This has bugged me for QUITE some time now, but someone got around to saying it before I did.
http://www.holyobserver.com/detail.php?isu=v01i10&art=just
It's just great.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
What are you gonna do?
Check this story out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4717277.stm
So a bunch of postmodernist women decide that it would be really nice to be priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Only God could tell you.
But you gotta give 'em points for originality. They get on a boat in between Canada and the US, technically not in any particular bishop's jurisdiction, and get "ordained" by 3 female "bishops" as priests. Why on the river? To escape the "unjust" canon law that refuses ordination to women, of course!
"But, won't they be excommunicated like all the others who have gone before them?" you ask? Well, sure. But do they worry about that?
--"Married with children and grandchildren, she (one of the "priests") said she did 'not fear an excommunication because I don't feel excommunicated'."
Oh man. I shouldn't laugh, but it's still pretty funny. I wonder how long it'll take before they are excommunicated. If the Vatican is smart, they'll start proceedings right away.
So a bunch of postmodernist women decide that it would be really nice to be priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Only God could tell you.
But you gotta give 'em points for originality. They get on a boat in between Canada and the US, technically not in any particular bishop's jurisdiction, and get "ordained" by 3 female "bishops" as priests. Why on the river? To escape the "unjust" canon law that refuses ordination to women, of course!
"But, won't they be excommunicated like all the others who have gone before them?" you ask? Well, sure. But do they worry about that?
--"Married with children and grandchildren, she (one of the "priests") said she did 'not fear an excommunication because I don't feel excommunicated'."
Oh man. I shouldn't laugh, but it's still pretty funny. I wonder how long it'll take before they are excommunicated. If the Vatican is smart, they'll start proceedings right away.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Surprised #2
Given that I am surprised to be alive and not already in eternal punishment, should I be surprised that many other human beings somehow manage to escape that same realisation?
On the one hand, it's so clear from the revelation of the One True God that that is so (if you're not so sure, when was the last time you read Romans 2 and 3?).
Yet on the other hand, human beings have such an obvious propensity to turn away from God's revelation and follow their own path, it would do an injustice to the depravity of humans to doubt our capacity for self-delusion.
But it remains shocking, even w/ that in mind, to hear someone, even someone who claims to be Christian, opine that some people do not deserve eternal agony in hell, but rather that some are good enough not to stand condemned.
On the one hand, it's so clear from the revelation of the One True God that that is so (if you're not so sure, when was the last time you read Romans 2 and 3?).
Yet on the other hand, human beings have such an obvious propensity to turn away from God's revelation and follow their own path, it would do an injustice to the depravity of humans to doubt our capacity for self-delusion.
But it remains shocking, even w/ that in mind, to hear someone, even someone who claims to be Christian, opine that some people do not deserve eternal agony in hell, but rather that some are good enough not to stand condemned.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Surprised #1
Spurred on by an insightful sermon on Sunday night, I am musing on the wrath of God.
Truly His wrath is an integral part of Who He is - an attribute as much as love or jealousy or mercy.
I want to work on being surprised every day. Let's start w/ step one for now, and so we will forego a concentration on being "surprised by joy," or surprised by God's love, or whatever. We are enemies of God until we are justified by His grace. After the Holy Spirit indwells us, we yet still dare to blaspheme His name and reputation by following our carnal desires and lusts. For shame!
Do we not, every one of us, merit stamping out as God will indeed stamp out His enemies at the judgment? Do we not deserve to be found among those cowering in the face of our upcoming destruction (Revelation 6:15-17)?
I want to wake up every day in a state of amazement and even shock that I am not destroyed, cast away from a righteous God Who would do well in judging me for the sin I have committed. Indeed, I have offended Him Who is of infinite goodness and have therefore incurred an infinite penalty. I am surprised to be alive today.
Truly His wrath is an integral part of Who He is - an attribute as much as love or jealousy or mercy.
I want to work on being surprised every day. Let's start w/ step one for now, and so we will forego a concentration on being "surprised by joy," or surprised by God's love, or whatever. We are enemies of God until we are justified by His grace. After the Holy Spirit indwells us, we yet still dare to blaspheme His name and reputation by following our carnal desires and lusts. For shame!
Do we not, every one of us, merit stamping out as God will indeed stamp out His enemies at the judgment? Do we not deserve to be found among those cowering in the face of our upcoming destruction (Revelation 6:15-17)?
I want to wake up every day in a state of amazement and even shock that I am not destroyed, cast away from a righteous God Who would do well in judging me for the sin I have committed. Indeed, I have offended Him Who is of infinite goodness and have therefore incurred an infinite penalty. I am surprised to be alive today.
Monday, July 18, 2005
If it wouldn't hurt nobody...
It is commonplace to hear criticisms of President Bush and his policies on Iraq - "No blood for oil!" and other such garbage.
I ask this on behalf of myself and of all friends, well-wishers, compatriots, and even those who really dislike me (many of whom drive much less fuel-efficient vehicles than I do):
President Bush, if you're going to be criticised all the time for going to Iraq for oil no matter what you do or do not do, couldn't you at least use some Iraqi oil to drive down the gasoline prices in the USA?
The President has gone out of his way (way too far out of his way, in my opinion) to try to appease his critics, many of whom seem to have an irrational hatred for him bordering on obsession. Many justify their venomous attacks on him (in between rants about Karl Rove being The Source of All Evil in the Universe) by saying that he is exploiting the poor Iraqis and he just wants petroleum for his oilman friends in Texas.
So what's wrong w/ giving in a little bit, since the damage is already done (I mean, heck, Mr. President, my guess is that your approval rating is dropping largely b/c you haven't done enough to destroy the terrorists yet and people are getting impatient)?
While you're taking care of that, how about letting my car drink in a little Kirkuk petrol, preferably in a cobalt glass w/ a little umbrella? It's there, it's sitting, it wouldn't do you any harm to get us some. Why don'tcha throw your loyal constituents a bone and work something out so we don't blow through our savings this summer? Just how much of a "regular guy" are you and how much politician?
I ask this on behalf of myself and of all friends, well-wishers, compatriots, and even those who really dislike me (many of whom drive much less fuel-efficient vehicles than I do):
President Bush, if you're going to be criticised all the time for going to Iraq for oil no matter what you do or do not do, couldn't you at least use some Iraqi oil to drive down the gasoline prices in the USA?
The President has gone out of his way (way too far out of his way, in my opinion) to try to appease his critics, many of whom seem to have an irrational hatred for him bordering on obsession. Many justify their venomous attacks on him (in between rants about Karl Rove being The Source of All Evil in the Universe) by saying that he is exploiting the poor Iraqis and he just wants petroleum for his oilman friends in Texas.
So what's wrong w/ giving in a little bit, since the damage is already done (I mean, heck, Mr. President, my guess is that your approval rating is dropping largely b/c you haven't done enough to destroy the terrorists yet and people are getting impatient)?
While you're taking care of that, how about letting my car drink in a little Kirkuk petrol, preferably in a cobalt glass w/ a little umbrella? It's there, it's sitting, it wouldn't do you any harm to get us some. Why don'tcha throw your loyal constituents a bone and work something out so we don't blow through our savings this summer? Just how much of a "regular guy" are you and how much politician?
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Arab male, age 16-39
So the London bomber suspects have been identified.
And what a SHOCK. They are --gasp!-- YES!
****ARAB MALES BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 39!!!****
You know, it's too easy to bring up the tired example of the 80 year-old grandmother from Des Moines getting questioned in the back room of the airport for two hours while two Arab males wearing machetes get onto a plane w/ no questions asked. And I wouldn't bring it up except it's barely an exaggeration.
OK, the machetes are.
But the rest is not. This product of liberal politics and thinking is going to get somebody else killed. But the libs will just blame it on the President.
And what a SHOCK. They are --gasp!-- YES!
****ARAB MALES BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 39!!!****
You know, it's too easy to bring up the tired example of the 80 year-old grandmother from Des Moines getting questioned in the back room of the airport for two hours while two Arab males wearing machetes get onto a plane w/ no questions asked. And I wouldn't bring it up except it's barely an exaggeration.
OK, the machetes are.
But the rest is not. This product of liberal politics and thinking is going to get somebody else killed. But the libs will just blame it on the President.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Wit
You know, the viewers of Neil Cavuto's "Your World" on FoxNews are often really funny in their "Viewer Emails."
An approximate example -
"Dear Neil:
You know, when one viewer wrote in and asked whether your haircut cost $500, you must have laughed to yourself, knowing that your haircut, your hairpiece, and your dentures didn't total half that much."
That's some funny stuff. Made me laugh at 5 am, which is not easy to do, lemme tell ya.
An approximate example -
"Dear Neil:
You know, when one viewer wrote in and asked whether your haircut cost $500, you must have laughed to yourself, knowing that your haircut, your hairpiece, and your dentures didn't total half that much."
That's some funny stuff. Made me laugh at 5 am, which is not easy to do, lemme tell ya.
Pride and Opposition
"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6).
The sermon during a visit to a church in W Kansas while visiting family mentioned this verse and the pastor gave a few thoughts on the identity of these proud ones mentioned.
And it occurred to me that many of the proud of this world achieve even the very height of arrogance in that they twist the meaning of God's revelation into what they desire it to mean. It is exactly this sin that was at the center of the Fall when Satan slyly asked, "Has God truly said?"
Over the course of the last few years, I have encountered quite a few denizens of this category. America is such a melting pot that there are a wide variety of people and abuses of Scripture's meaning to be found.
Included in those abuses are assertions that the Scripture is full of contradictions, that homosexuality is really not so bad since it's only mentioned in a few places and never by Jesus, that certain parts of Scripture are more important than others (such as Jesus' words being more important than others', like Paul's), that the Scripture has assured perfect physical health for us if we will but claim it w/ enough faith, and that God is actually a really bad communicator so that the Scripture is by no means clear.
Thus, to the servant of God who listens to God's voice (John 10:14-16), it is comforting to rest in the words of the Redeemer, Who is faithful and true. For he who is willing to submit to the words of the Master (James 4:7), there will be grace rather than divine opposition. He who falls into the trap of this pride is conjoined to the enemy of his own soul, one way or another. For them, I pray for mercy, since there is opposition where they could have grace.
The sermon during a visit to a church in W Kansas while visiting family mentioned this verse and the pastor gave a few thoughts on the identity of these proud ones mentioned.
And it occurred to me that many of the proud of this world achieve even the very height of arrogance in that they twist the meaning of God's revelation into what they desire it to mean. It is exactly this sin that was at the center of the Fall when Satan slyly asked, "Has God truly said?"
Over the course of the last few years, I have encountered quite a few denizens of this category. America is such a melting pot that there are a wide variety of people and abuses of Scripture's meaning to be found.
Included in those abuses are assertions that the Scripture is full of contradictions, that homosexuality is really not so bad since it's only mentioned in a few places and never by Jesus, that certain parts of Scripture are more important than others (such as Jesus' words being more important than others', like Paul's), that the Scripture has assured perfect physical health for us if we will but claim it w/ enough faith, and that God is actually a really bad communicator so that the Scripture is by no means clear.
Thus, to the servant of God who listens to God's voice (John 10:14-16), it is comforting to rest in the words of the Redeemer, Who is faithful and true. For he who is willing to submit to the words of the Master (James 4:7), there will be grace rather than divine opposition. He who falls into the trap of this pride is conjoined to the enemy of his own soul, one way or another. For them, I pray for mercy, since there is opposition where they could have grace.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Negotiations with the inhuman
Was chatting w/ a new friend from Ukraine tonight about politics. I sometimes shy away from these conversations, but generally do not unless I see the person getting really upset or see a possibility of getting into a spiritual conversation, which is an infinitely better use of everyone's time.
That said, I must iterate that I enjoy a good jaunt about the Iraq war when I'm feeling saucy. Which I was, since today I was able to break a string of nights of insufficient sleep.
At any rate, I'll leave most of the details to one side, but the thing that stuck out to me was his continuing insistence upon negotiation. Negotiate this and negotiate that. It remains unbelievable to me that he really believed that the conflict over Iraq and its refusal to allow inspectors and its support of terrorism could be resolved by negotiation. Which had been going on for 9 years! He obviously has much less faith in the abilities of sniveling politicians to give away 95% of their own original position to achieve a fraction of what they want from killers (cf. Barak's final offer to Arafat under Clinton's Camp David talks) than I do.
I wonder if he thinks we should talk nice to the London bombers too. No doubt they just hate the English b/c they're helping in Iraq. Maybe we should pull out.
I wonder from where the US should have pulled its soldiers to prevent Sept 11?
That said, I must iterate that I enjoy a good jaunt about the Iraq war when I'm feeling saucy. Which I was, since today I was able to break a string of nights of insufficient sleep.
At any rate, I'll leave most of the details to one side, but the thing that stuck out to me was his continuing insistence upon negotiation. Negotiate this and negotiate that. It remains unbelievable to me that he really believed that the conflict over Iraq and its refusal to allow inspectors and its support of terrorism could be resolved by negotiation. Which had been going on for 9 years! He obviously has much less faith in the abilities of sniveling politicians to give away 95% of their own original position to achieve a fraction of what they want from killers (cf. Barak's final offer to Arafat under Clinton's Camp David talks) than I do.
I wonder if he thinks we should talk nice to the London bombers too. No doubt they just hate the English b/c they're helping in Iraq. Maybe we should pull out.
I wonder from where the US should have pulled its soldiers to prevent Sept 11?
London
My prayers are w/ the people of London.
May they know the mercies of the Lord Jesus Christ, know that the Father is distanced from each of them but by their own pride, and know that their lives, too, are a vapor.
May the general public come to realise the dark scourge that is radical Islam.
May they know the mercies of the Lord Jesus Christ, know that the Father is distanced from each of them but by their own pride, and know that their lives, too, are a vapor.
May the general public come to realise the dark scourge that is radical Islam.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Seeker unfriendly
I live in a medium-large Midwestern city, and today a billboard caught my eye on the Interstate.
Before, it had read, "Love God, but hate church? So did we. Lifechurch.tv"
Point of interest - the name of church itself is Lifechurch.tv. Not just its website.
...Sits back to let readers' jaws slacken...
OK, but now the billboard has changed. It now reads, "Lifechurch.tv. Not what you'd expect."
Let me ask a simple question. To whom should a church be "advertising"?
Trick question! How amazing to think that a church is advertising at all! But I digress...
For whom is the church?
Acts 2:42 - And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Are these actions in which unbelievers would participate? No - in this and dozens of other places in the New Testament, the church is clearly the place for believers to come together for worship, fellowship, proclamation of the Word, and church ordinances like the Eucharist.
So, I might expect a church to follow the biblical pattern (I know, I'm nuts, just nuts!). Thus, if Lifechurch.tv is not what I would expect, then what should I expect?
Does that mean that Lifechurch.tv will not indeed devote itself to the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers? Certainly not to the apostles' teaching if it is advertising to get unbelievers to flock to its gates. Certainly not to the fellowship if the church is filled w/ unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-15). W/ great difficulty to the breaking of bread, since the Eucharist is NOT for unbelievers.
So a reasonable answer to the billboard could well be: OK, it's not what I would expect. The church is what the NT teaches. This is no church. The church is for these things outlined above. The world is for evangelism and reaching out to unbelievers (1 Cor 5).
Agonising.
Before, it had read, "Love God, but hate church? So did we. Lifechurch.tv"
Point of interest - the name of church itself is Lifechurch.tv. Not just its website.
...Sits back to let readers' jaws slacken...
OK, but now the billboard has changed. It now reads, "Lifechurch.tv. Not what you'd expect."
Let me ask a simple question. To whom should a church be "advertising"?
Trick question! How amazing to think that a church is advertising at all! But I digress...
For whom is the church?
Acts 2:42 - And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Are these actions in which unbelievers would participate? No - in this and dozens of other places in the New Testament, the church is clearly the place for believers to come together for worship, fellowship, proclamation of the Word, and church ordinances like the Eucharist.
So, I might expect a church to follow the biblical pattern (I know, I'm nuts, just nuts!). Thus, if Lifechurch.tv is not what I would expect, then what should I expect?
Does that mean that Lifechurch.tv will not indeed devote itself to the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers? Certainly not to the apostles' teaching if it is advertising to get unbelievers to flock to its gates. Certainly not to the fellowship if the church is filled w/ unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-15). W/ great difficulty to the breaking of bread, since the Eucharist is NOT for unbelievers.
So a reasonable answer to the billboard could well be: OK, it's not what I would expect. The church is what the NT teaches. This is no church. The church is for these things outlined above. The world is for evangelism and reaching out to unbelievers (1 Cor 5).
Agonising.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Refreshing, encouraging
My wife and I took a little jaunt to Houston from our more northerly residence this past weekend to take care of some business and hang out w/ a couple of friends.
They were nice enough to regale us w/ a trip to Galveston, during which we attended an Imax screening of "Ocean Wonderland" in 3-D. By the way, do NOT see that film. The 3-D was all out of whack (and I tried literally 8 pairs of glasses), it was boring, and it turned out to be some ridiculous propaganda piece for the UN and the World Wildlife Fund. Gag.
At any rate, this is a positive blog post. (Or half-positive, now - I guess I already screwed that up).
They took us to their church, a non-denom on-the-charismatic-side church. Now, for those of you who are unaware, my first 5-6 years as a Christian were spent as a charismatic, and I was glad to be one. Over the course of time, I became increasingly distressed by the growth of the heretical Word of Faith theology of Copeland, Hagin, Hinn, and ORU within the body of the true believers in these charismatic churches. They just let them in w/o asking for ID, as it were. As long as they said "Jesus" and "Holy Spirit," spoke in tongues, and preached loudly, they were OK. Never mind their New Age beliefs that subjugate God to the equivalent of a powerful Jedi who has learned to use the Almighty Force of Faith thru speaking stuff into existence. Which you and I can do too.
Anyway, the church that I attended was becoming increasingly allied w/ this junk and its corrolaries - the Health-and-Wealth Gospel. The pastor even endorsed a book called God Wants You To Be Rich from the pulpit. At the same time as that was increasing in my church, I was becoming un-convinced of the truth of the signature charismatic doctrines (speaking in tongues, etc). So I joined a Southern Baptist church, where I remain today.
But let me say that this church was refreshing - they actually spoke out against the Health-and-Wealth gospel from the pulpit. Ahhh... a breath of fresh air. That plus Spirit-led prayer (ie, the pastor had a real burden to pray for some members of the congregation, and that turned out to be a touch from the Lord to many, including my own wife, a guest at the church) and some lively and soulful praise-and-worship... made for a blessing for me.
They were nice enough to regale us w/ a trip to Galveston, during which we attended an Imax screening of "Ocean Wonderland" in 3-D. By the way, do NOT see that film. The 3-D was all out of whack (and I tried literally 8 pairs of glasses), it was boring, and it turned out to be some ridiculous propaganda piece for the UN and the World Wildlife Fund. Gag.
At any rate, this is a positive blog post. (Or half-positive, now - I guess I already screwed that up).
They took us to their church, a non-denom on-the-charismatic-side church. Now, for those of you who are unaware, my first 5-6 years as a Christian were spent as a charismatic, and I was glad to be one. Over the course of time, I became increasingly distressed by the growth of the heretical Word of Faith theology of Copeland, Hagin, Hinn, and ORU within the body of the true believers in these charismatic churches. They just let them in w/o asking for ID, as it were. As long as they said "Jesus" and "Holy Spirit," spoke in tongues, and preached loudly, they were OK. Never mind their New Age beliefs that subjugate God to the equivalent of a powerful Jedi who has learned to use the Almighty Force of Faith thru speaking stuff into existence. Which you and I can do too.
Anyway, the church that I attended was becoming increasingly allied w/ this junk and its corrolaries - the Health-and-Wealth Gospel. The pastor even endorsed a book called God Wants You To Be Rich from the pulpit. At the same time as that was increasing in my church, I was becoming un-convinced of the truth of the signature charismatic doctrines (speaking in tongues, etc). So I joined a Southern Baptist church, where I remain today.
But let me say that this church was refreshing - they actually spoke out against the Health-and-Wealth gospel from the pulpit. Ahhh... a breath of fresh air. That plus Spirit-led prayer (ie, the pastor had a real burden to pray for some members of the congregation, and that turned out to be a touch from the Lord to many, including my own wife, a guest at the church) and some lively and soulful praise-and-worship... made for a blessing for me.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Bad Interviewing
Was watching the after-show of the NBA Finals tonight.
The cameras zoomed in for the obligatory coach-hugs-star-player, and
also on the two-coaches-who-are-rivals-but-also-good-friends embrace.
Later, near the Pistons' locker room, Stu Scott from ESPN asks the
losing coach (Larry Brown) this brilliant question: "I saw that you
and Coach Popovich hugged after the game. What did you say to him?"
[background noise of hair being torn from roots]
Is it just me, or is that question
A) inane
B) so clichéd anymore that it's not even funny (since everyone asks it), and
C) just a really bad question to fill space rather than talking about the game?
I am really sick of that question - it's lame!
Or am I just being too grumpy?
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
No less a Durbinhead now
So, the Durbinhead makes mention anew of his idiotic views.
[obligatory 'apology' from the Durbinhead]
"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology...I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words...I don't want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it and this great Senate. I offer my apologies to those who were offended."
[/obligatory 'apology' from the Durbinhead]
Now, far be it from me to refuse to accept such an obviously abject and humble apology.
By the way, since I am new to the blogosphere, let me introduce you to one of my favorite tools - Sarcasm. Please note that said tool was employed in the previous line, specifically in the words "obviously abject and humble."
I must note, in explanation of my skepticism about this Durbinhead's apology, that he, not once but twice, expressed these imbecilic, vitriolic, and morally incomprehensible words on the floor of the Senate (if I remember correctly). Given the huge media firestorm his words rightly generated, you have to wonder why he waited until Tuesday 21 June to apologise for them (though, the discerning reader will note, he did not retract them). That means that it has been one week since the first statement.
Shame on you, Durbinhead. And shame on you, Democrats, for not sticking pins in this guy so as to keep him from making a fool of your party and the US. At least in France, most normal people still blanch at the mention of the Holocaust.
[obligatory 'apology' from the Durbinhead]
"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology...I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words...I don't want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it and this great Senate. I offer my apologies to those who were offended."
[/obligatory 'apology' from the Durbinhead]
Now, far be it from me to refuse to accept such an obviously abject and humble apology.
By the way, since I am new to the blogosphere, let me introduce you to one of my favorite tools - Sarcasm. Please note that said tool was employed in the previous line, specifically in the words "obviously abject and humble."
I must note, in explanation of my skepticism about this Durbinhead's apology, that he, not once but twice, expressed these imbecilic, vitriolic, and morally incomprehensible words on the floor of the Senate (if I remember correctly). Given the huge media firestorm his words rightly generated, you have to wonder why he waited until Tuesday 21 June to apologise for them (though, the discerning reader will note, he did not retract them). That means that it has been one week since the first statement.
Shame on you, Durbinhead. And shame on you, Democrats, for not sticking pins in this guy so as to keep him from making a fool of your party and the US. At least in France, most normal people still blanch at the mention of the Holocaust.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
What a Durbinhead
As if one needed more proof that most Americans do not pay attention to what their politicians say and/or feel cut off from the national political process by and large, Dick Durbin, the 2nd-highest ranking Democrat in the US Senate, said this recently:
I have to tell you - I canNOT abide jokes about the Holocaust. Jews in ovens, Germans being great at mass murder, whatever - when people start making jokes about that, I leave. Yes, maybe I should stick around and ask the offenders to stop... that is possible. Either way, I can't take it. It is too degrading to the horror that was the Holocaust, Stalin's gulags, Pol Pot's murderous reign, etc. And this is a high-ranking Senator...
You know, you can say stupid stuff. That's fine. You shouldn't lose your job for that. But to say this? Illinoisans would do well to start a ballot initiative. But they won't.
"Never again," huh? I, for one, do not believe that for one instant.
[politically-motivated diatribe] If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. [/politically-motivated diatribe]
I have to tell you - I canNOT abide jokes about the Holocaust. Jews in ovens, Germans being great at mass murder, whatever - when people start making jokes about that, I leave. Yes, maybe I should stick around and ask the offenders to stop... that is possible. Either way, I can't take it. It is too degrading to the horror that was the Holocaust, Stalin's gulags, Pol Pot's murderous reign, etc. And this is a high-ranking Senator...
You know, you can say stupid stuff. That's fine. You shouldn't lose your job for that. But to say this? Illinoisans would do well to start a ballot initiative. But they won't.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Anakin Skywalker is a victim of George Lucas
Having watched the most recent Star Wars, "Revenge of the Sith" (lame title, btw), the following thought occurred to me:
Poor Anakin.
The man is a victim. Think about it. How was he to know which way was right and which one was wrong? The Jedi are too "narrow" in their "view of the Force," whereas the "evil" Darth Sidious (who is only evil, of course, in the eyes of the pointy-headed "hyper-orthodox" Jedi in the Jedi Council) is much more open-minded. He is open to powers that "many consider to be unnatural," even to the point of HEALING.
So... we the audience (and Anakin) are left w/ the choice.
On the one hand, we have the Jedi, who
1) refuse to allow Jedi to fall in love,
2) refuse to explore options in the Force that would allow them to heal people,
3) tell Anakin to "let go of his fear of loss," since people dying allows them to be absorbed into the Force (whatever that means), which is a good thing,
4) ... and yet mourn the deaths of many young Jedi at the massacre at the Jedi Temple, and
5) assert that one's path depends on one's own point of view, which is verbatim what Obi-Wan tells Luke Skywalker after Yoda's death in Return of the Jedi.
On the other, we have the Sith, who
1) are the persecuted minority,
2) are more open-minded,
3) are open to the power of healing people,
4) are open to people of any marital status (it would seem),
5) allow the open expression of one's feelings and passions,
6) practice treachery and constantly seek more power, and
7) regard the Jedi as evil and oppressive.
So what is Anakin to do?
Who is the final arbiter of truth for him? Who can tell him that the Jedi are right (which we, the audience know by instinct if not necessarily by actual active assent) and the Sith are bad?
This is relativism at its finest, polished and buffed for public consumption thru the genius that is George Lucas. Lucas is shameless in his abuse of Anakin. Not b/c he wrote the story in which Anakin destroys his life. Rather, it is b/c he placed Anakin's character into a universe that is devoid of any rational basis for morality. At least w/ a consistent and foundational moral guide, as opposed to his frequently self-contradicting mentors Yoda and Obi-Wan, it would be at least possible to know w/ certainty just who the good and bad guys are.
But (spoiler alert) when he cuts Mace Windu's hand off, what he did was completely neutral, since it was his own point of view doing the talking. And just before clashing lightsaber against lightsaber w/ Obi-Wan, Anakin tells us that, in his perspective, the Jedi are evil. Obi-Wan is forced to remind us that his allegiance is to democracy. I shouldn't have to reiterate that this statement is also completely arbitrary.
So feel sad for Ani. I was very sad when he choked his beloved wife. Of course, that's just because, in my point of view, hurting my wife is bad. I fail to see how, in George Lucas' fantasy universe, he could tell me I'm right or wrong to believe that.
Poor Anakin.
The man is a victim. Think about it. How was he to know which way was right and which one was wrong? The Jedi are too "narrow" in their "view of the Force," whereas the "evil" Darth Sidious (who is only evil, of course, in the eyes of the pointy-headed "hyper-orthodox" Jedi in the Jedi Council) is much more open-minded. He is open to powers that "many consider to be unnatural," even to the point of HEALING.
So... we the audience (and Anakin) are left w/ the choice.
On the one hand, we have the Jedi, who
1) refuse to allow Jedi to fall in love,
2) refuse to explore options in the Force that would allow them to heal people,
3) tell Anakin to "let go of his fear of loss," since people dying allows them to be absorbed into the Force (whatever that means), which is a good thing,
4) ... and yet mourn the deaths of many young Jedi at the massacre at the Jedi Temple, and
5) assert that one's path depends on one's own point of view, which is verbatim what Obi-Wan tells Luke Skywalker after Yoda's death in Return of the Jedi.
On the other, we have the Sith, who
1) are the persecuted minority,
2) are more open-minded,
3) are open to the power of healing people,
4) are open to people of any marital status (it would seem),
5) allow the open expression of one's feelings and passions,
6) practice treachery and constantly seek more power, and
7) regard the Jedi as evil and oppressive.
So what is Anakin to do?
Who is the final arbiter of truth for him? Who can tell him that the Jedi are right (which we, the audience know by instinct if not necessarily by actual active assent) and the Sith are bad?
This is relativism at its finest, polished and buffed for public consumption thru the genius that is George Lucas. Lucas is shameless in his abuse of Anakin. Not b/c he wrote the story in which Anakin destroys his life. Rather, it is b/c he placed Anakin's character into a universe that is devoid of any rational basis for morality. At least w/ a consistent and foundational moral guide, as opposed to his frequently self-contradicting mentors Yoda and Obi-Wan, it would be at least possible to know w/ certainty just who the good and bad guys are.
But (spoiler alert) when he cuts Mace Windu's hand off, what he did was completely neutral, since it was his own point of view doing the talking. And just before clashing lightsaber against lightsaber w/ Obi-Wan, Anakin tells us that, in his perspective, the Jedi are evil. Obi-Wan is forced to remind us that his allegiance is to democracy. I shouldn't have to reiterate that this statement is also completely arbitrary.
So feel sad for Ani. I was very sad when he choked his beloved wife. Of course, that's just because, in my point of view, hurting my wife is bad. I fail to see how, in George Lucas' fantasy universe, he could tell me I'm right or wrong to believe that.
First real post
Many thanks to Bryan over at StumbleOnWater for appreciating my simple tastes. "This is a picture." Indeed. It. Is.
So... decided to move this blog over from ><4|\|94 (that's for youx0rz, Justin) and I think I'll like this one better. Much easier to put pics on, for example. And that will be important in the future. Just for the record, my wife and I are about to embark on at least a year-long move to the Far East. This blog will hopefully log the journey there, the time spent while there, and all the fun in between.
So... decided to move this blog over from ><4|\|94 (that's for youx0rz, Justin) and I think I'll like this one better. Much easier to put pics on, for example. And that will be important in the future. Just for the record, my wife and I are about to embark on at least a year-long move to the Far East. This blog will hopefully log the journey there, the time spent while there, and all the fun in between.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)