Divorce. It's ugly, it's prevalent, and there's a growing sense that it's permissible in the church.
Let me interject that I am not writing this as a response to any particular person going through a divorce, though I have several friends and acquaintances that have recently or will be soon.
The Biblical arguments for the permissibility of divorce are not my battleground here. I have a different approach.
Why get a divorce?
Offense intended, unless you are in physical danger, there is no good reason.
I say offense intended, because I have experienced the bitterness questioning a divorce can stir up. I know the pain is real. I believe the emotions are strong. But I also believe there is an undercurrent of our faith which must be stronger.
Why get a divorce? Because forgiveness is not possible.
Really? Forgiveness is not possible? I have it easy. My wife is fantastic. She's beautiful, she's smart, she's a wonderful mother and she loves me despite of myself. Its easy to forgive her when she slips up. She hasn't done anything significant enough to warrant even the little bits of anger I've shown towards her. Divorce? Certainly out of the question!
But what if she cheated? What if I found her weaving a web of deceit and lust defiling my home and my bed? What if she intentionally hurt my child? What if she gambled away my hard earned money or stupidly lost our savings to a con? Could I forgive her?
If not, then divorce is the only way to move on. I've heard it said, "I just can't forgive that person for doing that to me." The hurt, anger, bitterness, and despair billowing out of the divorcee's heart like smoke. The pain blinding them to the only thing that really matters.
God forgave.
My wife cheated on me? I killed Jesus, I think I can forgive her. My wife lost my life savings on a stupid credit scam? I nailed the perfect Son of God to a cross, I think I can forgive her. My wife put the life of my precious son in danger? I took God's only Son from Him and slew Him, I think I can forgive her.
Hosea the prophet was called to take a harlot for a wife. Why? Because God was using their marriage as a symbol for His relationship with Israel. If God had the same response to unfaithfulness some Christians do, the book of Hosea would read very differently. Hosea would probably stone Gomer and then prophesy about all the horrible things about to happen to Israel. Instead, judgment for sin is followed by FORGIVENESS! Salvation! Restoration!
Paul describes the marriage relationship as a picture of Christ relationship with the church. He says the husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. If Christ loved the church the way some Christians do, we'd be out on the street and Christ would be looking for a new lover. But Christ gave His life for the church. He died that we might live. How utterly selfish is someone who can't forgive?
How about no-fault divorce? Just a mutual parting ways. "We just weren't happy" "I married the wrong person" "I didn't know this person I married"
God is not in the business of making mistakes. The mindset of what marriage is meant to be has eroded into fluff. You just weren't happy? How do you think Hosea felt? God told him to marry Gomer. The laziness and selfishness of the no-fault divorce almost didn't even make this article. The ring on my finger is both a reminder to be faithful, of my wife's faithfulness and, most importantly, of God's faithfulness to us. For Christians to abandon each other for such a pathetic reason as "compatibility" casts a shadow on the church's presentation of God. Trust Him that the person you've found yourself promised to is exactly who He intended. Then you might find that happiness you so overvalue.
I would go so far as to say, their are 0 scenarios in which divorce is the right course of action. But, I must listen to the same arguments I'm giving. If a divorcee wants forgiveness, they are just as entitled to it as I am, despite their inability to give it. How awesome is that?
Life isn't about being comfortable. It isn't about being happy. Its not even about being good. Its about the glory of the indescribable God. Which response brings God more glory? Forgiveness or Divorce?
Monday, May 5, 2014
Friday, April 18, 2014
Lineup Synergy and the Record Industry
Haven't even considered posting here in quite awhile. A quick update on me and mine: We are happily residing in Chesapeake, Virginia and are enjoying the southern life as much as we expected to. In the words of the immortal Gen. George Pickett (at least in a movie) "Up, men! Up! And to your posts! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!"
To the point of the post. I had a conversation with my wife which consisted of me saying several things she found unintelligible and me feeling smart, so I figured I should post about it. First, a short baseball discussion. The conventional wisdom of the sport has taught that in order to have an effective offensive attack, the players should bat in a particular order. This has been encouraged both in the professional teaching ranks and in the amateur and media camps. At another time and place I may address whether convention is truly wise, however, to give a summary of the concept see this chart-ish thing.
1 - leadoff, high OB%, low K rate, speed
2 - #2 hitter, lower K rate, high contact rate, ability to move runners over
3 - #3 hitter, "best hitter", highest AVG, some power
4 - cleanup, power hitter, usually ends with most RBIs
5 - another power hitter, usually a 3 outcome hitter (K, BB, HR)
6 - a little bit better than 7 but not good
7 - worst hitter in NL lineups, not quite worst but not as good as 6 in AL lineups
8 - set up man for P spot in NL lineups, high contact rate, high OB%, worst hitter in AL lineups
9 - pitcher in NL lineups, 2nd leadoff hitter in AL lineups
Just for fun, here's my greatest lineup possible from the history of baseball.
1 - Joe Morgan 2B
2 - Willie Mays CF
3 - Babe Ruth RF
4 - Barry Bonds DH
5 - Ted Williams LF
6 - Lou Gehrig 1B
7 - Alex Rodriguez 3B
8 - Honus Wagner SS
9 - Mike Piazza C
I go with ARod despite his success at primarily SS because the divide between himself and Honus is so small and the chasm between them and the other SS and conventional 3B is so large. Deal with it. The 3B otherwise would be Chipper Jones. I also must mention the primary PH is Hank Aaron, PR is Rickey Henderson and starting pitcher is Greg Maddux...and closer is Mariano Rivera.
Ok, ok - so enough of the baseball for a minute. What does this have to do with the Record Industry?
I believe I can prove that the same lineup synergy baseball has been employing for 115 years is being used to craft song lineups on a Record. I will endeavor to do so with a few of my favorite cuts.
Lets take award winning AFI album "Decemberunderground"
It plays out as such:
1 - Prelude 12/21 (leadoff elements of a prelude are somewhat self-explanatory)
2 - Kill Caustic (good, not great, gives a solid feel for the album)
3 - Miss Murder (easily best song of album, maybe best of their career, strong at #3)
4 - Summer Shudder (again strong, not as catchy or hyped as MM but still very good)
5 - The Interview (another hit, didn't hit the radio but probably deserved it)
6 - Love Like Winter (probably the 2nd best song but now hitting on 4 strong tracks in a row)
7 - Affliction (not bad, but definitely a little regression into the weaker part of the album)
8 - The Missing Frame (probably the weakest or 2nd weakest track, nicely buried at #8)
9 - Kiss and Control (a bit of a surprise here as this and the next one are catchy but not 3-4-5 good)
10 - The Killing Lights
11 - 37mm (my least favorite on the album, right where it belongs 2nd to last)\
12 - Endlessly, She Said (finishing strong, a common occurrence)
Don't believe me yet? Now look at Blink 182's self title album:
1 - Feeling This (strong open, sets tone, not best song but good portrait of the band)
2 - Obvious (still good, but better is coming, staying with continuity to allow later diversity to be more effective)
3 - I Miss You (epic, top charter, ear worm of the ages)
4 - Violence (not the strongest cleanup tune in the iPod, but not bad at all, showing some of that diversity)
5 - Stockholm Syndrome (total trip, great tune)
6 - Down (another strong one, if you liked Violence, again at 4 hits in a row)
7 - The Fallen Interlude (bit of a break here, intentionally flips the lineup in a way)
8 - Go (Could leadoff, good tone setter, showing some of the diversity)
9 - Asthenia (good tune, not on anybody's "best of" lists though)
10 - Always (2nd best song at 3 spot for 2nd lineup, go ahead call in contrived but I see it!)
11 - Easy Target (starting to fade a bit with the finish of the album)
12 - All Of This (not bad, but not as good)
13 - Here's Your Letter (worst tune, again right where it belongs)
14 - I'm Lost Without You (weird, but strangely interesting and as a closer, but a bad place to experiment)
2 for 2 if you're scoring at home. I'll just highlight a few more for evidence.
#'s 2-3-4-5 for Breaking Benjamin's "Phobia"
Diary of Jane - career changer
Breath - radio hit
You - another strong tune
Evil Angel - 2nd best on album
#'s 10-11-12
Unknown Soldier - not bad...kinda meh
Had Enough - definitely weak
How Its Gonna End - bit of an uptick because the album finishes with a bookend "Outro"
#'s 1-2-3 for Cavo's "Bright Nights * Dark Days"
Champagne - broke them on a scene
Crash - best song of their short careers
Let It Go - only other significantly good song on the album
Every Chevelle album:
"Wonder What's Next"
#3 Send the Pain Below - radio hit, 2nd best song of career
"This Kind of Thinking (Could Do Us In)"
#3 Vitamin R - radio hit
"Vena Sera"
#3 Saferwaters - extremely underrated hit
"Sci-Fi Crimes"
#3 Shameful Metaphors - most singable rock song I've ever heard
"Hats Off to the Bull"
#3 Ruse - great tune, only time best or radio hit song wasn't #3 thus far, and its at #4 with The Meddler
"La Gargola"
#3 Jawbreaker - haven't gotten my hands on this album to analyze, but this tune is definitely sick
I could go on and on. Green Day uses this formula, as do Yellowcard, 30 Seconds to Mars, David Crowder Band, Enya, Eve 6, Flyleaf, Il Divo, Incubus and many many more.
Some artists have slight variations, with strongest tunes at 1, 5, 9, 13 (HIM) or numerically strongest to weakest starting at 1 (Andrea Bocelli).
So, next time you crack open a new album, see how it synergizes. You may find you enjoy how songs relate to each other. As always, comments welcome.
To the point of the post. I had a conversation with my wife which consisted of me saying several things she found unintelligible and me feeling smart, so I figured I should post about it. First, a short baseball discussion. The conventional wisdom of the sport has taught that in order to have an effective offensive attack, the players should bat in a particular order. This has been encouraged both in the professional teaching ranks and in the amateur and media camps. At another time and place I may address whether convention is truly wise, however, to give a summary of the concept see this chart-ish thing.
1 - leadoff, high OB%, low K rate, speed
2 - #2 hitter, lower K rate, high contact rate, ability to move runners over
3 - #3 hitter, "best hitter", highest AVG, some power
4 - cleanup, power hitter, usually ends with most RBIs
5 - another power hitter, usually a 3 outcome hitter (K, BB, HR)
6 - a little bit better than 7 but not good
7 - worst hitter in NL lineups, not quite worst but not as good as 6 in AL lineups
8 - set up man for P spot in NL lineups, high contact rate, high OB%, worst hitter in AL lineups
9 - pitcher in NL lineups, 2nd leadoff hitter in AL lineups
Just for fun, here's my greatest lineup possible from the history of baseball.
1 - Joe Morgan 2B
2 - Willie Mays CF
3 - Babe Ruth RF
4 - Barry Bonds DH
5 - Ted Williams LF
6 - Lou Gehrig 1B
7 - Alex Rodriguez 3B
8 - Honus Wagner SS
9 - Mike Piazza C
I go with ARod despite his success at primarily SS because the divide between himself and Honus is so small and the chasm between them and the other SS and conventional 3B is so large. Deal with it. The 3B otherwise would be Chipper Jones. I also must mention the primary PH is Hank Aaron, PR is Rickey Henderson and starting pitcher is Greg Maddux...and closer is Mariano Rivera.
Ok, ok - so enough of the baseball for a minute. What does this have to do with the Record Industry?
I believe I can prove that the same lineup synergy baseball has been employing for 115 years is being used to craft song lineups on a Record. I will endeavor to do so with a few of my favorite cuts.
Lets take award winning AFI album "Decemberunderground"
It plays out as such:
1 - Prelude 12/21 (leadoff elements of a prelude are somewhat self-explanatory)
2 - Kill Caustic (good, not great, gives a solid feel for the album)
3 - Miss Murder (easily best song of album, maybe best of their career, strong at #3)
4 - Summer Shudder (again strong, not as catchy or hyped as MM but still very good)
5 - The Interview (another hit, didn't hit the radio but probably deserved it)
6 - Love Like Winter (probably the 2nd best song but now hitting on 4 strong tracks in a row)
7 - Affliction (not bad, but definitely a little regression into the weaker part of the album)
8 - The Missing Frame (probably the weakest or 2nd weakest track, nicely buried at #8)
9 - Kiss and Control (a bit of a surprise here as this and the next one are catchy but not 3-4-5 good)
10 - The Killing Lights
11 - 37mm (my least favorite on the album, right where it belongs 2nd to last)\
12 - Endlessly, She Said (finishing strong, a common occurrence)
Don't believe me yet? Now look at Blink 182's self title album:
1 - Feeling This (strong open, sets tone, not best song but good portrait of the band)
2 - Obvious (still good, but better is coming, staying with continuity to allow later diversity to be more effective)
3 - I Miss You (epic, top charter, ear worm of the ages)
4 - Violence (not the strongest cleanup tune in the iPod, but not bad at all, showing some of that diversity)
5 - Stockholm Syndrome (total trip, great tune)
6 - Down (another strong one, if you liked Violence, again at 4 hits in a row)
7 - The Fallen Interlude (bit of a break here, intentionally flips the lineup in a way)
8 - Go (Could leadoff, good tone setter, showing some of the diversity)
9 - Asthenia (good tune, not on anybody's "best of" lists though)
10 - Always (2nd best song at 3 spot for 2nd lineup, go ahead call in contrived but I see it!)
11 - Easy Target (starting to fade a bit with the finish of the album)
12 - All Of This (not bad, but not as good)
13 - Here's Your Letter (worst tune, again right where it belongs)
14 - I'm Lost Without You (weird, but strangely interesting and as a closer, but a bad place to experiment)
2 for 2 if you're scoring at home. I'll just highlight a few more for evidence.
#'s 2-3-4-5 for Breaking Benjamin's "Phobia"
Diary of Jane - career changer
Breath - radio hit
You - another strong tune
Evil Angel - 2nd best on album
#'s 10-11-12
Unknown Soldier - not bad...kinda meh
Had Enough - definitely weak
How Its Gonna End - bit of an uptick because the album finishes with a bookend "Outro"
#'s 1-2-3 for Cavo's "Bright Nights * Dark Days"
Champagne - broke them on a scene
Crash - best song of their short careers
Let It Go - only other significantly good song on the album
Every Chevelle album:
"Wonder What's Next"
#3 Send the Pain Below - radio hit, 2nd best song of career
"This Kind of Thinking (Could Do Us In)"
#3 Vitamin R - radio hit
"Vena Sera"
#3 Saferwaters - extremely underrated hit
"Sci-Fi Crimes"
#3 Shameful Metaphors - most singable rock song I've ever heard
"Hats Off to the Bull"
#3 Ruse - great tune, only time best or radio hit song wasn't #3 thus far, and its at #4 with The Meddler
"La Gargola"
#3 Jawbreaker - haven't gotten my hands on this album to analyze, but this tune is definitely sick
I could go on and on. Green Day uses this formula, as do Yellowcard, 30 Seconds to Mars, David Crowder Band, Enya, Eve 6, Flyleaf, Il Divo, Incubus and many many more.
Some artists have slight variations, with strongest tunes at 1, 5, 9, 13 (HIM) or numerically strongest to weakest starting at 1 (Andrea Bocelli).
So, next time you crack open a new album, see how it synergizes. You may find you enjoy how songs relate to each other. As always, comments welcome.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
A Short but Interesting Musical Discussion
Had the following conversation with my brother via Facebook a few months ago, after re-reading it I thought maybe other people might glean some value from it. I have made comments after posting, they are in red. All grammatical errors are original.
Clint Saxon - what a stud
At your own leisure feel free to answer these questions as lengthily or diminutively as you would like on this thread. 1. Is nonlyrical music moral or amoral? 2. How and in what ways does music communicate with the emotions (or affections) and how does this tie in with its morality or lack thereof? 3. Do you believe in both cultural and intrinsic associations in reference to music? 4. Do you allow the reputation of an artists lifestyle to determine whether you should or should not listen to that particualr artists music regularly?
Alright, lets define terms first:
Music - anything that is called music by anybody, this includes bands like "STOMP" who just bang stuff together and the composer (Cage, I think) who had 2:36 of silence in the middle of one of his pieces. Definitely Cage, the actual song is here and its 4:33.
Moral/Amoral - God has announced a good and bad side to it. Such as sex is bad unless its between man & woman, for life, once married.
Communicate - exchange of ideas, communication can take place one-way because I can scream into the air and still be saying something.
Emotions/Affections - Ways to experience the world outside of our senses. Such as "that smells funny" is senses, "that makes me mad" is emotions. Sense and emotions often coincide but not always.
Culture - composite of all the rules, expectations, experiences, decisions, traditions and goals of any size group of people. Includes oneself.
Association - "Reaction to" dictated by "previous experience with"
Ok? Let me know if those jive, and if so, I'll address #1
Music - anything that is called music by anybody, this includes bands like "STOMP" who just bang stuff together and the composer (Cage, I think) who had 2:36 of silence in the middle of one of his pieces. Definitely Cage, the actual song is here and its 4:33.
Moral/Amoral - God has announced a good and bad side to it. Such as sex is bad unless its between man & woman, for life, once married.
Communicate - exchange of ideas, communication can take place one-way because I can scream into the air and still be saying something.
Emotions/Affections - Ways to experience the world outside of our senses. Such as "that smells funny" is senses, "that makes me mad" is emotions. Sense and emotions often coincide but not always.
Culture - composite of all the rules, expectations, experiences, decisions, traditions and goals of any size group of people. Includes oneself.
Association - "Reaction to" dictated by "previous experience with"
Ok? Let me know if those jive, and if so, I'll address #1
Those definitions seem satisfactory. I will ask some questions about your definition of music later in person and Perhaps take one slightly lengthier jab at explaining "moral/amoral", then proceed with #1.
Moral/Amoral : Morality is defined as "position relative to a standard" that is "up to God's standard" God has drawn lines in the sand in specific areas (I mentioned sex) those have morality. Life is another one. "Do not kill" is pretty clear. Killing is immoral, that is it goes against God's standard. See my posts on Just War to see a caveat here.
Amorality is something which does not have an expressed Divine standard applied to it such as colors. God did not say, "Do not purple" so "purple" is not moral. *in and of itself* there are situations in which something amoral can have morality attached to it. Such as, chewing bubblegum is perfectly amoral unless the administration of the educational institution that you are enrolled at and have agreed to obey says not to do it. Even then, the bubblegum is not immoral, the chewing of the bubblegum is.
Savvy?
Amorality is something which does not have an expressed Divine standard applied to it such as colors. God did not say, "Do not purple" so "purple" is not moral. *in and of itself* there are situations in which something amoral can have morality attached to it. Such as, chewing bubblegum is perfectly amoral unless the administration of the educational institution that you are enrolled at and have agreed to obey says not to do it. Even then, the bubblegum is not immoral, the chewing of the bubblegum is.
Savvy?
1. Is nonlyrical music moral or amoral?
This follows immediately from the previous discussion. It is amoral.
Sound only takes on morality when it aligns to a revealed Divine standard. Find me the passage in Scripture when God says "Do not A major scale" or "Do not 3rd beat syncopate" or "Do not French Horn" it ain't there. Situations where sound/music would be considered moral would be when an authority which derives its position relative to you from God says not to do it. Because God has not declared any music "immoral" in fact, He repeatedly declares "making music" to be more than just moral --- useful. It is possible to wrap morality into associations. I HATE this concept, I believe associations are self-inflicted and therefore should not have moral power over us. But that's #3 so I'll go more there later.
To sum up. An instrument being played is only has ouch, take out the is morality if someone is listening and then it is usually moral or amoral unless there is a stated guideline against it and I argue God sets no guideline against musical style/sound so it would be up to the God-ordained authorities.
You should listen to this - its freaking cool. Modern classical instrumental piece.
This follows immediately from the previous discussion. It is amoral.
Sound only takes on morality when it aligns to a revealed Divine standard. Find me the passage in Scripture when God says "Do not A major scale" or "Do not 3rd beat syncopate" or "Do not French Horn" it ain't there. Situations where sound/music would be considered moral would be when an authority which derives its position relative to you from God says not to do it. Because God has not declared any music "immoral" in fact, He repeatedly declares "making music" to be more than just moral --- useful. It is possible to wrap morality into associations. I HATE this concept, I believe associations are self-inflicted and therefore should not have moral power over us. But that's #3 so I'll go more there later.
To sum up. An instrument being played is only has ouch, take out the is morality if someone is listening and then it is usually moral or amoral unless there is a stated guideline against it and I argue God sets no guideline against musical style/sound so it would be up to the God-ordained authorities.
You should listen to this - its freaking cool. Modern classical instrumental piece.
Lance Saxon
Let me know what you think and then I'll hit up #2
P.S. I state everything as though I'm an expert...that's just easier than saying "I think" and "from what I can tell" every other sentence. I know these are mostly just my opinions. BUT THEY'RE TOTALLY RIGHT!
P.S. I state everything as though I'm an expert...that's just easier than saying "I think" and "from what I can tell" every other sentence. I know these are mostly just my opinions. BUT THEY'RE TOTALLY RIGHT!
I naturally have plenty of questions but you will possibly answer them when you address the other questions. So for now, yes that is satisfactory.
Lance Saxon
2. How and in what ways does music communicate with the emotions (or affections) and how does this tie in with its morality or lack thereof?
This is relativity. Books and books and books have been written on the effect of music on the emotions in various cultures. I have a book on the effect of music on a tribal group in north-western Africa. The same music many preachers call "demonic" is their national anthem. Bit of a difference in "effect" or affect there. There is a position, proscribed to by [named removed to protect the guilty] among others, that suggests our emotional response (that is western euro-christian) is the "correct" response because our culture has been protected by the church and Christendom. I call this Euro-Centrism and denounce it. It is highly arrogant to suggest God preserved His one and true culture through Western European peoples, especially when the Medieval period is also referred to as the "Dark Ages" and that while high and mighty Europeans were crawling around in poop Muslims were inventing math. look it up, its true So, to your question. It depends on the person. Fast, loud music, excites me. I get a mini buzz of energy, depending on the events of the day, and often a small burst of endorphins (can ease a headache for instance). Mom's response, which I hold is completely due to her cultural feelings, is one of panic, disgust and overwhelming dislike. kinda funny sometimes This is an emotional response. In neither case is morality in play. Only when the emotional response results in actions/thoughts which are contrary to God's stated Will can morality be considered. Such as murdering someone while pumping "Helter Skelter" like Charles Manson. But of course, the immoral action is not listening to "Helter Skelter" its killing people. The association is the next question.
Any specific concerns or questions? Then I'll move on.
This is relativity. Books and books and books have been written on the effect of music on the emotions in various cultures. I have a book on the effect of music on a tribal group in north-western Africa. The same music many preachers call "demonic" is their national anthem. Bit of a difference in "effect" or affect there. There is a position, proscribed to by [named removed to protect the guilty] among others, that suggests our emotional response (that is western euro-christian) is the "correct" response because our culture has been protected by the church and Christendom. I call this Euro-Centrism and denounce it. It is highly arrogant to suggest God preserved His one and true culture through Western European peoples, especially when the Medieval period is also referred to as the "Dark Ages" and that while high and mighty Europeans were crawling around in poop Muslims were inventing math. look it up, its true So, to your question. It depends on the person. Fast, loud music, excites me. I get a mini buzz of energy, depending on the events of the day, and often a small burst of endorphins (can ease a headache for instance). Mom's response, which I hold is completely due to her cultural feelings, is one of panic, disgust and overwhelming dislike. kinda funny sometimes This is an emotional response. In neither case is morality in play. Only when the emotional response results in actions/thoughts which are contrary to God's stated Will can morality be considered. Such as murdering someone while pumping "Helter Skelter" like Charles Manson. But of course, the immoral action is not listening to "Helter Skelter" its killing people. The association is the next question.
Any specific concerns or questions? Then I'll move on.
Clint Saxon
Once again I have plenty of questions, but they shall wait. Go ahead and continue with the knowledge that in the future I shall return to these old posts and reread them and quote them. A man of many words
Lance Saxon
3. Do you believe in both cultural and intrinsic associations in reference to music?
Cultural - Yes. But I don't think they apply to morality. Association is the way we're built to understand things. Nothing has any value apart from association unless it is absolute, and I hold God is the only absolute. Therefore, everything else is associative. Therefore, everything else is relative because I may have different experiences/responses which derive different associations. Therefore, see questions 1 & 2 regarding morality. Therefore, my favorite word
Intrinsic - association and intrinsic cannot be connected. That is, an association is dependent on the listener - it is how "I" respond. Intrinsic values are those independent of anything. Very few things are truly "intrinsic" in the universe. For instance, my "maleness" is intrinsic. That is, I have it regardless of my actions or feelings (the my primary argument against pre-programmed gayness) because I have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome while women have two X's. If they eventually figure out "gene-tranfers" then we'll have to revisit this. In the meantime, no matter how girly a guy is, no matter what he has surgically removed or added, he still has intrinsic "maleness" So, the real questions is probably this: "Does music have intrinsic values, and do they pertain to morality?" No. I will revisit tomorrow because I have to get ready to leave work now. its undeniable what your genome says
Cultural - Yes. But I don't think they apply to morality. Association is the way we're built to understand things. Nothing has any value apart from association unless it is absolute, and I hold God is the only absolute. Therefore, everything else is associative. Therefore, everything else is relative because I may have different experiences/responses which derive different associations. Therefore, see questions 1 & 2 regarding morality. Therefore, my favorite word
Intrinsic - association and intrinsic cannot be connected. That is, an association is dependent on the listener - it is how "I" respond. Intrinsic values are those independent of anything. Very few things are truly "intrinsic" in the universe. For instance, my "maleness" is intrinsic. That is, I have it regardless of my actions or feelings (the my primary argument against pre-programmed gayness) because I have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome while women have two X's. If they eventually figure out "gene-tranfers" then we'll have to revisit this. In the meantime, no matter how girly a guy is, no matter what he has surgically removed or added, he still has intrinsic "maleness" So, the real questions is probably this: "Does music have intrinsic values, and do they pertain to morality?" No. I will revisit tomorrow because I have to get ready to leave work now. its undeniable what your genome says
Lance Saxon
In order to describe music as having intrinsic values/factors you must break music into describable pieces. Depending on who you read these "pieces" vary from tone to rhythm to pace to tessiture to volume and so on. I describe a song with the following aspects: Intensity, Originality and Excellence. All of these are EXTREMELY subjective and definitely have 0 moral implications. I am planning on addressing my favorite music on my blog and I'll give each song a 1-10 rating on each of those aspects. Feel free to ask me about any particular songs and their I, O or E values. There are some songs that I dislike with high ratings because the final determiner of whether I like a song or not is simply whether or not I like the song. This never happened and probably never will, but hit me up for a list of my favorite musics, its a long long long long long long list
I'll look at the next ? on Monday.
I'll look at the next ? on Monday.
Clint Saxon
Alright this is satisfactory, I believe I know your answer to the last question well. However I will ask you to go ahead and answer it anyway when you get the chance. Wise choice
4. Reputations
You know the answer so I'll be brief. Tchaikovsky was gay. Mozart was a pervert. Beethoven was criminally insane. The Beatles were Hindu pot and acid junkies. Elvis OD'd. Shakespeare was a drunk. Poe was an opium addict. Ben Franklin was a nudist and possibly a member of a secret gay society for reals!. The Apostle Paul stoned Christians. I think you get the point. Nobody is perfect, I am supporting the art not the artist.
You know the answer so I'll be brief. Tchaikovsky was gay. Mozart was a pervert. Beethoven was criminally insane. The Beatles were Hindu pot and acid junkies. Elvis OD'd. Shakespeare was a drunk. Poe was an opium addict. Ben Franklin was a nudist and possibly a member of a secret gay society for reals!. The Apostle Paul stoned Christians. I think you get the point. Nobody is perfect, I am supporting the art not the artist.
Clint Saxon
This last post succeeded in making a point and making me laugh quite a bit at the same time. haha "nudist"
Since that answers all the questions, I will probably address the overall issue in person sometime soon.
We had that conversation and somehow, despite all this wisdom I imparted, we don't quite agree. Oh well, good thing it doesn't matter what you think.
We had that conversation and somehow, despite all this wisdom I imparted, we don't quite agree. Oh well, good thing it doesn't matter what you think.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Purpose, Propulsion, Power - A marital analogy
I was listening to a friend of mine preach through the first paragraph or two of Jude and what he was saying, though not particularly profound, clicked. When an idea clicks for me, it usually means I've found an analogy with which to describe it. Here is my analogy.
In the Christian Life we have a purpose. That is, we are created for a particular thing to be accomplished. While ultimately all creation has one goal, the glory of it's Creator, each little piece of the puzzle has a personal mission to pursue. A correct understanding of the New Testament instructs us that our purpose is Christ; Christ-likeness, Christ-"centerdness," Christ-preeminence. We also see that we have a propulsion. A better, but less alliterated, word would be motivation. Again, with a proper understanding of Scripture, we see Christ, His life, words, and will, is our motivation. We are driven to do what we just said was our purpose because of Christ. And finally, we have a power. We are incapable of achieving the aforementioned purpose without assistance. Not surprisingly, our power is the same as our purpose and propulsion, it is Christ.
Let me split a hair before launching into the metaphor. While all Christians have the same purpose, and can find New Testament unity in that, each of us has a different particular facet or aspect of that purpose to fulfill. So Christ is our purpose, but for each of us that will look slightly different. Example, I am Christ to my choir when I serve them, lead by example, am punctual, kind, enabling, etc. My brother is Christ to the choir when he sings. We're both being Christ (Christ-like) but it manifests differently.
Consider it split.
Now, the metaphor.
I go to work everyday. I was "created" for this job. It is my reason to get up in the morning, to get dressed, to take a shower. It is my reason to drive through snow, walk through -13 degree weather, talk to silly people, etc... If it was my only reason, I'd be on suicide watch. It would truly be depressing. The "soul-crushing" nature of hourly work cannot be understated. However, I do not work for myself. The purpose of my working is the provision for my family. I put in 60 hr weeks so that they have heat, clothing, food. I deliver pizzas in freezing rain because I want them to not only have needs, but also as many wants as I can give them. If the work itself were my only purpose, I'd lose my mind. But I can find purpose in my family.
This bleeds directly into my propulsion.
They are the motivation for not only working, but working hard. I must be on time for work, because I must be able to pay for diapers. I must not make my boss angry, or get a speeding ticket because my wife needs to eat. Not only do I work because of them, I work for them. Seemingly similar statements, but there is a difference. Only working because of them leads to bitterness, resentment and the suicide watch I mentioned earlier. Working for them gives me a joy, a sense of accomplishment when they have a large meal, can watch movies on Netflix, and can enjoy the many other little delicacies a ridiculously poor family enjoys. If I make money my propulsion I will be trapped in an endless cycle of getting some only to want more. Satisfaction does not rests in things, because there are always more. In people, in relationships, we find true satisfaction.
Finally, they and particularly my wife, are the power which gets me through the day. Whether it be practical things like packing me a lunch (which during this week of bachelor-ing it my mom has stepped in unsolicited, bless her), or emotional support like phone calls during my lunch break. My wife and I have had a continuous Words with Friends battle going for weeks, and frustratingly she's been beating me. But that's awesome! It is charge for my batteries. It is strength for my arms. I am planning on working and attending Grad School next year. I've already told her, "I'm gonna need more power, Scottie." And some days, I'm sure she feels like she's "giving her all she's got" but I can attest that she's been and will always be all I'll ever need.
So - Christ is our purpose, propulsion and power, just like my wife.
In the Christian Life we have a purpose. That is, we are created for a particular thing to be accomplished. While ultimately all creation has one goal, the glory of it's Creator, each little piece of the puzzle has a personal mission to pursue. A correct understanding of the New Testament instructs us that our purpose is Christ; Christ-likeness, Christ-"centerdness," Christ-preeminence. We also see that we have a propulsion. A better, but less alliterated, word would be motivation. Again, with a proper understanding of Scripture, we see Christ, His life, words, and will, is our motivation. We are driven to do what we just said was our purpose because of Christ. And finally, we have a power. We are incapable of achieving the aforementioned purpose without assistance. Not surprisingly, our power is the same as our purpose and propulsion, it is Christ.
Let me split a hair before launching into the metaphor. While all Christians have the same purpose, and can find New Testament unity in that, each of us has a different particular facet or aspect of that purpose to fulfill. So Christ is our purpose, but for each of us that will look slightly different. Example, I am Christ to my choir when I serve them, lead by example, am punctual, kind, enabling, etc. My brother is Christ to the choir when he sings. We're both being Christ (Christ-like) but it manifests differently.
Consider it split.
Now, the metaphor.
I go to work everyday. I was "created" for this job. It is my reason to get up in the morning, to get dressed, to take a shower. It is my reason to drive through snow, walk through -13 degree weather, talk to silly people, etc... If it was my only reason, I'd be on suicide watch. It would truly be depressing. The "soul-crushing" nature of hourly work cannot be understated. However, I do not work for myself. The purpose of my working is the provision for my family. I put in 60 hr weeks so that they have heat, clothing, food. I deliver pizzas in freezing rain because I want them to not only have needs, but also as many wants as I can give them. If the work itself were my only purpose, I'd lose my mind. But I can find purpose in my family.
This bleeds directly into my propulsion.
They are the motivation for not only working, but working hard. I must be on time for work, because I must be able to pay for diapers. I must not make my boss angry, or get a speeding ticket because my wife needs to eat. Not only do I work because of them, I work for them. Seemingly similar statements, but there is a difference. Only working because of them leads to bitterness, resentment and the suicide watch I mentioned earlier. Working for them gives me a joy, a sense of accomplishment when they have a large meal, can watch movies on Netflix, and can enjoy the many other little delicacies a ridiculously poor family enjoys. If I make money my propulsion I will be trapped in an endless cycle of getting some only to want more. Satisfaction does not rests in things, because there are always more. In people, in relationships, we find true satisfaction.
Finally, they and particularly my wife, are the power which gets me through the day. Whether it be practical things like packing me a lunch (which during this week of bachelor-ing it my mom has stepped in unsolicited, bless her), or emotional support like phone calls during my lunch break. My wife and I have had a continuous Words with Friends battle going for weeks, and frustratingly she's been beating me. But that's awesome! It is charge for my batteries. It is strength for my arms. I am planning on working and attending Grad School next year. I've already told her, "I'm gonna need more power, Scottie." And some days, I'm sure she feels like she's "giving her all she's got" but I can attest that she's been and will always be all I'll ever need.
So - Christ is our purpose, propulsion and power, just like my wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)