Hebrews

It has not been my intention to neglect posting for so long, I find myself unavoidably preoccupied with temporal exercises at the moment and my studies have diminished to only a few hours a day. In the meantime, my studies have taken me into Hebrews and I find it an amazing answer to the Beauty and the Beast presentation of the Christ. I highly recommend that you take this time to seriously contemplate God's presentation of Gaston found there.
I want to send you to the first three chapters specifically but find a desire to encourage you to consume the first five chapters as it simply does not stop at the first three.
But then it doesn't stop there either! The entire book of Hebrews is God's legal defense for his Son in the face of the Beast's claim against him, and Belle's proper informed response to Gaston in the face of her present perspective.
Please read Hebrews chapters 1-3+. *

Read it!

I just updated the previous post with more information.
From my sudden drop in readers I am aware that most simply don't see the possible significance of such a topic. I ask you to take the time anyway.

-Kyle

Beauty And The Beast

A study in our gender typology

- Part Three -

Post 250

This may indeed be my most volatile post yet. If read correctly it will terrify you to suddenly come face to face with a very clear mirror able to plainly show the reflection that has been long hidden from view…even to yourself. This is not about blame or fault; it’s about exposing the unrecognized cancer that needs to be cut out at all cost and expediency if we are to save the patient...You. I post this material in trepidation because it branches out into very risky territory on many fronts. Primarily that I am departing from a direct exposition on the very scriptures themselves and am here projecting those expositions onto things declared to be disconnected from them. I openly recognize that this is simply one opinion among many possible interpretations and yet boldly propose that this interpretation is correct. I am not sourcing ANY thoughts here but those who are not familiar with the sources will quickly accuse me of creating theology from fairytales. This is not so. By knowing God’s ancient theology of scripture I am showing how it applies in virtually every area of life, even our “innocent” animations we plop our children in front of to keep them quiet for an hour.

Before we begin let’s outline the approach we will use to explore this fairytale.

Design Parameters:

There are three main ways to view any information transfer; these are identified as perspectives. To determine that only one exists, is to remain ignorant of the other two but this does not cause their existence to cease. These basic perspectives are as follows:

Meaningless accident: This view declares the information is innocuous and has no intrinsic value though it can appear to in some small way, and to apply a specific meaning is an error. This is the spirit of Evolution that we have already accepted as a society. To accept this perspective eliminates the other two from our options, but does not revoke their potential reality.

Direct and simple purpose: This view applies the information in the most obvious and specifically limited way. “This screw goes here” as opposed to; “Any screw of this specification goes in any hole with the accommodating specifications.”

Specific principle with general application: This view is the most complex to understand but also has the greatest potential in easy application. Instead of packing and sorting through a bag of a thousand screws looking for “The one that goes here.” We can understand that while specific specification is critical, each specific screw Type can be applied in many places. This allows us to pack fewer various screws and apply from the few we pack to every area of many applications/needs.

The following fairytale easily offers us the second view which is regarding relationships between men and women, and while it might be accurate to apply it so, do not reject the reality that the third application has far more value in a hole that does not have a sign saying; “This screw goes here”.

Now while the ignorant see a hole and declare that nearly any screw of that size and length can apply and therefore the apparent meaning is more probably random accident, the informed technician knows that there are other factors to consider, such as; diameter, length, thread count, shank, composition, tensile strength, head configuration, coating, etc. So with more knowledge and information, the rejection of all but the right one for the job declares; “This screw goes here” without the specific “tag” of perspective number two.

Your job is not to accept or reject my 3rd perspective as the only one, but to inspect the detailed requirements to determine if I have applied this screw to a hole with all the accommodating specifics.

In short: I am submitting my specific application of these fairytales to the scientific empirical (*1) method of testing theories, even applying Shannon’s Verifiable Definition of Meaning, which states: “Untestable statements are meaningless.”

“The great tragedy of science: [is] the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact” - Huxley.

In otherwords; have I forced this application or does it fit like a tailored glove? If the hand I am fitting has four fingers and a thumb but my glove has five fingers, you can reject my theoretical application as foolish and or poorly fabricated. Or if the hand is a small but my glove is a large, you can again reject my theoretical application as perhaps close, but not fitting. In this way, the probability that my particular application is incorrect is quite high, and most probable to be shown a failure. But if my application shows the work of a worthy tailor that has custom made this specific glove for this specific hand, you must be prepared to acknowledge this truth because rejection is to avoid the valuable result. But here is where it gets complex;

If you think the application is for club dancing but I provide a welding-glove, you may reject my application as inappropriate, but who actually ordered the gloves? This is a far greater issue in America today because Cinderella has become Proactive in making the orders, as opposed to her earlier state of Reactive in letting her prince order the gloves.

So to avoid a fight with the delivery boy, I ask you to simply ignore the application of desire and focus only on the fit. You may not like the thought of welding, but you didn’t order these gloves.

* * *

So let’s get started with the fitting:

Whatever you conclude, do not imagine I find the 1991 Disney animated movie Beauty and the Beast poorly made. The songs and score, the animation and voices, the story and delivery, all are top-notch works that the creators can be highly proud of. This is a very impressive work and by its wonderful enchantment successfully bonds our heart to Belle and therefore her circumstances in which she finds herself; love of the Beast.

As a long awaited installment in the “princess” theme we are to expect the same specific Type elements as the original keystone 1950 Cinderella, and we are not disappointed. But having grown up with the “new theme” progression of the princess mentality until Disney's 1989 The Little Mermaid, it has become natural for a whole generation of girls to accept that the princess is the one who actually saves the prince now days (*2). The present adult generation does not see the obvious; that instead of a selfless heart quietly enduring her troubles till rescued by her prince (II Thessalonians 3:5), Belle is not a captive, or servant, or even abused, she is simply dissatisfied with her hometown because she sees it as tiresome, backward and boring, resorting to escapism through specifically, books of exciting fantasy. This is a good representation of dissatisfied free America today.

And now instead of “her evil authority” being jealous of her beautiful nature, we see right off, by a whole segment and song, that by Belle’s well intended but “better than thou” troubled heart of discontented vanity (*3) the entire town, as her democratic equals of hard working good citizens trying happily to make an “honest” living (with small signs of their own comparatively minor hypocrisies), views her as “strange” and “odd”, not fitting in, and now includes in “odd” her unusual physical beauty that is not seen as representing anything but its vain self; Is that her head in the clouds or just her nose in the air? The only real difference is the conscious awareness of heart that produces the act. But in her pleasant and beautiful youth, even the townsfolk cannot specifically identify her flaw:

“Now it’s no wonder that her name means “beauty”,

her looks have got no parallel,

but behind the fair facade,

I’m afraid she’s rather odd,

very different from the rest of us,

she’s nothing like the rest of us,

yes different from the rest of us is Belle.” (*14).

Yet as viewers from the outside we can still see the spiritual connection, as both her easy to accept “better than thou” nature of ignorant youth, and her vain but still appealing physical beauty, are considered mutually vain: The inward still creates the outward.

The animators have specifically stated in interview that to promote this princess as Proactive instead of her predecessors being Reactive, her opening song is operatic to show her greater cultural pursuits in contrast to the simple town. And without trying to find fault in this girl, The entire nature of our princess has changed, but so has our perspective of what makes her beautiful. Yet that truth is hidden behind our years of instructional experience that recognizes her “familiar princessly” warm and pleasant positive-heart and appealing physical beauty, which we now focus on as encompassing everything that means “princess” (; i.e. worthy of the prince; i.e. Christian to Christ), while absent the very spirit of the foundational Princesses.

I confess I like this girl too and she is indeed a very accurate image of “good Christian Yin girls today”… when compared to bad Yang girls (Post 193). But as in the reality it represents; the seeds of the whole trouble in the story are already sewn in the first scene, and those seeds are properly ignored by her enchanting presentation; “…love covereth all sins” Proverbs 10:12 (also I Peter 4:8), and we love her.

And by the end of Gaston’s unapologetic sexually driven song-and-animation of both their beauties, we have already fallen into the trap of confusion: Through the song we find the obvious but unpleasant answer to her thoughts that “there must be more than this provincial life”, is to say “Yes” to the beautiful man who wants to marry her for her beauty: He is undisputedly the best hunter, strongest, and perfectly handsome, the overwhelming hero of the town; obviously the best at virtually everything… But there is a problem; he knows it and is disgustingly proud and vapid (*5) and as a result is not too bright, slow to recognize Belle’s larger awareness of the possibilities beyond him.

We understand that the whole town is in favor of this match. In fact, just to make sure we don’t miss this important point, Gaston informs us that the town’s concerns are that “it’s not right for a woman to read, soon she starts getting ideas; thinking…”

Our Belle is deeper than that- and so are we- so we readily agree with her to look for something more to take her away from all this “little people” drivel and “primeval” thinking, (which “educated conclusion” is the result of just such “reading ideas and thinking” in the perspective of her imagination encouraged by fantasies such as Evolution and such). How did we come to this agreement with her? The story carefully led us here, and we went willingly because of the chain of reasoning from our childhood that all the previous fairytales led us through to arrive here intentionally like sheep to the slaughter.

The trap that we have already sprung is firstly; that her town is “unacceptably” backward and archaic, and secondly that there are only the two choices presented to her; One is her perception of the “conceited” man of the backward town, and the other we have not yet seen but anticipate as exciting; Egyptian uprising anyone? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16716089).

We, like Belle, are now well primed to accept whatever comes, as “better” because we let someone else tell us what to believe; i.e. the animator’s/ Berkeley’s (*6) view of reality.

Is her town provincial like she says? (*7). Well yes, but does that mean the whole town and its values are rightly worth tossing over for “whatever” comes next? Without even contemplating it- because the answer appears obvious- like the Egyptians, we all quickly answer; "Yes".

The whole nature of this animation is entirely different than that of Cinderella. Now Good and Evil are no longer simple to distinguish as before, though if we refuse to think about it, it seems quite obvious which-is-which without all the brain hurting effort. So now we have a disagreement regarding what we each perceive as obvious; I, because I search out the true distinction, and you because you don’t care to. Therefore, as a citizen of this “provincial town” I struggle to open "Belle’s" eyes of understanding, but her heart is already gone and she brushes me off as another of the boorish townsmen she thinks is “small.” And I can’t really blame her; the town does have its narrow problems that create compromise of corruption, but that’s all she cares to see. And as she metaphorically wanders out of town, the townspeople “mourn” her departing from the common Christian faith:

“Look there she goes, a girl who’s strange but special,

A most peculiar mad’moiselle,

It’s a pity and a sin,

she doesn’t quite fit in,

‘Cause she really is a funny girl,

A beauty but a funny girl,

She really is a funny girl that Belle.” (*14)

The town’s people see what I see, and what Gaston sees; She really is adorable with her youthful creative mind to believe there should be more than what she sees, but she is lacking grounding and needing basic direction for her own good. I will not here address her following conversation with Gaston, but will later send you back to view every word and action of it, with different eyes (ears of understanding).

* * *

Setting The Stage:

Next we see her loving father is also an “odd” character, but a “typical man” who can’t read a map and is not as alert as his horse, but then blames his horse when things go wrong; having forced his will over it’s better discernment three times (the second time is an easy to miss resisting jerk of the reigns). I can’t help but think of Balaam and his donkey (Numbers 22:21-33) but this is a direct pointed complaint against Israel not recognizing her troubles are due to choosing the “Gastonless” (as later distinguished from christless *8) path while believing your goals are righteous. This father seems far from Cinderella’s, who was simply said to have died.

Obviously there is no doubt that Belle is still representing Christian/humanity just as Cinderella did, and her father in Type is still Adam, whose sin and resulting death put his girl in trouble under and evil and oppressive authority, but Belle’s lack of protection no longer appears to be a thing divinely determined by the narrative but rather a thing of his own doing. This is not immediately a significant point as both views are understood in the concept that her father is Adam/Israel and his original sin resulting in death is what puts us all in jeopardy without his sinless protection. But the focus of Free Will or Divine Determination decides the entire perspective in which the event, and therefore the message, is viewed. Neither view is actually incorrect but the choice of view is nonetheless important to interpretation within that view; (Post 277 “Particle or Wave?” http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/particle-or-wave.html). Trouble comes when we cross interpret what we see, with the wrong perspective used, (*13.12).

Instead of simply stating; “he died,” and move on with the story as before, now we follow him in his adventure of error (sin), and for the first time we see a strange thing: No longer do the “magical” animals-and-items remain disconnected from the reality of the story so that they can represent the unseen angelic spiritual world of supernatural activity, no, now this man is puzzled at these seeming ordinary items actually interacting with him miraculously in his human reality where that isn't done. We have crossed that unwritten boundary line between worlds where he is curiously interested in the now direct workings of un-natural beings in our realm, even if they still appear to inhabit common forms. Simplistically this is often explained as possession vs. influence, but that doesn’t quite do it justice. Rather a more proper analogy would be Entity itself in temporal form vs. possession of something already existing. In the later “advanced view” animation of Shrek, this “Enchanted” direct interaction of things presumed as “naturel” in that animation, was revealed as: “Possessed Toys,” when confronted by humans. But even that divided view still hides the actual truth that will not be revealed until an even more advanced view/perspective of the supernatural in the flesh co-existing with humanity. Watch for this in upcoming Princess stories.

And now in this Cinderella state of abandonment by her father, poor Belle is not just patiently waiting her rescuing prince (James 5:7-8, I Timothy 6:1 ouch!); she is forced to fend off the offers of a revolting “boorish, brainless” prince-wannabe (shutter). And while Christians everywhere immediately see Gaston as a representation of the unlikeable Antichrist (I John 2:18) we know this probably cannot be him since we see what comes later is a monster not a Christ. So; “Who does Gaston represent?” And since were asking; “Who does the Beast represent?”

Well that’s not hard to see: IF we accept that the Demonic Spirit is telling this tale; then obviously Christ is going to be shown as a monster, and so Gaston, who came first, is obviously the Antichrist.

You think? (said wryly).

After having refused Gaston’s proposal, wanting “more than I can tell…adventure in the great wide somewhere”, she is immediately presented exactly that; Belle “is forced” by circumstances to find her captive father and we dramatically and plainly see that Belle the female (Type of humanity) is now the human Savior (ultimately of the Beast) who willingly sacrifices herself for her father (Israel) and in so doing is now forever the agreed captive of the Beast.

But who is the Beast to whom she makes the deal? It all seems so confusing, or more probably; I am just forcing the Type onto this particular unrelated animation story.

But wait and see.

* * *

Belle's World is Dramatically Changed:

Now finally after all the prep, the animation comes to the main body and the animator’s stated intent of the story, and we begin to see the troubled Beast is really wanting- and needing- to be loved, but does not know how to go about it, presumably like typical teen-age boys (a dangerous cross-view application intended and absorbed by both your sons and your daughters). And like Belle, by familiarity, our heart begins to go out to the beast and we see that indeed he needs to be loved and that Belle can heal his angry violent heart with her love. Isn’t that wonderful. (am I too wry yet?).

Now since we have completely messed up the Type, why not send the charming girl to Hunger for the only place forbidden in the whole garden…er…castle (the West Wing “forbidden tree” if you will). Her curiosity is indeed shamefully, but apparently not remorsefully, uncontrollable. Remind you of anyone? I guess the apple really doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

So what was the great Beast prince keeping from her? The awareness of who the prince is as opposed to who he appears to be; in otherwords, Bell’s limited human knowledge of good and evil… within the “more than human” prince himself, from a very twisted perspective of this severely scoliosed story (Colossians 2:18-19). The condition of the West Wing shows the true nature of the Beast (even being a hidden man with that same violent Beast nature), while the “public presentation” areas of the castle show a complex deception of something else identified to her as "an internal struggle” that he can't win without her.

The Beast gets violently angry at finding her in the forbidden West Wing and so at his command to “get out”, she breaks her promise to stay and runs from the castle where she gets into serious trouble by wolves (demonic servants of the Beast), and the Beast comes to rescue her at his own peril (a classic staged ploy of sex slave owners winning the hearts of their target). And now we dramatically see her conflicted heart in the confusing circumstances showing the compassionate side of her captor who has “grown to love her this much”;