Smile Song (ish)

Hello to you, whoever you are!

So, there is a section of poetry that I have written that I have not let many people see. Of these, only two have been tossed onto my website, though one of them ("hand me not") I posted on Facebook a long time ago. To me these are rather personal poems / songs: ones that I have written about a specific person or that have been inspired by specific people. This one, that I plan on sending into the abyss of the web now, is like that.

I was inspired to write this song / poem by three separate people over three months (three muses, if you will). My problem with posting something like this is I am afraid that 1. someone it is about will be afraid it's about them (or not want it to be) or 2. someone who it's not about will want it to be about them and be sad that it's not. Therefore, only ask who it's about if you aren't in one of those groups (or, just try not to be in those groups :-) ).

Well then… the "song": I think it is really just a chorus with poetry that must be read… and as of right now I am unable to sing the "chorus" … because I can't get the feel right… However, this thing has been on my mind for a while, and any comments are welcome, so have at it!


Smile
By Chris Becker

What I'd do
For just a smile in those eyes
What I'd give
Just to see that joy arise
Oh I'll be
Whatever you need
Just so I
Can lighten up your life (pause)
Don't you see?
You're beautiful to me
Don't you know?
This song's my overflow
Just a smile
You make me want to dance
What's the chance
That it could be with you? (pause)
My heart soars
It's just what you do
When you smile
Smile for me...

(switch to reading?)

Oh in your eyes I see a fire
I see passion, love, desire
But I can't tell at all‚
Is it yours? mine? both?

I see a hope,
But when your eyes cut into me,
What do they see?
When you smile at me,
What are your eyes saying?
They speak volumes of silence,
Oh, in the wonderful world of you
I don't know the language.

I just know that you are
A million times beautiful
In joy,
And I would love to join.
If only I could be:
The cause or companion of your laugh,
The agent or associate of your smile,
The producer or partner of your joy.

Maybe it's silly,
But it breaks me to see you broken,
Hurts me to see you harmed,
Saddens me to see you in sorrow.

You are on my mind
And I cannot make you part.
Your eyes have pierced
Into me and touched my heart.

Keep your eyes on fire,
Burning, piercing with joy.
You have unwittingly made me
A willing prisoner of your smile
And I think all the while:

(song again?)

What I'd do
For just a smile in those eyes
What I'd give
Just to see that joy arise
Oh I'll be
Whatever you need
Just so I
Can lighten up your life
Don't you see?
You're beautiful to me
Don't you know?
This song's my overflow
Just a smile
You make me want to dance
What's the chance
That it could be with you?
My heart soars
It's just what you do
When you smile
Smile for me


Again, comments and questions are completely welcome... Just realize I may not answer them all... :-)

Everybody

So, I've been working on a song… or… the lyrics to a song… that I'm naming "Everybody." The inspiration came while talking with an agnostic friend of mine, and her wanting to find more accurate terms for "spiritual" and "love", when those words are adjectives describing life, practices, history, and etc.
While I was telling her I had a distaste for the words "religion" and "religious," I threw in that, "well, you could just ask how and what the person worships." This she did not like. No one does. An agnostic believes they are holding back and will only worship a "god" when they have enough solid evidence (whatever they say that may be). An atheist would never worship a "god" and is drawn aback when you even suggest that they worship, because "worship is stupid."
What is worship? Is it a song or a statement? Is it a service or a silent prayer? No, no, those are all too obvious. Instead, worship is a dedicated life.
I believe that everyone's lives are devoted to something. This something can be an acknowledged object of worship, someone or something to which the person's contentment is tied, or even just the person's own person (self).
---
Actually, now that I've thought of it more since the last line… Every other worship boils down to that of the self. Actually, that makes a lot of logical sense, because if you do not see creation as below a creator, you can only relate it to the self.
Well, let's see what you think about what I've got so far:


(Chorus)
'Cause everybody worships something
Every heart (knee) bows down
Every soul finds one thing
It bases itself around.
(It defines itself around)

What do you do "religiously"?
What can't you do without?
What do you believe primarily?
What will you never doubt?
(What is your life about)

What takes your time and your strength?
How do you spend your while?
How do you gauge life's breadth and length?
What one thing always brings a smile?

What would define your life
Were it a criminal's file?
(Were it a reporter's file?)
What would they say your motive was?
Why did you walk the mile?

What could you always be caught for?
What drug, hobby, value, what thing?
Is there anyone you would do anything for?
Is it you? Are you your life's own king?


Now, for those who made it to the end of this, here's what I'm thinking it should sound like :)
Right Here!

My God!

So... I just watched an episode of an old show called "The Mantis" on Hulu, and the following struck me:

I find immense truth in the moment in a TV show or movie when a character looks at the mess they've made of their lives, the obsession that is keeping them from being what they know they should be, and the only two words they can say are "My God!"
I see this truth in two ways:
First, the person is realizing that they do need God. They are in themselves unable to fix their situations and problems. They are unable to make their lives what they should be, because they are the problem.
Second, the person is immediately identifying the real problem: something else is their God. The obsession that has hold of their life is their act of worship. The mess they've made of things is the pile of offerings to whatever idol is in the center of their life, the product and proof of a failing center.

Truthfully, I watch too much Hulu, and I count most of my time on video entertainment as completely wasted. I mean, look at this, I haven't written a blog post in forever, and (if I decide to not proofread) it doesn't really take much time…
The only defense I have is that I try to be critical, try to learn what people think about people by looking at how stories, written to capture the viewing public, are told.

So, I'll leave you with this: If you are going to let your mind rot in front of some passive entertainment, I only ask you to take a moment to make it less passive. Ask yourself if there is some truth behind what you are watching, search for the commentaries on the human condition, and ask yourself if you agree with the motives and beliefs that are revealed in the fabric of the story, the acting, and the words themselves.

The Problem of Evil

Last Thursday I had the opportunity to see Ravi Zacharias and Os Guinness speak at the Atlanta Civic Center on "The Mystery of Evil, The Sovereignty of Good." Both are great speakers, and a few points really stuck with me.

1) Only in the Judeo-Christian worldview is evil truly evil:

Many worldviews and religions classify things as good and bad, true and false, right and wrong, but only in the Old and New Testaments is sin an infinite chasm between the Creator and His Creation. Other worldviews tell you to deny the existence of evil, or of the world itself, or to do the right thing, do good works, and work off your sins. Some tell you that society defines good and evil, and that the whole thing is just a social construction, others say it is a naturally coexistent force, that good and bad are always in balance in the world.
Only the belief in a Creator and final Righteous Judge can truly define what evil is. Only in the knowledge that we were made for a purpose can we say that something is rejecting it's purpose (which Ravi and Os used as a good definition of evil -- the rejection of purpose). Other worldviews have to say that the pain and strife we see in the world is natural, it's the way the world should be. It is Christianity that says the world is messed up, so when a person try to use "the problem of evil" to refute a good loving God, realize that the person is borrowing from the very worldview they are arguing against.


2) The "best possible world"

I forget exactly how Ravi said this, so this is all going to be my paraphrase, but I really liked his answer to "Why God created a world that would be evil."
What is the best of all possible ends? What is the best thing in existence? Love. The world could not be the best, it could not be "very good" without the possibility of love. We would only be the best creation if we could respond in love to our creator. However love requires option, it necessitates choice. Sure, it would've been nice if Adam and Eve hadn't chosen their own way. The world could be the best possible world the way God created it: with the option for evil but without the presence of evil.
But that's just a "what if", and the truth of the matter is God created the best possible world. God does not make mistakes. God allowed for evil, God gave the opening for man to follow pride. God let man break the world and His only Son.


3) So, is God evil?

So, does this make God evil? Should he have not created at all knowing that the best possible world would still revolt?
Ravi gave a great analogy for that (paraphrased):
If a car is used to go over the speed limit, or to traffic illegal drugs, or to transport dead bodies, or to run someone down in the street, is the car manufacturer at fault? Should they be brought to court to answer for the use of the car? No.
The car was well made, it could accelerate well to get out of a bad spot, it could carry plenty of cargo, and it went and did exactly what the driver told it to. The design was not bad, however the use of the design was. Man is a wonderful design, built by a good, loving God, but the same arms, legs, mouth, and mind can be used for His purposes or for ours.



Well, I just typed a lot it seems, but I liked the synthesis of these ideas from Ravi and Os. There is only one worldview that says that evil is evil and God is good. All other worldviews have to water down both.


( Wow… I haven't posted in over a month… and I pick the day that I have to write a lab report to write… anyway, hope you enjoyed it :-) )

Perelandra

So, I finally finished Perelandra by C.S. Lewis a couple days ago, which means I have one book left in his Space Trilogy. If you haven't read it, I'll try not to give too much away… but it's about a guy named Ransom who is sent to Venus on a mission.
I really liked the first half of the book, especially any time that the characters were debating about right and wrong, dealing with things like obedience, duty, and love. I like the awkwardness Lewis draws out when Ransom is trying to explain things like death, hatred, and sin to a creation that had never tasted of any of them, and I enjoyed the tabula rasa logic of the Venus's "Queen".

Other than that, I thought I would pass on some neat quotes from Perelandra:

(Ransom speaking about his experience of space)
"On the contrary, it is words that are vague. The reason why the thing can't be expressed is that it's too definite for language."

-- I like that one, something utterly definite that cannot be defined by words… that's something to get your brain-gears turning...

and this:

Ransom had been perceiving that the triple distinction of truth from myth and of both from fact was purely terrestrial -- and was part and parcel of that unhappy division between soul and body which resulted from the fall.
...
The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed, like the distinction between fact and myth, was purely terrestrial.
...
And he bowed his head and groaned and repined against his fate -- to be still a man and yet to be forced up into the metaphysical world, to enact what philosophy only thinks.

I really like this quote (or… squished together series of quotes) for multiple reasons:
1. It restates what I said in a previous post, the synonymity of belief and faith, in a different manner
2. It states that predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive and are rather a matter of perspective
3. It reminds us that our world is a metaphysical world, that we live in more than just some loosely connected physical and non-physical reality, and that our philosophy and our actions should line up, that we have a place and a part to play.

Anyway, it took me too long to finish this book (I had listened to about a third of it in the car over break)… to tell the truth, I was wasting my time on useless Hulu TV and playing a online FPS… anyway, here's to getting school work done and reading more… :)