# data[].attributes.body
As an English major, I love all things relevant to any English theory or criticism. That's why Jensen's questioning of why we tell stories in order to understand things better really excited me: it reminded me of Carl Jung's theory of a universal consciousness. He suggests that all stories follow the same basic principles/timeline and archetypes. In this article, you can read about how Star Wars was created with the "monomyth." I do see the pattern that this comes about. Every story has the same archetypes, etc. I can't say whether that is because all of humanity shares the same unconscious, but it could be because we all have the knowledge of God and Jesus in the back of our minds. The idea of the monomyth creates the "hero's journey." In many ways, this is very similar to Jesus' story as well. If we tell stories that follow the same theme and timeline, it could be because we crave to understand the world, and in the back of our minds, we know the answer is Jesus Christ.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jason Hamilton Wordpress Wizard

Welcome to the Star Wars in Mythology series. These posts will explore ancient mythology and its use in Star Wars, highlighting the timeless storytelling that permeates the saga. In this edition, StarWars.com discusses the Shadow motif.

Carl Jung is essentially the great-grandfather of Star Wars, as Joseph Campbell included much of Jung's psychological research in his work.

Jung's work highlights the concept of the collective unconscious, aspects of our psyche that exist for everyone. Jung theorizes that this collective unconscious is responsible for the common themes in our mythology, even across isolated, independent cultures. All were drawing from archetypes hidden in our subconscious, archetypes that are part of what makes us human.

The Shadow is one prevalent Jungian archetype. But it is Star Wars that definitively makes use of it.
Definition: The Shadow
The Shadow is an aspect of our unconscious psychology that our conscious refuses to acknowledge, and is usually negative. It can be anything from aggressive animal instincts, to laziness, to sadistic behavior.

Jung specifies that "the less [the Shadow] is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is." In other word, acknowledging and mastering the Shadow is essential to keep it from worsening.

A merger of the individual with the Shadow is common. However, for the merger to be positive, it must be initiated by the individual himself. Allowing one's Shadow to take control usually leads to a negative lifestyle, where one is controlled by their impulses. Actively acknowledging one's darker side and taking control of it is a much more positive approach. According to Jung, it produces a stronger, wider awareness/consciousness than before. Confronting your dark side leads to a stronger, more balanced individual. You might see where this is going.
Examples in Mythology
Since the Shadow is a part of our collective psychology, it frequently emerges in our mythology and storytelling. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is possibly the most obvious example. In it, the Shadow literally takes control of Jekyll's mind and body, enslaving him to his basest instincts.

The werewolf motif is another example. It is common to have mythological characters who can't control their dark side, and as a result their Shadow emerges into the realm of the physical. Turning someone into an animal is often used as a form of punishment in mythology, such as Zeus turning Lycaon into a wolf for killing his children, or Athena turning Ariadne into a spider. In these cases, the animal represented the psyche for those individuals, showing their true colors for all to see, a physical manifestation of the Shadow.

Joseph Campbell also points to the story of the Frog Prince. In the story, a princess is confronted on three separate occasions by the Frog. On the first two visits, she is repulsed, but she relents on the third occasion and kisses the Frog, who then transforms into a prince. According to Campbell, the Frog is the Shadow, the kiss is acceptance of it, and the prince is the reward.

The Shadow can be found in almost every story ever told. Whether it's the devil tempting Eve, or Mordred corrupting his father's kingdom, the Shadow saturates our mythology.
Use of the Shadow in Star Wars
Star Wars is our own modern mythology, and it borrows many of the same motifs. The Shadow is no exception. In fact, the Shadow is one of the most dominant.

The most obvious use of the Shadow is the dichotomy between light and dark sides of the Force. The dark side of the Force represents the Shadow, while the light side represents the ego. Balance is attained when the light side masters the dark. We see this explicitly in The Clone Wars. In the Season Six episode "Destiny," Yoda is confronted by a literal Shadow of himself. The ensuing fight does little good. It isn't until Yoda acknowledges and accepts the Shadow that he is able to master and control it. This is a direct parallel to Jung's recommendation to merge with the Shadow, gaining strength and awareness.

Both Anakin and Luke Skywalker merge with their Shadow, but with different results. Anakin allows his Shadow to take over, probably because he was unaware that it existed. As Jung would say, being unaware of the Shadow means it is likely darker and more dangerous. Once the Shadow has taken over, Anakin becomes Darth Vader, a literal embodiment of his own Shadow, much like the mythological concept of the werewolf.

Luke goes through a similar trial. His vision on Dagobah is a direct representation of what he must go through psychologically. After cutting off Vader's head in the cave, he realizes the head was his own. In that instance, Vader was Luke, or rather he was Luke's Shadow. This is probably the first instance where Luke becomes aware of his Shadow. He is forced to acknowledge it further when he learns of his parentage and just how much darkness exists inside of him. However it is this awareness of his Shadow that allows Luke to overcome it. Just as Jung suggests we confront our Shadow to overcome it, Yoda tells Luke he must confront Vader to become a Jedi.

In that final moment, when Luke confronts Vader, Luke looks at his hand, acknowledges the similarities between himself and his father. He acknowledges the potential that he has to join the dark side (his Shadow) and become just like Darth Vader. He acknowledges the fact that he has a dark side, and it is poised to take over.

And he accepts it.

When Luke utters the words, "I'll never turn to the dark side...I am a Jedi," he completes the final task of confronting his Shadow and mastering it. Like Yoda in The Clone Wars, Luke accepts his dark side as a part of himself. Thus, the Shadow archetype is balanced. Vader, who in this case symbolizes the Shadow, is redeemed at this exact moment, becoming an outward representation of Luke's inner triumph.

Jason Hamilton is a writer and presenter, hooked on Star Wars, superheroes, and Shakespeare. He co-hosts the Star Wars podcast Far, Far Away Radio and is the editor in chief of LordoftheLaserSword.com. He can be found on Twitter at @StoryHobbit.

TAGS: mythology, star wars mythology, the shadow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Star Wars in Mythology: The Shadow | StarWars.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jason Hamilton Wordpress Wizard Welcome to the Star Wars in Mythology series. These posts will explore ancient mythology and its use in Star Wars, highlighting the timeless storytelling that permeates the saga. In this edition, StarWars.com discusses the Shadow motif.

# data[].attributes.body
Watching A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving is one of my family's biggest traditions. Bringing it into a modern/postmodern perspective, it is obvious when Peppermint Patty complains about Thanksgiving that she and Charlie Brown have very different views on what Thanksgiving means. Same goes for the Christmas special, as well, which I also love very much (except in that one, it's Lucy's turn to misunderstand a holiday). Peppermint Patty represents a modern perspective: keeping to the roots of what Thanksgiving is and should be. However, Charlie Brown brings a postmodern perspective when he just tries his best to give the best "Friendsgiving" he can when P. Patty invites herself over.

# data[].attributes.body
It's no secret no anyone who knows me that one of my favorite movies is The Princess Bride. Going all the way back to language games, I found this wonderful little gif from the movie that I feel sums it up pretty well. From a modern perspective, the word "inconceivable" has a universal meaning. There is no question about it, and anyone who uses it incorrectly is just wrong. However, from a postmodern perspective, he could be using it right- just in his own way and the way that he has decided it is correct. Personally (and I think I speak for most everyone), I think he's using it wrong because he's just not that bright. But according to postmodern thought, that's okay! We just have different perspectives on truth.

# data[].attributes.body
As a child, I knew and loved CS Lewis as the author of some of my most beloved childhood books and movies. Now, I am being reintroduced to him as a philosopher, of some sort. Below is one of my absolute favorite quotes from The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Peter suggests that they should believe the beaver because "He said he knows the faun." Susan, however, brings in some logic and reason and replies, "He's a beaver; he shouldn't be saying anything." While this is probably one of the most accurate and hilarious quotes, it makes me think of how CS Lewis perceived education. Lewis believed that we shouldn't discourage learning or curiosity. Instead, we should nurture the learners and the apathetic. Similar, in a sense, to today's version of education: you should never share your opinion. You're not a minority, you shouldn't say anything, etc. Lewis suggests we should all be more like Lucy: curious and always searching to learn more and share what you have discovered with others.

# data[].attributes.body
I had the privilege of sitting down with my Pastor, Travis Agnew, and interviewing him for my Interview Paper. He had so many interesting ideas about how Modernity and Postmodernity affect the church. I also delved into topics that were entirely irrelevant to our class, but got a lot out of the interview itself. Below, I have linked his blog where he posts many great articles on different topics. The best way he was able to describe how the tension between modernity and postmodernity affects the church is how it's really the different generations competing, almost. He also shared with me a quote from Robert Jastrow that says, "[The scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." I love this quote because it really is nearly spot on to how I perceive the relationship between science and faith, and wanted to share it along with you all.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an interesting article that summarizes almost my exact thoughts on religion. We had a very interesting discussion on this topic Thursday, which I enjoyed leading. This article states that the meaning of religion is changing from what we used to understand it as. It mentions how almost anything can be a religion nowadays, which I find incredibly accurate. There is no, and probably never can be, a definite definition of this word. It is relevant to each person, which is an idea that Rorty and almost every philosopher we've been studying has touched on. It's part of the "language game" described by Lyotard. It's an "illusion" according to Freud. And it's losing all meaning according to myself and this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can anyone tell me just what definition of the word religion is being used in the media these days? In the past, public use of the word was easy to identify: "religion" meant "belief in God" and, in general, was used to refer to the one true religion, Christianity. Today, "religion" can mean anything at all, from the most personal and intimate spirituality for the individual to the most diffuse cultural activity in any given society.

A new Gallup poll is declaring that according to a large majority of Americans religion is losing its influence in society, a perception this study and all the media coverage emphasize is not related to measures of personal religiosity such as church attendance or self-reports about the importance of religion. This news is on the heels of the now-familiar religion media story about the rise of the "nones" in American society, individuals who are not affiliated with any religion at all.

While survey results and pie charts are supposed to provide a clearer picture of a particular question or phenomenon, in the case of religion this data seem to be creating more distortion and confusion than enlightenment and insight. Some obvious questions come to mind when confronted with these recent polls concerning religion in America: Are there other measures for religious commitment than church attendance and self-reporting on a scale of importance? Is it more accurate to say that Americans perceive Christianity as losing its influence than religion in general? Can people who don't affiliate with any religious institution or didn't choose one of the available religious identities on the questionnaire still be religious?

On the other hand, and in the very same week, you have the publication of aForbes article that asks, "Is Religion an Essential Driver of Economic Growth?" It offers a preview of an interview with Peter Berger, a well-known sociologist of religion who wrote one of the classics in the field, "The Sacred Canopy," and suggests the boundaries between religious orientations and cultural development are porous and historically determined. Focus is placed on another classic in the study of religion, Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," which argues that certain elements of the Protestant "lifestyle," like worldly asceticism, contributed to the emergence of modern capitalism.

So religions can blend into culture and become a driving force in the economy? Certainly this notion can also apply to political spheres, as well as the realm of art, and maybe even popular culture and entertainment. Perhaps this is a two-way street as well -- maybe politics, economics, popular culture, art and so on can shape the religious lives of Americans, if not lead to completely new forms of religion.

Another recent news article conveys this possibility quite well. CNN just published a profile on superstar surfer Kelly Slater with the title, "Kelly Slater: 'Surfing is my religion.'" In it, we learn that surfing is more than a sport, more than a career for Slater; it is, the author writes, a "spiritual experience." Here, religion is not something found in institutions and formal traditions, but arises in physical activity with nature and solitary exertions on the ocean, riding waves.

Whether Slater falls under the "none" category is not as important as the fact that religious dimensions are found for him and I suspect many other surfers outside of sacred texts and traditional organizations; in other words, spiritual values and experiences that define his religion might not be recognizable to some Americans, but they can constitute a religion profoundly meaningful to those on the boards.

Even while we will continue to remain fixated on the "nones," it is worth nothing that the history of religion in America may be most dynamic and vibrant outside of conventional sacred settings, perhaps located in what is simplistically and inaccurately referred to as "secular" culture. The astute and often ironical American writer Mark Twain remarked in the later 19th century that popular culture, newspapers and sensational literature provided Americans with religious values and orientations, not just sermons and church publications.

Looking at these few examples gives one the impression that the media, as well as Americans more generally, are working with extremely varied and diverse definitions of religion. The three takeaways from this brief discussion help point out a few of the dilemmas.

First, the meaning and valences of the word religion change over time, and in American history it has been coupled with the dominant and ubiquitous religion of the land, Christianity. Only recently has religion been uncoupled from Christianity, and the implications of what one might call the dechristianization of America for the public understanding of religion remains to be seen.

Second, religion cannot be compartmentalized and separated from the rest of culture. Instead, religion, and especially Protestantism in America, has suffused numerous spheres of social life -- is a "driver" in economics as well as politics, entertainment and so on.

Third and finally, the rise of the "nones" does indicate the end of religion as we know it, as I've written before here. If we can take the notion that surfing can be a religion for some, than what can't be a religion? And who can determine what counts as a religion and what doesn't? The Christians used to be the prime authority on these matters in American society. Now the media and Internet do not have as much of a stake in maintaining traditional boundaries and have instead leveled the playing field completely.

Religion can mean everything and anything. Does that mean it now has no meaning at all?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can anyone tell me just what definition of the word religion is being used in the media these days? In the past, public use of the word was easy to identify: "religion" meant "belief in God" and, in general, was used to refer to the one true religion, Christianity.

# data[].attributes.body
It's no secret that I love the world of superheroes, so when I found this video, I got extremely excited. However, I also hold the uncommon opinion in that I actually strongly dislike "Superman." He is, by far, my least favorite superhero. So it seems fitting that Nietzsche - the man who believes God is dead and basically nothing is actually real - with whom I find myself disagreeing with on many points would hold a positive opinion on "The Superman." This video has very little to do with the actual superhero and more about how Nietzsche saw the human race evolving, but intriguing, and definite click-bait nonetheless.

# data[].attributes.body
One of my personal favorite shows on Netflix is called "Black Mirror." It's a show similar to the Twilight Zone, in that each episode is different and unrelating to each other other than the fact that they play on fear and make commentaries on today's society and where it could lead. One of my favorite episodes is Season 3's "Playtest." This episode is about a horror video game company who is testing a new virtual reality game. One man signs up to test it, and they put a chip in his head to begin. The rest is what his own mind makes up. He creates a horror world all of his own, and he suddenly has trouble knowing the difference between reality and imagination. As I was rewatching it, I thought this was a good parallel for this week on Postmodernism thought, since it focuses on the individual. Postmodernism seems to be set in how the individual determines things and that life is subjective. It's interesting that, even during Fall Break, you cannot escape the thoughts and ideas from Honors class!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The third season of Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror, a Twilight Zone-esque anthology TV series about technological anxieties and possible futures, was released on Netflix on October 21st. It's the first season of the show produced by Netflix, after two three-episode series and a special produced by Britain's Channel 4. In this series, six writers will look at each of the third season's six episodes to see what they have to say about current culture and projected fears. Episode 1 is here.**Warning: spoilers ahead.**

This year, virtual reality headsets finally started shipping to consumers en masse, but there's no denying that we're still in the Wild West when it comes to content. 360-degree movies, experimental shorts, first-person games that turn players into Bruce Wayne - if there's an idea out there, odds are that somebody has tried it. Because when nobody knows what the future of immersive entertainment is going to bring, the only option is to experiment and see what sticks.
8-bit AR turns into virtual horror
Except for one genre: horror. The chance to take over a player's senses gives designers a tremendous opportunity to terrify their targets. The concern, of course, is that things could go too far - particularly for nascent mediums like VR and AR, which haven't been around long enough to widely adopt their own self-policing ethical standards. That's the timely hook that Black Mirror tackles with "Playtest," which follows an American named Cooper (Wyatt Russell, showing the same goofy charm he did in Everybody Wants Some!!) who's been trotting the globe as he struggles with his father's death. Low on funds in the UK, Cooper takes a quickie gig as a playtester for SaitoGemu, a well-known horror publisher rumored to be working on a mysterious, revolutionary system.

Black Mirror wouldn't be itself if it didn't introduce some creepy, pervasive new technology, and "Playtest" doesn't disappoint. It turns out that SaitoGemu is working on an implant that essentially functions as the ultimate augmented reality device, with the ability to layer lifelike images and sounds into Cooper's perception of the world without the need for wires or glasses. The AR experiment starts simply enough, with an 8-bit whack-a-mole game, but after that, it's time to move Cooper up to the big leagues, and the team lets him play a new horror game that custom generates its terrors based upon the player's own internal thoughts and fears.

Director Dan Trachtenberg demonstrated with this year's 10 Cloverfield Lane that he's a studied expert in genre conventions, and those skills are on full display in "Playtest." First and foremost, this is a horror movie, and once Cooper is stranded at a creepy old house for the game, Trachtenberg expertly works his camera (and audience expectations) to drop viewers right in the middle of Cooper's own personal nightmare. There are slow-burn creep-outs and perfectly timed jump scares, each a manifestation of some fear or trauma from Cooper's past. It's a Halloween roller coaster ride, but that's only half the fun. Soon, Cooper starts to wonder where the game ends and his own reality begins, and whether SaitoGemu might have more sinister motives in mind.
A reminder (and warning) of immersive entertainment's incredible future
At its best, "Playtest" is a promise of the incredible future of immersive entertainment waiting for us down the line. (Given the recent uptick in escape rooms, extreme haunted houses, and interactive theater productions, it seems to be a promise audiences are eager to see fulfilled.) And if you squint, there's a critical throughline there about the dangers of ceding control of our senses to game developers and filmmakers. It's an important point, and an idea we'll need to grapple with as augmented reality and virtual reality become a bigger part of our daily lives. Notions of agency and presence - the holy grail for mediums like these - are a tricky topic, because the things that allow us to seamlessly travel into artificial worlds are the exact same things that could let players disassociate from their own realities, or get sucked into fictional worlds that they find superior to mundane life.

Unfortunately, "Playtest" never digs particularly deep. As the episode wears on, it becomes increasingly focused on the nesting-doll nature of Cooper's reality, turning the episode into an endurance test of what-is-real fake-out endings. Every false resolution brings a slightly tweaked theme to the table: the ethics of corporate bio-experimentation, the importance of making peace with family, our lifestyle obsession with digital screens, even - I'm not joking here - the dangers of smartphone signal interference. Too many ideas get crammed into Brooker's script, and the final takeaway is muted frustration rather than the crisp, ironic "Ahhh!" the episode is so clearly aiming for.

That isn't a new problem for Black Mirror. For every episode of the show that's fantastically resonant, there's one (or more) that disappears down a rabbit hole of its own futuristic spitballing. It's a question of focus, as if Brooker is so excited to play with this wild variety of ideas that the idea of crafting a single resonant story gets left by the wayside. But there's still great fun in the journey, and the haunted house joyride of "Playtest" offers a pleasant (and funny) departure from the show's usual unbearable intensity. And let's be honest: horrible, Outer Limits-style ramifications or not, we'll all be lining up when the SaitoGemu system finally becomes reality.

"Playtest" ratings:

Relevance: High. There's arguably no bigger story in technology and entertainment right now than the emergence of virtual reality and augmented reality, and "Playtest" envisions what is in many ways the ultimate idealization of this technology. Mix in the body horror of an implant doing things to us that we can't control, and the episode tackles tomorrow's fears as well. The fact that the episode doesn't pack a bigger punch when it comes to both topics only speaks to how muddled its message gets along the way.

Aesthetics: Haunting. (Okay, that was cheap and literal, but sue me.) Trachtenberg's vision of the future is gorgeous, full of all-white rooms and silent worker bees tapping away dutifully behind minimalist visor displays. Then when Cooper starts the video game, Trachtenberg slides into full gothic-horror mode, with the dark, moody interior of the mansion and its authentic scares coming off like a horror video game designed by Guillermo del Toro.

Squirm factor: Grotesque, and in the best possible way. While the episode focuses primarily on a slow-burn of mounting tension, when Cooper's mind conjures up a massive spider with a human face, it's hard to not just curl up in a ball in the corner of whatever room you're watching in. It's also impossible to not see the design of the horrific spider-creature as a nod to Rob Bottin's legendary work in The Thing - which just so happened to star Wyatt Russell's father, Kurt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Playtest is Black Mirror's terrifying glimpse at the future of gaming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This year, virtual reality headsets finally started shipping to consumers en masse, but there's no denying that we're still in the Wild West when it comes to content. 360-degree movies, experimental shorts, first-person games that turn players into Bruce Wayne - if there's an idea out there, odds are that somebody has tried it.

# data[].attributes.body
On Tuesday, one of the biggest parts of the conversation I remember was a debate on whether or not Jesus was a Communist. There was a point I had attempted to make, but I could not find an "in" to the conversation in order to share it. However, I found this article that shares almost the exact point I wanted to make: that Jesus was not trying to make the rich equal to the poor in terms of Capitalism, etc., but that he wanted them to humble themselves and perform acts of charity on behalf of the Church. One's view on this debate is heavily changed by determining Jesus' intent on his teachings instead of simply a cold reading of the Bible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Politicians demonstrate uncanny memories for selected Bible passages trumpeting secular economic platforms. The Left's emphatic opposition to intermixing church and state rarely precludes recitation of Scripture for progressive causes. Liberals suggest it's "un-Christian" to deny lavish benefits for illegal immigrants; or, equate socializing medicine with Moses freeing Israel from Egyptian slavery.

President Obama repeatedly references the "least of these" even as he avoids crediting "their Creator" when quoting the Declaration. Obama disdains association with those bitter Bible clingers except to heap guilt upon taxpayers.

It's fascinating how frequently modern dilettantes re-make Christ in their image via Matthew 25. Socialists finesse Scripture to justify redistributing wealth to "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40), while capitalists overplay the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). Both tout Christ's teachings as a crucial trump card.

Other passages are mentioned. Socialists highlight descriptions in Acts of voluntary, privately orchestrated, local and temporary communalization to prescribe permanent, coerced communism under a distant, godless government. As shown previously, Christianity and Marxism share little similarity.

Likewise, capitalists espouse Proverbs and various idioms found throughout the epistles. But Matthew 25 leads from both directions.

The rapidity and carelessness of these misappropriations of "End Time" parables startles anyone who actually reads Matthew 25. Either these essential lessons are torn from context transforming Christ into favored worldly philosophers, or this man who changed history contradicted himself within the span of several sentences.

He demanded sustenance for "the least of these" twenty seconds after declaring "For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them."

Like most of Christ's ministry, Matthew 25 teaches spiritual lessons. We are to serve Christ with all our talent which entails supporting brothers and sisters being persecuted. The "least of these" in Matthew 25 are Believers enduring the tribulation described in Matthew 24.

Taking these passages in an economic sense eschews their essential meaning. Christ's mission wasn't to elevate our physical status, but to redeem mankind. Christ came to ransom sinners, not to cure cancer and extend voting rights; nor implement free markets. He comforted temporal afflictions to authenticate his claims so we'd believe, not for humanity's physical comfort.

Politicians expand power by sowing discontent with our worldly estates relative to others - what the Bible calls covetousness. Demagogues encourage jealousy to justify looting taxpayers. They violate the eighth and tenth commandments through programs enabling recipients to avoid the fourth commandment's requirement of work ( Exodus 20:9).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Was Jesus A Socialist, Capitalist, Or Something Else?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Politicians demonstrate uncanny memories for selected Bible passages trumpeting secular economic platforms. The Left's emphatic opposition to intermixing church and state rarely precludes recitation of Scripture for progressive causes. Liberals suggest it's "un-Christian" to deny lavish benefits for illegal immigrants; or, equate socializing medicine with Moses freeing Israel from Egyptian slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
Weber (as well as we did, very passionately) discussed people's "callings" and questioned whether this is found in the Bible or not. I found this article that describes the different callings from God found in the Bible and ends with a conclusion of what that means for our jobs. I agree with this article some in that we should focus on the calling to be good Christians and if we are doing that, it does not really matter what career we choose. However, I do believe God can call you to a particular line of work. Whether He does that for everyone, though, is undetermined for me. However, His call for us to be loving and kind and Jesus-like will always be more important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Types of God's calling - Theology of Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Putting these together leads us to conclude that your profession is probably not God's highest concern for you. God is much more concerned that you come under the saving grace of Christ and participate in his work of creation and redemption, whatever your job may be.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this video incredibly interesting. It's a spoken poem called "Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus." In his poem, he calls religion "behavior modification." I thought this was very similar to how Freud views religion. Religion has always been something that tells you what to do and how to act. It tells you what morals to have. As Freud would say, it is an illusion that we use to give ourselves a moral compass. However, Christianity is much different than just that, and this guy touches on it. I just really liked how similar his beliefs on "religion" is to Freud and how he explains how Christianity is different than what we believe religion to be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

# data[].attributes.body
To comment on Kant, many people in this age have passion, but they do not take action. Many of our "causes" simply become a hashtag or a "challenge." I bet most people who participated in this challenge had no idea what ALS is or why they should support it. I think it is quite ridiculous how we turn real issues into fads and games for us to amuse ourselves with. What most people did not know about the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was that you were also supposed to donate as well as do the challenge. However, I do not think most people actually donated to the cause. We do this with so many causes, and I think it's sad.