So, I found an interesting Article that relates to this class. It's an article (written by Andrew Barber, a Christian) about the motivation for making Christian movies.
Basically, he was saying that we suck at it.
And, I agreed with his point.
Barber says that we are making movies with the wrong motives. For most movie-makers, they simply make movies to convert. The only goal is that everyone who walked in the theater walks out a Christian. However, Barber points out that doing this shows that a film maker is making a movie for the atheists in the room.
And, continuing from this, Barber also points out that most of the mainstream Christian films are just fulfilling the Christian fantasy. I'm not saying that saving people is only a part of our fantasies. It's the easy resolution of the movies. In Barber's words: "These films are meant to assure us that our view of the world is correct. They are evangelical fantasies." He suggests that Christian filmmakers attempt to tackle some uglier issues, such as "a pastor, formerly powerful in the Republican Party, coming to terms with his lessening influence?" Just some food for thought. At least for me, it made me reconsider why we should make "Christian" films and how make a better name for ourselves in the "secular" film industry.
There, you happy with the word count, now, Leeper?
Not talking about anything profound or anything but I'd like to share my favorite band so if anyone's up for some good music and a new favorite band check them out.
So, for this post, I'd like to talk about The Dear Hunter's album "Act II: The Meaning of and All Things Regarding Ms. Leading."
Yes, there is a reason it is titled "Act II". The Dear Hunter actually is telling a story that so far has spanned four albums. Why do I bring up Act II? Because it's about sex. I thought this had a lot to do with the conversation.
So, briefly providing a bit of story. The albums focus on a boy growing up in (what I've assumed) is pre-World War I busy city (I'm assuming New York). He grows up with a poor, single mother (who used to be a prostitute). Despite her luck and her vocation, his mother is still of faith. However, she dies early (some evidence pointing a suicide) and Act II opens with the boy, now old enough to take care of himself, all alone without his mother, and no longer believing in God.
In comes Ms. Leading. A kind woman who offers to help the main character with his loneliness. So, what does he do?
(While listening, keep in mind it's actually two songs, each having a different message)
He is seduced by her. And, agrees to sleep with her. So, the first part shows the naivete of the boy as he believes Ms. Leading and makes the wrong decision. The second part of the song elaborates on the justification for casual sex. How society covers it up. That there's no harm to it. When, obviously, there is a harm to our main character as this and his relationship with Ms. Leading influence him the rest of his life. (Not to mention it's all taking place in a brothel)
Next comes the Bitter Suite Part III:
Which is a song about sex. It's the actual sex. And...it's done very tastefully. No big butts. No anacondas. Just two people "embracing". Just a summer smile and winter skin. Instead of showing lust and dirty sex, this song is just a lonely young man trying to find meaning with another individual. Though, it is not his wife. And the repercussions for his decision will follow him for a long time following this.
So, what will happen to our tragic hero (he seriously is a tragic hero as later albums reveal)? Listen to the album to find out what's up with Ms. Leading and what he decides to do. Will her learn from his mistakes and gain some wisdom? Or will he become a cynical man, unable to trust anyone?
Since I love this band and their story so much I may post on the later albums. Because Act IV is so worth it.
I'll start by saying that while I read through some blogs I accidentally read "condemn" as "condom". Ahem.
Anyhooo, I wonder if anyone else has this problem. If sometimes there's this whole big long wall of words and craziness if your eyes don't accidentally catch certain words that make you skip ahead. Or misread things, like condom (see above). Maybe it's just something regarding my own sex. However, I don't think that it is restrictive to only just that.
If you're anything like me, your eyes darted to "sex" before you realized what I meant. Why? It's not like I'm desperate for it or anything and okay this just got weird.
And that's my point. From what I gather, everyone has totally different reactions and yet equally extreme reactions.
Sex.
Just that word alone elicits anger, fear, awkwardness, or an of the other reactions of the posts before and probably after mine. "Immature" jokes, shifting eyes, uncomfortable chatter, guilty conversation.
So, when Jonathan said he was going to post on sex, I knew the reaction it would get. It would make people uncomfortable. So of course I told him to do it. But in class, and reading through the blogs I started wondering why it makes such a huge impact. To us Christians sex is just a part of marriage. (I'm just going to stick to this idea for this point, but I do acknowledge that there are different ways to view sex)
Sharing a bathroom.
If Leeper had said that alone in class, it wouldn't cause such a great tide of panic as did the sex talk. But aren't they just a part of marriage? You share a bathroom. You have sex. Why does the second one cause us to shift in our seats a bit?
Because we were raised to believe it's dirty? Admittedly, it did take a lot of growing up for me to realize that it's natural and not something to be shamed. But, in response to the sexual promiscuity of our culture, the Christian culture seems to be telling us that sex is a no-no. But so is murder.
Envy.
Ooooo, so scary. Okay, so that didn't cause anyone to freak and yell "Penis!" Yet Scripture also teaches against this. In fact, it's never okay to covet anything your neighbor has. But there are definitely times sex is okay. Adultering (I know it's not a word) is against the commandments, but so is murdering and jealousy.
So why is sex the thing that is so controversial? Why are we okay with murder in a movie but not sex? What makes them so different? Why do we allow children to watch violent shows with murder and thievery and materialism and everything, but we CANNOT allow them to see anything with even a hint of sex in it?
I'm wondering if maybe sex, despite what modern society tells us, openly shows us our insecurities. Going to school naked in dreams is a clear sign of insecurity. And sex is so much more intimate than that. Both sides (excluding any threesomes in the equation) are seriously stripping themselves of their defenses. What's scarier than that?
So, maybe that's why we joke or avoid eyes. To layer up in our defenses. Why we don't like talking about sex unless in jest. Because no one wants to feel insecure. Even mentioning it. Because, of course, none of us ever feel insecure.
Before I get started, I'll say that this has a bit to do with what I wanted to post on Tuesday's blog, but I didn't get the time. But, I'll relate it in. Even though I did post on feminism in an earlier post, I have had this subject on my mind, and I haven't been able to come up with an answer for it. However, the conversation we had after Clint's controversial post brought it up in my head once again.
Should we draw gender lines?
Meaning, should we always so clearly judge purely on one's gender. To me, at least, it seems ridiculous to judge each other purely on our sex. We can't do it with race. So why gender? I know there are some parts of the Bible that define some differences between the sexes, but that isn't my point. I'm not saying that boys and girls aren't different with their own strengths and weaknesses, because anyone who says that isn't true is lying. Guys are scientifically better parkers. Girls are better at everything else. (hehehe)
However, at the same time, I've been finding a lot of the conversation on this whole topic actually pretty frustrating. Men are ignorant pigs. Women are emotionally unfit for a work environment. Men can't do anything right. Women can't succeed in a "man's world". As much good as this whole movement is doing, at times I think it's also broadening a line.
The hardest part for me, though, is about the stance Leeper seemed to be taking on it. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful and I agree with him, until he talked about affirmative action. (I'm not talking about racial affirmative action, since I have no place to talk about that, so please don't kill me on that). He said that he wouldn't mind giving up a spot for woman because it was their turn. Eh.
That sort of...eh...as someone with ambitious dreams in the animation field, I want to do a lot. However, I want to do it all with my own skill and passion and hard work. I don't want to get a job because my employer needed more diversity or because it's "my turn". I want to get it because I'm good enough, not because I just so happen to be female. It's actually a little offensive for me. I'd rather just not get the job.
If, instead, we could just see each other as human, then...I don't know. But if I knew that the playing field was equal, with no handicaps, I'd be happy. If we both can take pride in our genders without receiving hate for it. If women start repressing men as much as men did in the past, then how are we any better? Then we wouldn't be the better sex. :P But, if we could live like that I would be more confident. I mean, bring it, boys. You don't know what you're messing with here.
But, if we don't I'm unsure if we can move passed the cooties on the playground.
I'm just glad to see other people are bringing up different things about it. Especially the boys. Thank you guys for talking about it. And honestly, too. Most of the time when I hear guys talking about it, they just passively agree with women. I don't know if it's what they really believe or if they are just too scared to form their own opinions. But, believe me, your side of it matters just as much as the female. We're all human here.
But, well, this is a difficult subject for me because, well, I usually disagree with the popular opinion. A lot, actually. I mean, by definition I am a feminist. Everyone should be. It's just simply believing that both sexes are equal. Duh. However, I just don't relate to the feminist movement. This whole "men are all stupid and women still are mistreated terribly" movement.
What I'm trying to say is that feminists are just terribly misinformed women unsure how to correctly solve a problem. They're still calling for government reform when sexism is a social one. They call all men sexist pigs and all women who don't agree with them old-fashioned and uneducated. And, unfortunately, I don't have the time to explain how the numbers and statistics don't really show much and how they don't properly represent how women are treated.
However, I believe the films we watched Thursday actually did what feminism should. It introduced a problem. And respectfully showed the implications of it. No name-calling, static numbers, or angry, clucking women. Just accurate portrayals that make its audience think.
But, even further than this, they made me feel proud to be a woman. And, I realized though I originally believed that I have never really been affected by sexism, it turns out I have. Though I have been proud to be a girl in those middle school tug-of-war contests or the elementary "cooties" epidemic, in an adult sense, I don't really feel it.
Until I watched things like Un Jour. That was so strange, honestly at first, but as it went along I realized, yes, that's it. That's how it feels. It's a perspective I didn't know I had until I saw it. But, what was even more amazing, was the reaction it got afterwards. The way Leeper said it offered a perspective men could never have come up with. And that was a good thing.
And then, I read Jonathan's post on Steven Universe. How he thought that there was a new perspective in it that wouldn't have resulted if a man had written it. And that surprised me, because one, I love that show, and two, because in a network dominated by men (one of the few ongoing cartoons written by a woman) this show is still so highly rated.
Okay, confession time: I purposefully chose a male pen name for my webcomic. When releasing it just a while ago, I considered the prejudice that comes from female authorship and I knew I didn't want to be grouped with that. What do women write? Twilight and Divergent. Ew. Even worse: Fifty Shades of Gray. I'm not associating myself with that. So, I created a new name, so that both sexes come into the comic without any real prejudice. Because men are more capable of writing well.
But now everyone's saying that women have a different perspective? And what's more, I'm proud of that fact now? Was it okay for me to use that pen name? Does it mean that I'm running away from something that I have that no one else has? Or is it still my perspective? Does using a male name change my perspective? I don't believe it does.
However, as I look up at my bookshelf, I realize how many of my books are written by men and women. I've got J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Orwell, Bram Stoker, Alexandre Dumas, Charles Dickens, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. But I also have Arakawa Hiromu (a woman who purposefully changed her name to a male one (because only a man could write Fullmetal Alchemist)), Jane Austen, Kusanagi Mizuho, and Harper Lee. There's even J.K. Rowling, who published her name so people would assume she was a man (and who later used a male pen name for a later book).
So, maybe, there's a good way to sum this up, but honestly, I'm still figuring this all out. But, maybe, there is something that we can bring to the world. Maybe both sides have something new to bring. And maybe that's what makes the conversation so beautiful. Maybe it's what makes us so human. And maybe that's something I can be proud of. :)
Nah, I'm not going to fight you, Jonathan. In fact, I agree with you. I applaud you for making me think you were going in a total different direction. I just thought what you had to say was actually very interesting. So, here are my thoughts.
I've found a common link between attention and age.
Now, as the supply of time, or "age", if you will (the red line) increases, the demand for attention decreases (the blue line).
I'll elaborate a bit:
I know a beautiful person has already talked about it, but here's my experience with Cowboy Bebop. When I first watched it I thought it was great, but it didn't hold my attention the whole way through. It was a little too episodic for my tastes. So, I never finished it. However, now that I'm older, I'm appreciating much different accents of the show. It's really got me glued. It challenges me in some places and doesn't answer many questions. It's beautiful, and for some reason, I have to be older to truly appreciate it.
So, since animated shorts and movies were originally meant for adults, then obviously, they could be slower. It made sense, since as adults, our attention spans are much longer and we can appreciate film as an art.
Maybe.
I know I can't speak for everyone, but for the most of us, we've all grown up with Disney. Aladdin, Lilo and Stitch, 101 Dalmatians, Dumbo, Snow White. Actually, a lot of those are painstakingly slow. And, realizing this, I also noticed that I have a harder time now watching the classics than I did in early childhood.
So what went wrong?
I believe, as Jonathan said, it's modern media. What came after Disney on VHS? Spongebob, Kim Possible, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Fairly Odd-Parents (admittedly, some shows were fantastic). Our media was made by creators who tried everything in their power to keep our attention. Why? To prevent us from clicking away. Now matter how good the show, how much effort put into the art, in the end, a main worry was always entertaining the audience.
Somehow, our children's shows (yes, this includes film, too) were made to hold the supposed "short" attentions span of a child. If you got some memorable characters, careful art, and challenging plot, then yippie, but if it bores the target audience, or doesn't sell enough toys (cough cough Cartoon Network cough cough) then good-bye good show.
Remember this baby?
Yeah, I didn't really explain it, but this is what those businessy people funding our crafts study. It's a Supply and Demand Graph. This is how they view attention. Find the equilibrium. Or, find the exact balance between action and down time. Draw a dotted line and figure out how much action our age needs.
Our craft has turned turned from an art to a graph. I don't know about you guys, but I hate math.
But, what would happen if we literally raised the bar? What will we find if we push and challenge?
We literally get a surplus. Drawing the line a little higher allows us to gainsomething from it. If we keep giving ourselves only what we think we can handle, then we will never gain anything. In fact, if anything, (admit it) during some impressionable years of our lives, we lowered the bar. We grew accustomed to the shortage in our media.
So, how are we all reacting now that the bar has been raised through the shorts we've been watching? Now that more is demanded from us? Sure it's more work, but we can get so much more out of it. I think a better questions is where are we willing to draw the dotted line?
Ha! Take that, math, I totally just used a graph against you. Even though my high school Microeconomics teacher is face-palming somewhere. Well, you know what, Tichenor, maybe you should have taught this class correctly.
My sweet child. It was you who asked "where's Satan?" I was originally going to post this not knowing who had said it, but, thank you for posting, because now I know. Thank you for posting because I also now know your thoughts.
So, I have comparison for you: "And God saw that it was good." vs. "And God saw that it was perfect."
You say that the lack of the Serpent suggests that God had created something imperfect that turned on him without provocation. Yet, you forget that Lucifer didn't have a Serpent provoking him. Did God not create each of his angels, including those who "hit the bottom of the ground"? Are you saying that God couldn't create evil, therefore Satan? But, that's a bit of a slippery slope and not completely my point.
The problem I have with your argument, and a common belief I've found among Christians I've known: Satan is the cause of our sins. As I mentioned before, I started a bit of a slippery slope (to prove a point), however, we, as Christians use this fallacy so often we've kind of accepted it as a truth.
1. Satan is evil.
2. You said God can't create something evil
3. Therefore, you're saying God didn't create Satan.
Above is my argument, obviously a very slippery slippery slope (with some strawman thrown in). Now, I'll list yours:
We sin because of the Devil.
This may not be 100% what you're saying, but your reasoning is actually very similar to most Christians who accept this "doctrine".
1. Satan is evil.
2. The Serpent tempted Eve
3. Humanity fell because of Satan.
Okay, popular belief right here. Admit it, you know someone like this, or, who knows, maybe you are someone who thinks like this. Easy to see how we get here. However, I suggest you take a closer look. What do these three assumptions have to relate them? Eh, not much. This is what makes it a slippery slope. Unfortunately, I don't think I can correctly illustrate how the serpent isn't necessary for the sin in human nature. Luckily, Back already has in the very short you are referencing. The whole point (by whole point, I mean my point, because, honestly, I don't think we can confidently pinpoint a "whole point" of it) of the short was to show that sin is only present in mankind, along with the destruction we can cause. Excusing the symbolism of killing God (which a much more philosophically confident member of the blog is welcome to tackle), the very nature of their sin proved enough already. And, as an added bonus, it was the same. Let's compare:
Biblical original sin: demanding more and disobeying God. (It was not listening to the Serpent or even eating the fruit. It was disobeying God's orders when he told them not to eat it)
Back's original sin: demanding more and disobeying God.
So, really, I don't see what concept he was really missing. If anything, I think it's more powerful. Let's compare (once again).
Problem: Sin stems from Satan.
Solution: Fight against Satan and keep a good watch over him.
Problem: Sin is inherit in human nature.
Solution: Fight against our own desires and keep a good watch over our actions.
Honestly, there isn't much of problem with believing the top one,yet. Because, ultimately, both solutions are avoiding sin. However, what happens when you do sin? If it was Satan's fault, then how do you fix it? I'm not asking how you are forgiven or redeem yourself. How do you fix your mistakes, learn from them, and grow from them if they weren't yours in the first place?
That's the next point Back makes. Sure, it's in human nature to sin, but it's also in human nature to learn and grow and improve after we sin. It's in human nature to sin and learn from it. After all the destruction we cause, we can still learn. It's what separates us from Satan. It's what makes us human.
Now, I might be misrepresenting your thoughts and I appologize for grouping you for my little explanation. But, I do recognize your original thoughts. You said that it was the Serpent who tempted Eve, and that, without him, she probably never would have sinned. But, I have a question for you: if God had been the one to explain that she could gain god-like knowledge by eating the fruit, would Eve have taken it? By this I mean that I don't believe that it was because the Serpent tempted her with who he was, but instead by what he said. I mean, it wasn't because he was the most evil being on Earth that she sinned, but because he said that she would gain knowledge. God had never offered this "truth" before him. He had only said that they would die if they ate from the tree. But, then the Serpent explained, "well, no, you won't die, instead you'll be as smart as God. Oh, man, bummer." So, I believe that even without the Serpent, Eve would have taken the fruit if she knew what she could gain from it. (Hence, Back's illustration on humans only wanting more.)
And, on the flip side, since we are able to sin nearly equal to that of Satan, then we are able to also create nearly equal to that of God. Thus, The Man Who Planted Trees.
On a final note, I believe that the choice, our own choice, between great evil and great good is what makes us humans so beautiful. What makes us so beautiful, yet so terrifying is our ability to effect everything around us.
I'm actually surprised with how little we've been posting about the discussion on Postmodernism. After we spent so much time on it in class... Well, anyhoo, I've been rereading my notes and realized that I actually had some things to say about it. So, here we go:
First, my findings:
Oh, look at that...Postmodernism seems to stop in 1975. Yeah, I was a little surprised, too. According to Dictionary.com, the word originated in 1970 and lasted until 1975. (I'm not sure how accurate this is, though, since we (especially Leeper) used the word so much last Thursday. But, I guess even if the public stopped using it, we, as a class, have made up for 30 years of abandonment.)
So, following this, I discovered that our epoch is actually unofficially known as post-postmodernism (or metamodernism). Now that's a representation of our generation... And, just how postmodernism was the rebellious teenager of the modern era, so too is our now post-postmodern era a reaction to the postmodern one. Irony at its finest. But, actually the postmodern era was (or is) known for its love of irony. So does that make metamodernism metaironic?
Well, despite whether we are postmodernists or post-postmodernists, Leeper's definition of our generation's current mentality remains true. The whole "life is a mess, so jump in" bit. As he said, we've sort of got this mentality that life sucks, but we still chug through it.
In response to Jacob's post, I actually did doodle in class (more on that one later) because the discussion in class reminded me of something. The only times I really ever doodle in class or when studying is when I have a mental image that will help me remember something. Well, it worked. But it also did more than that. It made me realize something.
I originally walked out of class thinking to myself that I didn't have any ideas for the blog, and I would go yet another week without blowing any minds... but just earlier I realized why. I had heard everything Leeper had said before. The whole "life's dark and we think it can't get better, but we continue anyways." I've heard that before. To the point I found class boring. (Sorry, Leeper).
But, why? It's the same set-up as the fairy tale. Remember, a fairy tale is a story about all the darkness of life consuming everything, and yet losing in the end. The fact that our heroes carry on through the storm and reach that better place, that happy ending. Postmodernism (or post-postmodernism) is a Fairy Tale.
But, why?
Before that, where have we heard the "carry on" thing before?
Yup.
Oh, look at that.
What about my doodle? A certain scene from my favorite cartoon as a kid: Avatar: The Last Airbender.
"Sometimes life is like this dark tunnel. You can't always see the light at the end of the tunnel, but if you just keep moving, you will come to a better place." -General Iroh
As a kid, the idea of "keep moving" was drilled into my head like a drill into the walls of Ba Sing Se. (A little joke for my Avatar friends.)
So, what does this mean? Does this mean that the postmodern era (or post-postmodern era) affected the Fairy Tales we know now? Or that the postmodern era was affected by Fairy Tales? Did the Fairy Tales Disney animated have a lasting impact on that generation (and the ones to follow)? Did the hope of finding a better place at the end of the tunnel inspire an era?
And what about us? The generation so affected by our predecessors. What can we do? What will we teach? What will we inspire? If Fairy Tales affected our parents and teachers and mentors in the past, just who will we inspire in our children? Maybe the tales we tell will mean something. Maybe they will mean something. Maybe our actions as story-tellers will have such a lasting impact as the ones before us.
So, to everyone who ever said that we won't get anywhere with our passion for stories. To everyone who said we won't make a living. To everyone who told us to give up. That it's not worth it. You may be making more (or maybe not). You may be the ones with more stability. You may be the ones who find comfort sitting behind a desk. But we'll be the ones inspiring a generation.
Life sucks. There's darkness we can't be rid of. There's a doom we all feel. It's like a Fairy Tale. You may chose to stand still. But we're the ones who follow the Fairy Tale into the darkness. We're the ones who actually get somewhere.We're the ones who get to that better place.
Okay, so, these are all pictures that popped up when I simply typed "God" in the Google search bar. They all are of, obviously, God. (And one of Jesus) What do they all have in common? What single personality trait of God is shown in all of these?
Ooof, that's difficult. Let's try something easier, shall we?
Who is this?
If you don't know the answer to that one, you're lying. Better question, what is he? Well, duh, Lissa, that's Thor, the god of thunder. Everyone knows that. Okay, but what about this one:
That's Athena. She's the goddess of war and wisdom. Give me challenge, here.
Okay, that's not fair. That's an anime character. Alright, alright, it's Tenjin, the Japanese god of learning.
And that's Ra. The Ancient Egyptian god of the sun.
So, I've been having a good time reading all the other posts since everyone basically agrees that God has a sense of humor. I particularly enjoyed Clint's story and proof of God's sense of humor. And, through reading all of these, we've all been arriving to the same question (many of us attempting to answer it, too. (over-achievers...)): Why do we, as Christians, feel uncomfortable with the idea of a humorous God? Or, in other words, why don't we dare see him any other way than the "stoic" being?
Keeping this in mind, let's look at these pictures again. I'll ask the question again: what do all of these have in common? Let's look:
...
Let's break these down one by one now. The first one shows a gentle father, maybe? The next one a vengeful warrior? The next one a creator of humankind. The last one is just kick-butt.
Um, so, they have...uh, something in common here...
Let's try some more...(Basically my favorite results)
Yes! That receding hairline! Beautiful! Of course God is more dignified than a come-over.
This one is certainly...different. A totally unique perspective on God, and one that probably offended A LOT of Christians.
Yes. Let's admit it, this was a magnificent portrayal of God. Like Val mentioned, this portrayal shows different sides of God's personality.
So, what do these have in common? Getting frustrated yet? There may be a reason if you are.
Okay, let's look back at the gods I listed earlier. We had Thor, the god of thunder. What do we know about Thor (the myth, not the Avengers character)? Well, he has a hammer and he gets angry and he defeated the frost giants. That's 'bout it. Athena? Goddess of war and wisdom. She's smart...has a lot of pride, very wise (arguably the wisest of the gods). There's a problem here.
None of the mythical gods have three-dimensional personalities. They're all simply "the god of..." Their characters are defined by what humans associate them with.
So, y'all know where I'm going with this. God is not simply "the god of..." His personality is more than what humans have associated him with. Remember in class a while ago, Leeper had said that there isn't just one symbol for God. In Isiah, God is likened to a shepherd, a king, an avenger, and a friend, all in the same passage.
In truth, and for this reason, I, similarly to everyone else, can't see how other Christians view God as someone without a sense of humor.
However, I'm starting to understand it this way: they've only viewed God as "the god of..." The god of redemption. The god of Israel. The god of love. The god of justice. The god of humor?
What we (as flawed humans) have done is not only "put God in a box" as other blogs suggested, but simplified his personality down to the lowest denominator so we can simply understand him. A god who is literally three-dimensional (Holy Trinity, anyone?)! We've all forgotten exactly who god is.
So let's try this again (last time, I promise):
What do these have in common? Do you have your final answer? Lock it in.
My answer (not necessarily meaning it's the right one (not necessarily meaning there is a right answer)):
1. It's a trick question. They don't have anything in common. Or, at least, God is portrayed differently in each one. So, wait, even though we've all simplified God, we've still somehow portrayed him differently? Each artist had a different vision of what God was truly like. And I think that's absolutely beautiful. And, I'm starting to think that maybe, if we all, humanity, work together, share our visions, our relationships with God, maybe we'll come to a closer understanding of who he really is.
2. There is an answer. I already answered it from the beginning. Each one has God in common. These images are how each artist saw God. These are God. And that is beautiful, too. We all see God differently, but, that doesn't mean that there's only one way. It means we're all seeing a different part of God. A different side.
So, maybe the version of God you see is different than mine. Maybe he doesn't pick on you, laugh with you, support you the way he does me. Maybe you can't imagine a God like that. The way I can't imagine a God who I can't honestly tell my problems to late at night. But, maybe, that doesn't mean only one of us is right. I know I don't see God the way Jesus did, since, let's face it, I'm not Jesus. However, we both love God.
We all love God. Every part of him. Just like he loves us all. How freaking beautiful is that? That's the God we all love, people. He isn't simply "the god of..." He is our God. He belongs to us. His image ours to imagine. His personality ours to try to understand. And we are his. Our image his to mold. Our personalities to create. Our souls to love for all eternity.
If God made us all individual snowflakes, then of course we're all going to fall in a different path. We're all going to fall, seeing the world from a different point of view. Seeing God from a different angle. How do you see God? Comment and let me know!
So, closing statement: as Leeper said, it will take so many different symbols (though he doesn't seem to like the word "symbol") to explain God.
For once a thousand pictures are worth one word: God.
What is this? Well, duh, Lissa, it's a cave painting. Elementary-level painting. (And yet, so beautiful, in my opinion). Okay, but just follow me here, What do we see here? Some animals? A herd of horses? So? They're just horses, right? Why paint just horses? What is so important about this? Historians have many different speculations for this. Maybe, these horses were very important to the painters? Perhaps this led to an easier way for them to hunt? To keep up with their prey? As storytellers, the answer is much more obvious. Possibly because I just gave it away. This painting is telling a story. (Possibly a Dreamworks one about horses?)
After these paintings, we stumble across the first human civilizations. Mesopotamia, Egypt, and so on. What do these civilizations have in common? A lot, actually. But, there's one underlying theme: their stories. Besides farming, trade, authority, these ancient humans believed they simply had to tell stories to explain the world around them. Along with technology and science, each civilization offered new and elaborate tales of gods and heroes and adventure. Of love and hate. Of anger and sadness. Of gods and humans. Of life and death. And life again?
In class, this was temporarily brought up, Leeper (who is a beautiful man and a genius) said that God acts out the dreams and stories we tell. Okay, time out. Remember the "seasons" we discussed in class the other day. How we all had said that life cycles through each one from birth to death to birth again?
Take, for example, Osiris from Egyptian mythology. He was the god of the Afterworld. It was because of him that Pharaohs were mummified. Why? Well, his brother, Set, had torn his body in pieces and took over as king of Egypt. Through the power of love (quite literally), his wife, Isis, pieced him together again, giving him life once again. Thus, he ruled over the dead, giving them life after death. Hm? Sound familiar. That's because this story has been told since the very beginning.
Now, question time. Do you think God enjoys our silly little stories (besides the idolistic ones,of course)? I mean the silliness of a carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight. A girl marrying a rich man after selflessly serving her step-mother (or mother-in-law) without ever trying to get anything in return. A boy defeating a giant. A boy, now a man, giving his life up for those he loves and, somehow able to come back to lead them against his enemy. Hm... This is starting to sound really familiar, actually.
Okay, time in. Now, y'all know where I'm going with this. We talked a bit about it in class. Leeper suggested that perhaps God sent Jesus to fulfill not only his own prophecies, but maybe also to fulfill the ancient stories we've told. We know what Jesus said while on Earth. He was the son of God come to die for our sins. He said it over and over (and, yet, no one still believed him). We know the teachings, too. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The Good Samaritan. The Prodigal Son. The parable of the Mustard Seed. Now, wait.
Now, this is interesting. Jesus told stories. I literally scribbled that down in my notes Thursday. How about that? Jesus taught through stories. Of course, we have the Sermon on the Mount and such. But, how many times did Jesus frustrate his followers through parables? God not only sent his Son to become human to fulfill our stories, but when he got here, he started telling his own stories!
So, now I'm wondering if storytelling is a human trait? Every culture around the world has stories. Each culture explains the world around them in equally unique and equally similar ways. And, while he was here, Jesus taught through stories. The Lord Almighty. The one we sing praises to in Chapel. The one we thank for our daily bread. He taught (continues to teach) the way we have since our own creation! So, take heart, fellow storytellers. We may not be architects or lawyers or engineers. But, neither was Jesus. He was a storyteller. And so are we.
And, maybe, just maybe, that might be a reason why God created us in the first place. Maybe he birthed us. And, though we tragically chose our death, he offered a new birth. A way to join him once again. Maybe to tell him stories.
Hello, I'm Lissa Hickey (obviously). I'm a wide-eyed Freshman ready for learning and excited to study film and animation with my people! I'm majoring in Animation and have some big plans to make it to Disney. And, it seems, God has plans for me here, since Huntington has always been my first pick. Our Lord and Savior was none too subtle about His choice for me.
As for interests I love stories in every form. Books (I'm a HUGE bookworm), movies (live action and animated (Disney, Dreamworks, Studio Ghibli, anything)), theater (Phantom of the Opera is my favorite), music (The Dear Hunters are currently my favorite band, followed by House of Heroes and Reliant K) and even simpler forms of storytelling. Obviously, I am a total nerd and I don't hide it.
A more extensive list of my interests:
Books/Light Novels: Anime/Manga: Movies:
Screwtape Letters Fullmetal Alchemist: Brootherhood Mulan
Crime and Punishment Ouran High School Host Club Spirit
Fahrenheit 451 Noragami Beauty and the Beast
Eragon Akatsuki no Yona Lilo and Stitch
Artemis Fowl Naruto Marvel movies
Earl and Fairy Death Note Star Wars
Harry Potter Fushi-Shi Howl's Moving Castle
The Count of Monte Cristo Dengeki Daisy Prince of Egypt
The Book Thief InuYasha How to Train Your Dragon
Saiungaku Monogatari Detective Conan Inside Out
Princess Bride Gintama The Incrdibles
And many, many more.
And of course, this beautiful man, Illya Kuryakin, from The Man From U.N.C.L.E. I love him.
Well, I look forward to meeting all of you guys. Thanks for taking the time to check out lil' sarcastic, awkward, clumsy, ol' me.
