Eavan Boland’s poetry is known for its thoughtful consideration of history that was significant to her home country: Ireland. Her poem The Pomegranate does not stray from this. Through close examination of Boland’s careful uses of vocabulary, imagery, and mythology, you find that the poem paints a clear picture of the Potato Famine.
At first glance, the vocabulary would appear to only be significant for the imagery; however, it is worth digging deeper.
The word “star” appears twice within the poem. Once we read: “…the starts blighted” (Boland 215), and another time we read: “The veiled stars…” (Boland 216). It is not unusual for stars to be given as imagery, because they can often represent hope; however, notice that the stars are, both times, mentioned with negativity.
The word “blighted” descended from the Old English word meaning “cursed.” The word “veiled” is associated with hiding something – almost out of protection or perhaps abstinence, as it is in the case of a new bride or a nun. Why does this matter? The stars could be representative of food. The “blighted” stars would be representative of the potatoes which had died out, leaving the Irish to starve, because the other food that might have helped them survive was “veiled” – or withheld – from them.
The imagery supports this, as well. The most interesting imagery is that of plant life. The pomegranate itself would be suggestive of food that is out of reach – especially since it is not available in Ireland – and even if it had, it wasn’t a potato. There are also plants mentioned that would represent food that is not available: “I carried her back past whitebeams… and honey-scented buddleias” (Boland 215). Buddleias are plants that commonly grow in areas where there was once thriving community or business that had died out. They are known to be especially viewed in places like old factories and bomb sites. This picture of something beautiful growing where everything else has died out will, no doubt, bring to mind the devastation of the potato fields which had died out and the food that would linger around as if to taunt the starving Irishmen. The other plant mentioned seems to really rub the idea of unavailable food in your face, because the whitebeam is a member of the Rosaceae family, which commonly produces plants with fruit such as apples and strawberries. The whitebeam is one of the few which only is grown for show – another taunt to empty bellies.
It is the mythology, however, that gives the strongest case for the imagery paralleling the potato famine. The family of Ceres clearly paints a picture of both abundance and death. Ceres was the goddess of agriculture, her parents the god and goddess of abundance and fruitfulness. Her siblings were coupled with riches.
She is also guessed to be the mother Baccaeus. Though that is argued among some mythologists, it is still important to consider him. Baccaeus was associated with both abundance and disorder. It is his description that most strikes the reader, because he is said to carry a staff which drips with honey. This depiction reminds us of the description of the buddleia plant that smells like honey.
Persephone, Ceres’ daughter, was the goddess of springtime, which is when the earth prepares itself for producing food. Focusing only on the child that is portrayed in the poem, we still see spring – abundance – captured by Hades – death. Persephone is lusted after and yet only attainable to Hades through trickery. Even that trickery results in unhappiness, because then there is only a time of abundance for a season. After that, the earth longs for Spring but cannot find her.
It is important to note that Ceres – as well as Baccaeus, Persephone, and many of Ceres’ siblings – were also indicators of death. Ceres basically condemns her daughter to life with death (Hades) by not following the instructions she was given. Baccaeus, being the god of wine, would also be associated with drunkenness – something that often got the gods and goddesses into trouble. Her siblings include Hades, who is the ultimate representation of death in mythology.
Having studied the evidences shown in the vocabulary, imagery, and mythology, it isn’t hard to see the influences of the Potato Famine. Everything indicates some form of wealth that has been held back, and what was once there has been removed or hidden. The mythology strongly indicates a focus on agriculture – because of the family of Ceres as a whole. The paper could, of course, be interpreted to mean something wholly different, but one of the beautiful things about poetry is that is can be something different to everyone.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
I Hate Pop Music
In a recent conversation with my father (recent meaning in the past five months), we were discussing classic “hippy” music and other music from the 70’s which my father so enjoyed. I’ve been exposed to and love quite a bit of it, and I was sharing with him some of my irritation with how little regard it is given – especially since it is such a staple in the United States’ history. My father pointed out, with some disgust, that at least the music of that age – despite the trashing it often receives these days – meant something. People were trying to spread messages to other people about what was important to them politically, spiritually, and socially. As he said this, I did not challenge him, but I did wonder: do the singers who are popular today still express “the issues” as they did in the 70’s? Has that desire to influence been lost?
First, it is important to note exactly what is important to people during this age. To name several issues off the top of my head: sexual liberties (a freedom to express your sexuality without fear of discrimination – I am not only referring to gay rights but also to the feminist movement and similar movements), animal and nature protection/rights, self esteem (the need to feel beautiful, important, and completely in charge or your life), carpe diem (the freedom to live how you want to, even if that means being an alcoholic or living on a constant high), the need to be number one in someone’s life (to be in love – even if with someone who isn’t right for you or doesn’t want to be with you), and being rich (the ultimate goal is to be powerful with as little effort as possible). These are, in my estimation, those issues which are most important to this generation, whether they be right or not
I took my thoughts even further. Music for my father’s generation was meant to represent that generation, and what they represented was clear in their music. Even if my generation isn’t singing about the issues which are important to them, what messages are they sending about what is important? What will people be studying in fourty years and saying: “What the heck were they on?”
To answer my own questions, I pulled two albums: one of a feminist and one of an openly homosexual male who are considered two of the top artists in America. They are performers, they are singers, they are 21st century American icons: Christina Aguilera and Adam Lambert. I decided to pay close attention to the messages these two artists are sending to other countries, this generation, and the next generation. The albums I pulled were “For Your Entertainment,” and “Bionic.” If you read further, please take note that I will be referencing lyrics which may be offensive – containing language and sexually explicit phrases. It is my intention to prove to you that this generation of pop singers is attempting to indoctrinate certain beliefs into this generation and the next through their music. They use crude, blunt methods to get their points across, and it is my hope that you will see the dangerous power to which we expose ourselves and others.
Now, I have spent a lot of time listening to both of these albums. I am intimate with each of them partially because I have a sister who enjoys listening to this sort of music. I do not wish to insult her or anyone else by saying that listening to this music rots your brain, but I will say that I hope you come to understand how influential the music you listen to can be.
First, I will pick one song from each album which I believe addresses one or more of the issues I mentioned and discuss each in some detail.
From Adam Lambert’s album: “For Your Entertainment.” This song cannot be played on the radio because of the sexually vulgar lyrics. Some songs, you can just bleep out a few words, and it’s okay, but not with this song. This song describes, in great detail, the sexual encounter of two people. We are not told the sexual orientation of this “couple,” but that is the only vague thing about the lyrics. There are three things especially disturbing about this song: There is an intimation that the performer has seduced or trapped the other person into the sexual encounter. Things are said like: “There’s no way you’ll ring the alarm,” “no escaping when I start,” and “I’ma hurt ya real good, Baby.” Although it is never directly said, it is implied that this experience is not completely consensual. Second, there is a hunger – a need – for complete power and dominance: “It’s all right, you’ll be fine, Baby, I’m in control. Take the pain, take the pleasure; I’m the master of both.” Thirdly, and probably most disturbing, this seduction and hunger for power are combined and portrayed as a gift to the victim: “Ya thought an angel swept ya off your feet. Well I’m about to turn up the heat; I’m here for your entertainment.” What is a person to say? Hey, I’m being molested, but I’m sure entertained!
From Christina Aguilera’s album: “Vanity.” Here’s another one you won’t hear on the radio. It is full of crude sexual references and language. The basis of the song is that the singer is so amazing, she can live life within herself, regardless of what people think of her. Again, I have three things I want to point out which are particularly troublesome in this song: Right away, you are brusquely told that the singer is clearly the star of… everything. The singer makes some startling claims such as: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the flyest bitch of them all? Never mind, I am… ain’t nobody got shit on me; I’m the best for sure.” Secondly, there is a complete disregard of anyone who might think little of the singer: “Hit up Prince Charming, telling him give me a call. Never mind, screw him… I make myself so much wetter… Can’t love no one else ‘til you love yourself, and if they don’t like it, tell ‘em get in line and kiss your ass… It’s me. Bow down; get on your knees.” Obviously, this person needs power, and she isn't shy about her self conceit: "And now I take myself to be my lawfully wedded bitch." Lastly, the performer claims that powers are her birth-given rights, and she can do with them as she wishes. Having this power means she will live forever in the memories of later generations: “V is for vanity. Every time I look at me I turn myself on… thank you, Mom and Daddy… and the legacy lives on, going strong. Let us not forget.” The song ends with the singer asking: “Who owns the throne?” You hear the voice of her baby son saying: “You do, Mommy.” In an interview, Aguilera was asked how she felt about her son hearing her singing such music. Her answer was that she wanted her son to be aware and appreciate the powers and rights of strong women. Hm…
If you flip through the other music of these two artists, you will find more themes that draw attention to what is important to this generation: “Everybody’s looking for some love, but they don’t know how to let it all hang out, and that’s why they’re solo” (Lambert: Strut). “Step in the light for your perfect close-up. Be superficial; it’s your one shot… it’s all an attitude” (Aguilera: Glam). “I know every apple here ain’t bad, but I found a worm in every single one I had. Boys, they’re only good for fruit – I mean bananas… oh, boys, you should pack ‘em up and ship ‘em out… I hate ‘em” (Aguilera: I Hate Boys).
When people study our music, years from now, what will they see? Will they know about the politics of the time or will they see the true desires of a generation? I’ve come to agree with my father: music used to give important messages in an attempt to better the human race. This generation, however, is all about self satisfaction. I gave you two horrible examples, but they are in no way the worst, nor are they uncommon. If you think you can handle it, try listening to the entire Aguilera album and feeling uplifted or hopeful. Perhaps try turning on the radio and finding popular music which isn’t focused on being on top.
I tried.
First, it is important to note exactly what is important to people during this age. To name several issues off the top of my head: sexual liberties (a freedom to express your sexuality without fear of discrimination – I am not only referring to gay rights but also to the feminist movement and similar movements), animal and nature protection/rights, self esteem (the need to feel beautiful, important, and completely in charge or your life), carpe diem (the freedom to live how you want to, even if that means being an alcoholic or living on a constant high), the need to be number one in someone’s life (to be in love – even if with someone who isn’t right for you or doesn’t want to be with you), and being rich (the ultimate goal is to be powerful with as little effort as possible). These are, in my estimation, those issues which are most important to this generation, whether they be right or not
I took my thoughts even further. Music for my father’s generation was meant to represent that generation, and what they represented was clear in their music. Even if my generation isn’t singing about the issues which are important to them, what messages are they sending about what is important? What will people be studying in fourty years and saying: “What the heck were they on?”
To answer my own questions, I pulled two albums: one of a feminist and one of an openly homosexual male who are considered two of the top artists in America. They are performers, they are singers, they are 21st century American icons: Christina Aguilera and Adam Lambert. I decided to pay close attention to the messages these two artists are sending to other countries, this generation, and the next generation. The albums I pulled were “For Your Entertainment,” and “Bionic.” If you read further, please take note that I will be referencing lyrics which may be offensive – containing language and sexually explicit phrases. It is my intention to prove to you that this generation of pop singers is attempting to indoctrinate certain beliefs into this generation and the next through their music. They use crude, blunt methods to get their points across, and it is my hope that you will see the dangerous power to which we expose ourselves and others.
Now, I have spent a lot of time listening to both of these albums. I am intimate with each of them partially because I have a sister who enjoys listening to this sort of music. I do not wish to insult her or anyone else by saying that listening to this music rots your brain, but I will say that I hope you come to understand how influential the music you listen to can be.
First, I will pick one song from each album which I believe addresses one or more of the issues I mentioned and discuss each in some detail.
From Adam Lambert’s album: “For Your Entertainment.” This song cannot be played on the radio because of the sexually vulgar lyrics. Some songs, you can just bleep out a few words, and it’s okay, but not with this song. This song describes, in great detail, the sexual encounter of two people. We are not told the sexual orientation of this “couple,” but that is the only vague thing about the lyrics. There are three things especially disturbing about this song: There is an intimation that the performer has seduced or trapped the other person into the sexual encounter. Things are said like: “There’s no way you’ll ring the alarm,” “no escaping when I start,” and “I’ma hurt ya real good, Baby.” Although it is never directly said, it is implied that this experience is not completely consensual. Second, there is a hunger – a need – for complete power and dominance: “It’s all right, you’ll be fine, Baby, I’m in control. Take the pain, take the pleasure; I’m the master of both.” Thirdly, and probably most disturbing, this seduction and hunger for power are combined and portrayed as a gift to the victim: “Ya thought an angel swept ya off your feet. Well I’m about to turn up the heat; I’m here for your entertainment.” What is a person to say? Hey, I’m being molested, but I’m sure entertained!
From Christina Aguilera’s album: “Vanity.” Here’s another one you won’t hear on the radio. It is full of crude sexual references and language. The basis of the song is that the singer is so amazing, she can live life within herself, regardless of what people think of her. Again, I have three things I want to point out which are particularly troublesome in this song: Right away, you are brusquely told that the singer is clearly the star of… everything. The singer makes some startling claims such as: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the flyest bitch of them all? Never mind, I am… ain’t nobody got shit on me; I’m the best for sure.” Secondly, there is a complete disregard of anyone who might think little of the singer: “Hit up Prince Charming, telling him give me a call. Never mind, screw him… I make myself so much wetter… Can’t love no one else ‘til you love yourself, and if they don’t like it, tell ‘em get in line and kiss your ass… It’s me. Bow down; get on your knees.” Obviously, this person needs power, and she isn't shy about her self conceit: "And now I take myself to be my lawfully wedded bitch." Lastly, the performer claims that powers are her birth-given rights, and she can do with them as she wishes. Having this power means she will live forever in the memories of later generations: “V is for vanity. Every time I look at me I turn myself on… thank you, Mom and Daddy… and the legacy lives on, going strong. Let us not forget.” The song ends with the singer asking: “Who owns the throne?” You hear the voice of her baby son saying: “You do, Mommy.” In an interview, Aguilera was asked how she felt about her son hearing her singing such music. Her answer was that she wanted her son to be aware and appreciate the powers and rights of strong women. Hm…
If you flip through the other music of these two artists, you will find more themes that draw attention to what is important to this generation: “Everybody’s looking for some love, but they don’t know how to let it all hang out, and that’s why they’re solo” (Lambert: Strut). “Step in the light for your perfect close-up. Be superficial; it’s your one shot… it’s all an attitude” (Aguilera: Glam). “I know every apple here ain’t bad, but I found a worm in every single one I had. Boys, they’re only good for fruit – I mean bananas… oh, boys, you should pack ‘em up and ship ‘em out… I hate ‘em” (Aguilera: I Hate Boys).
When people study our music, years from now, what will they see? Will they know about the politics of the time or will they see the true desires of a generation? I’ve come to agree with my father: music used to give important messages in an attempt to better the human race. This generation, however, is all about self satisfaction. I gave you two horrible examples, but they are in no way the worst, nor are they uncommon. If you think you can handle it, try listening to the entire Aguilera album and feeling uplifted or hopeful. Perhaps try turning on the radio and finding popular music which isn’t focused on being on top.
I tried.
Living On the Edge - The Importance of Modesty
I went shopping, recently, for some new clothes and had far too difficult a time finding clothes I was willing to wear. As I sorted through shirts, I knew that most other girls would be very unlikely to have a problem with things I was passing over without a second thought. Modesty is so important to me for so many reasons, I almost go to extremes. Here are some reasons why I believe modesty is so important:
1) I have been taught and firmly believe that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. If you are a Christian, so is yours! How can I justify wearing something “skimpy” if I am supposed to be a representation of my most holy Lord? Taking this into consideration would also mean that while you dress modestly, you also dress as well as you can (this doesn’t necessarily mean dressing up, but it does mean looking clean and nice). I am almost never in jeans, for example, not because I believe it is wrong to wear them but because I don’t like wearing them and I also do not believe that they properly represent me as a woman to the world. Many women feel differently and that’s fine. I could write a whole other note on why I think women should wear skirts, but that’s not the issue at hand.
2) Dressing immodestly causes far too many sexual tensions and frictions between the sexes. It’s not just women tempting the men; men can also dress in ways that tempt women and make them think in unrighteous ways. Such clothes which draw attention to the body are, I believe, okay in some circumstances… like in the privacy of your home or alone with your spouse. I wear things in my room that I would never wear in public. Sometimes, women just like to wear cute little nightgowns and things, but those are not meant to be ordinary and never meant to be public.
3) I indicated, in my second point, that some clothes may be worn more freely when with a spouse. Part of the reason I dress modestly is because I want all my efforts to bless my future husband – both now and in the future. Right now, I hope to honour him by not tempting him. When we are married, I may give him my body freely and he will be able to enjoy it without feeling guilty. This is a mutual gift, and it is also not one to be underestimated. I encourage unmarried women to save every bit of themselves for their husbands that they possibly can. This effort will not go unnoticed.
So how can men and women dress modestly? I can give you ample examples for both because I am a woman! I know what it is to be tempting, and I know what it is to be tempted. Nothing I am writing is meant to make you feel guilty but to bring attention to how you look to others. I may use strong language and I’m not unlikely to offend, but it is important that I be blunt so as to properly say what needs to be said.
Men: To be honest, men have a lot less to worry about than women. This is for a couple reasons. One is that most women have lower sex drives and while they may be attracted to a man, they are less likely to be prone to having impure thoughts. There are, however, women with sex drives equal to men (I know a few), and these women need to keep their minds pure just as much as any man. Also, men tend to cover more of their bodies, in general, than women; they normally wear t-shirt and jeans/shorts. There isn’t as much opportunity for them to reveal too much. It is possible, though, to cover up a lot and still be immodest. Here are some things for men to think about:
1) Be careful about how tight your clothes are. I can’t emphasize enough that tight clothes are not the things to wear when you’re trying to be modest. This includes both pants and shirts. Close fitting/form cut clothes can be equally flattering, if that’s what you’re looking for, without having the same sexual appeal. (What guy doesn’t look good in a dress shirt? I mean, come on!)
2) Actually wear shirts, and don’t wear them open. Needless to say, the torso is considered, in both the sexes, one of the most eye-drawing parts of the body. Wearing no shirt or wearing your shirt open is not helpful when women are trying to keep a pure mind. Sometimes, I realize, it may be impractical, but do pay attention to this sort of thing.
3) Do your best to cover your midriff and keep it covered. How can you be sure to cover it? When you put on your clothes, stand in front of a mirror and lift your arms above your head. If you see your belly, you either need to wear a belt or a longer shirt. Then bend over at the waist and touch the floor (or not, depending on your hamstrings). If your skin shows when you do this, your clothes need to be adjusted.
Woman: Dressing modestly will be a little harder, in your case. Because men generally have stronger sex drives, they are also more likely to have problems keeping their thoughts pure. You may think that there’s no point in trying to be modest, because men will think what they want no matter what you wear. That is a lie. Men do not always want to think that way and I know for a fact that dressing modestly is something that men appreciate. It is very important for you to not use your power in a way that may hurt someone else. When you dress immodestly, not only do you give the impression that you want men to lust after you, you are causing others to sin and thus sinning yourself. I will have more pointers for you because you have more to cover up and more power over men than you probably realize. Here is what I suggest:
1) The best and simplest way to decide whether something is long enough or appropriate is to consider the three Bs: Boobs, butt, and belly. Stand in front of a mirror. Boobs: If you bend forward and can see your cleavage (I mean any cleavage), what you are wearing is inappropriate. When you’re just standing there, you can’t trust what you see. When you are sitting, because of how women tend to hold their arms and because people are standing above them, what may have looked OK will no longer look OK. Butt: If you can sit in a chair, crossing your legs and uncrossing them without showing anything above your knees, what you are wearing is OK (this counts for both skirts and pants). Keep in mind that anything that ends before your knees is more than likely too short. Belly: Lift up your arms and then bend over and touch the floor (or not). If you see any skin, time to change. Another way to look at this: Don’t show anything you wouldn’t want your grandpa to see.
2) Wear shirts with sleeves. I know it’s bizarre, and I’m not one of those people who think it’s sinful to wear sleeveless clothes, but for some reason, showing your arms can cause men to have impure thoughts. I’m not going to give you a measurement; just wear clothes with sleeves as much as possible. I wear sleeveless shirts when I’m working and sometimes, on rare occasions, I go sleeveless; however, it’s so easy – and even stylish – to throw on a jacket, if you want to wear a sleeveless shirt (I do this a lot). Tank tops are in no way appropriate. They will rarely (if ever) pass the three B’s test, and not only are they sleeveless they are only being held up by strings.
3) Wear loose fitting clothes. I am one of those people who enjoys wearing things cut for my figure, and that is a great substitute for tight fitting clothes. Women simply cannot wear tight clothes – especially if they have horizontal stripes and/or eye-drawing patterns over the breasts. Tight clothes draw attention to the curves and contours of your body in a way that is sexual – not in a way which is simply attractive. I’m not saying you have to wear baggy clothes, but you should be able to twist and your shirt twists with you. As for pants – I would avoid wearing them. A woman is showing off her legs when she wears jeans (intentional or not) – even if they are loose. That’s just the way it works. If you want or need to wear them, make sure they are loose, go up to your waist, and don’t have eye-drawing designs or words on the back pockets. You should avoid wearing shorts which end above the knee.
My friends, I want to assure you that you can be extremely attractive without ever dressing immodestly. It is not necessary to draw eyes in that way, and it certainly doesn’t make you any more attractive. I could give a speech about inner beauty, here, but that’s not what you want. Do you need to know you’re attractive? Dress modestly. Let the way you dress speak of how important you think others are. After all, dressing modestly is more about blessing others than making yourself happy. It isn’t always easy to do in a world that tells us we need to dress provocatively. The reason I call this living on the edge is because it is a daring woman who decides that she will save all her physical beauty for her husband. It is a victorious man who decides to dress in ways that will help women stay pure. Men and women who challenge themselves to be modest are, sadly, of a rare breed, because we have been taught that we need to dress in ways which express who we are – and to show who we are, we need to be attractive, which must mean that dressing in ways which draw eyes will prove we are attractive. This is what the world tells us! Let me tell you something: Drawing eyes does not make you attractive. Seriously. Deformities draw eyes just as quickly, and those aren’t considered “attractive.” What does attractive mean to us, anyway? Doesn’t it mean drawing people to us? You can as easily attract someone to you by being a cheerful person as you can by dressing inappropriately. What’s the big difference? In one case, it’s you they are drawn to; in the other case, it’s your body they want. You can be yourself and express who you are while dressing modestly. I’ve been doing it my whole life, and my only complaint is that I’ve slipped, once in awhile, and worn something I shouldn’t have.
Are you dressing modestly? If you want to ask me questions or have specific thoughts about how this might apply to you, feel free to ask. I would also recommend, if you decide to do this, that you have someone you can ask – a Christian of the opposite sex – if what you are wearing is modest. Hopefully that person will know what to look for and be able to be honest with you. I encourage you to take this step – to live on the edge with me. Your body is a special gift which is not meant to be misused, and your efforts will not only bless you, they will bless those around you.
1) I have been taught and firmly believe that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. If you are a Christian, so is yours! How can I justify wearing something “skimpy” if I am supposed to be a representation of my most holy Lord? Taking this into consideration would also mean that while you dress modestly, you also dress as well as you can (this doesn’t necessarily mean dressing up, but it does mean looking clean and nice). I am almost never in jeans, for example, not because I believe it is wrong to wear them but because I don’t like wearing them and I also do not believe that they properly represent me as a woman to the world. Many women feel differently and that’s fine. I could write a whole other note on why I think women should wear skirts, but that’s not the issue at hand.
2) Dressing immodestly causes far too many sexual tensions and frictions between the sexes. It’s not just women tempting the men; men can also dress in ways that tempt women and make them think in unrighteous ways. Such clothes which draw attention to the body are, I believe, okay in some circumstances… like in the privacy of your home or alone with your spouse. I wear things in my room that I would never wear in public. Sometimes, women just like to wear cute little nightgowns and things, but those are not meant to be ordinary and never meant to be public.
3) I indicated, in my second point, that some clothes may be worn more freely when with a spouse. Part of the reason I dress modestly is because I want all my efforts to bless my future husband – both now and in the future. Right now, I hope to honour him by not tempting him. When we are married, I may give him my body freely and he will be able to enjoy it without feeling guilty. This is a mutual gift, and it is also not one to be underestimated. I encourage unmarried women to save every bit of themselves for their husbands that they possibly can. This effort will not go unnoticed.
So how can men and women dress modestly? I can give you ample examples for both because I am a woman! I know what it is to be tempting, and I know what it is to be tempted. Nothing I am writing is meant to make you feel guilty but to bring attention to how you look to others. I may use strong language and I’m not unlikely to offend, but it is important that I be blunt so as to properly say what needs to be said.
Men: To be honest, men have a lot less to worry about than women. This is for a couple reasons. One is that most women have lower sex drives and while they may be attracted to a man, they are less likely to be prone to having impure thoughts. There are, however, women with sex drives equal to men (I know a few), and these women need to keep their minds pure just as much as any man. Also, men tend to cover more of their bodies, in general, than women; they normally wear t-shirt and jeans/shorts. There isn’t as much opportunity for them to reveal too much. It is possible, though, to cover up a lot and still be immodest. Here are some things for men to think about:
1) Be careful about how tight your clothes are. I can’t emphasize enough that tight clothes are not the things to wear when you’re trying to be modest. This includes both pants and shirts. Close fitting/form cut clothes can be equally flattering, if that’s what you’re looking for, without having the same sexual appeal. (What guy doesn’t look good in a dress shirt? I mean, come on!)
2) Actually wear shirts, and don’t wear them open. Needless to say, the torso is considered, in both the sexes, one of the most eye-drawing parts of the body. Wearing no shirt or wearing your shirt open is not helpful when women are trying to keep a pure mind. Sometimes, I realize, it may be impractical, but do pay attention to this sort of thing.
3) Do your best to cover your midriff and keep it covered. How can you be sure to cover it? When you put on your clothes, stand in front of a mirror and lift your arms above your head. If you see your belly, you either need to wear a belt or a longer shirt. Then bend over at the waist and touch the floor (or not, depending on your hamstrings). If your skin shows when you do this, your clothes need to be adjusted.
Woman: Dressing modestly will be a little harder, in your case. Because men generally have stronger sex drives, they are also more likely to have problems keeping their thoughts pure. You may think that there’s no point in trying to be modest, because men will think what they want no matter what you wear. That is a lie. Men do not always want to think that way and I know for a fact that dressing modestly is something that men appreciate. It is very important for you to not use your power in a way that may hurt someone else. When you dress immodestly, not only do you give the impression that you want men to lust after you, you are causing others to sin and thus sinning yourself. I will have more pointers for you because you have more to cover up and more power over men than you probably realize. Here is what I suggest:
1) The best and simplest way to decide whether something is long enough or appropriate is to consider the three Bs: Boobs, butt, and belly. Stand in front of a mirror. Boobs: If you bend forward and can see your cleavage (I mean any cleavage), what you are wearing is inappropriate. When you’re just standing there, you can’t trust what you see. When you are sitting, because of how women tend to hold their arms and because people are standing above them, what may have looked OK will no longer look OK. Butt: If you can sit in a chair, crossing your legs and uncrossing them without showing anything above your knees, what you are wearing is OK (this counts for both skirts and pants). Keep in mind that anything that ends before your knees is more than likely too short. Belly: Lift up your arms and then bend over and touch the floor (or not). If you see any skin, time to change. Another way to look at this: Don’t show anything you wouldn’t want your grandpa to see.
2) Wear shirts with sleeves. I know it’s bizarre, and I’m not one of those people who think it’s sinful to wear sleeveless clothes, but for some reason, showing your arms can cause men to have impure thoughts. I’m not going to give you a measurement; just wear clothes with sleeves as much as possible. I wear sleeveless shirts when I’m working and sometimes, on rare occasions, I go sleeveless; however, it’s so easy – and even stylish – to throw on a jacket, if you want to wear a sleeveless shirt (I do this a lot). Tank tops are in no way appropriate. They will rarely (if ever) pass the three B’s test, and not only are they sleeveless they are only being held up by strings.
3) Wear loose fitting clothes. I am one of those people who enjoys wearing things cut for my figure, and that is a great substitute for tight fitting clothes. Women simply cannot wear tight clothes – especially if they have horizontal stripes and/or eye-drawing patterns over the breasts. Tight clothes draw attention to the curves and contours of your body in a way that is sexual – not in a way which is simply attractive. I’m not saying you have to wear baggy clothes, but you should be able to twist and your shirt twists with you. As for pants – I would avoid wearing them. A woman is showing off her legs when she wears jeans (intentional or not) – even if they are loose. That’s just the way it works. If you want or need to wear them, make sure they are loose, go up to your waist, and don’t have eye-drawing designs or words on the back pockets. You should avoid wearing shorts which end above the knee.
My friends, I want to assure you that you can be extremely attractive without ever dressing immodestly. It is not necessary to draw eyes in that way, and it certainly doesn’t make you any more attractive. I could give a speech about inner beauty, here, but that’s not what you want. Do you need to know you’re attractive? Dress modestly. Let the way you dress speak of how important you think others are. After all, dressing modestly is more about blessing others than making yourself happy. It isn’t always easy to do in a world that tells us we need to dress provocatively. The reason I call this living on the edge is because it is a daring woman who decides that she will save all her physical beauty for her husband. It is a victorious man who decides to dress in ways that will help women stay pure. Men and women who challenge themselves to be modest are, sadly, of a rare breed, because we have been taught that we need to dress in ways which express who we are – and to show who we are, we need to be attractive, which must mean that dressing in ways which draw eyes will prove we are attractive. This is what the world tells us! Let me tell you something: Drawing eyes does not make you attractive. Seriously. Deformities draw eyes just as quickly, and those aren’t considered “attractive.” What does attractive mean to us, anyway? Doesn’t it mean drawing people to us? You can as easily attract someone to you by being a cheerful person as you can by dressing inappropriately. What’s the big difference? In one case, it’s you they are drawn to; in the other case, it’s your body they want. You can be yourself and express who you are while dressing modestly. I’ve been doing it my whole life, and my only complaint is that I’ve slipped, once in awhile, and worn something I shouldn’t have.
Are you dressing modestly? If you want to ask me questions or have specific thoughts about how this might apply to you, feel free to ask. I would also recommend, if you decide to do this, that you have someone you can ask – a Christian of the opposite sex – if what you are wearing is modest. Hopefully that person will know what to look for and be able to be honest with you. I encourage you to take this step – to live on the edge with me. Your body is a special gift which is not meant to be misused, and your efforts will not only bless you, they will bless those around you.
One Minute At A Time
What do you do when you suffer? This is a question I often ask myself, because I tend to suffer a lot. Mind you, I know many people who suffer WAY more than I do; this is what I tell myself as I say: “I’m fine. I have no right to complain.” There is also the urge to just keep it all to myself, because me suffering means that others might feel a need to help me in some way. This means asking others to sacrifice for me which is something I would never ask for.
Right now, I’m dealing with the type of pain I probably hate the most: back spasms. You may know the feeling. You’re fine one minute and then next, you’re gripping the closest thing to you because it feels like several knives are stabbing into your back and twisting to bring the most acute pain possible. Some people only have lower or upper back problems. I tend to feel pain between my shoulders, below the right side of my ribcage, underneath each shoulder blade, and often between several vertebra in at least three places (I never do things halfway :)). I have waves of spasms, often lasting a minute or two, then my back relaxes for a few minutes, then it all starts again. When I first begin to feel pain, these waves will be several minutes apart. After awhile, they come close together, eventually so that one wave of pain leads into another fairly quickly. As the waves become longer and are closer together, the tension moves into my legs. At this point in the game, I am unable to walk. Talking is next to impossible, because taking a deep breath triggers a shooting pain through my back and legs, and catching a breath isn’t that easy, either. This often lasts three to six hours before the waves begin to taper off, only happening every few minutes, until I am blessed with sleep (unfortunately, I can’t sleep when the pain is going on). Needless to say, the next day, I am completely exhausted. Take pain medication, you say! For some reason, I haven’t found anything that relieves the pain. At the moment, I’m entering the middle stage.
So why tell you this? Just a little: because talking about it helps, and taking the time to type this is a welcome – though not complete – distraction, although when a wave comes, I’m unable to type. Mostly: I want to encourage you. How does that work, exactly? I read a verse in my devotions, this evening, from Psalm 119:50: “My comfort in my suffering is this: Your promise preserves my life.” Despite the fact this pain completely sucks, I have God’s promises to cling to. What are those promises? Well, He’s given me many of them. One I will share with you: that I will not always endure this type of pain. Death might be what relieves me, but I’m inclined to believe that He will deliver me a bit sooner than that. Why is that important? Well, knowing that I am not alone in my suffering, I hope to bless others while I battle through it. As much as I hate it, I have a chance to help others. I pray that people will see that although I deal with things that people my age just don’t deal with, I also have the grace of God and brothers and sisters who help me get through anything. I’m never alone. My pain is a symbol of hope to me, because I realize that, eventually, it will be gone forever, and also I learn just how much God shows me through my pain. I also hope to influence others who suffer and feel as though their pain is too much to bear. I know how much fun it is to be in pain all the time. I do my very best not to let it affect the way I treat others and live my life (admittedly, this is really hard, and I often fail). I want you to know, as someone who loves you, that I’ll be okay :). As much as I hate all this, and as much as I loathe fighting through it when I would much rather flop down (gently) and give up, I have a chance to show people how much of a crutch God isn’t. His strength is made perfect in my weakness, and I desire for others to see that. I can name people who suffer and tell you how much they rely on that strength simply by their attitudes. May my attitude towards pain always lead you to Christ and never away from Him. After all, He knows exactly how I feel, and He hasn’t given up on me yet.
Right now, I’m dealing with the type of pain I probably hate the most: back spasms. You may know the feeling. You’re fine one minute and then next, you’re gripping the closest thing to you because it feels like several knives are stabbing into your back and twisting to bring the most acute pain possible. Some people only have lower or upper back problems. I tend to feel pain between my shoulders, below the right side of my ribcage, underneath each shoulder blade, and often between several vertebra in at least three places (I never do things halfway :)). I have waves of spasms, often lasting a minute or two, then my back relaxes for a few minutes, then it all starts again. When I first begin to feel pain, these waves will be several minutes apart. After awhile, they come close together, eventually so that one wave of pain leads into another fairly quickly. As the waves become longer and are closer together, the tension moves into my legs. At this point in the game, I am unable to walk. Talking is next to impossible, because taking a deep breath triggers a shooting pain through my back and legs, and catching a breath isn’t that easy, either. This often lasts three to six hours before the waves begin to taper off, only happening every few minutes, until I am blessed with sleep (unfortunately, I can’t sleep when the pain is going on). Needless to say, the next day, I am completely exhausted. Take pain medication, you say! For some reason, I haven’t found anything that relieves the pain. At the moment, I’m entering the middle stage.
So why tell you this? Just a little: because talking about it helps, and taking the time to type this is a welcome – though not complete – distraction, although when a wave comes, I’m unable to type. Mostly: I want to encourage you. How does that work, exactly? I read a verse in my devotions, this evening, from Psalm 119:50: “My comfort in my suffering is this: Your promise preserves my life.” Despite the fact this pain completely sucks, I have God’s promises to cling to. What are those promises? Well, He’s given me many of them. One I will share with you: that I will not always endure this type of pain. Death might be what relieves me, but I’m inclined to believe that He will deliver me a bit sooner than that. Why is that important? Well, knowing that I am not alone in my suffering, I hope to bless others while I battle through it. As much as I hate it, I have a chance to help others. I pray that people will see that although I deal with things that people my age just don’t deal with, I also have the grace of God and brothers and sisters who help me get through anything. I’m never alone. My pain is a symbol of hope to me, because I realize that, eventually, it will be gone forever, and also I learn just how much God shows me through my pain. I also hope to influence others who suffer and feel as though their pain is too much to bear. I know how much fun it is to be in pain all the time. I do my very best not to let it affect the way I treat others and live my life (admittedly, this is really hard, and I often fail). I want you to know, as someone who loves you, that I’ll be okay :). As much as I hate all this, and as much as I loathe fighting through it when I would much rather flop down (gently) and give up, I have a chance to show people how much of a crutch God isn’t. His strength is made perfect in my weakness, and I desire for others to see that. I can name people who suffer and tell you how much they rely on that strength simply by their attitudes. May my attitude towards pain always lead you to Christ and never away from Him. After all, He knows exactly how I feel, and He hasn’t given up on me yet.
"Prayer" C.S. Lewis
Master, they say that when I seem
To be in speech with you,
Since you make no replies, it's all a dream
—One talker aping two.
They are half right, but not as they
Imagine; rather, I
Seek in myself the things I meant to say,
And lo! The wells are dry.
Then, seeing me empty, you forsake
The Listener's role, and through
My dead lips breathe and into utterance wake
The thoughts I never knew.
And thus you neither need reply
Nor can; thus, while we seem
Two talking, thou are One forever, and I
No dreamer, but thy dream.
To be in speech with you,
Since you make no replies, it's all a dream
—One talker aping two.
They are half right, but not as they
Imagine; rather, I
Seek in myself the things I meant to say,
And lo! The wells are dry.
Then, seeing me empty, you forsake
The Listener's role, and through
My dead lips breathe and into utterance wake
The thoughts I never knew.
And thus you neither need reply
Nor can; thus, while we seem
Two talking, thou are One forever, and I
No dreamer, but thy dream.
The Chosen Jewels of God
As I have been reading through the Minor Prophets in my devotions, I found two verses which were particularly striking:
“The Lord their God will save them in that day, as the flock of His people. For they shall be like jewels of a crown, lifted like a banner over His land.” Zechariah 9:16
“'They shall be Mine,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘On the day that I make them my jewels. And I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.” Malachi 3:17.
Jewels themselves are only mentioned in the Bible nine times – and all in the Old Testament (NKJV). Each time, either the jewels are a sign of royalty/honour or they are adorning a virtuous wife. Mull over that, for awhile. What does that say about God claiming us as His jewels?
As I marked these two verses, I wrote a small note next to both of them about God claiming His people as His treasure. This made me curious about how the word “treasure” is used in the Bible. I was amazed at what I found. In the Old Testament, six times the word is used to refer to God claiming His people as a treasure. All the other times refer to the riches of pharaohs and kings. In the New Testament, every time treasure is mentioned (sixteen times), it is mentioned in reference to the reward that Christians gain in Heaven. All of the sudden, we are claiming the treasure – we who have no inborn righteousness or right of authority. Is this, perhaps, in conjunction with Paul’s letter to the Romans when he refers to us as coheirs with Christ?
So, that means we’re royalty, right? Prompted by the Zechariah verse, I also looked up the word “crown.” In Psalms, it is a symbol of blessing and goodness. In Proverbs, the crown is a sign of honour between two people: husband and wife, a man and Wisdom, a father and his children. The prophets give it a new role – a sign of God’s people. In the New Testament, the crown is mentioned both as a physical and metaphorical object. Metaphorically, to the people, it is a crown of rejoicing, righteousness, glory, and Life (thrice!). As a physical crown, it is mentioned three times – each in reference to Christ’s crown of thorns.
At this point, my heart grew heavy. I cannot explain exactly why, but when the crown of God is His people, and then becomes a crown which only causes pain, what does that say to us? Perhaps nothing… I will have to study, more. The crown of God is either His people or a band of thorns. To imagine the similarities between these to crowns… the pain they brought to their Creator… the promise of something better. Bittersweet.
These are my thoughts. I would love to hear what other people think!
Tidbit A: the crown in conjunction with the colour purple is in the Bible four times – the three mentions of the crown of thorns and when Haman paraded Mordecai. Hm... :).
Tidbit B: Pearls are only mentioned in the New Testament - and always with negative connotations except for the end of Revelations, when describing the gates of Heaven.
“The Lord their God will save them in that day, as the flock of His people. For they shall be like jewels of a crown, lifted like a banner over His land.” Zechariah 9:16
“'They shall be Mine,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘On the day that I make them my jewels. And I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.” Malachi 3:17.
Jewels themselves are only mentioned in the Bible nine times – and all in the Old Testament (NKJV). Each time, either the jewels are a sign of royalty/honour or they are adorning a virtuous wife. Mull over that, for awhile. What does that say about God claiming us as His jewels?
As I marked these two verses, I wrote a small note next to both of them about God claiming His people as His treasure. This made me curious about how the word “treasure” is used in the Bible. I was amazed at what I found. In the Old Testament, six times the word is used to refer to God claiming His people as a treasure. All the other times refer to the riches of pharaohs and kings. In the New Testament, every time treasure is mentioned (sixteen times), it is mentioned in reference to the reward that Christians gain in Heaven. All of the sudden, we are claiming the treasure – we who have no inborn righteousness or right of authority. Is this, perhaps, in conjunction with Paul’s letter to the Romans when he refers to us as coheirs with Christ?
So, that means we’re royalty, right? Prompted by the Zechariah verse, I also looked up the word “crown.” In Psalms, it is a symbol of blessing and goodness. In Proverbs, the crown is a sign of honour between two people: husband and wife, a man and Wisdom, a father and his children. The prophets give it a new role – a sign of God’s people. In the New Testament, the crown is mentioned both as a physical and metaphorical object. Metaphorically, to the people, it is a crown of rejoicing, righteousness, glory, and Life (thrice!). As a physical crown, it is mentioned three times – each in reference to Christ’s crown of thorns.
At this point, my heart grew heavy. I cannot explain exactly why, but when the crown of God is His people, and then becomes a crown which only causes pain, what does that say to us? Perhaps nothing… I will have to study, more. The crown of God is either His people or a band of thorns. To imagine the similarities between these to crowns… the pain they brought to their Creator… the promise of something better. Bittersweet.
These are my thoughts. I would love to hear what other people think!
Tidbit A: the crown in conjunction with the colour purple is in the Bible four times – the three mentions of the crown of thorns and when Haman paraded Mordecai. Hm... :).
Tidbit B: Pearls are only mentioned in the New Testament - and always with negative connotations except for the end of Revelations, when describing the gates of Heaven.
How to fill out a teacher evaluation form
How to fill out a teacher evaluation form:
1) Only use grading terms from Harry Potter, like "Outstanding," "Exceeds Expectations," and "Troll," when describing your reaction to the teaching environment.
2) If you give all positive marks to your teacher, make sure that the short answers have helpful words like "narcissistic," "volatile," and maybe "mongoose."
3) If you give all negative marks to your teacher, make sure to only use monosyllabic words in your short answers.
4) If at all possible, answer in binary. Or maybe Fugue.
5) If your review is good but you can't think of any words to describe your teacher - such as "pulchritudinous" - because you have a pathetic vocabulary, make sure you accidentally fill in your name.
6) If you have a teacher who is abnormally despondent, instead of writing a short answer, copy and paste a portion of a random Hardy poem.
7) Try to include in every short answer something that could be read two different ways. For example: "This teacher needs a cat." Or "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep. " Let them figure it out.
1) Only use grading terms from Harry Potter, like "Outstanding," "Exceeds Expectations," and "Troll," when describing your reaction to the teaching environment.
2) If you give all positive marks to your teacher, make sure that the short answers have helpful words like "narcissistic," "volatile," and maybe "mongoose."
3) If you give all negative marks to your teacher, make sure to only use monosyllabic words in your short answers.
4) If at all possible, answer in binary. Or maybe Fugue.
5) If your review is good but you can't think of any words to describe your teacher - such as "pulchritudinous" - because you have a pathetic vocabulary, make sure you accidentally fill in your name.
6) If you have a teacher who is abnormally despondent, instead of writing a short answer, copy and paste a portion of a random Hardy poem.
7) Try to include in every short answer something that could be read two different ways. For example: "This teacher needs a cat." Or "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep. " Let them figure it out.
Daylight and Nightmare
Blind sight:
I was visiting a friend, but my friend was not home. I opened the door and went in, knowing my friend probably wouldn’t mind. When I walked into the house, I could feel that something was wrong; I knew it because I have an exacting sense of smell, and I could smell blood in the air. I began to search the house. It was when I went into a dark sitting room that I knew there was a problem. I sat on the couch, trying to determine what exactly was amiss, when I felt something poking underneath the cushions. Reaching my hand into the back crease of the cushion, I pulled out a bloody arm. I sighed deeply, irritated, pushing the arm back behind the cushion, thinking I should probably check the attic. Feeling some trepidation for the first time, I grabbed a candle from a table and approached the attic door as I lit the wick. It was one of those doors that is on the ceiling. If you pull the ring attached to the rope of the trap, it swings down, the ladder crashing to the floor. I pulled the ring and knew I was in for a shock. Apprehension filled my gut as I climbed up the ladder. I only climbed enough to stand with my head and upper body in the room. The scent of blood filled my head. I could see black pools on the floor around me, and I lifted up my candle to give me light. Alarm froze me as I looked at the gore that surrounded me. The floor was puddles of blood, and they were fresh. The walls were spattered with blood that looked as though it had been sprayed by a hose or splattered from a water balloon. I wondered, frustration filling me, how I could clean up the mess. I was about to leave the attic when the most obvious question I hadn’t found an answer to struck me: Where was the body? I woke up in a feverish sweat.
One Christmas week, my sister Amy left home without explanation, packing her bags and telling my parents goodbye. My mother was ill and barely responsive to anyone. Never shedding a tear, she worked her fingers to the bone as she tried to cope with Amy’s abrupt and unexplained departure. I stayed close to her side as she struggled, wishing I could lend her my strength. At one point, she looked at me, despair in her eyes, and said: “Don’t ever have children. They will break your heart.” I had been silent long enough. I sent Amy an angry text: “You’d better have a damn good reason for not being home, right now.” She told me that I couldn’t possibly understand what she was going through; I had no right to judge her. I wanted to strangle her for hurting our parents. I wanted her to feel ten times pain she had caused. I had never been so angry in my life. Watching my mother in the kitchen, barely able to remain focused in the sorrow that my sister had caused, stirred a fire in me that could not easily be put out. The selfishness of my sister made me feel almost murderous. I’m surprised I didn’t beat the crap out of her when she came home, the next week. She sat on the couch like nothing had happened. My parents were so relieved, Amy was never punished. She told me that she had left to deal with some emotional trauma. I told her then, and I still believe now, that dealing with your own pain should never involve injuring others.
Problem:
There are few things I hate more than wasting hours of time getting a good night’s sleep when I could spend hours doing things like homework, writing, and reading. To imagine the bliss of never needing to sleep makes me salivate. Thankfully, I have insomnia. When I do sleep, I often have vicious nightmares, and I remember them as vividly as I remember a good movie or book. It wasn’t until this past year that I ever had a dream that wasn’t a nightmare. To make my situation even worse, the tenor of my nightmares often seeps into my waking day. I am often dazed for hours, trying to convince myself that my nighttime visions were not reality; this is especially hard if my nightmares are visitations of harmful memories. As much as I might wish to dismiss them, they are there almost every time I close my eyes. Conditioning: don’t sleep.
Foresight:
It all started off innocently enough. I was with my extended family, on my father’s side, and we were walking through a big house – lots of windows. There were pictures and paintings covering almost every inch of the walls throughout the house. My aunt was give my parents and myself a tour while my nieces, nephews, and cousins were all running around, distracting me, until my father caught my attention and told me that it was time. I knew what he was talking about, but at the same time, my brain didn’t register what was happening. He took me to a small room where I crawled into a long box – a cheap form of a casket. It was then that my brain registered what I was doing. I would be buried alive. My father sat in a chair in the doorway so that I couldn’t escape, even though we both knew I wouldn’t try. In my lap, there was a sheet of plastic that I knew he would pull up over my head, to suffocate me, before he actually buried me. I panicked as I started to imagine what it would be like as I gasped for air and tried to force the top of the box open, which would be nailed down. My father tried to calm me, even though he was almost completely focused on a book he was reading. He was completely unruffled, his posture relaxed, legs crossed, unconcerned. He explained that this was the only way I could truly prove my faith in God - by dying this way. I needed to suffocate – to suffer and be filled with terror – to truly go to Heaven. I kept telling myself that it was the only way, as he had said, but I continued to grow more panicked. He started to stand up, and I knew it was time. I roused myself, gasping for air that I didn’t need.
My brother was coming home from Afghanistan. My dad, my two sisters and I all piled into the van to go pick him up. When we got to the Chicago airport, my dad pulled up to the loading curb, parked, and went inside to see which gate we should go to. He had just gone inside when a tow truck pulled up next to the van. The driver motioned to me that the van should be moved. I was too young to drive, and my sisters were both younger than me, so I shook my head at the driver. He motioned more furiously, frowning at me. I shook my head again. Obviously I was too young; there was nothing I could do. He pulled up in front of us, getting out of the side of his truck to yell at me: “Move the van, now!” “I can’t drive,” I yelled back at him, feeling both irritated and nervous about what he would do. “Get out of the van,” he ordered. I shook my head, frowning back at him. He got into his truck and started backing up towards the van. I could hear my sisters in the back begin to panic, the youngest dissolving into tears. Forced into being the strong one, I whipped around, yelling at her: “Shut up, right now.” I flinched at my own words even as I could hear the tow truck guy yelling at us again to get out. I folded my arms across my chest, leaning back against my seat. If he was going to tow the van, he was towing it with me inside; we were not in an illegal zone. The driver was about to hook up the van to his truck when I saw Dad come running out of the airport, frantically waving his arms and yelling at the driver, who quickly drove away without a word. I breathed a sigh of relief.
Hindsight:
We all have dreams we wish we could forget. My sister gave me a frozen candy bar. Sweet of her, right? I started awake trying to bite through my index finger.
Worksite:
I was sitting at the desk in my room, leaning over homework. I reached down to absently scratch my thigh but felt something odd – like wet sand and soggy pipe tobacco. Looking down, I could see a small mark. It was not bloody. It looked rather like a dime-size cigarette burn, and I rubbed it, trying to determine what it was. When my fingers rubbed against it, something like black dirt fell onto the floor. Curiously, I pressed down on the mark. It was a hole, and it expanded at my pressure. I pushed my index finger into the hole, curling it around the strange grainy substance. I realized that the dark matter really was dirt, and I frantically tried to pull it out of the hole before it could infect me; however, the more dirt I squeezed and pushed out with my fingers, the deeper into my leg I was able to reach. I could feel my heart skip a beat as my burrowing fingers met something other than dirt. I used my index fingers to pull at the skin around the hole, slitting it apart so that it was now the size of the rim of a glass. I pushed my right hand deep into the compost, pulling out a fistful of it along with shards of glass and pieces of moldy bark. I stood with a shout as I released the handful of debris onto my desk. With growing fear, I pulled handful after handful of dirt out of my thigh, dumping it onto a growing heap on my desk. No matter how much I removed from the cavity in my leg, I never seemed to get close to removing it all. My leg was soon empty. I felt no pain; only heavy and poured out. I awoke and screamed.
When I was sixteen, I received the book Redeeming Love, by Francine Rivers, from one of my sisters-in-law. The book was written from the perspective of a prostitute who was witnessed to by the love of a Christian man. After living through a childhood of sexual abuse, she had come to believe that she could not truly experience love. She was a cynic, hard, and made cold by the things in her past. I was shocked that my sister-in-law had given me the book, but found that I strongly identified with the prostitute. I had not gone through the extent of sexual abuse she had, but I had experienced the same loss of innocence and acquired the same sarcastic view of life. I remember reading about her transformation – how she escaped that mentality and became able to experience life with a new joy and happiness. I wanted that, but I wasn’t sure how to ask. I can remember taking showers when I didn’t need to simply for the excuse to rub my skin raw, trying to rid myself of the filth that I felt was crawling just beneath my skin. Somehow, I never could do it alone.
Solution:
I write down my nightmares, acknowledging the pain, and then forget. At least, that’s what I say I do. In reality, I live through nightmares again and again. I can almost always find some way to make them seem light if people ask. I am a good enough actress that my family cannot tell if I am struggling with a burden in the mornings. Who really cares if I wake up shocked that my mother is still alive, that a war hasn’t begun, that I haven’t relived the shames of my childhood. Is my insomnia some form of mercy? It has often been suggested that my dreams are a result of my holding so much in; I don’t discuss my problems unless they are forced from me. I find myself, even while willing to accept comfort, hesitant to burden other people with my difficulties. Everyone has problems. Maybe all that negative energy is so pent up, I can’t help but sleep in terror. That is what those who have studied dream interpretation say – that my body has to find some way to express what it’s feeling. Or perhaps these bloody visions are symbolic of attacks I can’t see when I’m awake – a spell to make the unseen seen.
I was visiting a friend, but my friend was not home. I opened the door and went in, knowing my friend probably wouldn’t mind. When I walked into the house, I could feel that something was wrong; I knew it because I have an exacting sense of smell, and I could smell blood in the air. I began to search the house. It was when I went into a dark sitting room that I knew there was a problem. I sat on the couch, trying to determine what exactly was amiss, when I felt something poking underneath the cushions. Reaching my hand into the back crease of the cushion, I pulled out a bloody arm. I sighed deeply, irritated, pushing the arm back behind the cushion, thinking I should probably check the attic. Feeling some trepidation for the first time, I grabbed a candle from a table and approached the attic door as I lit the wick. It was one of those doors that is on the ceiling. If you pull the ring attached to the rope of the trap, it swings down, the ladder crashing to the floor. I pulled the ring and knew I was in for a shock. Apprehension filled my gut as I climbed up the ladder. I only climbed enough to stand with my head and upper body in the room. The scent of blood filled my head. I could see black pools on the floor around me, and I lifted up my candle to give me light. Alarm froze me as I looked at the gore that surrounded me. The floor was puddles of blood, and they were fresh. The walls were spattered with blood that looked as though it had been sprayed by a hose or splattered from a water balloon. I wondered, frustration filling me, how I could clean up the mess. I was about to leave the attic when the most obvious question I hadn’t found an answer to struck me: Where was the body? I woke up in a feverish sweat.
One Christmas week, my sister Amy left home without explanation, packing her bags and telling my parents goodbye. My mother was ill and barely responsive to anyone. Never shedding a tear, she worked her fingers to the bone as she tried to cope with Amy’s abrupt and unexplained departure. I stayed close to her side as she struggled, wishing I could lend her my strength. At one point, she looked at me, despair in her eyes, and said: “Don’t ever have children. They will break your heart.” I had been silent long enough. I sent Amy an angry text: “You’d better have a damn good reason for not being home, right now.” She told me that I couldn’t possibly understand what she was going through; I had no right to judge her. I wanted to strangle her for hurting our parents. I wanted her to feel ten times pain she had caused. I had never been so angry in my life. Watching my mother in the kitchen, barely able to remain focused in the sorrow that my sister had caused, stirred a fire in me that could not easily be put out. The selfishness of my sister made me feel almost murderous. I’m surprised I didn’t beat the crap out of her when she came home, the next week. She sat on the couch like nothing had happened. My parents were so relieved, Amy was never punished. She told me that she had left to deal with some emotional trauma. I told her then, and I still believe now, that dealing with your own pain should never involve injuring others.
Problem:
There are few things I hate more than wasting hours of time getting a good night’s sleep when I could spend hours doing things like homework, writing, and reading. To imagine the bliss of never needing to sleep makes me salivate. Thankfully, I have insomnia. When I do sleep, I often have vicious nightmares, and I remember them as vividly as I remember a good movie or book. It wasn’t until this past year that I ever had a dream that wasn’t a nightmare. To make my situation even worse, the tenor of my nightmares often seeps into my waking day. I am often dazed for hours, trying to convince myself that my nighttime visions were not reality; this is especially hard if my nightmares are visitations of harmful memories. As much as I might wish to dismiss them, they are there almost every time I close my eyes. Conditioning: don’t sleep.
Foresight:
It all started off innocently enough. I was with my extended family, on my father’s side, and we were walking through a big house – lots of windows. There were pictures and paintings covering almost every inch of the walls throughout the house. My aunt was give my parents and myself a tour while my nieces, nephews, and cousins were all running around, distracting me, until my father caught my attention and told me that it was time. I knew what he was talking about, but at the same time, my brain didn’t register what was happening. He took me to a small room where I crawled into a long box – a cheap form of a casket. It was then that my brain registered what I was doing. I would be buried alive. My father sat in a chair in the doorway so that I couldn’t escape, even though we both knew I wouldn’t try. In my lap, there was a sheet of plastic that I knew he would pull up over my head, to suffocate me, before he actually buried me. I panicked as I started to imagine what it would be like as I gasped for air and tried to force the top of the box open, which would be nailed down. My father tried to calm me, even though he was almost completely focused on a book he was reading. He was completely unruffled, his posture relaxed, legs crossed, unconcerned. He explained that this was the only way I could truly prove my faith in God - by dying this way. I needed to suffocate – to suffer and be filled with terror – to truly go to Heaven. I kept telling myself that it was the only way, as he had said, but I continued to grow more panicked. He started to stand up, and I knew it was time. I roused myself, gasping for air that I didn’t need.
My brother was coming home from Afghanistan. My dad, my two sisters and I all piled into the van to go pick him up. When we got to the Chicago airport, my dad pulled up to the loading curb, parked, and went inside to see which gate we should go to. He had just gone inside when a tow truck pulled up next to the van. The driver motioned to me that the van should be moved. I was too young to drive, and my sisters were both younger than me, so I shook my head at the driver. He motioned more furiously, frowning at me. I shook my head again. Obviously I was too young; there was nothing I could do. He pulled up in front of us, getting out of the side of his truck to yell at me: “Move the van, now!” “I can’t drive,” I yelled back at him, feeling both irritated and nervous about what he would do. “Get out of the van,” he ordered. I shook my head, frowning back at him. He got into his truck and started backing up towards the van. I could hear my sisters in the back begin to panic, the youngest dissolving into tears. Forced into being the strong one, I whipped around, yelling at her: “Shut up, right now.” I flinched at my own words even as I could hear the tow truck guy yelling at us again to get out. I folded my arms across my chest, leaning back against my seat. If he was going to tow the van, he was towing it with me inside; we were not in an illegal zone. The driver was about to hook up the van to his truck when I saw Dad come running out of the airport, frantically waving his arms and yelling at the driver, who quickly drove away without a word. I breathed a sigh of relief.
Hindsight:
We all have dreams we wish we could forget. My sister gave me a frozen candy bar. Sweet of her, right? I started awake trying to bite through my index finger.
Worksite:
I was sitting at the desk in my room, leaning over homework. I reached down to absently scratch my thigh but felt something odd – like wet sand and soggy pipe tobacco. Looking down, I could see a small mark. It was not bloody. It looked rather like a dime-size cigarette burn, and I rubbed it, trying to determine what it was. When my fingers rubbed against it, something like black dirt fell onto the floor. Curiously, I pressed down on the mark. It was a hole, and it expanded at my pressure. I pushed my index finger into the hole, curling it around the strange grainy substance. I realized that the dark matter really was dirt, and I frantically tried to pull it out of the hole before it could infect me; however, the more dirt I squeezed and pushed out with my fingers, the deeper into my leg I was able to reach. I could feel my heart skip a beat as my burrowing fingers met something other than dirt. I used my index fingers to pull at the skin around the hole, slitting it apart so that it was now the size of the rim of a glass. I pushed my right hand deep into the compost, pulling out a fistful of it along with shards of glass and pieces of moldy bark. I stood with a shout as I released the handful of debris onto my desk. With growing fear, I pulled handful after handful of dirt out of my thigh, dumping it onto a growing heap on my desk. No matter how much I removed from the cavity in my leg, I never seemed to get close to removing it all. My leg was soon empty. I felt no pain; only heavy and poured out. I awoke and screamed.
When I was sixteen, I received the book Redeeming Love, by Francine Rivers, from one of my sisters-in-law. The book was written from the perspective of a prostitute who was witnessed to by the love of a Christian man. After living through a childhood of sexual abuse, she had come to believe that she could not truly experience love. She was a cynic, hard, and made cold by the things in her past. I was shocked that my sister-in-law had given me the book, but found that I strongly identified with the prostitute. I had not gone through the extent of sexual abuse she had, but I had experienced the same loss of innocence and acquired the same sarcastic view of life. I remember reading about her transformation – how she escaped that mentality and became able to experience life with a new joy and happiness. I wanted that, but I wasn’t sure how to ask. I can remember taking showers when I didn’t need to simply for the excuse to rub my skin raw, trying to rid myself of the filth that I felt was crawling just beneath my skin. Somehow, I never could do it alone.
Solution:
I write down my nightmares, acknowledging the pain, and then forget. At least, that’s what I say I do. In reality, I live through nightmares again and again. I can almost always find some way to make them seem light if people ask. I am a good enough actress that my family cannot tell if I am struggling with a burden in the mornings. Who really cares if I wake up shocked that my mother is still alive, that a war hasn’t begun, that I haven’t relived the shames of my childhood. Is my insomnia some form of mercy? It has often been suggested that my dreams are a result of my holding so much in; I don’t discuss my problems unless they are forced from me. I find myself, even while willing to accept comfort, hesitant to burden other people with my difficulties. Everyone has problems. Maybe all that negative energy is so pent up, I can’t help but sleep in terror. That is what those who have studied dream interpretation say – that my body has to find some way to express what it’s feeling. Or perhaps these bloody visions are symbolic of attacks I can’t see when I’m awake – a spell to make the unseen seen.
Feminism: Crippling Women of Muslim and Christian Tradition
In societies that long for equality between all people, feminism has become something that is almost a required belief. If you are “modern,” you must believe that women should be equal to men in all matters. Not only is this true in America and Europe, it has become something important to other countries and peoples. It has also had a profound effect on the people of Muslim and Christian traditions. These two traditions have been around much longer than feminism, and both faiths seem to completely contradict the conventional beliefs of feminism. For example: feminism asks for equality when both Islam and Christianity support a hierarchy – the man is the head while the woman is under him. Is there a middle ground? Not really. While both faiths might, in some way, benefit from feminism, this modern cause has ultimately damaged the lives of Christian and Muslim women. There are three different levels which have been weakened by the Feminist Movement: First, it has undermined the relationship between husband and wife, because the wife cannot be completely respected by her husband; second, it has destabilized the family as a whole, because a woman cannot properly raise her family if she is worried about education and high social standing; lastly, neither religion traditionally accepts feminism – which would mean that the women are condemned to whichever hell their faith teaches.
It is first important to note that feminism has damaged the relationship between the husband and wife of both Christian and Muslim tradition. In both Christianity and Islam, the woman is taught that she is to be submissive to the husband.
Christian women are traditionally under their husbands. They read about this submissiveness in both the Old and New Testaments. “…Your (Eve’s) desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3. 16). In Ephesians, it is clear that this is still true: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5. 22). The argument of feminism is that if women are submissive, they must not have equal rights with men; the Bible teaches that man is above the woman just as God is above man: “Therefore submit to God” (James. 4. 7). What feminists seem to not realize is that Christian women believe it is a privilege and blessing – freeing, even – to be in submission to their husbands. It was a woman, after all, who was given the privilege of carrying God’s Son. Christian women in the Bible are also seen as important and influential people. They are staples of society and highly respected, but they are still of a lesser standing than men. Some argue that equality is really what Christian women should seek. Mollenkott argues that a man being paralleled with Christ while women are paralleled with the church is a prime example of equality: “The whole metaphor is presented to us in the context of mutual submission” (104). She further argues that Jesus’ submission to God is an example to a couple, because He and God were one (105). What Mollenkott seems to skim over is the fact that the relationship between Christ and the church is not the same as the relationship between the Father and the Son (which, as it happens, is never compared to a spousal relationship). Also, mutual submission does not lend itself to equal submission. Christ is not equal to the church. In fact, the same chapter which she uses to defend this idea also rebuts it: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church” (Eph. 5. 23). Another problem is that the passage she uses to support her claim is quoted out of context. She uses the verse from Ephesians: “…submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord” (5. 21). She quotes it as though it is actually part of the passage about husbands and wives, but the passage she quotes from is talking about all brothers and sisters in Christ; not husbands and wives. The wife is never looked down upon because her role is different than that of the man; rather, she gains even greater respect for her stance: “…wives submit to husbands, which seems horrible and degrading, until you realize that Jesus submits to His Father. Wives are given an opportunity to be like Christ. Suddenly, it’s not so degrading” (Miller).
The wife’s submission is taken to more of an extreme in Islam: “She (the Muslim wife) should obey the commands of her husband even if it seems to be impossible” (Ibraheem 16). Muslim women should submit to their husbands without question because they are taught that this will bless them in the afterlife: “A woman who… tried to be chaste and obeyed to her husband, she would be given permission to enter Jannah through any of its doors she would like” (Ibraheem 2). Women who are submissive as they are taught are held in high esteem. Muslim men believe that they cannot completely protect their wives if the women are not submissive as they ought to be: “The first and most important quality in a good woman is to be obedient to her husband. She must in no way expose herself to the eyes of unrelated men and ruin her character under their lustful and poisoness gaze” (Mir-Hosseini 64).What if a Muslim woman is in an abusive relationship? Although punishment is common among the Muslim people, a husband being kind to his wife is strongly encouraged: “‘Pamper women with their favourite things’” (Ibraheem 15). It is also known to Muslims that just as men are above women, Allah is above men – the same belief as Christians. Equality is seen as completely insupportable, though the man having respect for the woman and treating her with kindness is important, especially if they are in a difficult marriage (Husni 118).
When looking at both, it is clear that neither Muslim nor Christian women can be feminists in regard to being equal to their husbands. One striking difference between the two religions is that the Christian wife follows God first and then her husband. Muslim women are responsible to their husbands and thus have been following Allah – as though they are one and the same.
Feminism is also undermining and damaging Christian and Muslim families – meaning that the woman specifically cannot perform her duties in a satisfactory way. This is due, undoubtedly, to the fact that the spouses aren’t getting along. If they are not getting along, it is much more difficult to raise a family together. One strong idea of feminism is that the woman should be free to take care of her own career and interests before worrying about taking care of a family – if she should choose to raise a family at all. Education and social standing are the ultimate marks of a “respectable woman.” Islam and Christianity take a similar stance upon this idea but for different reasons. It is also important to note that a woman receiving an education is permissible – even encouraged – for Christian women. Muslim women are traditionally taught to only be educated for the vocation of motherhood.
In Muslim culture, strife in the family causes many problems. The woman moves in with her husband – who still lives with his parents – so they are living in the household of her in-laws. While the husband may, perhaps, be more inclined towards modernist ideas, it is less likely that his parents will be. The woman is admonished to be respectful of her in-laws wishes second to her husband’s, so that leaves little room for freedom: “If a woman obeys her father and mother-in-law from the very beginning of her marital life, they will never think about separation with their daughter-in-law” (Ibraheem 45). If she should continue to fight for such freedoms, she would weaken her ties to both her blood family and her family by marriage. If she becomes exiled and/or disowned and is thus unable to care for her family, she has done them no good. It is also believed that the Muslim woman should not be taught any more than she should know in regards to raising a family and teaching her own daughter/s. She is taught extensively, from a very young age, what her duties will be in raising her family, taking care of her husband, and any other duties. She is not expected to know anything that will not help her do such things unless she is from a wealthy family (Walther 76-77). There are those who believe that Islam society cannot be fully functional if women don’t have some sort of role: “For the institution of social justice in the family and at the national level, all forms of discrimination on the basis of sex… should be eliminated” (Roded 231). Others say that social justice can still be held with adequate communication, even if there isn’t social equality: “The advancement of the nation does not depend on man being forced to grant women social freedom” (Husni 30).
Christian women are also unable to be both feminists and mothers. The Bible teaches that the woman’s main job is to raise a family and support her household: “She watches over the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness” (Prov. 31. 27). Taking care of the household may include getting a job, but her first priority is her family. It is also important to note that education is not considered forbidden to Christian women, but it is also not deemed a priority to be placed above having a family. What about the passage in 1st Corinthians that says women should be silent unless given permission by their husbands to speak out and ask questions?: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1 Cor. 14. 34). This is often misread because of the English tendency to only have one word as a translation for several nuances that may be read in Greek. The word that we read as “silent” is the word translated from “hesuchia” which actually means to sit in restful quietness: “as in meditation or study” (Bristow 71). Even more importantly, this word is not only applied to women. It is an encouraged “silence” for all Christians: “…lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Tim. 2. 2). When a woman does not put her family before everything but her relationship with God, the family suffers and becomes a dishonor to the faith: “…admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2. 4-5). The children do not have an example to follow if the mother is not home, and since the father is often gone as well, the children are left to their own devices. In Proverbs (31. 10-31), the duties of a wife are expounded upon, and it is clear that the wife must be able to handle many duties; however, she has much respect and honor simply by being a homemaker. Social standing and a high education are not a necessity, though it is lawful for a woman to seek learning in ways that will make her relationship with God productive: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission” (1 Tim. 2. 11). A few verses later, we find that it is the raising of her children that is most important: “…she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2. 15). If so much importance is placed upon raising godly children, it is clear that that should be a priority over her seeking social standing via education.
What about the woman standing alone? Do either of these religions support a single woman being a feminist?
In Muslim culture, the only true job of a woman is that of being a wife and mother. The above points about her getting along with her husband and raising her family well are what place the woman in society. She is not a “good” Muslim if she has not risen up to her duty. There are also heavy punishments for those women who are married and do not act as they should: “The Messenger of Allah is reported to have said that in Hell, he saw more women in comparison of men… they use (sic) to be ungrateful to their husbands” (Ibraheem 17). When it becomes clear that women are to live life by their husbands, it is incomprehensible to imagine a Muslim woman making a difference within herself.
Christians also believe it is the duty of the woman to be a wife and mother: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2. 24). It would seem that even the man should hope to be the head of a godly family. It is not, however, an impossibility that a woman should choose to follow another calling if that would somehow benefit her faith. Having a family is a righteous calling, but if she can follow Christ better without a husband and/or family, she is encouraged to do so: “…It is good for a man to not touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband… it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7. 1-2, 9). This brings to mind one argument: If the woman can be single, then feminism isn’t such a bad idea! The problem is that being a feminist means that the woman is more worried about equal rights, and that is still not Biblical. Even the single woman is under the head of God and called to respect men. It is also unbiblical that women should have positions where they are placed above men: “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…” (1 Tim. 2. 12).
Clearly neither religion would accept feminism even if the woman is single. These positions are taken under slightly different grounds. The Muslim woman is basically taught that she needs a man to survive and live righteously. The Christian woman may live righteously while single, and although importance should be first placed in having a family, she is not required to have one.
After compiling this evidence, do we find that feminism hurts or strengthens Muslim and Christian women? By studying the traditions and religious texts of Islam, it becomes clear that the Muslim woman must be subjective to a man under all circumstances. When she is not, she sacrifices the morality of her husband, the strength of her family bonds, and she endangers her own soul. By studying the Bible, we find that Christian women are also taught to be submissive – though first to God and then her husband (if she has one). When she is not, she weakens her marriage, her family ties, and she is not considered to be living a holy life. Women in both religions have tried to break free of what they consider an oppressive hierarchy. They believe that to live in submission somehow means that they will feel less fulfilled. One Muslim woman claims that she cannot truly live under her religion if she submits: “‘I will no longer submit.’ It is impossible to free oneself—to adapt one’s faith, to examine it critically, and to think about the degree to which that faith is itself at the root of oppression” (Hirsi Ali 350). Fernea, however, talks about her interview with a Muslim woman who found it a blessing and comfort to live under the laws set down by her husband (265-270). You find similar stories by Christian women – both those that fight their traditions and those that find it a blessing. Feminism is not receptive to the ideas that women have different gender roles and responsibilities than men; however, many Christian and Muslim women believe that a woman is liberated by submission to her husband. Where secular women may find that feminism is the thing for them, women of faith are protected and honored by their submission in a way feminists never will be.
It is first important to note that feminism has damaged the relationship between the husband and wife of both Christian and Muslim tradition. In both Christianity and Islam, the woman is taught that she is to be submissive to the husband.
Christian women are traditionally under their husbands. They read about this submissiveness in both the Old and New Testaments. “…Your (Eve’s) desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3. 16). In Ephesians, it is clear that this is still true: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5. 22). The argument of feminism is that if women are submissive, they must not have equal rights with men; the Bible teaches that man is above the woman just as God is above man: “Therefore submit to God” (James. 4. 7). What feminists seem to not realize is that Christian women believe it is a privilege and blessing – freeing, even – to be in submission to their husbands. It was a woman, after all, who was given the privilege of carrying God’s Son. Christian women in the Bible are also seen as important and influential people. They are staples of society and highly respected, but they are still of a lesser standing than men. Some argue that equality is really what Christian women should seek. Mollenkott argues that a man being paralleled with Christ while women are paralleled with the church is a prime example of equality: “The whole metaphor is presented to us in the context of mutual submission” (104). She further argues that Jesus’ submission to God is an example to a couple, because He and God were one (105). What Mollenkott seems to skim over is the fact that the relationship between Christ and the church is not the same as the relationship between the Father and the Son (which, as it happens, is never compared to a spousal relationship). Also, mutual submission does not lend itself to equal submission. Christ is not equal to the church. In fact, the same chapter which she uses to defend this idea also rebuts it: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church” (Eph. 5. 23). Another problem is that the passage she uses to support her claim is quoted out of context. She uses the verse from Ephesians: “…submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord” (5. 21). She quotes it as though it is actually part of the passage about husbands and wives, but the passage she quotes from is talking about all brothers and sisters in Christ; not husbands and wives. The wife is never looked down upon because her role is different than that of the man; rather, she gains even greater respect for her stance: “…wives submit to husbands, which seems horrible and degrading, until you realize that Jesus submits to His Father. Wives are given an opportunity to be like Christ. Suddenly, it’s not so degrading” (Miller).
The wife’s submission is taken to more of an extreme in Islam: “She (the Muslim wife) should obey the commands of her husband even if it seems to be impossible” (Ibraheem 16). Muslim women should submit to their husbands without question because they are taught that this will bless them in the afterlife: “A woman who… tried to be chaste and obeyed to her husband, she would be given permission to enter Jannah through any of its doors she would like” (Ibraheem 2). Women who are submissive as they are taught are held in high esteem. Muslim men believe that they cannot completely protect their wives if the women are not submissive as they ought to be: “The first and most important quality in a good woman is to be obedient to her husband. She must in no way expose herself to the eyes of unrelated men and ruin her character under their lustful and poisoness gaze” (Mir-Hosseini 64).What if a Muslim woman is in an abusive relationship? Although punishment is common among the Muslim people, a husband being kind to his wife is strongly encouraged: “‘Pamper women with their favourite things’” (Ibraheem 15). It is also known to Muslims that just as men are above women, Allah is above men – the same belief as Christians. Equality is seen as completely insupportable, though the man having respect for the woman and treating her with kindness is important, especially if they are in a difficult marriage (Husni 118).
When looking at both, it is clear that neither Muslim nor Christian women can be feminists in regard to being equal to their husbands. One striking difference between the two religions is that the Christian wife follows God first and then her husband. Muslim women are responsible to their husbands and thus have been following Allah – as though they are one and the same.
Feminism is also undermining and damaging Christian and Muslim families – meaning that the woman specifically cannot perform her duties in a satisfactory way. This is due, undoubtedly, to the fact that the spouses aren’t getting along. If they are not getting along, it is much more difficult to raise a family together. One strong idea of feminism is that the woman should be free to take care of her own career and interests before worrying about taking care of a family – if she should choose to raise a family at all. Education and social standing are the ultimate marks of a “respectable woman.” Islam and Christianity take a similar stance upon this idea but for different reasons. It is also important to note that a woman receiving an education is permissible – even encouraged – for Christian women. Muslim women are traditionally taught to only be educated for the vocation of motherhood.
In Muslim culture, strife in the family causes many problems. The woman moves in with her husband – who still lives with his parents – so they are living in the household of her in-laws. While the husband may, perhaps, be more inclined towards modernist ideas, it is less likely that his parents will be. The woman is admonished to be respectful of her in-laws wishes second to her husband’s, so that leaves little room for freedom: “If a woman obeys her father and mother-in-law from the very beginning of her marital life, they will never think about separation with their daughter-in-law” (Ibraheem 45). If she should continue to fight for such freedoms, she would weaken her ties to both her blood family and her family by marriage. If she becomes exiled and/or disowned and is thus unable to care for her family, she has done them no good. It is also believed that the Muslim woman should not be taught any more than she should know in regards to raising a family and teaching her own daughter/s. She is taught extensively, from a very young age, what her duties will be in raising her family, taking care of her husband, and any other duties. She is not expected to know anything that will not help her do such things unless she is from a wealthy family (Walther 76-77). There are those who believe that Islam society cannot be fully functional if women don’t have some sort of role: “For the institution of social justice in the family and at the national level, all forms of discrimination on the basis of sex… should be eliminated” (Roded 231). Others say that social justice can still be held with adequate communication, even if there isn’t social equality: “The advancement of the nation does not depend on man being forced to grant women social freedom” (Husni 30).
Christian women are also unable to be both feminists and mothers. The Bible teaches that the woman’s main job is to raise a family and support her household: “She watches over the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness” (Prov. 31. 27). Taking care of the household may include getting a job, but her first priority is her family. It is also important to note that education is not considered forbidden to Christian women, but it is also not deemed a priority to be placed above having a family. What about the passage in 1st Corinthians that says women should be silent unless given permission by their husbands to speak out and ask questions?: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1 Cor. 14. 34). This is often misread because of the English tendency to only have one word as a translation for several nuances that may be read in Greek. The word that we read as “silent” is the word translated from “hesuchia” which actually means to sit in restful quietness: “as in meditation or study” (Bristow 71). Even more importantly, this word is not only applied to women. It is an encouraged “silence” for all Christians: “…lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Tim. 2. 2). When a woman does not put her family before everything but her relationship with God, the family suffers and becomes a dishonor to the faith: “…admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2. 4-5). The children do not have an example to follow if the mother is not home, and since the father is often gone as well, the children are left to their own devices. In Proverbs (31. 10-31), the duties of a wife are expounded upon, and it is clear that the wife must be able to handle many duties; however, she has much respect and honor simply by being a homemaker. Social standing and a high education are not a necessity, though it is lawful for a woman to seek learning in ways that will make her relationship with God productive: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission” (1 Tim. 2. 11). A few verses later, we find that it is the raising of her children that is most important: “…she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2. 15). If so much importance is placed upon raising godly children, it is clear that that should be a priority over her seeking social standing via education.
What about the woman standing alone? Do either of these religions support a single woman being a feminist?
In Muslim culture, the only true job of a woman is that of being a wife and mother. The above points about her getting along with her husband and raising her family well are what place the woman in society. She is not a “good” Muslim if she has not risen up to her duty. There are also heavy punishments for those women who are married and do not act as they should: “The Messenger of Allah is reported to have said that in Hell, he saw more women in comparison of men… they use (sic) to be ungrateful to their husbands” (Ibraheem 17). When it becomes clear that women are to live life by their husbands, it is incomprehensible to imagine a Muslim woman making a difference within herself.
Christians also believe it is the duty of the woman to be a wife and mother: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2. 24). It would seem that even the man should hope to be the head of a godly family. It is not, however, an impossibility that a woman should choose to follow another calling if that would somehow benefit her faith. Having a family is a righteous calling, but if she can follow Christ better without a husband and/or family, she is encouraged to do so: “…It is good for a man to not touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband… it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7. 1-2, 9). This brings to mind one argument: If the woman can be single, then feminism isn’t such a bad idea! The problem is that being a feminist means that the woman is more worried about equal rights, and that is still not Biblical. Even the single woman is under the head of God and called to respect men. It is also unbiblical that women should have positions where they are placed above men: “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…” (1 Tim. 2. 12).
Clearly neither religion would accept feminism even if the woman is single. These positions are taken under slightly different grounds. The Muslim woman is basically taught that she needs a man to survive and live righteously. The Christian woman may live righteously while single, and although importance should be first placed in having a family, she is not required to have one.
After compiling this evidence, do we find that feminism hurts or strengthens Muslim and Christian women? By studying the traditions and religious texts of Islam, it becomes clear that the Muslim woman must be subjective to a man under all circumstances. When she is not, she sacrifices the morality of her husband, the strength of her family bonds, and she endangers her own soul. By studying the Bible, we find that Christian women are also taught to be submissive – though first to God and then her husband (if she has one). When she is not, she weakens her marriage, her family ties, and she is not considered to be living a holy life. Women in both religions have tried to break free of what they consider an oppressive hierarchy. They believe that to live in submission somehow means that they will feel less fulfilled. One Muslim woman claims that she cannot truly live under her religion if she submits: “‘I will no longer submit.’ It is impossible to free oneself—to adapt one’s faith, to examine it critically, and to think about the degree to which that faith is itself at the root of oppression” (Hirsi Ali 350). Fernea, however, talks about her interview with a Muslim woman who found it a blessing and comfort to live under the laws set down by her husband (265-270). You find similar stories by Christian women – both those that fight their traditions and those that find it a blessing. Feminism is not receptive to the ideas that women have different gender roles and responsibilities than men; however, many Christian and Muslim women believe that a woman is liberated by submission to her husband. Where secular women may find that feminism is the thing for them, women of faith are protected and honored by their submission in a way feminists never will be.
How I Study Artistic Writing
I have been commissioned by a very dear friend to write an essay on how I study artistic writing. So – here is my attempt! I should say, right off the bat, that I’m not an expert, I’m not a genius, and I am definitely not the best at what I do; however, I hope that talking through some of the ways I approach reading will help ya’ll. Be forewarned: I apply a lot of hard work to my study practices.
When reading artistic writing for any reason, it’s important to read a lot of it. The more exposure you have to something, the better you will become at enjoying it, identifying unifying themes/ideas, and understanding. It’s also important to understand that things like this were not written to be understood at a glance. Artistic writing is composed with great care and diligence. Good writing should be important enough to read multiple times. Never try to understand artistic writing immediately (This includes poetry, lit., creative fic/nfic, and epics). You may get an idea of what the writing probably means, but it is extremely unlikely that you have grasped everything. How can you start? Here are some steps I take when approaching a new piece of artistic writing:
1.I read the writing. I try to read it at least three times – silently the first time, out loud the second time. If at all possible, I listen to it for the third time (maybe find someone reading it online; ask a friend or family member). Depending upon the complexity of the writing, I may read it several more times. It is important to be able to read the work without haltering over things and to be able to find any passages/stanzas/lines/paragraphs at a moment’s notice. You want to be able to think about it as a whole, and you need to be familiar with it to do so.
2.I pull out my dictionary, thesaurus, etymology dictionary, and encyclopedia. This is where most people say: “Just how much work do you make for yourself?!” I believe in putting as much effort in understanding as the author did to writing (that is completely impossible, but I can at least try!). This is especially important in poetry, but it will be important to any artistic work. I have a strong vocabulary, but looking up words builds an idea of the mental place the author wants to take you. I look up all the key words. Are there strong adjectives that point to focal emotions or pictures? Can the objects within the writing be connected in some way? Are the histories of certain words relevant? These are important questions to ask (If you want, I can post an excellent paper (not tooting my own horn – I just know it was a good paper, because I worked really hard) as an example of how I used this technique).
3.I know the history of the writer. A person’s history influences everything they do, and it really shows in his/her writing. Also know what is important to the writer. What is important will often find its way into the majority – if not all – of his/her writing. One key to understanding Lewis, for example, is knowing that he didn’t believe in only writing Christian novels. He wanted to be able to write "secular" works with Christian values, and that shows in everything he writes. Get to really know the author and you will have an advantage. Knowing that he was a professor also influences how you read.
4.I find out the authors signatures. All writers have certain things they habitually do, and if you find out how an author “marks” his/her writing, you know of something that is important to him/her. No one builds a writing habit for no reason.
5.I look for through-threads. This is tied to symbolism and morality. What does the author I am reading constantly come back to? Is there a phrase that is often repeated or rephrased? Is there an image that is brought back several times? When I find the through-thread, that is often what opens up the poem. Artistic writing is a lot easier to understand if you can identify symbols in words and pictures.
That is how I study artistic writing! I know it’s a lot of work, but I find that it is completely worth it and incredibly fulfilling. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
When reading artistic writing for any reason, it’s important to read a lot of it. The more exposure you have to something, the better you will become at enjoying it, identifying unifying themes/ideas, and understanding. It’s also important to understand that things like this were not written to be understood at a glance. Artistic writing is composed with great care and diligence. Good writing should be important enough to read multiple times. Never try to understand artistic writing immediately (This includes poetry, lit., creative fic/nfic, and epics). You may get an idea of what the writing probably means, but it is extremely unlikely that you have grasped everything. How can you start? Here are some steps I take when approaching a new piece of artistic writing:
1.I read the writing. I try to read it at least three times – silently the first time, out loud the second time. If at all possible, I listen to it for the third time (maybe find someone reading it online; ask a friend or family member). Depending upon the complexity of the writing, I may read it several more times. It is important to be able to read the work without haltering over things and to be able to find any passages/stanzas/lines/paragraphs at a moment’s notice. You want to be able to think about it as a whole, and you need to be familiar with it to do so.
2.I pull out my dictionary, thesaurus, etymology dictionary, and encyclopedia. This is where most people say: “Just how much work do you make for yourself?!” I believe in putting as much effort in understanding as the author did to writing (that is completely impossible, but I can at least try!). This is especially important in poetry, but it will be important to any artistic work. I have a strong vocabulary, but looking up words builds an idea of the mental place the author wants to take you. I look up all the key words. Are there strong adjectives that point to focal emotions or pictures? Can the objects within the writing be connected in some way? Are the histories of certain words relevant? These are important questions to ask (If you want, I can post an excellent paper (not tooting my own horn – I just know it was a good paper, because I worked really hard) as an example of how I used this technique).
3.I know the history of the writer. A person’s history influences everything they do, and it really shows in his/her writing. Also know what is important to the writer. What is important will often find its way into the majority – if not all – of his/her writing. One key to understanding Lewis, for example, is knowing that he didn’t believe in only writing Christian novels. He wanted to be able to write "secular" works with Christian values, and that shows in everything he writes. Get to really know the author and you will have an advantage. Knowing that he was a professor also influences how you read.
4.I find out the authors signatures. All writers have certain things they habitually do, and if you find out how an author “marks” his/her writing, you know of something that is important to him/her. No one builds a writing habit for no reason.
5.I look for through-threads. This is tied to symbolism and morality. What does the author I am reading constantly come back to? Is there a phrase that is often repeated or rephrased? Is there an image that is brought back several times? When I find the through-thread, that is often what opens up the poem. Artistic writing is a lot easier to understand if you can identify symbols in words and pictures.
That is how I study artistic writing! I know it’s a lot of work, but I find that it is completely worth it and incredibly fulfilling. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
Why I Hate College
I’m now in my third year of college, and faced with the time still to be spent there, I have begun to form a mental list of the things I absolutely detest concerning the way the academics are being taught to my generation.
1: There is a sense of required conformity that cannot be escaped without negative consequence.
I remember taking a class that involved writing papers on topics which would generate debate. They were controversial in subject matter, and they required the student to thoughtfully consider the problem at hand and give a solution. I enjoyed writing the papers but was surprised as, time and time again, I received low grades on my papers. When I approached my teacher, he told me, in plain speech, that he did not agree with my essays. I was not getting full credit because I wrote papers he did not agree with. He even went so far as to ridicule me in front of the class because I would not change to fit his own ideas.
2: Teachers are watering down their speeches so that they appear to disguise the truth and heaviness of what they are saying.
One teacher I had was explaining why the class I was taking was required for all students. She kept saying words like “government,” juxtaposed with “merge,” and I quickly realized what she was truly saying: They want to prepare us for a one world government. Why couldn’t she just say that? I understood why. If she just came out and said that, everyone would know. The school claims that they are only “introducing” us to the great varieties of culture worldwide. What they are really doing is preparing us for a time when we will be forced to be dependent on these cultures. She actually said this, but the way she spoke made it so that you would have no idea what she meant unless you knew how to listen for it. They are taking advantage of the current generations’ inability to think.
3: There is a hunger for spiritual food and nowhere to find it.
I attended a service, at one point, where I expected to at least find a desire to teach Christ. I was devastated to find a hollow service where Christian songs were sung, the Bible read, and Christian verse introduced, and yet there was not a moving of the Spirit. I’m not talking about feeling; I am telling you that I never once believed that anyone taught strengthening a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I felt starved when I should have been fed.
4: Students don’t really care about learning.
I have watched many students take naps through class, all out skip it, or finishing their homework five to ten minutes before. There is an inescapable feeling that they just don’t take time to bother about doing well. I’m not saying I expect them to enjoy the classes, but making an effort is important. After all, they are paying to attend classes, and the teachers are (usually) making an honest effort to teach them. It is completely disrespectful and lazy to not care about class.
5: Students place too much important in feeling accepted.
I have watched students fake a different sexual orientation, pretend to be religious, join certain clubs, etc., and all in the effort to feel accepted. This is, I think, more devastating than perhaps any other action they could take. Even the word “university” implies all kinds of individuals coming into one place, but that does not mean that a person should change who they are in order to fit in.
Ultimately, there is one, serious problem I have with colleges: No importance is placed on living a holy life. If there were, I believe all these problems I have mentioned would disappear. After all, Christians are taught to not conform to the things of this world. Diversity under the unity of Christ is the aim! Christians are also taught to think – or at least they are supposed to be. This is less true than it ever has been because, as C.S. Lewis so clearly wrote: “The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with a statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true.” This tendency to never question or test what we are being taught is dangerous and, unfortunately, not realized by many Christians.
If there were an importance put on living holy lives, there would be more venues by which to be spiritually nourished. At present, there just aren’t enough opportunities for this – and partly because religions seem to have a problem with setting aside differences in doctrine to enjoy the company of fellow brothers and sisters. Not only is this crippling the church as a whole, it is starving people in their day to day lives.
Christians are also taught to be hard-working and honest in their work. Living holy lives would result in better students, period.
The last element – trying to please others – would, in due course, disappear. Christians know that ultimately the only person whom they need to please is Jesus Christ.
People are starving for God. The world is losing hope. Oh blessed day when Christ returns and this secular world is transformed into His quintessential Eden.
1: There is a sense of required conformity that cannot be escaped without negative consequence.
I remember taking a class that involved writing papers on topics which would generate debate. They were controversial in subject matter, and they required the student to thoughtfully consider the problem at hand and give a solution. I enjoyed writing the papers but was surprised as, time and time again, I received low grades on my papers. When I approached my teacher, he told me, in plain speech, that he did not agree with my essays. I was not getting full credit because I wrote papers he did not agree with. He even went so far as to ridicule me in front of the class because I would not change to fit his own ideas.
2: Teachers are watering down their speeches so that they appear to disguise the truth and heaviness of what they are saying.
One teacher I had was explaining why the class I was taking was required for all students. She kept saying words like “government,” juxtaposed with “merge,” and I quickly realized what she was truly saying: They want to prepare us for a one world government. Why couldn’t she just say that? I understood why. If she just came out and said that, everyone would know. The school claims that they are only “introducing” us to the great varieties of culture worldwide. What they are really doing is preparing us for a time when we will be forced to be dependent on these cultures. She actually said this, but the way she spoke made it so that you would have no idea what she meant unless you knew how to listen for it. They are taking advantage of the current generations’ inability to think.
3: There is a hunger for spiritual food and nowhere to find it.
I attended a service, at one point, where I expected to at least find a desire to teach Christ. I was devastated to find a hollow service where Christian songs were sung, the Bible read, and Christian verse introduced, and yet there was not a moving of the Spirit. I’m not talking about feeling; I am telling you that I never once believed that anyone taught strengthening a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I felt starved when I should have been fed.
4: Students don’t really care about learning.
I have watched many students take naps through class, all out skip it, or finishing their homework five to ten minutes before. There is an inescapable feeling that they just don’t take time to bother about doing well. I’m not saying I expect them to enjoy the classes, but making an effort is important. After all, they are paying to attend classes, and the teachers are (usually) making an honest effort to teach them. It is completely disrespectful and lazy to not care about class.
5: Students place too much important in feeling accepted.
I have watched students fake a different sexual orientation, pretend to be religious, join certain clubs, etc., and all in the effort to feel accepted. This is, I think, more devastating than perhaps any other action they could take. Even the word “university” implies all kinds of individuals coming into one place, but that does not mean that a person should change who they are in order to fit in.
Ultimately, there is one, serious problem I have with colleges: No importance is placed on living a holy life. If there were, I believe all these problems I have mentioned would disappear. After all, Christians are taught to not conform to the things of this world. Diversity under the unity of Christ is the aim! Christians are also taught to think – or at least they are supposed to be. This is less true than it ever has been because, as C.S. Lewis so clearly wrote: “The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with a statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true.” This tendency to never question or test what we are being taught is dangerous and, unfortunately, not realized by many Christians.
If there were an importance put on living holy lives, there would be more venues by which to be spiritually nourished. At present, there just aren’t enough opportunities for this – and partly because religions seem to have a problem with setting aside differences in doctrine to enjoy the company of fellow brothers and sisters. Not only is this crippling the church as a whole, it is starving people in their day to day lives.
Christians are also taught to be hard-working and honest in their work. Living holy lives would result in better students, period.
The last element – trying to please others – would, in due course, disappear. Christians know that ultimately the only person whom they need to please is Jesus Christ.
People are starving for God. The world is losing hope. Oh blessed day when Christ returns and this secular world is transformed into His quintessential Eden.
The Great Romance
“Since by man came death by Man came also the resurrection of the dead.” 1st Corinthians 15:21
"Then Eustace realized that dragons are snake-like creatures, and snakes can cast off their skins. ‘I can't get it all off.’ ‘You will have to let me help you.’” Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by CS Lewis.
These two things have been going through my head all week and have caused a train of thought which strikes me quite strongly. There is this idea of Christ coming in a way that I had not considered, before.
“Of course; He came because He loves us, right? We are His children, and He wants to win us back, right?”
Well… yes… but that is not how I see it, anymore. It was the phrase by Aslan that changed my perspective:
“You will have to let me help you.”
Woah! Do you realize what that means? That means He came because He wanted to help us! He is God. He could have given us instructions that would not involve Him becoming a man. He could have avoided hunger, pain, death, and everything, quite easily. You might argue that He prophesied His own coming. Of course! And that’s why He came! But what if He had never made such a promise? The Bible does teach us that God is omnipotent. This being so, He could have chosen quite a different story.
“So what?” What did Aslan say? “…let me help you.” Jesus wants to be here with us. He wants to be a reality that we can hear, touch, taste, and see. He wants to be a personal presence. God wants to be the one. I mean, do you have any idea how utterly amazing that is? God wants to be among us. It was also the only way He could do it. Why? God cannot be in the presence of sin. As a man, He was able to do so. He made a real effort to be known to us as completely as possible, we who betray and crucify Him daily. How incredible and wonderful He is. I feel as though I have not completely explained what I’m trying to say, but it is such a beautiful message, I had to try.
"Then Eustace realized that dragons are snake-like creatures, and snakes can cast off their skins. ‘I can't get it all off.’ ‘You will have to let me help you.’” Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by CS Lewis.
These two things have been going through my head all week and have caused a train of thought which strikes me quite strongly. There is this idea of Christ coming in a way that I had not considered, before.
“Of course; He came because He loves us, right? We are His children, and He wants to win us back, right?”
Well… yes… but that is not how I see it, anymore. It was the phrase by Aslan that changed my perspective:
“You will have to let me help you.”
Woah! Do you realize what that means? That means He came because He wanted to help us! He is God. He could have given us instructions that would not involve Him becoming a man. He could have avoided hunger, pain, death, and everything, quite easily. You might argue that He prophesied His own coming. Of course! And that’s why He came! But what if He had never made such a promise? The Bible does teach us that God is omnipotent. This being so, He could have chosen quite a different story.
“So what?” What did Aslan say? “…let me help you.” Jesus wants to be here with us. He wants to be a reality that we can hear, touch, taste, and see. He wants to be a personal presence. God wants to be the one. I mean, do you have any idea how utterly amazing that is? God wants to be among us. It was also the only way He could do it. Why? God cannot be in the presence of sin. As a man, He was able to do so. He made a real effort to be known to us as completely as possible, we who betray and crucify Him daily. How incredible and wonderful He is. I feel as though I have not completely explained what I’m trying to say, but it is such a beautiful message, I had to try.
Why Women Love Twilight
After discussing this series with Mr. Burdick, today, I was doing some thinking and came to some conclusions about why the Twilight books are so popular.
First, to a generation of women who are desperate for a man to love and protect them, Edward is the ultimate dude. He is the over protective sort-of-man who will do anything to protect Bella. Can I hear an “Aww!”? Because of the “I am Woman: Fear me,” attitude of many feminists, women have become impossible for men to protect. If men try, women immediately pull the guns and say “I can take care of myself. I don’t need a man.” If people are afraid of you, they tend to back off. As a result of men backing off, women are left to take care of themselves. Edward doesn’t really allow this, and this reminds women what they are missing out on: a man unafraid to take care of his woman.
Second, Edward treats Bella like a lady. In this ‘new age,’ women, in their eagerness to have equal rights with men, have lost their true feminity. They have become so caught up in the need to be respected they have lost the natural respect that men once had for them. Edward, being the old-fashioned character that he is, treats Bella like a lady. Although she herself does not like this, every female reader secretly wishes a guy would treat her like that.
Third, Bella is an everyday character whereas Edward is unusual and mysterious. For some reason, women are drawn to what is mysterious and forbidden (Garden of Eden, anybody?). The great fantasy of it is attractive, even if it has no moral basis or solid plot. In the end, there is a predictable, dry story, made interesting by the fact that it is totally new. Vampires have never looked so available!
Ultimately, this brings us to the realization that the books are popular because women are starting to realize just how much they’ve messed up. All that they love about these books is something that they have lost: Respect for the beauty of what is quintessentially feminine.
First, to a generation of women who are desperate for a man to love and protect them, Edward is the ultimate dude. He is the over protective sort-of-man who will do anything to protect Bella. Can I hear an “Aww!”? Because of the “I am Woman: Fear me,” attitude of many feminists, women have become impossible for men to protect. If men try, women immediately pull the guns and say “I can take care of myself. I don’t need a man.” If people are afraid of you, they tend to back off. As a result of men backing off, women are left to take care of themselves. Edward doesn’t really allow this, and this reminds women what they are missing out on: a man unafraid to take care of his woman.
Second, Edward treats Bella like a lady. In this ‘new age,’ women, in their eagerness to have equal rights with men, have lost their true feminity. They have become so caught up in the need to be respected they have lost the natural respect that men once had for them. Edward, being the old-fashioned character that he is, treats Bella like a lady. Although she herself does not like this, every female reader secretly wishes a guy would treat her like that.
Third, Bella is an everyday character whereas Edward is unusual and mysterious. For some reason, women are drawn to what is mysterious and forbidden (Garden of Eden, anybody?). The great fantasy of it is attractive, even if it has no moral basis or solid plot. In the end, there is a predictable, dry story, made interesting by the fact that it is totally new. Vampires have never looked so available!
Ultimately, this brings us to the realization that the books are popular because women are starting to realize just how much they’ve messed up. All that they love about these books is something that they have lost: Respect for the beauty of what is quintessentially feminine.
Adagio for Strings: A Lesson of Contemplation
Samuel Barber was born the ninth of March, 1910, surrounded by experimental composers such as Copland, Stravinsky, and Cowell – all composers who had dabbled in the trends of modern composing but also composed music which was more easily responded to by a listening audience. Barber, however, rarely bothered to follow the composing movements of his time. He had been raised with the extensive music training of friends and family, because it was noticed early in his life that he had great musical talents and abilities. His vocal training was the focus, and his experiences as a singer gave him a sensitive ear when composing that greatly influenced his musical style. His music often had long, plaintive melody lines that sounded strongly influenced by vocal music. His music was conservative and simple yet was composed with such intuitiveness, it did not sound apathetic; rather, it sounded contemplative.
Barber’s piece Adagio for Strings is an epitome of his composing style. It seems to express the depth of emotions in a style that ‘speaks.’ The melody lines and harmonies are quite simple, and the form is repetitive and easy to follow. Looking at that alone would make the piece appear rather boring, but it is made rich by overlapping of melodies, suspensions, and subtle builds and fading. Nothing is so unexpected that you are jerked from the meditative reverie the music draws you into; instead, you find yourself carried through stages of lament and pondering. It is clearly influenced by Barber’s vocal experience – so much so that it has been arranged for vocals.
Different performances of the piece take various approaches and showcase assorted musical things. In one vocal recording I listened to, the choir was so in tune, you could hear overtones of the base line.
There was a recording of the piece which was faster than many versions, which some would have an aversion to; however, I found that it moved very much at the speed of thought. Although it probably was, indeed, faster than Barber had intended, it more was introspective than the slower versions. I found it similar to the idea that some would quote Shakespeare slowly and thoughtfully while others prefer to quote him quickly, as though they are speaking as quickly as they consider.
Most of the recordings I listened to averaged just over ten minutes long, but no matter how long the recording is, the piece never loses its elegiac contemplation. In many live recordings, the audience is so enraptured with the piece the end is often followed by five to ten seconds of absolute silence. In one recording, the conductor of the piece was weeping.
I did not find that I preferred one version over the others. It is one of those pieces which immediately captures the listener with its expressiveness and exploration of melancholy articulation. It has a subtle energy that you rarely find in pieces which focus on complicated rhythms, harmonies, and melodies.
For myself, I fell even more in love with the piece than I already was. I often scour my music resources for pieces which are filled with passionate emotion. A Russian at heart, I often find the romantic music of the European composers more emotionally satisfying. That which is complicated often catches my ear, so I am naturally drawn to such music. Tonality isn’t that important to me, so I am just as mesmerized by Penderecki’s ‘Polymorphy’ as the prelude to Wagner’s ‘Lohengrin.’ I have found, however, that simpler music can be just as beautiful when the composer has a strong understanding of how to subtly express emotions. Pärt is an excellent example of this. His minimalist composition ‘Summa for Strings’ was a piece that I found myself thinking about as I listened to Barber’s ‘Adagio for Strings.’ The pieces are similar in the slow, pensive way they were written. Though the ‘Summa’ is a faster piece and with a more concise vocal range, it is melodically rich with a related dynamic style. There are not the same variation elements, but there are the same uses of dissonances and tensions. The biggest difference, I think, is that the ‘Adagio’ is more introspective whereas the ‘Summa’ is more contextual and outwardly focused. One is personal while the other is almost expression for the sake of expression. That does not necessarily make one better than the other, though some would argue that music which is emotionally engaging is always the preeminent choice.
After realizing this, it is no wonder that Barber is one of the most performed composers in Europe. Through his subtle forms of expression and emotion, and his love of the musical voice, he has captured a musical picture of the most passionate heart. It is never the number of pieces that a composer writes that makes him or her one of the best but rather the quality of those singularly outstanding works and their ability to touch people in a way that no other music can. Paul Wittke said of him: “His heart was rarely on display, well concealed under his Roman patrician manner. But his heart was large, his wit hid his sensitivity, his melancholy was his response to the sadness of the world.” Perhaps, though, the simplest way to describe his music is to use the words of French author Victor Hugo: “Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A link for my favourite recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV3SHBFyDZM&feature=related
Barber’s piece Adagio for Strings is an epitome of his composing style. It seems to express the depth of emotions in a style that ‘speaks.’ The melody lines and harmonies are quite simple, and the form is repetitive and easy to follow. Looking at that alone would make the piece appear rather boring, but it is made rich by overlapping of melodies, suspensions, and subtle builds and fading. Nothing is so unexpected that you are jerked from the meditative reverie the music draws you into; instead, you find yourself carried through stages of lament and pondering. It is clearly influenced by Barber’s vocal experience – so much so that it has been arranged for vocals.
Different performances of the piece take various approaches and showcase assorted musical things. In one vocal recording I listened to, the choir was so in tune, you could hear overtones of the base line.
There was a recording of the piece which was faster than many versions, which some would have an aversion to; however, I found that it moved very much at the speed of thought. Although it probably was, indeed, faster than Barber had intended, it more was introspective than the slower versions. I found it similar to the idea that some would quote Shakespeare slowly and thoughtfully while others prefer to quote him quickly, as though they are speaking as quickly as they consider.
Most of the recordings I listened to averaged just over ten minutes long, but no matter how long the recording is, the piece never loses its elegiac contemplation. In many live recordings, the audience is so enraptured with the piece the end is often followed by five to ten seconds of absolute silence. In one recording, the conductor of the piece was weeping.
I did not find that I preferred one version over the others. It is one of those pieces which immediately captures the listener with its expressiveness and exploration of melancholy articulation. It has a subtle energy that you rarely find in pieces which focus on complicated rhythms, harmonies, and melodies.
For myself, I fell even more in love with the piece than I already was. I often scour my music resources for pieces which are filled with passionate emotion. A Russian at heart, I often find the romantic music of the European composers more emotionally satisfying. That which is complicated often catches my ear, so I am naturally drawn to such music. Tonality isn’t that important to me, so I am just as mesmerized by Penderecki’s ‘Polymorphy’ as the prelude to Wagner’s ‘Lohengrin.’ I have found, however, that simpler music can be just as beautiful when the composer has a strong understanding of how to subtly express emotions. Pärt is an excellent example of this. His minimalist composition ‘Summa for Strings’ was a piece that I found myself thinking about as I listened to Barber’s ‘Adagio for Strings.’ The pieces are similar in the slow, pensive way they were written. Though the ‘Summa’ is a faster piece and with a more concise vocal range, it is melodically rich with a related dynamic style. There are not the same variation elements, but there are the same uses of dissonances and tensions. The biggest difference, I think, is that the ‘Adagio’ is more introspective whereas the ‘Summa’ is more contextual and outwardly focused. One is personal while the other is almost expression for the sake of expression. That does not necessarily make one better than the other, though some would argue that music which is emotionally engaging is always the preeminent choice.
After realizing this, it is no wonder that Barber is one of the most performed composers in Europe. Through his subtle forms of expression and emotion, and his love of the musical voice, he has captured a musical picture of the most passionate heart. It is never the number of pieces that a composer writes that makes him or her one of the best but rather the quality of those singularly outstanding works and their ability to touch people in a way that no other music can. Paul Wittke said of him: “His heart was rarely on display, well concealed under his Roman patrician manner. But his heart was large, his wit hid his sensitivity, his melancholy was his response to the sadness of the world.” Perhaps, though, the simplest way to describe his music is to use the words of French author Victor Hugo: “Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A link for my favourite recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV3SHBFyDZM&feature=related
Impinging Upon Christ
I have been considering Isaiah 53:7.
When I was reading it, today, I noticed that I have been reading it wrong; more specifically the line where it says: "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all." I realized, tonight, that the literal translation of it actually says: "The Lord hath caused to land on Him the iniquities of us all." I had always read the word 'laid' as an almost passive thing - like the Lord was simply handing our iniquities to Christ.
Naturally, my curiosity was piqued, and come to find out the Hebrew word is actually more aggressive - meaning that God impinged them upon Christ: "by accident or violence, or by importunity." Since we know that there are no accidents with God, that leaves us with a 'violent' - even solicitous - encouragement for Christ to intercede. I find that... humbling... and I wish I could hear a sermon about it!
When I was reading it, today, I noticed that I have been reading it wrong; more specifically the line where it says: "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all." I realized, tonight, that the literal translation of it actually says: "The Lord hath caused to land on Him the iniquities of us all." I had always read the word 'laid' as an almost passive thing - like the Lord was simply handing our iniquities to Christ.
Naturally, my curiosity was piqued, and come to find out the Hebrew word is actually more aggressive - meaning that God impinged them upon Christ: "by accident or violence, or by importunity." Since we know that there are no accidents with God, that leaves us with a 'violent' - even solicitous - encouragement for Christ to intercede. I find that... humbling... and I wish I could hear a sermon about it!
It's Worth It!
I found this among some other papers while doing some Spring cleaning. I wanted to type it up and share it - to give an idea of why I love my job so much :).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's a hard day at work. I take care of a little boy with Down Syndrome, and he is not very happy with me. Every forty-five minutes, I have to drag him to the 'potty' as part of his potty training. Today, he fights me, thinking that surely there are more exciting things to do! After long minutes of encouraging and bribing, he finally sits on the toilet. Relieved, I let him do his business. I'm tired, and I've been sick for several days. This constant fight in the bathroom really wears me out, and I find myself wondering if it is really worth it.
A minute later, I hear the toilet flush, and he comes out to me, showing me that he needs help fastening his pants. As I kneel to do this, I praise him for being such a good boy. "Thank you," I hear myself say, even though I find myself wishing he weren't so difficult.
I then look into his eyes and can't help smiling at the innocence I see there. He smiles back, surprising me by wrapping his arms around my neck and hugging me tightly. It is in this moment I remember why I doing this. The love this little boy shows through smiles and embraces makes me forget how tired and sick I am. I feel cherished and wanted. Yes, sometimes I will get frustrated, but then I'll remember that I love this little boy, and he loves me back. That makes every moment worth it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's a hard day at work. I take care of a little boy with Down Syndrome, and he is not very happy with me. Every forty-five minutes, I have to drag him to the 'potty' as part of his potty training. Today, he fights me, thinking that surely there are more exciting things to do! After long minutes of encouraging and bribing, he finally sits on the toilet. Relieved, I let him do his business. I'm tired, and I've been sick for several days. This constant fight in the bathroom really wears me out, and I find myself wondering if it is really worth it.
A minute later, I hear the toilet flush, and he comes out to me, showing me that he needs help fastening his pants. As I kneel to do this, I praise him for being such a good boy. "Thank you," I hear myself say, even though I find myself wishing he weren't so difficult.
I then look into his eyes and can't help smiling at the innocence I see there. He smiles back, surprising me by wrapping his arms around my neck and hugging me tightly. It is in this moment I remember why I doing this. The love this little boy shows through smiles and embraces makes me forget how tired and sick I am. I feel cherished and wanted. Yes, sometimes I will get frustrated, but then I'll remember that I love this little boy, and he loves me back. That makes every moment worth it.
Overcoming Presuppositions of Satan in Paradise Lost
The person of Satan has long been one of great controversy. He might be imagined as the red cartoon with a pitchfork, long red tail, and horns. Others might say there is no Satan. To others, he is the ultimate enemy - a menace who will do anything possible to cause God pain. To John Milton, he seemed to be a curiosity, as is clear in his poem Paradise Lost. One might ask what Milton’s purpose was in writing such a descriptive account of Satan’s story, as he certainly took the time to create this epic tale. There must be a purpose.
Whatever his purpose, this epic tale shows a hero who causes much controversy among the critics. Some critics say that there is a definite push for us to feel pity for Satan as he seems to sink lower and lower into himself. Opposing critics argue that there is no real indication of this.
In the beginning of Paradise Lost, we feel a sense of defiance from Satan, which is expected, considering what he has so recently done:
“The infernal Serpent; he it was whose guile stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived the mother of mankind, what time his pride had cast him out from Heaven” (1.34-37).
Yet this defiance does not seem so complete as it might: “So spake the apostate Angel, though in pain vaunting aloud, but wracked with deep despair” (1.125-126). This seems to indicate that Satan, although certainly not repentant of the celestial fight, is regretful of all that has taken place. It also seems that he does his best to hide these regrets from his hierarchy of followers. This sign of weakness might cause someone to feel as though it is only right to pity Satan:
“Milton’s presentation of him (Satan) is a magnificent poetical achievement which engages the attention and excites the admiration of the reader. On the other hand, it may mean that the real being… is or ought to be an object of admiration and sympathy, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the poet or his readers of both” (Lewis 94).
This idea of sympathizing with God’s enemy is appalling to many. Lewis himself did not believe this to be Milton’s purpose, though he did point out, as in the afore text, that the way Milton evoked this reaction could have been an unconscious thing.
There are other critics believe that there is a clear attempt to discredit Satan in every sense:
“Any one of his ‘glorious’ speeches will suffice to show the false high style of Satan, dissembler and buffoon… A comic element is seen thus in his self deception; Milton is really so unsubtle that Satan becomes a caricature of the pompous braggart” (Shawcross 30+31).
Both sides of the argument are seen, here. Was Milton’s purpose to suggest pity for Satan or is there really no evidence of anything but malice? Surely Milton would have been clear; however, it is possible to look at Paradise Lost not as an absolute of either argument but actually a progression; Satan begins as a newly fallen angel, not fully evil, but he gradually evolves into the Satan whom we so easily recognize as a devil.
There is no real doubt that Satan is an evil being. He shows clear evidence of this throughout the entirety of Paradise Lost: “Seduce them to our party, that their God may prove their foe, and with repenting hand abolish his own works” (2.68-70). His clear purpose is to cause strife between God and His people, perhaps not so much to hurt Man but to hurt God through man. It is power that corrupts Satan, and much like Byron’s character Manfred, Satan defies the power of any authority but his own:
“While other creatures can forget their mission and live casually within the bounds established for them, Satan, God-obsessed, confronts his limits at every turn: every aspect of the crated order that he encounters provokes knowledge of his antagonism” (Toliver 56).
Contrary to his own character, however, Satan expects to be an authoritative figure to those angels who have followed him: “…Nor did they not perceive the evil plight in which they were, or the fierce pains not feel, yet to their General’s voice they soon obeyed Innumerable” (1.335-338).
Even though we never actually read a passage where Satan places himself, verbally, above the others, there is a clear leadership which they all respect. Perhaps it is because of his leadership in the war against Heaven or maybe they just fear him. Either way, there is very clearly Satan above the others: “Satan exalted sat, by merit raised to that bad eminence; and, from despair thus uplifted beyond hope, aspires beyond thus high, insatiate to pursue vain war in Heaven” (2.5-9). This authority never seems to waver.
The way that Satan regards his children is something that we can see change. When he first meets Sin and Death, he appears repulsed: “On the other side, incensed with indignation, Satan stood unterrified” (2. 707-709). His daughter has to explain to him how she, Sin, and their son, Death, came to be, since it appears that he does not remember.
This meeting could be seen as the turning point for Satan. Although he had certainly shown signs of what his nature was soon to be, it is in this passage that he really steps away from the all that was good and admits the will he has for his own life:
“Alone and without guide, half lost, I seek what readiest path leads where your gloomy bounds confine with Heaven… Direct my course: Directed, no mean recompense it brings to your behoof, if I that region lost, all usurpation thence expelled, reduce to her original darkness… and once more erect the standard there of ancient Night; yours be the advantage all, mine the revenge! (2.975-977+980-987).
By the end of Paradise Lost, Satan openly claims his children, even sending them to Heaven as representatives:
“Thus the Prince of Darkness answered glad: ‘Fair daughter, and thou, son, and grandchild both, high proof ye now have given to be the race of Satan (For I glory in the name Antagonist of Heaven’s Almighty King)’” (5.383-387).
He no longer repels Sin and Death but welcomes them to his legions, prepared to use them for his own glory and what he hopes will later be the downfall of God.
Satan only becomes worse. His actions, damnable from the start, become worse and worse. The hesitance to ruin the perfection and beauty he sees is shortened with each occurrence. In book four, there is still a great tension, as though Satan is still not quite sure of what evil he is capable. He continues to be confused by the transformation that has taken place: “Satan, now first enflamed with rage, came down… Now conscience wakes despair that slumbered, wakes up the bitter memory of what he was, what is, and what must be worse” (4. 9+23-26). This passage makes it quite apparent that Satan is recognizing his own degradation. This progression gives him unrest. Perhaps it is this that leads him to deny God as his creator:
“The Apostate… thus replied: ‘That we were formed, then, say’st thou? and the work of secondary hands, by task transferred from Father to his Son? Strange point and new! Doctrine which we know whence learnt; who saw when this creation was?’” (5.852-857).
This seems to say that we cannot just believe something because we are told it to be true. This quote is commented on by C.S. Lewis, who points out the absurdity of what is being said:
“If a creature is silly enough to try to prove that it was not created, what is more natural than for it to say, ‘Well, I wasn’t there to se it being done’? Yet what more futile, since in this admitting ignorance of its own beginnings it proves that those beginnings lay outside itself” (97+98).
Satan denouncing the creation of himself by God marks another decline in the progression downward. It is another way in which Satan tries to become his own deity, putting himself on the same level, if not above, God. He begins to use his abilities as an angel to his own advantage, which shocks the celestial angels: “ ‘O Heaven! That such resemblance of the Highest should yet remain, where faith and realty remain not’” (6. 114-116).
His wrongdoings provoke Michael, the archangel, into speaking against him, as they fight for honor: “ ‘Author of Evil, unknown till thy revolt, unnamed in Heaven, now plenteous, as thou seest, these acts of hateful strife - hateful to all, though heaviest, by just measure, on thyself and thy adherents’” (6.262-266). It is when Michael wounds Satan that he realizes he is not of the same ilk of God he so wished to be: “Shame to find himself not matchless, and his pride humbled by such rebuke, so far beneath his confidence to equal God in power” (6.341-344).
There is even evidence of a physical change. Satan is often described as he once was:
“ ‘Think not… thy shape the same, or undiminished brightness, to be known as when thou stood’st in Heaven upright and pure. That glory then, when thou no more wast good, departed from thee; and thou resembles now thy sin and place of doom obscure and foul’” (4.835-840).
We see, especially in book two, that Satan is described as glorious - a beautiful, magnificent thing to behold; yet, his appearance, as he uses it to deceive Eve, seems to become tinged with the evil that he is trying to give a foothold: “Thence up he flew, and on the Tree of Life… sat like a cormorant (Emphasis added), yet not true life thereby regained, but sat devising death to them who lived” (4.194-198). His descriptions are more evidently evil, and though his ability to follow through with his plan to ruin Man might falter, his intentions are never in doubt: “Back to the thicket slunk the guilty serpent” (9.784-785); however, we do notice that although he changes in the perception of the ethereal, Eve cannot see through his deception so easily:
“The Serpent wise, or not restrained as we are or not obeying, hath eaten of the fruit, and is become, not dead as we are threatened, but thence forth endued with human voice and human sense, reasoning to admiration and with me persuasively hath so prevailed” (9. 867-872).
Should we suppose that the human eyes cannot see through Satan‘s deception? No. It was not only Eve who did recognize him for what he was. The guards whom Satan confused also did not recognize him. They were unable to perceive the double meanings or to comprehend the way Satan twisted words to mean something other than they had been said to mean: “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” (Gen.3.1).
In Paradise Regained, we get a picture of Satan which is still deceiving and even more sinister:
“Now an ancient man in rural weeds, following, as seemed, the quest of some stray ewe, or withered sticks to gather, which might serve against winter’s day when winds blow keen, to warm him wet returned from field at eve, he saw approach, who first with curious eye perused him” (1.314-320).
There is this physical degradation that we see taking place, and not only us - the characters have also pointed it out. This is heavy evidence that there is a marked change in Satan that is worth taking the time to notice. If nothing else, the admiration he receives from Sin and Death should worry us: “Sin opening, who thus now to Death began: ‘O Son, why sit we here, each other viewing idly, while Satan, our great author, thrives in other worlds, and happier seat provides for us, his offspring dear?’” (10. 234-238).
Probably the greatest evidence that one might use to say that Satan has not developed is the way his emotions play out. In book four, he is clearly feeling bitter about his position compared to that of the other angels:
“I, therefore, I alone, first undertook to wing the desolate abyss, and spy this new-created World, whereof in Hell fame is not silent, here in hope to find better abode, and my afflicted Powers to settle here on Earth, or in mid Air; though for possession put to try once more what thou and thy gay legions dare against, whose easier business were to serve their Lord high up in Heaven, with songs to hymn his throne, and practiced distances to cringe, not fight” (935-945).
These words of bitterness are counted by another angel, who makes reference to Satan’s unrest while he was still welcome in Heaven: “And thou, sly hypocrite, who now wouldst seem Patron of liberty, who more than thou once fawned, and cringed, and servilely adored Heaven’s awful Monarch?” (4.957-960). This bitterness and anger seems to always hover, controlled as well as can be, beneath the surface of Satan’s every word and action. When he tempts Eve, it may not be so obvious in appearance, but the undertone of his words and actions cannot hide his true purpose: To destroy:
“Satan revives, collects his host, decides upon revenge, escapes upon revenge, escapes from Hell, ascends through Chaos, comes to the Universe, to the Earth, to Eden, to Paradise, to Adam and Eve. Each step brings him closer to his intended prey and heightens the sense of impending danger… His attack on Eve’s fancy has come to infect her will; we realize the Fall itself is imminent” (Ogden 316+320).
This sense of impending doom that Ogden describes is one of the bigger reasons some believe Satan is evil from the start; however, it might be good to consider that people often read with presuppositions. We know, even if we have limited knowledge of the scriptures, that Satan will tempt Eve, and we know that she will succumb; however, if one were to read this poem without having any knowledge of who Satan is, it is quite possible that Satan would be seen quite differently: As a fallen angel who progressively becomes blacker with the bitterness he can’t seem to choke. If one read it also without any knowledge of God, he or she might even find Satan justified in his actions (Do we really see evidence that he was not mistreated while in Heaven?). Sadly, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone with no knowledge of Satan or God.
Milton created a masterpiece with Paradise Lost. He took a risk by expounding on a story that is well known. He risked not only the possible anger of those who could not believe he had the gall to take such liberties, but he also risked that people might come to the poem with presuppositions, not taking the story of Satan as though it were of just another character. If Satan were called John, and we really believed him to be only John, we would spend the first four books yelling ‘Don’t do it!’ Satan never receives this good will, however, because the reader knows who and what he is; he is an immediate threat. This is not a weak point on the part of Milton. He was very clear in his writing and the way he presented Satan. It is the reader who must come to the story with an open mind. By no means are we going to find Satan the unfortunate angel who did all he could to do right, by the end of the poem, but we do find that he is not immediately the enemy. Milton gave us a beautiful illustration of the dangers that can come to those who put themselves above God and fight Him for that place - the disintegration of that creature’s morals and character. Satan is the ultimate tragic hero whose strength as a character is lost within the conjecture of the knowledgeable reader. We should remember, as we approach such a story as this, to keep an open mind and be ready for whatever journey the creator chooses. To truly understand and appreciate the strength of a story such as that in Paradise Lost, we must be willing to leave our history at the door and look at it with newborn eyes.
Whatever his purpose, this epic tale shows a hero who causes much controversy among the critics. Some critics say that there is a definite push for us to feel pity for Satan as he seems to sink lower and lower into himself. Opposing critics argue that there is no real indication of this.
In the beginning of Paradise Lost, we feel a sense of defiance from Satan, which is expected, considering what he has so recently done:
“The infernal Serpent; he it was whose guile stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived the mother of mankind, what time his pride had cast him out from Heaven” (1.34-37).
Yet this defiance does not seem so complete as it might: “So spake the apostate Angel, though in pain vaunting aloud, but wracked with deep despair” (1.125-126). This seems to indicate that Satan, although certainly not repentant of the celestial fight, is regretful of all that has taken place. It also seems that he does his best to hide these regrets from his hierarchy of followers. This sign of weakness might cause someone to feel as though it is only right to pity Satan:
“Milton’s presentation of him (Satan) is a magnificent poetical achievement which engages the attention and excites the admiration of the reader. On the other hand, it may mean that the real being… is or ought to be an object of admiration and sympathy, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the poet or his readers of both” (Lewis 94).
This idea of sympathizing with God’s enemy is appalling to many. Lewis himself did not believe this to be Milton’s purpose, though he did point out, as in the afore text, that the way Milton evoked this reaction could have been an unconscious thing.
There are other critics believe that there is a clear attempt to discredit Satan in every sense:
“Any one of his ‘glorious’ speeches will suffice to show the false high style of Satan, dissembler and buffoon… A comic element is seen thus in his self deception; Milton is really so unsubtle that Satan becomes a caricature of the pompous braggart” (Shawcross 30+31).
Both sides of the argument are seen, here. Was Milton’s purpose to suggest pity for Satan or is there really no evidence of anything but malice? Surely Milton would have been clear; however, it is possible to look at Paradise Lost not as an absolute of either argument but actually a progression; Satan begins as a newly fallen angel, not fully evil, but he gradually evolves into the Satan whom we so easily recognize as a devil.
There is no real doubt that Satan is an evil being. He shows clear evidence of this throughout the entirety of Paradise Lost: “Seduce them to our party, that their God may prove their foe, and with repenting hand abolish his own works” (2.68-70). His clear purpose is to cause strife between God and His people, perhaps not so much to hurt Man but to hurt God through man. It is power that corrupts Satan, and much like Byron’s character Manfred, Satan defies the power of any authority but his own:
“While other creatures can forget their mission and live casually within the bounds established for them, Satan, God-obsessed, confronts his limits at every turn: every aspect of the crated order that he encounters provokes knowledge of his antagonism” (Toliver 56).
Contrary to his own character, however, Satan expects to be an authoritative figure to those angels who have followed him: “…Nor did they not perceive the evil plight in which they were, or the fierce pains not feel, yet to their General’s voice they soon obeyed Innumerable” (1.335-338).
Even though we never actually read a passage where Satan places himself, verbally, above the others, there is a clear leadership which they all respect. Perhaps it is because of his leadership in the war against Heaven or maybe they just fear him. Either way, there is very clearly Satan above the others: “Satan exalted sat, by merit raised to that bad eminence; and, from despair thus uplifted beyond hope, aspires beyond thus high, insatiate to pursue vain war in Heaven” (2.5-9). This authority never seems to waver.
The way that Satan regards his children is something that we can see change. When he first meets Sin and Death, he appears repulsed: “On the other side, incensed with indignation, Satan stood unterrified” (2. 707-709). His daughter has to explain to him how she, Sin, and their son, Death, came to be, since it appears that he does not remember.
This meeting could be seen as the turning point for Satan. Although he had certainly shown signs of what his nature was soon to be, it is in this passage that he really steps away from the all that was good and admits the will he has for his own life:
“Alone and without guide, half lost, I seek what readiest path leads where your gloomy bounds confine with Heaven… Direct my course: Directed, no mean recompense it brings to your behoof, if I that region lost, all usurpation thence expelled, reduce to her original darkness… and once more erect the standard there of ancient Night; yours be the advantage all, mine the revenge! (2.975-977+980-987).
By the end of Paradise Lost, Satan openly claims his children, even sending them to Heaven as representatives:
“Thus the Prince of Darkness answered glad: ‘Fair daughter, and thou, son, and grandchild both, high proof ye now have given to be the race of Satan (For I glory in the name Antagonist of Heaven’s Almighty King)’” (5.383-387).
He no longer repels Sin and Death but welcomes them to his legions, prepared to use them for his own glory and what he hopes will later be the downfall of God.
Satan only becomes worse. His actions, damnable from the start, become worse and worse. The hesitance to ruin the perfection and beauty he sees is shortened with each occurrence. In book four, there is still a great tension, as though Satan is still not quite sure of what evil he is capable. He continues to be confused by the transformation that has taken place: “Satan, now first enflamed with rage, came down… Now conscience wakes despair that slumbered, wakes up the bitter memory of what he was, what is, and what must be worse” (4. 9+23-26). This passage makes it quite apparent that Satan is recognizing his own degradation. This progression gives him unrest. Perhaps it is this that leads him to deny God as his creator:
“The Apostate… thus replied: ‘That we were formed, then, say’st thou? and the work of secondary hands, by task transferred from Father to his Son? Strange point and new! Doctrine which we know whence learnt; who saw when this creation was?’” (5.852-857).
This seems to say that we cannot just believe something because we are told it to be true. This quote is commented on by C.S. Lewis, who points out the absurdity of what is being said:
“If a creature is silly enough to try to prove that it was not created, what is more natural than for it to say, ‘Well, I wasn’t there to se it being done’? Yet what more futile, since in this admitting ignorance of its own beginnings it proves that those beginnings lay outside itself” (97+98).
Satan denouncing the creation of himself by God marks another decline in the progression downward. It is another way in which Satan tries to become his own deity, putting himself on the same level, if not above, God. He begins to use his abilities as an angel to his own advantage, which shocks the celestial angels: “ ‘O Heaven! That such resemblance of the Highest should yet remain, where faith and realty remain not’” (6. 114-116).
His wrongdoings provoke Michael, the archangel, into speaking against him, as they fight for honor: “ ‘Author of Evil, unknown till thy revolt, unnamed in Heaven, now plenteous, as thou seest, these acts of hateful strife - hateful to all, though heaviest, by just measure, on thyself and thy adherents’” (6.262-266). It is when Michael wounds Satan that he realizes he is not of the same ilk of God he so wished to be: “Shame to find himself not matchless, and his pride humbled by such rebuke, so far beneath his confidence to equal God in power” (6.341-344).
There is even evidence of a physical change. Satan is often described as he once was:
“ ‘Think not… thy shape the same, or undiminished brightness, to be known as when thou stood’st in Heaven upright and pure. That glory then, when thou no more wast good, departed from thee; and thou resembles now thy sin and place of doom obscure and foul’” (4.835-840).
We see, especially in book two, that Satan is described as glorious - a beautiful, magnificent thing to behold; yet, his appearance, as he uses it to deceive Eve, seems to become tinged with the evil that he is trying to give a foothold: “Thence up he flew, and on the Tree of Life… sat like a cormorant (Emphasis added), yet not true life thereby regained, but sat devising death to them who lived” (4.194-198). His descriptions are more evidently evil, and though his ability to follow through with his plan to ruin Man might falter, his intentions are never in doubt: “Back to the thicket slunk the guilty serpent” (9.784-785); however, we do notice that although he changes in the perception of the ethereal, Eve cannot see through his deception so easily:
“The Serpent wise, or not restrained as we are or not obeying, hath eaten of the fruit, and is become, not dead as we are threatened, but thence forth endued with human voice and human sense, reasoning to admiration and with me persuasively hath so prevailed” (9. 867-872).
Should we suppose that the human eyes cannot see through Satan‘s deception? No. It was not only Eve who did recognize him for what he was. The guards whom Satan confused also did not recognize him. They were unable to perceive the double meanings or to comprehend the way Satan twisted words to mean something other than they had been said to mean: “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” (Gen.3.1).
In Paradise Regained, we get a picture of Satan which is still deceiving and even more sinister:
“Now an ancient man in rural weeds, following, as seemed, the quest of some stray ewe, or withered sticks to gather, which might serve against winter’s day when winds blow keen, to warm him wet returned from field at eve, he saw approach, who first with curious eye perused him” (1.314-320).
There is this physical degradation that we see taking place, and not only us - the characters have also pointed it out. This is heavy evidence that there is a marked change in Satan that is worth taking the time to notice. If nothing else, the admiration he receives from Sin and Death should worry us: “Sin opening, who thus now to Death began: ‘O Son, why sit we here, each other viewing idly, while Satan, our great author, thrives in other worlds, and happier seat provides for us, his offspring dear?’” (10. 234-238).
Probably the greatest evidence that one might use to say that Satan has not developed is the way his emotions play out. In book four, he is clearly feeling bitter about his position compared to that of the other angels:
“I, therefore, I alone, first undertook to wing the desolate abyss, and spy this new-created World, whereof in Hell fame is not silent, here in hope to find better abode, and my afflicted Powers to settle here on Earth, or in mid Air; though for possession put to try once more what thou and thy gay legions dare against, whose easier business were to serve their Lord high up in Heaven, with songs to hymn his throne, and practiced distances to cringe, not fight” (935-945).
These words of bitterness are counted by another angel, who makes reference to Satan’s unrest while he was still welcome in Heaven: “And thou, sly hypocrite, who now wouldst seem Patron of liberty, who more than thou once fawned, and cringed, and servilely adored Heaven’s awful Monarch?” (4.957-960). This bitterness and anger seems to always hover, controlled as well as can be, beneath the surface of Satan’s every word and action. When he tempts Eve, it may not be so obvious in appearance, but the undertone of his words and actions cannot hide his true purpose: To destroy:
“Satan revives, collects his host, decides upon revenge, escapes upon revenge, escapes from Hell, ascends through Chaos, comes to the Universe, to the Earth, to Eden, to Paradise, to Adam and Eve. Each step brings him closer to his intended prey and heightens the sense of impending danger… His attack on Eve’s fancy has come to infect her will; we realize the Fall itself is imminent” (Ogden 316+320).
This sense of impending doom that Ogden describes is one of the bigger reasons some believe Satan is evil from the start; however, it might be good to consider that people often read with presuppositions. We know, even if we have limited knowledge of the scriptures, that Satan will tempt Eve, and we know that she will succumb; however, if one were to read this poem without having any knowledge of who Satan is, it is quite possible that Satan would be seen quite differently: As a fallen angel who progressively becomes blacker with the bitterness he can’t seem to choke. If one read it also without any knowledge of God, he or she might even find Satan justified in his actions (Do we really see evidence that he was not mistreated while in Heaven?). Sadly, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone with no knowledge of Satan or God.
Milton created a masterpiece with Paradise Lost. He took a risk by expounding on a story that is well known. He risked not only the possible anger of those who could not believe he had the gall to take such liberties, but he also risked that people might come to the poem with presuppositions, not taking the story of Satan as though it were of just another character. If Satan were called John, and we really believed him to be only John, we would spend the first four books yelling ‘Don’t do it!’ Satan never receives this good will, however, because the reader knows who and what he is; he is an immediate threat. This is not a weak point on the part of Milton. He was very clear in his writing and the way he presented Satan. It is the reader who must come to the story with an open mind. By no means are we going to find Satan the unfortunate angel who did all he could to do right, by the end of the poem, but we do find that he is not immediately the enemy. Milton gave us a beautiful illustration of the dangers that can come to those who put themselves above God and fight Him for that place - the disintegration of that creature’s morals and character. Satan is the ultimate tragic hero whose strength as a character is lost within the conjecture of the knowledgeable reader. We should remember, as we approach such a story as this, to keep an open mind and be ready for whatever journey the creator chooses. To truly understand and appreciate the strength of a story such as that in Paradise Lost, we must be willing to leave our history at the door and look at it with newborn eyes.
Intolerance and Love Don't Share A Bed
It’s one of those nights where I can’t sleep, because there is too much on my mind.
As some know, my biggest pet peeve is intolerance. It’s not something I advertise too much, because there is a lot of it, and I mean A LOT of it. What sort of intolerance am I thinking about? All sorts, but mostly I mean intolerance of another person’s religion/belief system. That’s a loaded phrase, yes, but has anyone else noticed how quickly some people tear down others who don’t believe like they do?
I remember once having a debate with someone whose beliefs were opposite of my own. Instead of arguing fairly and defending himself with knowledge, he instead ridiculed me because I was a ‘savage’ American and called me intolerant. This, needless to say, pressed the wrong button. I told him that I would not try to defend what I believed if he was so unwilling to put himself on the same level as me. If I had been in any way insulting of him, I wouldn’t have cared that he accused me of intolerance; however, I had done my best to defend what I was saying by quoting his own doctrine, and I was careful to never argue about him - only what he believed. This did not go over very well.
This is all to show that I see people in two parts: As a person and the way they live (Their doctrine). I am able to separate the two and not let them interfere with my contact with that person. For example: I will not let the fact that a person I know is gay interfere with me being a friend to that person. Isn’t the purpose of a Christian’s life to show love to men? I don’t think God specified and gave certain personality traits of people we should minister to. I have read nowhere in God’s word that I am to hate Muslims, Homosexuals, Thieves, etc.… I understand that I should not follow in their beliefs, but God does not teach intolerance.
Where am I coming from? A man once asked me if I hated him because he didn’t believe what I did. I was shocked that he could even think that, but he explained to me that he had received that reaction from other ‘Christians.’ This, quite frankly, angered me. I have heard similar stories of people with bad pasts being shunned in churches because they were ‘sinners.’ I want to go to that church and say, “Hey! I’m sure that you were born perfect and have every right to stick your nose up in the air!” Oh my GOODNESS people! Are we so wrapped in our own bubbles that we can’t see the world is hungry for love and acceptance?! I can’t even bring myself to call people who are so intolerant Christian’s. They are creating a stereotype for other people to put all Christians into. This is wrong, and it makes me angry. I should not have to defend my love of other people. I don’t care if someone is from a completely different world. I will love that person with as much unconditional love as God permits. Since God is omnipotent, I’m sure I won’t run out of it any time soon. I never want people to say I am intolerant. I am accepting of all just as they are.
If every Christian applied this idea to the way they lived, there wouldn’t be this stereotype for Christians to fight. People should know that we love them. If they did, perhaps then they would listen to us.
Another raving sermon from me to you. I hope this doesn’t offend anyone. It just is a topic that is very important and real to me. I want to be real with people… I hope you do too.
As some know, my biggest pet peeve is intolerance. It’s not something I advertise too much, because there is a lot of it, and I mean A LOT of it. What sort of intolerance am I thinking about? All sorts, but mostly I mean intolerance of another person’s religion/belief system. That’s a loaded phrase, yes, but has anyone else noticed how quickly some people tear down others who don’t believe like they do?
I remember once having a debate with someone whose beliefs were opposite of my own. Instead of arguing fairly and defending himself with knowledge, he instead ridiculed me because I was a ‘savage’ American and called me intolerant. This, needless to say, pressed the wrong button. I told him that I would not try to defend what I believed if he was so unwilling to put himself on the same level as me. If I had been in any way insulting of him, I wouldn’t have cared that he accused me of intolerance; however, I had done my best to defend what I was saying by quoting his own doctrine, and I was careful to never argue about him - only what he believed. This did not go over very well.
This is all to show that I see people in two parts: As a person and the way they live (Their doctrine). I am able to separate the two and not let them interfere with my contact with that person. For example: I will not let the fact that a person I know is gay interfere with me being a friend to that person. Isn’t the purpose of a Christian’s life to show love to men? I don’t think God specified and gave certain personality traits of people we should minister to. I have read nowhere in God’s word that I am to hate Muslims, Homosexuals, Thieves, etc.… I understand that I should not follow in their beliefs, but God does not teach intolerance.
Where am I coming from? A man once asked me if I hated him because he didn’t believe what I did. I was shocked that he could even think that, but he explained to me that he had received that reaction from other ‘Christians.’ This, quite frankly, angered me. I have heard similar stories of people with bad pasts being shunned in churches because they were ‘sinners.’ I want to go to that church and say, “Hey! I’m sure that you were born perfect and have every right to stick your nose up in the air!” Oh my GOODNESS people! Are we so wrapped in our own bubbles that we can’t see the world is hungry for love and acceptance?! I can’t even bring myself to call people who are so intolerant Christian’s. They are creating a stereotype for other people to put all Christians into. This is wrong, and it makes me angry. I should not have to defend my love of other people. I don’t care if someone is from a completely different world. I will love that person with as much unconditional love as God permits. Since God is omnipotent, I’m sure I won’t run out of it any time soon. I never want people to say I am intolerant. I am accepting of all just as they are.
If every Christian applied this idea to the way they lived, there wouldn’t be this stereotype for Christians to fight. People should know that we love them. If they did, perhaps then they would listen to us.
Another raving sermon from me to you. I hope this doesn’t offend anyone. It just is a topic that is very important and real to me. I want to be real with people… I hope you do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)