Response to :Trueblood and the Fellowship of the Sun

It just so happens that I too, along with being a Harry Potter, am a fan of True Blood. This week I was torn between writing on the two topics so I am happy that Miranda wrote on True Blood, as now I get a chance to respond.

Miranda, I had forgotten the presence of the Fellowship of the Sun in the True Blood storyline, and I was reminded of its prevalence when you mentioned it in your blog. I remember watching those episodes and thinking that the members of the Fellowship of the Sun were just as, if not more so, violent than many of the vampires on the show. Bill Compton always acted as an advocate for non-violence against humans. When he had to be punished, his order was to turn a girl into a vampire, something that he was very against. This does show his striving for humanity, as he does not want to condemn someone to the same fate that he been “cursed” with.

Furthermore, Eric Northman, who by no means is portrayed as the good guy in the True Blood series, cannot seem to shake his obsession with Sookie and he is also constantly drawn to her and comes to her aid. When he gets amnesia and forgets his diabolical ways, he is then portrayed as a very kind hearted vampire who would never do anything to harm, whom he calls, someone with such a beautiful soul like Sookie. So, even this apparent bad-boy vampire has an element of good within him that can only be brought to light when his memory is erased, causing him to forget the wrong that was done to his family which is what made him so heartless.

So as we see in Bill, Eric and even Russell Edgington (a completely twisted devilish vampire who vows to avenge his lover after he is killed) these vampires, who by definition are faced with immortality and “life” without a soul, still have remnants of their humanity left. Although some try to forget this, humanity within them seems to pop up every now and then. Bill and Eric both are drawn to Sookie and at separate times swear to protect her, Bill promising to love her for eternity, a love that is only possible by someone who will live forever. Russell Edgington had one lover for 400 years, and was devastated once he was killed, even though vampires are often seen as lustful, immoral beings. The passion and devotion that is shown to those whom the vampires love is something portrayed as more than what a human could feel. This idea of undying love is yet another way that these monsters can reveal to us certain elements of humanity. 

Original post can be found here: http://anchor-for-the-soul.blogspot.ca/ 

Harry Potter and the Fear of Death

As a huge Harry Potter fan, I have been waiting for the right opportunity to blog about the beloved series, and it seems as though today is my day. Western culture, as was presented in the readings as well as in class, seems to have a fascination with death at the same time as fearing it greatly and thus creating almost a taboo out of speaking about it. In class, we discussed various monster themes and how vampires and zombies can teach us something about our humanity, and also can act as a catharsis to dealing with death.

As can be imagined, not all members of the Catholic Church have welcomed the story of the boy who lived with open arms for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include that calling Harry Potter the boy who lived implies a certain element of escape from death, which is not possible by anyone. Also, he who must not be named comes back to life after being stuck in a half living, half dead state. These are but a few reasons, along with the primary focus on being a story of magic.

In Harry Potter, which is considered a children’s story, we see the characters constantly in a battle with death (both literally and figuratively as Voldemort’s minions are called Death Eaters). Harry Potter and his group of companions always seem to conquer evil. Thus, even though some draw extreme parallels between Harry Potter and elements of Christianity (such as saying Harry Potter acts as a Christ figure), it is most basically a story about the constant battle between good and evil. This story is told in a magical world, and as I mentioned, the idea of witchcraft is not a friendly term to Christianity, and the thinking that magic is real is not celebrated by society, for the most part, either.

Regardless of the fact that Harry Potter is based on magic, one key element that stands out to me is that even with all the power that these witches and wizards have to repair broken glasses and drinks to make them temporarily look like someone else, never should one use these powers to commit a crime against nature; killing is wrong, and even more so is the idea of bringing someone back from the dead. Similar to vampires and zombies, once someone is passed they will never be able to live a whole life again, and are cursed to some form of a half-life, and in a world of magical creatures, it is still against nature to revive the past.

Voldemort was able to “live” his half-life because he committed an act against nature; by killing he split his soul into various parts in order to conceal them in objects and make them harder to destroy. In doing such, he is removed more and more of his humanity and furthers himself from ever living a whole life. He does these actions to make himself immortal, but as we can see in the readings and the discussion in class, this immortality often informs us of our humanity. Voldemort believed that to protect himself as the most powerful wizard he needed to raise himself to this half living state, much like one of a zombie or a vampire. Their souls are destroyed or non-existent, and therefore the life that they then face is never complete, lacking what is needed in humanity. What’s more is that only after every bit of Voldemort’s soul, something intrinsic to humanity, is destroyed will Voldemort face true death (and defeat!)

This is a clip where Professor Slughorn explains what a Horcrux (an object in which one hides a peice of their soul) is to a young Voldemort:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buJPwD5nW1g 

If Video Games Make You Violent...

Today, I turned on my computer in an attempt to do some work and sadly ignore the gorgeous weather outside. Of course I could not start working without a little “research” and I happened to fall upon a picture that I found to be very interesting, and also very fitting to the topic of violence and video games as was discussed in this weeks class.

Of course, this picture evoked a response out of many people who completely agree with the idea that just because there is violence in video games, it does not make people more violent. This question, that philosoraptor asks, is exactly the way in which many people seem to approach the topic of violence in video games. This is contrary to how some Christians have reacted to the violence in video games, as some do in fact want to ban violence and even go a step further and use video games in a Christian fashion.

                                             Screenshot from the video game “Bible Fight”

However, couldn’t it be argued that creating video games with Christian ideas may just create an even more complicated relationship between the two, as by no means are all video games extremely violent, yet some would remain to be primarily about killing zombies or what have you?

This may just be me playing devil’s advocate, as it may also be true that it would be more harmful than beneficial to create two completely different worlds that would not embrace each other. Yet again, when talking about violence and Christianity on a larger part one must be very careful, and I still do believe that Christianity does and should look at violence with a critical eye. Christians should also realize that people are raised on a basis of both nature and nurture.  There is no guarantee that keeping a child away from violent video games will ensure that they are a non-violent person, and there is also no way to say that those exposed to violence in video games will make more violent members of society. Yes we should be careful about what children are exposed to as it does have an effect on them; but video games are not the only places where kids can experience violence. I believe that this relationship should be studied more in depth before a resolute decision can be made.

Response to No Pain No Gain

Although the topic has been discussed at great length, your post about sports struck me as very interesting as it commented on the very tricky relationship between sports and religion, especially Christianity. As you mentioned, people like to see winners and losers, and from the time we are very young we learn to play games against each other where someone always ends up the winner. 

As such, competitiveness can be seen as an element in human nature. However, as you said, it is the fact that people raise athletes to demi-god like statuses that cause the problem for a variety of reasons, one being the prominence of violence in sport. 

“People like to see other people get hurt.” That line stuck out to me because most people don’t admit that they enjoy watching someone get injured. If someone trips and scrapes their knee, not many people will want to see the blood. But, as you mentioned, if the blood is spilt in order to win something or to injure the opponent, then many people are all for it. For instance, in the video below, fans cheer as Chara gets hit in the face with a puck so hard that he starts to bleed and falls. They cheer as he has to walk off the ice due to this injury.

Why is it that we like to see this type of bloodshed? As you asked at the end of your post,  I do think that children watching sports with a lot of violence may end up feeling as though to be the best player, they need to get up from injury. Of course it is different when young children are playing sports as they are often protected better from parents, as well as the fact that they are not strong enough to hit very hard. But nevertheless fighting and violence seems to be encouraged in many sports.

As for your comment that all violence should not be removed from sports, it brings to mind Don Cherry and his outrage on the use of armor like shoulder pads (as they cause far too much pain to the attacked and not enough to the attacker), yet he fully supports fighting in hockey and in no way believes it should be removed. So again, where is the line to be drawn? 

Response to Jessica's McCoy:Lion of Lamb

Jessica, you are right that I was shocked after I watched that video and know that he was sent back into the game. If I were his mother, I would have definitely been upset with the coaching team as well as the medical staff. He was clearly hit very hard, directly to his head. What I don’t understand about sports today is why there is so much violence when there are so many studies and technologies that tell us just how bad these hits are for people to suffer.

That hit was directly to his head, which snapped back and he fell to the ground. It is ridiculous the amount of pressure that is put on athletes to lead their team to a win. As you said, his only concern was that he felt as though he let his team down, and surely he was let back onto the field in part because he told the staff that he was fine to play. It is very unfortunate that some sports place a higher emphasis on the score than on the health of the individuals.

However, as a fan of many sports, and as was discussed in previous blogs as well as in class, it is the fans of these teams that create superstars of their favorite players and it is the fans that want to see them get back up. Sure, no fan wants to see their favorite teammate suffer in the long run, but everyone loves to see the phoenix reborn from the ashes. When a player falls and gets back up to play, there is often a huge uproar from the fans, yes because they are happy that the player is fine, but I also think that there is some hope that they will return to the game.

This is an unfortunate aspect because in the heat of the moment people often lose sight of the bigger picture, being the athlete’s health, and just want to see their team succeed. I for one find it more exciting when my team begins a game by losing and then somehow finds power and strength to recover to lead to an overtaking of the opponent and a win. Perhaps getting up from an injury and continuing the game is the same idea for individual players, but in no way to I believe that it is with the same importance that these be viewed. Winning a game after starting out losing is one thing, getting up and playing after a concussion is a whole other ballgame which should definitely not be encouraged. 

Spartacus, gladiators and gods

For  those of you who watch the Movie Network, chances are you have stumbled upon the T.V. series Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. This series is based upon Roman slaves turned gladiators who are forced to fight in the name of their town to show the political power, as was discussed in class. These gladiatorial events were fought till the death, and although the series may not be completely historically accurate (noting the extreme use of the F-bomb that I highly doubt would be around at that time) this was in fact one of the earliest forms of sport, used to show the power of the individual as well as the state. These individuals were seen, as the title of the series implies, as gods of the arena, and there is a large religious undertone of the series as frequent references are made to the gods, such as when Lentulus Batiatus, the trainer and trader of the gladiators, says to a slave, “Even the lowest man can rise above the heavens.” 

This quote struck me as incredibly suggestive, recalling the story of Christ who although was not “the lowest man”, was sent to earth by his father as a carpenter to save his people and show them the path to heaven. Similarly, a type of redemptive power is given to athletes, to save their team from being the loser. This is the redemptive aspect that is placed within these men who were to fight in the name of their state, and is also seen in the captain of many sports teams now, as they are to lead their fans to the power of being number one in their respectful league. Fans place their trust and hope in these teams in order that they lead the team to victory.

The same overall theme can be seen in sport as has been around for thousands of years, and it is possible to draw parallels to Christianity, but as was mentioned in class, should this relationship not be seen with scrutiny as so many athletes are hurt and some face self-sacrifice (in terms of injury most often) in the name of winning their team and city the recognition of being the best? For hockey fans, this violence may be an attractive aspect, as was in the Roman games, but there no longer needs to be this bloodshed and hurt to individuals in order to show their power.

The fact of the matter remains that there are far too many risks involved in sports that individuals face just for the sake of their team. Heck, I enjoy a good glove dropping fight, but it is really not a necessary element of hockey. Furthermore, seeing as violence is present in some, and in by no means am I suggesting that it is present in all sports, I mean lets all watch golf and we can see that everyone is pretty respectful of one another, perhaps Christianity should look upon sports more critically because too much may be at stake for individuals.

Reply to Felicia's "Is This Guy For Real?"

Is this guy for real? Of course as viewers of Football, or any mass-consumed form of media people always beg that question, regardless of who the subject matter is. I agree with you that especially those who are doing the consumption view the sincerity of someone’s actions with much scrutiny. That is why I don’t think the comments and questions made by the announcers were really that shocking, as well as why I too believe people were shocked by his actions.

However, I don’t understand WHY people would have been shocked. Perhaps its because American Football is such a hugely popular event in sports and many people, not only Americans, tune in to Sunday Night Football to watch the events. But, as more of a soccer fan myself, I am used to seeing players pray before games, during games, after their own goals, and after their team mates goals. In my opinion, people are less surprised by these actions.

This may be because of the viewer ship. As soccer is consumed more so by Europeans (I am in no way saying that North Americans don’t watch soccer, mind you), and Europeans have a history of being more religious, especially with a larger Christian denomination, maybe this is why people are less shocked.

Regardless, I do believe that his actions were sincere. I don’t believe that a famous person would make such an outward gesture suggestive of their faith if they were not in fact a believer of said faith. The kneel was done after a touchdown, something that he, as well as his team and fans, would have been very thankful for. In this moment of celebration, as a believer he may have felt the need to give thanks. 

As mentioned, people are more accustomed to seeing an end zone dance, and to me, that is the way in which an athlete chooses to celebrate. In this case, I believe that Tebow was celebrating by giving thanks, the same way many athletes pray before a game, as if asking for divine intervention. 

Good for you, good for me, good for everyone!

In class this week, a large emphasis was placed on the sincerity of charitable acts, with a focus on Justin Bieber. Not to beat anyone over the head with more talk of Bieber, I found this discussion to be very interesting. It just so happens that a good friend of mine is a self proclaimed 'belieber'. I told her that we spoke about him in my Christianity and culture class and her response was "oh that’s so good! He actually does soooo much for charity." I don't know if she said this in an effort to convert the non-belieber, but it struck me that that was the first thing she had to say. Yes I do give credit to Justin Bieber as he does do many charitable acts. Yet when a fan justifies liking someone based on their 'goodness' does this not add to the idea that he, or many other celebrities to not attack "the biebs", does these good acts in order to add to his appearance?

As was brought up in class, any charity is good charity for at the end of the day someone in need is receiving help. Yet people, myself included, are quick to question the sincerity of a charitable act, especially when done by a celebrity and said celebrity emphasizes 'good doing". However, should the intentions of the act be so focused upon when the end result is still a positive action?

While looking for pictures to include in this post, I happened to stumble upon a website which provides a list of celebrities who have helped or are helping a charity. Again, this website leads the viewer to question how generous and selfless is an act of charity if such recognition is given.

www.looktothestars.org

Furthermore, one can also assume that people are quicker to judge people whom they do not like. In class, before many people spoke they said that they were not fans of Bieber, and I probably would have done the same. Why make this distinction? One can make the argument that socially, being pro or against Bieber is an important decision to make. Why is this distinction important? Because people often assume that one views something more critical when one already has an opinion on it. I am not saying it is impossible to be unbiased, but I know for a fact that when Ellen Degeneres does good I don’t look at her with such skepticism as when Justin Bieber does good, simply because I like Ellen and don’t like Bieber.

It is with that idea that I think we need to be aware of and try to look beyond whether or not you believe the celebrity is being sincere. Yes it is annoying for a celebrity to do something for their self-gain, but as a celebrity is produced and marketed, much of their actions are for self-promotion. It, however, is important that not all people do things for good reasons but also that sometimes the benefit of the doubt should be given. Justin Bieber, Ellen Degeneres, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill Gates all have done charitable acts. Who knows what the real intent of their actions were, but I believe it is a good thing that regardless of intent, some good was done. Yet, this is hard to do as many often search for the authenticity of a celebrity, such as was presented in the article about Lady Gaga.

Who knows, maybe these celebrities do really care about the charities that they are helping, but we may never find out.