Comments on: Philosophy for Theology: Aesthetics and Theology https://www.faithonview.com/philosophy-for-theology-aesthetics-and-theology/ Diverse Christian News and Commentary Sun, 07 Apr 2024 19:06:38 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2 By: Rondall Reynoso https://www.faithonview.com/philosophy-for-theology-aesthetics-and-theology/#comments/208786 https://www.faithonview.com/?p=3521#comment-208786 In reply to Heather.

Your comment reminded me of this piece. https://www.faithonview.com/god-for-gods-sake-learning-theology-from-aesthetics/

I will try to send you an email tomorrow. If I forget, please feel free to email me.

]]> By: Heather https://www.faithonview.com/philosophy-for-theology-aesthetics-and-theology/#comments/208785 https://www.faithonview.com/?p=3521#comment-208785 The explanation that you give about why Christian kitsch is so popular is right on. It provides a quick satisfaction, like sugar. And, so, someone viewing that with “interest” is going to get a quick fix. Too often, people come to Scripture that way, too. Much of Scripture does NOT provide a quick solution or an easy answer, but in search of those, verses are taken out of context to provide proof-texts and pat answers. Like art, we must come to Scripture “disinterested”, not to get something which satisfies us (only – I will not say it does not do this), but to come to it for its own sake and conform ourselves to it, as challenging as that may be.

On another topic, I am in the process of writing a paper for my MM (topic: defining the heroic in music) and came across some articles that brought up something surprising to me – that the definition of “sublime” is rather fraught and went through some changes beginning with (or at least contemporary with) Kant, along the lines of beauty and sublime become more distinctly separated and also being assigned a “gender.” I’d love to converse about this if you want to shoot me an email!

]]>