Halllooo

I daydream too much:0

[httpshayley]

I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my king.

[a-quiet-green-agreement]

"I love you, if only because of the pains you have cost me, which I shall never forget."

— J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

[frogressive-rock]

I'm completely normal about this

[queen-esther]

Gonna start praying this before logging in to Tumblr or Twitter.

[boomer-mythology-destroyer]

[kosmogrl]

[gay-hrithik-roshan]

[littleguymart]

(source)

[apoemaday]

Sea-Fever

by John Masefield

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by; And the wheel’s kick and the wind’s song and the white sail’s shaking, And a grey mist on the sea’s face, and a grey dawn breaking.

I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied; And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying, And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife; And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over.

[enki2]

[razbataz]

think about who’s most special to you

[beginnerblueglass]

As a Christian, I actually love stories where people try to create Messianic-type characters that fail and fall short and do not live up to the real deal and are all twisted up and wrong and pointing in the wrong direction and total gibberish and don't make any sense because it shows us that this is the best that human beings can come up with on our own. This is the saviour that we make in our image and it's not that great. It's utterly fascinating and an illuminating peek into a person's desires and hopes to watch them try to create a character who is supposed to be "like Jesus," and to see what they come up with.

[artist-issues]

Does anyone know of a story where someone uses a “Messianic-type character” who fails in-story, and the storytelling was intending to say something good about the True Messiah?

Because I’m thinking of Dune or, maybe a little less insidiously, The Lego Movie. Where the Messiah turns out to be a fake role.

In Dune, it’s all about how using religious or alternate-consciousness experiences perceived as spiritually significant, but actually just naturalistic and scientific, can be used to control the masses and achieve power.

In The Lego Movie, it’s all about how trusting in any kind of higher power or needing a “Messiah” title to lean on actually keeps you trapped and only by deciding everyone is That Special can you keep your freedom and save the world.

All of which would be fine. Because sure, some people at some time have used religious imagery to dupe and control people of faith in the real world. And some people at some time have placed faith in false Messiahs. It’s fine to represent that.

Except that there’s a real Messiah. The center and purpose of all creation. The main character of our timeline, in reality. He is real. And right now, at least in the West where these are being created, nobody needs to be told “false-Messiahs-are-bad.” We all know that. What they need to be told is “There is One, True, Good Messiah and You Are Not Him.”

But in the movies I’ve mentioned, nobody’s saying that. Because they don’t believe there is a one-true-good-Messiah. They’re saying that there isn’t one and the closest you’ll get to one is “Believing in Yourself.” So like. Is the point of this post “Aslan isn’t a 1-to-1 perfect allegory for Christ and that’s okay because hey, C.S. Lewis was human and loved Jesus enough to try and put Him in his story and that’s all any of us can do,” or is it “it’s okay to have Messiahs who fail in your story…even if there’s never any representation of a true Messiah in the story to balance it out?”

[beginnerblueglass]

I don't expect stories to be sermons or seamless representations of the ideals they are consciously or unconsciously trying to portray, nor do I expect non-Christian authors to be the preachers of those sermons. They don't know the real Messiah, but I do, and I'm looking for Him everywhere.

In any story containing Messianic influences, the real Messiah may not be there explicitly, but I believe He is there implicitly, for those with eyes to see. The book of Esther never once mentions God; those not looking for Him probably won't find Him. Is that a failure of the book? Of course not. But when you are looking for Him, He's glaringly there, shining out of the negative space.

Why would Frank Herbert include a reference to the real Jesus to contrast his false one? In what world would that naturally occur? I'm satisfied with the glimpse into even one man's imaginative invention, a peek into the kind of saviour man rationalizes and even expects. Dune reminds me that even if the smartest and most resourced people had ten thousand years to intricately engineer the kind of chosen one they wanted, they would still fail. The Messiah cannot come from the world alone, the real one had to come from outside of the world, into the world. Star Wars reminds me that the duties of the one who has to save the world seem too large to belong to one person, the judgments He must execute seem too terrible to belong to a good man, according to man's perception of good. So it shows us two Chosen Ones, one who destroys the galaxy, but brings forth the one who saves it. How cool is that? How revealing of our inability to invent the real thing, our inability to reach it on our own? Flesh and blood cannot reveal this to us, but only our Father in heaven (Matt. 17:17). Jesus Christ is entirely unique, more than I can comprehend, and could not in a million years have been invented by a human. I like it when stories remind me of that.

[artist-issues]

Time out.

I completely agree that it is possible to be reminded of reality by something that doesn't explicitly mention that reality. Including the reality of the Person of Christ. Nowhere is that disputed. That's what a story is. It's a "laying alongside" of something that is markedly not reality to reality itself. But the laying aside, the "saying something by not explicitly saying it," is done in order to highlight something about reality.

But the answer to your question about Frank Herbert is my point.

Frank Herbert would "reference" the real Jesus Christ to contrast with his false one in order to represent reality. Because in what world would there be a real messiah that contrasts false messiahs? Our world. The real world. What's more unnatural is a world in which no real Messiah ever occurs.

But that's the world Frank Herbert thinks is real.

Honestly, I'm going to push back against what you're "satisfying" yourself with. The Pharisees believed a Messiah was coming, too. Jewish people today still do. Are you satisfied with the way they reject the true Messiah in favor of their imagination's version?

Dune's Messiah is not a Messiah. He is a commentary on the concept of a Messiah, made to comment "there is no real Messiah."

I see how you're getting to a place where you're glad God is the one telling the story that is real—by looking at human beings' inability to tell it as perfectly as He does. I see that. I get what you're saying.

But I think if you do it to the exclusion of the lie that is being perpetuated instead? That's dangerous. That's ignoring the responsibility to truth that storytellers and audiences have. When a storyteller's intent is to say something about the world God created and the Messiah we worship which is not true, through their story, that is a real decision. It has consequences. Consequences for the storyteller, and consequences for those living in darkness who don't have the light you're using to change the storyteller's intended meaning of the story.

And I also think it's a waste of time—which is precious, because the days are evil—when you could be lauding stories that point directly to the true Messiah, or truth in general. You could be admitting that there is a "Better" kind of story as opposed to the "Worse" kinds. The Chronicles of Narnia is better than Dune because Narnia makes a statement about reality that is true, and highlights truth—while Dune makes a statement about reality that is false, and tries to disguise the truth from people who don't already know it.

I love some stories because they point to the truth of who Christ is. But if I did what you’re describing, I would like all stories, in spite of their lies about who Christ is. It devalues truth.

[beginnerblueglass]

I don't really understand what you're trying to get me to concede. That Narnia is better than Dune? I freely admit that. The Bible is infinitely better than both of them. I can't press a button and remove Dune from existence. Do I have to engage with it? No, but neither must I not have anything to do with it. Nothing is unclean in and of itself, but the heart which engages with the thing. People can take a "bad" story (Dune), and do bad things with it. They can also take a "good" story (Narnia), and do bad things with it. People can even take the perfect story, the Bible, and do bad things with it. "If your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness" Matthew 6:23.

Your standard for storytelling is yours, and that is laudable, and being that I don't know you, I'll assume that as a Christian, it is yours according to the measure of faith given you and the way the Spirit has led you. Bless you for that. Perhaps the Lord will work on me and refine my tastes. Until that day, being that you don't know me, I've said all I can and want to say about why I enjoy and will continue to discerningly enjoy imperfect stories told by imperfect people. Certainly I don't love "all stories," but I do enjoy ones I can learn from, ones that reveal the insides of people who are different from me. I will concede that "satisfied" was not exactly the right word. I'm intrigued by the manner in which God reveals more about Himself to me in the most unlikely of places. Yet, He is there, even if the author didn't want Him to be.

"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" Romans 14:14.

[artist-issues]

I’m not trying to get you to concede anything. I’m trying to point out that there is nothing neutral, and although the heart that engages with a thing’s cleanness or uncleanness is definitely important, there are also things (stories) that can draw the heart away from truth.

That principal is found all over the Bible. The danger is infinitely greater for those who’s hearts are not redeemed by the living God, but I’m not sure a Christian needs to abuse the grace of the illumination of the Spirit by entertaining themselves with lies, simply because they’re confident in their knowledge of the truth.

Again, the principal of not listening to lies, not inquiring after something that is contrary to God, in order to “learn about God,” is all over the Bible.

“It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools.” Ecclesiastes 7:5 - You can glean, here, the principal that one type of communication (that’s what a story is) is better for a listener than another type, and the character of the person communicating is just as important as what they communicate.

“And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?” Isaiah 8:19 - This principal speaks for itself. I understand that you hold Scripture as higher in authority than the stories you take in: good. Wonderful. Praise the Lord, that you do.

But what I’m saying is that, simply because you know what is true, that doesn’t mean there is no harm in letting yourself be “entertained by” and “learn from” attacks on the truth.

Especially not from “attacks on the truth” that are so winsome in medium, light, color, sound, and the art of storytelling that God Himself invented.

I appreciate your gracious view of others being able to enjoy what God has set them free to enjoy, and your gracious response to me.

But please: if someone came up to you claiming to be or to know Jesus Christ, the Messiah, but represented Him contrary to Scripture—or worse, if someone came up to you and told you he was a time traveller who knew the real Jesus and could confirm He was not the Son of God—would you rejoice? Would you say, “aha, a specimen of fallen-man spreading lies about the Savior, just like the Bible said there would be! At least this guy’s rhetoric confirms that mankind knows about the historical Jesus’ existence; at least this guy’s rhetoric confirms mankind wants a Messiah even if they’ve got it wrong; I think I’ll listen to his rhetoric more, maybe even take a video and show it to my friends!”

I don’t believe you would. Because of the weight and gravity of someone who’s wantonly, willfully, getting Jesus wrong, and trying to convince others of that false view of Jesus.

The Bible does lay out what we should do when false Gospels or people teaching—trying to convince others—of a false worldview come along winsomely. In James 2: “do not take them into your house or welcome them.”

I don’t believe watching a movie is the same as welcoming false teaching into your home. But I believe ignoring what the movie is clearly intended to say, when you know what it’s intended to say, in favor of entertaining yourself by it, gets perilously close to “welcoming” it into your mind.

All I’m saying is: the Bible clearly indicates that what we communicate has power and is important. It clearly indicates that what we believe, and what we communicate, about the Person of our Savior Jesus Christ has power and is important. Meat sacrificed to idols is not a statement about the Messiah. But a movie where the filmmaker wants to present a convincing argument for how true Messiahs don’t exist? That’s a statement about the Messiah. And it’s not laid out in Scripture that we entertain ourselves by it and call it “neat.”

You don’t have to respond to me. Thanks for conversing for this long.

[snoopyoftheday]

snoopy of the day

[doggosource]

[thebattybunch]

He's on the case btw

[hood-ex]

Judge: Mr. Wayne, I'm appointing you as Dick Grayson's legal guardian for a trial period of 12 months.

Bruce:

Batman and Robin: Year One #12

[artist-issues]

They played "Downstairs" live and people who went to that private show and saw it came back and posted about how "spiritual" and "Christian" the performance was. So then Christian twenty one pilots fans got emboldened to jump in and actually speak up and say, "hey you noticed this, you're feeling this, read the Bible and see who Jesus is!" since they brought it up.

And now half the "most inclusive clique in the world" is just furious. Saying things like "you can't tell people what to believe, you don't know what Tyler meant, there's open interpretation," but then SPINNING ON THEIR HEELS and ALSO saying, "actually twenty one pilots only ever says negative things about Christianity; Tyler only talks about faith as a struggle, not a good thing."

And see this is the dilemma. That Christians will take every opportunity to care for people they genuinely believe need saving, even if those people attack them for doing it...and Tyler and Josh make it harder for Christians to exercise their beliefs, and easier for their attackers, by not being clear.

What open interpretation does is create division and disagreement. Ever heard anybody debate that humans can breathe oxygen? No. Because it's obvious reality. The more clearly you communicate, the more you control where the division is. The vaguer you are, the more out of control the division is.

But there is no such thing as a scenario where there is no division at all. Because that's not how reality works. There's truth, and not-truth. There's evil, and there's good. There will always be division. The choice is whether or not you're going to align with good, true, real things, and beg others to align with them too...or if you're going to play pretend and blame the division that comes on other people.

[artist-issues]

I know. I knew it. You couldn’t plan a symbol that is timed more perfectly than that if you were trying to stage it beforehand—it’s not a gimmick, it’s not just “one interpretation,” it’s where his head is at.