Doug,
It's one of my fave poems .
Nothing better for staring life in the face and saying "come on, do your worst..."

It is the defiance against the ills and unfairness that life may perceivable throw against us. I see it both inclusive of and exclusive of any religious context.

For the spiritual or religious person it is a shelter in the storm given by a higher power. For the non believer, it is a testament to the unbroken spirit of man against the world.

It's a great poem, albeit slightly soured , for me, by Timothy Mcveigh's use at his execution .

 

I think I read that poem somewhere before. good poem has a cadence like marching straite into the frey disregarding ones own well being!.... I don't see it that way. lol whats more, I think the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and the poet is like an enternet hero who talks tough but in person he is a wimp like me.lol

 

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole.
Life that the Lord had given me,
Was lost upon my darkened soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I was led as I wondered alone.
Never caring nor complaining,
Thinking I was the one on this throne.

Life was deadly, as it tried to take me,
But neither took me nor could hurt me,
Never reached me nor could change me,
Too trapped in the darkness I had chose.

Would I stay here forever in darkness?
Never finding, surely soon forgetting,
Who it was that had led me all along;
the king of this world it was, still sitting upon his throne.

 

As we all know, I'm not into poetry

but I looked William Earnest Hensley up on Wiki. He was 25 when he wrote that; had already had a foot amputated prior from Tuberculosis of the bone earlier and was now in the hospital. Then I read his later poem on death: Margaritae Sorari

A late lark twitters from the quiet skies:
And from the west,
Where the sun, his day's work ended,
Lingers as in content,
There falls on the old, gray city
An influence luminous and serene,
A shining peace.


The smoke ascends
In a rosy-and-golden haze. The spires
Shine and are changed. In the valley
Shadows rise. The lark sings on. The sun,
Closing his benediction,
Sinks, and the darkening air
Thrills with a sense of the triumphing night--
Night with her train of stars
And her great gift of sleep.


So be my passing!
My task accomplish'd and the long day done,
My wages taken, and in my heart
Some late lark singing,
Let me be gather'd to the quiet west,
The sundown splendid and serene,
Death.

 

I have done my best to take a fresh look at this poem but that is impossible for me. Too much history. This was the only poem of note by William Henley who, as Grizzly points out, had a tough way to go in life. He grew up poor, lost his father when very young, then lost his leg to Potts disease (tuberculosis of the bone) when only 25 years of age, a malady which eventually brought him to his death at age 53.

Originally the poem had no title. The word "Invictus" is a latin word for "unconquered" and was added as the title much later. Henley was an avowed atheist as you may have gathered from the wording and tone of the poem but in the early stanzas seems to lean more towards agnosticism when he thanks whatever gods may be for his unconquerable soul. But in the end he shows no ambiguity stating that He alone is the master of his fate and captain of his soul leaving no room for any possibility of a deity in his life.

What is most interesting about this poem is that it did not receive much attention in the late 19th century when it was written. But in contemporary times, with the onset of a humanist philosophy, it seems to arouse the passions of many who feel that Henley was writing about a man of courage. A man who may be bloodied by unfortunate circumstances in life but whose head is unbowed.

My question is this.....

"How can a guy be mad at fate?"

Doug

 

"How can a guy be mad at fate?"

Doug

Doug,

This is where I find the poem somewhat of an enigma.

My personal philosophy and attitude towards life, is not to be angry with fate, but have the courage and fortitude to address it without capitulating.

I may not be capable of controlling the direction of the wind but I am in control of how I tack my sailboat..

 

I hated this "thinking" in English class. At that time in my life I could care less about poems and Shakespeare. I was more interested in the girls sitting next to me or what went on after school. But now I look at this poem differently, comparing it to how I have come to see people go through life. In it and in others we all know and in ourselves, some apply themselves and some don't. Those who apply themselves have the potential to rise to the top or excel in what they choose to do.

Those faced with hardships can apply themselves and rise above and still perform and survive; no, more than survive, still manage to accomplish worthwhile goals. Others who wallow in self pity or simply coast through life will never be masters of their fate. They instead will always be affected by those who are able to rise up and accomplish something in life, i.e. their bosses, their leaders, the ones who take charge.

Those who are able to take charge "may" feel they are the master of their fate because they have gone through life with greater success, applying themselves, listening to those who they respect, taking advice, controlling their desires, limiting their behavior, applying themselves but the captain of their soul? You have to go deep into the individual to know more than what we are probably capable of seeing in another to grasp this. We are using words like fate and soul which are barely understood and we speak of them almost casually as if we are somehow greater, or great enough to look down from a superior position and discuss these concepts as if we are above them. So elevated is our "self", our sense of "self". We all feel this, both the accomplished and the not so accomplished.

In the Christianity that Christ teaches, "self" is the first thing that must be seen as being in the way of a relationship with the Father. A relationship that Christ came to demonstrate and make possible for everyone and anyone who seeks Him.

We don't have to seek Him. There is enough in life to keep us occupied. The Jews spoke of the Veil that separated them from God. I'm no scholar or theologian but I can perceive this Veil and at times I can and have perceived a life made possible by Christ that is touched by what Christ did for us when He made possible the piercing or tearing down of this Veil between us and God.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

It seems the author raises his fist to God:

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" Matthew 7:14

For whatever reason, probably because of how much self still wants to be in control, we tend to look at or relate to these verses differently. I don't believe he found it. Have I found it?

This verse affected me at about the same age as the author who wrote this poem. I accepted it as truth. He doesn't seem to have. He says it doesn't matter. He also believes it matters not what is written in the "Book of Life". I have always believed that it does. If I can remember at times, something very obscure from my early childhood, if memories, lessons, knowledge can be brought to mind without even calling them up, sometimes even knowledge I did not posess in any way came to my aid when I called out for help, then I can not say it doesn't matter.

Who knows what is on the other side of the veil?

The author wrote: "Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade," but he is unafraid.

He is willing to go through life under his own power, the master of his fate, unafraid. How can I hold anything against him or others who go through life as best they can, struggling, striving, and with desires and needs. I respect their courage, their fortitude and their accomplishments. But I look for more. I know there is a veil there, or once was. We can keep that veil in place or see what happens when it is taken down. The more I experience the unexplainable in life, those things that can be traced to faith and grace, the more my self becomes humbled and the more I want to know Him.

Christians are not perfect yet. That only will happen because of His second coming. But we are to be living according to what has been given to us. That includes Scriptures, the helping of the Holy Spirit, the gift of the five fold ministry, and to be committed to being a member of the body of Christ.

That doesn't mean just sitting in church each week. We have to be committed followers seeking that narrow way through that straight gate with His help and also by helping others. We should be sharing all we have been given, whether that is love or understanding or the love of helping others in service or giving of our wealth or giving of our self.

If as Christians, we for a moment think that we are the masters of our fate or the keepers of our soul, we deny Christ and all that He came to do.

 

If as Christians, we for a moment think that we are the masters of our fate or the keepers of our soul, we deny Christ and all that He came to do.

I will go one better than that. If any person on the planet thinks for a minute that any degree of cosmic independence is remotely within the realm of human capability that person is operating within a delusional fantasy. The author is smarter than that. He knows full well that he cannot be the master of his fate but has written this poem as a poetic middle finger to that which does have control. That very thing that he stubbornly denies.

His head is bloody but unbowed not towards fate which has no pattern, order or intent. His antagonism is directed at God and God alone.

The poem is more of a metaphysical temper tantrum inferring that nobody is going to be the author's boss. I can almost hear Henley singing "My Way".

"It matters not how strait the gate
Or charged with punishment the scroll."

It may not have mattered to William Earnest Henley when he penned this poem. He speaks from the grave now. What is he saying?

Doug

 

"Thus, my conclusion that this poem reflects nothing more than a temper tantrum. The poem reminds me of a child who becomes defiant when they do not get their way. Henley chooses NOT to reveal anything constructive that might result from his tantrum because the poem is concerning an attitude of rebellion and nothing else. IMHO

"

YES!!

And as such, isn't worth wasting time over..

Personal case in point.

My oldest brother, may he RIP, never made much of his life and rationalized that by incessantly complaining about how the "little man" was always being screwed.

Finally, I said: "Then perhaps it's time for you to consider becoming a "big man"

That statement didn't do much for our relationship

 

I wasn't there to hear the tone in which you addressed your older brother but your advice to him could have been very helpful.

Part of my point here is that we (human beings) tend to react to any form of correction with defiance rather than to humbly analyze both the situation and the corresponding advice with the intention of becoming more productive folks. This approach tends to build relationships. Defiance and self fortitude may have their place in situations where valid courage is required to accomplish a goal. I don't see the goal and thus do not see anything courageous about this man that Henley writes about. Yet, there are so many that do.

I am open to correction.

Doug

 

Ah Ben Maher.......your response is indicative of the sentimental interpretation of a growing number of passionate people in our contemporary society and is worth noting.

With an excess of 200 views of this thread in the Christian Fellowship Forum and only four of us responding, it is obvious to me that some are wondering in silence what this poem has to do with the Christian faith. I post this not because I love poetry and would like to share this love with others but because of a growing facet of our contemporary society that espouses to a humanistic philosophy.

Hu:man:ism

a system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

"Invictus" is now a song that reitterates the "I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul" over and over again as the refrain. "Invictus" is a movie about Nelson Mandela played by Morgan Freeman who recites the entire poem earning both Freeman and Matt Damon Academy Award nominations!
There were the "Invictus Games" in May of this year in Orlando, Florida commemorating the courage of wounded warriors. The energy of this poem as an inspirational badge of courage is really picking up steam here in the 22nd century!!!

So, your viewpoint is embraced by many.

Doug

 

Doug,
I suppose that I concur with your point. However, and I had not thought of it in any 'humanist ' terms, that I see it as hand in hand with a religious belief system, not excluding it.

you've left me thinking on this one .

Dang it ......

 

"Hu:man:ism

a system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.


Another definition..

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

 

Webster.....how do you see the Google definition as being different from the Wikipedia definition of this term? It would be great if we could come to common ground concerning definitions and denotations before we discuss how the term is related to the topic. A topic that you feel is a waste of time to discuss.

Doug

 

Matthew 7, specifically verses 7, 8, 12, 21-27

James 2:14-26, specifically verses 14, 17, 20, 24, 26

 

Doug,
Does there have to be a goal ?

I see this as a state of mind that precedes any event. It, IMHO, is a suit of armour that one prepares oneself with to face life, not a weapon that one uses to correct a situation . As such it removes the need for analysis as it were, and enables actions and mindset to deal with the job at hand, which in the broad terms of Henleys poem is our lives, not any particular situation.

Fwiw, it brings a touch of Aurelian stoicism, and in that I find hope.

Still, how boring would it be if we all took the same meaning from such things . Imagine how boring the political and Christian forum would be !

 

Doug,
Does there have to be a goal ?

I see this as a state of mind that precedes any event. It, IMHO, is a suit of armour that one prepares oneself with to face life, not a weapon that one uses to correct a situation . As such it removes the need for analysis as it were, and enables actions and mindset to deal with the job at hand, which in the broad terms of Henleys poem is our lives, not any particular situation.

Fwiw, it brings a touch of Aurelian stoicism, and in that I find hope.

Still, how boring would it be if we all took the same meaning from such things . Imagine how boring the political and Christian forum would be !

Yes, and it is great that we can view this controversially inspirational poem with a non-defiant approach. Aurelian stoicism?? I had to look that one up so that later I might read about that philosophy.

Any man who puts on a suit of armour must have a goal in my opinion. And that goal is based on something that is real, such as some empirical type of threat. Granted, the donning of the suit of armour may increase the wearer's confidence but only if he is faced with a real threat. Otherwise, it is nothing more than unnecessary weight to carry around. That same man would certainly be ridiculed for wearing his armour when there was never a perceived physical threat of any kind.

"Invictus" defines no such threat. The threat is life itself! The threat cannot actually be defined because it is not a real threat. It is just life and we all have experienced unexplainable tragedies as well as unexplained benefits along life's way. Would Henley have chosen to face an army of warriors in the nude and enlightened them that he is the master of his fate. I suppose not but I am not him.

A man who prepares himself with a coat of armour has a goal in mind. To actively protect himself from a real and possibly impending threat. If there is no threat then that man could certainly be considered delusional. For Henley to say that it matters not how charged the punishments the scroll, he is actually referring to a real threat to him. A threat that he denies even exists. Is that not paradoxical?

Possibly Webster is right in thinking that this type of poetic evaluation is a waste of time but I don't see it that way. I think that this poem has to do with misplaced anger and I know that I can learn from that having been a defiant man for most of my life.

Doug

 

Reading Aurelius for the first time just now and comparing or aligning Henley with that thinking leaves one elevated in self, with a notion or hope or belief in the ability of man to rise above the depraved nature we all share.
Marcus Aurelius:
"When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own–not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine".

I wish he would have gone further in that brief writing. From the one page of quotations I read, this one jumped out. I will assume, and please, those more familiar with his writings correct me, but I assume when he mentions "possessing a share of the divine" he is referring to the good he sees man capable of sometimes attaining to. Which by definition is "of man" "is good and noble" and can be achieved if one tries enough with a heart that wants to rise about a debased way of living.

let me continue

 

Marcus Aurelius:
"When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own–not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine".

let me continue by adding my thoughts after his..

"When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own–not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine". And I have seen this nature within, both ugly and evil, that is able to control me, battle with my desire to live as though more divine, expressing beauty and good. So I have compassion and understanding for others and myself, knowing the conflict that rages within. How will one ever break free from this war?

So my nature and my mind conspire to keep me in this never ending war; desiring what is right and fighting what is wrong. I seem not capable of delivering myself from this endless battle; one day winning anther day loosing never seeming to rise above it all and truly rest and enjoy the divine.

And so it seems that life would go on this way, except and unless the divine were alive. A God above gods, more than divine; showing mercy and grace and a heart for our plight.

to continue

 

If only Marcus Aurelius who ruled Rome as an Emperor from 161 to 180 AD had had the opportunity to spend time with one of the Apostles; his writing might and would have taken a turn. Instead of being a Book of Meditations it could have been a continuation of the Book of Acts as he wrote of a changed and transformed life within with an added clarity and a changed nature. His depraved nature that he once wrote of sharing with all men could remain dormant and conquered if and so long as it was over shadowed, over ridden, and no longer wanted, in the light of Christ. If Marcus Aurelius or any man or woman for that matter, sees that depraved nature and the hurt it has caused and is troubled enough to repent of it, and to want what they read of and hear of Christ, then He, Christ will place a new nature within them. But, this new nature, this new birth, can wither and die if not nurtured properly. And who today is teaching this? We hear salvation and all is well. But there is much more to the Christian life. It requires the awareness that our fallen depraved nature will still exist in us and can easily be revived and empowered when we take our eyes off of Christ, and allow that part of our makeup that desires the old ways to take hold once again. It can also revive when we allow our faith in the One who Saved us and Changed us to shift to anything else. That anything else is usually church, or the new and wonderful things we find ourselves now thinking and doing and a false confidence now in our new found abilities and not in Christ and the Victory he attained in this life and with His death, over all the sin in this world, over all the temptations of this world and over His reliance upon His power, His will, His Strength to fight evil and instead He achieved the Victory that can free all from this world's bondages by relying upon the Power and Will of God through the Holy Spirit and not Himself. This is the hard, hard lesson we all must learn, and that is: not to depend upon and rely upon our selves, our goodness, our abilities, our strengths and instead to seek His Will and His Power and GRACE that will work through us when we have a humble, thankful, willing spirit.

If Marcus Aurelius had experienced and lived this life in Christ, he surely would have been killed by Rome (probably was anyway- I don't know his history). If he, like Constantine felt this should be the religion of Rome, he would have ruined any possibility of a life in Christ coming to fruition in Rome. It must be something the Holy spirit calls us to as we hear His Word and it must be purely voluntary. We must want change. It is not easy to give up what our conscience has been built around for we will usually think that it is right. Change is not easy. We can not do this on our own. It requires a loving God and His Grace to make it happen. When this begins to happen to you, and as you begin to grow in faith and grace, all the arguments, the debates, the questions that drive so many, become unimportant. What becomes important now is learning more of His Word, experiencing more understanding of His Word as the Holy Spirit enlightens our mind, being part of His Will for our life as we experience Him taking what we have already been given and making something happen through His anointing power for someone else and then blessing us for allowing it to happen.

We will grow and mature in our walk. Our faith will be strengthened through many trials until we become more mature, something not seen very often in Christianity. Those who do, will live lives that effect others and truly the light of Christ shines through them. Those not of the light may fight against them because they are so different than what their conscience tells them is right. So the world will persecute a true Christian.

 

Ok so you guys say you are neither captain of your own soul nor masters of your fate. To believe so is utter folly. Yet how do you reconcile that with free will of any sort which is central to Christian dogma of all types. Or is free will only meant as free will to accept God and Christ as savior or reject him? Then again if your destiny is not your own does it really even matter since you are serving the path God set for you whether you like it or not.

You guys will also excuse me, I like talking religion, spirituality, and the nature of the universe especially when the whiskey starts to run low. Seeing as how this is the only forum close to that hopefully you'll indulge me.

 

Ok so you guys say you are neither captain of your own soul nor masters of your fate.

That's why I posted the Bible verses. We do have free will, and must actively participate in salvation.

There are no scriptural examples of God giving a command, bestowing the reward, then those who received the command obeying. For example...Naaman the leper. The Israelites and the city of Jericho. Moses and the Israelites. Abraham when he was going to sacrifice Issac.

If people were just robots, predestined before birth to either go to heaven or hell and they had no choice either way, it would be pointless to even discuss it. Nothing anyone could do to change their fate one way or the other.

What in the world a poem has to do with the price of rice in China is beyond me...

 

Please allow me to be clear concerning the intent of presenting a 130+ yr old poem on a Christian Fellowship forum. The poem itself is irrelevant to the normal subject matters that we usually discuss here. I have no idea what was in Henley's mind and heart back in the late 19th century and would normally not be concerned with it.

This thread is focused on a present day perspective and attitude that seems to embrace the sentiments of a sickly man that expressed himself two centuries prior. This is about a contemporary perspective that would develop a song about true courage from this poem. Develop a movie about the admirable courage of Nelson Mandela from this poem as well as instituting and promoting a formal athletic competition for wounded warriors in honor of the courage that they have shown.

My perspective is that this admiration for Henley's expression of defiance is misplaced because it is mistaken for a statement of courage. Surely, Henley is free to express himself in any manner that pleases him. My question is not concerning Henley's feelings or expression. He is just one of thousands who expressed himself with the printed word. My question is this....

Why do we fall for it as if it were an expression of true courage when it is clearly a counterfeit of such?

Moses before Pharaoh,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego unbowed before Nebuchadnezzar,
Daniel willing to face the lions,
The Apostles before the Sanhedrin,
James facing Herod's sword,
Paul facing Nero's sword,
Jesus before Pilate.

These were valid examples of those who gave of themselves for the sake of a tangible, and definable cause. It is easy to recognize their courage because it involves dying to self for the sake of others. I am certain that it would never cross their mind to say that they were the masters of their fate. One of the greatest statements of faith is made by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego recorded in the 3rd chapter of the book of Daniel when King Nebuchadnezzar threatened to throw them into a fiery furnace if they would not bow down to worship a graven golden image.

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up."

It is very obvious to me that these three men knew full well that they had no control over their fate but God does and they expressed as much. Defiant they are but not for the sake of defiance alone as they do state that they are willing to die if that is what it takes to be faithful to something that is real.

Thoughts?

Doug

 

They all had a choice to be obedient, or not.

 

Amen, Doug

Chad, just as love has different meanings and levels as it is seen in the Greek language, I think the answer to (understanding of) your "choice" question is similar. The "choice" I see Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego making is one of devotion, an act of the heart, devotion (choosing their Living God over those made of gold); it is more of the heart than the flesh. The flesh chooses and is more akin to works than acts of the spirit which are from the heart.

When self is leading in our life (which is death spiritually) it's a "choice" and works that "we" do.

When the Spirit is leading and we are in the "life of Christ Jesus", it is our surrender to His Will being done and it is the works of faith (James) which, as we surrender our life to receive His life, the Holy Spirit does for or through us.

I suppose in a way you could call this choosing, but on a much different level and in a much different way.

Romans 2-8 "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


Please look at the very nature of "choice". Can you see how it can only come when "we" are in the flesh doing the choosing. Jesus told us very clearly to deny self and to take up our Cross, the gift of the Spirit and all else that He made possible as He said "it is finished" upon the Cross. He fulfilled all the law and the Prophets so that now He, Christ within us, for those who believe and surrender their will for His will, are enabled to do what is right in their hearts. That is different than choosing.

 

Active Participation. Chad said we must actively participate in our salvation.

Who can disagree with that? Paul even said we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the main focus of your stressing "active participation" to counter the notion that "Christians" will rely on the Holy Spirit to do everything, as we do nothing and sit on our hands, thinking we are being sanctified? If it is, I agree with clarification.

The Bible doesn't use the "Bridegroom" and the "Bride" symbolism for nothing. The analogy to our relationship to Christ is illuminated when we see how the perfect bride should relate to her bridegroom. How she feels in her heart will effect how she acts, how she loves, how she respects, how she honors her bridegroom. Again, is this a choice of the "self"? Only in that it appears that way, for she has gone beyond choosing and actively participating to giving her life for his life as he has given His life so that she (we) might have new life.

 

Choice vs. predestination. Some folks believe you are predestined for heaven or hell before you are even born. Some believe that once you are "saved", then no matter what you do from then on you are good to go.

 

Ok, now you make it clearer. I agree.

If possible, let's try to stay closer to what Doug has presented.

 

I really have no clue what the point was supposed to be. Poems are just that. They have no authority concerning religion.

The question, "am I the master of my own fate", can be answered with the Bible, and the answer is ultimately "yes". You have the final decision on whether or not to obey, which is the determining factor as to where you will spend eternity. Pretty cut and dried.

 

Post 28 by Doug made it clear for me:

"Please allow me to be clear concerning the intent of presenting a 130+ yr old poem on a Christian Fellowship forum. The poem itself is irrelevant to the normal subject matters that we usually discuss here. I have no idea what was in Henley's mind and heart back in the late 19th century and would normally not be concerned with it.

This thread is focused on a present day perspective and attitude that seems to embrace the sentiments of a sickly man that expressed himself two centuries prior. This is about a contemporary perspective that would develop a song about true courage from this poem. Develop a movie about the admirable courage of Nelson Mandela from this poem as well as instituting and promoting a formal athletic competition for wounded warriors in honor of the courage that they have shown.

My perspective is that this admiration for Henley's expression of defiance is misplaced because it is mistaken for a statement of courage. Surely, Henley is free to express himself in any manner that pleases him. My question is not concerning Henley's feelings or expression. He is just one of thousands who expressed himself with the printed word. My question is this....

Why do we fall for it as if it were an expression of true courage when it is clearly a counterfeit of such? (my emphasis)

Moses before Pharaoh,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego unbowed before Nebuchadnezzar,
Daniel willing to face the lions,
The Apostles before the Sanhedrin,
James facing Herod's sword,
Paul facing Nero's sword,
Jesus before Pilate.

These were valid examples of those who gave of themselves for the sake of a tangible, and definable cause. It is easy to recognize their courage because it involves dying to self for the sake of others. I am certain that it would never cross their mind to say that they were the masters of their fate. One of the greatest statements of faith is made by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego recorded in the 3rd chapter of the book of Daniel when King Nebuchadnezzar threatened to throw them into a fiery furnace if they would not bow down to worship a graven golden image.

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up."(emphasis mine)

It is very obvious to me that these three men knew full well that they had no control over their fate but God does and they expressed as much. Defiant they are but not for the sake of defiance alone as they do state that they are willing to die if that is what it takes to be faithful to something that is real. (again, my emphasis)

Thoughts?"

Doug

I see Doug's thinking and it goes to the heart of Christianity, not religion. He is trying to shed some light on the different way of looking at how we perceive courage and what some like to call fate.

Look at Adam and Eve. Eve by making such a wrong choice, influenced by deception as she was, and then Adam not standing firm and obedient to God, but instead going along, maybe to get along (?) certainly changed the course of their lives and those who came after them. I personally don't see that as fate but as consequences of their decisions and actions.

Now to show the relevance of this poem as it effects men and women today, look at how the word courage gets twisted and that twisted meaning becomes accepted in society's thinking just as Doug is trying to bring out here.

Eve was influenced by deception as she was influenced by the twisting and turning of the facts. The deception, combined with her motives led to a terrible decision and consequence. Same thing still happens today as in humanism twisting what our relationship with God should be.