Category Archives: Rant

There’s Just Something About the Artistic Process.

That gets me all in a tizzy.

(By the way, if you don’t want to read all of my babbling, then just read the last three paragraphs, I make the most sense there and spent the most time writing those. Plus, that’s basically where my thesis is.)

I often consider if other people view art the same way that I do, and I must say that it doesn’t seem like that’s the case. For example, I don’t understand how there were such defined periods in art history. I don’t understand how each art movement had such specific styles of art churned out during it. Is it art if it is not made to express something inside the creator? (For that matter is Graphic Design art if I’m just making pretty things to suit the desires of others? But that’s another subject entirely.)

I mean, I can see how people can express themselves in a specific medium when there isn’t much else available, but what about now? Now, when there is everything available? (Generally speaking, of course.) Is someone an artist when they don’t utilize the best material for what they are trying to say in a specific instance?

I guess what I am trying to say is this: I think a true artist has to consider not only what they want to say, but what rules of art they are following only because those are the generally understood guidelines. As in, am I painting this piece in an impressionist style because paint is the best way to express this idea, or just because everyone is painting like this lately? Am I writing this in free verse because free verse best captures the feeling of looseness (or, in Trey’s case with his recently posted poem, the feeling of not having even the will to make rhymes or a specific meter), or because I just kind of always write in free verse? Am I writing this music using a piano and guitar only because these are the generally used instruments of the time, or because the capture the essence of the feeling of this song better than, say, strings or random claps and a kalimba.

Of course, all of this is pretty relative. It’s just something I consider a lot.

Why does a basic band consist of a guitar, drums, vocals, bass, and some sort of piano?
Why are art and science the opposites of religion? (They used to be thought of together!)
Why do I only paint/draw nature lately?
Why are today’s trends pleasing now and not in 10 years?

I hope any of this makes sense.

In my Conceptual Art class, the professor says that true art is the expression of an idea, no matter what it actually looks like or how it happens, and references artists who have people cut pieces of their clothing off as performance art and draw/paint/photograph disgusting things that I do not want to see and praise the “shock factor” as being something that is jarring us as humans from our complacency.

Well, I am not okay with that. I feel like artists should be open to using the best medium necessary to carry out their idea, yes, and I think that art should evoke change in a human’s life, yes, but I think that the great goal of art is not to just jar humans out of some abstract complacency, but to change people for the better, to glorify God, and to remind people that there is something else besides themselves.

And just to clarify, I don’t think glorifying God with art necessarily looks like a cross or Bible verses with filigree all over the place. I think art can be glorifying to God without have Christian icons in it. After all, God’s creation tells of His glory.

My Thoughts on the Qur’an Burning

So, yeah, everyone knows what I’m talking about I presume. If you don’t, just Google it. There’s enough people talking about it that I thought it was worth formulating a formal opinion on.

I want to make two preliminary things very clear.

  1. I do not agree with Jones’ decision to burn the Qur’an.
  2. I am in no way a softie to the Muslim faith.

Just so we have those two things out of the way. They are both important in understanding my view, and seem to be two polarizing points in the modern argument. I stand not on either polar end.

Okay, that being said, let me say some things I want to say. I believe Islam is evil, just as I believe any false faith or god is evil. I would define evil as being “something that leads one to neglect the ultimate reality, authority, and glory of God,” so therefore I think that it is evil. I don’t feel like I have to justify saying that, or defend myself on that point. If you believe the Bible to the letter, then you understand how a faith that leads people to not turn to the true Yaweh is not a good faith, and leads people to believe something else is the ultimate ends of life and squander their life in pursuit of it, just as someone in America might squander their life in pursuit of money, fame, the American Dream, etc. But while money and power are not at their root in opposition to God, but rather the love of them is (1 Timothy 6:10), you can see how religions/faiths that lead people not to look at Jesus as the Righteous One, the Son of God, and the only way to belief in the One True God, cannot be good. In fact they are the opposite of good. I would call this evil.

I don’t hate people who are Muslims, just as I wouldn’t hate a lost person who is a severe alcoholic, or an adulterer, or a homosexual, or a glutton. All of these sins that lead one to turn form the One True God through Jesus Christ are all results of a fallen and twisted world, from which all Christians were saved from. We WERE ‘grouped,’ if you will, with these. Notice the past tense of were, but it does exist. Those of the Muslim faith are not aliens, they’re not themselves forces of Satan, and most importantly nor are they somehow too far from the grace of God in redemption through Christ. For those that are quick to strike hatred against those who do wrong that have not yet been redeemed by God, you need a good dose of the Gospel, and you might want to ask yourself if you have been saved at all. Just saying.. it’s a question worth asking. If you are, then lower your pride, get your face and heart in the word, and get on your knees. Our hearts should break for these people, and fill with just (as in justice) anger toward iniquity. Their sin is in no way excused, but perhaps in our brokenness we can see their sin condition as being so similar to ours before Christ, and pray that the just, righteous, glorious God would show mercy on them and draw them, through the Holy Spirit, to redemption in Christ. That should be the main thing on our minds… not hatred…and not soft, relativistic, inclusive cushiness that is the other polar opposite.

So yes, love the sinner. But love them not for the fact that their belief is somehow honorable and respectable, but because you see in them a brokenness which is hell-bound without beautiful redemption through Christ. Pray that for them, and pray it hard. Real hard. There is a danger that we will fall into a defensive anger in defense of those of the Muslim faith that borders on religious inclusivism. Inclusivism says you can believe what you want to believe and if you really believe it and love it and are morally good, it can’t be all that bad. Guys, the Muslim does not know God. The Muslim has been deceived. The Muslim is hell-bound without redemption through Christ. We have to understand that. The Muslim, just as one under any other faith that doesn’t celebrate and worship and glory in the lordship and deity and atonement of Jesus, has been deceived by evil. And that should make us angry with a righteous anger toward sin and toward the evil one and his agents. If it doesn’t, then we need to get in the word and on our knees in prayer and pray God would remind us of the exclusive lordship of Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

So how does this relate to the Qur’an? Why don’t I want it to be burned? I mean it’s evil, so how can an outspoken act against the evil be bad? Or…. on the other hand, why don’t I celebrate the Qur’an in defiance of the burning? Why don’t I come to the strong side of the Muslims and defend them fully because they should have a voice just like everyone else?

Actually, I don’t want the Qur’an to be burned because I think it’s stupid. It’s just asking for it. Images of the burning will, as news articles have said, no doubt be bused by Muslim extremists to incite hatred against America that will result in more violence and danger. Violence=no good. So I’m against the Qur’an burning because, practically, it won’t work. Those that think the book is holy text will just get royally ticked off (as well as a whole lot of other people), and those that believe that it’s false won’t be helped because they already believe it’s false. So sure, it’s making a statement, but it’s just stupid. That being said, I still think Christian churches should preach the exclusive claim of the Christian faith and Christ’s exclusive authority and sacrifice as the way to redemption to the true God. Some Christian churches are going to have “inclusive services” where they read the Qur’an to somehow counter what the Florida preacher is doing. (read http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7190534.html) That’s just a load of BS. Seriously. Yes, love the Muslim with a brokenness for the condition of their soul, which is so similar to yours before Christ! But don’t compromise the very essence of what brings God glory! Don’t compromise worship of the True God and of his Son! Come on. Christianity is an exclusive religion, as is Islam. So in a way, I think Islam should be preached against. But blatantly creating signals that are obviously violent is no good. It helps no one, and it ends up hurting everyone. That’s the long and the short of it. Rather, it’s just the long. But I want to make myself descriptively clear.

Wrap-up: Get broken, love the lost, hate what God hates, pray for redemption, don’t be stupid, preach Jesus, deny all other claims, glorify God. Repeat.

Make sense?

-Riley

Why I Am a Single-Issue Voter

This subject deserved a separate post.

First of all, go read these articles (please do it):

John Piper’s perspective on single-issue voting:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1524_OneIssue_Politics_OneIssue_Marriage_and_the_Humane_Society/

A conservative’s (I think) perspective on single-issue voting:
http://solagravitas.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/abortion-racism-and-single-issue-voting/

A liberal’s perspective on single-issue voting:
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000931.html

——————————————-

I have to say that these articles have well established my view on single-issue voting. Call me narrow-minded, call me ignorant, call me biased, but let me try to explain.

Not to sound like a broken record with these guys, but as Piper put it, being pro-choice disqualifies a man for office in my opinion. At best, it disqualifies my ability to vocally and publicly support him, even if I did vote for him because I thought it was best.

So why does this issue disqualify a man from office? The second article gives a good comparison. We wouldn’t elect a man to office that was obviously and vocally a racist. Why? Because we know that his agenda would be colored (no pun intended) with racism and racist motives. We wouldn’t elect a man to office that vocally and actively supported rape of teenage girls. We would assume his agenda would be colored with moving this horrendous point of view into action. He would never become elected, because that is ludicrous! We wouldn’t elect a man to office that vocally and actively supported the murder of the innocent. And yet we did.

No matter what other ways an actively pro-choice president can eliminate abortions, no matter what other ways I think it can happen, I cannot elect a president that actively supports murder. I’m going to use a loaded word there, I know, because it’s a real word describing the real process of abortions.

Obama has a lot of other good things on his plate. I’m not a party-lover, I’m not a party-hater. I’m not a rabid candidate basher. I’m also not a racist. I was truly excited and overjoyed to have the first black president enter into office, and I know our country was too. But I wasn’t excited to see the most pro-choice activist in all of Congress enter into the White House (see links about record). Why? Because, just like the other issues I theorized above (racism, rape, murder), I know his agenda will be colored with a pro-choice agenda. I can’t stand for that.

—————————————-

Obama’s pro-choice record isn’t a right-wing fabrication:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/08/fact_check_obamas_strong_proch.php

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121706.html

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/election-pr/pr_05042008_obamaendorsement.html

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3920

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2927.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4448.html (biased, but check the facts. they’re right.)

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/02/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

———————————————————-

I don’t want to make generalizations about everyone or sound legalistic, and I don’t want to sound old and crotchety and ignorant, but I’m a single issue voter. I don’t have any other options.

-Riley

No fair!

My survey is getting buried amidst a slew of Riley’s non-answers-to-my-question-that-he’s-promised-me-a-million-times. I won’t stand for it. I’m trying to start some discussion on politics here, and Riley has to go off on an awesome rant/rebuttal of atheist absurdities. That’s not fair at all. No way I can compete with that.

PLEASE answer the survey, even if you don’t think you know anything about government. I doubt that anyone else who reads this blog knows what they’re talking about either, except maybe Andrew. But I do want to get some feedback on this.

Thanks.

[Update: I'm now officially expanding the question to "what do you think is the more biblical position on how men should be governed? and why?". Oh, and please comment on the original post.]

I Need Prayer: Sometimes Self-Professed Athesists Really Tick Me Off.

By the way I considered replacing the word “tick” with a different word, but decided against it.

So, yeah. Confident, self-professed Atheists really tick me off. Now, I know that they feel the exact same way about Christians who are confident in their beliefs. And yes, their eyes are blinded. And their hearts are hardened. But sometimes, it just gets annoying.

A guy from my school posted this on his Facebook status:

Christianity is the belief that a two-thousand-year-old jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple off a magical tree in a wonderland.

(via a random website called “a sudden moment of clarity)

I was like, “wheeaahhhtt?” I was so, so very close to posting a rebuttle but the Holy Spirit kind of got a hold of me and reminded me to be broken over his blindness and not arrogant about my new life. So I didn’t. But I want to express my feelings about that statement and concurrently the attitude of ‘superior atheism.’

So, here are the thoughts that went through my head when I read it.

  1. First of all, good job hijacking the English language. Your fairytale emphatic writing can be used to make anything sound ridiculous. “What is making a sandwich? Making a sandwich is the belief that if you first cut small, paperthin slices of choice meat from an animal and combine them with slices of the coagulation of the milk protein casein, adding a somehow ‘just-right’ amount of a fanciful yellowish-white emulsion of oil, salt, and vinegar, placing all of these items together in line between two strangely similar pieces of bread, you will somehow magically have created a delicious food that is not only healthy and nutritious, but amazingly good to taste as well. Oh, and, also, somehow this sandwich is broken down within the human body into little, itty-bitty elements that seem to work together and communicate with your body to amazingly help give it power.” This kind of logical argumentation is kind of hysterical.
  2. Second of all, even if fairytale hyperboles are accepted as logical arguments, the statements he makes don’t even describe Christianity right. Okay, I’ll give you 2,000 years old, and I’ll give you Jewish. But Zombie isn’t even relevant. Symbolically eating his flesh isn’t relevant to salvation. If you call prayer ‘telepathy,’ I guess I can let that one slide, but good job choosing a poor descriptive word. I’m actually a little proud of “remove an evil force that is present in all humanity.” Kudos on trying to make fun, you actually are right there! Though ‘force’ sounds a little more mystic than I’d describe it, at least you kind of understand the doctrine of total depravity. Rib-woman? Seriously? Talking snake… I’ll give you that one. Magical tree in a wonderland… try Earth. Come on, dude. Do a little more research….
  3. Third of all, even if fairytale hyperboles are accepted as logical arguments, and even if your statements somewhat accurately described the Christian religion, even if those things were true, I could make an equally if not more absurd statement about atheism. Here goes. “Atheism if the non-belief belief (already got em) that millions of years ago, there was a giant cosmic fart that blew all of reality into existence, getting bigger and bigger as some planets popped up here and there and this one life-sustaining world with it’s own wonderlands everywhere blew up from a giant rock-thing, where a whole bunch of little cells grew and grew and grew until they turned from a whole bunch of animals like fish to monkeys to humans until they magically became self-aware, intelligent and innovative, and they are also somehow the source of their own meaning, even if they weren’t the source of their own existence, and became enlightened to think that they must know everything about their poof-y origins.”

I really do try to have a heart for the atheists who are terribly arrogant. And I need to. Christ’s gospel is for them, too, and my mission is for them, too. But sometimes I can’t help but think “if you’d just realize that you don’t know everything and that atheism is not an ‘intellectually superior’ option to the ‘blind, fairytale faith’ of theists, you might be able to see that there’s more!” I say that in my head with passion and with pain and with what I pray is righteous frustration with the pride of the flesh.

I pray I may be burdened for these people and heartbroken more than I am. I also Pray that God would raise up strong intellectual minds within the Christian worldview to combat the works of the evil one (who seeks to continually convince them that theism is intellectually inferior) in the lives of the unsaved.

Soli Deo Gloria

-Riley