From: caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White)
Subject: Re: What do you do when your child thinks Metallica is cool?
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:44:34 GMT

In article <nestabro.721687895@nova> nestabro@nova.gmi.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
>
>>I think the primary difference in our approach to such things is that
>>I think it's possible to find something genuinely good and worthwhile
>>in the non-Christian works, even while I disagree with some or all
>>of their basic premises.  You think (at least I believe you do)
>>that the non-Christian (worldly) nature of the works automatically
>>disqualifies them from worth and merit.  
>
>What I don't get is _why_ you would want to even bother with something
>whose "major premise" you disagree with.  I'm not advocating hiding
>from the world, but I don't have to read a book by a New Age author
>to understand the New Age.  About all I care to know about Neitshke (sp)
>is that he was an atheist, therefore, I know his reasoning is going to
>lead me away from God.  Do I need to know anything else?  That he was
>brilliant?  Yes, but brilliant and in hell.

Now, this isn't going to be a surprise to many of you, but well, here goes
anyway.

The reason why is really quite simple for me: a lot of those secular things
which don't glorify God draw me closer to God. Plain and simple. One
of the most significant discoveries of my christianity was after studying
Nietsczie (sp). What he said, and how he said it, set off all kinds of
new thoughts and understandings about how great God is. 

How is a little tougher, but I'll use a math example. One way to do a 
proof is to assume some statement is true and then draw it out logically
until you get a contradiction. For instance, we may have a tough time
proving that A != B, but if we assume that A really does equal B, we can
easily prove that 1 = 2. Since we know that 1 != 2, then it follows 
that A != B. Now, in the case of Philosophy, it's a little different.
It tends to be pretty easy to show (scriptually) where they are wrong.
However, if you start at the beginning and work through it, you can
find the 1 or 2 or 3 wrong assumptions (or conclusions) that led to 
the final state. Correct those, and then follow through by contrasting
subsequent conclusions with the new information, and you can find
some truly *amazing* truths. 

Are they in the Bible? Sure! But as a human being, I couldn't see them.
God could have just revealed them to me, but you learn more and care
more when you do the work (remember the first thing you ever bought
with money that you earned yourself?). This is how God has chosen to
work with me and teach me. I'm not saying it's for everyone (that's
between them and God), but I've said it before and I'll say it again
now: Which one of you is big and tough enough to stand up to God and
tell him that he can't work in my life that way?

>>                                   |
>>                                   |
>>                  Bad Message/     |        Good Message/
>>                    Good Art       |          Good Art
>>                                   |
>>              ---------------------+-------------------------- 
>>                                   |
>>                  Bad Message/     |        Good Message/
>>                    Bad Art        |          Bad Art
>>                                   |
>

I've brought this up before, too, but what constitutes Good art/bad art?
I'm with Tolstoy on his universality theroy, namely, that the more effort
or education that is required to appreciate a piece of art, the less
likely it is that it is art. 

In regards to lyrics (or poetry for that matter), I am really offended by
people who think that if you can't figure out what they're talking about
then it must be art. Now, I'm not in favor that only the completely 
obvious is art. What I am saying is that the amount of effort required
to understand it is a mitigating factor. Therefore, since Shakespear
doesn't translate well and requires a bit of effort to understand, it
needs to be *that much better* to be considered on par with something 
that does. Personally, I don't think Will has anything to worry about
in that department.

So, how does that relate to Metallica. Well, from the top section, I've
learned some things (spiritual things) both from them directly and 
through analyzing where I disagree with them. From an artistic perspective,
they require some bit of education to follow and appreciate. However,
judging from the responses of foreign audiences, they do appeal to a
basic human level which transcends the language barrier (good, according
to Tolstoy).


Topher
-- 
 Christopher A. White                    | 
 caw@gtech.com                           | Free will is largely overrated. 
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | 
 The opinions expressed are mine alone   |           - Topher
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian