Why do people go crazy over celebrities or the royal family etc?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exnihilo, I understand the point you are making about the soul being more important than the body but can someone see to his soul unless his basic needs have been met first? A starving child needs a full belly before he can hear the Gospel, right?
 
Exactly.

This is why Jesus fed the multitudes after teaching them what is good for their souls. He realizes humans are after all made up of body and soul and have both material and spiritual needs.

Acknowledging both needs does not make one a materialist.
 
Yeah same here.

I really identify with the hobbits of the Lord of the Rings. Their lifestyle is humble but full of good things like good food and drink and good companionship.
 
I understand the mentality of people following their Twitter accounts/other social media (or anyone who interest them) but isn’t it almost like putting them on a pedestal when people line up for hours like sheep just for a signed piece of paper or wave from them?

You mentioned Midwest,I’m assuming that’s like suburbia in America-do people do it because they perceive their own lives as boring and the celebrities ones as glamorous?
 
Last edited:
Admiring and emulating someone (Mother Theresa for example) and people looking for roles models,I understand this.I think we all have role models of a form,
I just don’t understand the line up for a wave/shake/look/signature thing.
 
Last edited:
It’s fun standing in an autograph line! It’s fun to talk about our celebrity crush! I’ve never been able to get to any event that my favorite actor has appeared at, but I know if I do, many of the fans will have stories about their experiences with him, or opinions about the movies and TV shows that he’s been in.

I have stood in autograph lines for other celebrities, and it really is fun (except my feet hurt). I love chatting with people.

My favorite actor seems very nice to fans, and I don’t think he would just wave at anyone.

It’s not that we Midwesterners think our lives are boring. Many of us simply admire our favorite celebrities because we know how hard they’ve worked to get to a place where they are “celebrities.” My favorite actor was kicked out of college for picking fights, and went back home to his parents and four siblings and got a job painting houses. One day he and his brothers took a boat out onto Lake Erie, and their boat capsized far from shore and they were all in real danger of drowning. So big brother (my favorite actor!) told them to hang onto the boat and he would swim to shore for help. The swim was a couple of miles, but he made it and his brothers were welcomed.

This event made him think hard about his life, and he decided that what he really enjoyed was his theater experiences in high school, so he decided to drive out to Hollywood and become and actor! After a long drive, he arrived in Hollywood—and within two weeks, had his first job (a play by David Mamet). Then he got a part in one of the old Roger Corman motorcycle movies because he was willing to drive a motorcycle off a cliff and into a bag. After a less-than-profitable career in these types of gigs (he was living in his car), he was on drugs and alcohol, and his girlfriend told him she would never marry him unless he cleaned up his act. So he did-got sober–and then he landed the biggest job ever–the T-1000 in Terminator 2!

His career has been on the rise ever since. He has a lot of networking skills and has often said that he loves acting so much that he will play any part, no matter how small. He’s even said that he loves auditioning, even if he doesn’t get the part, because at least he got to play a part for a few minutes.

Since I have a daughter who has worked in the entertainment industry for 14 years now (and as an amateur throughout high school and college), I am very interested in how my favorite actor has been so successful, even though he’s not a huge superstar who makes millions. I have written a musical and I want him to play a part in it! It’s possible he will agree–he loves working in independent films.

I’m also interested in his bold but courteous Christianity. He’s currently reading the Bible through and posts a Bible verse every week.

As for him being glamorous–not really. He schleps around in jeans most of the time, and is often not recognized in public.

Like I said, I think a lot of just admire the hard work that the celeb has done to become successful in his/her field. And it’s fun!
 
My daughter (not the professional), runs a local ice show in her city–a version of The Nutcracker. It’s gotten really huge (sells out four shows and includes around 150 skaters, mainly children). After the show, the skaters are required to line up in the lobby, and the children who attend the show (and quite a few adults, too!) line up to get their autographs. A “celebrity” doesn’t have to be rich and famous–a “celebrity” is someone that we admire for various reasons. A teenager ice skater is a “celebrity” to a little girl who thinks that she really is a beautiful Sugar Plum fairy.

Did you see the story on TV about the little girl who ran up to a bride in a outdoor park (outdoor wedding) and called her, “Cinderella!” The little girl honestly thought the bride was her favorite princess, Cinderella (from the Disney movie). The bride was gracious to the little girl and now they are friends. So sweet. Again, the bride was not anyone rich and famous. but to the little girl, she was a princess.
 
I have always assumed Meghan and most of the young royals are liberal but I did not know Meghan had actually commented on Ireland. I wouldn’t even be surprised if William and Kate are pro choice as well.

I googled it and it turns out she didn’t make a public comment, but rather she allegedly said something to a person who then told people about it. So I guess that’s what 7_sorrows meant.
7_Sorrows said:
To me being a feminist and being a member of the royal family, just don’t mix
Click to expand...
They shouldn’t be political, but royals have always believed in all sorts of views. Being a feminist royal is pretty tame to me, since Meghan isn’t really doing anything controversial in her new job.
 
Forming a dependency by the readers is something the media as become skilled at. They obtain a following who have a mild interest in them, then add something that is tantalizing. It then develops a craving among the readers of this genre for more info.

A few decades ago, there was a concern by the scandal mongers of being sued. A good portion of the magazines even drew interested readers who followed stories of the lawsuits and fear the scandals provided. You hardly see any “who sued who” articles anymore, nor do you see complaints by the targeted and presumably tormented. :roll_eyes:

But these are just another form of distraction the Church taught us about. We are to stay away from news as much as possible. The money going to subscriptions to these tabloids could be used to help the needy. It will also lessen the risk of one compounding effect it brings, the habit if forms in the curious people becomes an addiction which causes a craving for more.

Like a predator focusing his attack on the hock of a gazelle to get it to stumble, the invading newsmen maintain pressure on the target and keep up the invasion of privacy until the victim slips and does or says something sensational. This adds to the interest of the addicted and the whole process is self feeding.
 
Meghan and Harry paid a visit to Ireland shortly after they voted in Ireland and she congratulated someone they had met about reversing the ban on abortion and supposedly was reprimanded to keep those thoughts to herself.
Yes, I think the up and coming royals are liberal and progressive.
 
In some ways it is a good thing - I’d hate to go back to the days where Edward VIII wa forced to abdicate basically because his chosen bride was American. Yes she was also divorced but so was Henry VIII so I doubt that was seriously the reason.

Or poor old Princess Anne - who seems to be worth as much as all her brothers put together - way down the ladder of succession purely because she is female.
 
Last edited:
Athanasiy said:
but some bishops in Orthodoxy and Catholicism invest their image far more than Protestant ones.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know what you mean by this? Dioceses collect the portraits of their bishops for historical purposes. To become a Saint (historically) first required a “cult” following and miracles contributed to the intercession of the person believed to be in heaven.

Bishops cannot make themselves Saints by simply making sure their portrait is kept in diocesan office building.
 
Among the national leaders there are the Moses of their nations. States consider them “national saints”, although for other states they are considered enemies.
In the national liberation movements such saints do risky actions, but it is these actions that give them the status of national saints.
Although for empires and imperial states such spiritual patriots of their small nations are considered traitors and so on.
I mean that on earth some liberation movements, and new-born national identities sometimes decide not by imperial thinking who is holy for them in heaven.
 
Last edited:
Athanasiy said:
Among the national leaders there are the Moses of their nations. States consider them “national saints”, although for other states they are considered enemies.
In the national liberation movements such saints do risky actions, but it is these actions that give them the status of national saints.
Although for empires and imperial states such spiritual patriots of their small nations are considered traitors and so on.
Click to expand...
What? The term “national saint” is not really a real term. But one that is typically used in a derogatory fashion or by groups like radial feminists to attempt to sanctify people with questionable moral character. Like the “Little book of Feminist [saints]” which include women like Margaret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Cecil Richards, etc.

Its really an objectionable use of the word “saint,” which is why you will rarely hear people call George Washington or Abraham Lincoln “American saints.” Most people use the term “founding fathers” or “forefathers”

NOTE: if you are referring to something totally different, please forgive me.

God bless
 
Our current Governor General here in Canada got into hot water for voicing “politically correct” comments… she isn’t royal, rather viceregal, but same concept…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top