To A Christian.

Abandoned and forgotten,

your own wounds left to mend.

Cast out and forsaken,

to find and face your end.

The message is rejected,

by eyes that cannot see.

And by ears that cannot hear,

the word that sets them free.

They spat at you for preaching,

those words that doth offend.

And then they left you all alone,

without kind word or friend.

They did not want to hear,

of morals and of debt.

They did not want to face,

that other worldly fret.

You stand alone in hatred,

and they offer no defense.

You stand alone berated,

for scriptures great offense.

And all the world around you,

accosts you with it's wrath.

Long is the way to heaven,

and narrow is the path.

-BlackFox (-insert short post comment here-)

(130)

Rocks and Trees

Many people have made the argument that since God is everything, all religions are valid. If he is in the trees, and the rocks, and all of creation, then worshiping these things is just another way of worshiping God. They deny the idea that this type of religion is pagan, and use it to justify the idea that God does not care how we seek him, merely that we do so in our own way. That an Indian, who worships a god of stone, is the same as one who worships the God of the Bible. Now there are many things wrong with this argument, but let us take a look at their first major assumption. The idea that God is everything.

A creator is not his creation. He is something completely different and greater than it. Now, the creation might have a part of him in it, but the two are not in any way, shape, or form the same. Consider the potter. Suppose a man makes a pot of clay. Are we then to declare that he is the pot of clay, and the pot of clay him? No, of course not. We would call such a statement foolish. The potter is not a pot of clay. He is a thinking living man. His value and power extend far beyond that of the mere pot. Of course, it can be said that a part of him, as creator, is in the pot of clay. That it bears a mark and connection with him in that relationship of creation and creator. But this does not make the two one and the same. God is not a tree or a rock or an ocean. He created the trees, the rocks, and the oceans. He is the almighty creator and should be esteemed as such. He is greater than us, his knowledge and power far outrank our own. We cannot hope to even remotely compare ourselves to him. If the potter were to suddenly become a king, would his subjects pay homage to his creations as if they were he? Of course not, such a venture would be an insult to him. They might praise the beauty of the pot. They might sing of his skill and craftsmanship. But they would not praise the pot as if it were a king. God is God. He is not an object. He deserves our respect and our praise for his majesty and power. He deserves recognition for the might and glory he displayed in all of creation. When we view creation, its majesty should bring us to praise the work of God, not the result of his efforts. The two are intrinsically separate. Do we praise the painting or the painter for its beauty? Do we exalt the sculpture or the artist who brought it to life? As much as the created is esteemed, still more to the one who devised it! You cannot praise the creation in of itself. The creation is not intrinsically deserving of any praise directed to it. Rather, the glory and praise belongs to the one who created it.

-BlackFox

(522)

"Miss"representaion Is Right

What’s that up in the sky? It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No! It’s an assigned post! Wait….What?! Shoot it man! SHOOT IT!

Yes folks, it is time yet again for another post about the wonderful feminist propaganda that is “Missrepresentation.” (Also known as the documentary we are watching in class. And yes folks, that pun was fully intended. Just… just shoot me now.) The main focus of this film is to highlight the ways various forms of media have objectified and sexualized women. One of the main aspects of the film is the continual use of statistics throughout the sections. Many of which you can see here. Now, the film does not actually give the sources for this information when they appear on screen. In fact, you can see they have yet to complete the full list online. Since I am a horrible skeptic about statistics, especially in something like this that makes claims such as, “If women do not take part in the decision making process in politics, men will make the wrong decisions” I simply had to see how accurately represented these sources were. See, the thing about a statistic is you can manipulate it to support virtually anything, if you know what to mention and what to leave out.

For instance, one of the little facts they used was this one: “17% of teens engage in cutting and self-injurious behavior”. I was intrigued by the fact it used a gender neutral term such as “teens” as opposed to “teen girls” or something similar. Especially because the documentary is solely about females and this information was given as evidence of the media’s negative effects on females. So, I asked myself this question. How much of this statistic actually relates to girls, or even to the concept of body image? What are other causes of self-harm? And what I found was very intriguing.

The first thing I did was seek out their own source (see the link above for where I found it). The one they actually used to get their statistic. Now, I would like you to turn your attention to the little section titled “Who self-injures?” Notice how they admit that not every single study on the planet has found self-injurious tendencies to be more common in women. It balances out the argument and reveals that men can suffer just as much as women in this kind of situation. It also goes on to list other causes for self-injury, that are unrelated to how we view our bodies. So while this statistic can seem very striking in the film, in reality it is only partially related to that. The movie uses this statistic to create sense of urgency, to make it seem as though the media is dangerously affecting the younger generations. When you read the information behind the statistic, however, it becomes much more ambiguous and detached. The sense that the lower self-image created by the media is affecting teens in a dangerous way also becomes less powerful.

So what does cause self harm if not the media? Sources like the ones here, and here are very helpful on this point. When reading these, we see that there are many causes for this action. Stress, major changes, loss of control, failure, anxiety, emotional emptiness, anger, there are many things that cause self-injury. Yes, body image can be a part of this, but it is not the only part, nor does it even appear to be the dominate cause. A failed test can just as well bring on self-harm as a bad reading on a scale. By implying that body image is the sole cause of self-harm among young girls, it diminishes other very real causes. It unfairly creates a sense that those other important problems are small compared to body image. On top of that, it fails to mention how the male half of the equation does not escape unscathed. Many of these instances can also apply to boys just as well as girls. Ignoring them diminishes their problems to a point of non-existence. It misrepresents the facts to suit an agenda, and badly hurts the credibility of the documentary for me. It creates a perception of dishonesty, as they had to tactfully leave out important parts to make their point. This is why when you watch a documentary, you should always check the information presented. Especially if they do not list the sources on film.

-BlackFox

(748)

Faith

I look outside and all I see,

is darkness staring back at me.

I see the pain, the loss, the fool,

I see the sadness and the cruel.

I see the broken and the meek,

I see the heartless and the weak.

I see the forsaken in the cold,

I see the forgotten growing old.

I see the lonely and the lost.

I see the sacrifice and cost.

These things span far along the earth,

and I wonder what the world is worth.

But He created it I know,

He controls times endless flow.

He alone has understood,

how all things work as one for good.

-BlackFox (Who copped out with a "short post" again. So sue me.)

(118)

Copy Paste

Hey kids, guess what time it is? IT'S MAIL TIME RANDOM POST TIME AGAIN!

That's right! Now is that time of the day when we all get together and share a random post. Yes I know, I know, I missed them too. Today we are going to talk about parodies.

I have an amazing friend that I spend a lot of time with. We tend to do a lot of fun random things together. Recently, we spent almost an entire day working collectively on a parody of the Nyan Cat video. While this is not something all that unusual for us, we did end up investing a lot more effort and time into it than normal. And it ended up leading into a conversation about parodies and copyright law, which, lucky you guys, I thought to share.

In terms of copyright law, we discussed a few pros and cons with it. A major bonus is that it helps creativity by creating security. If someone is secure in the idea that they will be safe from people stealing their work, they will be more likely to put it out there to be found. It allows them to really put a lot of time and effort into the project without fear of losing it. By giving people control over what they do and how it is used, it helps encourage people to share their work. However, the downside is that not being able to draw from something or parody it hurts creativity in a way. It stifles someone who excels at building off of what is already present. Many people are more likely to parody something than create something from scratch because it is easier and less threatening. So while it does create security for the author, it can hinder someone talented who lacks the confidence to branch out on their own.

This of course leads us to parodies. We mused on why they were so popular. One reason was stated above, it is an easier less threatening task than making something new. The basic notes and visuals are already present and have been proven successful. Also, parodies are a way to have a connection with people. They can spread and make you a part of something. It is a way to make something personal or cultural as well. I talked about this in my post regarding song parodies, but the same principle applies to videos. Another reason to parody something lies simply in the idea that, well, it is fun. It is fun to convey an idea or a story through a parody. It is fun to share in that excitement and enjoy the finished product. And in all honesty, especially if you do it with someone else, the experience of creating it is really enjoyable. Even if it turns out to be a bad parody, there is still something to be said about the journey there.

The thing about a parody though, is you need to put effort into it. You can not simply copy paste the ideas and work of another artist, you need to build upon it with your own ideas. You need to think through what you want to change, and why you want to parody this specific thing. You especially need to think about how to do it. Changing one note and calling it good is not a parody. Parodies also need to have a purpose beyond “It's really really popular to parody this thing”. Even if that purpose is just for fun.

-BlackFox

(589)

Miss-ing The Mark

Hark, what is that on the horizon? Lo! It is an assigned post!

For those of you that actually remember, this is blog is really for school. As such, I must occasionally make posts regarding assigned subjects. Currently, we are watching a documentary in class concerning how woman are portrayed in the media, and more specifically the effect it has on children. Therefore, I am to make a post concerning this topic. Now, a lot of you are probably thinking right now: “Oh yeah! That’s a really big issue! It has such a harmful effect on self-esteem and the morals of our culture!” The idea being that, since many children are very much plugged into the media, the influence it has on them is very strong and dangerous. But, why don’t we stop and think about this?

How much influence does the media actually have? The media is not some all-powerful being that bends children, of any age, to its will. In reality, parents have a much bigger influence on moral development than a TV show or a song. Places like this website, lay out how important parental influence is. Children look to family, and especially parents, as guidelines. They watch how they behave and imitate them. You are not born knowing how to behave or what is important. You do not understand perfectly the concepts of right and wrong. To learn these things, there must be some standard to draw from. Some base to act as a point of reference. If the parent is absent in the child’s life, the child must seek another model. Many TV shows center around people in different situations. They follow the exploits, whether from fantasy or reality, of those characters. A child, who is young, would only see this as behavior they can learn from. If X happens, and most people on TV react with Y, it is only logical that the child would conclude this is how society works. Without a parent there to explain what is put on the TV for ratings and what is actually relevant, they will not differentiate. In this situation of course the media will influence them. Whether it is for good or bad, is dependent on what they watch.

Some might ask, “Well what about self-esteem? What about my daughter feeling depressed about her body? Surely the media is responsible for all of this depression and turmoil?” Well, no. quite frankly, the media is only partly responsible. This site, for instance, can explain why. Parents are the big players when it comes to self-esteem. Children model our behaviors. They watch what we do and accept it as their own standard. If the parent continuously disparages themselves, or exhibits what we consider to be low self-esteem, then the child will grow up in suite. If mom worries about her weight and looks, so will her daughter. Now, some people might say that they do not suffer from low self-esteem, so it therefore comes from the media. And to them, I want to point something out. Say a woman is very invested in her little daughter Suzy. But, she is also very invested in the debate over how women are perceived by society. Suzy grows up and hears continuously how the world is going to judge her worth by her appearance. She hears continuously that woman are subject to these standards. Suzy may develop the angered attitude of her mother, or she may begin to feel like she is not good enough to compete in this world. That this world is going to reject her because she is not pretty enough, and no amount of her own merit is going to matter. She may even develop both. Children watch and learn from everything they see, and the affect it has may not be so conventional or obvious as we think. Remember also, that contact and time with a parent is essential. You can not develop a relationship with someone who is not there. You can not form a rock or base of support on a moving target. If your peers are the only place you can find that is always there for you, you will logically go there. And if the only place you can go for refuge or support puts so much value on appearance, then you must conform with these values. Otherwise you have no where to go.

Remember also, that the media had to get these ideas from somewhere. They did not simply make up these concepts and ideals. They began to use them because it was profitable for them. They used them because they worked, because our culture accepted them and demanded them. This is not only true of standards for women, but men as well. We need to remember that not everything can be blamed on the media or other like sources. That these problems we see in the media, are merely reflections of our own values as a whole.

-BlackFox

(830)

...FINALLY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYh2OU4vtIk

-Cues the chorus of angels singing “Halleluiah”-

Oh glorious day! We finally have a GOOD parody to discuss here.

What was that?

…. Yes really.

Yes the link is safe.

I promise it will not scar you like the last ones.

Of course you can trust me! Sheesh!

In truth, I have felt bad that I only share the bad stuff with you guys. So here we have a slightly random and more than slightly shorter post to illustrate a Christian parody done well. That is to say, not with overly enthusiastic pseudo-nuns or really stupid rhymes. (I am still harping about coatses to this day people.) It does however have puppets.... I refuse to fault either this song or “Godman style” for them. In my humble opinion, puppets improve everything.

Bethlehemian Rhapsody is a great example of a Christian parody done right. The message and focus are clear and consistent. The lyrics are creative and coherent. The music and voices are done amazingly well. Everything about it is incredible and perfect. You can just feel the effort that went into this. This folks, is how you do things right. This is how you spread the word of God in a parody.

-BlackFox

(....Seriously?! Coatses?! Come on people! We can do better!)

(215)

....-Plays Bagpipes-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcPMsjHlkeA

…...

….......

-slowly raises up the white flag and waves it about-

Ok internet, ok.

You win.

I give up.

You can stop now.

…Please?

Seriously though, there seems to be a disturbing trend lately, of trying to make “cool” Christian parodies of popular songs. (Gangnam style in this case.) The problem is that... well... they are done pretty poorly. And I do not just mean they use things like “Open Godman Style” and try to rhyme Joseph with the supposed word “coatses.” I do not just mean the people in ridiculous afros. Those things are pretty dumb, but hey, no parody is absolutely perfect. Some of them are even intentionally silly. What I mean is, these particular ones do not make a lot of theological sense. The words are just a bunch of nonsense that only vaguely relate back to scripture. And, considering that these are supposedly theological songs, that is pretty important. Look at the lyrics of this song. They make a lot of references, but then they fail to explain them. They mention the story of Jesus's birth, but they fail to explain the significance of it. They barely even touch on it. The only reason it would have meaning is if you already knew the importance of the event, a non-christian watching this could easily become lost. Especially if they knew nothing about the birth of Christ.

“Ok, so they had no inn... he was born in a stable... and they named him Jesus....wait what? That's it? Well... that was kinda pointless.”

The exact same problem comes with the crucifixion verse. If you do not already know the story and significance of the cross and the resurrection, it makes very little sense. They do not mention the salvation that comes with the cross. They do not mention his sacrifice. They do not explain anything. What they do end up doing, is leaving the listener asking “...so what?”

Another problem I have is they use very vague terms. Such as “open Godman style.” ….what exactly does this mean? Are they saying that God has an open style of faith for anyone to join? Are they saying their church practices this style? Are they saying this style is open for interpretation? And what about the verse where God “opened it with his Godman style.” Does it now refer to the power of God? Is it completely unrelated? This catch phrase of theirs, while most likely created to suit the lyrics of the original, gets really distracting. It shifts the attention from the song to the silliness of the lyric and defeats the purpose. Even worse, this is not the only line that has this effect. (...By the way, talk about a misunderstanding. That line “pursing you until the end” is extremely creepy if you fail to connect what they are talking about.)

And speaking of shifting attention, let us now talk about the actual subject of the song. Nearly half the song focuses on the church. Praising their leaders and efforts at evangelizing. Now if you want to make a song about that, that is perfectly fine. Go for it. The efforts of the church are an important part of faith. The problem comes when you either A) try and make the church the sole focus. Or B) try to mesh a focus directly on God with a focus directly on how awesome your church is. The idea would be to try and convey how important it is, and how fulfilling it is, to share the Word of God with someone. If you just talk about how great you are as a church, you sound arrogant. Or, in this song's case, if you try and combine the focus being on the church, and then solely about God alone, it ends up being very muddled and confusing. You start going every which way and it becomes a jumpy incoherent mess. Either keep the focus on God, or find a balance between the two. Preferably without virtual jump cuts in the song.

This is not to say all parodies are bad, and I do recognize the difficulty in making them, but you need to be conscious of what you are making. Simply throwing a ton of theology at the page and seeing what fits is not going to work well.

-BlackFox

(733)

...Again?

Ok Internet.

Enough is enough here.

 I thought we talked about this with Godbaby.

Look me in the eye when I am talking to you Internet.

You are making it really hard for us to be friends.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0S2WlvNTU8

What is this?

Hmm?

What

 Is

This?

I have heard some people refer to it as a parody of “Call Me Maybe.” ….But it cannot possibly be such a thing, because that would imply it was some sort of musical creation. This is….. something else. I do not quite know what yet, but I do know it is not music. Well, I suppose it is a “video” by the Woman’s Ordination Conference. They are a group of female “priests” who are currently working to make ordaining women an accepted practice. (For those unfamiliar, to “ordain” is to give someone holy or priestly authority.) One might be confused on this point, because the song seems to make this concept even more aversive by association.

Now, once we get beyond the… something…. that is “Ordain a Lady”, there is actually some theology to talk about here. This is very a controversial subject for Christain's in general. For centuries, women have been banned from positions of authority in the Church. The women behind this video in fact, have been excommunicated, or forcibly rejected by, the Catholic Church. They are not actually priests, and have no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church. Although they claim to be Catholic, they were removed for trying to become priests. Obviously, in our world today, this is seen as unfair. Since women and men are equally important, we feel they should be treated equally. However, the Bible also forbids women from taking such positions as these and many wish to go with Scripture as opposed to society. Thus, we get enormous conflict within the church.

And what position do I take? You may ask the female Christian writing before you. Personally, I agree with the Catholics. There is a reason that men are in place of shepherd in the church. Men carry an authority and power that women simply do not have. This is not sexist. It is fact. Men and women are not interchangeable parts. We see the world differently. We think differently. We are simply different. God is portrayed in the Bible as a father for a reason. Traditionally, the father is the one who instructs the child. He is the head of the household. His authority is final. He is both loving and supporting, but strict and correcting. God is not just about love and saving everyone. He is also about wrath and justice and retribution. A pastor needs to be able to portray the love of God, and also the anger of God. It is hard for a woman to have the impact of anger and wrath that a man can have. Men have more authority behind their voice. They carry more power and volume. They carry passion (and also express it,) in terms of anger, rather than sorrow like a woman does. Anger is often more accurate to the voice of Scripture than sorrow. Maternal simply fails to carry the message of the Word. It cannot achieve that sense of damnation and rejection. It cannot convey that sense of anger and wrath. You can call this sexist. You can call it unfair. You can deny everything I say here. But the fact of the matter is, it is true. Life is not fair, but that does not make it wrong.

-BlackFox

(585)