"Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score." -Ross Douthat
The link to the article - - - here.
Caleb, for your own good.
4/25/2011
4/24/2011
Evanus Rex
Friends, Americans, countrymen.
Listen if you please.
Now I'll speak as a gentleman,
To make thy hearts unfreeze.
I come to you with a suggestion of mine,
For your minds to sway.
And I implore you all to be so kind,
To abide by me today.
The issues concerns our politics,
A heavy thought to all.
And it may bring in a matter of ethics,
Questioning moral calls.
Democracy dwindles in all three branches,
Presidents always a guess.
Congress corrupt in power dances,
Dumb peasants don't confess.
So hear I state the remedy I bring,
To end all this confusion.
Lay down your arms and make me king,
Be rid of equals delusion.
I do not say this to solely benefit me,
To put myself in power.
But when the army backs this authority,
The wrong before me cower.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
Listen if you please.
Now I'll speak as a gentleman,
To make thy hearts unfreeze.
I come to you with a suggestion of mine,
For your minds to sway.
And I implore you all to be so kind,
To abide by me today.
The issues concerns our politics,
A heavy thought to all.
And it may bring in a matter of ethics,
Questioning moral calls.
Democracy dwindles in all three branches,
Presidents always a guess.
Congress corrupt in power dances,
Dumb peasants don't confess.
So hear I state the remedy I bring,
To end all this confusion.
Lay down your arms and make me king,
Be rid of equals delusion.
I do not say this to solely benefit me,
To put myself in power.
But when the army backs this authority,
The wrong before me cower.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
4/22/2011
The Vamp
Let's place a new part with an old thing,
My affection has a driving force.
And whether it be a skattering sing,
The musician's voice becomes not hoarse.
Fear not; they do not miss the beat,
As the foreknowledge creates a heat.
When the end is nigh, requires no call,
For wearing out as one for all.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
My affection has a driving force.
And whether it be a skattering sing,
The musician's voice becomes not hoarse.
Fear not; they do not miss the beat,
As the foreknowledge creates a heat.
When the end is nigh, requires no call,
For wearing out as one for all.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
4/20/2011
The Hipster
How description leaves me when they come,
But easily spotted at an urban distance.
So they claim a genuine unique drum,
Though spotted easily in urban existence.
This cultural game,
Of stultified name,
Irony is their bread and butter.
But having no shame,
Ruled by the same,
Speaking not, failed to stutter.
They say what they dare not say,
Bringing the aloof to relative stance.
Walk about in vibrant shades of gray,
Of black and white photos in trance.
But this indiscretion,
Seek not oppression.
Breathing the air that others made.
Free of election,
posed deception,
The hipster's witch craft created trade.
But easily spotted at an urban distance.
So they claim a genuine unique drum,
Though spotted easily in urban existence.
This cultural game,
Of stultified name,
Irony is their bread and butter.
But having no shame,
Ruled by the same,
Speaking not, failed to stutter.
They say what they dare not say,
Bringing the aloof to relative stance.
Walk about in vibrant shades of gray,
Of black and white photos in trance.
But this indiscretion,
Seek not oppression.
Breathing the air that others made.
Free of election,
posed deception,
The hipster's witch craft created trade.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
4/17/2011
The Fantastic Folly of Rob Bell's Love Wins
After finishing Rob Bell's Love Wins I had to admit to myself that it ended up being better than I had thought. From what I gather, especially the last chapter, Bell is certainly a saved individual. While I was not satisfied with the degree of complicated thought, I was satisfied with the fellowship I had with Bell. I read his ideas with criticism, but went away rejoicing at his apparent love for God and the brethren. And so to you Rob Bell I give a contented friendly smile.
But wait. Ever since Rob Bell came out with that video and announced his book the discussion has been filled with controversy. There are people who claim he is a heretic and others who say you need to read the book. I read the book and I do not think he is a heretic; I just think he has conveniently forgotten some key Bible verses. Bible verses that seem to contradict what he believes is the nature of God. Likely, what he has done is after being displeased with the holiness he had seen in "Christians" he attributed it to their ideas of God. And so he designed a new idea of God that he believes will encourage holiness as opposed to our current idea. In short Bell diagnosed a real problem and gave the wrong prescription to fix it.
What I see, though is a very vague discussion. Bell paints a picture, but he makes little attempt to create a proof; but instead he just describes something to sound really good. He is not a rhetorician. Regardless, he ends up being threatening to the opponents; his sworn enemies; anyone who prefers hymns to contemporary worship music; those who part their hair; the traditional. So, what are these two stand points anyway? At a mere glance Rob Bell looks and sounds like a liberal contemporary emergent church pastor thinks on philosophy for no more than a goldfish thinks at all. Although, this is sadly a valid position considering those of his type, let me redefine Rob Bell for myself and for all. Mr. Bell is a handsome trendy man with a big imaginative heart. And his imagination is part backed by love and and the other part is backed by critical thinking. Though, this is not a fifty/fifty split. Love dominates eighty-five percent of his thought while critical thinking shows up for fifteen percent of his thought. Lucky for Bell I cannot reprimand him for his love; even if it gives him incorrect ideas. Since the corner stone of Bell's thought is love (God) his theology is summed up nicely by his book title Love Wins. Nicely, but vaguely since people think he is a Universalist. He is not, but I can understand the misconception.
On to the opposing side's beliefs. Regrettably, no one knows exactly what they are opposing in Rob Bell so no one knows which position to take. All they do know is that Bell suggested that we don't know whether Gandhi is in Heaven or Hell. He asks a valid question. How do we know where Gandhi is? In my opinion he is asking a very misguided valid question. But it is not anything that cannot be cured with answers provided by the Bible. By this information it is useless at this point to bring in Bell's opponents to this. They have not read his book.
So this leaves us with myself and Rob Bell. I will correct him. Like I said before Bell thinks that Christians have the wrong idea of God. The wrong idea of God being: A God we fear. A God that is terrible. A God that is cruel and tyrannical. A God that gives rules; and these rules are very hard to obey. Considering the latter description of God Bell was actually on to something. This something was the Law. I am thinking, of course, of the old Jewish law. Bell has a different perspective on the distinctions between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was a contract of laws that God set in place with the Jews to maintain order amongst them. To obey them was righteous; but it did not make a man holy. They only made a man civil. I imagine that Bell holds that view as well. But, it is his view of the New Covenant that misses the point. The New Covenant was applied at Jesus' death and resurrection. We were rid of the old Jewish law and we're now saved by grace through faith. Though Bell notices Christian's folly in their desire to return to the Old Covenant, he over corrects it to the opposite extreme. This was the wrong remedy he prescribed. This is where he begins to sound like a Universalist. Here is a quote from Love Wins,
What a nice thing to say. Free Jesus. So Gandhi and the Mormons get to go to Heaven as well? How splendid. Sorry, Bell. That was sarcasm. This is not going to fly with what the Bible teaches.
Pardon the Length of the quotations, but they drive home a point that Rob Bell argues against. This point is: There is only one way to Christ, so do as you are told. Bell makes an illusion that the pathway to God is like several forking paths that all end up at the peak. What he doesn't realize is that there are different mountains that other people are exploring that they have no commitment to.
Now I believe that you can belong to a different denomination and still be saved. Reason being is that I believe that none of the denominations are the true church, but that the true church consists of anyone who has passed from death to life. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit. Sadly, I also believe that certain denominations implicitly discourage that from happening to it's people. And other sects that either claim Christ or are a civil, ethical religion are quite frankly not even close. Those paths lead away from God.
Another thing to address is Bell's scary God theory. The Scary God Theory is that the only reason believe in Christianity at all is because we are scared of ending up in Hell. I was relieved to find that Bell does believe in a Hell. But he draws our attention away from it. He thinks we have made God into a cruel king with hard rules and that anyone who disobeys gets eternity in Hell. First off, he leaves out something quite important that would rids us of this cruel God. His mercy and love. These traits of God do not make it so that he is contradicting himself with his judgment. He has given us opportunity upon opportunity to turn to him, but if we deny his love every time that is a good enough reason to receive eternal damnation. Anyone who is timid of there creator is someone who thinks they deserve better, but realize they are dealing with a God so why bother? Really, they feel as though their "rights" are being infringed upon. That they have better ethics than God. So their idea of God is wrong not because of what is taught them but because of their own pride.
Secondly, I like a scary God. Ok, perhaps not scary, but all the other good words. Terrible was always one that rung with me. He is a terrible God. Why? Because he is A GOD. What do we not understand about Gods here? He is not some sort of life force that lives in the earth that we can have a relationship with if we hug the ground or talk to a tree. He is a massive, giant consuming fire. Lucky for us, he loves us. Though his terrible self is not to go unnoticed. As it says all over the Old Testament,
And Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, says,
If I may reiterate, Bell diagnosed a problem in the church, but provided the wrong remedy. A remedy that fled to the opposite extreme instead of finding the mean. God bless Rob Bell and I hope he has a successful ministry.
Woo hoo! More notes on Rob Bell, purely for the fun of it!
-In passing, there was an implicit suggestion that the writer of Hebrews was a woman. Come on Rob.
-He referenced Star Wars in the book. Weak.
-Jon Hill (God Bless him) says, "He [Bell] is addressing the problem, by refusing to deal with it." Jon points out that when Bell sees sin he doesn't point out the sin, he merely goes and creates a new idea of God. That consequently doesn't fix sin.
-He made mostly bad jokes. Though some were good.
-Double spaced. Large font. Paragraph starts galore. If this is what happens to you when you get published, I don't want to get published.
Please comment.
But wait. Ever since Rob Bell came out with that video and announced his book the discussion has been filled with controversy. There are people who claim he is a heretic and others who say you need to read the book. I read the book and I do not think he is a heretic; I just think he has conveniently forgotten some key Bible verses. Bible verses that seem to contradict what he believes is the nature of God. Likely, what he has done is after being displeased with the holiness he had seen in "Christians" he attributed it to their ideas of God. And so he designed a new idea of God that he believes will encourage holiness as opposed to our current idea. In short Bell diagnosed a real problem and gave the wrong prescription to fix it.
What I see, though is a very vague discussion. Bell paints a picture, but he makes little attempt to create a proof; but instead he just describes something to sound really good. He is not a rhetorician. Regardless, he ends up being threatening to the opponents; his sworn enemies; anyone who prefers hymns to contemporary worship music; those who part their hair; the traditional. So, what are these two stand points anyway? At a mere glance Rob Bell looks and sounds like a liberal contemporary emergent church pastor thinks on philosophy for no more than a goldfish thinks at all. Although, this is sadly a valid position considering those of his type, let me redefine Rob Bell for myself and for all. Mr. Bell is a handsome trendy man with a big imaginative heart. And his imagination is part backed by love and and the other part is backed by critical thinking. Though, this is not a fifty/fifty split. Love dominates eighty-five percent of his thought while critical thinking shows up for fifteen percent of his thought. Lucky for Bell I cannot reprimand him for his love; even if it gives him incorrect ideas. Since the corner stone of Bell's thought is love (God) his theology is summed up nicely by his book title Love Wins. Nicely, but vaguely since people think he is a Universalist. He is not, but I can understand the misconception.
On to the opposing side's beliefs. Regrettably, no one knows exactly what they are opposing in Rob Bell so no one knows which position to take. All they do know is that Bell suggested that we don't know whether Gandhi is in Heaven or Hell. He asks a valid question. How do we know where Gandhi is? In my opinion he is asking a very misguided valid question. But it is not anything that cannot be cured with answers provided by the Bible. By this information it is useless at this point to bring in Bell's opponents to this. They have not read his book.
So this leaves us with myself and Rob Bell. I will correct him. Like I said before Bell thinks that Christians have the wrong idea of God. The wrong idea of God being: A God we fear. A God that is terrible. A God that is cruel and tyrannical. A God that gives rules; and these rules are very hard to obey. Considering the latter description of God Bell was actually on to something. This something was the Law. I am thinking, of course, of the old Jewish law. Bell has a different perspective on the distinctions between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was a contract of laws that God set in place with the Jews to maintain order amongst them. To obey them was righteous; but it did not make a man holy. They only made a man civil. I imagine that Bell holds that view as well. But, it is his view of the New Covenant that misses the point. The New Covenant was applied at Jesus' death and resurrection. We were rid of the old Jewish law and we're now saved by grace through faith. Though Bell notices Christian's folly in their desire to return to the Old Covenant, he over corrects it to the opposite extreme. This was the wrong remedy he prescribed. This is where he begins to sound like a Universalist. Here is a quote from Love Wins,
"That includes any Christian culture. Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system. We can point to him, name him, follow him, discuss him, honor him, and believe in him - but we cannot claim him to be ours anymore than he's anyone else's." -Rob Bell
What a nice thing to say. Free Jesus. So Gandhi and the Mormons get to go to Heaven as well? How splendid. Sorry, Bell. That was sarcasm. This is not going to fly with what the Bible teaches.
17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. 21 Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God. -I Corinthians 7
8 But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); 9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. 11 The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. 13 For, "every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." -Romans 10
8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him. -Colossians 2
Pardon the Length of the quotations, but they drive home a point that Rob Bell argues against. This point is: There is only one way to Christ, so do as you are told. Bell makes an illusion that the pathway to God is like several forking paths that all end up at the peak. What he doesn't realize is that there are different mountains that other people are exploring that they have no commitment to.
Now I believe that you can belong to a different denomination and still be saved. Reason being is that I believe that none of the denominations are the true church, but that the true church consists of anyone who has passed from death to life. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit. Sadly, I also believe that certain denominations implicitly discourage that from happening to it's people. And other sects that either claim Christ or are a civil, ethical religion are quite frankly not even close. Those paths lead away from God.
Another thing to address is Bell's scary God theory. The Scary God Theory is that the only reason believe in Christianity at all is because we are scared of ending up in Hell. I was relieved to find that Bell does believe in a Hell. But he draws our attention away from it. He thinks we have made God into a cruel king with hard rules and that anyone who disobeys gets eternity in Hell. First off, he leaves out something quite important that would rids us of this cruel God. His mercy and love. These traits of God do not make it so that he is contradicting himself with his judgment. He has given us opportunity upon opportunity to turn to him, but if we deny his love every time that is a good enough reason to receive eternal damnation. Anyone who is timid of there creator is someone who thinks they deserve better, but realize they are dealing with a God so why bother? Really, they feel as though their "rights" are being infringed upon. That they have better ethics than God. So their idea of God is wrong not because of what is taught them but because of their own pride.
Secondly, I like a scary God. Ok, perhaps not scary, but all the other good words. Terrible was always one that rung with me. He is a terrible God. Why? Because he is A GOD. What do we not understand about Gods here? He is not some sort of life force that lives in the earth that we can have a relationship with if we hug the ground or talk to a tree. He is a massive, giant consuming fire. Lucky for us, he loves us. Though his terrible self is not to go unnoticed. As it says all over the Old Testament,
And he said to man,`Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.'" -Job 28:28
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. -Proverbs 1:7
And Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, says,
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. -Ecclesiastes 12:13
If I may reiterate, Bell diagnosed a problem in the church, but provided the wrong remedy. A remedy that fled to the opposite extreme instead of finding the mean. God bless Rob Bell and I hope he has a successful ministry.
Woo hoo! More notes on Rob Bell, purely for the fun of it!
-In passing, there was an implicit suggestion that the writer of Hebrews was a woman. Come on Rob.
-He referenced Star Wars in the book. Weak.
-Jon Hill (God Bless him) says, "He [Bell] is addressing the problem, by refusing to deal with it." Jon points out that when Bell sees sin he doesn't point out the sin, he merely goes and creates a new idea of God. That consequently doesn't fix sin.
-He made mostly bad jokes. Though some were good.
-Double spaced. Large font. Paragraph starts galore. If this is what happens to you when you get published, I don't want to get published.
Please comment.
4/15/2011
Yes? No? Maybe?
Be. That is the answer. So quit your whinning, pick up a shovel and dig yourself out of the manure that you have been wallowing in.
It is things like this that I want to yell at people who are having episodes of self doubt. To provide answers for their questions and shaming them for not arriving at a conclusion earlier. Luckily, I do not do this. But I do day dream. What I notice is people's convenient evasion of truth and/or answers; consequently they end up looking feaux deep like a bunch of pot smokers sitting silent until one speaks, "Dude, what if we weren't really here." And they say, "Oooo! That's deep man." I say explore the question. Is the premise valid? Arrive at at least a conclusion for yourself. But wait it gets worse. Perhaps, some of the more clever philosophers explore these questions and do make conclusions. But their only real answer is "maybe". To quote Doug Wilson - All philosophers rejoice in the pursuit of truth; so long as they agree to never find it. Probably since the Milesians philosophers have made attempts to explain the world without the use of God. You could take this as a dare from one of your friends or a fun challenge. But, even earlier in History man realized that the effort is pointless and nonsensical. Straight up impossible. And so the fad of "maybe" philosophy caught on. The nature of fads is that they are hip and cool and widely accepted by the populace. Widely accepted because it makes people feel comfortable, and gives them high self esteem. This is all a fear of obligation. A fear the we have broke, as Lewis calls it, the Law of Nature. In Lewis' Case For Chrsitianity he lays it out that there is a truth in existence and since you exist in it you are responsible to abide by it. Of course this is just one of my ramblings on the nature of man's sin, but I cannot stress enough; there are such things as important questions and they must be regarded to have answers other than a relaxed dodging "maybe".
On a side note, the unimportant questions link up nicely to the important ones . . . . . like politics. If I get anything, I'll get insight.
It is things like this that I want to yell at people who are having episodes of self doubt. To provide answers for their questions and shaming them for not arriving at a conclusion earlier. Luckily, I do not do this. But I do day dream. What I notice is people's convenient evasion of truth and/or answers; consequently they end up looking feaux deep like a bunch of pot smokers sitting silent until one speaks, "Dude, what if we weren't really here." And they say, "Oooo! That's deep man." I say explore the question. Is the premise valid? Arrive at at least a conclusion for yourself. But wait it gets worse. Perhaps, some of the more clever philosophers explore these questions and do make conclusions. But their only real answer is "maybe". To quote Doug Wilson - All philosophers rejoice in the pursuit of truth; so long as they agree to never find it. Probably since the Milesians philosophers have made attempts to explain the world without the use of God. You could take this as a dare from one of your friends or a fun challenge. But, even earlier in History man realized that the effort is pointless and nonsensical. Straight up impossible. And so the fad of "maybe" philosophy caught on. The nature of fads is that they are hip and cool and widely accepted by the populace. Widely accepted because it makes people feel comfortable, and gives them high self esteem. This is all a fear of obligation. A fear the we have broke, as Lewis calls it, the Law of Nature. In Lewis' Case For Chrsitianity he lays it out that there is a truth in existence and since you exist in it you are responsible to abide by it. Of course this is just one of my ramblings on the nature of man's sin, but I cannot stress enough; there are such things as important questions and they must be regarded to have answers other than a relaxed dodging "maybe".
On a side note, the unimportant questions link up nicely to the important ones . . . . . like politics. If I get anything, I'll get insight.
4/13/2011
You Are The Bain . . .
A poem about my relationship with a certain Mr. Hayashida.
You are the bain, Sir H. of my life,
Conniving your plans is what I fear.
Claim this then the other, what I hear,
Maintaining a witches brew for strife.
Welcome your mind, (insanity rife),
An action most undoubtedly queer.
For I do say you are wrong about life,
Then only hear a returning cheer.
So I of right mind will bear this strife,
And you Sir H. have made it quite clear,
To say the un-thought and fuel our fear.
I've seen it before in my brief life,
Your mind I wish I could gut by knife.
Take it as honor, resounding cheer.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
You are the bain, Sir H. of my life,
Conniving your plans is what I fear.
Claim this then the other, what I hear,
Maintaining a witches brew for strife.
Welcome your mind, (insanity rife),
An action most undoubtedly queer.
For I do say you are wrong about life,
Then only hear a returning cheer.
So I of right mind will bear this strife,
And you Sir H. have made it quite clear,
To say the un-thought and fuel our fear.
I've seen it before in my brief life,
Your mind I wish I could gut by knife.
Take it as honor, resounding cheer.
By Evan Gunn Wilson
4/11/2011
John Buchan - Mountain Meadow
I am going to start posting quotes of John Buchan's from his novels. I find Buchan as one of the greatest writers produced as far in history. He always chooses the best words to communicate the simple idea of which many writers fall short. Reading his work is comparable to listening to a rhythmically great guitar riff, backed by strong drums and steady bass line on loop, with addition of guitar licks here and there. And so I post some quotes from his last novel, Mountain Meadow.
This first quote is plainly his and my admiration for the Scots. How superior they are to the Irish. Scotland forever.
This next quote pertains to my last to posts about dying standing up. If you must die (and you must) die boldly and nobly.
This first quote is plainly his and my admiration for the Scots. How superior they are to the Irish. Scotland forever.
'Leithen did not reply. There was a stubborn, sagacious dutifulness in that bullet head, that kindly Scots face. and those steadfast blue eyes which was beyond argument.'
This next quote pertains to my last to posts about dying standing up. If you must die (and you must) die boldly and nobly.
'"If I find Lew and his gun finds me, well, that's that. There is just the odd chance that I may persuade him to be reasonable and bring him back here, and that is a chance I'm bound to take. Don't you worry about me. for I tell you I'm taking the easiest way. Since I've got to die, I want to die standing."
Johnny held out his hand. "You got me beat, mister. Lew and myself ain't reckoned timid folk, but for real sand there's not your like on this darned continent."'
4/10/2011
Advice to the Lord's Mighty Warrior
Approach the life and gird thy frail heart,
With sorrow of countenance delight.
For the God of the dead has his true part,
And so from this death you cannot take flight.
But if you've left the former before might,
You'll say, "Oh death, where is thy fabled sting?"
Rightly so, for once thou were a great king.
A man will die upright, briskly standing,
Expired by wear and tear and not by rust.
As he accepts fate others demanding,
The right to life; ponder, "it is not just!"
A column, his God, by faith he bows to trust.
Have you seen the world happily die?
Believe in life to set thy soul aligh.
With sorrow of countenance delight.
For the God of the dead has his true part,
And so from this death you cannot take flight.
But if you've left the former before might,
You'll say, "Oh death, where is thy fabled sting?"
Rightly so, for once thou were a great king.
A man will die upright, briskly standing,
Expired by wear and tear and not by rust.
As he accepts fate others demanding,
The right to life; ponder, "it is not just!"
A column, his God, by faith he bows to trust.
Have you seen the world happily die?
Believe in life to set thy soul aligh.
4/09/2011
Dead Standing
This week I started reading John Buchan's last novel, Mountain Meadow. The plot is summed up about a successful man, Leithen who learns from his doctor that he may only have one year left to live due to his health. He was not discontented, but was dissatisfied with the idea of dying in a hospital bed surrounded by mournful family and friends. But quickly he is presented with a retrieve and return mission that would entail marching through the wilderness of Canada to find a man he did not even know. Buchan writes of the idea of dying standing up. Dying standing up? Is that even possible? In fiction it is literally possible, but in reality it is conceptually possible.
What is the attempt made of dying standing up as a concept? This is not what separates the men from the women, but more so the noble and honorable from the feeble and helpless. This is not to say that the latter descriptions are at all wrong; just not preferred. Buchan made it clear that Leithen was not scared of death; so we assume he is a futilitarian as he understood the simplest of principles of science and philosophies - what goes up, must come down. Another distinction is to be made here. Leithen was not having thoughts of jumping the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle, because that would be foolhardy, but mostly vainglorious. He did not want people to hear about his death and say, "cool!" He wanted them to say with solemn inflection, "That man was great." or "He was noble."
To what cause would it be to die standing up? Should this desire to die standing up even be on our minds; is it too prideful? I would argue that it is near impossible to take pride in this sentiment purely from its acknowledgment of death. Again, I return to futility as we are all but dust. There are different ways to die though. One: That the coward dies in the fetal position. Two: The clowns that dies spread eagle so that they are hard to fit into the coffin. You may see my point that these are inferior to dying standing up.
This is not a call to men that they should seek out all possible dangers so that they can die amidst it. Again, I say it lacks nobility and honor to do so. There is the soldier who just wants to shoot and kill, and then there is the soldier who loves his country. In other words, the person who has found enjoyment in his toil and would like to die doing it. Ending his life on a good note. To die doing what we love is such lovely thought that it waltzes into our brains and we don't even realize we hold it as preferable.
We must admit to ourselves that there are greater and lesser ways to die standing up. There is the farmer who may die while working in the field, and then there is Beowolf at the end of The Thirteenth Warrior who actually died physically sitting on his throne but conceptually died standing up. And how could we not honor such nobility.
In summation, we are not creating a bucket list of fun things to do, but sacrificing the very last minutes of your life to be a benefit to others.
What is the attempt made of dying standing up as a concept? This is not what separates the men from the women, but more so the noble and honorable from the feeble and helpless. This is not to say that the latter descriptions are at all wrong; just not preferred. Buchan made it clear that Leithen was not scared of death; so we assume he is a futilitarian as he understood the simplest of principles of science and philosophies - what goes up, must come down. Another distinction is to be made here. Leithen was not having thoughts of jumping the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle, because that would be foolhardy, but mostly vainglorious. He did not want people to hear about his death and say, "cool!" He wanted them to say with solemn inflection, "That man was great." or "He was noble."
To what cause would it be to die standing up? Should this desire to die standing up even be on our minds; is it too prideful? I would argue that it is near impossible to take pride in this sentiment purely from its acknowledgment of death. Again, I return to futility as we are all but dust. There are different ways to die though. One: That the coward dies in the fetal position. Two: The clowns that dies spread eagle so that they are hard to fit into the coffin. You may see my point that these are inferior to dying standing up.
This is not a call to men that they should seek out all possible dangers so that they can die amidst it. Again, I say it lacks nobility and honor to do so. There is the soldier who just wants to shoot and kill, and then there is the soldier who loves his country. In other words, the person who has found enjoyment in his toil and would like to die doing it. Ending his life on a good note. To die doing what we love is such lovely thought that it waltzes into our brains and we don't even realize we hold it as preferable.
We must admit to ourselves that there are greater and lesser ways to die standing up. There is the farmer who may die while working in the field, and then there is Beowolf at the end of The Thirteenth Warrior who actually died physically sitting on his throne but conceptually died standing up. And how could we not honor such nobility.
In summation, we are not creating a bucket list of fun things to do, but sacrificing the very last minutes of your life to be a benefit to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
