Another Comparison Between Superman and Jesus

A while ago, I wrote a blog for another page, comparing Superman with Jesus, just after Man of Steel came out.  That blogging page no longer exists, but I thought it would be nice to repost this blog I wrote for it, so here it is:

With quite a few religious overtones in Man of Steel, many people have commented on a not-so-new topic, the comparison of Superman and Jesus.  I first heard the Pastor for my grandmother’s church make that comparison.  More recently, I read an article from Mark Sandlin talking about the differences.  The big difference people notice seems to be that Jesus existed, while Superman was written as fiction.  However, that’s a no-brainer.  One of the issues here, however, is that it does depend on how you interpret Jesus’ story and message, and which version of Superman you’re talking about.

The difference that my grandmother’s Pastor saw was that while Superman, sent down from a higher world, is an alien looking at humanity from the outside, Jesus was a human with us.  Of course, in the latest movie, there is a little bit about how Superman is, in many ways, a human.  In many other versions, there is a moment where Superman interacts with a Kryptonian.  Sometime during this interaction, Superman is criticized for having become too much like a human.  Also, is Krypton even a higher world?  In an episode of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Lois doesn’t seem to think so when Kryptonians make her a concubine, and Clark doesn’t find the Kryptonians to be much greater than humans either.

The difference that Mark Sandlin commented on is violence; while Jesus was a pacifist, turning the other cheek, Superman fights against the villains.  In the original Christopher Reeve movie, however, the closest thing there is to a fight scene is Lois kicks a guy who then shoots her and runs away.  Similar things could be said about many episodes of Lois & Clark, some of the animated cartoons, and possibly a few episodes of other shows, maybe even some of the comics.

There are a few differences that I see.  While Superman wins against the enemy, the enemy crushed Jesus.  Superman is more of a deus ex machina, Jesus came down, not to intervene, but to experience what we experience and to teach us how to make a difference.  Superman seems to fit the old idea of the messiah that people had before Jesus.  Jesus presents a new idea of the messiah, not as a triumphant leader, but a suffering servant.  Superman is what we fantasize being, while Jesus is what we strive to be.  Of course, this is just my view.  Others may say otherwise and give good reasons behind it.

The big difference, however, is where we look at the stories.  If someone wants to know Superman’s story, there are many places to look.  You can watch the latest Superman movie or TV show, one of the older ones, the latest comic book issue, earlier issues, etc.  When people want to know about Jesus’ story, they’ll immediately go to the gospels in the Bible.  How many people look at Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ or Martin Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ instead of the gospels?  When was the latest issue of The Adventures of Jesus released?

Superman does seem to hold Christian values.  He stands up for the oppressed, helps those in need, and strives for truth and justice.  In many versions, he is a Christian, like most people raised on a farm in a small town in Kansas.  However, to say that Superman is a modern Jesus might make sense at first, but it isn’t the most accurate thing to say.  Superman and Jesus are both very different.

Shalom!

Christian Talk on Pornography

Christians have been known for heavily standing against pornography.  A few years ago, Jefferson Bethke (known mostly for his “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” spoken word piece) and a few others did a tour, talking about the evils of pornography.  I came across a comment thread on a Facebook article, where a woman commented that several Progressive Christians and several Christian feminists seem to have a very strong stance against pornography.

Some have commented on situations where women are forced into it, such as when Linda Susan Boreman was coerced by her abusive husband into performing in the movie Deep Throat, under the stage name Linda Lovelace.  After her conversion to Christianity, she became a famous spokeswoman against pornography.

Deep Throat is one situation where pornography was misused.  However, there have been several women who do pornography, that have admitted to enjoying their work.  In an interview that Buzzfeed did with a few pornographic actresses, one performer, Jessica Drake, said, “I love the business and the career I’ve had so far. I still really enjoy being in front of the camera, and as long as I’m still happy doing it, I’ll continue.”

Angela White, another porn actress interviewed, when asked if there were times she refused to do something, she said, “I’ve never been placed in a position where I would need to. I’m very fortunate that I’ve always worked for companies that have been respectful of my limits.”  Tasha Reign, another actress, said, “I have a strict yes and no list of acts I perform, most girls do.”

Many, such as Bethke and Boreman, have spoken against pornography.  The attitude expressed is probably that it is demeaning towards women.  However, given some of the comments the actresses from the Buzzfeed interview have made, there seem to be positive situations within the industry.

As Christians, should we be judgmental about a situation that we don’t necessarily know much about?  Because some women were forced into it, dealing with major abuse, does that mean we shouldn’t be supportive of the ones who chose it for their career, and are very happily living the life they chose to live?  Aren’t we supposed to be open and affirming to all people?

Maybe we should stop the judgment and condemnation.  We should stand up against hatred and harm caused to others (including situations, such as Boreman’s), but when people are doing what they love and following their dreams, do we really want to shatter that?

Shalom!

Old vs. New

To me, it seems that nowadays, when talking about religion and science, there sometimes seems to be a religion vs. science attitude.  Religion might sometimes be said to be the old ways, part of the past.  Science, many might say, is the way of the future.  Can only one have a place in our world?

To explain my view on this topic, I'm going to start by talking about a children's television series that I loved as a kid (and I'll confess that I still do).  The show is called Power Rangers.  There was a fan, who calls himself Linkara, that made a video series, analyzing each season, giving his views, and talking about the theme of each season.

The first season of Power Rangers, he said, had a magic vs. technology theme.  Rita Repulsa, the villain, has a palace filled with magical objects, she summons living monsters, she has a magic wand that makes her monster grow, her monsters have a very mystical feel to them, and she uses other magical items (such as a candle) to do many things.  The rangers, on the other hand, have their secret headquarters at a high-tech command center, their powers come from something called the morphing grid, a robot looks after their command center, they use giant robots to fight the monsters in large size, they use other technological gadgetry to help themselves out, and one of them invents new machines to deal with extreme situations.  The theme continues throughout the second season, especially in the beginning, but it is heavily underplayed in the third season.

In the fourth season, with the show being renamed Power Rangers: Zeo, the theme seems to become reversed.  Rita Repulsa and everyone she works with are kicked out of their palace by a new group of villains, called the Machine Empire.  It is a royal family of machines, using machines as their monsters.  On the other side, the Power Rangers now have new powers, with a magical crystal being their main source.  They still meet at a high-tech headquarters, and the equipment they use is primarily machinery.  However, there's dialogue commenting that while these new villains are machines, the rangers are people with hearts and souls, and the machines they use are only extensions of themselves.

Near the end of Power Rangers: Zeo, the villains from the first three seasons return, and we see them face off with the current villains.  The original villains have been using magical items, which they continue to do.  The current villains are full-on machines.  However, the Power Rangers have embraced both, and they are typically successful in doing so.  They use high-tech machinery in combination with ancient powers, and they themselves are living humans, not machines.  The outcome, thematically, seems to be that magic and technology should both be embraced.

I sometimes think of that idea of the fourth season, in many ways, as an allegory for science (technology) and religion (magic).  I've heard quite a few scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, comment that religion had it's purpose when we weren't able to know much about the universe, but when we did more studying and got more answers, it became worthless.  Several historians on religion, such as Karen Armstrong and John Dominic Crossan, will say that many of our religious myths may have not necessarily been intended to be taken literally, and we should go back to the old ways of understanding these myths.

Science and religion combined can make for a marvelous combination.  We have science explaining how the cosmos works, and religion expressing how we experience it.  The stories in the Biblical Book of Genesis are beautiful stories, and when taken as metaphor and allegory, they can have great meaning.  The scientific information we now have on the big bang, evolution, and everything around us also has meaning about who we are.  The combination can be extremely special.

Something else that I feel symbolizes the combination of old and new is steampunk culture.  The idea is typically Victorian-era inspired clothing, artwork, etc.  However, they put a high-tech futuristic twist on it.  There are a few steampunk enthusiasts that have gone to great lengths to make their modern day computers look more old fashioned, and to do the same with other items.

The way that many churches are set up is yet another way we can see the old ways and new ways working together.  The churches I typically go to are filled with stained-glass imagery, have candles at the front, our organist plays the music of Bach, and we occasionally sing hymns that date back to over a thousand years ago.  However, the person leading the service uses a microphone, we have electric lights, and the pipe organ is helped with electro-pneumatic action.  That too shows a way of combining the old ways and the new ways.

Do the old ways and the new ways have to be in conflict?  I'm not inclined to think so.  I think that the old ways can still be embraced, but we also should embrace the new ways.  I think combining the two can be powerful and life-giving.

Shalom!

Moderate and Progressive Christians' Responsibility

A while ago, I had a conversation on YouTube with an Atheist, explaining to him that the beliefs he had assumed all Christians held were not beliefs I held, and the things he assumed all Christians advocated were not things I advocated.  He then asked if I felt responsible for all the Christians he was lumping me together with.  It was "because" he exclaimed, that I "should."  I responded by saying that I do.

Typically, when I say to non-Christians that I feel responsible for the actions and behaviors of other Christians, they respond by saying that I'm not.  They comment that we're responsible only for our actions.  I will admit that to some extant, they are correct.  I definitely don't think we should be doing jail time for their actions, or that we should face abuse because of their behavior.  However, I feel that we have a responsibility to strive for bringing an end to what they do.

It may seem that there is nothing we can do to stop Fundamentalists from the hatred and discrimination that they cause.  If each one of us individually was to only act alone, it would be impossible.  However, when each one of us does what we can, change might be able to occur.  There are quite a few Liberal Christian Facebook pages, speaking against Fundamentalists, and inspiring Progressives to do more.  There are also bloggers, authors, preachers, and others who do such with their writings.

Although many of us believe in the separation of church and state, we can also take responsibility with the politicians we vote for.  Some of us might even be inclined to run for a position in office.  Many Fundamentalist Christians are trying to bring their religious views into the government, and sometimes, they succeed.  Are we to just roll over and play dead?  In countries where political leaders are elected, we are able to vote against them, and we can send letters to other elected leaders, asking for support.

We can also simply tell Fundamentalists to stop.  That might not do anything.  It might, in fact, motivate them to do the exact opposite.  However, there are some who are open to having their views changed.  It is not a majority.  However, and I'm speaking from experience, a few have come to change their views.  There was one woman I encountered who had originally been against homosexuality, but after some talk, she possibly changed her perspective.  Although she said she'd pray about it, it was pretty clear that she may possibly change her mind

Although it may seem impossible, we can do some things.  The most difficult part that I suggest, however, is that we should refrain from taking action in ways that are hateful towards Fundamentalists.  Fighting fire with fire does not put the fire out.  It adds to the flames.  Martin Luther King Jr. once said "Darkness cannot drive out darkness.  Only light can do that."

It might seem that responding through more compassionate ways are more difficult.  However, look at how far Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi went.  Neither of them shot a single bullet, or responded with violence, when their enemies used that as their main tactic.  It turned more people against the enemies, and it lead them to succeed.

At the beginning of this piece, I mention a conversation with an Atheist.  To say how that conversation ended, it was definitely positive.  After I mentioned that I do feel that I'm responsible for these sort of Christians, I mentioned some of the things that I've done to take responsibility.  He applauded me for my efforts.  If you take responsibility, I'm sure he'll applaud you too, if you ever encounter him.

Shalom!

Introduction!

I'm Robin, a musician.  I've had a YouTube channel for a while where I've been talking about my views as part of the Progressive Christian movement.  I decided to also put together a written blog page as well.  This is not intended to replace my YouTube channel, but to be an addition to it.  I hope you enjoy what ideas I give.

Shalom!