Reflections on the Torah

So, this first semester in Torrey we read through the Pentateuch. And to quickly summarize my thoughts.

1) My whole conception of the first five books of the bible before this trip through the actual books was dominated by the Creation account (2 Chapters) and the ten commandments as stated in Exodus 20. I didn't even know that Balaam was in Numbers! I always thought he was in Kings!

2) I often wondered how people survived on just the OT for so many hundreds and even thousands of years. After reading through the first five books, I guess I could summarized it by saying, "Wow! There's SOOO much stuff in here!"

3) God in the OT is often stereotyped as mean, vindictive, judgmental, and harsh. Reading through the Five, I'm pretty much pat convinced that this stereotype is pretty false. The God of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.

4) Which brings me to my fourth observation, the Israelites are IDIOTS, but I'm sooo much like them. Case in point:

This thanksgiving weekend I was visiting my old elementary school and I passed by a tree. It wasn't any old tree, there was a plaque under it "September 11, 2001 - We will never forget". Flashback to when I was 9, I remember watching my teachers and my principal (at the time) planting that tree. I remember where I was during that day. But to be totally honest, I've forgotten much. The event, though huge and traumatic, has truly been pushed to the back of my mind. Could it not be the same with the parting of the Red Sea, or the Wonders of the Wilderness?

(Cummins is in the room right now and for about 5 minutes he convinced me that his skin was like superman's and he's never bled in his life. Darn. I'm gullible. =P) (We ended up talking till 2:00 am about Loving God rightly, the commandments, the Sabbath, faces, authenticity, personhood in Christ)

All in all, the Scriptures are beautiful, and in them is life. Christ is, after all, the Word.

Halfway through Martin Luther...

I feel pretty lost in a forest of terms, concepts, definitions, and ideas.

Let's begin with the main question. The fact is, people still sin after they become Christians. (And I define becoming a Christian as when a person accepts Christ as their personal savior from sin and death) How then do we reconcile sin with the fact that we have been saved? I admit that we are not saved by anything but faith in Christ's work, that is, there is not a single action I have done or can do in order to gain eternal life, but I don't understand the seeming contradiction which after-salvation sin places before me. (Even excepting faith in Christ which is itself an action which "God effects in us" pg. 23).

Let me try that again. If I find myself still sinning after I have confessed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, does this mean that I am no longer saved? I know of some who get out of this by saying that once you're saved you're always saved, but that doesn't seem satisfactory because one has no objective way of knowing if one is saved. If good works are the concomitant effects of true faith in Christ, then does this mean that bad works (i.e. sin) are the concomitant effects of damnation?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, why all this continual purgation? Why can't God remove the possibility of sinning after I have willed to no longer sin?

I hope I haven't uttered anything heretical or blasphemous (though I'm afraid I probably have).

Help?

Under the Mercy,
Gabriel

In Gratitude

"Through all this ordeal his root horror had been isolation, and there are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one. That is why in spite of a hundred disadvantages, the world will always return to monogamy."

-G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday

Wentworth is the diabolical counterpart of Dante. I shall have to read Descent into Hell again in light of this fact. Charles Williams makes so much more sense now.

After all of it, I do think that Dante got it right. "poi si torno a l'etterna fontana" She turned again to the eternal Spring.

"'Have I your permission?' said the Angel to the Ghost.
'I know it will kill me.'
'It won't. But supposing it did?'
'You're right. It would be better to be dead than to live with this creature.'
'Then I may?'
'Damn and blast you! Go on, can't you? Get it over. Do what you like,' bellowed the Ghost: but ended, whimpering, 'God help me. God help me.'" (The Great Divorce 110).

God is full of severe mercies.

Where did it all go?

Why is it that something begins and then when it ends it's so hard to re-apprehend the experience? For example, when I experience a beautiful piece of music it only stays with me for so long. The rightness, the goodness, that desire and ardor that is the stuff of rash vows --can it last? Perhaps this is what corresponds to "the death of Beatrice". In the Vita Nuova, Dante describes his experience and vision of Beatrice when he saw her for the first time. Fifteen years later, she died. And Dante goes on to write, "what has never been written in honor of a lady before". Romantic Theology...

Lewis is characteristically lucid:

"A romantic theologian does not mean one who is romantic about theology but one who is theological about romance, one who considers the theological implications of those experiences which are called romantic. The belief that the most serious and ecstatic experiences either of human love or of imaginative literature have such theological implications ,and that they can be healthy and fruitful only if the implications are diligently thought out and severly lived, is the root principle of all his [Charles William's] work" (Introduction to "Essays Presented to Charles Williams").

How do we stay true to the image of the beloved?

Whatever that image may be, nature (think Wordsworth), the city (Virgil), or a girl (Beatrice), or music (Bach? Rachmaninoff?) how do we affirm and love it in such a way that it is neither blasphemous nor destructive?

In short, how do we love rightly?

This is sort of the question I'm starting with for my paper. I'm pretty sure Dante can help me. =D But what he has to say isn't at all easy. At least for me, I don't think of this as just a paper, for me, what Dante is saying and how I interpret him has real and significant implications. Perhaps Dante is wrong and crazy, if not wickedly lustful...

I sure hope not.

"He who has ears let him hear, he who has eyes let him see."

"This is thou, this also is not thou."

"...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil..."

Esolen on Torrey Honors

Here's Dr. Fred Sander's review of Esolen's review.

Here's Esolen's review.

While we're on Esolen, here's Dr. Sander's notes on Dr. Esolen's lecture.

In Ecstacy

I just bought Taliessin through the Logres, The Region of the Summer Stars and the Arthurian Torso by Charles Williams.

Yup.

It's 1:00 something AM.

Here are my reasons:

1) Dante.

2) This oh-my-goodness-my-mind-just-got-blown-open-in-a-totally-good-way-by-Charles-Williams (He tends to do that) book.

3) This beautiful essay (I consider it one of my favorite essays alongside "The Weight of Glory").

4) This response to the essay above.

5) This random (or perhaps providential) review of Logres. "Gold" indeed.

6) And one more thing, if people are willing to spend upwards of $70 dollars for an Abercrombie and Fitch(TM) shirt, why can't I spend $55 dollars to buy a rare and beautiful book by one of my favorite authors?

Sigh. Of course, this means that I won't be buying any more books for a long time...then again, I do have that gift card I haven't used...but here's the thing: I promise that (unless it's for school) I will not buy another book for 3 months. Starting today. (So this ends April 29th...if I'm wrong please correct me) =]

Another thing, how do I express strong emotion without looking like a fool? Is being a fool necessarily a bad thing? (Or so Shakespeare would have me ask).

Currently, I am overwhelmed and more in love with Charles William's writing than I previously was. I only pray that his insights into the Christian life will lead me to love God like Dante did. "This also is thou; neither is this Thou".

But remember, dear reader, that Dante, Williams, and all of Western Civilization are but dust without Christ. "You can find Dante and miss Christ" Let us not be Gammaliels. Let us pray for one another, always.

O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.

Of Bibliophilia and Bookworms

I have found that many people kindly but still quite condescendingly laugh at my bookishness. Which got me to thinking, is there an inherent problem with reading too many books? What is the purpose of reading? And what of Plato's argument against it in the second half of Phaedrus? Therefore, kind readers, I entreat you to help me diagnose myself.

Here are some of my symptoms:

1) I have a 10-page-long wish list on Amazon.com (Still growing!).

2) I read more often then I exercise.

3) I read about as much as I sleep.

4) I feel odd ('naked') if I do not have a book in my hand or at least in close proximity to myself.

5) My ideal room would have all four walls lined with bookcases from floor to ceiling and a large, wide spacious desk and a comfy chair and automan. Well-lit.

6) My room is the library of my house.

7) My main expenditure is on Amazon (curse you shipping costs!).

8) Saying the word "D-A-N-T-E" in my presence will induce an assortment of reactions (depending on the context in which it is said):
a) An odd squeal (yes, like a piglet).
b) I'll fall to my knees and start yelling.
c) I'll get that mad glint in my eye that says "You'd better take that back!"
For example: When the inestimable Mr. Gross informed me that the Rodin sculpture known as "The Thinker" was, in fact, Rodin's sculpture of Dante, I did indeed fall to my knees and pump my fists skyward and yelled at the top of my lungs-directly underneath the Biola belltower. ....yeah.

9) This painting warms my heart.

10) I find that I have to exercise much self control in order to not buy this. They don't even have a picture of the thing! 50 some dollars! AHHHHH!

So, dear friends, be honest, how bad do I have it?

=D

Taking a Compliment

I'm not sure if I'm unique in this area or not. You see, whenever someone praises me for something I've done (genuine praise mind you, not flattery), I redden ever so slightly and mumble something like "erm...thanks" or "praiseGod" or even "no, no it was nothing". After which I shuffle off and try to hide from the next person who looks like they're going to say something nice to me.

Now it's laughable I admit, but I genuinely have trouble taking a compliment. The problem is intensified when someone I respect and hold in high regard praises me. Boy! It get's so bad, "oh, you're just saying that to be nice" etc. In fact, I've been told that I often come across as being falsely humble, which is just a small minded form of pride.

So, as always, Dante and Lewis have something amazing to say about this:

"And when the voice had ceased, and all was still,
I saw four mighty shades approaching us
with neither joy nor sadness in their eyes.

'Behold that shade whose right hand wields the sword,'
my worthy Teacher thus began to say,
'who comes before the others as their lord.

Homer the sovereign poet is that soul.
Horace the satirist comes after him,
Ovid comes third, and Lucan is the last.

...

So did I see united that sweet school
of the lord of the most exalted song
that like an eagle soars above the rest.

When they had talked together for a while
they turned to me, and beckoned me to come,
bringing a smile unto my Teacher's lips,

And greeted me, and honored me so well
that they included me among their band,
and made me sixth in that academy."

-Dante, Inferno, Canto Four

Keep in mind that when he writes this, he doesn't know for sure that 700 years from when he's writing he'll still be considered one of the greatest if not the greatest poet of all time. For anyone but Dante, this blatant self praise would be at best ridiculous and at worst falsely prideful. This is but the first of many instances throughout the Comedy where he basically praises himself. But he deserves it! But he's only in Canto Four! How does he have the guts (Even if he is DANTE) to compare himself with Virgil and Homer!

Dante is certainly worthy of the praise he gives himself, but how was he able to praise himself without sinning?

Contrast that passage with this one from Clement I:

"The humble person should not testify to his own humility, but leave it to someone else to testify about him. " -38:2

"Let a man be faithful, let him be able to expound knowledge, let him be wise in the interpretation of discourses, let him be energetic in deeds, let him be pure; for the greater he seems to be, the more he ought to be humble, and the more he ought to seek the common advantage of all, and not his own." -48:5-6

Dante fulfills all of these, but I'm not sure if he makes a mistake in praising himself, if he is praising himself.

In Purgatory, on the ring of the prideful where the penitent are stooped under huge boulders, Dante also stoops down in order to talk to them. In effect, he participates in the penitence. I think he does this two other times, but I shall have to re-read to be sure. The fact is though, that he knew he had leanings toward being pride ful and yet he included himself in the "Academy". Can a virtuous man praise himself?

Now that I think of it, Paul does the same thing:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=follow%20my%20example%20&version1=49&searchtype=all&spanbegin=52&spanend=73

But I'm not Paul or Dante, how should I take a compliment?

Here's one from Lewis:

"I suddenly remembered that no one can enter heaven except as a child; and nothing is so obvious in a child - not in a conceited child, but in a good child - as its great and undisguised pleasure in being praised...Apparently what I had mistaken for humility had, all these years, prevented me from understanding what is in fact the humblest, the most childlike, the most creaturely of pleasures - nay, the specific pleasure of the inferior: the pleasure of a beast before men, a child before its fathe, a pupil before his teacher, a creature before its Creator. I am not forgetting how horribly this most innocent desire is parodied in our human ambitions, or how very quickly, in my own experience, the lawful pleasure of praise from those whom it was my duty to please turns into the deadly poison of self-admiration. But I thought I could detect a moment - a very, very short moment - before this happened, during which the satisfaction of having pleased those whom I rightly loved and rightly feared was pure."

-C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

I do feel much much pleasure when I am complimented (or as MKR would say, "my ego is stroked" ) But try as I might, I rarely am able to hold on to that first moment of pure satisfaction of having pleased another soul. Which sends me careening to the other extreme of trying to reject praise, which is a problem.

So the question is, how does one take a compliment in a way that glorifies God and allows one to rightly take joy in having pleased someone by good action?

Perhaps I am being too anxious...

Steinways, Steiner, Esolen, Plato, Dante, and Phillipians

How are they all connected? Well they've all been in my day today!

Annabelle is getting a lovely tune up. =] Is exceptionally beautiful. And there was nothing wrong with the action, it was just that my bench was not at the right height and distance and I was killing my wrist trying to play with bad posture. James is getting tuned too. =]

It's funny how things connect because I'm going for my second time through Divine Commedy, this time with Esolen as my guide and translator. And his introduction starts right off with the Phaedrus!!! I was pretty much ecstatic for an hour before I could calm down enough to read on! =] What are the chances that Phaedrus was the Wheatstone text and that Esolen had it in mind when he wrote his intro back in 2001? God is good is he not? And the thing is that Esolen thinks Dante totally agrees with Plato's view of the goal of human life. You shall have to read the intro to Inferno or ask me about it in person, its too amazing for a post!!!

Okay and George Steiner who was this amazingly smart person. And I'm reading through his book Errata and I came across this amazing passage:

"I define a 'classic,' in literature, in music, in the arts, in philosophic argument, as a signifying form which 'reads' us. It reads us more than we read (listen to, perceive) it. There is nothing paradoxical, let alone mystical, in this definition. Each time we engage with it, the classic will question us. It will challenge our resources of consciousness and intellet, of mind and body (so much of primary aesthetic and even intellectual response is bodily). The classic will ask of us: 'have you understood?'; 'have you re-imagined responsibly?'; 'are you prepared to act upon the questions, upon the potentialities of transformed, enriched being which I have posed?'"

-George Steiner, Errata

And Phillipians is quickly becoming a favorite of mine because its just so Jolly. In fact, I was just telling a friend how it may be one of the most Jolly books, if not the Jolliest in the Bible. =]

Okay, stop reading bad grammarful ramble and go read something great!

Happy Summering!

Plutarch and Shakespeare

This is such an awesome coinkidink. =]

The Great Books series published by Britannica is a much better compilation of great Western classics than Harvard Classics. Not only are the choices better but the Great Books series is much more comprehensive. For example, for the Plutarch volume, the Great Books contains all his works (a total of about 900 words, plus its a bigger book than Harvard). On the other hand, Harvard Classics only has selections from his Morals. But all is well, because! (And please don't laugh at me for just realizing this) All the selections in the Harvard Classics cover the ones in which Shakespeare wrote plays for! YES! Specifically, Pericles, Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, and Antony and Cleopatra! (those are all plays by Shakespeare). So, all is well. After Anna K, I shall try my very best to read Plutarch's work on Pericles, read Shakespeare's play on Pericles, read Plutarch's work on Coriolanus, read Shakespeare's play on Coriolanus, etc. etc. =]

Excited

Have you ever had that feeling where everything excites you?
Just when you feel like you've gotten over the initial thrill of one thought, another one comes to your attention and boom!

Thoughts on my mind right now (In no particular order and probably not comprehensive):

The Syntopicon
A systematic catalogue of themes (i.e. Beauty, Goodness, Truth) in all the great western classics. Compiled by Mortimer J. Adler and his team over the course of about ten years. Yeah...Awesome! The only problem would be that you actually have to have the books to be able to use it...

The Iliad
Go read it. It's indescribablly fun. I haven't been this excited about an adventure since Lord of the Rings. =]

Anna Karenina
I pretty much melted when I got to part IV. I'm a sucker for happy engagments. =] Anna has definitely degenerated both morally and physically. sigh. Let's see how it goes.

Jesus Loves me and has shed His blood for me
This is most definitely the source of all my happiness. =]
If I do not give myself to God completely (or as much as I can) I am a much worse person. (Believe me!)

Lord Alfred Tennyson
I've read The Kraken and The Lady of Shalott so far. Both very good. =]

The Complete Works of Shakespeare in 38 hardcover volumes
Ahhhhhhh! They are sooo beautiful! Don't worry Shakespeare! I'll get to you! (After Anna K and Plutarch!)

Plutarch
Very Interesting Character Studies...more on that later.

T.S. Eliot
Was my first contact with poetry (of all the Poets, I had to hit one of the hardest!). Last Year.
Love him.

My Baby Cousin
This is how he says my name: Gaeeeeeebeeeoo OR Gabiogabiogabiogabio
So adorably cute. =]

Why it seems like Money is worth more when it's still in your hands
It's because of the potential it contains. As soon as it's converted, it loses potential. (unless you go and be a "red paper clip guy")

Wheatstone Academy
Just about the most awesome summer camp ever. =]

My left hand is like a lame duck on the piano compared to my right hand.
This is especially apparent when I try to play (note emphasis on Try) Rachmaninoff's Moment Musical no. 4 in e minor.

My (incomplete) set of the Harvard Classics
Raided it from the Library for $35. I think I have like 27/51 of the set. Some very good titles. It's an old edition though.

Two volume set of Major British Writers
Very good editorial essays in there.

I'm in debt.
From buying all these books

Yup, that's all for now!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Amazon just discounted their exclusive "Complete works of Shakespeare" set by a good $200 dollars!! The set is all hardcover too!!

Speechless!!!!!

Money may not buy happiness, but it sure can buy a high like no other!

The only problem is that to get the full benefit I'll have to read all of it. =]

God help me!

In Which I Remember I Forgot Something...

Then remember exactly what it was that I forgot. =]

I forgot that I had bought ...wait for it.....

THE COMPLETE RECORDINGS OF RACHMANINOFF!!!

*Heavenly choir sings*

Yes, this indescribably wonderful set contains every known recording that Rachmaninoff ever made. =] I am incredibly excited about it!

From the liner notes:

"Rachmaninoff was a pianist after my fancy. He was the most fascinating pianist since Busoni. He knew the secret of the golden vivid tone, the inimitable tone coming from the heart. In my strong opinion he was a greater pianist than a composer."

-Arthur Rubenstein, My Many Years

If that wasn't from Rubenstein I'd find that hard to believe! He does have a point though, (as I've said before) Rachmaninoff seems to have bursts of beautiful ecstatic genius rather than a flatline of quality (Mozart for example).

I also bought C.S. Lewis' Four Loves and Pilgrims Regress.

G.K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man, St. Francis of Assissi, and St. Thomas Aquinas

The Illiad and the Odyssey! The Aeneid as well. =]

Oh and I found a wonderful wonderful blessing in hand copying the letter of Philipians, my hand is a bit sore, but truly, truly, I have been blessed. No better way of conveying what it was like except to say: Go do it! (When you can find time of course, preferably on the weekend).

Further up and Further in!

On almost finishing Part II of Anna K

Some questions:

MKR: "In regards to Anna K the lady herself, can you separate her from her sin? Is there a point where Anna and her choices determine who she is?"

Um, hmmm. That's hard. I'm pretty sure that the choices we make have either negative or positive effects upon our soul. Either bringing us closer to Heaven or Hell, but although I want to say that eventually her sin defines her, my own experience does not seem to corroborate this.
For example, (As C.S. Lewis puts it) there has always been one person with whom we seperate the sin from the sinner. Namely, ourselves. When we sin, do we identify ourselves with our sin? No! Dengenerate as we are, we still abhor our own sin and feel shame and hope furiously to be able to overcome it. (Thank God that we have been saved through Christ!) We sin, but it feels so very alien to us.
Now in the case of Lady Anna, she also feels this horror and shame at her sin, but it seems to me that she doesn't wish to repent either. When she looks at her husband during her affair with Vronsky, it's almost as if she wants to find faults in him so as to justify herself. Tolstoy is so good! With each further step away from grace, we feel are hearts wrenched at such beauty (Lady Anna) perverting itself (Vronsky...did I mention how much I dislike him?). So in sum, I don't know yet if there is a point where Lady Anna's sin becomes her...I'll just have to finish the book then. =]

Blarney: "how much sin does it take before one cannot be separated from their sins? Is there a "Point of No Return" in regards to sin/sinning?"

Thank you for the vote, but I think MK would probably be a better candidate, =] It is her favorite!

As to the question, I would think that there is always a chance for redemption as long as there is life. The only "unforgivable sin" would be to reject the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I'm still debating whether Anna has crossed this line yet. She actually begins to loath her husband. At this point it seems that only the love she has for her son can save her.

Me:
Why does Stiva feel no shame in Adultery except when he's caught when Anna is tortured by it?

Why is society so lenient towards him?

How could Anna fall for such a horribly wicked person like Vronsky?

How did Tolstoy become so good at writing? (Especially when he compares Adultery to Murder, Oh my Goodness! Soooooo Good.)

When can the story get back to Levin??!!!!


And me is really really really terribly sorry for sort of kind of um.... findingoutwhathappenedattheendofstory. Ahhhh!!! Don't hurt me...

On Reaching Part II of Anna Karenina

Stupid Vronsky. I harbor an intense dislike for his innards. Translate: hate his guts.

And I feel as if I should hate Anna, but Tolstoy is such an absolute genious!!! I am almost as attached to Anna as I am to Levin. Tolstoy has made me love the sinner and hate the sin(!)

Each of the characters are so real. I seriously felt like crying when Anna decided not to reject Vronsky. =[

Which brings me back to the theme of this post: I hate Vronsky.

Maybe we could start a club....