I imagine this will happen a lot.
EASY BLUDGEON:
I heard this great song. You have to hear it. Have you listened to it yet? It's great. Have you listened to it yet? Look, in the second verse there's this recapitulation of the theme established in the first line. It's awesome. Have you listened to it yet? Okay, I know Nickleback seems to make sense to you right now, but you have to listen to this song. Friends don't let friends listen to Nickleback. Seriously. Okay, here's an example, the diatonic scale establishes beauty and rhythm, right? Well, let's just say they do, trust me. In this song the diatonic is offset with a subtle embrace of a chromatic undertone, and when both resolve, they resolve a third apart! Do you see? A third apart! You must see how important it is! Have you listened to it yet? It's so obvious! But how can you possibly say any song is more logically plausible than this one? I'm really worried about you. No, I do listen to the song. No, I don't just talk about it. Yes, a song is more than just logical. It's just that I'm so frustrated, this is so obvious. Have you listened to it yet? Look, have I told you about the resonant frequencies of the second verse. If you look at it in terms of hertz, following the concert pitch with A1 at 440Hz, you can't see it because it's based on scientific pitch with A1 at 430.54Hz. But, if you look at it in terms of resonant frequencies you can see the correlation of previously established motifs as plain as the nose on your face. The resonant frequencies prove how great this song is, any idiot can see it. What? No! I didn't mean you were an idiot. Obviously I care about you a great deal, so much so that I want to share this song with you. It means so much to me. I just wish you'd see it. Where are you going? Oh. Well—call me.
I imagine this will happen a lot less.
COMMUNAL THEOLOGY INTENDED FOR THE COMMUNITY OF GOD
My friend and I, both love this new song we heard. We were talking to some other people who also love it, and they are musicologists. They were telling us about some fascinating resonant frequencies in the song. It was pretty cool stuff. We all had a much deeper understanding of something we already love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting. However with your last sentence, you seem to suggest that there is an arrogance with the "I just get it" people and that the musicologist people just don't get it (which they don't). Would the "I just get it people" use the sentence "We all had a much deeper understanding of something we already love" at all to describe and delineate themselves?
ReplyDeleteI think the confusion is a failure of my writing. Perhaps it should have read, "I, my friend and the musicologists all had a much deeper understanding of something we already love." Does it make more sense that way?
ReplyDeleteTo drop the analogy and talk about what I'm talking about, my fear is that intelligent design be used as a proof of God. This seems to be the way the debate is leaning. It's as though the Christian community is surprised it may have been right after all, and now there is a distinct tinge of smugness. It's as though the point isn't gaining an understanding of a loving God, but the point is found in being right or wrong.
I would contend that a discussion of the created universe is meant primarily for those who already accept there is a Creator, and further, have a relationship with the Creator. As such, ideas contained within intelligent design are a rich treasure. If treated simply as treasure, bringing richness to already held belief, these ideas bring a compelling vitality to already held belief.
I think if we find a way to really live what we believe, rather than merely professing to believe what we believe, we won't have to "prove" anything, people will just come asking. They won't come asking about our proofs, but about the visible love of God demonstrated in our living what we believe.
Back to the analogy. I think in the first example, human nature being what it is, the person spoken to may never inquire about the song. This fist example, for the most part, is how the church treats God's story. The second example, curiosity being what it is, an inquiry into the song and the attendant "cool stuff" is much more likely. This is how Jesus talks of God's story. It is real and precious and it is simply lived as though it is real and precious.
Ahhh...much more clear. I didn't know that it was about the church and it's near history presentation of the God story. I thought it was a socialogical comment about people in general, though one could extrapolate it to understanding God, etc.
ReplyDelete"It's as though the point isn't gaining an understanding of a loving God, but the point is found in being right or wrong."
Sometimes I think one's belief, regardless of what it is, is just a way to assauge one's inferiority complex.
Isn't it untenable to live without a belif system? One's belief system may simply be tacit, unexamined. (see esp. Charles Taylor on this point.) Or did you mean religious belief "is just a way to assuage one's inferiotity complex"? If it is particularly "religious" belief you wonder about, I understand there is ample evidence to support your point, particularly when one encounters religious belief that is little more than a calcified justification to exclude, either by physical or emotional violence.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I sometimes wonder if what I believe isn't just a cliche crutch. Or, maybe, medicine to get me through my sickly existence. I usually arrive back where I started. Standing in mystery is difficult. Ultimately, that's how I view what I believe, not as acerbic propositions, but as a relational assurace of a deeply mysterious nature.
I did mean religious belief primarily.
ReplyDeleteI guess in this world, everyone wants answers. Maybe it's about living in the questions.