I just had a question. I'm writing a mystery comic, so of course there will be murder cases, but I had a question: how much blood near the dead bodies is too much? I get that it shouldn't be anywhere near the amount of something like... Say, "Elfin Lied," and they should never be sexual in nature, but how much and how frequently should more graphic images appear, or should the body never be shown, or should I only do non-murder cases which isn't the best for marketing. The comic is for teenagers and young adults, NOT children, but where should I draw the line?
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
I have nothing more to say, except if you don't knock it off I'll either report you, block you, or simply stop following you. I'm actually regretting posting this discussion because of you. (And btw, I don't agree with a word you say, and the bible doesn't get NEAR as graphic as you describe it, and times are different).
Sven Jacobs said:
K G Adams: We are not childishly arguing. I have not insulted him, and he has not insulted me. We have both been civil and have debated point by point. It's probably much more likely that you aren't someone who knows how to disagree with someone amicably, and this is probably something you need to learn, so as not to be constantly offended by everything and everyone. AND more importantly, this back and forth - both written and verbal - is how Christians settled orthodoxy throughout history. And determining what is right and what is wrong *IS* what you're trying to do, right? If you can't stand a debate about what is right - if you cannot civilly address difficulties about the faith with nonbelievers and other Christians, then how do you intend to ever reach anyone in anyway that isn't glaringly superficial?
Blood: how much is too much?
I just had a question. I'm writing a mystery comic, so of course there will be murder cases, but I had a question: how much blood near the dead bodie…
I came looking for advice, and your childish arguing is of absolutely no help to me, or anyone else for that matter! I am going to politely ask you to stop, please stop. Sven Jacobs said:
K G Adams: YES WE ARE!
:-)
Blood: how much is too much?
I just had a question. I'm writing a mystery comic, so of course there will be murder cases, but I had a question: how much blood near the dead bodie…
My point is this: if you've decided to depict vast amounts of bloodshed ( I believe you said "Make it a lake of blood, a DELUGE of blood! Do not stop drawing blood until Dracula himself rips the sketches from your very hands in thirst." ) then you are glorifying bloodshed and not the Lord. Blood for the sake of shocking a person amounts to cheapening what blood means: the injury and/or death of a living being.
It is a silly argument to say that exaggerating some action or thing somehow cheapens that action or thing. We know that Christ, the prophets, the patriarchs, the Psalmist, the Proverbs, and the apostles all used hyperbole, all layered exaggeration upon exaggeration in order to strike a chord with the listener. And this is *not* done exclusively to emphasize GOOD things. The Psalmist talks of beating his enemies as fine as dust before the wind (Psalm 18:42) - is the Word of God glorifying the destruction of others to the point of idolatry? Christ talks of men plucking out their eyes to keep from lusting - is He thereby cheapening the mortification of the flesh? The entire poetic canon of the Jews is one of trumpeting and heralding everything to rhetorical heights never reached. The entire Word stands as a witness against what you saying. Even reason itself stands against you - are you really arguing that exaggerating a point so people take notice, somehow cheapens the point people are now noticing?
Second: why would you want to emulate "a slasher flick"? What would appeal to someone who is living for the Lord? Should we be involving ourselves in media that depicts the brutal maiming, torture and destruction of human beings for thrills?
Yes. Absolutely. But not for thrills; for SPIRITUAL EDIFICATION! There is nothing inherently, philosophically contradictory to a slasher flick and the Christian message. If anything, the wanton appeal to SUPERHEROES this community has is much more implicitly contradictory to the Gospel message. I am not afraid of a reader emulating the slasher (who would likely be the antagonist anyway); devoting oneself to cosplay and conventions, despite time or costs, is ten times more troubling.
In scripture, what it depicts and what it approves of are two different things; scripture contains historical accounts of wars, crimes and brutality, but it never revels in them and seeks to make a point.
Emphasizing something doesn't mean you revel in that something. That's poor reasoning - I don't care who you are. The theme of the Book of Lamentation is that the Jews were suffering but still placing what little hope they have in God. Its five chapters are doing little else than putting parallelism after parallelism to underscore their pain and agony. Your reasoning seems to suggest the Jews liked pain and agony, which is why they depicted it so lavishly, which is naturally a very silly thing to maintain.
And you're of course very wrong about hyperbole NOT being used to make a point. Again, Christ talked of plucking out organs and that being better than dying in Hellfire - He was trying to make a point. Christ talked of the Pharisees swallowing camels and pooping gnats - again, to make a point. He doesn't just say that certain cities will be swept away in judgment; He says they will burn brighter than Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, to make a point. The Psalmist says that the fool is like a dog, insomuch that a fool returns to his folly, like a dog returns to his vomit - vulgar, visceral, and crude, and said to make a point.
"and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ"; these verses serve as a warning to us that our thoughts will lead us into sin unless we submit ourselves and them to the Lord. So, why in the name of Heaven do we want to create thoughts of "a lake of blood"?
Your own verses say explicitly that we fall into temptation when we succumb to lusts - if someone is SHOCKED by copious amounts of blood, then they obviously don't lust for it. You seem to be arguing that if someone is appalled by something, they actually secretly like that something, which is ludicrous.
In any case, MY VERSES already show a naturally affinity toward using over the top descriptions by the authors of the Bible. You can't even differentiate between what I'm suggesting K G Adams does, and what the creators of Tom and Jerry, the Coyote and Roadrunner shorts, and Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd do. Or maybe you're against those cartoons as well. Which is to say, you're against most cartoons.
Third: God spoke scripture, not us. What the Lord does in writing scripture and what we do are two different things. The Lord gave us instructions on how to live and conduct ourselves, and we can either listen or not. The Lord knows context far better than we ever will.
But there is nothing that warrants the need for a distinction, except some arbitrary standard you've made up. Essentially you're saying "Yes, the Bible does this, but we can't because I said so." The verses that you mentioned above - to repeat - actually say the opposite of what you're saying, and so there is no Scriptural reason to make that distinction between God and man in relation to literature.
You are wrong for a very obvious reason here though. You argue that showing exaggerated violence tempts Man. Then you admit that the Bible shows exaggerated violence. By your own reasoning, the Word of God tempts Man. But according to the verses you cited, God does not tempt Man. THUS, either the Bible is wrong OR graphic depictions of violence are not in and of themselves tempting. If they aren't tempting, then there is nothing wrong - by your own reasoning - with K G Adams drawing cartoonish pools of blood.
So to summarize: 1) The correct interpretation of your verses prove that graphic depictions of violence are condoned; 2) The Bible is arrayed with graphic depictions of violence and shocking statements, both for historical and instructional value; and 3) That your distinction between what Man and what God can do is unfounded and unBiblical; and 4) Your arguments lead to the conclusion that God tempts Man, which is anti-Christian.
We should not be using violence and blood for mere "shock value" that is NOT the point of the Bible, let alone the gospel.
I am not suggesting that violence, blood, or shock value is the point of the Gospel. I am saying that Christians have and Christians should - and eventually will - use it as a means, or vehicle, or device, or venue for presenting the Gospel in art.
Keep in mind that the Lord had severe penalties for blood being shed in scripture.We need to keep in mind our walk with the Lord, and God's directions that we NOT be like the world, but SEPARATE from it. If we soak comics in blood, then how is that any different from a slasher flic of modern-day device?
The Lord had severe penalties for shedding blood in reality, not depicting it in art. If the latter was the case, then the writers of the Bible sinned by summarizing the death of Judas, Saul, the Israelites in apostasy, etc. To emphasize, if the graphic depiction of cold blooded murder is wrong, then the Bible is wrong. That is what your line of argument amounts to here. Further, the Lord had severe penalties for many sins; is it your stance that no sin should be depicted in fiction? Because if no sin should be depicted in fiction, then your line of argument censures all Christian fiction where someone sins. So you need to explain why the sin of bloodshed SPECIFICALLY shouldn't be depicted, and why the Bible is allowed to depict bloodshed, while I am not.
You argue that we are to NOT be like the world, but SEPARATE from it. But you need to explain why emulating a slasher flick is any different than emulating the genres of steampunk, fantasy, mystery, science fiction, superhero action, etc. These genres are used by multiple Christian authors on this site; are they wrong to parrot them despite them proliferating in the World?
Scripture tells us:
"Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. “Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, NASB)
Just because scripture records man's vile acts is NOT PERMISSION for us to glory in them. If that's our prime focus, then where are our hearts? Did not scripture say that we are defiled not by what goes into our bellies, but what comes out of the heart? Scripture tells us to be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves. I don't recall the part in scripture where the doves went on a bloody murder spree.
We should not be using violence and blood for mere "shock value" that is NOT the point of the Bible, let alone the gospel. Keep in mind that the Lord had severe penalties for blood being shed in scripture.We need to keep in mind our walk with the Lord, and God's directions that we NOT be like the world, but SEPARATE from it. If we soak comics in blood, then how is that any different from a slasher flic of modern-day device?
Scripture tells us:
"Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. “Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, NASB)
Just because scripture records man's vile acts is NOT PERMISSION for us to glory in them. If that's our prime focus, then where are our hearts? Did not scripture say that we are defiled not by what goes into our bellies, but what comes out of the heart? Scripture tells us to be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves. I don't recall the part in scripture where the doves went on a bloody murder spree.
Your description of the strength of Christianity is certainly powerful and contains truth. It also speaks to your skills as a writer since your descriptions are excellent.
As always, we should look to Christ as our example.
Jesus always had the same message for people (God's love, redemption, grace, repentance, etc.) but he modified his story based on the audience. When he spoke to the hypocritical Pharisees, he used inflammatory and provocative language like "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs". When he spoke to His disciples, he shocked them with language about tearing down the Temple. But at the Sermon on the Mount, he adjusted his story and asked his audience to consider birds and flowers.
K.G., think about the message you want to give, the story you want to tell, and the audience who will receive it. A children's comic is not the place for geysers of blood. The Passion of the Christ movie is. The Bible is big enough and broad enough to carry a single message through dozens of types of stories. Our Christian community can work to do the same.
I hope you were being sarcastic, or are you just trolling? Because I can tell that description is really innapropriate.
Sven Jacobs said:
K G Adams: It is said that Medieval passion plays - and theater devoted to telling the story of the martyrdom of some saint - were particularly bloody and gorey. They would take dummies and fill them with blood, guts, and bones, and then rip them apart to emulate the death of some canonized Christian. The stage would flood over with blood from scenes of decapitations and flagellations and crucifixions. It was art at its finest.
What has happened in the past 200 years, however, is that Christianity has become domesticated. Christianity was once a wild lion tearing apart gazelles, but has become little else than a fat, neutered housecat that paws you while you sleep until you get up to feed it. And because of that, Christian art has suffered. Christian art has become Full House, Leave it to Beaver, Hallmark cards, the milk man, pastel colored wallpaper, organic vegan crackers, soccer moms, Precious Moment figurines, and trophies for fat kids who come in last. That is what Christian art has become. Our works of literature and art have become more sheltered and unassuming than the works of Puritans. The Bible itself talks of cities burning brighter than Sodom and Gomorrah, and people so forlorn that they throw the heads of children against rocks, and eyes plucked out of their very sockets to keep from sinning - and the best we have to emulate that sense of raw, visceral language are talking computer generated vegetables.
I say that if you want blood, make it spring up from arteries like a sprinkler - no, like a GEYSER! You have a dead man surrounded by blood? Make it a lake of blood, a DELUGE of blood! Do not stop drawing blood until Dracula himself rips the sketches from your very hands in thirst.
There is nothing more Christian than shocking and offending your audience with violent stories and off-putting hyperbole. When Christ wasn't preaching sermons, He was very often doing exactly that.
Blood: how much is too much?
I just had a question. I'm writing a mystery comic, so of course there will be murder cases, but I had a question: how much blood near the dead bodie…
Replies
Sven Jacobs said:
I came looking for advice, and your childish arguing is of absolutely no help to me, or anyone else for that matter! I am going to politely ask you to stop, please stop.
Sven Jacobs said:
K G Adams: YES WE ARE!
:-)
My point is this: if you've decided to depict vast amounts of bloodshed ( I believe you said "Make it a lake of blood, a DELUGE of blood! Do not stop drawing blood until Dracula himself rips the sketches from your very hands in thirst." ) then you are glorifying bloodshed and not the Lord. Blood for the sake of shocking a person amounts to cheapening what blood means: the injury and/or death of a living being.
It is a silly argument to say that exaggerating some action or thing somehow cheapens that action or thing. We know that Christ, the prophets, the patriarchs, the Psalmist, the Proverbs, and the apostles all used hyperbole, all layered exaggeration upon exaggeration in order to strike a chord with the listener. And this is *not* done exclusively to emphasize GOOD things. The Psalmist talks of beating his enemies as fine as dust before the wind (Psalm 18:42) - is the Word of God glorifying the destruction of others to the point of idolatry? Christ talks of men plucking out their eyes to keep from lusting - is He thereby cheapening the mortification of the flesh? The entire poetic canon of the Jews is one of trumpeting and heralding everything to rhetorical heights never reached. The entire Word stands as a witness against what you saying. Even reason itself stands against you - are you really arguing that exaggerating a point so people take notice, somehow cheapens the point people are now noticing?
Second: why would you want to emulate "a slasher flick"? What would appeal to someone who is living for the Lord? Should we be involving ourselves in media that depicts the brutal maiming, torture and destruction of human beings for thrills?
Yes. Absolutely. But not for thrills; for SPIRITUAL EDIFICATION! There is nothing inherently, philosophically contradictory to a slasher flick and the Christian message. If anything, the wanton appeal to SUPERHEROES this community has is much more implicitly contradictory to the Gospel message. I am not afraid of a reader emulating the slasher (who would likely be the antagonist anyway); devoting oneself to cosplay and conventions, despite time or costs, is ten times more troubling.
In scripture, what it depicts and what it approves of are two different things; scripture contains historical accounts of wars, crimes and brutality, but it never revels in them and seeks to make a point.
Emphasizing something doesn't mean you revel in that something. That's poor reasoning - I don't care who you are. The theme of the Book of Lamentation is that the Jews were suffering but still placing what little hope they have in God. Its five chapters are doing little else than putting parallelism after parallelism to underscore their pain and agony. Your reasoning seems to suggest the Jews liked pain and agony, which is why they depicted it so lavishly, which is naturally a very silly thing to maintain.
And you're of course very wrong about hyperbole NOT being used to make a point. Again, Christ talked of plucking out organs and that being better than dying in Hellfire - He was trying to make a point. Christ talked of the Pharisees swallowing camels and pooping gnats - again, to make a point. He doesn't just say that certain cities will be swept away in judgment; He says they will burn brighter than Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, to make a point. The Psalmist says that the fool is like a dog, insomuch that a fool returns to his folly, like a dog returns to his vomit - vulgar, visceral, and crude, and said to make a point.
"and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ"; these verses serve as a warning to us that our thoughts will lead us into sin unless we submit ourselves and them to the Lord. So, why in the name of Heaven do we want to create thoughts of "a lake of blood"?
Your own verses say explicitly that we fall into temptation when we succumb to lusts - if someone is SHOCKED by copious amounts of blood, then they obviously don't lust for it. You seem to be arguing that if someone is appalled by something, they actually secretly like that something, which is ludicrous.
In any case, MY VERSES already show a naturally affinity toward using over the top descriptions by the authors of the Bible. You can't even differentiate between what I'm suggesting K G Adams does, and what the creators of Tom and Jerry, the Coyote and Roadrunner shorts, and Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd do. Or maybe you're against those cartoons as well. Which is to say, you're against most cartoons.
Third: God spoke scripture, not us. What the Lord does in writing scripture and what we do are two different things. The Lord gave us instructions on how to live and conduct ourselves, and we can either listen or not. The Lord knows context far better than we ever will.
But there is nothing that warrants the need for a distinction, except some arbitrary standard you've made up. Essentially you're saying "Yes, the Bible does this, but we can't because I said so." The verses that you mentioned above - to repeat - actually say the opposite of what you're saying, and so there is no Scriptural reason to make that distinction between God and man in relation to literature.
You are wrong for a very obvious reason here though. You argue that showing exaggerated violence tempts Man. Then you admit that the Bible shows exaggerated violence. By your own reasoning, the Word of God tempts Man. But according to the verses you cited, God does not tempt Man. THUS, either the Bible is wrong OR graphic depictions of violence are not in and of themselves tempting. If they aren't tempting, then there is nothing wrong - by your own reasoning - with K G Adams drawing cartoonish pools of blood.
So to summarize: 1) The correct interpretation of your verses prove that graphic depictions of violence are condoned; 2) The Bible is arrayed with graphic depictions of violence and shocking statements, both for historical and instructional value; and 3) That your distinction between what Man and what God can do is unfounded and unBiblical; and 4) Your arguments lead to the conclusion that God tempts Man, which is anti-Christian.
Cheers!
Sven,
We should not be using violence and blood for mere "shock value" that is NOT the point of the Bible, let alone the gospel.
I am not suggesting that violence, blood, or shock value is the point of the Gospel. I am saying that Christians have and Christians should - and eventually will - use it as a means, or vehicle, or device, or venue for presenting the Gospel in art.
Keep in mind that the Lord had severe penalties for blood being shed in scripture.We need to keep in mind our walk with the Lord, and God's directions that we NOT be like the world, but SEPARATE from it. If we soak comics in blood, then how is that any different from a slasher flic of modern-day device?
The Lord had severe penalties for shedding blood in reality, not depicting it in art. If the latter was the case, then the writers of the Bible sinned by summarizing the death of Judas, Saul, the Israelites in apostasy, etc. To emphasize, if the graphic depiction of cold blooded murder is wrong, then the Bible is wrong. That is what your line of argument amounts to here. Further, the Lord had severe penalties for many sins; is it your stance that no sin should be depicted in fiction? Because if no sin should be depicted in fiction, then your line of argument censures all Christian fiction where someone sins. So you need to explain why the sin of bloodshed SPECIFICALLY shouldn't be depicted, and why the Bible is allowed to depict bloodshed, while I am not.
You argue that we are to NOT be like the world, but SEPARATE from it. But you need to explain why emulating a slasher flick is any different than emulating the genres of steampunk, fantasy, mystery, science fiction, superhero action, etc. These genres are used by multiple Christian authors on this site; are they wrong to parrot them despite them proliferating in the World?
Robert Stimpson said:
Your description of the strength of Christianity is certainly powerful and contains truth. It also speaks to your skills as a writer since your descriptions are excellent.
As always, we should look to Christ as our example.
Jesus always had the same message for people (God's love, redemption, grace, repentance, etc.) but he modified his story based on the audience. When he spoke to the hypocritical Pharisees, he used inflammatory and provocative language like "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs". When he spoke to His disciples, he shocked them with language about tearing down the Temple. But at the Sermon on the Mount, he adjusted his story and asked his audience to consider birds and flowers.
K.G., think about the message you want to give, the story you want to tell, and the audience who will receive it. A children's comic is not the place for geysers of blood. The Passion of the Christ movie is. The Bible is big enough and broad enough to carry a single message through dozens of types of stories. Our Christian community can work to do the same.
K G Adam: I have never been more serious...
Sven Jacobs said:
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next