You know who you are
Paradox, Purgatory, or Paradise
I'm watching the 2006 movie, The Invasion, with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
In this movie (based on the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 1956) an alien epidemic has invaded the earth and is changing human nature. They invade the human body through an exchange of fluids -- like someone puking into your mouth -- and change the infected while they sleep. The infected wake up with the same memories and same personality except the absence of feelings and emotions. They walk around seeking to infect everyone around them. They dispose of those that are immune.
The movie touches on what it means to be human. In an early scene there is a conversation between psychiatrist (Kidman) and a Russian diplomat. The Russian makes the case that to imagine a world without human evil, with atrocities, without war and violence in every direction would be to "imagine a world where human beings cease to be human."
The alien, on the other hand, speaking to the psychiatrist through the body of her love interest (Daniel Craig) explains to her (after he has been infected and undergoes the change) that what they offer is a world without war, suffering and evil. In their world, he says, they are incapable of harming one another because in their world there is no "them", no "other". He releases about a half a dozen aliens to help him infect her. He tells her just before they step towards her, "We were wrong to resist them."
Plato wrote that "only the dead have seen the end of war." Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you." The scriptures tell us that one day there will be no more war, no more poor, no more evil. Incredibly, we participate in that world, and not as robots but as creatures with a freedom to choose. This is, I think, the only real miracle in the Bible and in the universe: God is making the cosmos right again and we're still in it!
Would we still be human in that world?
Would we even like that world?
Which world would you prefer? The world of the Russian or the world of the alien?
Of course, most of us will choose neither world. All of us suspect that an incomprehensible miracle still lies before us. We will hold out until what has happened in Christ erupts and the world is made human again. But, it boggles the mind what exactly it will mean to be human again.
What do you think?
In this movie (based on the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 1956) an alien epidemic has invaded the earth and is changing human nature. They invade the human body through an exchange of fluids -- like someone puking into your mouth -- and change the infected while they sleep. The infected wake up with the same memories and same personality except the absence of feelings and emotions. They walk around seeking to infect everyone around them. They dispose of those that are immune.
The movie touches on what it means to be human. In an early scene there is a conversation between psychiatrist (Kidman) and a Russian diplomat. The Russian makes the case that to imagine a world without human evil, with atrocities, without war and violence in every direction would be to "imagine a world where human beings cease to be human."
The alien, on the other hand, speaking to the psychiatrist through the body of her love interest (Daniel Craig) explains to her (after he has been infected and undergoes the change) that what they offer is a world without war, suffering and evil. In their world, he says, they are incapable of harming one another because in their world there is no "them", no "other". He releases about a half a dozen aliens to help him infect her. He tells her just before they step towards her, "We were wrong to resist them."
Plato wrote that "only the dead have seen the end of war." Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you." The scriptures tell us that one day there will be no more war, no more poor, no more evil. Incredibly, we participate in that world, and not as robots but as creatures with a freedom to choose. This is, I think, the only real miracle in the Bible and in the universe: God is making the cosmos right again and we're still in it!
Would we still be human in that world?
Would we even like that world?
Which world would you prefer? The world of the Russian or the world of the alien?
Of course, most of us will choose neither world. All of us suspect that an incomprehensible miracle still lies before us. We will hold out until what has happened in Christ erupts and the world is made human again. But, it boggles the mind what exactly it will mean to be human again.
What do you think?
Tags: humanity
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Karla Elisa on -
I've never saw this movie, but based on your questions I may just take a peak.
Whew...OK, Alex....what DO I think?
The honest to God truth is.... I did not enter this walk with the Lord based on some 'other side of eternity reward' stuff.
In fact, of all the study I've done to examine, relate, kick this idea or that idea around....it's NEVER been a consideration at all.
There's so much about Jesus I still don't understand. There's so much about scripture I still haven't found it's true place in my worldview....see....I'm not certain that the Bible is inerrant and that opens SO many other avenues up really...
But the Bible IS my favorite book. It's been awesome therapy for me. It's definitively helped me see things in myself that need attention, guidance, reinforcement...work and more work. And what occurs IN me that is growth is what makes me a better person. And unlike Reaganomics, a trickle down theory can actually WORK in this situation.
I'm not at all above telling you that what I've read, absorbed and applied to my world in the Bible literally saved my life.
But I won't tell you that experience gave me some super insight into God that laid to rest any other questions. If anything...more questions have arisen since I began to study the Bible, than were laid to rest as a result of reading it.
But perhaps that's why we're all here. We NEED to discuss these things.
So....back to the basic question....which world would I prefer?
For me I guess that's easy, now that I think about it. This one. Hands down it's this one.
Why? Well better the devil I know, I suppose.
My peon brain can't and actually does not want to envision some perfect utopia....Even if U2 and Coldplay and every favorite Reggae artist I have is there playing non stop while I eat every available favorite food and never gain weight again.
I don't WANT to have a 2nd life, another life, afterlife...whatever you wanna call it.
I want to die and let that be that. I want an END to my existance is what I want. I want FINALITY. Now go count the number of times I used the word ' I ' there.
Uh huh.
Plus....I'm not all that interested in being judged when I'm DEAD.
Or even having those more 'evil' than me being judged to exact some 'retribution'. You know...to 'set it all right'.
If justice is not served here, then I guess it's my opinion that it really doesn't matter if it's served up somewhere else. Which now that I'm really considering this... it kind of means if it's not MY version of justice it won't really 'count' for me....yes, I AM human.
And I'm most certainly not up for not making some 'cut' and getting tortured for life (if indeed this is something that happens, it sound so very Bush like).
This world is my heaven and hell. This world is 'the' Judgment. This world is the alpha and omega. After this world I'm just hoping a giant dirt nap is what's coming.
But till then here I am. Loving God, living life and being as proactive as I can with social causes that seem to resonate with me because I have decided God's will plays some part in this. My test is now.
And whether I pass or fail depends on how I respond here. And after 'here' it's hopefully blanket nothingness. But because of my faith, how I am HERE counts ....just not for the same reason as most Christians angling for some bonus round.
So there....that's what I think. Color me stupid, color me selfish, color me whatever you wish.
All I know is I'd be lying if I said otherwise.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex McManus on -
Karla, Nice. I resonate with what you're saying here.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Marsden on -
I'd have to disagree with a lot of your assumptions here, but I think the big point (the REAL point) you have nailed.
"But till then here I am. Loving God, living life and being as proactive as
I can with social causes that seem to resonate with me because I have
decided God's will plays some part in this. My test is now.
And whether I pass or fail depends on how I respond here. ....
But because of my faith, how I am HERE counts ...."
So many people, Christian and otherwise, are focused on tomorrow. They are focused on the second coming, the end of war, the end of poverty, when they graduate college, when they have kids, eternity, making their first million, etc... They say to their selves, "When I get to X then I will..." or they say, "Look at the signs. Jesus is coming back next week..."
And I say... who cares. What are you doing today? What are you doing now? What are you doing in response to your faith and your passions?
Today is the test. Whatever time and circumstances we've been given, that is the context for our test and we are responsible to act appropriately.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Marsden on
-
In relation to the which world question, I would have to say that I am hoping for "incomprehensible miracle" that is yet to come. But until then, even with all the pain and suffering, I prefer a world that allows for choice (even bad choices), then a world without feeling.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gnotek on -
A world "with" or "without" war? Possible or not? Desirable or not? Human or inhuman. Or ultra-human?!
"The Russian makes the case that to imagine a world without human evil, with atrocities, without war and violence in every direction would be to 'imagine a world where human beings cease to be human.'"
The Russian existentialist Fyodor Dostoevsky, in Notes From Underground, wrote that man needs pain to feel he is something more than a piano key, played by the hand of nature. "What can be expected of man, a creature endowed with such strange qualities. Why, shower him with every earthly good, drown him in happiness over his head, so that only bubbles will spring up on the surface of his happiness, as on water; give him such economic prosperity that he'll have nothing left to do but sleep, eat pastries, and busy himself with assuring the continuance of world history. AND, even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer nastiness, he will commit some vileness. He'll even risk his pastries and deliberately choose the most pernicious nonsense, the most uneconomical, absurdity—solely to inject his noxious fantastic element into all that positive, sensible bliss... And if he should lack the means to do so, he will invent destruction and chaos, he will invent a variety of sufferings, and will have his own way, no matter what! He will unleash a curse upon the world... he will perhaps, attain his end just by his cursing; in other words, he will prove to himself that he is a man, AND NOT A PIANO KEY!"
I read this book in an Existentialism class at the University of Michigan the spring just prior to 9-11—in that cusp when our country had a massive surplus from in part—no war. The Peace Windfall from the end of the Cold War was at hand, the economy, businesses and people in general in this country were prosperous. So this book and this thought was fresh in mind and seared into thought just a few short months after 9-11 and the subsequent return to war. I might agree with Dostoevsky that this is the way mankind IS, but I don't agree that is fate.
Actually what Dostoevsky is arguing in this passage is against scientism and science's claim that everything is calculable—a formula, and given the appropriate calculating ability, science could calculate an end to war and human suffering. Determinism. Dostoevsky is injecting the incalculable free will wild card, though not with a very favorable assessment of the human spirit. Nonetheless, Dostoevsky is attune to the zeitgeist of his time and prophetic to that of man's immediate future zeitgeists.
Do I like this definition of the world? of humanity? Absolutely not! Do I feel man can change? Possibly. For a spell perhaps. Unlikely? In this age.
Karla, I don't think Alex is referring to the hereafter, but the here and now. What does it truly mean to be "human" right now? That is the question. I think in reference to the movie Alex cites, the question lies along the reasoning of what Dostoevsky states of man on one hand, and the state of humanity as God created man to be. So it seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity for all of us to play God for a moment, consider humanity as it is, as it has been and define humanity as it should be. If you could step in with the wisdom and power to lay down a vision for humanity, what might that look like? I'm going to consider this and add my thoughts later, but this might be a worthy quest for all of us that frequent this space. Some of us may consider war to be a noble aspect of humanity—to rid the world of evil. Make your case.
But could you imagine an existence with no feeling or emotion; or of your life calculated to the NTH degree?
I'll be back...
-
Permalink Reply by patrick voo on -
i often wonder why we try to wrestle our way out of the tension of 'both/and' ... i believe that it is possible to encourage a world where there is no "them" or "other" (in an oppositional kind of way) that does not mean we relinquish our passions and individuality.
i think that is in part what Jesus coming among us was about - a revealing that the Incarnation, or the confluence of two realities that could otherwise not fully occupy the same space, is possible.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Alexander McManus on -
i think theres an important difference between a world without war/poor/evil/etc. and a world without the possibility of war/poor/evil/etc.
-
Permalink Reply by John Gnotek on
-
And what is that?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Alexander McManus on
-
a world without war/poor/evil doesn't mean there couldn't be, therefore good still exists i don't believe good exists because evil does i believe good exists in the choice between good and evil. would you agree?
-
Permalink Reply by John Gnotek on
-
I agree. For example, I read a few months ago that world hunger could be solved for 30 billion a year. Just 30 billion. Why isn't it? Not because of good; but because of evil. Just think of the strife relieved in a world with no hunger. How many wars would that in and of itself obliterate?
And war—that is initiating war—is not because of good, as it roots in covetness, and pride, and hate, and murder. Not love and peace. So yeah I agree.
These are all choices we humans make. Free will choices we make everyday, big and small—many of which ARE a free will choice of good and evil—even such a thing as taking a parking spot in a crowded shopping mall parking lot at the height of Christmas shopping—even if you have the right. So if we humans could all come together and love our neighbor as ourselves (excluding the emos) and love God with all our being, then yes, we could have a world without poor/war/evil. But can we mandate it? Should we? (of course not)
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Marsden on
-
So Just $30 Billion ends world hunger. But I think it would only end hunger related war for a short time. Most of us here in America are far from hungry, and yet with the economic crisis, we are worried about how we are going to "feed our families". The real issue isn't feeding them, but providing at the level we have attained. And ideally moving up.
If we spend $30 billion to end world hunger (and this is not an argument against ending world hunger or spending the $30 billion), then in a year, or 10, or 40, it won't be hunger that wars are started over, it will be satisfaction, or flavor. Or perhaps, in our quest to Westernize the world, the wars will be fought over oil. Of course we are warring over oil now, but just think of what happens when the third world is not just marginally industrialized, but heavily dependent on oil.
Full tummies will reduce the desire to war for a period of time, but soon those contented full tummies will have time to think... Those Americans....
Again, this is not an argument against helping those in need. It is not an argument against reducing human suffering. The fact that we won't achieve perfection is not an excuse to be complacent, but I can't imagine a world without suffering, without poor, without pain. There will always be a sliding scale of "poor" no matter how many scraps we throw from the table unless those at the table are willing to give up the privilege to sit there and recognize the equality of humanity. I don't think most of the west is interested in doing that, at this point.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex McManus on
-
John, Interesting as usual...A quick q...does 30 billion ending hunger mean that this amount means no one ever hungers again? Or, does the food last for a limited period? Does 30 million teach the world to fish, so to speak, or does it give the world a fish?
Also, hunger may be one reason people steal and occasionally murder, but is it really a big factor in war? Is that why the South fought the North, or the Romans the Barbarians, or the Germans the Poles? Aren't the desire for power and control much greater reasons than hunger for war?
Events
Thoughts from the IMN
The Human Event – Michigan
Join us at Kensington Community Church (Troy, Michigan) on October 13-14 for a 2-day conversation on the future of the church in the post-Christian and Trans-human 21st century west.
Neil Cole (Organic Church) Alex McManus (M Network)
and You.
Who is the Human Event for? Forward thinking, missional activists, thinkers, and leaders. If you think that may be [...]
Holiness and Risk
A few hours after touching down back in Scotland from The International Mentoring Network’s Immersion experience in Orlando, I found myself in a conversation about a Methodist Church initiative called Holiness and Risk.
Is it okay if I tell you a little about this? It’s a really intriguing kind of thing that can emerge [...]
Tomorrow and How to Get There – The Futuristic
Tomorrow. Face it with either fear or anticipation, it doesn’t matter which, it is coming regardless of our grasp of it. Fortunes have been made marketing knowledge about tomorrow whether that tomorrow is 24 hours away or 100 years distant.
Fortune tellers make the promise that that can allay our fears with their prognostication [...]
Communities of Knowing
In his book, The Message in the Bottle, Walker Percy tells the fictional story of a train that hurried through the countryside. The commuters on board saw the passing scenery as little more than a two-dimensional background rolling past their windows.
One day, though, the train breaks down and the commuters have to disembark by a [...]
Into the Beautiful Unknown (Cross-Posted)
Since Alex is publishing this blog post with the IMN newsletter, I thought it ought to have a link from the IMN as well. Enjoy. -Your friendly neighborhood editor-of-doom.
Sometimes I’m asked, What does “M” stand for? I usually answer, “Exactly.” The question is understandable. I use M a lot.
My website is theimn. My social network [...]
Badge
© 2010 Created by Alex McManus.
Powered by 
.
