Timothy K. Beal's Why Angels And Gods Are Monsters?
466 Words2 Pages
What is the argument of Timothy K. Beal’s for why angels and gods are monsters? What is his evidence? Does he have any evidence at all? Is the argument logical? If it is logical, where else could it be applied? It is known that his argument does have evidence and could be considered logical. I can prove this with my own, as well as his, evidence. Why does he acknowledge angels and gods as “monsters”? According to him, he is a professor of religion. The last spring before 9/11, he taught the course “Religion and Horror”, a course where the show religion as horror and horror as religion. This is where contemplating religious otherness, such as movies akin to Frankenstein or Nesferatu and Shadow. These movies ask whether god is a monster or, for the latter, is the monster a god. “That there is a slippery slope between gods and monsters is not a new idea.” Beal indicates,…show more content… His students proposed arguments on the function of horror. “The juxtaposition of religion and horror in this course attracted a group of remarkably insightful and astute cultural interpreters.” Beal shows again. His students are nothing but interpreters, but have their own evidence to support themselves. This particular student with the argument of angels being monsters points out how they ‘terrify the biblical characters they visit’, and noted this earlier in the semester. It isn’t necessarily Beal’s idea of what he believes a monster is, but his student whom used a bible to quote for this idea “(Hebrews 13:2)”. “As is clear from the examples given here, their interests in horror were often explicitly religious.” The professor continues, using evidence and examples of his students, to show how ‘reawakening of monsters and the countercultures reveals a reawakening of religion, but oriented toward darker, more unnerving aspects of religious