Get excited, guys, the time has finally come. It's time to inform our girls on the thoughts we have on the clothes they wear. Now, I've probably already pissed off any girl that happens to read this. All I can say is that this is simply my opinion, and is not shared by all guys out there. (probably 96%, but whatever) And yes, I am completely aware that you're not trying to impress guys with every piece of clothing you put on. I completely understand that. We'll simply be discussing the outfit choices that obviously took some time to get ready. I am also aware that some girls can look good in anything. My final preface to this topic is that all girls are different. I know this. Height, build, skin tone, and even attitude can and do play major roles in our thoughts. (which I'm not saying you should care about)
We're gonna start with the obvious: shoes. Heels with jeans is not cool. I know it lengthens your legs and makes you a little taller, but we're just not digging it. I feel like some skin needs to be shown when wearing heels, even if it's just to mid-calf. There is, however, a limit to skin shown. Heels + short skirts = a bit scandalous. Heels are best worn with long to medium-length skirts. I'm not sure what they're called, but I'm also not a big fan of those heels that have ties that go around your ankle pretty high. Maybe it's just because it's new, but I don't like them. Shoes are obviously not my strong point, so I'll wrap this up. Flat shoes are the way to go. It doesn't matter if you're short. It's cool, we're ok with that. Just keep it simple, sandals are great. Make your shoes match your personality, and get something comfortable. All shoes really do is enhance your clothes, which I'm about to get into.
Pants have come along way these past few years, and I hate it! Honestly, if it was up to me, yall could wear jeans everywhere. You can, however, choose incorrectly on your jeans. Now I know there are is a ridiculous amount of styles of jeans, and it's hard to find a pair that fits right. I don't understand why women's jeans come in one number sizes. It doesn't make sense. No wonder it's so hard to find a pair. I mean, you find a pair that fits your body, but they're too long or short. They just assume that if you wear a 10 then you're taller than someone who wears a 8, which is obviously not always true. You buy the jeans that are just a little too long and get them hemmed, which is just a pain in the ass. With that being said, here's what I think you should consider when shopping for jeans. First of all, jeans that are too loose look weird. I'm not saying you should use pliers to put them on, they're just not made to be worn all baggy like that. It messes up your whole look. You don't see much of this, so if you think they're tight enough, they probably are. You should also consider how high on the hip they come. This is VERY different from girl to girl. Too high is no good, and too low is skanky. There is a happy-medium on every girl. I would say right at the hip bone is a good aiming point. As far as wide-bottom leg thing goes, I'm a fan of either. Colors are important as well. I feel like darker jeans are a bit more formal, and lighter jeans are for every day wear. I will touch on this subject with more detail in Part III of this series.
My personal favorite for girls pants is cargo-pants. I don't know why, I just love them. They have that casual "I don't care" look, yet they look good with a number of tops. That's just a personal thing, so I'll move on. Cargo-pants should all be thrown into a fire. Again, this is simply my opinion. I'm sure there are guys out there that like them, I just haven't met one. I don't mind them nearly as much now as I did when they first came out, so that's good. If you must wear cargos, don't wear jean cargos. Atleast wear some cacky ones or navy or whatever. Just don't wear jean cargo pants. I think half the battle of making capris look decent is the shoe you wear with them. I'll touch on this later. Maybe they'll grow on me over time, we'll see. Some trends, like these flowing ankle-length skirts that look like they have Indian symbols on them, I hated at first. They're actually kind of growing on me though. I think it's a classy throw-back look that when done correctly, can look pretty damn good. Again, we come back to shoes. Some sort of flat shoe must be worn with these skirts. I've seen girls wear high heels with them. They contradict each other, and it looks stupid. Moving on...skirts are actually quite simple, the shorter the better! ...............Haha, just kidding. Too short is trashy and quite unappealing. Anywhere from knee-length to moderate length is great. I personally like cacky skirts with a casual shirt. Any color skirt works though, it's all about the fit. Again, I am merely scratching the surface tonight. I'm going to elaborate much more on the topics I've already mentioned, and get into several others in Part III. It will include tops (all of them), make-up, and the ever-so-popular hair styles of today. My co-author, Daniel Pope, will be delivering Part II very soon. Sorry if I pissed anyone off, but not really.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
If the robots win, we'll have to listen to techno. Heck no! I'll never listen to techno!
Recently Cut the Chatter has been rather dry, and I would apologize but I'm not sorry. The authors have been spending a lot of time having those real-life experiences that makes Cut the Chatter such a joy to read, such as grilling steaks, test-tasting the new Exterminator drink, busting it on a skimboard, playing flag football on the beach, and reminding Anne Kendrick that while blogging isn't stupid, she most certainly is. So expect that amateur journalism that seems so professional from Chris and myself, and check back this week as CTC will be hitting you hard on all kinds of subjects.
And now, a moment of YouTube zen:
And now, a moment of YouTube zen:
Monday, March 19, 2007
Reclaiming a Christian Perspective on Abortion Issues
I've hesitated every other time I've thought about touching this subject, charged as it is. I've drafted a few ideas on the subject, but most of these were incoherent. I've been concerned that some very dear friends of mine might take offense at my alternative approach to this subject, and in the interest of not starting anything I have not posted my thoughts on the subject of abortion. Today, however, a group called Justice For All set up incredibly large tri-fold panels on the field in front of Cater Hall on campus. I'm guessing each panel had an area of something like 600 square feet.
These panels were filled with images of mangled, bloodied fetuses and aborted children.
I laughed when a mere thirty feet in front of these panels were tiny signs that said "Warning: Graphic Images Ahead!" I laugh sometimes to keep from vandalism or outright rage that would lead me to my first felony charge.
The title of this entry might suggest that I'm dissatisfied with current Christian perspectives on the issue of abortion. I am, and I spent an hour along with a friend of mine arguing against displays like this one with one of the men volunteering at the event. Unfortunately, I don't yet possess the intellectual fortitude to be able to figure out a good starting point for this informal essay.
Before I go into the essay itself, I want to point out that I am approaching this issue as a believer, asserting Christian theology and faith. I think it would be of practical benefit to discuss some political ideas towards the end, and finally conclude by affirming my beliefs in case, through my own inability to write, I make important aspects of my faith unclear in the body of this text.
Plainly speaking, Christians have ceased to be Christians on this issue. They have played fast-and-loose with the idea that life is sacred. They have divorced the pro-life message from the gospel. They have become "of the world," instead of independent operators within that world. Finally, they have fundamentally ignored the power of our religion's ability to change the world, opting for a political solution that really comes up to be no solution at all.
Life is sacred. The pro-life movement hinges on this principle, which it affirms to the nth degree. I agree wholly. God's first description of humanity is that it is made in his own image. Indeed, this is a huge part of the foundation for Christian ethics. My problem with the pro-life movment is not that it agrees with this idea, but that it seems to go against this idea in practice. Functionally, the life of a baby is worth more than the life of its mother, if it's mother would abort it. No pro-lifer would ever suggest that this was the case, but you can't help but notice it in the way most of them talk. Every human being is made in the image of God, even women who have had abortions. In these grotesque posters of death, no such message is found. Instead, women who have had abortions are made to appear like major contributors to a second Holocaust. If Christians are going to hope to change practices of abortion, they must hold equally high the image of God for both the unborn baby and its mother.
This is not the practice, unfortunately, to the detriment of the movement itself. There is no mention of the gospel or forgiveness in these posters. Instead, activists seem to hope that the posters will stop you with their negativity at least long enough for them to give you a message of forgiveness. When I talked to one individual today, he did not bring up the gospel until I brought up forgiveness because of Christ's sacrifice. A girl who has had an abortion does not see the gospel. She sees that she has sinned and has no hope. What kind of love is this? Not Christian love! It is program-driven social engineering that takes the moral high ground from the beginning. Pro-lifers are moral, pro-choicers are baby-killers. Unfortunately, this is leading off with the wrong foot, especially if one person is passing by and doesn't have the option of talking to a representative for the group. Women who have had abortions should not be made to go take their test without hope or love. At no point has God left us without hope! Even as he addressed Adam and Eve after their great sin, he promised a Savior! Indeed, can we call ourselves Christians if we leave others without hope? I dare say we cannot.
Christians using these practices, you might correctly guess, have become "of the world." We live in a world where popular appeals are made on the basis of emotion and psychology. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that appealed to your intellect? I've been watching the NCAA tournament, and I can't remember seeing any kind intellectual appeal apart from a Sam Adams special talking about how they brew their beers. The Christian life is not a life of emotional moralism, though. We are not supposed to leave our brains out of important matters. This failure to engage intellectually is most easily seen when a person accuses a pro-choice person of being a murderer or a killer. The rhetoric sounds cute, and Scripturally this is true. Unfortunately, the pro-choice individual doesn't see things in those terms. It's not as if they see their actions as particularly murderous. Furthermore, it's not like they actually enjoyed it. I'm guessing that 99% of women who have abortions don't become pregnant just so they can snuff out the life of a child. That is what Christian engagement is all about. It's about empathizing with the culture and then preaching the Gospel to that culture. It is not about throwing around hateful words and obscene images. Indeed, a Christian should believe that the only thing separating the non-believer from himself or herself is Christ and Christ alone. Furthermore, especially in Calvinist theology, we should not distance our sin from that of others, whether they believe or not. God is a God of our minds as well as our hearts, and we should look more into intelligent approaches to solving this important issue instead of emotional and moralizing, yet ultimately shallow rhetoric.
I don't know where to point the finger on this last one. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "it's a relationship, it isn't a religion," but that phrase does seem a likely culprit. Christians have forgotten Christ's bride, the church. Furthermore, they believe that the real way to change the world is through political activity. Unfortunatly, people are into doing their own thing. As a historian, and I'm pulling the weight of my education on this one, I quite honestly think that no real difference will be made if the government makes abortion illegal or not. The Christian message does not need a government-approved stamp to make the power of our religion as potent as it is. If we actually loved women who had abortions, and the women who considered having a child out of wedlock, they might actually consider having those children. Christianity doesn't need government approval for the church to provide a system of gospel-based support for sinners of all kinds, including Christians themselves! If as many politically-minded pro-lifers invested the same amount of resources and time as they did in loving and supporting a community, what a difference we would see! That is where the real numbers of abortion will go down.
I'm now turning to address some of the political issues I have with the movement, and most of these come from a friend of mine who I will credit if he wants me to do so.
One of the big arguments is that women have abortions because it is convenient to have them because of Roe v. Wade or whatever. Take away the basis for convenience, aborition becomes inconvenient, voila, no abortion! What simple ignorance. This is America, folks. And besides, when did people start thinking that raising a kid was convenient? I'm not a female, but physically speaking I don't think that I would much enjoy giving birth, either. Abortion will always be more convenient than that.
How do we overcome that convenience? By incentives, or comparable alternatives that, when coupled with moral incentives, become more attractive than abortion. The Justice For All group had a freedom of speech board. I took out a marker and wrote "Remind me of how many chidren you've adopted again?" Heavy on the sarcasm, I know. Because we all know that these guys don't adopt kids. Of course they don't. They don't use their funds to make that kind of a difference. They're just raising hell while actually doing nothing to help any kind of demand for adopted children. My friend suggested that true pro-lifers would picket outside abortion clinics, offering to pay all the medical bills of the pregnancy, and then take a kid to raise up in a proper home. This doesn't even have to be a political solution. People can start doing this now, instead of merely adding fuel to the fire of this debate.
I will remain ever-convinced as both a Christian and a historian that a mere law will not discourage women from having abortions. What we need to do is change the culture. How do we do this? By loving our neighbors! It really is as easy as Jesus said, at least in terms of words. And that's why this pro-life movement, in its current incarnation is doomed. It's not that it's doing too much, it's that it's doing to little. The pro-life movement in its current form would succeed if an amendment was made banning abortion. But that lacks any real substance until we start spending our lives for others' sakes. This is the demand of Scripture. It is the example of Christ. And we run from it because it asks too much of us, but when we find that we are stretched too thin, we simply need to ask more from God, who gives generously to all who ask him.
We do not need a law to start living like this now. How wonderful would it be if we never made a law banning abortion, because Christians had come so far in caring for others in so many ways that a law would be a mere afterthought to a reality that held high the image of God in humanity?
It may seem as if I am unsympathetic with the aims of pro-life activists. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it just seems like they miss a lot of points. I do think abortion is wrong. I think it is sinful, just like so many things we do without realizing it. I have probably sinned by what I've said in this very posting. But we don't need to be pointing fingers or calling people murderers; we need to look to Christ who was murdered for our salvation. That is our starting point, because that is where we learn to love.
These panels were filled with images of mangled, bloodied fetuses and aborted children.
I laughed when a mere thirty feet in front of these panels were tiny signs that said "Warning: Graphic Images Ahead!" I laugh sometimes to keep from vandalism or outright rage that would lead me to my first felony charge.
The title of this entry might suggest that I'm dissatisfied with current Christian perspectives on the issue of abortion. I am, and I spent an hour along with a friend of mine arguing against displays like this one with one of the men volunteering at the event. Unfortunately, I don't yet possess the intellectual fortitude to be able to figure out a good starting point for this informal essay.
Before I go into the essay itself, I want to point out that I am approaching this issue as a believer, asserting Christian theology and faith. I think it would be of practical benefit to discuss some political ideas towards the end, and finally conclude by affirming my beliefs in case, through my own inability to write, I make important aspects of my faith unclear in the body of this text.
Plainly speaking, Christians have ceased to be Christians on this issue. They have played fast-and-loose with the idea that life is sacred. They have divorced the pro-life message from the gospel. They have become "of the world," instead of independent operators within that world. Finally, they have fundamentally ignored the power of our religion's ability to change the world, opting for a political solution that really comes up to be no solution at all.
Life is sacred. The pro-life movement hinges on this principle, which it affirms to the nth degree. I agree wholly. God's first description of humanity is that it is made in his own image. Indeed, this is a huge part of the foundation for Christian ethics. My problem with the pro-life movment is not that it agrees with this idea, but that it seems to go against this idea in practice. Functionally, the life of a baby is worth more than the life of its mother, if it's mother would abort it. No pro-lifer would ever suggest that this was the case, but you can't help but notice it in the way most of them talk. Every human being is made in the image of God, even women who have had abortions. In these grotesque posters of death, no such message is found. Instead, women who have had abortions are made to appear like major contributors to a second Holocaust. If Christians are going to hope to change practices of abortion, they must hold equally high the image of God for both the unborn baby and its mother.
This is not the practice, unfortunately, to the detriment of the movement itself. There is no mention of the gospel or forgiveness in these posters. Instead, activists seem to hope that the posters will stop you with their negativity at least long enough for them to give you a message of forgiveness. When I talked to one individual today, he did not bring up the gospel until I brought up forgiveness because of Christ's sacrifice. A girl who has had an abortion does not see the gospel. She sees that she has sinned and has no hope. What kind of love is this? Not Christian love! It is program-driven social engineering that takes the moral high ground from the beginning. Pro-lifers are moral, pro-choicers are baby-killers. Unfortunately, this is leading off with the wrong foot, especially if one person is passing by and doesn't have the option of talking to a representative for the group. Women who have had abortions should not be made to go take their test without hope or love. At no point has God left us without hope! Even as he addressed Adam and Eve after their great sin, he promised a Savior! Indeed, can we call ourselves Christians if we leave others without hope? I dare say we cannot.
Christians using these practices, you might correctly guess, have become "of the world." We live in a world where popular appeals are made on the basis of emotion and psychology. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that appealed to your intellect? I've been watching the NCAA tournament, and I can't remember seeing any kind intellectual appeal apart from a Sam Adams special talking about how they brew their beers. The Christian life is not a life of emotional moralism, though. We are not supposed to leave our brains out of important matters. This failure to engage intellectually is most easily seen when a person accuses a pro-choice person of being a murderer or a killer. The rhetoric sounds cute, and Scripturally this is true. Unfortunately, the pro-choice individual doesn't see things in those terms. It's not as if they see their actions as particularly murderous. Furthermore, it's not like they actually enjoyed it. I'm guessing that 99% of women who have abortions don't become pregnant just so they can snuff out the life of a child. That is what Christian engagement is all about. It's about empathizing with the culture and then preaching the Gospel to that culture. It is not about throwing around hateful words and obscene images. Indeed, a Christian should believe that the only thing separating the non-believer from himself or herself is Christ and Christ alone. Furthermore, especially in Calvinist theology, we should not distance our sin from that of others, whether they believe or not. God is a God of our minds as well as our hearts, and we should look more into intelligent approaches to solving this important issue instead of emotional and moralizing, yet ultimately shallow rhetoric.
I don't know where to point the finger on this last one. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "it's a relationship, it isn't a religion," but that phrase does seem a likely culprit. Christians have forgotten Christ's bride, the church. Furthermore, they believe that the real way to change the world is through political activity. Unfortunatly, people are into doing their own thing. As a historian, and I'm pulling the weight of my education on this one, I quite honestly think that no real difference will be made if the government makes abortion illegal or not. The Christian message does not need a government-approved stamp to make the power of our religion as potent as it is. If we actually loved women who had abortions, and the women who considered having a child out of wedlock, they might actually consider having those children. Christianity doesn't need government approval for the church to provide a system of gospel-based support for sinners of all kinds, including Christians themselves! If as many politically-minded pro-lifers invested the same amount of resources and time as they did in loving and supporting a community, what a difference we would see! That is where the real numbers of abortion will go down.
I'm now turning to address some of the political issues I have with the movement, and most of these come from a friend of mine who I will credit if he wants me to do so.
One of the big arguments is that women have abortions because it is convenient to have them because of Roe v. Wade or whatever. Take away the basis for convenience, aborition becomes inconvenient, voila, no abortion! What simple ignorance. This is America, folks. And besides, when did people start thinking that raising a kid was convenient? I'm not a female, but physically speaking I don't think that I would much enjoy giving birth, either. Abortion will always be more convenient than that.
How do we overcome that convenience? By incentives, or comparable alternatives that, when coupled with moral incentives, become more attractive than abortion. The Justice For All group had a freedom of speech board. I took out a marker and wrote "Remind me of how many chidren you've adopted again?" Heavy on the sarcasm, I know. Because we all know that these guys don't adopt kids. Of course they don't. They don't use their funds to make that kind of a difference. They're just raising hell while actually doing nothing to help any kind of demand for adopted children. My friend suggested that true pro-lifers would picket outside abortion clinics, offering to pay all the medical bills of the pregnancy, and then take a kid to raise up in a proper home. This doesn't even have to be a political solution. People can start doing this now, instead of merely adding fuel to the fire of this debate.
I will remain ever-convinced as both a Christian and a historian that a mere law will not discourage women from having abortions. What we need to do is change the culture. How do we do this? By loving our neighbors! It really is as easy as Jesus said, at least in terms of words. And that's why this pro-life movement, in its current incarnation is doomed. It's not that it's doing too much, it's that it's doing to little. The pro-life movement in its current form would succeed if an amendment was made banning abortion. But that lacks any real substance until we start spending our lives for others' sakes. This is the demand of Scripture. It is the example of Christ. And we run from it because it asks too much of us, but when we find that we are stretched too thin, we simply need to ask more from God, who gives generously to all who ask him.
We do not need a law to start living like this now. How wonderful would it be if we never made a law banning abortion, because Christians had come so far in caring for others in so many ways that a law would be a mere afterthought to a reality that held high the image of God in humanity?
It may seem as if I am unsympathetic with the aims of pro-life activists. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it just seems like they miss a lot of points. I do think abortion is wrong. I think it is sinful, just like so many things we do without realizing it. I have probably sinned by what I've said in this very posting. But we don't need to be pointing fingers or calling people murderers; we need to look to Christ who was murdered for our salvation. That is our starting point, because that is where we learn to love.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
I am pleased to report that in a pool of over fifty, both contributing authors of Cut the Chatter are in the top 20 as far as tournament bracket perfomance goes, with Mr. Pope holding first place exclusively. Mr. Burdeshaw's Sweet Sixteen has taken a bit of a bruising, but give the excellence delivered to loyal readers, we won't expect him to be down for too long.
The Madness that is March
We all know what time it is, it's tourney time. Now, as all of your brackets begin to fall apart, you ask yourself "Why the hell did I pick Duke to win against Virginia Commonwealth?" I'll tell you why, because Duke is Duke. You would expect that this Coack K led dynasty could handle a simple 10 seed and move on. Nope, they blew it. I personally hate them. Any good that Duke has ever brought to this earth went down the drain in their first-round loss to Duke. I could write about it for hours, but I'll move on.
This week of the year is always crazy. One week of school is left until we all head to our Spring Break destination, undoubtedly leaving most of us with several test this week. With tests coming, Spring Break plans being finalized, St. Patty's parties going strong, and the Masters just around the corner, one can't help but wonder "Will North Carolina win it all?" This brings me to my next point; North Carolina will win it all. Tyler Hanborough is my hero. Not really, but you get the point. You see, Tyler is currently playing with a facemask to cover his broken nose. His scoring is down, assists are down, and rebounding remains consistent. Now, how did Tyler's nose get broken in the first place? The answer is simple: Duke players are assholes. Gerald Henderson was suspended one game for his flagrant elbow to Hansborough's nose. We all know the intensity of the rivalry of UNC and Duke. In their last meeting, UNC was winning comfortably with only seconds remaining in the game. Hansbourough, still in the game and still playing hard (like true champs always do) when Satan/Devery Henderson got pissed and tried to take out TH. This is so typical of Duke. Do I have more examples? No. Just trust me. As I write this, TH has taken off his mask and once again regained his dominant form. What's the point of this blog? I simply wish to inform you that UNC is the team to beat. Screw you, Duke. GO TARHEELS!!
This week of the year is always crazy. One week of school is left until we all head to our Spring Break destination, undoubtedly leaving most of us with several test this week. With tests coming, Spring Break plans being finalized, St. Patty's parties going strong, and the Masters just around the corner, one can't help but wonder "Will North Carolina win it all?" This brings me to my next point; North Carolina will win it all. Tyler Hanborough is my hero. Not really, but you get the point. You see, Tyler is currently playing with a facemask to cover his broken nose. His scoring is down, assists are down, and rebounding remains consistent. Now, how did Tyler's nose get broken in the first place? The answer is simple: Duke players are assholes. Gerald Henderson was suspended one game for his flagrant elbow to Hansborough's nose. We all know the intensity of the rivalry of UNC and Duke. In their last meeting, UNC was winning comfortably with only seconds remaining in the game. Hansbourough, still in the game and still playing hard (like true champs always do) when Satan/Devery Henderson got pissed and tried to take out TH. This is so typical of Duke. Do I have more examples? No. Just trust me. As I write this, TH has taken off his mask and once again regained his dominant form. What's the point of this blog? I simply wish to inform you that UNC is the team to beat. Screw you, Duke. GO TARHEELS!!
Good rules for dating.
The Bible can be pretty silent on principles of dating as such. Some believe it points exclusively towards a kind of physically ascetic courtship. Others think that biblical principles of marriage can steer us in the right direction for what dating should be, what kinds of demands people can make on each other in such relationships, etc.
But let's be honest, we bring a lot of cultural sentiments to the floor when we date people. For example, some of the ideas I will be discussing shortly come from the character Rob Fleming in High Fidelity, a book by Nick Hornby and a movie starring John Cusack in the lead role (with the last name being changed to Gordon to sound less, well, bobbyish). I don't think that this is a bad thing, since we're all individuals with different preferences and attitudes. I'm not suggesting the following advice is authoritative or anything, but it is something that, as I apply it more often, has only helped me in my search for, well, whate'er.
I don't believe in dating people for who they might become. I believe in dating people who they are.
This is a common sentiment, which has inspired the following thoughts which might not be so universal as the previous statement.
I don't believe in dating people for what they're music library might contain in the future. I believe in dating people for the music library they have right now. If I am hanging out a girl and she starts playing some music, I am hoping that it will be a little more intellectually and emotionally involved than Kelly Clarkson or something like that. If I hear a couple of Nickelback songs (a band I consider guilty of international terrorism, being that they are Canadian), I'm going to lose it, unless the girl keeps that stuff around to remind her how far she's come in her music collection.
If I'm scrolling through some girl's music library, I am going to hope to see lots of Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan, The Clash, and Johnny Cash. Additionally, albums from the Arcade Fire, the Shins, Margot & the Nuclear So and Sos, Pedro the Lion, Of Montreal, the Hold Steady, Simon & Garfunkel, etc. The list goes on. A few bands will get a girl instant mega-respect, since they are relatively unknown compared to previous heavyweights, like Twothirtyeight. And if she doesn't have any Bob Dylan, that is going to be a serious relationship (possibly even friendship) issue.
Futhermore, I don't believe in dating people for what their bookshelves look like now. I believe in dating people for their present bookshelves. I'm not such a stickler on this one, since historians don't have the literary street cred of an English major. For example, most people can recognize War and Peace or something like that, but I'm pretty sure most won't identify with my woes of reading Return for Diversity or growing enjoyment in my current read, E.L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel. People might see my Kafka collection at get a little disturbed.
So I'm not such a tough guy on that. It would be nice to see a few books saved from world literature courses and a few other books read during a lazy summer on a porch. Again there are some power-hitters in this category, and were I to find a Flannery O'Conner collection with the pages greased from someone's thumb, with sentences underlined and favorite passages bracketed . . . I mean, be still, my freaking heart.
Finally, and this is harder to account for, films are important. I can even tolerate chick-flicks in this category, although they are definitely not artistic. But there's something to be said for the cheap emotional ride, especially if the girl is decent enough to admit it. But I'd like to hear that she's watched some good films in her time, like Magnolia, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Star Wars is absolutely non-negotiable. If she hasn't seen it, she certainly won't be seeing much more of me until she fixes that problem.
I advocate a holistic approach to using this principle. For example, a music devotee might not have an extensive book collection, but if she's got a nice film collection or movie ticket stubs scattered around, that's a good indication that she's probably on the right track. Similarly, her music collection might need some attention, but that's because she can't really listen to music when she's picking books from a shelf sagging under the weight of much fine literature.
I suppose you could relate it to this quote from Rob Gordon, in High Fidelity. "Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow, but it's the damn truth."
You'd think that I was all about dating some kind of liberal arts girl who would be down with all this stuff, which is potentially true, but it's often said that you should date outside your discipline. This seems bizarre to me, but I have heard it from plenty of otherwise legitimate sources, so I probably should regard it as sound.
But as far as I'm concerned, good taste in music, literature, and film is not limited to the people wearing thrift store shirts, smoking cigarettes outside, whining about how they can no longer smoke cigarettes inside, with overflowing messenger bags. Good taste should not be a liberal arts distinctive.
Although I think I have an idea as to why it happens that way. Liberal arts guys and girls are just not going to date business or CoSaM girls or guys who don't listen to good music, watch good films, or read good books. These are the kind of people that write bad poetry that gives off the vibe of thinking that it's actually good poetry. These are the kind of people, when, if religious, still listen to shoddy Christian (non-Sufjan, non-Pedro) music, or think that Jesus is there to be your buddy-buddy.
Couple that with the "date outside your discipline, because it doesn't work inside your discipline" principle, and you see why CoLA kids have such good taste. We've got to have it, because like Goethe's young Werther, our sorrows of unsatisfaction abound. Follow? Maybe?
Then maybe I should abandon this principle. Maybe that self-evident problem is enough reason to abandon such a strict concept.
Maybe I should just get some coffee.
But let's be honest, we bring a lot of cultural sentiments to the floor when we date people. For example, some of the ideas I will be discussing shortly come from the character Rob Fleming in High Fidelity, a book by Nick Hornby and a movie starring John Cusack in the lead role (with the last name being changed to Gordon to sound less, well, bobbyish). I don't think that this is a bad thing, since we're all individuals with different preferences and attitudes. I'm not suggesting the following advice is authoritative or anything, but it is something that, as I apply it more often, has only helped me in my search for, well, whate'er.
I don't believe in dating people for who they might become. I believe in dating people who they are.
This is a common sentiment, which has inspired the following thoughts which might not be so universal as the previous statement.
I don't believe in dating people for what they're music library might contain in the future. I believe in dating people for the music library they have right now. If I am hanging out a girl and she starts playing some music, I am hoping that it will be a little more intellectually and emotionally involved than Kelly Clarkson or something like that. If I hear a couple of Nickelback songs (a band I consider guilty of international terrorism, being that they are Canadian), I'm going to lose it, unless the girl keeps that stuff around to remind her how far she's come in her music collection.
If I'm scrolling through some girl's music library, I am going to hope to see lots of Radiohead, Wilco, Sufjan, The Clash, and Johnny Cash. Additionally, albums from the Arcade Fire, the Shins, Margot & the Nuclear So and Sos, Pedro the Lion, Of Montreal, the Hold Steady, Simon & Garfunkel, etc. The list goes on. A few bands will get a girl instant mega-respect, since they are relatively unknown compared to previous heavyweights, like Twothirtyeight. And if she doesn't have any Bob Dylan, that is going to be a serious relationship (possibly even friendship) issue.
Futhermore, I don't believe in dating people for what their bookshelves look like now. I believe in dating people for their present bookshelves. I'm not such a stickler on this one, since historians don't have the literary street cred of an English major. For example, most people can recognize War and Peace or something like that, but I'm pretty sure most won't identify with my woes of reading Return for Diversity or growing enjoyment in my current read, E.L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel. People might see my Kafka collection at get a little disturbed.
So I'm not such a tough guy on that. It would be nice to see a few books saved from world literature courses and a few other books read during a lazy summer on a porch. Again there are some power-hitters in this category, and were I to find a Flannery O'Conner collection with the pages greased from someone's thumb, with sentences underlined and favorite passages bracketed . . . I mean, be still, my freaking heart.
Finally, and this is harder to account for, films are important. I can even tolerate chick-flicks in this category, although they are definitely not artistic. But there's something to be said for the cheap emotional ride, especially if the girl is decent enough to admit it. But I'd like to hear that she's watched some good films in her time, like Magnolia, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Star Wars is absolutely non-negotiable. If she hasn't seen it, she certainly won't be seeing much more of me until she fixes that problem.
I advocate a holistic approach to using this principle. For example, a music devotee might not have an extensive book collection, but if she's got a nice film collection or movie ticket stubs scattered around, that's a good indication that she's probably on the right track. Similarly, her music collection might need some attention, but that's because she can't really listen to music when she's picking books from a shelf sagging under the weight of much fine literature.
I suppose you could relate it to this quote from Rob Gordon, in High Fidelity. "Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow, but it's the damn truth."
You'd think that I was all about dating some kind of liberal arts girl who would be down with all this stuff, which is potentially true, but it's often said that you should date outside your discipline. This seems bizarre to me, but I have heard it from plenty of otherwise legitimate sources, so I probably should regard it as sound.
But as far as I'm concerned, good taste in music, literature, and film is not limited to the people wearing thrift store shirts, smoking cigarettes outside, whining about how they can no longer smoke cigarettes inside, with overflowing messenger bags. Good taste should not be a liberal arts distinctive.
Although I think I have an idea as to why it happens that way. Liberal arts guys and girls are just not going to date business or CoSaM girls or guys who don't listen to good music, watch good films, or read good books. These are the kind of people that write bad poetry that gives off the vibe of thinking that it's actually good poetry. These are the kind of people, when, if religious, still listen to shoddy Christian (non-Sufjan, non-Pedro) music, or think that Jesus is there to be your buddy-buddy.
Couple that with the "date outside your discipline, because it doesn't work inside your discipline" principle, and you see why CoLA kids have such good taste. We've got to have it, because like Goethe's young Werther, our sorrows of unsatisfaction abound. Follow? Maybe?
Then maybe I should abandon this principle. Maybe that self-evident problem is enough reason to abandon such a strict concept.
Maybe I should just get some coffee.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
If ever we were chatter-ing
It's pretty exciting to think of the productivity that will come from this blog with the addition of Burdeshaw. I'm probably blogging at the same time as Chris, which is pretty fascinating.
I've gotten away from some of the other focus points of Cut the Chatter, Red 2, and that's because this blog has had a worldview focus. Tonight isn't really that much different, because I want to address an issue that came up about a week ago at my fellowship group. I promise I'll get back to topics on music and perhaps sports, now that March Madness is starting up.
One of the questions in our study asked for our perspective on justification. The question asked us how we would respond to the claim that justification meant that God treated us "just as if we've never sinned."
Anyone in the group could easily recall my reaction to the statement, as if it was high heresy or something. I suppose it's my SBC roots or something that leads me to hate this phrase, which at least on the surface level seems harmless enough. But if we take a hard look at this phrase, we begin to see some of the problems in current Christian thinking that, if left unaddressed, could lead to some serious theological complications.
"Just as if I'd never sinned." It's hard enough to pick a starting point with what's wrong, so I'll start at the beginning of Genesis. Adam was our federal head. Adam represented all of humanity in his actions and as a result, his sin is our sin. Furthermore, our nature has fallen and become corrupted. This corrupted nature and original sin is more than enough to condemn us, because we are by nature enemies of God. Being natural enemies, we could never progress outside of that original scheme without some form of divine intervention. This phrase, "Just as if I'd never sinned," ignores all this, focusing only on actual sin, or perhaps our sinful actions. But you can't ignore our sinful nature, inherited from Adam who spoke for us all (and do you really think you would have done much different if you were in his shoes? Didn't think so).
This idea is patently unamerican, since we pride individuality and personal responsibility. But if we won't have Adam, as Paul tells us in Romans 5, we can't have Christ. We ignore original sin at our own peril. If we focus on our actual sin alone, all we have to distrust is the past, which leaves us some confidence in ourselves. Yet are totally fallen, in body and soul as the Confession says, and we must learn to distrust our whole selves so that we can cry out with Paul in Romans 7 to the Lord and Savior who will deliver us from even ourselves.
Thanksfully, in our Savior's sacrifice we do not find merely and evening out of the tables. Jerry may have broken even and been in a great equilibrium in the world of Seinfeld, but really, all that does for us is leave us where we started. We begin to grasp the graciousness of God when we have not only our sins taken away, but Christ's righteousness creditted to our accounts. That grace becomes so amazing. God sees Christ's blood covering us and welcomes us as his children. Why in the world should this happen? It seems like it would have been enough to leave us even.
But God went further and gave us a right standing before God. "JustasifI'dneversinned" ignores this, suggesting that all God did was make us even. The statement says far too little, ignoring the truth that has caused Christians to pen poetry and sent musicians tuning their instruments.
The statement goes further, ignoring God's omniscience in that particular area. Additionally, when Christ returns and our faith is rewarded with sight, we will see his stricken body that bears the scars and wounds that finally convinced Thomas of the resurrection. Do we think God somehow can't see what his Son endured? Do we think that God actually pretends the wounds of sin are not indelibly on his Son's body? And yet this wounds are not merely wounds of sin, they are the proofs of grace.
The problem I have with JustasifI'dneversinnedism is that it really doesn't preach the Gospel. It's just a quip that we can easily memorize to propogate the shallow understanding of the Gospel in the South. When we try to make the Gospel simpler, we actually make it tougher to understand. It's already so simple to begin with. "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead."
If we could really learn what it means to believe those words, as Han Solo said, sometimes we might even amaze ourselves.
I've gotten away from some of the other focus points of Cut the Chatter, Red 2, and that's because this blog has had a worldview focus. Tonight isn't really that much different, because I want to address an issue that came up about a week ago at my fellowship group. I promise I'll get back to topics on music and perhaps sports, now that March Madness is starting up.
One of the questions in our study asked for our perspective on justification. The question asked us how we would respond to the claim that justification meant that God treated us "just as if we've never sinned."
Anyone in the group could easily recall my reaction to the statement, as if it was high heresy or something. I suppose it's my SBC roots or something that leads me to hate this phrase, which at least on the surface level seems harmless enough. But if we take a hard look at this phrase, we begin to see some of the problems in current Christian thinking that, if left unaddressed, could lead to some serious theological complications.
"Just as if I'd never sinned." It's hard enough to pick a starting point with what's wrong, so I'll start at the beginning of Genesis. Adam was our federal head. Adam represented all of humanity in his actions and as a result, his sin is our sin. Furthermore, our nature has fallen and become corrupted. This corrupted nature and original sin is more than enough to condemn us, because we are by nature enemies of God. Being natural enemies, we could never progress outside of that original scheme without some form of divine intervention. This phrase, "Just as if I'd never sinned," ignores all this, focusing only on actual sin, or perhaps our sinful actions. But you can't ignore our sinful nature, inherited from Adam who spoke for us all (and do you really think you would have done much different if you were in his shoes? Didn't think so).
This idea is patently unamerican, since we pride individuality and personal responsibility. But if we won't have Adam, as Paul tells us in Romans 5, we can't have Christ. We ignore original sin at our own peril. If we focus on our actual sin alone, all we have to distrust is the past, which leaves us some confidence in ourselves. Yet are totally fallen, in body and soul as the Confession says, and we must learn to distrust our whole selves so that we can cry out with Paul in Romans 7 to the Lord and Savior who will deliver us from even ourselves.
Thanksfully, in our Savior's sacrifice we do not find merely and evening out of the tables. Jerry may have broken even and been in a great equilibrium in the world of Seinfeld, but really, all that does for us is leave us where we started. We begin to grasp the graciousness of God when we have not only our sins taken away, but Christ's righteousness creditted to our accounts. That grace becomes so amazing. God sees Christ's blood covering us and welcomes us as his children. Why in the world should this happen? It seems like it would have been enough to leave us even.
But God went further and gave us a right standing before God. "JustasifI'dneversinned" ignores this, suggesting that all God did was make us even. The statement says far too little, ignoring the truth that has caused Christians to pen poetry and sent musicians tuning their instruments.
The statement goes further, ignoring God's omniscience in that particular area. Additionally, when Christ returns and our faith is rewarded with sight, we will see his stricken body that bears the scars and wounds that finally convinced Thomas of the resurrection. Do we think God somehow can't see what his Son endured? Do we think that God actually pretends the wounds of sin are not indelibly on his Son's body? And yet this wounds are not merely wounds of sin, they are the proofs of grace.
The problem I have with JustasifI'dneversinnedism is that it really doesn't preach the Gospel. It's just a quip that we can easily memorize to propogate the shallow understanding of the Gospel in the South. When we try to make the Gospel simpler, we actually make it tougher to understand. It's already so simple to begin with. "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead."
If we could really learn what it means to believe those words, as Han Solo said, sometimes we might even amaze ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)