In reading Till We Have Faces, I was struck by the seeming complexity of Orual's character. In the beginning of the book, Orual is simply Orual. Her love is almost pure for those around her. Her love for Psyche is so deep, in fact, that she wishes to be Psyche's "real mother," lover, and "full sister(p.22)." This pure love, however, slowly transforms into something not so pure. Orual becomes jealous of Psyche and the fact that Psyche doesn't even seem to need her when Psyche is about to die.
After Orual forces Psyche to disobey her husband and Orual becomes queen, she begins to refer to herself as if she was not fully herself. I found it strange that she would say, for example, that if she could vanish into the Queen, "the gods would almost be cheated (p.201)." Why does she say such things and refer to herself as two different people? Perhaps Lewis was trying to flesh out her character more. It seems like maybe the "Orual part" of Orual could represent her guilt, her past, her weakness, and her ugliness.
The "Queen part" of Orual, on the other hand, might represent her strength. While she serves as queen, she wears the veil that covers her face. Orual describes how with her veil, she becomes "something very mysterious and awful (p.229)." This gives her power over others and a respect that she had not known while others could see her ugliness. Orual seems to use focusing on this powerful part of herself as a means of coping with her guilt. She tries hard to suppress "Orual" and become completely the "Queen."
Toward the end of the book Orual also calls herself Ungit. I'm not sure that I totally understand what this meant other than the fact that this was maybe the part of her character that didn't really care about the welfare of her people. Orual says that "to say that I was Ungit meant that I was as ugly in soul as she; greedy, blood-gorged (p.281-282)." This realization helps her to recognize how selfish she is and allows her to move toward becoming less selfish.
The part of Orual's character that I think I understand the least, is at the end of the book when she is called Psyche. At this point, she has come back to having a pure, selfless love for Psyche. Perhaps, then, this meant that Orual had become like Psyche in her character--the guilt was gone and her soul had been perfected.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Psyche as a Sort of Savior Figure
A Christian metaphor in a retold pagan myth?
I realize Lewis’ purpose in writing Till We Have Faces was not to draw parallels to the Christian faith. However, there is one comparison that seemed far too obvious for me to leave unmentioned: that of Psyche as a savior figure. Though mortal, there is an aspect of godliness in her that makes people treat her as if she is immortal. They call her “a goddess. . .Ungit herself in mortal shape” (32).
She is not just a goddess in physical appearance but is also thought to have a healing/miraculous touch. A woman meets her on the roadside and asks her to touch her so that her baby might have good health. And, later, when the plague haunts Glome, all the sick come to the palace begging for her healing. “They fell at her feet and kissed her feet and the edge of her robe and her shadow and the ground where she had trodden. And still she touched and touched. There seemed to be no end of it; the crowd increased instead of diminishing” (32). Similarly, Jesus worked among crowds of people, healing those who were hurting with his mere touch.
The people left offerings for her outside the palace, myrtle branches, garlands, honeycakes, and pigeons (33). Interestingly enough, palm branches were laid at Jesus’ feet as well. But, then the tides change in the stories of both savior figures . . . from worship and reverence to slander and scorn.
Not long after the “healing” episode at the palace, the people turn against Psyche, calling her the “Accursed” and throwing stones at her. In Orual’s words, Psyche “healed them, and blessed them, and took their filthy disease upon [herself]. And these are their thanks” (39). It is soon demanded by Ungit that Psyche be sacrificed for the sake of the people. The King has no argument. After all, “It’s only sense that one should die for many” (61). The same people that fell at Jesus’ feet similarly turned against him, mocking him, despising him, and demanding his death.
Psyche, when accused, is calm and collected. Instead of displaying anger towards her accusers, she shows grace. Orual wishes Psyche to send a curse on their sister Redival, who though being a blood relative, does not try to defend her sister against death (69). To this, Psyche replies, “No, no. She also does what she doesn’t know.” This wording is similar to what Christ said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Psyche not only seems to forgive her accusers, but she also is willing to die for them. “How can I be the ransom for all Glome unless I die?” (72). She has a strange longing for death, almost as if she were born for the purpose of dying and discovering something greater beyond her life (74). Christ also came willing to die.
After being led up the mountain to the place of sacrifice, Psyche is bound to “the Tree” (85). “They say there was not a tear in her eye, nor did so much as her hand shake. . . she died full of all things that are really good; courage, and patience. . .” In the same way, Christ died on the cross, full of humility. When Orual went up to the mountain to retrieve Pscyhe’s remains, she found living flesh, not bones. Though not dead, Psyche’s sacrifice had resurrected Glome to its old health and prosperity. Similarly, when the women came to Jesus’ tomb, they found he was not dead but alive, his death and resurrection having accomplished our redemption.
I am not sure that Lewis intended any of these parallels. This savior metaphor certainly has some flaws. After all, Psyche is mortal, and she is kept from the privilege of seeing the face of her Lover, who is a god. She has limitations. For instance, when she touched the sick, we don’t really know that she literally healed them. But, at the same time, she possesses many qualities that suggest she has redemptive purposes to fulfill. One such redemptive purpose might even be the eventual change that occurs in Orual. It is only through Psyche’s trials that Orual realizes her own distorted, jealous love and finds her true face. Just as in Christ, we realize the ugliness of our selfish, sinful faces and find our true faces in him (1 Cor. 13; 2 Cor. 3).
I realize Lewis’ purpose in writing Till We Have Faces was not to draw parallels to the Christian faith. However, there is one comparison that seemed far too obvious for me to leave unmentioned: that of Psyche as a savior figure. Though mortal, there is an aspect of godliness in her that makes people treat her as if she is immortal. They call her “a goddess. . .Ungit herself in mortal shape” (32).
She is not just a goddess in physical appearance but is also thought to have a healing/miraculous touch. A woman meets her on the roadside and asks her to touch her so that her baby might have good health. And, later, when the plague haunts Glome, all the sick come to the palace begging for her healing. “They fell at her feet and kissed her feet and the edge of her robe and her shadow and the ground where she had trodden. And still she touched and touched. There seemed to be no end of it; the crowd increased instead of diminishing” (32). Similarly, Jesus worked among crowds of people, healing those who were hurting with his mere touch.
The people left offerings for her outside the palace, myrtle branches, garlands, honeycakes, and pigeons (33). Interestingly enough, palm branches were laid at Jesus’ feet as well. But, then the tides change in the stories of both savior figures . . . from worship and reverence to slander and scorn.
Not long after the “healing” episode at the palace, the people turn against Psyche, calling her the “Accursed” and throwing stones at her. In Orual’s words, Psyche “healed them, and blessed them, and took their filthy disease upon [herself]. And these are their thanks” (39). It is soon demanded by Ungit that Psyche be sacrificed for the sake of the people. The King has no argument. After all, “It’s only sense that one should die for many” (61). The same people that fell at Jesus’ feet similarly turned against him, mocking him, despising him, and demanding his death.
Psyche, when accused, is calm and collected. Instead of displaying anger towards her accusers, she shows grace. Orual wishes Psyche to send a curse on their sister Redival, who though being a blood relative, does not try to defend her sister against death (69). To this, Psyche replies, “No, no. She also does what she doesn’t know.” This wording is similar to what Christ said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Psyche not only seems to forgive her accusers, but she also is willing to die for them. “How can I be the ransom for all Glome unless I die?” (72). She has a strange longing for death, almost as if she were born for the purpose of dying and discovering something greater beyond her life (74). Christ also came willing to die.
After being led up the mountain to the place of sacrifice, Psyche is bound to “the Tree” (85). “They say there was not a tear in her eye, nor did so much as her hand shake. . . she died full of all things that are really good; courage, and patience. . .” In the same way, Christ died on the cross, full of humility. When Orual went up to the mountain to retrieve Pscyhe’s remains, she found living flesh, not bones. Though not dead, Psyche’s sacrifice had resurrected Glome to its old health and prosperity. Similarly, when the women came to Jesus’ tomb, they found he was not dead but alive, his death and resurrection having accomplished our redemption.
I am not sure that Lewis intended any of these parallels. This savior metaphor certainly has some flaws. After all, Psyche is mortal, and she is kept from the privilege of seeing the face of her Lover, who is a god. She has limitations. For instance, when she touched the sick, we don’t really know that she literally healed them. But, at the same time, she possesses many qualities that suggest she has redemptive purposes to fulfill. One such redemptive purpose might even be the eventual change that occurs in Orual. It is only through Psyche’s trials that Orual realizes her own distorted, jealous love and finds her true face. Just as in Christ, we realize the ugliness of our selfish, sinful faces and find our true faces in him (1 Cor. 13; 2 Cor. 3).
"You are not your own."
During D-Groups on Tuesday night, the group that I meet with was studying 1 Corinthians 6. Near the end, Paul is talking about glorifying God through our bodies because it is a "temple of the Holy Spirit within you." In the middle of this point he makes, Paul writes a simple sentence: "You are not your own." This caught my attention, and got me thinking about it, mainly (I think) because of what we have been reading lately in this class.
The first thing this statement from Paul reminds me of is that all of us exist for so much more than just pleasing ourselves. The world doesn't revolve around me, although I often think and act like it does. As Christians, we know that true fulfillment, happiness, comes from giving ourselves to others and to God, not shutting out the world around us and focusing on ourselves. Easy to say, hard to do.
We've read so much in this class that has to do with this, and I will mention just a few of the bigger examples. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", sees Hell as total pre-occupation with the self; being totally oblivious to others' wants and needs. In "The Four Loves", Charity is the final aspect of love that helps the other 3 forms of love grow and flourish, such as in Lewis's garden analogy regarding Charity. I view the word "charity" itself as something unselfish; if I do something out of charity, it's for someone or something other than myself, with no regard to my own benefit. In "Till We Have Faces", it becomes clear that Orual's selfishness, particularly her selfish love for Psyche, makes her life rather miserable and also affects the people around her. Not until late in the story is she made aware of self-obsession and its terrible consequences.
From what we've read from "Descent Into Hell", the main example I see of this selfish focus on the self is Lawrence Wentworth, the historian guy. From the little amount I understand about this book, I do see that Wentworth has created his own little world where everyone else but Adela is below him. And from reading the chapters about Wentworth, it's a miserable life he is living. The anger, jealousy, superiority towards others, and even the delusional thoughts he has do not suggest to the reader that he's living a happy, fulfilling life. On the other hand, there is the beautiful scene between Pauline and Stanhope, where Stanhope willingly volunteers to carry the burdens of Pauline. I know there is much more symbolic meaning behind this action, but on the surface, this action by Stanhope seems to be the complete opposite of Wentworth's self-obsession.
Lately, this class and what we have read in it has made me much more aware of the terrible affects of excessive self-love, obsession with oneself: narcissism. I feel our culture, which emphasizes independence and self-betterment through individual effort and work, tends to make this self-focus even worse.
The first thing this statement from Paul reminds me of is that all of us exist for so much more than just pleasing ourselves. The world doesn't revolve around me, although I often think and act like it does. As Christians, we know that true fulfillment, happiness, comes from giving ourselves to others and to God, not shutting out the world around us and focusing on ourselves. Easy to say, hard to do.
We've read so much in this class that has to do with this, and I will mention just a few of the bigger examples. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", sees Hell as total pre-occupation with the self; being totally oblivious to others' wants and needs. In "The Four Loves", Charity is the final aspect of love that helps the other 3 forms of love grow and flourish, such as in Lewis's garden analogy regarding Charity. I view the word "charity" itself as something unselfish; if I do something out of charity, it's for someone or something other than myself, with no regard to my own benefit. In "Till We Have Faces", it becomes clear that Orual's selfishness, particularly her selfish love for Psyche, makes her life rather miserable and also affects the people around her. Not until late in the story is she made aware of self-obsession and its terrible consequences.
From what we've read from "Descent Into Hell", the main example I see of this selfish focus on the self is Lawrence Wentworth, the historian guy. From the little amount I understand about this book, I do see that Wentworth has created his own little world where everyone else but Adela is below him. And from reading the chapters about Wentworth, it's a miserable life he is living. The anger, jealousy, superiority towards others, and even the delusional thoughts he has do not suggest to the reader that he's living a happy, fulfilling life. On the other hand, there is the beautiful scene between Pauline and Stanhope, where Stanhope willingly volunteers to carry the burdens of Pauline. I know there is much more symbolic meaning behind this action, but on the surface, this action by Stanhope seems to be the complete opposite of Wentworth's self-obsession.
Lately, this class and what we have read in it has made me much more aware of the terrible affects of excessive self-love, obsession with oneself: narcissism. I feel our culture, which emphasizes independence and self-betterment through individual effort and work, tends to make this self-focus even worse.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Holy Darkness
Orural wrestles with her beliefs throughout the course of the novel. Is it the Fox's rationality that makes her question? He has mostly brought her up, so it only makes sense that his influence is strongest. Orural's unsure what of what to choose: denial or the desire to believe. Even though Orural believes the gods may be false, she still prays to them. Did Orural believe in the gods as she entered the valley looking for a trace of her sister? That was maybe the nearest Orural was to "seeing" faith (aside from the palace, which she was mostly uncertain about). Psyche seems to always believe. Maybe it's part of what sets her apart and makes her beauty all the more striking. Yet I feel the moment she initially truly believed was when the rain came (110).
I wonder about the "holy darkness" of Ungit. Why should the people want to follow after this? Or maybe they are given no other option. The Priest talks of how Ungit does not have to make sense or be consistent. When he's said this in talking with the King, Orural knows the Priest has won. His is the side that stands firm, for nothing can deny inconsistency. Even The Fox's usual calm, rationality seems forced.
I noticed a running theme of a fear of the unknown. The gods are always feared, never loved (54). The people of Glome don't know what to make of the gods, so they fear. There is always the possibility of the gods acting in any sort of way against the people should they anger the gods, so the people have to be careful of their actions. Towards the end, Orural states: "Now that I'd proved for certain that the gods are and that they hated me, it seemed that I had nothing to do but wait for my punishment" (175). She believes, yet I observe it to be primarily out of fear.
I wonder about the "holy darkness" of Ungit. Why should the people want to follow after this? Or maybe they are given no other option. The Priest talks of how Ungit does not have to make sense or be consistent. When he's said this in talking with the King, Orural knows the Priest has won. His is the side that stands firm, for nothing can deny inconsistency. Even The Fox's usual calm, rationality seems forced.
I noticed a running theme of a fear of the unknown. The gods are always feared, never loved (54). The people of Glome don't know what to make of the gods, so they fear. There is always the possibility of the gods acting in any sort of way against the people should they anger the gods, so the people have to be careful of their actions. Towards the end, Orural states: "Now that I'd proved for certain that the gods are and that they hated me, it seemed that I had nothing to do but wait for my punishment" (175). She believes, yet I observe it to be primarily out of fear.
Reasons and Rationalizations
We all do it. When we do something that we didn't intend to do, we try to find the reason why. More often than not, this turns into coming up with so many different reasons for doing what we did that it is more of a rationalization for our mistakes than finding why we did it. We don't find the real reason, we just make up excuses.
This is what Orual is doing throughout all of Till We Have Faces. She has a complaint, but the reasons that she gives for her complaint turn out to not be her reasons at all. Instead of looking inside herself to find out why she ruined Psyche's happiness, she looks to the gods as objects for her blame. It wasn't her fault that the gods were unclear. She didn't really know. The gods changed the past so that even though before she wasn't sure, if she looked back now the past would tell her that she had always known. These are just a few of the reasons that Orual gives for her actions, but none of them are the true reason that she finally discovers. At the end of the book, when Orual finally reads her complaint, she isn't reading from the book she wrote. She reads something that she has never seen before; that she finds to be the truth. The truth is something that in all of her anger about what had been done, she had never considered as what could have been her reason.
The question I have been thinking about is whether or not Orual had good reasons in the midst of all of her rationalizations. I know that I am coming from a completely different time and culture, but I think that looking at how Orual sees her love for Psyche we can find some thing that may have made her doubt Psyche's story. Orual sees herself as Psyche's mother, she isn't really, but she has played that role in Psyche's life. This might be my world view coming into play, but what mother would be okay with her daughter living with and being married to a man she has not met. I know that as the one who was getting married I wanted my family to know who my husband was. This is a different situation and Psyche's husband is a god and no one knew that she would end up married after the sacrifice on the hill, but I think that some of Orual's jealousy came from the fact that as the one person who had loved Psyche up until this point, she was not allowed to meet the one who had come into Psyche's life. I think that any mother who was as close to her daughter as Orual seems to be to Psyche would be jealous of a man she has never met who takes her daughter from her.
Maybe this is just another rationalization that Orual herself had never thought of, but there is so much ambiguity in the story that maybe that is all we can find. Maybe Orual would have been less jealous of a man that she knew instead of a secretive god, but maybe not. I think that often it is easier for a person to rationalize his or her actions instead of claiming responsibility for them. Orual points the finger at the gods as the reason for what she did and this was not the best course of action she could have taken, but was there any truth in her accusation. We learn that her real reasons were selfishness and jealousy, but would things have been different if the gods had revealed more things to her?
Veils
The concept of Orual's veil has brought up a lot of talk on the subject, so I guess I'll continue on with my own thoughts. When Orual veils herself, she isn't only putting on a literal veil to hide her face, she's placing over herself a figurative covering, hiding her true self, her true face. She's not just covering up her physical ugliness, but the ugliness of her soul--her inner darkness. Her true face is the one she fears most--that selfishness which not only caused Psyche grief, but Orual and the people around her pain as well. Because of that fear of what lay beneath the veil, she "locked Orual up or laid her asleep as best I could somehwere deep inside me; she lay curled there. It was like being with child, but reversed; the thing I carried in me grew slowly smaller and less alive" (226).
Do we all hide away our true selves when they are too painful to reveal to the world, and more importantly, ourselves? Is the darkness of our hearts something we try to put a veil over, deceiving ourselves that it's to hide from the "world", when really it's us we're trying to hide from? A piece of Scripture comes to my mind when thinking of this: "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18).
"We, who with unvelied faces"...Scripture tells us that it's when the veils are off, we "reflect the Lord's glory" and become "transformed into his likeness". It's when our true faces are before God that He truly blesses us, that His glory shines upon us, lighting up the inner darkness and shadows left by the veil. In a sense I can reflect upon Lewis' words "How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?" (294) I don't think God wishes to meet with a lie; He knows who He created us to be and it is that that He most wishes to be with--our true selves, no veils, no self-deceptions; just us laid bare before His immeasurable love and grace.
It's painful to see beneath that veil, to see the ugliness of our humanity. I think Orual exemplified this with the painful experience of her "complaint". Yet there is redemption to be found, like we discussed in class. Jesus redeems us from the veil, from the lies we built because of the shame of our ugliness, our selfishness. His Love is enough to bring out those "unveiled faces". We're called to live and be free, not let those things beneath the veil become "smaller, and less alive." It's time to take off the veil--"But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" (2 Corinthians 3:16)
Do we all hide away our true selves when they are too painful to reveal to the world, and more importantly, ourselves? Is the darkness of our hearts something we try to put a veil over, deceiving ourselves that it's to hide from the "world", when really it's us we're trying to hide from? A piece of Scripture comes to my mind when thinking of this: "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18).
"We, who with unvelied faces"...Scripture tells us that it's when the veils are off, we "reflect the Lord's glory" and become "transformed into his likeness". It's when our true faces are before God that He truly blesses us, that His glory shines upon us, lighting up the inner darkness and shadows left by the veil. In a sense I can reflect upon Lewis' words "How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?" (294) I don't think God wishes to meet with a lie; He knows who He created us to be and it is that that He most wishes to be with--our true selves, no veils, no self-deceptions; just us laid bare before His immeasurable love and grace.
It's painful to see beneath that veil, to see the ugliness of our humanity. I think Orual exemplified this with the painful experience of her "complaint". Yet there is redemption to be found, like we discussed in class. Jesus redeems us from the veil, from the lies we built because of the shame of our ugliness, our selfishness. His Love is enough to bring out those "unveiled faces". We're called to live and be free, not let those things beneath the veil become "smaller, and less alive." It's time to take off the veil--"But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" (2 Corinthians 3:16)
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Orual- Selfish Love
At first when I was reading the story, I felt very sorry for Orual. I pitied how others treated her and found her to be loving when she didn't focus on pitying herself, but instead on loving Psyche. This was a short-lived feeling though. I found Orual's love to be very selfish.
She is willing to give up Psyche even for her own good and happiness. And then once she realized what she had done, she does all she can to survive. She goes back to her castle and goes into survival mode. Instead of her possessive love ruling her, she is consumed with survival. For instance, she walls up the chains, and thus, walling up her memory of Psyche--burying it deep within. Her veil is another aspect of her survival. She must bury her true-self, her emotions, and her past; hiding them from herself and everyone else. So she doesn't have to face herself for what she did and how she feels. All the time she convinces herself that it was all to be blamed on the gods.
I really started to dislike Orual, and instead of pitying her, I looked down on who she had become. However, I would be lying if I said I haven't been "Orual" in the past, present, and certainly in the future. I think Lewis intended Orual to be all of us in one way or another. We all have our moments of selfish love. Of burying the truth away and just learning to survive. And of veiling our true selfs.
I realize that our souls all have ugly faces at times, and we too like Orual need to acknowledge this before we can be transformed.
She is willing to give up Psyche even for her own good and happiness. And then once she realized what she had done, she does all she can to survive. She goes back to her castle and goes into survival mode. Instead of her possessive love ruling her, she is consumed with survival. For instance, she walls up the chains, and thus, walling up her memory of Psyche--burying it deep within. Her veil is another aspect of her survival. She must bury her true-self, her emotions, and her past; hiding them from herself and everyone else. So she doesn't have to face herself for what she did and how she feels. All the time she convinces herself that it was all to be blamed on the gods.
I really started to dislike Orual, and instead of pitying her, I looked down on who she had become. However, I would be lying if I said I haven't been "Orual" in the past, present, and certainly in the future. I think Lewis intended Orual to be all of us in one way or another. We all have our moments of selfish love. Of burying the truth away and just learning to survive. And of veiling our true selfs.
I realize that our souls all have ugly faces at times, and we too like Orual need to acknowledge this before we can be transformed.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A true friend?
I struggle so much with C.S. Lewis's perception of friendship love. His description of friendship to me is what I would simply consider an acquaintance not so much a deep friendship. I mean, to him a friend is someone who shares a common interest and that is the only thing that matters. They partake in the activity and do not desire to get to know the other person or what is going on in their personal life. That, to Lewis, would be overstepping the line with friendship.
What is friendship to me? Friendship is someone who cares about you. Someone who will listen to your worries, your fears, your struggles. Someone who will help you with those struggles. Someone who will also do those common things with you but also ask how your family is doing, how school is going and simply how life is going. To me this is what the community that Christ has called us to live in. How can you have community without friendship?
Maybe I am just getting Lewis's different kinds of love screwed up. Maybe the type of love I am thinking about is actually what he categorizes as something else. Lewis why do you have to be so confusing sometimes?
What is friendship to me? Friendship is someone who cares about you. Someone who will listen to your worries, your fears, your struggles. Someone who will help you with those struggles. Someone who will also do those common things with you but also ask how your family is doing, how school is going and simply how life is going. To me this is what the community that Christ has called us to live in. How can you have community without friendship?
Maybe I am just getting Lewis's different kinds of love screwed up. Maybe the type of love I am thinking about is actually what he categorizes as something else. Lewis why do you have to be so confusing sometimes?
Trying to Understand
I've read the Divine Goodness chapter several times and I'm still going futz. The following is just my attempt to reword Lewis and in turn hopefully "dumb" everything down for myself.
First a question:
Who is God?
Humanity has many ideas when answering this question. Many of them mistaken and fucked up. I must step outside of myself and my innate humanity to understand that God is the ultimate essence of goodness--perfection. The answer: The originator of Good.
Goodness. Happiness. Lovingness. Although these words have slightly different derivatives, I should think it would be acceptable to categorize them as ultimately meaning Godlike, yes? God is love. God is good. God is happy. God is the epitome and essence of all three. God is also the creator of man--me.
What is my purpose?
God's calling for my life is to become like Him. I am bidden to 'put on Christ' and reflect his truth, his reality. I am made in God's image. The answer: Be God.
Through these questions and answers I can understand that:
God is the ultimate goodness.
God created me in goodness.
I am a reflection his goodness.
I am created to be good.
I am only good if I am God.
...but I'm not God. I'm merely a reflection. So...
Is my perception of goodness and truth different from God's?
Probably. I mean there's no way to really know unless I'm God, and I think we've decided I'm not. However, Christ calls men to repent--wouldn't this be pointless if God's standard of goodness wasn't similar to our own? Following in the ideas of Plato, we can compare our perception to that of a shadow and God's to the actual object from which the shadow is cast. Our goodness imitates God's.
As the creation, I will ALWAYS be the reflection of the creator. My happiness and goodness is merely a reflection of God. In the same way I can not initiate love, but only recreate it. However, because my love is an imitation, my human perceptions of love need to be tweaked slightly.
Perhaps a metaphor might help.?
A man with an empty stomach is hungry. He sees another man's food and desires to be full and satisfied by the food. In the same way, I am empty. I see the goodness in other people and desire to be full and satisfied by it. Love is the result of this desire.
God, on the other hand, doesn't need to be full. He already is full. God doesn't see the goodness in others. God created the goodness in others..
God doesn't want to love. God doesn't need to love. God is love. Therefore His love is a Pure gift.
God has no needs.
I have all needs...according the reality of God (which is truth).
Can I refuse God's love?
Within my humanity I can refuse God's love. But in the same way a man can't put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on his walls, I can't diminish God's glory by refusing to acknowledge him. So...God will remain God even if I don't believe in him (That's promising).
I guess I'm left with three choices then.
1) Become God (this is currently impossible.)
2) Be like God (this means to reflect his truth)
3) Disregard and be separated from God (but ultimately this is considered misery.)
My. Head. Hurts.
First a question:
Who is God?
Humanity has many ideas when answering this question. Many of them mistaken and fucked up. I must step outside of myself and my innate humanity to understand that God is the ultimate essence of goodness--perfection. The answer: The originator of Good.
Goodness. Happiness. Lovingness. Although these words have slightly different derivatives, I should think it would be acceptable to categorize them as ultimately meaning Godlike, yes? God is love. God is good. God is happy. God is the epitome and essence of all three. God is also the creator of man--me.
What is my purpose?
God's calling for my life is to become like Him. I am bidden to 'put on Christ' and reflect his truth, his reality. I am made in God's image. The answer: Be God.
Through these questions and answers I can understand that:
God is the ultimate goodness.
God created me in goodness.
I am a reflection his goodness.
I am created to be good.
I am only good if I am God.
...but I'm not God. I'm merely a reflection. So...
Is my perception of goodness and truth different from God's?
Probably. I mean there's no way to really know unless I'm God, and I think we've decided I'm not. However, Christ calls men to repent--wouldn't this be pointless if God's standard of goodness wasn't similar to our own? Following in the ideas of Plato, we can compare our perception to that of a shadow and God's to the actual object from which the shadow is cast. Our goodness imitates God's.
As the creation, I will ALWAYS be the reflection of the creator. My happiness and goodness is merely a reflection of God. In the same way I can not initiate love, but only recreate it. However, because my love is an imitation, my human perceptions of love need to be tweaked slightly.
Perhaps a metaphor might help.?
A man with an empty stomach is hungry. He sees another man's food and desires to be full and satisfied by the food. In the same way, I am empty. I see the goodness in other people and desire to be full and satisfied by it. Love is the result of this desire.
God, on the other hand, doesn't need to be full. He already is full. God doesn't see the goodness in others. God created the goodness in others..
God doesn't want to love. God doesn't need to love. God is love. Therefore His love is a Pure gift.
God has no needs.
I have all needs...according the reality of God (which is truth).
Can I refuse God's love?
Within my humanity I can refuse God's love. But in the same way a man can't put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on his walls, I can't diminish God's glory by refusing to acknowledge him. So...God will remain God even if I don't believe in him (That's promising).
I guess I'm left with three choices then.
1) Become God (this is currently impossible.)
2) Be like God (this means to reflect his truth)
3) Disregard and be separated from God (but ultimately this is considered misery.)
My. Head. Hurts.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Psyche's Confusion
In class today, we talked about how confused Orual is and how confused the people are by making Psyche into some type of goddess. Although at this point we are not quite sure who exactly Psyche is, but I think the people made Psyche believe that she is a goddess. After the encounter with the woman and her child when Psyche was with Redival that Orual found out about. Psyche did not know what she was doing, she did what the lady said. After this moment people started to believe she was goddess, so I think this made her think she was a goddess. After she helped a few more people and the Fox, more people came to the gates. Although her "healing powers" may have become coincidental, I think that she felt like she was needed. Later in the book, when she talks to Orual before she was brought to the mountain, she talked about longing for something, but she didn't know what she was longing for. Maybe when she was healing the people she saw herself as being needed. She was trying to fulfill that longing feeling. After she realized that being a "healer" was not what she was, she found out what she was longing for. I think that is why she was willing to go to the mountain, because she saw what she was longing for. She realized that the mountain was where everything that beautiful was. I think that Psyche is very confused about who she is. Although we do not know much about what happened when she was younger, we can come to the conclusion that she was influence a lot about what who she is. Psyche is a very smart girl, being taught by a Greek philosopher taught her a lot. However she seems to have no mind of her own, being influenced by the world around her. Of what we heard of the old story, we can see that she is effected by what people tell her by not caring about who her lover is. Then her sisters tell her about the plan of finding out who he is. Psyche seems be controlled by everyone around her, but when your name means mind, it could mean the lack there-of the mind.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Surface Friendships
C.S. Lewis defines friendship in a unique way, which I feel is a way only depicting part of what true friendship really means. He believes that friendship is only developed when two people have a common interest; therefore, creating a bond tighter than that of affection. I have always thought that a part of friendship could be that two people have something in common, but I would have never defined friendship by this definition. As I have thought about Lewis’ definition of friendship, I have begun to observe my own relationships in my life and have tried to depict why it is that we are friends. After seeking to understand why I am friends with the people I am friends with, I have found that the development of our friendship has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have similar interests. Yes, we do like similar things, but that is not why we are friends. We are friends because of divine circumstances of rooming situations, similar personalities, and great/awful experiences together. My best friends and I have spent time getting to know each other, and our personalities mesh well together; therefore, we became more than acquaintances. After spending much time together talking with each other and getting to know each other on a deeper level, we have developed a friendship that I know will be long-lasting. If our relationship were defined by Lewis’s definition, I would have to say that our common interest that has created the depth of our friendship is our love for Jesus Christ. I can say that if Lewis were on this track, which I don’t believe he is, that he would be absolutely correct. I believe that the reason my friendship have developed such a deep bond is because of our passion for Jesus Christ and the desire we have to live a life that’s good and pleasing to Him. After this connection comes getting to know each other as people as another top reason for the depth of our relationship. Along with loving Christ and getting to know each other, we have good and bad experiences that we have been through together. I think God uses the fellowship of people to create depth in a relationship. So looking at all the different aspects of my friendships and why I have people as friends, I have come to conclude that Lewis has a fraction of friendship correct.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Open Up
Love is opening up to someone, letting them change you. Lewis talks about this in many different places throughout his books. In his Chronicles Edmund cannot change unless he has changed. This does not mean that he just makes a conscience effort to change, but he has to open up and allow Aslan to change him. This is the essence of what it means to live like Christ, we must open ourselves up to Christ and only with him and through him will we start to change. Lewis shows how this relationship is similar to those relationships with our friends, in order to grow in those relationships we must open ourselves up to them. As long as we dont get stuck in your own pride and understand that pain is necessary to realize we are stuck and instead of going further the other direction and hiding ourselves, we open up to the good and the bad and allow the community to move to change to grow in us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)