So Wrong...

[Sabby]

No... Just... no >.<

Childrens Video - Dogs of Glory by Jim Steager

Tell me that isn't creepy.

[Brandon]

Yep its creepy but I think its done more for shock value then anything else.

However dog and human psycologies have intereting parrallells. The one that is probably easiest to see is the "leader" of social groups for humans and the alpha of a dogs pack. So while there is a psycological parallell as much as a religious message I think at best its poorly portrayed

Edit: Thinking about it, the message could also be one of anti-religion. Misguided in saying that those who follow jesus are not humans but dogs who are unable to use human reasoning

[Vekseid]

He's for real, Brandon.
http://jimsteager.com/

[DarklingAlice]

However dog and human psycologies have intereting parrallells. The one that is probably easiest to see is the "leader" of social groups for humans and the alpha of a dogs pack. So while there is a psycological parallell as much as a religious message I think at best its poorly portrayed

[tangent]Ugh. Please don't perpetuate the alpha myth. It is probably one of those things so ingrained in pop-sci that we can never really scrub it out, however the entire principle is based on a misinterpretation of wolf behavior by animal behaviorists who forgot to account for their impact on their own study. Alphas arise only in high stress environments and forced close occupancy. For wolves this means when multiple wolves from different packs are forced together in close quarters captivity; the resulting pseudo-pack that forms develops an alpha male and female. It is in no way indicative of wolf behavior in the wild, and has no bearing on canine behavior outside of artificial constructs. (It would be like trying to discuss human social psychology based on the way apes behave in zoos).[/tangent]

That aside, the video is creepy, and I agree that it can be seen as offensive to the religious. It's just all around cringe-worthy.

[Oniya]

This ranks right up there with 'The sane majority of the group you claim to be part of wish you would go away.'

I can see the use of anthropomorphized animals (the Berenstein Bears, Arthur, and Franklin come to mind) as a way to make a moral message more palatable to children. but bald guys with dog masks badly Photoshopped into place are more likely to cause the same reaction as scary clowns.

[Jude]

I thought it was hysterical and entertaining.  I can't really fault the guy either, I think it's fairly clear he was sincere in his message.  I don't really... Have anything to complain about?

[Hemingway]

Portraying the religious as obedient dogs following their master.

Why does that strike me as something an anti-theist would do, rather than someone religious?

[DarklingAlice]

Portraying the religious as obedient dogs following their master.

Why does that strike me as something an anti-theist would do, rather than someone religious?

A comparison to a dog can be seen either as denigrating and dehumanizing or as commending fidelity and obedience, which are Christian virtues. Still, even if he wants to make a point about fidelity and obedience to the Christian god, it seems like he has to be awfully dense to be ignorant of the other potential interpretations.

[TheDarkMiko]

That burned my eyes.

[Wolfy]

Dogs?

What happened to the Sheep? D:

[Wolfy]

You wanna talk about people following blindly like Dogs, let's talk about Westboro Baptist, eh?

[Oniya]

Feh - let's not talk about WBC.

Any animal metaphor is going to run into problems, no matter what good qualities the animal in question has.  I don't know that dogs are really 'blindly loyal' - a dog that is mistreated will still bite its owner - but 'dog' has been used as both an insulting comparison and a symbol of faithfulness.  The Bible itself refers to the sheep and the goats, and you won't find anyone who feels that being called a 'sheep' is a compliment.  Kids aren't going to really make that connection anyways, though, and that's the target audience.  They see soft, fluffy, talking animals as friendly and cuddly.  The animals in this thing - aren't exactly soft and fluffy.

[Serephino]

Nope, that guy scares me. 

[Silverfyre]

All religion aside, it's still creepy as hell.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yeah, I'm going with creepy and wrong.

[kylie]

So often, we seem to want to "pin down" presentations that hit a nerve with us somehow.  We try to seize the original piece, freeze it on display...  And then wrestle everyone into agreeing to celebrate it, mock it, or hate it...  That doesn't necessarily change so many ways that the next person might use or read the thing.

I really think this one can be what you make of it.   
       

The Bible itself refers to the sheep and the goats, and you won't find anyone who feels that being called a 'sheep' is a compliment.

Actually, I think some members of a Charismatic Pentacostal church I once attended would be quite happy to casually speak of themselves as God's flock, Jesus' sheep, I'm not sure what the going term would be...  But I wouldn't be surprised to find them using very similar language today.  It was also fairly common for them to sing and dance with references to how various animals would prance about worshipping the deity, just as animals.  Portions of biblical text encourage the "flock" to submit themselves to God's will, using metaphors such as the little lost lamb...  Last I knew, pastors often drew out such language at length in sermons. 

        "A promise that I'm after and it's better than a bone" --
There are certainly New Testament exhortations to do as God wishes, rather than to pursue short-term gratification or economic gain... 

        Neroon points out in the other thread how more personal and more interpretive readings could be equally acceptable.  On principle, I like to agree -- but practice is tough.  Conservative readings emphasize more technical rules for behavior, while liberal ones emphasize figurative lessons.  Even if you believe one or the other is a better way to be Christian, it's not always feasible to convince someone else.  For some people, being a good follower and staying in very specific roles and ways of living is the path they take.  They feel their concept of religion can help with that.         

Thinking about it, the message could also be one of anti-religion. Misguided in saying that those who follow jesus are not humans but dogs who are unable to use human reasoning

The title:  "Dogs of Glory," kind of (happens to?) reminds me of "dogs of war."  Maybe I play too many strategy games?

       "Water that is living and it's soothing to my soul..."  Hmm, you don't suppose this was meant to be golden showers!  Was it?  Or maybe, I've been around fetish sites too much  ::)


It actually seems well within the range of the charismatic camp to me... 
In any case it has the details and enough potential meanings, to pass as art.
         

[Avi]

In my opinion, the whole equation of Faithful Christian (is the same as) a faithful dog leaves out one important consideration.  Dogs often bond with a human being or human beings because they fulfill physical needs, such as hunger, shelter, etc.  People turn to God and believe in Him not because it does anything for them physically, but rather because it fulfills a mental/emotional longing (The Bible describes it as "The groaning of the soul", I believe). 

You could theoretically keep right on living without choosing to be faithful to God, but a domesticated dog would have a much-harder time surviving if its Master was gone.

In any case... yeah, this video makes me want to gouge out my eyes with a rusty melon baller. >_<