Rising Tide

I am going to guess that many of you have heard about the new Pope, Francis the First. At present, there are roughly two views towards him on behalf of his congregation. One side views him with relative indifference, or the same attitude they have felt towards all previous Popes of their lifetime. This is usually comprised of very casual or less strict members. However, there are also many who fear the rise of this man to power. They are worried that he might be a more liberal or modernist Pope, and thus might make “reforms” that would be considered heretical by many strict or orthodox Catholics. This is partially because he is a Jesuit, which is a sort of sub group within the church that focuses on reforming the doctrine and cannon of Catholicism. If these concerns turn out to be valid, the consequences could echo within the church for ages. A more liberal Pope could be deadly for any hardcore devoted Catholic.

Why would it be so deadly, you may ask? Because the Pope has the ability to make infallible statements. Back in history, when the Papal States were robbed of their power, the current Pope at that time feared the disintegration of the Catholic church. In order to counteract this, they made certain changes which included decreeing that a Pope could make a statement infallible, or definitively and eternally correct. Consider the implications this would have with a Pope who is in favor of more modernist reforms. What if he were to declare that a woman can become a priest? What if he were to sanction abortion? What if he were to acknowledge and allow gay marriage and practices? Such statements are directly opposed to the Catholic faith, they are instances of heresy. A Pope who would make them not only verbally, but infallible, could destroy the foundation of their faith completely. As such, you can see why so many are worried about this prospect. Their concerns may not be realized, but in the context of their faith, they are serious indeed.

However, there could come out of such a Pope, a very necessary realization in the Church. In Catholic doctrine, there are actually quite a few inconsistencies between the doctrines of today, and the doctrines of yesterday. Many points of belief are drastically different as time progresses. For instance, it used to be ruthlessly taught that the Catholic church was the only way to heaven, and I do mean the only way. If you were not a member, you would burn in hell. End of story. Today, while some still adhere to that, many take the view that we are all brothers in Christ, and do not necessarily condemn Protestants. A liberal Pope will force members of the church to confront the kinds of inconsistencies in their faith. The paradox that would be created by his decrees would shine a light on key problems that some do not even recognize. It will force a confrontation with the idea that the Pope is not able to make absolutely definitive statements, because if he were able to then heresy would become definitive. Confronting this leads to confronting other problems or inconsistencies with Church cannon. So while it may be angering or distressing for many during such a time, the scriptural benefit might outweigh any trepidation or hardship they may endure.

-BlackFox

(563)

United

We stand in defense,

of this little space.

No mighty offense,

will make us displace.

They will soon be at hand,

when we came, this we knew.

Yet still we all stand,

although we are few.

And though we all know,

that we wont stop the tide.

In this thin little row,

we will stand side by side.

Doomed is our band,

yet still we stand tall.

Together we stand,

together we fall.

-BlackFox (Who is already being lazy with a short post. Whee.)

(84)

Comedy and Tragedy

Well reader we have once again been reunited. As per halfway tradition, I will (sorta) begin the year with a random post as opposed to the usual topic. Are you not bursting with excitement? ...No? ...Well fine then reader. Be that way. I am just going to go hang out with the other readers who are actually fun.

Anyway, I would like to pose a question to all of you out there who still watch cartoons. What is your opinion on the current programs? There are a lot of factors that go into how these shows are designed, and, seeing as the producer will follow the market, I am wondering exactly why certain things have taken precedence.

For instance, compare some of the more serious animation styles like you would have seen in the older Batman cartoons, to the ones from more current shows like Adventure Time. I can see how the latter might be kind of fun, or interesting in certain ways, but it really depressed me to see that animation would fall so much. One of the things I really enjoyed about animated shows was that they could be creative and interesting, but they still held a firm grip on reality in their own way. It was still a world that looked and acted like ours did. I could see myself in that world. I could understand how it worked and how it was structured. It was not just some silly show to entertain me for thirty minutes, it was something that had a lot of effort and time that was clearly visible and meaningful. When you make animation more basic and random it loses that. It becomes this weird experience that no longer has any connection to reality. It is much harder to understand its rules and structures. It is much harder to see yourself in this world. Even when they do have a lot of effort and time put into them, it can be a lot harder to see. Yet, more and more shows are moving back towards that more unbound style. They make characters with impossible anatomy or minimal design. And often times the worlds these characters inhabit follow suit. The less serious the animation, the less realistic the world. You do not see something with anatomically correct characters regularly conversing with random objects, or riding a bus down a completely vertical cliff. So my question here would be, why would something without logic and structure be so preferable? Clearly you can have the strange, fun and unusual without abandoning all sense of reality, so why would you prefer something that makes you end with “...What did I just watch?”

The other point that confuses me is the very evident shift in plot lines. Many stories in the past could be very serious, complex, dark, interesting, creative, and most of all original. But today, we seem to simply have a series of animated sitcoms. Most of the problems revolve around ordinary situations. A test coming up, squabbles between friends or family, improving yourself in some contest, etc. Basically, all the generic problems we see in every sitcom known to man. There are no real consequences. No real development or progress. They simply do not deal with sensitive or darker issues anymore. There are few big climatic events with any real lasting meaning. And I do not simply mean within the context of the show, I mean things that leave a lasting impact on the reader. For instance, you will seldom see the death of a main character anymore. Characters are also less developed. Few shows have any characters with real pain, problems, or history that continuously develops and effects the story. They tend to be one time things, that are rarely (if ever) mentioned again. There is very little depth or power in them, and the characters can really tend to be flat as a result. Now, obviously you want some happy and comedic moments or story lines, but is it really preferable for the story to only consist of that? I understand that it is not the nicest experience to see something sad, or serious, or not lighthearted, but that by no means makes that experience a bad thing. Often times these kind of plot lines leave lasting impressions that stay with you, that spark your own thoughts and ideas and concepts. So, why is it so preferable to have the happy empty stories instead of the emotionally varying complex ones?

The world, she doth confuse me.

-BlackFox

(755)

Mechanically Disinclined Assumptions

As my final term of blogging begins, I feel a slight need to comment on the material we are currently covering in class. At present, we are looking at various works covering our food industry. Most of them can easily be summarized as, “the food industry is completely controlled by industrial systems and the health conditions of their factories are horrendous, both of which are very, very bad things”. And while I do agree that we require better standards of health, and some way to enforce those standards, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the first part of this claim.

Why is it a bad thing to have an industrialized system? Where exactly is the inherent problem here? Many people who cry out against this concept are supporting an ideal. They want the farm fresh food of their forefathers. However, as nice as it sounds to get our food from homegrown, mom and pop farms, this kind of system is not without flaws. First and foremost, there is a large problem with production. A family owned farm does not provide the kind of volume that we require today as consumers. There is a reason that all of those slaughterhouses and factories are so big, they need to be to keep up with demand. A farmer can only raise so many cattle at a time on the fat of the land, especially if he needs to prevent them from over grazing it. In the past, meat was far more expensive because of this problem. The reason it is so cheap today is because of mass production. Another bonus with industry is, if handled correctly, it is far safer than something homegrown. If proper safety precautions are in place, then we can eliminate many of the viruses and diseases that naturally occur in our food products. Food poisoning is not a new phenomenon brought on by corrupt and unsanitary industry. It has been around for decades. People simply did not have the tools to effectively treat meat and produce. Today, we do have that technology. An average farmer will find it much harder to afford the manpower and equipment needed to have that kind of safety than a factory. Also, industry does not require decades of experimentation to discover a healthier or more diverse crop. They are able to engineer a crop that contains more protein, or nutrients. Farmers in the past relied on intuition and cross pollination, not to mention time, as opposed to controlled calculated science. There are definite advantages to a more industrial system.

Now there are advantages to the pastoral farming system as well. Currently, it does not have the kind of health code problems that larger factories do. Also, this system is more economically friendly. It does not produce the same kind of gas or consume the same volume of fuel as an industrial one does. They also have a far more appealing and family friendly image to them, that I readily admit is more ascetically and fundamentally pleasing than a stockyard. There are pros and cons to both methods. My argument is not that one system is better or flawless. My argument is that neither system is inherently wrong, or for that matter right. The industrial and the pastoral systems both have good and bad points about them. They each have their own moral, environmental, and economic questions. When discussing this kind of issue, it is important not to simply discount one side or the other. Both have equally valid points that need to be addressed, and both have major problems that need to be dealt with. It is easy to say that industrial methods are killing the earth both morally and literally. It is easy to say that man is corrupting the earth and everything would be better if he just went back to his roots. But the answer here is not that simple. The lines are not black and white, and both sides are going to have very real consequences regardless of what you choose. The important thing is to address them.

-BlackFox

(683)

Modern Wedding Vows

I take you, my darling,

as my lawfully wedded wife.

As thankfully,

the law you see,

allows me room in strife.

To have and to hold,

From forward this day,

unless by chance,

some circumstance,

pulls us farther and farther away.

For better, or worse,

unless, tragically,

when older you grow,

and time starts to flow,

you lose all that youthful beauty.

For richer or poorer,

unless you see,

I have nothing with you,

and it's found to be true,

that I need currency.

In sickness and health,

unless, dare I dread,

that the sickness you've got,

makes that young body rot,

and would chain me up next to your bed.

To love and to cherish,

unless I might see,

another young sweet,

that I really must meet,

and who better than you, suits me.

From this day forward,

till death do us part.

Or else my lawyer,

for his gracious employer,

severs these bonds at the heart.

-BlackFox (...Yup. Lazy short post.)

(163)

Impact

Slightly random post today, but I want to discuss a teacher who made a large difference in my life. I might still be in high school, but her actions did mean a lot to me, and on a blog like this I want to share them.

Due to needing an elective credit, I was placed into a class called “Family and Consumer Science” ...also known as “Feelings 101”. Now, obviously someone like me groaned at this class. I had little desire to listen to someone tell me about how important my self esteem was, and how unhealthy certain thought patterns were for me. I felt like I was going to be sitting in a class, where I would be expected, and probably told, to simply shut up and do what I was told. Often times before, if I raised a question of theology or morals in a class, the teacher would shut me down. However, this teacher was entirely different. We would spent the time before and after class debating the material. She did not shut me down or insult my beliefs. We argued everything from the nature of children, to divorce, to the value of self esteem. In fact, people in my class used to ask if I was going to “argue with the teacher again today”. I know this seems like a little thing, but it was really important to me. It helped me structure my arguments and thoughts. It taught me a lot about her belief system and how to argue against it. I also learned that often times, you simply have to agree to disagree. That sometimes basic beliefs and grounds are so dissimilar, that you can not reach a unanimous conclusion. Another lesson, that it is ok to debate anyway. That defending your belief is more rewarding than winning or converting the other guy. It taught me the joy of defending my beliefs, and the joy of sparring with someone who liked to do the same. It really improved how I saw teachers and classes like hers in general.

To teachers out there, you should consider doing this as well. Instead of putting down someone for being “closed minded” talk with them. Instead of avoiding a question tackle it. Make them test the knowledge of their beliefs. In fact, test your own as well. There are a lot of benefits to doing this and it can really mean a lot to someone like me, who is used to people avoiding the subject. I'll state plainly that out of all the teachers at my school, I hold her in respect the most. She is so far the only one who has had the courage to talk with me. Who has been willing to do what few teachers would even consider. She did what no one else did, and I will always be grateful for the time she spent with me. I will always remember her and the investment she gave to our debates.

Thanks teach, you know who you are.

-BlackFox

(509)

Great Expectations

When I speak of predestination, the most common complaint I get is, “That's not fair”. They say that it is unfair that some are saved and others are damned. They say it is unfair that God chooses who goes to heaven before birth, that some will never be called. They say that since God is just, he must also be fair. He must give everyone an equal shot at heaven. He must extend his hand to everyone to accept or refuse. He must make an effort to save everyone, because that would be fair. And on this, they are unrelenting. Recently, I was talking with my father about this very subject, and he relayed to me an interesting story he once read. The story went along like this:

A professor at an upscale university taught a philosophy class. One of the major things about his course was this: “Your grade will be determined by three papers. If they are not turned in on the due date, they will be a zero”. Naturally, the due date for the first paper arrived. Almost everyone in the class was excited and prepared. Paper in hand, ready for turn in. However, a few students were nervously standing in the front of the room, without a paper. They pleaded with the professor to extend the due date just a few more days. They said that they were only freshmen, and they were not used to the work load, and they needed time to adjust, and please, oh please, could they have just a few more days. So the professor gave them a few more days. The next paper came, and this time only ninety percent of the class was prepared. Ten percent of halfway nervous people were standing without something to turn in. so they begged and pleaded with the professor. Saying that it was homecoming week, and they just did not have enough time, and that it was a difficult subject, and so on. So again, the professor gave them a few more days. Finally, the last paper came. On the due date, only half the class was prepared. The other half told the professor that they would have the paper in a few more days, and would he please give them that time? This time, the professor said no. He gave each one without a paper a zero. This instigated a resounding cry of “BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR”! To which, the professor replied, “You want fair? I'll go back and grade the other papers as a zero because you turned those in late too”! He had used this as an example of grace. About how when we receive grace, we come to expect it. We feel entitled to it. We feel it is owed to us. When, in reality, we have no right to it. And in all fairness, we should have never received it to begin with.

The grace of God operates in the same way. We have no more right to demand salvation than a murder does to demand acquittal. If we do, we are nothing more than whiny children demanding what we are not entitled to. A boy begging his teacher for an extension, and then becoming angered when it is not given. If God were to be “fair” then, by rights, we would all go straight to hell. We have all sinned. We have all failed. No one is righteous. No one deserves salvation. We all deserve to be cast into the lack of fire. No exceptions. God does not have to save anyone. God does not have to extend grace. God does not have to show his love. He chooses to save us, He does not have too. In the interest of fairness, He should not even consider it in the first place.

Do not ever demand that God be fair.

-BlackFox

(650)