Friday, November 25, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Pending Post...
I'm going to post about God's sovereignty vs. human freewill, and all the fun things that topic entails, in a few days (probably after my midterms are over!). Be ready to comment! :-)
Monday, September 26, 2005
Which Liberty?
There is an interesting discussion going on in my history class; I would like to share a discussion post I wrote and see what you think. It is about the dilemma of liberty that Protestant societies faced during the early part of the Puritan colonization--a dilemma which still applies today, I think.
"The dilemma at the heart of every pefect Protestant society is the balance between liberty and justice.
"This is a really tough subject to tackle, and the fact that so many Puritan thinkers spent a lot of time on the very same thing proves that they thought so too. The line between restricted liberty and unrestricted liberty is a very fine one, and both have their pros and cons.
"Restricted liberty: Restricted liberty means that societal peace is more easily attained. The rules are clearly laid out and there are certain things that one cannot do. This is what Plymouth was like. However, the question arises: is this liberty at all? Whose restrictions are right? I firmly believe, of course, that God's "restrictions" are what makes true liberty, but non-Christians don't believe that. Is it right to force them to live under a Christian society, even against their will? Granted, it would be a great improvement to our society, but is it ethical? I'm not sure. Part of me--much of me--would like to say that it is, but it would take a great deal of study and prayer before I made a firm decision in that regard.
"Unrestricted liberty--The United States of today is at least a close approximation of this...anything not actually criminal is allowed (interesting that those "restrictions" still apply, though, isn't it? Even in a society that is supposedly completely free--free in the 'I can do whatever I want' way--much of the Biblical laws are still in effect). Any religious belief can be held. Anne Hutchinson could walk around a free lady in modern America. But the cons of this policy are obvious...it has created the morally degraded society we live in today.
"Of course, the above difficulty presents itself, but certainly one cannot sit passively and watch America destroy itself without doing something.
"But I don't think John Winthrop's solution is necessarily the right one. Simply changing the outer framework of the way our laws and goverment work is not enough; it could never be maintained by sheer force against an unwilling population.
"The key, I believe, is in men's hearts. Change them by God's power and the exercise of liberty simply means having the freedom to search God's truth and, if you come to a slightly different conclusion than the main body of the church, you do not have to run for your life. Of course, this would inevitably result in heresy eventually, and that is the price of a sinful world. Of course, whether or not those heretics could be forcibly expelled is another matter entirely. (Dilemma indeed! This is tough! ) But that, of course, is a problem that will continue to present itself--and which must be continually fought against--until God begins the redeeming process that leads to the Second Coming. At that point, we won't have to worry about heretics anymore. "
Your thoughts? :-)
P.S. Unrestricted liberty has not created the degraded society we live in today; I misworded that. It has allowed it to take place. (Not that a monarchy or dictatorship or anarchy wouldn't also lead to degradation...like I said, it's a difficult dilemma.)
~Connor
"The dilemma at the heart of every pefect Protestant society is the balance between liberty and justice.
"This is a really tough subject to tackle, and the fact that so many Puritan thinkers spent a lot of time on the very same thing proves that they thought so too. The line between restricted liberty and unrestricted liberty is a very fine one, and both have their pros and cons.
"Restricted liberty: Restricted liberty means that societal peace is more easily attained. The rules are clearly laid out and there are certain things that one cannot do. This is what Plymouth was like. However, the question arises: is this liberty at all? Whose restrictions are right? I firmly believe, of course, that God's "restrictions" are what makes true liberty, but non-Christians don't believe that. Is it right to force them to live under a Christian society, even against their will? Granted, it would be a great improvement to our society, but is it ethical? I'm not sure. Part of me--much of me--would like to say that it is, but it would take a great deal of study and prayer before I made a firm decision in that regard.
"Unrestricted liberty--The United States of today is at least a close approximation of this...anything not actually criminal is allowed (interesting that those "restrictions" still apply, though, isn't it? Even in a society that is supposedly completely free--free in the 'I can do whatever I want' way--much of the Biblical laws are still in effect). Any religious belief can be held. Anne Hutchinson could walk around a free lady in modern America. But the cons of this policy are obvious...it has created the morally degraded society we live in today.
"Of course, the above difficulty presents itself, but certainly one cannot sit passively and watch America destroy itself without doing something.
"But I don't think John Winthrop's solution is necessarily the right one. Simply changing the outer framework of the way our laws and goverment work is not enough; it could never be maintained by sheer force against an unwilling population.
"The key, I believe, is in men's hearts. Change them by God's power and the exercise of liberty simply means having the freedom to search God's truth and, if you come to a slightly different conclusion than the main body of the church, you do not have to run for your life. Of course, this would inevitably result in heresy eventually, and that is the price of a sinful world. Of course, whether or not those heretics could be forcibly expelled is another matter entirely. (Dilemma indeed! This is tough! ) But that, of course, is a problem that will continue to present itself--and which must be continually fought against--until God begins the redeeming process that leads to the Second Coming. At that point, we won't have to worry about heretics anymore. "
Your thoughts? :-)
P.S. Unrestricted liberty has not created the degraded society we live in today; I misworded that. It has allowed it to take place. (Not that a monarchy or dictatorship or anarchy wouldn't also lead to degradation...like I said, it's a difficult dilemma.)
~Connor
Sunday, September 25, 2005
New Look
So, I finally changed the look around. This one is very sunny and cheery...quite a contrast from my Xanga. :-) A good contrast never hurt.
I really should do a new post here sometime...maybe next weekend or something, eh? Farwell, friends!
~Connor
I really should do a new post here sometime...maybe next weekend or something, eh? Farwell, friends!
~Connor
Saturday, August 06, 2005
The Meaning and Purpose of Life
Finally...sorry, I didn't get to this until tonight. I remind myself to work on it, get caught up in my novel writing, and then have to go to bed. Forgive me. I hope the content makes up for my tardiness.
So--it is difficult to deal with a topic that has absorbed philosophers from Heraclitus to Derrida in one blog post. But I shall try my best.
First, in order to provide a solid foundation on which to build all my other arguments or statements, I will quote to sources--the Bible and the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
From Genesis 1:26, KJV--"And God said, 'Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
From the Westminster Shorter Catechism--"What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever."
These two quotations represent the pith and marrow of this post's topic.
Man is made in the image of God. That means he thinks, he loves, he makes decision and moral judgments. He invents and plans ahead and develops technology. Man is without doubt the intellectual pinnacle of creation. He is a creature of unsurpassed development, and though one searched to the depths of the sea or the peak of the highest mountain, no other living thing could be found to match him. Indeed, man rules over all other living things. If there are other intelligences in the universe (which I doubt, but that is for another post...), they would immediately see in mankind the dominant species of the world.
But there must be some purpose to all this. Man is made in the image of God, he has a soul--but why? It cannot simply be to dominate animals. The husbandry of nature is a worthy--and oft abused--goal, but it does not satisfy on all levels.
The answer is simple. "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." That is why we were created. In His infinite wisdom God gave His image to man so that man would glorify Him and recognize His power and the glory and wisdom, which are beyond full recognition. In everything we do, we are to glorify God.
But what meaning does that have? What does it mean to glorify God? It means a multitude of things, but there is one very amazing application that I particularly like. I am deeply touched by incidents where someone risks or lays down his life to save someone else. Jesus, of course, gave the ultimate example of this, but there are many others. However, in our modern, self-centered culture, the notion of "looking out for Number 1" is prevalent. Often men and women are more inclined to save themselves than someone else. Of course it is not universally the case--there are thousands upon thousands whose incredible sacrifices would send chills down anyone's spine--but still, these values are being questioned. And why? Because we have forgotten what to live for. The reason the thought of a man saving a drowning child, even though it means he himself will drown as a cause of it, is inspiring to us--is something we would wish to imitate in the same situation--is simply because it is right. And it is right because God commands it. And doing what God commands brings glory to Him.
That is the center of all things. Man was created to glorify God and obey God's commands. Thus, whether one is called to witness to the tribes in Borneo, to write novels with a Christian worldview, or to own and operate a cannery in the local village, the call is the same: glorify God. A missionary is no more holy than a sales representative.
I could go on, but it is late and I should be getting to bed before long. Bushman, I hope this post has been helpful to you! If you have questions, comments, or criticisms to make, the Musing Protestant is ready. Who knows, maybe you will inspire me to write another post, thereby breaking a record for the shortest length of time between posts. ;-)
God bless you all,
~Connor
So--it is difficult to deal with a topic that has absorbed philosophers from Heraclitus to Derrida in one blog post. But I shall try my best.
First, in order to provide a solid foundation on which to build all my other arguments or statements, I will quote to sources--the Bible and the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
From Genesis 1:26, KJV--"And God said, 'Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
From the Westminster Shorter Catechism--"What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever."
These two quotations represent the pith and marrow of this post's topic.
Man is made in the image of God. That means he thinks, he loves, he makes decision and moral judgments. He invents and plans ahead and develops technology. Man is without doubt the intellectual pinnacle of creation. He is a creature of unsurpassed development, and though one searched to the depths of the sea or the peak of the highest mountain, no other living thing could be found to match him. Indeed, man rules over all other living things. If there are other intelligences in the universe (which I doubt, but that is for another post...), they would immediately see in mankind the dominant species of the world.
But there must be some purpose to all this. Man is made in the image of God, he has a soul--but why? It cannot simply be to dominate animals. The husbandry of nature is a worthy--and oft abused--goal, but it does not satisfy on all levels.
The answer is simple. "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." That is why we were created. In His infinite wisdom God gave His image to man so that man would glorify Him and recognize His power and the glory and wisdom, which are beyond full recognition. In everything we do, we are to glorify God.
But what meaning does that have? What does it mean to glorify God? It means a multitude of things, but there is one very amazing application that I particularly like. I am deeply touched by incidents where someone risks or lays down his life to save someone else. Jesus, of course, gave the ultimate example of this, but there are many others. However, in our modern, self-centered culture, the notion of "looking out for Number 1" is prevalent. Often men and women are more inclined to save themselves than someone else. Of course it is not universally the case--there are thousands upon thousands whose incredible sacrifices would send chills down anyone's spine--but still, these values are being questioned. And why? Because we have forgotten what to live for. The reason the thought of a man saving a drowning child, even though it means he himself will drown as a cause of it, is inspiring to us--is something we would wish to imitate in the same situation--is simply because it is right. And it is right because God commands it. And doing what God commands brings glory to Him.
That is the center of all things. Man was created to glorify God and obey God's commands. Thus, whether one is called to witness to the tribes in Borneo, to write novels with a Christian worldview, or to own and operate a cannery in the local village, the call is the same: glorify God. A missionary is no more holy than a sales representative.
I could go on, but it is late and I should be getting to bed before long. Bushman, I hope this post has been helpful to you! If you have questions, comments, or criticisms to make, the Musing Protestant is ready. Who knows, maybe you will inspire me to write another post, thereby breaking a record for the shortest length of time between posts. ;-)
God bless you all,
~Connor
Friday, August 05, 2005
Sorry!
Bushman, I'm sorry, I've been tardy...I really will work on that post tonight! Don't give up on me. :-) Please forgive me for taking so long. It has entered my mind several times, but I never got around to beginning. Tonight I will for certain.
~Connor
~Connor
Sunday, June 12, 2005
The Modern Advertising System
The ever-musing Protestant is back, after his all too long absence. And he's ready for action. :-)
I'm sure you have, while innocently watching your TV, come across an advertisement whose scenario (not exact words) and intended viewer response go something like this:
This is Joey. He has a hot girlfriend. (Boy! She is nice...wish I could have a girlfriend like that.) Joey drinks an awesome, cool, refreshing brand of beer. (So?) This is the reason he has such a hot girlfriend. (Oh!) You can drink this same awesome, cool, refreshing brand of beer too, and for an affordable price! Then you can be just like Joey. Try it, you'll never regret it...and think about that girlfriend... (I say...not a bad idea! There's a 7-11 a couple blocks down, isn't there? I'm sure they sell that kind of beer there...)
And so on. The system has an almost infinite amount of variations, and sometimes appeals to different appetites (humor, toughness, freedom from "the rules," etc.), but as a general rule this is the basic pattern which modern advertising follows, right? I'm happy to accept disagreement here, you know...:-)
But, supposing for the moment that everyone agrees with me, let us consider: what is this system, exactly? What is it appealing to, and why does it work?
This system appeals almost invariably to the passions, emotions, and desires. Whether that be having a hot girlfriend or building up your biceps or going to the mall and looking good in front of your friends depends mainly on the type of product being sold and the audience at which it is directed. These advertisements dangle before their viewers some particular end, usually to an excess, which they know that most viewers want to some degree, and then tout their product, whether explicitly or implicitly, as a means to that end. The advertisers are really making the incredible claim of being able to satisfy man's greatest temporal desires--a happy marriage; an easy, untroubled life; and so on--with their product.
The strange thing is, these "hooks," so to speak, with which customers are fished for, more often than not have absolutely nothing at all to do with the product being sold. A large percentage of men in this country drink beer, but not all of them have hot girlfriends. Thousands of people own Volkswagen Touaregs and BMW Z-4s, and yet don't zoom down beautiful country roads with a trophy wife at their elbow. So why use this advertising system? Why offer people things which the product can't provide?
The simplest answer to that question is the kind of people our modern culture has produced. We (and I use this as an only semi-inclusive term which doesn't signify everyone in the world; I mainly mean the modern culture of the unsaved, though Christians aren't automatically immune from it themselves) have largely let our desires run amok. Having rejected Christ, our culture searches in an endless, unsatisfactory quest for something foundational, and something touting the ability to provide that--a sort of God-substitute, if you will--must have a powerful pull on people stabbing about in the darkness of the void for something to hold on to. I want happiness in my life. To me that means being muscular, looking good to me friends, having a beautiful wife. The Audi A4 can give me that. I'll buy the Audi A4 and see what happens. Something like that.
So modern advertising only works because of the sort of society we live in. Throw at Thomas Jefferson and he would give two or three hours of blazing rhetoric for every two minutes of commercial time. But throw it at someone nowadays and you get...the world of modern advertising, and modern sales.
What is the solution? Advertisers need to get real and provide us with some deliciously refreshing logical arguments as to why something is useful and should be bought. I'm not against humor in an advertisement. Certainly I wouldn't be one to be against humor! :-) But please, throw in a little how and why with the advertisement. For example: "You should buy X car because it gets superior gas mileage, is fast, reliable, handles well, looks nice, and can be bought at a reasonable price." Throw out the trophy wife; that is using a rubber worm to catch the fish. It won't satisfy. Only the truth will satisfy anyone--anything more is heresy or a vicious cycle of disappointment.
Thoughts, my friends? ;-)
~Connor, the musing Protestant
Side Note: I should mention that I myself almost never watch TV at all. Only on vacation, during elections or other important events, and at the homes of some people whom I know or to whom I am related do I normally watch TV.
I'm sure you have, while innocently watching your TV, come across an advertisement whose scenario (not exact words) and intended viewer response go something like this:
This is Joey. He has a hot girlfriend. (Boy! She is nice...wish I could have a girlfriend like that.) Joey drinks an awesome, cool, refreshing brand of beer. (So?) This is the reason he has such a hot girlfriend. (Oh!) You can drink this same awesome, cool, refreshing brand of beer too, and for an affordable price! Then you can be just like Joey. Try it, you'll never regret it...and think about that girlfriend... (I say...not a bad idea! There's a 7-11 a couple blocks down, isn't there? I'm sure they sell that kind of beer there...)
And so on. The system has an almost infinite amount of variations, and sometimes appeals to different appetites (humor, toughness, freedom from "the rules," etc.), but as a general rule this is the basic pattern which modern advertising follows, right? I'm happy to accept disagreement here, you know...:-)
But, supposing for the moment that everyone agrees with me, let us consider: what is this system, exactly? What is it appealing to, and why does it work?
This system appeals almost invariably to the passions, emotions, and desires. Whether that be having a hot girlfriend or building up your biceps or going to the mall and looking good in front of your friends depends mainly on the type of product being sold and the audience at which it is directed. These advertisements dangle before their viewers some particular end, usually to an excess, which they know that most viewers want to some degree, and then tout their product, whether explicitly or implicitly, as a means to that end. The advertisers are really making the incredible claim of being able to satisfy man's greatest temporal desires--a happy marriage; an easy, untroubled life; and so on--with their product.
The strange thing is, these "hooks," so to speak, with which customers are fished for, more often than not have absolutely nothing at all to do with the product being sold. A large percentage of men in this country drink beer, but not all of them have hot girlfriends. Thousands of people own Volkswagen Touaregs and BMW Z-4s, and yet don't zoom down beautiful country roads with a trophy wife at their elbow. So why use this advertising system? Why offer people things which the product can't provide?
The simplest answer to that question is the kind of people our modern culture has produced. We (and I use this as an only semi-inclusive term which doesn't signify everyone in the world; I mainly mean the modern culture of the unsaved, though Christians aren't automatically immune from it themselves) have largely let our desires run amok. Having rejected Christ, our culture searches in an endless, unsatisfactory quest for something foundational, and something touting the ability to provide that--a sort of God-substitute, if you will--must have a powerful pull on people stabbing about in the darkness of the void for something to hold on to. I want happiness in my life. To me that means being muscular, looking good to me friends, having a beautiful wife. The Audi A4 can give me that. I'll buy the Audi A4 and see what happens. Something like that.
So modern advertising only works because of the sort of society we live in. Throw at Thomas Jefferson and he would give two or three hours of blazing rhetoric for every two minutes of commercial time. But throw it at someone nowadays and you get...the world of modern advertising, and modern sales.
What is the solution? Advertisers need to get real and provide us with some deliciously refreshing logical arguments as to why something is useful and should be bought. I'm not against humor in an advertisement. Certainly I wouldn't be one to be against humor! :-) But please, throw in a little how and why with the advertisement. For example: "You should buy X car because it gets superior gas mileage, is fast, reliable, handles well, looks nice, and can be bought at a reasonable price." Throw out the trophy wife; that is using a rubber worm to catch the fish. It won't satisfy. Only the truth will satisfy anyone--anything more is heresy or a vicious cycle of disappointment.
Thoughts, my friends? ;-)
~Connor, the musing Protestant
Side Note: I should mention that I myself almost never watch TV at all. Only on vacation, during elections or other important events, and at the homes of some people whom I know or to whom I am related do I normally watch TV.
Friday, April 29, 2005
I am Alive
Aaaaaaahhhhh! I'm terrible. Jeremy, thank you for your reminder! I can't post a full entry just now, but this is a reminder to let everyone know that I do still plan to update this site, and will make sure I actually do so in the next couple of days. It's going to be about Modern Advertising, I think, so that should be interesting, even if most of you agree with me. :-) So, until then...
God bless you,
~Connor
God bless you,
~Connor
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The Passion of the Christ: Jesus on the Silver Screen
Well, it has been a while, hasn't it? I apologize for my tremendous hiatus; school has been going full blast, and in my spare time other things have taken precedence over blogs. This post may not be especially long, but I hope it provides enough food for thought to make up for the recent ness of this site.
I was pondering today on what to post, and Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster film concerning the final hours of Jesus' earthly life came to mind. I have not seen this movie, and I don't think I intend to, either: I believe it was considered at one point to rate it NC-17 (formerly known as X) for violence. It managed an R. However, I think that I know enough about the events it describes to be in a position to make comments on it, at least from the angle of this post.
Now, I don't think that it would be in any way a sin to watch this , o long as one is mature enough to handle the incredibly intense nature of the material. (Don't take your eight year-old daughter to this one.) My older brother has seen it; I know of other friends who have watched or plan to watch it. That's fine. I wonder, however, about the merits of Mr. Gibson actually producing such a film.
I actually consider it rather presumptious of a man who thinks that he can truly depict the agony of Christ's suffering, or who thinks that it is even necessary to do so. Mr. Gibson is a Catholic, and from the Catholic perspective the crucifixion is somehow relived, day after day, in the mass. Thus, a graphic representation of the Passion, with only a scant touching on the Resurrection afterward, is actually in keeping with his faith. That is why Catholic churches have crucifixes--crosses with the image of Christ still on them--rather than Protestant crosses, which are empty. The Catholic perspective is that the crucifixion is still going on somehow--the Christ if being re-punished every time the mass is said. Protestants believe that the crucifixion was final. Our sins were taken away at a particular point in time around 33 A.D. After that, Jesus arose from the grave! He sits at the right hand of God enthroned in glory, interceding on the behalf of the elect. We don't need to dwell on the Passion. We ought to be thinking more about the glory that came--and is still coming, just as strongly--after it.
But it isn't merely the intent of the movie that bothers me. The most suspect part about it to me is the fact that an actor (James Caviezel--age 33, initials JC) was portraying our Lord and Savior on screen. Is this right? I'm not sure. It is one thing to repeat the words of Jesus in, say, a dramatic reading, but acting in a play or on screen seems different. Actors never pretend to really be the parts they are playing, so Mr. Caviezel was not committing outright blasphemy, but the role of Christ in film seems rather sacrosanct to me. It would sound rather weird to me if someone was taking parts in a play, and said, "Ok, so who wants to play God?" This seems like the same thing.
Does that sound odd to everyone else?
Bye for now! I'll try to make my hiatus a little less--er--extended next time.
~Connor
I was pondering today on what to post, and Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster film concerning the final hours of Jesus' earthly life came to mind. I have not seen this movie, and I don't think I intend to, either: I believe it was considered at one point to rate it NC-17 (formerly known as X) for violence. It managed an R. However, I think that I know enough about the events it describes to be in a position to make comments on it, at least from the angle of this post.
Now, I don't think that it would be in any way a sin to watch this , o long as one is mature enough to handle the incredibly intense nature of the material. (Don't take your eight year-old daughter to this one.) My older brother has seen it; I know of other friends who have watched or plan to watch it. That's fine. I wonder, however, about the merits of Mr. Gibson actually producing such a film.
I actually consider it rather presumptious of a man who thinks that he can truly depict the agony of Christ's suffering, or who thinks that it is even necessary to do so. Mr. Gibson is a Catholic, and from the Catholic perspective the crucifixion is somehow relived, day after day, in the mass. Thus, a graphic representation of the Passion, with only a scant touching on the Resurrection afterward, is actually in keeping with his faith. That is why Catholic churches have crucifixes--crosses with the image of Christ still on them--rather than Protestant crosses, which are empty. The Catholic perspective is that the crucifixion is still going on somehow--the Christ if being re-punished every time the mass is said. Protestants believe that the crucifixion was final. Our sins were taken away at a particular point in time around 33 A.D. After that, Jesus arose from the grave! He sits at the right hand of God enthroned in glory, interceding on the behalf of the elect. We don't need to dwell on the Passion. We ought to be thinking more about the glory that came--and is still coming, just as strongly--after it.
But it isn't merely the intent of the movie that bothers me. The most suspect part about it to me is the fact that an actor (James Caviezel--age 33, initials JC) was portraying our Lord and Savior on screen. Is this right? I'm not sure. It is one thing to repeat the words of Jesus in, say, a dramatic reading, but acting in a play or on screen seems different. Actors never pretend to really be the parts they are playing, so Mr. Caviezel was not committing outright blasphemy, but the role of Christ in film seems rather sacrosanct to me. It would sound rather weird to me if someone was taking parts in a play, and said, "Ok, so who wants to play God?" This seems like the same thing.
Does that sound odd to everyone else?
Bye for now! I'll try to make my hiatus a little less--er--extended next time.
~Connor
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Innocence or Inconvenience?
Hello all! Thanks to everyone who posted a comment; I hadn't expected quite so big a readership in so little time!
***Warning: contains spoilers of The Village and The Last Samurai***
There are two films which I very much enjoy, along with a host of others--The Village, and The Last Samurai. Now, neither one of these films has much in common with the other. The Last Samurai is about Nathan Algren, an American cavalry captain who comes to Japan in the later half of the 19th Century to fight against the Samurai, who believe that a swiftly-modernizing Japan is changing too quickly, and forgetting its heritage. Nathan is captured by the Samurai in a disastrous battle. During his captivity there, he comes to love the culture, ideals, and honor of the very people he has come to fight, and in the end he joins their side.
The Village is a wonderful, poignant, brilliantly-made movie about pure, chaste love, set in the context of a lonely village in the middle of the Pennsylvania countryside. The inhabitants of the village do not depart from the borders they have set for themselves, because they fear that if they go through the woods which surround them they will meet certain fearsome creatures, "Those we don't speak of," as they call them, whom their village elders have told them about. Ivy Walker then travels through these very woods, driven by her love of Lucius Hunt to find medicine to heal his injuries.
Not much in common, right? Well, no, not as far as plots go. But there is one thing that these two films share. Both of them focus on--and praise--societies which are simple, moral (one is Buddhist, but they do hold to a strict code of honor and religious devotion) and primitive in comparison to our society today. The people of the Village are living (or think they are living) in the 19th Century, but their culture is somewhat more timeless than that; their dress code and manner of speaking harkens back to the 18th Century, and the innocence they hold dear is timeless. The culture of the Samurai has hardly changed (in the film) since about a thousand years previously (read 876 A.D.).
The culture we live in today is drastically different from these. Astonishing technological advancements have made life easier to lead. With e-mail we can communicate from Oregon to Mozambique in a matter of seconds. With cars and airplanes, the world has become "smaller" as journeys have become shorter and less arduous. Weapons have become so complex and lethal that we are terrified by war on a large scale. The introduction of television has brought its own unique problems. We have transformed ourselves into an instant, momentary culture, inhabited by pleasure-seeking, "me first" individuals.
But these technological advancements have pros as well as cons. Even the so-called "poor" in Western nations have access to more goods and better hygiene than the richest emperors of one or two thousand years ago, and their levels of comfort and security are infinitely greater. Natural disasters can now be met with billions upon billions of dollars in government aid. Interconnected governments and transportation facilities allow food and water to be transported to needy people.
Which society, then, is better? Do you prefer a fast-paced, metropolized society of freeways and traintracks and nuclear weapons where all food must past the FDA and water is strained through purification systems before entering any household? Or do you prefer a society like those in The Village or The Last Samurai, where honor, innocence, and morality are preserved, at the expense of technology? I'm not saying that such a society is producible in its entirety in the real world; but with all of our advancements, have we made it harder for the Christian witness to be heard, or for God-glorifying innocence to be preserved?
I'm not really sure on all this, I'm just asking all of you. Was our modern age inevitable; should we press on to greater heights of technology? Or should we prize that innocence and morality? I'm not advocating that we destroy all of our computers and refrigerators and live in the Dark Ages. It isn't our modern trappings that we should be worried about (worried about as much, anyway), but our culture and our mindset. We need to bring back the love of things pure and beautiful. We need to pause in our swirl of gears and pistons and remind ourselves that God made the world wonderful. He gave us emotions and wonder and fascination. He gave us friendship and love, and laughter, and the ability to be noble.
What thinkest thou?
~Connor
***Warning: contains spoilers of The Village and The Last Samurai***
There are two films which I very much enjoy, along with a host of others--The Village, and The Last Samurai. Now, neither one of these films has much in common with the other. The Last Samurai is about Nathan Algren, an American cavalry captain who comes to Japan in the later half of the 19th Century to fight against the Samurai, who believe that a swiftly-modernizing Japan is changing too quickly, and forgetting its heritage. Nathan is captured by the Samurai in a disastrous battle. During his captivity there, he comes to love the culture, ideals, and honor of the very people he has come to fight, and in the end he joins their side.
The Village is a wonderful, poignant, brilliantly-made movie about pure, chaste love, set in the context of a lonely village in the middle of the Pennsylvania countryside. The inhabitants of the village do not depart from the borders they have set for themselves, because they fear that if they go through the woods which surround them they will meet certain fearsome creatures, "Those we don't speak of," as they call them, whom their village elders have told them about. Ivy Walker then travels through these very woods, driven by her love of Lucius Hunt to find medicine to heal his injuries.
Not much in common, right? Well, no, not as far as plots go. But there is one thing that these two films share. Both of them focus on--and praise--societies which are simple, moral (one is Buddhist, but they do hold to a strict code of honor and religious devotion) and primitive in comparison to our society today. The people of the Village are living (or think they are living) in the 19th Century, but their culture is somewhat more timeless than that; their dress code and manner of speaking harkens back to the 18th Century, and the innocence they hold dear is timeless. The culture of the Samurai has hardly changed (in the film) since about a thousand years previously (read 876 A.D.).
The culture we live in today is drastically different from these. Astonishing technological advancements have made life easier to lead. With e-mail we can communicate from Oregon to Mozambique in a matter of seconds. With cars and airplanes, the world has become "smaller" as journeys have become shorter and less arduous. Weapons have become so complex and lethal that we are terrified by war on a large scale. The introduction of television has brought its own unique problems. We have transformed ourselves into an instant, momentary culture, inhabited by pleasure-seeking, "me first" individuals.
But these technological advancements have pros as well as cons. Even the so-called "poor" in Western nations have access to more goods and better hygiene than the richest emperors of one or two thousand years ago, and their levels of comfort and security are infinitely greater. Natural disasters can now be met with billions upon billions of dollars in government aid. Interconnected governments and transportation facilities allow food and water to be transported to needy people.
Which society, then, is better? Do you prefer a fast-paced, metropolized society of freeways and traintracks and nuclear weapons where all food must past the FDA and water is strained through purification systems before entering any household? Or do you prefer a society like those in The Village or The Last Samurai, where honor, innocence, and morality are preserved, at the expense of technology? I'm not saying that such a society is producible in its entirety in the real world; but with all of our advancements, have we made it harder for the Christian witness to be heard, or for God-glorifying innocence to be preserved?
I'm not really sure on all this, I'm just asking all of you. Was our modern age inevitable; should we press on to greater heights of technology? Or should we prize that innocence and morality? I'm not advocating that we destroy all of our computers and refrigerators and live in the Dark Ages. It isn't our modern trappings that we should be worried about (worried about as much, anyway), but our culture and our mindset. We need to bring back the love of things pure and beautiful. We need to pause in our swirl of gears and pistons and remind ourselves that God made the world wonderful. He gave us emotions and wonder and fascination. He gave us friendship and love, and laughter, and the ability to be noble.
What thinkest thou?
~Connor
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Welcome to the Musings of Your Friendly Neighborhood Protestant
Hello! My name is Connor Hamilton, but since most of you who will be reading this already know that, I suppose there is no need to go much further into who I am. If you do not know me, and wish to find out more, then ask, and I'll be happy to tell you. :-)
I'm no stranger to blogs; I have a Xanga site, which will be (for the most part) devoted to posting of a less serious nature, although humor shall, I hope, be an integral part of this site. What would the world be without humor, anyway?
Here, however, I shall post theological and philosophical thoughts, and any other stuff that I feel like posting here! That is the fun of blogs, you know.
So, I hope to attract many friends here, and have many lively and interesting discussions with you all.
But I must devote time to school, as well as theology and philosophy and all the other cool things in life. Which means that I must get up early, which means that I must consequently go to bed early. Which means I must get off. So long, everyone!
~Connor
I'm no stranger to blogs; I have a Xanga site, which will be (for the most part) devoted to posting of a less serious nature, although humor shall, I hope, be an integral part of this site. What would the world be without humor, anyway?
Here, however, I shall post theological and philosophical thoughts, and any other stuff that I feel like posting here! That is the fun of blogs, you know.
So, I hope to attract many friends here, and have many lively and interesting discussions with you all.
But I must devote time to school, as well as theology and philosophy and all the other cool things in life. Which means that I must get up early, which means that I must consequently go to bed early. Which means I must get off. So long, everyone!
~Connor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
