Tenderness Trumps Beauty!

The weekend before last, after the Superbowl loss Tom Brady the quarterback of the losing Patriots was disappointed. To be a quarterback and lose a game is like being the surgeon who loses a patient in the operation. Of course there would be the nurses, the anesthetist etc... who are responsible for success, but when it is a failure the responsibility in most cases, falls squarely on the shoulders of the surgeon. Such is the weight the quarterback feels when his team loses. If my analogy doesn't quite fit football, blame it on my lack of understanding of the game. I don't follow sports much. The reason I watched the Superbowl was to just experience the community part of watching the Superbowl.

There was something after the game that perked my interest. The camera focused on Tom Brady's despondent face ans someone said, "Well, he has lost his game, but he is going home to a supermodel wife". Then I was watching some news and there too the anchor made the same comment.

Honestly, I was a little bit pissed off with the characterization. Is that supposed to mean that guys who do not have supermodels wives can't help but be sadder? Or does it mean having a supermodel wife is so great that even if you are total wimp, your faltering ego will find its footing on the beauty of the wife you possess?

Just to make clear, I am not belittling what Tom and his beautiful wife share. I belittle how people perceive and present it to others thus reinforcing a wrong value in marital intimacy. The moment of intimacy that Tom and his wife share is precious, and what makes is precious is not Gisele's beauty but her tenderness and caring nature.

Unfortunately, our culture places a lot of premium on beauty. Both men and women do it, though slightly differently. Men generally want hot wives, that is all they mostly ask for. Women generally just want good husbands who are also, btw, hot and handsome!

The importance of tenderness over beauty is best said in the words of Max De Winter in the movie 'Rebecca'. Max De Winter says, "I was told that what a man needed in a woman was beauty, brains and breeding. But now I realize that is wrong. What a man needs in a woman is sincerity, modesty and the ability to love".

Tenderness triumphs beauty anytime... anyday!

'Courageous' - An Antithetic Story of the Sexy, the Strong and the Sell-able!

(Disclaimer: In some parts of the write-up, I have used a broad brush. Please help yourself to a generous pinch of salt. :P)

Most popular Hollywood movies that I can remember, portray men epitomizing the 'trivial' attributes of manhood. They are either funny and stupid (think Will Farrell) or brash and bulldozing (think Arnold, oh how do I spell his last name - google help! yes, Schwarzenegger) or cocky and surefooted (think Russell Crowe) or in a few instances, mostly from the yesteryears, laconic and mysterious (think Humphrey Bogart). 'Real men' are seldom seen in Hollywood movies. Why? Because in this culture, it is the trivialized man that considered sexy, strong and sell-able.

Hollywood movies don’t celebrate 'real men' - the ones that walk around with a little paunch, try hard to do the right thing for their family, sometimes fail and pick themselves up and try again; they lose, they hurt, huddle to help each other, charge into a battle against evil getting bloodied up, they forgive, forget, reconcile; they are tender, they are tough, they are insecure and confused, yet 'real men' have a spine - they SEE God, they love their family. They are Courageous. 

'Courageous' is Christian movie about 5 men that fall into the latter category of 'real men'. Of course, the wives and kids find these men funny, stupid, brash, bulldozing, surefooted, cocky too, but that is totally BESIDE the point of who they really are - men with a spine that take care of a family. 'Courageous' depicts the struggles that 'real men' face - from losing jobs when rent is due, to losing a loved one in an already stressed family, to having to own up for not having owned up to ones biological child, to incarcerating a dear pal that lost his integrity in a position of responsibility. In contrast to the swashbucklers of Hollywood's commercial successes, 'Courageous' epitomizes real men. 

"The Magnificent Seven" is one of the 'more of the same' Hollywood classics that venerates magnificent heroes who live on horses, fight with guns and are sought-after by women. But, even that movie has its moment of antithetical truth… Yul Brynner is a celebrity mercenary that walks with a swagger, speaks in a baritone and shoots from the hip. He decides to help some hapless Mexican farmers exploited by the bandits. After witnessing Yul's brave stunts, a kid in the villager tells Yul that he is ashamed that his farmer-father is a coward and not as brave as Yul. Yul forbids the kid to ever think his father as being a coward for not fighting with guns. Yul says something that in-spirit means, "it take more courage to handle the plow and serve a family than to handle a gun to fight bad guys". Hollywood, when it speaks in terms of the normative, is seldom right, this is one of the few instances in which it is. As much as flamboyant cowboys are idolized, a life of handling guns and horses isn't really a difficult life. It is an Either/Or! Either you put a bullet into another man's heart or another man does it for you. Pretty simple! You are a man who has got nothing to lose except your life. So in a very ironic way, you are in control of your destiny, if you are good you live or you die. 

On the other hand, to handle a baby in your arms is a whole another equation. It is to subject your destiny to something bigger - something you don't have control over. Such risk taking endeavor takes a 'real man' - one that has a spine. It takes courage to start a family, which on the surface, appears to be lacking an increasing number of emasculated urban progressive men that are born into the 'Hollywood-trivialized-superstars admiring' culture. They would rather be free, look slick and perpetually carry on the persona of the most-eligible-bachelor, than carry a baby and be befuddled by the vagaries of life. 

Recently, I was reading an article written by a school teacher lamenting the problem of teenage pregnancies and the girls who end-up becoming unwed mothers. When one of his own students ended up a teen mom, he observed that she had become the superstar of his class. Apparently, being a 'teen mom' was the new cool thing! Bemused by this phenomenon, he organized a group discussion in his class on being a teenage mom. One of the questions he asked them was, "How do you think being a teenage mom would affect your prospects of marriage in future?" They all acted like this was a dumb question. None knew how to answer. He posted it to the teen mom. The girl sitting next to her blurted out, "Nobody marries anymore, Mister!". The whole class broke out in laughter, cheering the 'good' answer!  

I read another article putting forth the idea that even if the embattled Euro survives and becomes strong, that Europe would still be headed for a decline. Reason? – very few people in Europe get married anymore. From 2000 to 2010, 37% of children in Europe were out of wedlock kids who will be raised in single-mom homes. In Sweden, 54% of kids our out of wedlock kids who will be raised in single-mom homes. The US isn't far behind either. In the 1960, close to 75% of households with kids had a complete set of parents. In 2010, it is just about 51%. This trend sociologist worry, is not likely create a stable society where children are the pillars of the future civilization. Among other things, one important cause for this trend is I believe the flakiness of modernized men, who don't have good role models for real manhood. It takes courage to start a Family, because it takes a sacrificial heart to really serve 24/7.

The fulcrum of the movie ‘Courageous’ is Joshua words, "as for me and my house, we will Serve the Lord". Joshua takes the idea of manhood to a whole new level. Joshua elevates running a family - the mundane routines of changing diaper to paying for school to caring for the sick kid, into something that serves a BIGGER purpose - that of SERVING God. This HIGHER purpose inspires him to do a better job at serving his family.  

Malachi takes man's role in family one step higher. He is specifically addressing the man to not break faith. He is not asking the man to love his wife because she makes him feel good about himself, rather he says... Mal 2:15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring(!!!) So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. 

Joshua and Malachi SEE God as an intrinsic part of the equation of 'running the family' in a way most modernized men don't. The 'real man' is one who tries to align himself to be true to the Image of God. Even if he fails, he is 'courageous' enough to try again, for he knows his purpose is to conform to the likeness of Christ. Only Christianity has a solid basis to restore 'manishness' back to man. It helps him put context into why he carries with him a weight - a weight that gives him a spine to be the Christ to the family and expend himself in its service. 

One of the effects of living in a Godless, radically individualistic, inexorably insecure, Post-Christian society is that man's essence is trivialized to the point of making him a funny and/or rugged and/or cocky guy whose existence is ultimately pointless, spineless and useless.  'Courageous' is the anti-thesis to this trivialization of manhood. As contrived and longish the storyline is, 'Courageous' is a decent critique of the society. Interestingly, it is also a commercial success. 'Courageous' takes the dumbed-down version of the 'real man' who cares for his family and  expends himself in doing the 'right thing' as a service to God, and makes him look sexy, strong and sell-able. 

Lonesome Dove & (relationally) Spineless Men

Painters depict reality through paint and canvas. Writers depict reality through words. Movie makers are privileged to straddle both realms. Hence in one sense, movies get to reflect reality in a unique way. Even as we enjoy the comedies, it is the tragedies that often truly reflect life. The saddest movies are the ones which are relationally unresolved, whether it be the 'Titanic' or 'Gone With the Wind'. Depiction of unresolved relationship is painful to watch and feel.

The TV seriese of the novel 'Lonesome Dove' which won the Pulitzer prize in 1986, took the angst to a whole new level. The story ends relationally unresolved at multiple levels which reflects the problem with the society we live in.

When I started seeing the movie, it seemed a sort of 'happy' movie. Then I got to part 4, I was bawling for the most part and my nose was clogged almost through the entire episode. Every time my nose cleared up, it clogged right back again. I have seen many movies, quite a few that made me cry. When I saw "Forest Gump" I must have cried for about 10 minutes at the least. I was upset for having cried. Then I told my friend, "I saw 'Forest Gump' yesterday". He replied, "I have seen it too." After a pause, looking away I said, "I actually cried". He replied, "I did too". I looked at him and smiled. I was glad, I wasn't abnormal.

In spite being used to movie-crying, what "Lonesome Dove" did to me is abnormal. The morning after I watched 'Lonesome Dove', I lay in the bed for (may be) 30 minutes thinking how so sad "Lonesome Dove" was. What makes the movie really, really sad, for me, is that though the materialistic goals of the protagonists are fully realized and the 'hard virtues' of justice, bravery and honor were most beatifully epitomized, deep hunger for relational fulfillment was not satisfied.

The movie is about a couple of Texas Rangers Gus and Call, revered for their brave campaigns destroying the Apache Indian tribes. The movie is about their retirement plan to drive some cows North into Montana and build a ranch there with a bunch of cowboys. As I was watching the movie, I realized that to me, the movie wasn't so much about whether the cowboys will get to build the ranch in Montana as much as it was about whether Gus would allow himself to truly love a woman and Call would acknowledge Newt to be his son (this bias of mine explains why I am harsh on the character of Gus and Call in this post). Neither of the wishes get fulfilled making the end truly 'lonesome' for all involved, including the viewers.

The movie is overflowing with the great virtues of Justice, Courage, Honor and Fortitude discussing which would be a topic for a different blog. But it is bankrupt when it comes to matters of love, especially familial love. The closest you get to love in the movie is expression of tender feelings for beautiful ladies who happen either to be sex workers or wives of other men. Sometimes, it is honor masqueraded as love. I find this bankruptcy of true love quite baffling. In one sense the cowboys pay the highest honor to womanhood by making her the priced trophy and the end of all. In another sense, the women are more a figment in their imagination and a burden to be exchanged for freedom.

Without Clara and Lorine, Gus' love interests, "Lonesome Dove" wouldn't be what it is. They bring so much to the table but really take nothing in return. Except to live their lives in a state of perpetual angst at the non-committal boys they can't help falling in love with.

Gus and Call are opposite personalities. Gus is happy-go-lucky. Call is the most serious guy ever. But they both have one thing in common, their disdain for anything that smacks of family ties. In fact Gus repeatedly tells Newt that Call wouldn't acknowledge that he is Call's son because to do that would imply that he is just as any other human being. Gus concludes that Call wanted to make a god of himself. Almost like the Great warrior Achilles who wasn't interested in being a Father or a Husband, but rather was keen on showing himself more then human, a god.

Interestingly, Gus too has the same problem, though in a different sense. Clara and Lorrine are DEEPLY in love with Gus, especially Clara. Gus knows it, but choses not to love in return. Lorrine who has known Gus longer tells Clara something that amounts to, "Gus loves being himself more than he loves you or me".

Finally, Gus is injured. Both his legs need to be amputated or he'll die. He has to chose between dying with a warrior's legacy or choosing to live crippled being taken care of by Clara who DEEPLY loves him. He says he can't imagine himself being crippled. He chooses to die instead of devoting the rest of his life to the love of a woman. I saw an uncanny parallel to Alexander the Great, who couldn't imagine himself being same as ordinary men and wanting everyone to believe him to be a god, tried to drown himself into a river.

Both Call and Gus, in spite of their personality differences, had the same problem. They wanted women for sex and good company. They wanted to build a bigger than life image. They saw the family as a burden. They wanted to leave behind a godlike legacy. Every man has in him the urge to prove he is himself and that the himself is someone Great. Sometimes men do it at the cost of family life. Such men are spineless for to be a Great man and have a family takes a lot more courage than to be a Single and Strong.

I say 'spineless' because it takes more courage to start a family than to start a war. Yul Brynner of the classic, "The Magnificient Seven" would agree. A kid tells him that his father is a coward and not as brave as Yul. Yul quickly gets angry and forbids the kid to every think his father to be a coward for not standing up to bad guys. Yul explains, "it take more courage to handle the plow and serve a family than to handle a gun to fight bad guys."

When a society has too many Strong single men who are so preoccupied about being who they want to be and don't want to burden themselves with family ties, such a society would self-destruct. The modern society, in expanding the base of freedom and individuality has cursed a good chunk of its men into being lonesome Rangers who live godlike but, ironically, relationally-spinelessly, only for themselves. 

My Valentine Meditations - On the Missing Valentine

Saint Valentine married people off and got killed for that. In a poll among young urban Americans one the questions was, 'Do you think marriage is obsolete?'. Majority said 'Yes'. Another question of the same poll said, 'Do you want to get married?' Majority said 'Yes'. Most want to marry, but aren't getting married. We live in a world of delayed marriages, if at all people marry. Modern times is missing its St.  Valentine.

The idea of obseletness of marriage is not a problem among just among urban elites. I was reading an article where a school teacher writes about the struggles he has in understanding the mindset and the maturity of the a few of his students who are pregnant in their teens. He discusses a bunch of questions two of which caught my attention. He asks the pregnant teen, "Do you think the father of your kid would marry you?". The pregnant girl answers, "I don't think so". "Do you think your having this child will affect your future marriage?". The girl answers, "I don't know". The girl sitting near by asnwers, "Nobody marries anymore, Mister". The whole class bursts out laughing. 

Where is the St. Valentine of this age who helps those who want to get married, but don't know why it isn't that simple as it once used to be? Is he in hiding? Have we lost him? Has he matyred again?

I was reading another article about some controversial debates about the implementation of the new Healthcare ACT in the US. The question on the table was about whether birth-control pill had to be made freely available in College campuses as part of the Healthcare mandate. The article also had some snippets about what students in college thought about the plan. One of the girls supporting the free distribution of pills said, "I am an adult. None can stop me from having sex. The only question is whether or not I am going about it in a healthy way."

Today, I read an article about how women in military are sexually abused by men. Last year alone there were 3200 reported cases of sexual abuse in the US Army. Most go unreported. One of the ladies said that when she complained about abuse to superiors, she was told to "things like this happen, suck it up".

The fundemental premise in the above statements is the idea that 'sex is a fundemental right'. The belief is that, "None can deny me my right to sex". It is almost has the primacy of the First Amendment right. What is missing there is the idea that 'sex is right, only when the season is right'. 

God created life to have different seasons. In one season, we are kids and then we become adults, then we become parents, then we become grandparents. Then we die. All of these seasons are held together by the 'bonds of love'. Love has different manifestations in different seasons. If we try to mess with the appropriate manifestation of love for a season, we end up marring that season itself.

Marriage is an important season in a person's life. When God instituted marriage he clearly defined the need for a new manifestation of love. He said, "for this reason man shall seperate from his father and mother and 'cleave' with his wife, and they shall be one body". Marriage ushers in a new season which is manifested by new expressions of love in the romantic and erotic forms. As long as the romantic and erotic forms of love are expressed towards the purpose of becoming one with the spouse, the God ordained manifestation of love brings joy to the season of marriage. 

Our modern society is trying to reengineer the manifestations of love and decouple it from its appropriate season so that people will have the individualistic RIGHT to gratify themselves with any form of love they want anytime with anyone.  The lines between the seasons of adulthoood and marriage gets blurred because people try to enjoy the marital manifestation of love before marriage. When the lines get blurred so much, eventually the season itslef finds no reason for existence. We are left with, "Nobody marries anymore, Mister". 

Premature experience of profound love forms can be very detrimental to love itself. In the movie 'Blue Valentine', the wife says that she has been sexually active since 13 had more than 25 partners. Still carrying the baggage from her old relationships, she is not able to enjoy sex with her husband. She is unable to make the transcition from 'lusting sex' to 'loving sex'. In the movie, this inability of hers becomes the breaking point of an already strained marriage. 

Marriage, kids and a stable family is the basis for any civilization to thrive. A civilization that does not have thriving marriages will die. The root cause of this predicament is the unwillingness to submit to Truth. The Truth as God instituted is for different life seasons to be coupled with appropriate manifestations of love. God joined sex with marriage. Let man not separate what God has joined, for if he does will end up destroying both of what he seperated. As the author of the book 'Unhooked' says, "we delay love to enjoy sex and end up losing both". 

St. Valentine stood by God's Truth to multiply and be fruitful. He supposedly stood against the edict of a selfish tyrant to the point of death. Our civilization needs, many who imbibing the spirit of St. Valentine will stand up for Truth of God and take a stand against their own selfish desire for gratification. God's Truth sets us free to experience life in 'all of its fullness' that spans across life's seasons, bonded in love. Sacrificing God's Truth in the altar of self-indulgence is the problem of the missing Valentine. 

Thoughts on NTY Marriage Story Feature

New York Times has a weekly section on marriage which features the best marriage story among the ones submitted. Except when NYT wants to get some controversy raising attention, the marriages couples who have warm fluffy love stories are featured. Last week's feature unleashed a tirade of comments across the blogosphere about how despicable the feature was. It was the marriage of a former NBC anchor Carol Anne Riddell and the handsome president of media sales John Partilla, President of Global Media Sales.

It is a case of two divorcees gettting remarried. Divorcees getting remarried is a good thing. Sometimes, people get married to the wrong people and it would do much better for them and their kids to seperate rather than to be abused. But what was really noteworthy about this divorce and remarriage is that there was no history of abuse or ostentatious incompatibility in their original marriages, the reason why they divorced is because after having been married to a person for more than 10 years and having kids, these people suddenly realized that they were in love with someone else. But this is not the cause for the anger unleashed.

The story goes like this... Two families were friends who were going places from Restuarants to Vacations together for a few years until one of the spouses in each of the families get 'hitched' with each other and decide to dump the other spouse. The four people have 5 children between them. Basically Mr and Mrs. Ennis and Mr. and Mrs. Partilla are good friends until Mrs. Ennis and Mr. Partilla decide to get married and then dump their respective spouses. The dumped Mr. Ennis is himself a media executive who has held high-level jobs at IAC and News Corp and is now head of the digital media practice at the investment bank Petsky Prunier. The Ex Mrs. Partilla is a high level media executive as well.

We live in a world were somewhere between 1 in 2 to 1 in 3 marriages end up in divorce. I am sure this sort foursome scandals has happens quite a bit. But two reasons make this news feature infamous. One, the gumption that this couple had in sending their story to be featured the New York Times unmindful of the hurt it may cause their their ex-spouses and kids. Two, the notorious decision taken by NY to post it without even fact-checking with the ex-spouses. I don't intend to analyse NYT's motives, afer all the media loves to grab attention, besides NYT has a liberal worldview.

What stuck me most was the justification given the couple for their childishly selfish behavior. I wonder what made them think their story was an exemplary case of courage and bravery as exemplified in the comments below. I wonder what gave them a sense of entitlement to admiration of the readers.

Partilla says, “I didn’t believe in the word soul mate before, but now I do". Caroll says, “He said, ‘Remind me every day that the kids will be O.K.,’ I would say the kids are going to be great, and we’ll spend the rest of our lives making it so.” She adds, “I came to realize it wasn’t a punishment, it was a gift,” she said. “But I had to earn it. Were we brave enough to hold hands and jump?”

Having assumed that they have earned the readers admiration for being brave, they now indulge in quite a bit of self-pity feeling entitled to empathy.

NYT says, "As Mr. Partilla saw it, their options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly. “Pain or more pain,” was how he summarized it."

It is incredible that it was lost on them that they acted like kids who want to 'feel good' play and dont want to work hard at homework. They shun pain and want to do what makes them feel good with a mypoic view of only their own self-interest, causing pain to their ex-spouses who did not abuse them and their kids who were not abused in their original marriages either. They want the world to applaud them for yeilding their childish 'feel good' proclivities.

Caroll says, “My kids are going to look at me and know that I am flawed and not perfect, but also deeply in love,” she said. “We’re going to have a big, noisy, rich life, with more love and more people in it.”

Actually, in the photograph of cake cutting at the reception where the five children are pictured, the face of the eldest girl who is probably 12ish is void of any clear emotion except may be angst. The stark fact is that Caroll's sentiment of 'deeply in love' is directed at none except her own feelings of love. This is the kind of immaturity that Shakespeare describes as 'love loves love'.

Mr. Partilla feels that "...options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly".

It is intresting that the couple associate dishonesty with a feeling rather than their 'unprovoked' betrayal of their original spousal commitment. When there was no abuse in their original marriage, that they betrayed their committment to their spouse isn't seen as being dishonest by these 'blind lovers'. It is incredible that to excersice some 'self-control' over their 'frivolous' feelings is seen as being dishonest. Aren't self-control and honesty virtues which go hand in hand?

I wonder what they tell their kids when the kids 'feel' like they want to always play pingpong video games and eat french fries and avoid the pain of doing homework and eating healthy. Would they encourage their kids to just be 'true' to the feelings and avoid all hardwork so that they wouldn't be dishonest to the way the feel about things??? Or would they teach them the virtue of self-control???

Interestingly, they are not alone in their skewed idea of dishonesty which is contained only within the realms of their feelings and has nothing to do with their commitment to a person. One of the very few bloggers who supported them said, "...I feel encouraged to see that they are loyal to how they feel".

Until quite recently, Loyalty was something that can only be attributed to people. Would loyalty have the same meaning even if it attributed to non-personalities? Perhaps, it seems only right that after  having desecrated the virtue of honesty, in the same vein, they should extend it to the other age-old virtue like loyalty. Of course, unsaid, the virtue of love has been desecrated the worst of all. When 'feelings' takes precedence to Truth there is no saying where it goes.

This is a malady of the age we live in - The Age of Sentimentality. It is an age where we give an inordinate importance to how we feel about things. Unlike our ancestors, our greatest goal in life isn't aligning our life to the Truth of life, rather we pursue a 'feel good' factor about life. Steve Jobs in one of his interviews said it best, "I don't care about what is right or wrong, I care about success". In fact, the reason (apart from rigid i-phone protocols) why i-phones aren't used it the corporate world is becuase they aren't robust equipments, they just 'feel good'.

Back in those days when families were still stable and psychatrists weren't in much demand, people had a sense of what the Truth was, they tried to align their life to the Truth. Self-control was a virtue because it helped them align their life to the right way to live. But now, we live in a post-modern (hyper-modern) world and so Truth is relative. When Truth becomes relative, feelings take precedence. The result is the 'abolition of manhood' and move back to 'childishness'.

C.S.Lewis said in his book, 'The Abolition of Man' says that our generation is creating men without chests. Humankind has a chest and a spine so that they can go against their basal instinct and put the interest of their kids and spouses above their own and be truly loving and develop character. Once we loose our handle on absolute Truth and relegate right and wrong to the realm of frivolous feelings, we are sowing seeds for decadence of our civilization because none of the virtues that make man a man means anything anymore except how they make you feel at different points in time. I believe it is in this vein that G.K.Chesterton said, "A civilization can stand in one angle, and fall in every other. We are now testing angles."

The entitlement that this couple have to be admired and empathized with after having acted so immaturely following their feelings, is symptom of a decadence that has set in our civiliation. When sentiments and feelings to take precedence over Virtues and Truth, man loses his manishness. When man loses his God given manish nature, the civilization he creates begins to die, albeit a slow death.

The Social Network - All about a Relationship!

The last line spoken in the movie ‘Social Network’ is "I don't think you are an a**hole, I just think you are trying hard to be one", the intern of the attorney speaks to Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook. In fact, that one line ‘says it all’ as far as the movie is concerned. But I think the movie also has another angle which gives the pithy observation an interesting meaning.

In the last scene of the movie following this astute observation, Mark, flips open his laptop, sends a Facebook friend request to his college sweet-heart whom he flippantly had humiliated for rejecting him, but still was deeply enamored about. He sits, 'refreshing' his Facebook page waiting calmly for a response, with a smile of a kid watching the rain, waiting for the bright sun to show up and lighten up his sullen afternoon. The movie ends.

In fact the first scene of the movie is in a bar where Mark is trying to convince this sweetheart into being his girlfriend. He says if she was his girlfriend she would have access to an exclusive club which she couldn’t otherwise get to at all. She doesn't seem impressed. He then foul-mouthedly shoots-off about how she, who would sleep with a door keeper to get to any club, was acting up as though she did not care to get into this exclusive club. She tells him 'go to hell'. Mark goes to his room and writes a scathing blog disparaging her about many things, one of which had to do with his opinions on her lack of features.

A casual viewer of the movie may say that Mark comes of as an a**hole. Yes, true, but I think there is also something else going on there. I think he really liked her and wanted to be with her. But being a nerd, with a brilliant analytic mind and challenged social and relational counter parts, he does not know how relationships work. In an effort to try to impress her into having a relationship with him, he blurts out about she getting access to exclusive clubs through him, which she could otherwise not even dream of getting into, all the while not realizing how much he was denigrating her sense of self-worth. Even when she is appalled by his analytic rationale, he does not still get it. He tries to justify his rationale by saying that she wouldn't get access to even into a less privileged club, if she wasn't willing to sleep with the doorkeeper. As horrible as it sounds, in his mind, he is only making an analytic argument to prove to her that he was worth a shot. Even though his rationale is odd, to say the least, his intent is to prove to her that he can provide for her something that makes her happy. She says 'go to hell'. Now, he is in rage, and pours his anger on the blog, dooming any possibility of reconciliation.

In venting out his rage at having been rejected, and wanting to salvage his sense of impressiveness of himself, he quickly creates a website that get so many hits within the first hour, that it brings down the Harvard computer network. He wanted to prove to himself that he as impressive enough win her back even after snubbing her. Creating a website in 1 hour and creating enough hits to bring down the network is awesome. In fact, it is this tryst that eventually leads him to create Facebook.

Someone may say that Mark comes off as an heartless a**hole. But disagree, I think he appears so because he is relationally and socially challenged. There is a scene where he meets her again by this time, now he is already a minor celebrity with a fan base at Harvard. Facebook has already made him a name. He with his impressive accolades walks to her and sheepishly asks to speak to her. He tries to tell her about Facebook. She refuses to even listen to him. Mark has the most perplexed look on his face, ever. He has hit a wall but he does not know how to get through it. He walks off confused and tells his friend that she refused to speak to him. His friend asks, "Well, did you apologize to her". His face registers, if only for a short while, the look of a guy who threw a million dollars into trash can because he did not know how dollar bills looked like. He was so relationally challenged that it did not even occur to him that he really needed to apologize, just as an analytically challenged person would read a sentence like this 'when A is not equal to B and B is not equal to C, then there is no way one can say that A is definitely not C', more than once but still find it confusing.

Mark's longing for his sweetheart does not stop here. Facebook is growing. He is famous. He meets with Sean Parker who created the infamous yet iconic phenomenon of Napster. Sean tells Mark that he created the prototype for Napster when his girlfriend dumped him and he wanted to prove he was valuable. Mark brightens up. He sees the parallel. Mark asks Sean what happened of that girlfriend after he became famous, “Did you two get back?” The question does not even register in Sean's mind, he is already showing off to his umpteenth one-night girlfriend. Sean is who I call 'a complete a**hole'. Mark is lost his heart still longing for his sweetheart.

The other high point of Mark's longing for his sweetheart is depicted at the seminal moment of his phenomenal achievement when Facebook crosses 1 million users for the first time. Everyone is at a party enjoying. Mark is sitting alone in his office thinking about the one he is missing. His hour of greatest achievement, on the road to becoming the youngest billionaire ever, was the lowest point of his life. He did not have his sweetheart to share his achievement with.

Then we move to the last scene where Mark is grilled by attorney representing his Rich-brat Harvard-mates who are suing him, with wealthy attorneys that their Father’s deep pockets could buy, to get a share on Facebook. Mark is indignant. His rationale is that Facebook is his because he invented it. Once the grilling is complete and everyone has left. He is alone, and hasn't had any food all day. You would think he would be totally pissed of. And he is. But he remembers that his pursuit wasn't really fame or money, even his closest friend who was suing him says on testimony, "Mark never cared for money". Right from the night that he brought the Harvard Network down

it was a Relationship that Mark was pursuing . If Shajahan built the Taj Mahal as a momument for the celebration of his love for Mumtaj, Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook as a means to impressive before his sweetheart and to win her back.

The real problem was that being relationally challenged, he did not understand the basic tenet of relationships. Real lasting relationships are built on the ability of a person to love, not on impressiveness factor. His analytically brilliant, relationally challenged mind did not understand that a man who tries too hard to be impressive ends up becoming an a**hole.

Ps: This spin in the moive is entirely fictional. The real life Mark Zuckerberg is perhaps relationally challenged but he has had one girlfriend since his Harvard days and they have been together all along. Commendable!

The Town – Modern Morality – Betrayal better than beating!!!

The movie 'The Town' is a well made. There is subtlety in the script, pace to the story and intense realism. The movie is a realistic depiction of modern lifestyle. It impels me to critique the modernistic worldview that undergirds the idea of the good and the bad in this movie.

A bank robber, Ben Affleck, falls in love with the victim of one of the heists. Among the gang thieves, Ben Affleck is portrayed as the good gentle hearted guy and his childhood buddy, Jeremy resorts brutality too quickly. You get to hate Jeremy’s guts and love Ben Affleck who is powerful yet avoids hurting people 'physically'. What struck me about the movie was the sense of stridency with which the movie upholds goodness as having more to do with the physical than the spiritual. It is a movie true to the materialism of this age where morality is confined to the realm of the 'material' - only that which can be touched and felt.

Jeremy is shown as a bad guy because he hurts people to intimidate them. He does not mind killing friends if he knows that they'll betray him to the FBI. Ben is shown in good light as a guy with a conscience who has become a thief because of inexorable circumstances. Ben does not hurt people physically, but he hurts them emotionally. Strangely, in the movie’s depiction, that he hurts people emotionally does not factor in as moral bankruptcy.

Ben uses a woman, Jeremy’s sister, for his sexual pleasure and then shoves her off when he finds a new one, the victim of the heist, all the while maintaining the facade of a good guy trying to be the best he can be, given the unfortunate circumstances of his childhood. When Ben Affleck falls in love with his victim, that he already has Jeremy’s sister for a lover whose daughter she says is his does not pose a moral dilemma to this guy with a golden heart. Having decided to elope with his new lover, he just shoves her and the kid out of his apartment.

My problem with the movie is that it makes it appear as though he is 'justified' in cutting lose from Jeremy’s sister, now that he 'truly' loves another. The painful scene of the shoving-off is entirely depicted from Ben Affleck's ‘alpha-male-to-be-pitied-for-a-broken-childhood’ perspective. In the scene of separation, you hear the kid crying in the distance when he and the kid's mother are having an altercation. He lifts the kid, walks out the door, leaves her outside the door and asks the mother to follow. Period.

The scene is shot in a way to make the viewer oblivious to the horrid pain he, the guy with a golden heart, is causing the weaker ones. I would have had a better appreciation for the scene if it faithfully depicted the horrible pain this guy was causing the lady and the little three year old. That would have been more realistic as it would have showed that Ben Affleck, who is portrayed as a good-natured victim of his circumstances was himself, a horrible victimizer.

The movie instead of showing him as the victimizer, somehow justifies his spiritually hurting his girlfriend and her daughter now that he has 'connected' with a new girl. That movie does not call a spade a spade and depict Ben to be as much a victimizer as was Jeremy. It is just that methods of victimization are different. Jeremy hurts the body, Ben kills the soul.

The reason why the modern man is often morally blind to hurting the soul, and the reason why Ben is portrayed as a better guy, is because modern morality does not transcend the ‘material’ bodily reality of life. Modern morality, relative as it is, says beating a person is wrong, but betraying the person’s love isn't. It says one can keep eloping with new a lover as long as there are no strings attached and one does not physically abuse the ex.

Even if there are strings, if the pull of new love is strong enough modern morality 'justifies' the snapping-off of the commitment that holds one back from reaching out for the Modern Dream of a finding a sexually fulfilling relationship with no strings. The only problem is that God did not create sexual relationship to be cheap, whether one likes it or not there will always be strings that bond and bind.

In fact, once Ben’s true colors are apparent to the new victim-turned-lover, she asks, "wasn't it enough that you messed my life already (through your heist and the following FBI harassment), did you also have to f*** me?” She asks him to get the hell out of her life. Even here, the guy is depicted to come on top, as a guy with a sensitive heart, he gives here all the money he made in the heist and then says an empty platitude that goes something like "I'll meet you again in this life or the next".

In depicting such partial alpha-male centered materialistic reality, the movie is a lie. But the movie is a true reflection of the lie of the modern lifestyle. It is a faithful reflection of the twisted reality of life as perceived by modern man. If the movie and the depiction of the scenes depict anything it depicts the problems with the modern worldview of life which is preoccupied with the material at the cost of discounting the spiritual and paying a costly price for that. After all, man is not just flesh and blood, he is also mind and spirit.

Valentine Meditations: Valentine Culture and Western Civilization

So this is another Feb 14th, I am reading C.S.Lewis’ ‘Four Loves’, again, trying to get wrap my mind around the idea of love – an honorable thing to do (I guess) on the day which venerates love. I am also working on writing something about Valentines day – my valentine meditations…

Valentine’s day is predominantly a celebration of the affluent. Having lived both in the east and the west, in my experience, Valentine’s day is celebrated with fun and frolic in the affluent west and in pockets of the eastern hemisphere where affluence is pursued as the chief aim of life. In also think that in any society where the ‘social standard’ of affluence is high, the pursuit of affluence is often accompanied by an advent of a prolonged singlehood, delayed marriages and ultimately, fewer children. Affluence is not the enemy of marriages. The modern western society’s high standards for affluence and the mind-numbing pursuit of the high standards causes within the heart of man a dilemma in choosing between a high single lifestyle of freedom and luxury or a shared lower standard of family living characterized by commitment and sacrifice.

By the standards of the western society, unless one is relatively rich, to be married and to have children has become akin to being burdened by a much lesser standard of living, so most singles who are forced to pursue affluent standards by the society have no option other than to wait until they are (college) debt free and rich enough to enjoy an affluent married life. In most cases, this does not necessarily mean that singles are alone until they are married. Most end up with the compromise of living with make-shift mates and celebrating valentine’s day.  Valentine’s day in much of the affluent world appears to have morphed into a celebration for the singles, to celebrate it with their make-shift mates and still remain single.

This ‘valentine culture’ that pursues society’s standard for ‘individual affluence’ at the cost of marriage, children and family will undermine the very foundation of the western civilization. This may not be the straw that breaks the back of the western civilization, it is most likely the rottenness that is eating it from within. G.K. Chesterton said, ‘There are many ways a civilization can fall, there is only one way it can stand. The western civilization is now testing the angles’. I live in an apartment complex in mid-town Houston which has nearly 200 apartments and I hardly see any kids. Whereas in India in an apartment complex of the same size, occupied by similar demographic age group, I would be constantly and pleasantly disturbed by the sound of screaming kids.

A column in the Wall Street Journal said that to bring down the western civilization, the Islamic Jihadists need not really risk attempting another 9/11. They can just sit in their caves and continue to have as many children as they can and then wait for the western world to fall under its own weight. The western civilization as we see it, will eventually fall because this generation of westerners aren’t getting married neither are they having enough children. Without children, no civilization can exist. The theory is that when the western world falls because there aren’t enough children to prop it up, the children of Middle eastern world will, by default, inherit the world of tomorrow.

A huge part of the ‘unsophisticated’ east though hasn’t fallen prey to this Valentine culture. I read an article which said that the ‘Commission for promotion of virtues and prevention of vice’ in Saudi Arabia, (no, this is not a joke there is indeed a commission by that name in the Saudi) has banned any form of celebration of the valentine’s day. This may sound retarded, but I think, the middle eastern Clerics have the prescience that allowing any form of valentine culture of the affluent west to become the norm in their culture would rob defeat from the jaws of victory they are eagerly and patiently waiting for. In fact, Islam is the fastest growing religion, not through propagation of its ideals, but through procreation by its followers.

The Church is not silent either, it too is fighting against this decadence. I went to a Church for a Valentine’s day special event. A special speaker was flown in from 1000 miles afar and interestingly, the theme of the message was “How to stay single and find wholeness (in God)”. But there wasn’t even a cursory mention of getting married or raising families. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I really do not know why one’s pursuit of one’s sense of wholeness in God has anything to do with ones marital status. The message of Evangelical Christianity to singles appears to be that singles should behave, be patient, be blessed and wait for the marriage ‘calling’. The gist of the Christian message, I think, isn’t that different from what I get from TV series ‘Friends’. ‘Friends’ tells singles to be single, confused and cool until something happens and you find yourself getting married. The Church tells singles be single, blessed and cool until you have the ‘calling’. The Church is right fighting against the idea of having make-shift mates, but it appear to not be fighting against the root cause, neither is it giving a solution to the problem.

God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. The modern society that dictates man to pursues personal affluence does not understand what this command from God means. Modern man is caught in a dilemma. One part of the modern man wants to be free and affluent. Another part of man wants to be married and have kids and a family. Modern man, without the Bible, does not have the framework to reconcile this dilemma that is gnawing from deep within him. This generation that addicted to affluence, tarries on in anguished confusion about marriage and raising families seeks its solace in the valentine culture of make-shift mates.

The pre-modern society had a sense of community and traditions which helped man get married and then helped him stay married. The place held by community and traditions in the previous generation is empty now. The Church, in most cases, instead of stepping into this lacuna and helping the modern man have a Biblical and culturally relevant understanding of being fruitful and multiplying, is, I think, overreacting (against the make-shit mate culture) and asking singles to find wholeness in singlehood first and then think about marriage as a special ‘calling’.

If the historical St. Valentine did what history says he did, he did not invent boxed chocolates wrapped with ribbons or red roses, neither did he ask them to wait for some special ‘calling’ or for the right opportunity or compromise with make-shift mates. He appears to have done exactly what the Christians needed to do. He stepped into a lacuna created by the ‘social standards’ of that day and helped singles get married. He supposedly paid a very heavy cost for it. No wonder he made himself the most venerated Saint of all time across all nations irrespective of religion or race or creed that the Muslim Clerics need not have a decree that no Muslim should celebrate St. Paul’s day but has a decree that none should celebrate St. Valentine’s day.

The Church (of today) I think has a great opportunity to speak into this anguished culture unable to reconcile the dilemma between society’s standard for ‘personal affluence’ and the yearning in the human heart for ‘family life’. Christianity has to reverse the damage done by this valentine culture by speaking INTO the valentine culture, in a language they understand as Paul did at Athens. If Christians cannot make themselves relevant to the plight of this culture, historians of tomorrow may observe that Christianity, which by subjugating the authority of kings to the ‘law from above’, gave mankind the basis to the creating the democratic golden era of western civilization, couldn’t save it from the decadence that had set in.

Notebook - First Love to Second Love

'Notebook' is a fairly good movie. I found only one aspect of the movie grating, unfortunately it is central to the movie. I have been trying to understand why the well-loved movie, 'Notebook', just did not feel right to me. I know many friends who love the 'Notebook' and having seen in multiple times, wouldn't miss an opportunity to see it again. Most of them I suppose are people who have had some cherished 'first love' experiences. I think the teen 'first love' is a great experience for some people.

In as much as the movie depicted 'first love' for the sake of 'first love', I seemed to like the storyline, but then there comes a point at which the story line is unnaturally twisted to the exchange the reality of 'mature love' for the dream of 'first love'. A rich aristocratic girl exchanging the lover of her twenties with an accomplished affectionate guy for the love of her teens with a popper working in a lumber yard, just seemed too incongruous to how human nature works. Of course, there is ample empirical evidence of teenage daughters of multi-millionaires falling in 'first love' with puerile paupers. But I have not heard of any instance, even in the novels that celebrate idealistic romance, where lady in her twenties exchanges her love with a classy, rich, accomplished and affectionate guy for the love-of-her-teens with an obscure popper. I think there have been novels where, true to the basic human nature, the opposite happens, where a lady's teen 'first-love' for the boyish teenager quickly disappears when she gets enamored by the real manly aura that surrounds the mature and accomplished man in his twenties.

I would call this love of twenties as 'second love'. This is definitely much stronger than the 'first love' of the teens. I think, qualitatively, there is little difference, between the first love of the teens and the second love of the twenties in that they are both profoundly visceral experiences. Moving on to the differences,  I think the first love of the teens is but a fore-taste of the second love of twenties which is bound to be much more realistic and longer lasting than the first love of the teens, for the simple reason that the guy and the girl are more a man and woman in their twenties than in the teens.

The 'first love' of the teens is a dream. It is a dream that will come true in the love of the twenties. To have the love dream comes true in the twenties, as in the movie 'Notebook', and then to revert back to the teen dream just does not seem sane. Reverting back to the dream of 'teen love' is not akin re-living the dream, it is a chasing after a mirage. This is precisely why 'Notebook' seems grating to me. 'Notebook' is a celebration of the reverting back to the dream which was just meant to be a foretaste of the real thing. This 'Notebook' reverting back, is almost like becoming an adult and getting a McLaren and then saying, "No, I'll exchange my McLaren for the NFS video game I played when I was a kid". It is almost like going to heaven and then on the gates of paradise, saying, "No, I'll exchange heaven for life on earth."

A Walk to Remeber - A Story of Love

 It is 3:00 am and my mind is on fire. I just watched the movie “A Walk To Remember”, which has almost the same story line as the timeless classic “love story” written by Eric Segal. When I got this movie at Block Buster the lady at the counter told me that this movie was awesome and that she loved it. Even then I got a sense that this movie was about something deep. When I was watching this movie I couldn’t help thinking about “love story”. In both, a guy and a girl fall in love. The girl in both cases is intelligent, musically talented and beautiful. The guy purues, the guy proposes, they get married. A terrible sickness, cancer in both cases, befalls the girl. The girl dies. The guy is devastated. But there is one difference, “Love Story” is not a ‘story of love’, but “A Walk to Remember” is.

Ever since I read “Love Story”, and saw the brilliantly made movie based on which the novel was written, I have been mulling over some questions in my mind, “What is wrong with the novel?”, “Why does it make me feel desperate?”, “Why does it make me cry?”, “Why should two people who did everything right be victimized by the randomness of life and human condition?”, “Why is the end so devastating and haunting?”. It is devastating because there is no miracle. It is haunting because the capricious randomness of affliction casts a dark pall over every blossoming feelings of love. It is haunting to realize that love is subservient to the randomness of life’s traversities. So the most haunting existential question that “Love Story” taunted me with was this, “Is love limited by the traversities of life?”, “Is the idea that ‘love conquer all’ a myth or worse just plain rhetoric?”, “Is it possible that in my life I can do it all right and still be victimized just because the lot falls on my name?”. “A Walk to Remember”, gives a glimpse of the answer to all of these questions.

The problem with “Love Story” is that even though it is a story that evokes the most intense emotions out of the depth of ones heart. It does not have depth in itself. “Love Story” is not ‘story of love’, it lacks a meta-narrative. It has a narrative, a very intense one, but it has no alpha or omega. It says nothing about the people and their beliefs, it leaves the end just as it is, there is nothing beyond. The reader is left dangling in the middle of nowhere just as Oliver is at the end of the movie, with a lost look on his face, yearning to reverse time, is left nothing else but a haunting memory and one tag line ‘Love means not ever having to say sorry’. In her deathbed, all she could say is, “Hold me Oliver, hold me tight”. It appeared to be their final attempt to defy the inevitable, an attempt to make love triumph over life. And a failed attempt at that.

On the other hand, in “A Walk to Remember”, the girl is the daughter of a Priest. A very intelligent, talented and devout girl who in the prime of her life and its pursuits, realizes that she may not have long to live. She wishes for a miracle, she wishes to get married. She finds herself being pursued by a guy from a broken home who delights in perverted masochistic pleasures. She accepts the friendship but still they have conflicts in their faiths – she a theist and he a mocker of theists. As her strength wanes, their love deepens, he sees a depth in her which causes him to want be better than himself. He turns from his old ways and really learns to love life. The miracle she expects in her life never happens. She says that she does not have a reason not to be angry with God, but she still stays true to the love of God. He marries her and grants her second wish. In her death bed, she tells him. “I expected God grant me my first wish - to work a miracle in my life. I now see the miracle. I see that the miracle is you. God brought you into my life. He transformed you through me. You are my miracle. You are my angel.” She gives him a book of quotations and ask him to read her favorite one, “love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not resentful”…gathering all her strength she repeats the words and with the most serene demeanor and a smile on her face. He is not left with a tag line, he is left with timeless truths and eternal relationships.

The pivotal difference between the two movies is that in the former there is no place for God or faith, where as in the latter God and faith become the foundation of their love. In the former when love was not longer present there was nothing left to make sense of all the capricious randomness and the angst. Where as in the latter, even as the tangible love disappears God and faith makes sense of the randomness and helps experience the miracle of the metaphysical love transforming the life of the guy into playing his part in the ‘story of life’, a story that has an alpha and an omega, a story where one isn’t left dangling in the middle of nowhere with the most intense feelings of lostness and anguish, a story where metaphysical love makes ‘real, cherished and eternal’ the love experienced in the tangible realm. 

Valentine Meditations

"Blessed are the single, for they shall find True love"

 After 4 months of living in Houston, and repeated attempts to getting a motorcycle being unsuccessful, I have become crazy the my freedom is being limited by my not being able to find a quicker means of commuting about than commuting on a bicycle. Today, I came to know that a guy had a motorcycle for sale. I called him and asked if I could go over and see his motorcycle. I could feel the exasperation in his voice when he said, “Today is Valentine’s Day and I am going to my girl friends house”. And I said, “Oh, I am sorry I didn’t realize that today is Valentine’s Day”.  It was then I started on my valentine meditations.

Popular history states that Valentine’s Day is a lovers’ celebration of the sacrifice that St. Valentine did in order to get to lovers married against the law. I wonder why St. Valentine isn’t given as much importance in how valentine’s day is celebrated. This day is not about St. Valentine but about lovers. Lovers are so lost in each other that they fail to acknowledge the person who sacrificed himself to bring lovers together and make this day of celeberation possible. St. Valentine is moved out of the equation of Valentine celebrations.

Human beings are wired to celebrate joy but they also seem to be wired to forget the cause of the joy. Consequently, after quite a while, forgetting the cause of the joy makes the joy that is celeberated into something other than what it was meant to be and then they would never be able to enjoy the joy that originally was. If St. Valentine would be come back to life today, I think he would most likely be flabbergasted by the things that are celeberated, which he has become the cause of.

The ultimate cause of all causes is the uncaused Cause of all. The ultimate cause of love is the ultimate Valentine the One who first envisioned in his uncaused mind the possibility of human love and then when  on to create with all his powers of creativity, a place for man in the cosmos. Then He went one step further to create man and woman as lovers of each other. Every time love is celebrated leaving the ultimate cause of love the ultimate Valentine, the ultimate Lover out of the equation of celebration of love, the love that is celebrated becomes something else.

The other day in MSNBC there was a new clip about a company which offered discrete dating services for married people. The CEO of the company was interviewed and asked to justify the moral legitimacy of the services his company was giving. He said, “we have always been evolving, in the previous era we redefined the idea of arranged marriages and now we are redefining the idea of monogamy in marriages.” When the creator and the caue of love is left out of the equation of love, love becomes something else.

Christian singles who are still single and wait would do much better for themselves if they found true love in the ultimate Valentine before they go about trying to find love in their life partners. It is not surprising to me that in the Bible, God should use the bridal analogy to relate with human beings more often than the father-child analogy. Unless they learn to love God as the Groom they would never be able to involve God in the equation of love with their spouses. Only when Christian singles learn to love God as the Groom, would they be able to experience what true love is and would be better able to love their life partners much better than they could have had they not loved God as the Groom. Loving God as the Groom can best happen in single life. Blessed are the single for they shall find true love.  

My Meditations on Valentine's Day ;)

As I was writing my journal today early morning about 2:30 am, I realized that it was already Valentine's day and it got me a wee bit too romantic in my journal. Nevertheless, being a proud single guy I just wanted to share with all a few sober thoughts.

With the media creating some much hype sensualizing Valentine's day and the society getting increasingly prejudiced by the media, to the post modern 'progressive' man to be single on Valentine's day has become an abomination. To him/her being still single is to be outside the 'Survival of the Fittest' and destined to for extinction in a 'progressive' world.

In the animal kingdom to be unpaired is to be undesirable or unworthy of genetic propagation, the kind that is inferior that he/she is unworthy of life itself. And man living in the post modern world with a 'progressive' naturalistic worldview has no reason why this truth of the animal kingdom should not be applied to human race as well, after all man is a social animal say the science text books.

It’s a pity that the 'progressive' man is actually progressing (as per his worldview it is not regressing but still progressing) back to ape-hood, with regard to the quintessential essence of his innate 'nature'.

To such an apeman, there is no pride in 'character' there is no pride in singleness. To be proud about character or singleness as against following the throng and always be in a relationship, is relegated as archaic morality which is soon to be extinct.

So in the young man's or woman's life to pair up is a face saving act, whether it is with the right person or not is immaterial. The only concern is about whether or not they are in a relationship. And to be unpaired on the Valentine's day is consequently an abomination.

If Christ were to come into this setup, I think He would have said...

'Blessed are those who are single,
For they shall find true love'

Love unlike instinct is not driven by feelings but by a commitment. Commitment comes with patience and prudence in dealing with relationship. Unless there is respect for singleness, there would never be enough maturity for commitment. By jumping headlong into relationships one takes the route to never ever finding true love in life.

It’s better to be single than to be with the wrong person. To be single may not be heaven, but to be with the wrong person is most certainly hell. Its better to be and embodiment of strength in singleness than to spinelessly enter into a wrong relationship just for the sake of being in a relationship and thereby be accepted by the 'progressive' throng.

So the Valentine ’s Day, I would like to encourage all Christian singles to cherish their strength of character in singleness and build on it without feeling inferior or inadequate. They should rather be proud about flaunting their strength in singleness and the opportunity that singleness gives to mature and eventually find the one true love for which they are being fashioned. I would also urge them to prayerfully submit themselves and their yet-to-be-known future spouses to God.

All young Christians who are already paired-up need to re-evaluate their love for God. Before they go to beaches or restaurants or movies with each other to enjoy Valentine’s Day, they should first go to a nearby Church as a symbolic act, submit to God inviting him to be the love of their lives and the unseen host through all of their Valentine’s Day celebrations and their ensuing committed life together.

To all the paired-up ones… ‘Enjoy the Valentine’s Day with your mate submitting to the One True Valentine’

To all the singles… ‘Enjoy the Independence day as your freedom may soon be consumed in love’ :)

May His Blessings Abound,
Emmu.

Powerful Men so Miserably in Love

I call those men as powerful who have the power to twist and turn reality to suit their ends. They are men who have the ability to inspire and even manipulate people to achieve their ends. They are equally admired, envied and hated by the throng, the average men. Anyone in the throng would love to be where these men are but they just haven’t the power in them.

But God when he created the powerful men, did not want to leave the throng to feel that God was partial. So He made these men so powerful that when it came to the issue of love they were the most miserable.

The powerful men having been so used to changing reality to suit their wants and needs get baffled when it comes to love. Love is always a mystery to them, a mystery that haunts them day in a day out. Love is something they never get to understand, everything else they understand and can manipulate, but against love, they are completely powerless.

They are unable to accept their powerlessness and try to get more powerful only to realize that it does not work as they expect it to.

Having been used to forcing people their way, they presume love works that way only to realize that Love is the one thing that can never be forced. The only thing that can bring about love is the giving up of ones own self for the others sake. But the powerful man will never be able to give ones self up. No. Never. So he tries a lot of other means only to find that he fails again and again.

The movie Citizen Kane (1940), the movie that ranks the first in the American Film Institute (AFI), brings out this concept so beautifully. In the movie Charlie Kane is the Powerful man, a media conglomerate who loves the power that he welds in shaping public opinion. He makes everyone think what he wants to think. He loves it.

There is one thing he cannot do, he cannot make anyone love him. He wants everyone to love him his way, without he having to give any of his up. But he fails. He then attempts to use his power and money to buy love, but he realizes that he ends up buying pleasure seekers not lovers. Once their hedonistic needs are satisfied, they elope leaving him lonely in his powerful world.

Citizen Kane was a movie based on a real life character William Randolph Hearst I who was a media mogul living in America in the early part of 20th centaury.

When I was reading about the charismatic CEO of Oracle Corp, and the fifth richest man in America, Larry Ellison, I found some amazing parallels. Larry Ellison is a powerful man who loved to twist reality to suit his ends. He rose in fame and riches, he lead a flamboyant lifestyle.

Nevertheless his had one inexorable need, the need for love. He was married and divorced thrice. He had so many famous affairs with so many beautiful women. His houses were most beautiful and his yachts and jets were spoken off by the rich and powerful.

He concedes to an interviewer that his great need was for a strong marriage; his reason for one he says is for the need for shared experiences. He called his third wife with whom he had two kids just to tell her how lonely he felt in his big beautiful house. He wanted love but he wanted it his way. He presented his first wife with a Benz many years after their divorce, all she said was that she was glad that she got the Benz and not him.

How so miserable the love lives of such Powerful men is.