrevocably and hopelessly drawn into the secrets of the box. I want to be normal, I want to be able to live my life in the day to day grind of worrying about the next paycheck instead of the state of the world. I wish I could return to before Pandora’s Box, but I cannot. I cannot, and am therefore forever cursed to be different. I see the looks from my classmates and I long to tell them “I’m normal, I’m just like you” but I know that is a lie. When I try to return the truth comes to me and I know I will never be content there living a small life. Dear God I live Your plan.

This may seem like a shamelessly self-aggrandizing rant, but I ask you to read it as if it were you crying out. What is the “different” in your life? Are you a Christian? Should you be different from those around you? Should you not be different? We are all given our own Pandora’s Box. Have you opened yours?

Casino Royale is a gritty film with a bit more life than recent Bond films. This film apparently falls near the beginning of the Bond saga and tells of Bonds early days before and immediately following his receiving 007 status. There is much less gadgetry and the resulting action is more authentic for it. The classic Aston Martin Bond car is driven on screen for only a few moments before, well, that would be a spoiler. Suffice it to say, this is a very believable film as far as action goes.

This film also delves into who Bond is as a person. He has one supreme relationship in this film and he, well, that would be a spoiler too. There are the customary bedroom scenes but these are nothing more than a PG-13 film, with lots of kissing and a bit of off-screen bed-sheet pulling. I have only seen the Pierce Brosnan Bond films prior to this and I found this one deeper, richer and more enjoyable, even if it did not have quite as much “flash”. There’s still plenty of killing and maiming in creative ways, and the directors even made poker look enjoyable, which they had to considering that’s about half the movie.

Towards the end, there is quite a lull in the customary non-stop action, but this also serves to frame the final scenes and make it that much more, erm…, interesting shall have to be the word as most other adjectives might be used to deduce the eventual result.

Anyways, this is a recommend, with caution for younger peoples. If you like Bond, this is a good Bond. If you like action, there’s that in spades. And even if you’re a bit of a romantic, this has a classic romance woven throughout. So enjoy.

Happy Feet is a wonderful movie which brought the whole audience to laughter several times during the showing I attended. The animation was incredibly life-like and well executed making it easy to believe those are real penguins you see singing and dancing. Technically it was quite an achievement and I’m now looking forward with much anticipation to my copy of Computer Graphics World where they will no doubt delve into the machinations necessary to produce such a result. But beyond the eye candy the story, the songs, the scenes, the whole movie is very enjoyable.

Note: There are a few minutes of “save the world” propaganda towards the end and the whole major premise of the movie does involve a slight twist of eco-freakishness. However, it’s easy to ignore for the most part and the ride is still very enjoyable. Suitable for all but the youngest of children (there are a few tense moments involving seals and killer wales, but even these are no worse than similar Pixar productions), and enjoyable to adults. I had a hard time keeping my feet still and not bursting into song myself, but I restrained myself and my fellow theatre-goers do not know from what terror they’ve been saved. And one of my group, a relatively jaded young man, admitted that even he enjoyed the film.

::This is an incomplete article I first wrote two years ago to present at a discussion group I was then participating in. I hope to continue it and finish it as I finish Mere Christianity, Lewis’ seminal work.::

Merely Christian: A simple analysis of the life and teachings of Clive Staples Lewis

Lewis was an example of the equality of all men before God: His self-assessment as “a very ordinary layman of the Church…, not especially ‘high’, nor especially ‘low’, nor especially anything else.” Though he may have personally felt that God called certain people to a ‘higher life’ of religious leadership, he lived his life to its fullest fulfilling Gods highest calling, that of a sanctified life for Him.

Some people decry Lewis’ mantra of “mere Christianity” charging that he believed that Christians must accept and even relish vast differences in major sections of belief so long as the basic tenets were agreed upon. And yet I believe that whatever Lewis’ aim, the idea of a root to which all Christians can cling in unity is important. The Bible entreats us as Christians to “with all of your might, live at peace with all men.” The instruction does not include any qualification allowing for strife among Christians who have legitimate commonality. In fact, Christians are instructed only infrequently to disassociate with those with whom we disagree, and only then when they are in direct disobedience of Biblical mandate, and even then, only in cases where the Ten Commandments have been directly and grossly violated with no admission of wrong and no intent to repent and change. So Lewis’ cry for unity among the brethren is well founded. Lewis seems to echo and provide depth to the American reformer White’s dream of heaven, in which he saw not Catholics, Methodists, Baptists or any other group in Heaven, but Christians. Lovers of God and Christ His Son are who we are first and foremost, all else is secondary.

Lewis holds this view of unity and simplicity of faith with good purpose as well. “Ever since I became a Christian I have though that the best, perhaps the only , service I could do for my unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. …I think we must admit that the discussion of …disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. Admittedly Lewis actions belie his beliefs in that he holds that the deep issues of Christianity are only of profit to the “real experts” however, he is correct in his belief that us holding to those ideas with such vehemence causes the focus to be on us, and not on Christ and the sinners He’s given us to witness to. If the church is too busy bickering amongst itself, it will not have time to show love to its neighbor.

Lewis also came upon his calling in a simple and effective way from which we may learn. After getting the “impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial (the branching tenets of particular sects and denominations) matters than in the defense of … ‘mere’ Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.” Lewis saw a need, and saw that his perception of that need was the same as God calling him to fulfill that need, and to fill that need he willingly went. In the Christian church I see (and I myself do as well) people saying “such and such needs to be done” and “so and so has needs and we should do something about it” little noticing that God has either given them abilities or resources to fill that need or do that thing. An interesting point I read recently had to do with our callings and the idea was that God has given us these ideas as callings and if we refuse to do our callings, God will not necessarily call another to do what we’ve failed to do. If the kingdom of heaven is formed by the souls of those trusting in Christ, saved and sealed. Then our work is made of the ideas and perceptions of the needs immediately surrounding us.

And then there is the singleness of purpose with which Lewis composed Mere Christianity. In explaining briefly why it was that he would not debate certain (as he saw them, secondary) issues or even address them in any way, he takes the example of an extremely divisive issue which is legitimately a major dividing point between protestant and catholic faiths, that of the worship of the virgin Mary. Showing the various perspectives of the adherents of the various faiths, he shows how having taken a stand on that would have made his book a thesis meant for the church, and not for the sinner. Keep in mind that the book was first delivered in the form of radio addresses given during successive years of World War 2 to the people of the British Isles and were strictly evangelical in nature. Lewis’ argument is that “If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about ‘mere’ Christianity – if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin’s son is God – surely this is it.” While we of the protestant Christian faith do take issue with the severity of this issue, and may question the validity of the salvation of many Catholics, we can apply Lewis’ ideas to other issues such eschatology or predestination/predeterminism. These issues are important, but we only sound like fools arguing over such issues before someone who does not even know Christ yet.

So I’m going to make a lot of people mad. People who generally agree with me as well as people who generally don’t agree with me will be very mad. In fact, I’m only sure of one person who will not be mad with me after they get through reading this. So, be forewarned, and consider anger to be a warning that something might not be right with your worldview, because I am certain that while my worldview is by no means perfect, when it comes to this it is the only sensible view.

So major disclaimer aside, here’s what I want to discuss: Homosexuals. Not homosexuality, but the people who practice it. So, laser focus with me on the people, not the action.

First, they are people. Duh, says you. So then I ask what are the implications of being ‘people’? From the Judeo-Christian perspective, that means several things. The pertinent things to this discussion being that people are fallen and people are loved. Fallen from God and loved by Him. If you are not from the Judeo-Christian perspective, I recommend that you get that bit sorted out soon. You may still proceed with this discussion, but there are parts you may not understand completely.

A basic fact of sin is that is it an all-or-nothing state of being. You either are a sinner or you’re lying to yourself and everybody else, and that means you’re sinning. Jesus is the only human able to truly claim perfection. God is also sinless but as He is the creator of humans, he falls outside the category being discussed. There are no grades in sin, no degrees or permutations. This will fly in the face of catholics who believe that they must do things here on earth to shorten their time in purgatory, and that they must spend time in purgatory working off the penalties for sins they’d committed. Also, Muslims will be offended by this because they believe that they need to be as good as possible and follow the demands of Allah and hope Allah is in a good mood when they die so they can get their virgins or whatever a Muslim woman gets in heaven. And even among the Protestant category there are people who argue that there are degrees of sin due to there being differences of apparent punishment. This is ludicrous on its face. The particular gentleman I talked with who espoused this view claimed that because homosexuality resulted in various forms of deadly diseases not generally found in the general population, the homosexuals were damned by God to two punishments, one here on earth and another in the hereafter. To follow this logic one must ignore the plethora of mental illnesses, stress disorders, and various maladies which can be traced back to the most ‘mundane’ of sins. Who has ever refused to forgive someone and found themselves grinding their teeth at night? Stress disorders are common and becoming more common and they can be attributed to or exacerbated by any number of simple sins committed daily by each one of us. Also, if sins were not equal, the payment would not be equal. This is refusing the grace found in the propitiatory act of Christ on the Cross, or at least denying its efficacy. If STDs such as AIDS were punishment, the homosexual, even if they came to Christ and rejected their former ways, would still be under Gods punishment, and we know that there is “no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,” none. Sin is sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners and equally deserving of the same punishment, an eternity of torment and separation from God (I would submit that the torment is not in addition to separation but rather a result of it, but that is a totally different discussion for a totally different day). We are also all equally invited to forgiveness, and offered the same chance at a new life, a clean slate so to speak.

A friend of mine, in a recent conversation, clarified what I see among Christians in general. We are so abhorred by the very idea of homosexuality that we cannot see the sinner for the sin. So quick to judge the person with the action. So eager to condemn a soul because we cannot see their pain. I do not excuse the actions of homosexuals, but neither do I excuse the actions of a child stealing a candy-bar, they’re both sin. I believe that most of the vitriol that exists in this debate results from the knee-jerk reaction that is felt by both sides of this issue whenever they encounter the other. I cannot speak to the pro-homosexual side because they have no reason to believe I have their best interests at heart. Personally, I cannot witness to anybody until they know that I love them unconditionally, and then that very love is what will draw them to me and then to Christ. This is not to say that I will not do what I can to prevent society from accepting and normalizing homosexual ideals and behaviors, and even this is a result of my love for those who practice homosexuality. However, I will not, extenuating circumstances excepting, engage in head-to-head arguments full of misunderstanding and hate for the person on the other side.

Socially, I cannot allow a ‘redefinition’ of marriage. This is a totally separate issue from accepting homosexuals as humans with all the rights embodied therein. The homosexual lifestyle is not safe, in fact far from that it is destructive, primarily to those actively engaged in it, but also, secondarily, to those around. The average lifespan of a homosexual is significantly lower than that of a heterosexual. This is not propaganda or lies, it is verifiable and true. Just as the shortness of life has never been a result of the backwardness of medicine, homosexual lifespan is not a result of poor medical knowledge. Better medical knowledge improves life expectancy and quality, but that is not a proof of causation, merely correlation. The homosexual is many times more likely to have been sexually victimized by someone in their youth, and also many times more likely to sexually victimize someone else. I will do my best to prevent such a destructive relationship from ever being legitimized and normalized by any society of which I am a member. I do not celebrate the ruination of peoples’ lives.

Why do we agree to call homosexual people gay? Gay is a beautiful word that has been co-opted to identify those who are homosexual. We all abide by those descriptions that define us, as long as they define us accurately, and note there is a difference between accurately and completely. A homosexual might very well be classified by any number of other terms each showing us a small portion of who they are. Just as I can be classified as ‘conservative’, ‘musical,’ ‘dull,’ ‘blonde,’ ‘Christian,’ student,’ and so on, Homosexual is only one aspect of the identity they have chosen for themselves. Just as I can change any number of my descriptors, any one else can too. The word homosexual is a statement of fact, defining those who practice homosexuality, or sexual relations between those of the same gender. Gay means happy, and a person who is gay may very well be a homosexual, but they may very well not be as well.

But the homosexual is a person, first and foremost. They are humans with all the beauty built in them by God and with all the struggles and problems inbred by the fall.

Now I have made everyone mad. If not, wow, send a comment and add any thoughts I believe I missed. This topic could easily fill a large book and I feel as though it is woefully incomplete.

Just remember, words mean things and ideas have consequences. What have your words meant (what you meant to say does not matter), and what consequences result from your ideas?

The Prestige is a brilliant show requiring more than one viewing (though I’ve only seen it once so far). About two days after I saw this film I realized that the whole film is played out just like the acts in the magic shows that film is about, and about that I shall not further elaborate.

I can only say that for the discerning theatre-goer who appreciates a well-crafted tale of intrigue and suspense will not find their time wasted here.

The story is relatively simple to encapsulate: two magicians beginning as assistants and amateurs carry on a rivalry where each attempts to out-magic the other. Throughout we are faced with questions about humanity and decency, and we are caught looking one way when the Prestige rushes upon us and we are enthralled in the wonder of a good story.

Hark how life doth fly through its light of lyme,
Its perfect time being now, its future gone,
As a gentle wind, it is but a brief smear in time.

With gewgaws and trinkets our lives we do line,
Trying to make some use of that we do not understand.
Hark how life doth fly through its light of lyme.

The head, the drop, our life in its light of lyme,
it ends and the smudge disappears, and we are gone.
As a gentle wind, it is but a brief smear it time.

Eschew the trinkets, the life without sense of time.
Build on work, let none say: “There goes a useless man”
Hark how life doth fly through its light of lyme.

Then the trail, the smear will linger through time,
Beyond the drop, through history, telling its own story.
As a gentle wind, it is but a brief smear in time.

And that life well lived will say to surrounding time,
“my smear has surpassed your quest to quell it potent bite.”
Hark how life doth fly through its light of lyme,
as a gentle wind, it is but a brief smear in time.

Yes, I did, not for lack of trying to find something redeeming in his movies. He’s just soooo Will Ferrell. I couldn’t see his characters because he’s just sooo Will Ferrell. I couldn’t enjoy his humor because it was sooo Will Ferrell. I know he’s a smart guy and if he decided to act like someone besides Will Ferrell, which by the way for all you groupies out there is kinda the whole reason for acting, he’d do one heck of a job. His last fare that I saw, Talladega Nights was supposed to be funny for the fun it made of all things southern and NASCAR, but it wasn’t. I felt kinda dirty after that movie, for forcing myself to chortle a little at that dumb humor. It wasn’t even that dirty, just dumb. If you want smart humor that makes fun of something, see Team America, but then again, I can’t in good conscience recommend that one either for the things they make puppets do. So don’t go see Team America, but just know that they show how you make fun of things without being dumb, like Will Ferrell.

That disclaimer aside, I wanted to like Will Ferrell, and so when I saw previews for his new movie Stranger Than Fiction retained hope that he’d not butcher what looked to be a very interesting and intriguing film. And so, with some misgivings I settled in at the local cinemark to view what could have been another Ferrell Flub. And I loved him. Well, not totally, don’t ask me why but his eyes always seemed kinda dead to me, and while in this film they’re not so dead, there were just a few too many close ups of Ferrell’s Eyes. Anyway, Ferrell was not Ferrell in this movie, he was Harold, this complete nerd of a Tax Man who leads a pointless life of quiet desperation. And then someone or something (is it the toothbrush that’s narrating my every action, he asks himself?) steps into his life and through series of events plausible only because Ferrell, who you can believe as Harold, makes himself seem so normal and every-guy, breaks from his shell.

I’m not giving anything away, all that’s in the preview. I enjoyed this film. It’s relatively clean, but children will just not find it interesting in the way adults will and the other adults in the theatre will be very upset at you for bringing the writhing wiggle worm who insists on asking you what’s so funny. The audience at my showing laughed out loud several times, but it’s far from a comedy. So yes, I can now say I enjoyed a Harold, I mean, Ferrell movie.

Flushed Away, the newest in the Aardman stable of fine sights, is refreshing, funny, hilarious, and the slugs have it (elaborating would give it away). With humor that children can get and adults can appreciate, and plenty of flashy eye-candy for those who disdain those lesser things such as plot and narrative, both of which this show does have as well. It’s definitely light fare, but you won’t consider it a waste if you’ve spent a precious $9.50 (plus popcorn tax) on it as an evenings entertainment.

Note, Aardman has moved beyond strict clay-mation with this flick, but they’ve worked hard to retain the charm that clay brought. The work that went behind this show is incredible. Hip Hooray to Aardman and here’s to many more.