I don't know who wrote this, but I got it as an email forward and had to share... enjoy!
---
Through the eyes of a child:
The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did. Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden. Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.
God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments. These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff. Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees and the Republicans. (<-- I didn't write this!)
Jesus also had twelve opossums. The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount. But the Republicans (<-- again, I didn't write this!) and all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God
The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God
If the argument is successfully refuted, the implication then is that God has both free will and is capable of existing as a personal being. If the argument is upheld, the implication is that the Christian God cannot and does not exist.
The Argument:
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
-----
The Author of the argument followed up by stating various obvious rebuttals faced in past debates. Those can be viewed by going to here. It will help to read those comments, as I will be referring to them later on.
I am also going to cite here some of what he wrote in order to further clarify the argument for the sake of my rebuttal. Nothing will be taken out of context, and everything can (again) be viewed by clicking on the link above.
He says:
“Free will requires 1) having more than one option, 2) a desire to choose, 3) freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), 4) power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and 5) the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.”
The Rebuttal:
To address this argument, it becomes somewhat necessary to address the first known choice made by the Christian God.
The first choice made by the Christian God (as far as we are able to know) is the choice to create the universe. This choice would not have interfered with His ‘nature’ since what’s being spoken of is the creation of the universe, not the degree to which it was created or qualities it would then possess. God was under no obligation to create the universe. There was the desire for fellowship, but not a necessity for it, nor a necessity for the universe to be created. And since time did not exist prior to its creation by the Christian God, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge concerning it (or, rather, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge to possess in the way that we understand the term).
Based upon that, we can draw conclusions that will satisfy the five criteria necessitated by the author of the argument:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The first criterion, that God would need more than one option to be able to initially make a choice, is satisfied by His ability to either 1) create the universe, or 2) not create the universe.
The second is met by our knowledge that the Christian God wanted fellowship (the reason Man was created).
The third is met by His ability to act or not, despite His ‘nature’.
The fourth is met by His omnipotence and ability to create.
The fifth is met by Hs ability to act on the desire, to create or not to create the universe. There is nothing forcing God to create the universe.
In this, all of the criteria that allow God to possess free will are met. And since --as stated above-- there was no time before Time was created, by its very definition foreknowledge would not exist (as it pertains to you or I).
Therefore, up until the creation of the universe, God is perfecetly capable of free will and of being a personal being.
That said, the possibility of a problem comes into play once creation is created.
The answers to the five criteria listed above are still very much valid as God can always choose to interact or not to interact with His creation; God can, and obviously does, desire to interact (eg. Sending of Jesus Christ, miracles, prayer); He always has the freedom to choose, the power to accomplish the choice, and the potential to merely not interact.
The problem comes then in the Christian God’s omniscience, His divine foreknowledge. Yet even there, the problem is easily solved, depending on your view of omniscience:
Inherent Omniscience is the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
Total Omniscience, on the other hand, is actually knowing everything that can be known.
If we take the stance that the Christian God has Inherent Omniscience, then God can merely choose to not know certain things (which would grant Himself the ‘lack of foreknowledge’ needed to be able to make ‘free’ choices). Game over. Problem solved. Argument refuted sucessfully.
If we choose Total Omniscience, we have yet another obstacle to hurdle.
How does God, who, according to Total Omniscience, knows everything that can be known, have the sufficient ‘lack of foreknowledge’ to allow Himself the freedom to choose ‘freely’?
The answer, I think, would have to lie somewhere in the realm of eternity. For instance, one of the chief attributes of the Christian God is that He is infinite, or eternal. Within the scope of eternity there are several varying ways in which God can exist within eternity (eg. Existing outside of time; Existing outside and inside of time). I take the position of Augustine of Hippo who said that God exists outside of the created universe and therefore exists outside of time; because of this there is not a past or future for God, but only an eternal present.
If then, to God, creation exists within an eternal present, several things would happen. 1) God would know all things at the same time (since God exists in an eternal present, all events are eternally present before God); yet 2) God would not necessarily know the choices made by people (since He cannot see the future because there is no future to God, and since God is viewing the events in the present); this means that 3) God would not necessarily know the choices He Himself would make (since it's already been stated that there is no future to know) except as it concerns prophecy and other things God says will indeed happen.
This existence in an eternal present and lack of a future acts as the "state of uncertainty" mentioned in the argument. Whether or not it truly is a state of uncertainty is speculative; but for reasons concerning the argument and its logic, the 'eternal present' scenerio sufficiently satisfies the finite aspects of the "state of uncertainty".
Thus, the omniscient Christian God can be said to have free will, and is therefore capable of existing as a personal being.
And with that, the argument is rebutted.
To recap:
God meets the criteria for possession of free will as follows:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The final criterion needed to be met is that of a certain 'lack' of foreknowledge/omniscience, which as shown above is met in accordance with the two varying definitions of omniscience: With Inherent Omniscience, God chooses to not know certain things; with Total Omniscience, God, viewed to exist in a state of eternal present, sees all things as in present time, and is then not seeing the future.
---
Now, all that said, we cannot really know everything as it concerns God, since God exists outside of our complete realm of understanding.
Consequently, I'm open to comments that would help me to then improve the integrity of the rebuttal.
If the argument is successfully refuted, the implication then is that God has both free will and is capable of existing as a personal being. If the argument is upheld, the implication is that the Christian God cannot and does not exist.
The Argument:
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.
-----
The Author of the argument followed up by stating various obvious rebuttals faced in past debates. Those can be viewed by going to here. It will help to read those comments, as I will be referring to them later on.
I am also going to cite here some of what he wrote in order to further clarify the argument for the sake of my rebuttal. Nothing will be taken out of context, and everything can (again) be viewed by clicking on the link above.
He says:
“Free will requires 1) having more than one option, 2) a desire to choose, 3) freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), 4) power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and 5) the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.”
The Rebuttal:
To address this argument, it becomes somewhat necessary to address the first known choice made by the Christian God.
The first choice made by the Christian God (as far as we are able to know) is the choice to create the universe. This choice would not have interfered with His ‘nature’ since what’s being spoken of is the creation of the universe, not the degree to which it was created or qualities it would then possess. God was under no obligation to create the universe. There was the desire for fellowship, but not a necessity for it, nor a necessity for the universe to be created. And since time did not exist prior to its creation by the Christian God, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge concerning it (or, rather, there would not necessarily be any foreknowledge to possess in the way that we understand the term).
Based upon that, we can draw conclusions that will satisfy the five criteria necessitated by the author of the argument:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The first criterion, that God would need more than one option to be able to initially make a choice, is satisfied by His ability to either 1) create the universe, or 2) not create the universe.
The second is met by our knowledge that the Christian God wanted fellowship (the reason Man was created).
The third is met by His ability to act or not, despite His ‘nature’.
The fourth is met by His omnipotence and ability to create.
The fifth is met by Hs ability to act on the desire, to create or not to create the universe. There is nothing forcing God to create the universe.
In this, all of the criteria that allow God to possess free will are met. And since --as stated above-- there was no time before Time was created, by its very definition foreknowledge would not exist (as it pertains to you or I).
Therefore, up until the creation of the universe, God is perfecetly capable of free will and of being a personal being.
That said, the possibility of a problem comes into play once creation is created.
The answers to the five criteria listed above are still very much valid as God can always choose to interact or not to interact with His creation; God can, and obviously does, desire to interact (eg. Sending of Jesus Christ, miracles, prayer); He always has the freedom to choose, the power to accomplish the choice, and the potential to merely not interact.
The problem comes then in the Christian God’s omniscience, His divine foreknowledge. Yet even there, the problem is easily solved, depending on your view of omniscience:
Inherent Omniscience is the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
Total Omniscience, on the other hand, is actually knowing everything that can be known.
If we take the stance that the Christian God has Inherent Omniscience, then God can merely choose to not know certain things (which would grant Himself the ‘lack of foreknowledge’ needed to be able to make ‘free’ choices). Game over. Problem solved. Argument refuted sucessfully.
If we choose Total Omniscience, we have yet another obstacle to hurdle.
How does God, who, according to Total Omniscience, knows everything that can be known, have the sufficient ‘lack of foreknowledge’ to allow Himself the freedom to choose ‘freely’?
The answer, I think, would have to lie somewhere in the realm of eternity. For instance, one of the chief attributes of the Christian God is that He is infinite, or eternal. Within the scope of eternity there are several varying ways in which God can exist within eternity (eg. Existing outside of time; Existing outside and inside of time). I take the position of Augustine of Hippo who said that God exists outside of the created universe and therefore exists outside of time; because of this there is not a past or future for God, but only an eternal present.
If then, to God, creation exists within an eternal present, several things would happen. 1) God would know all things at the same time (since God exists in an eternal present, all events are eternally present before God); yet 2) God would not necessarily know the choices made by people (since He cannot see the future because there is no future to God, and since God is viewing the events in the present); this means that 3) God would not necessarily know the choices He Himself would make (since it's already been stated that there is no future to know) except as it concerns prophecy and other things God says will indeed happen.
This existence in an eternal present and lack of a future acts as the "state of uncertainty" mentioned in the argument. Whether or not it truly is a state of uncertainty is speculative; but for reasons concerning the argument and its logic, the 'eternal present' scenerio sufficiently satisfies the finite aspects of the "state of uncertainty".
Thus, the omniscient Christian God can be said to have free will, and is therefore capable of existing as a personal being.
And with that, the argument is rebutted.
To recap:
God meets the criteria for possession of free will as follows:
1) Having more than one option
2) Having a desire to choose
3) Having a freedom to choose
4) Having the power to accomplish the choice
5) Having the potential to avoid the option
The final criterion needed to be met is that of a certain 'lack' of foreknowledge/omniscience, which as shown above is met in accordance with the two varying definitions of omniscience: With Inherent Omniscience, God chooses to not know certain things; with Total Omniscience, God, viewed to exist in a state of eternal present, sees all things as in present time, and is then not seeing the future.
---
Now, all that said, we cannot really know everything as it concerns God, since God exists outside of our complete realm of understanding.
Consequently, I'm open to comments that would help me to then improve the integrity of the rebuttal.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Omnipotence Paradox
I present for your enjoyment, The Omnipotence Paradox (as it was first told to me)
First, we must assume God is omnipotent.
Now if God is omnipotent, can He create a rock He cannot lift?
If He cannot create a rock that even He cannot lift, His omnipotence isn't omni, but limited, since He cannot create said rock, thus proving God isn't 'all powerful'.
If He can create a rock that even He cannot lift, then He proves He is not omnipotent, since he cannot lift this rock which a being with control over the fabric of reality would be able to lift.
Oh, there is one stipulation, He has to be able to do one or the other; He cannot not be able to AND be able to simultaneously.
The Rebuttal:
An omnipotent being would in no way be limited or bound to our logic, since said being is all-powerful. So with that, the paradox becomes null and void. Let me explain:
What is happening in this paradox is that God is being placed within certain parameters; parameters set up by our human logic:
1) Assuming God takes physical form.
2) Assuming God is finite.
3) Forcing our natural laws onto God.
4) Forcing our logic onto God.
If God is not bound by our human logic then we cannot bind God to the parameters set up within this paradox (which is based on our logic) without limiting God therein.
And since we have no alternate means of testing God, the whole of the paradox crumbles.
First, we must assume God is omnipotent.
Now if God is omnipotent, can He create a rock He cannot lift?
If He cannot create a rock that even He cannot lift, His omnipotence isn't omni, but limited, since He cannot create said rock, thus proving God isn't 'all powerful'.
If He can create a rock that even He cannot lift, then He proves He is not omnipotent, since he cannot lift this rock which a being with control over the fabric of reality would be able to lift.
Oh, there is one stipulation, He has to be able to do one or the other; He cannot not be able to AND be able to simultaneously.
The Rebuttal:
An omnipotent being would in no way be limited or bound to our logic, since said being is all-powerful. So with that, the paradox becomes null and void. Let me explain:
What is happening in this paradox is that God is being placed within certain parameters; parameters set up by our human logic:
1) Assuming God takes physical form.
2) Assuming God is finite.
3) Forcing our natural laws onto God.
4) Forcing our logic onto God.
If God is not bound by our human logic then we cannot bind God to the parameters set up within this paradox (which is based on our logic) without limiting God therein.
And since we have no alternate means of testing God, the whole of the paradox crumbles.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Hunger Site
In a time when even we are feeling the repercussions of this economic recession, we may find ourselves reluctant to help those less fortunate than us, those who have even less. Because really, if we have steady internet access and the time to forward emails and the like, we mustn't be that bad off, eh?
I'm not asking that you buy some food for the homeless guy on the corner street, or sell any of your old junk (yes, we all have junk-- even me), volunteer at a soup kitchen or even donate food to a food pantry --though all of those things are wonderful and you should porbably do them at some point or other.
All I'm asking is that you click on the link below for thehungersite.com, and click on a button. Yes, a button. I want you to click on it. I won't go into the craziness that explains how it works. All I know is that it does. You click on a button and coorporate sponsors donate based upon that number of clicks.
Snopes.com says it's true, and Snopes is known to be 99.9% reliable. That said, you can bet it's legit.
So, as I was saying, just go to the site --thehungersite.com-- and click on the box that says, "Click Here to Give -- it's FREE!" That's it. It's that simple. Really.
While you're there, be sure to check out the links at the top of the page:
See the tabs at the top? There are tabs that say Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rain Forest, and Animal Rescue. Those tabs take you to similar pages where you can likewise click on a button to donate to those causes as well.
So while you're helping fight hunger, maybe you should help fight breast cancer, literacy, child health and more. After all, they're fairly worthy causes, right?
So check it out...
...and maybe you can help make a difference.
I'm not asking that you buy some food for the homeless guy on the corner street, or sell any of your old junk (yes, we all have junk-- even me), volunteer at a soup kitchen or even donate food to a food pantry --though all of those things are wonderful and you should porbably do them at some point or other.
All I'm asking is that you click on the link below for thehungersite.com, and click on a button. Yes, a button. I want you to click on it. I won't go into the craziness that explains how it works. All I know is that it does. You click on a button and coorporate sponsors donate based upon that number of clicks.
Snopes.com says it's true, and Snopes is known to be 99.9% reliable. That said, you can bet it's legit.
So, as I was saying, just go to the site --thehungersite.com-- and click on the box that says, "Click Here to Give -- it's FREE!" That's it. It's that simple. Really.
While you're there, be sure to check out the links at the top of the page:
See the tabs at the top? There are tabs that say Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rain Forest, and Animal Rescue. Those tabs take you to similar pages where you can likewise click on a button to donate to those causes as well.
So while you're helping fight hunger, maybe you should help fight breast cancer, literacy, child health and more. After all, they're fairly worthy causes, right?
So check it out...
...and maybe you can help make a difference.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Not Fashionable
the UN estimates that between 26,500 and 30,000 children die of hunger everyday. hunger. not war, not disease, not natural disaster. hunger. totally treatable, clearly curable and absolutely preventable. when the UN says that up to 30,000 children die of hunger everyday, they are only talking about kids five and younger. but we let it happen. they don’t get a mention in the obituaries or make headline news. they die silent, painful, lonely deaths. they die off camera and in the poorest places on earth.
we can change this. you can bring change. we don’t have to let this sort of thing happen. the point is not to guilt people into pinching a couple pennies so that we can let ourselves off the hook. the point is to restore humanity to these children. to let them die like this, night after night, is saying something about the way we view life and people. we aren’t talking about making everyone rich or inventing a new concept. we are talking about equality and compassion. we wouldn’t let our own brothers and sisters starve to death if it was within our power to save them. know that it is.
they say that apathy never killed anyone.
so think. think about how blessed you are. don’t forget that justice and mercy are at the very center of why you are the way you are. remember that anytime someone asks you what these shirts mean that you are actively making someone aware of something that they cannot ignore. always remember that you are fighting for the people who aren’t going to make you famous or rich, but people whose hope you are restoring. God is on the move.
this is notfashionable.com
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Tales of Beedle the Bard
Last year, J.K. Rowling auctioned off one of the seven hand-written/illustrated copies of the children's fairy tales (as seen in Deathly Hallows), The Tales of Beedle the Bard (Click here to view). The book, auctioned at Sotheby's in London, fetched a meager $4 million. The purchaser? Amazon.com.Mrs. Rowling donated the full proceeds to The Children's Voice campaign, "a charity she co-founded to help improve the lives of institutionalized children across Europe," Amazon.com says.
Recently, it has been announced (as maybe some of you have heard) that The Tales of Beedle the Bard is being published for commercial sale. That said, the entire net proceeds from the sales of these books, which includes a Uk edition, US edition, and collector's edition, will again be donated to The Children's High Level Group.
The cost is quite affordable, except if you want to be one of only 100,000 to own the collector's edition, which will set you back a hefty $100. The collector's edition, on top of being a limited printing, is bound and jewel-encrusted so that it resembles as closely as possible the originals. That will certainly help ease its considerable cost.
In total, the proceeds are estimated to be somewhere near $8 million in net proceeds, all gifted to the children's charity, and certainly a fine gift from a most undoubtedly generous woman.
I myself have already purchased my copy, though I admit I did buy the UK edition.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Makeover...
Last night I gave my old website, blearyeyedme.com, a makeover.
There wasn't much to be done; but I did take down the stuff about my old band, blearyeyedme, and some other things like pictures, writings, and art (which can all be found by clicking on the links given: Myspace, Facebook, DeviantART, etc.). I'll probably go back and add the music of blearyeyedme (which can otherwise be found on its own Myspace page here).
So, there you have it. That's all.
Cheers!
Edit: Click on the blearyeyedme.com logo and it will take you to the music page. Once there, click on the logo again to return to the main page.
There wasn't much to be done; but I did take down the stuff about my old band, blearyeyedme, and some other things like pictures, writings, and art (which can all be found by clicking on the links given: Myspace, Facebook, DeviantART, etc.). I'll probably go back and add the music of blearyeyedme (which can otherwise be found on its own Myspace page here).
So, there you have it. That's all.
Cheers!
Edit: Click on the blearyeyedme.com logo and it will take you to the music page. Once there, click on the logo again to return to the main page.
Monday, August 4, 2008
As the Ruin Falls.
Apart from Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant, As the Ruin Falls by C.S. Lewis has to be my favorite poem of all:
All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.
Peace, re-assurance, pleasure, are the goals I seek,
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin:
I talk of love --a scholar's parrot may talk Greek--
But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.
Only that now you have taught me (but how late) my lack.
I see the chasm. And everything you are was making
My heart into a bridge by which I might get back
From exile, and grow man. And now the bridge is breaking.
For this I bless you as the ruin falls. The pains
You give me are more precious than all other gains.
This poem was written about his wife, Joy Davidman Gresham. This is who Lewis is speaking of when he uses the personal pronoun 'you'. During this time she was battling bone cancer (a battle to which she ultimately succumbed). In the third stanza when Lewis writes, "And now the bridge is breaking," you can see how he is suffering alongside his wife, 'dying' as she is. It helps to know what Lewis was going through, to understand his suffering as you understand his wife's. This, for me, has made this one of the most compelling poems ever written. And how profoundly romantic that last statement: "The pains you give me are more precious than all other gains."
All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.
Peace, re-assurance, pleasure, are the goals I seek,
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin:
I talk of love --a scholar's parrot may talk Greek--
But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.
Only that now you have taught me (but how late) my lack.
I see the chasm. And everything you are was making
My heart into a bridge by which I might get back
From exile, and grow man. And now the bridge is breaking.
For this I bless you as the ruin falls. The pains
You give me are more precious than all other gains.
This poem was written about his wife, Joy Davidman Gresham. This is who Lewis is speaking of when he uses the personal pronoun 'you'. During this time she was battling bone cancer (a battle to which she ultimately succumbed). In the third stanza when Lewis writes, "And now the bridge is breaking," you can see how he is suffering alongside his wife, 'dying' as she is. It helps to know what Lewis was going through, to understand his suffering as you understand his wife's. This, for me, has made this one of the most compelling poems ever written. And how profoundly romantic that last statement: "The pains you give me are more precious than all other gains."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
