Does the inclusion of a religious message in a film make it propaganda?
Absolutely not, first of all, propaganda is not exclusive to propaganda. Any message that is fairly direct and clear could be interpreted as propaganda regardless of what its message is about. The same idea works with religion, while it definitely can be a subject for propaganda, it all depends on the way it is presented and how strongly it is shown that decides whether it is a piece of propaganda or not.
The Bible describes a lot of bad things. Why isn't this considered bad by most people?
In the Bible, there are certainly many scenes of violence, sin, and sex, however the Bible often justifies such acts, such as in the Israelite re-entrance into Canaan, which involved many deaths but was still presented in a positive light in this portion of the Bible because of the inherent cause of God's promised land to the Israelites. In terms of societal influences, there is also the fact that Christianity is the most practiced religion in the world and it does have a huge influence over the world's beliefs and ethics. Because of this, it may be seen as insulting and insensitive to criticize these scenes in the Bible.
If someone did not mean for a message to come through in a film, or meant for a different message to be communicated, does that change what message the film actually sends?
I think that it comes down to what the majority of viewers believe. For example, if a certain unintended message was perceived by a minority of the viewers, many would probably see this as a conspiracy-type notion with little proof but a message with many viewers backing it would definitely have traction and would certainly change the way people would see the movie or show.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Chapter 1 Questions
1. What are the benefits and pitfalls of approaching movies like Plato or Aristotle would?
Plato saw media/art as entirely harmful and useless, so such an anti-media approach would provide very little benefit. Of course, you wouldn't be affected by any art that is harmful, but you'd also never experience forms of media with good morals. On top of that, you'd most likely be cut off from society in a way that would affect the way you interact with people. Aristotle on the other hand, saw art as an expression of humanity and that it contained many educational values. This view is far more beneficial as it would allow a viewer to contain analytically thoughts as they watch or consume media and possibly learn from such pieces of media.
2. How did the apostle Paul adapt his evangelism style when he spoke with Jewish people or Gentiles?
He would often adjust his material in order to find a sort of common ground between him and those he preached to. For example, he would cite the Old Testament for preaching towards the Jews and then create a philosophical argument when preaching towards the Greek Gentiles.
3. When might it be best to avoid watching a "good" movie?
Whenever the film contains horrific and explicit scenes despite good morals. For example, if a movie contains the noble theme of good triumphing over evil, it would be a fairly "good" movie. However, if the movie contains excessive language or sexual content, then it would be best to avoid it.
Plato saw media/art as entirely harmful and useless, so such an anti-media approach would provide very little benefit. Of course, you wouldn't be affected by any art that is harmful, but you'd also never experience forms of media with good morals. On top of that, you'd most likely be cut off from society in a way that would affect the way you interact with people. Aristotle on the other hand, saw art as an expression of humanity and that it contained many educational values. This view is far more beneficial as it would allow a viewer to contain analytically thoughts as they watch or consume media and possibly learn from such pieces of media.
2. How did the apostle Paul adapt his evangelism style when he spoke with Jewish people or Gentiles?
He would often adjust his material in order to find a sort of common ground between him and those he preached to. For example, he would cite the Old Testament for preaching towards the Jews and then create a philosophical argument when preaching towards the Greek Gentiles.
3. When might it be best to avoid watching a "good" movie?
Whenever the film contains horrific and explicit scenes despite good morals. For example, if a movie contains the noble theme of good triumphing over evil, it would be a fairly "good" movie. However, if the movie contains excessive language or sexual content, then it would be best to avoid it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Cider House Rules or Moral Absolutes?
Would you rather live in a world characterized by 'The Cider House Rules' or one characterized by 'moral absolutes'.
I'd much rather live in a world characterized by moral absolutes. First of all, it is predictable that if a society were to use the ideals of Cider House Rules, in which people should be able to decide how they wish to live, it would lead to chaos and anarchy as people won't be able to live along a same rules and will obviously come into predicaments as a result. In contrast, a society with moral absolutes, which is similar to our western society, people would live with the same code of laws, and so, anybody could point out breaches to rules as well as establish order among people. Some people might argue that those who create the rules wouldn't know the struggle of those their rules affect, a central point of Cider House rules. However, if this is so, then what would happen if this concept extended farther than apple orchard workers? Should everybody create their own rules because politicians can't connect with everybody's personal lives. If this would happen, then there would be no point in forming society just because no person is the same as another. Secondly, why should people make their own rules? Can they be trusted to be just and fair to those around them? What is stopping a person from making rules for themselves that only benefit themselves. Obviously, this shows a negative outlook on humanity despite the fact that many humans can have a positive moral outlook towards benefit for many. However, eventually there will be immoral humans that come and attempt to establish rules for themselves and become a detriment to society. Because of this, it should be evident that the use of moral absolutes in society should be more useful than that by the Cider House Rules because of the improvements to order and society that moral absolutes give.
I'd much rather live in a world characterized by moral absolutes. First of all, it is predictable that if a society were to use the ideals of Cider House Rules, in which people should be able to decide how they wish to live, it would lead to chaos and anarchy as people won't be able to live along a same rules and will obviously come into predicaments as a result. In contrast, a society with moral absolutes, which is similar to our western society, people would live with the same code of laws, and so, anybody could point out breaches to rules as well as establish order among people. Some people might argue that those who create the rules wouldn't know the struggle of those their rules affect, a central point of Cider House rules. However, if this is so, then what would happen if this concept extended farther than apple orchard workers? Should everybody create their own rules because politicians can't connect with everybody's personal lives. If this would happen, then there would be no point in forming society just because no person is the same as another. Secondly, why should people make their own rules? Can they be trusted to be just and fair to those around them? What is stopping a person from making rules for themselves that only benefit themselves. Obviously, this shows a negative outlook on humanity despite the fact that many humans can have a positive moral outlook towards benefit for many. However, eventually there will be immoral humans that come and attempt to establish rules for themselves and become a detriment to society. Because of this, it should be evident that the use of moral absolutes in society should be more useful than that by the Cider House Rules because of the improvements to order and society that moral absolutes give.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)