|
| Alright, now it has been a little while since I originally started this post, so bear with my train of thought for a little bit, because this may get a little confusing.
As I recall, I was explaining the difference between being a believer and being a Christian and what all that meant. I pointed out that the actions of Christ were very different than the actions that we commit within the title that we arrogantly bestow upon ourselves simply because we go to church. What I mean is this. Christ spent all of his time with friends and family teaching them what he knew of God and of heaven and hell. He went to their homes, taught them in fields, ministered to them on the streets... never once did he ask them to congregate in one place for him to teach. In every case where people did congregate, he never asked them to and in some cases, he fled from them. He didn't want to deal with a crowd, he wanted to deal with the individual. When he did teach them, he rarely ever told people that he was there to save them. In fact, he spent most of his ministry hiding that fact from the people content for them to believe that he was merely a prophet. He never wanted to spoon feed his people. He wanted them to be smart enough to figure these things out for themselves. It was until the very end of His ministry that He finally began to admit that he was indeed the messiah that people had been searching for. This is not the church of today. The church of today either travels one of two extreme routes. You either turn or burn hellfire and brimstone preaching or they say nothing and accept everything. It's both sides of the fence and each one is equally wrong. One is lacking in all forms of human emotion and compassion and care, and the other has too much compassion and care to actually convict people of doing wrong. The other problem with the church is that it is entirely filled with the arrogance of the pharisee. People go to church with a chip on their shoulder speaking from within their hearts the same prayer that Jesus spoke of in His parable where the Jewish pharisee spoke and said "thank you Lord for making me righteous, unlike this man to my right". It is something that you do now for the image of saying that we go to church. We surround ourselves with "fellow believers" and try to hide our souls in the inane babel of our "spiritual wisdom". All the while, we cheat on our wives whether physically or mentally, we wish for evil to befall people who simply piss us off, we emerge ourselves in our own problems when people come to us seeking a friendly ear, and we indulge in sin whenever it is convenient. We find more honor in spending our entire lives seeking to earn that almighty extra dollar to enhance the lives of our family rather than to give five minutes and a warm meal to a man who no longer has a home or family. We look down on the portion of our society that is behind bars or has a criminal record, or is a sex offender, when they simply just got caught doing what many of us do in the lives we keep stuffed in the closet. Yet we go to church, so we think that we are somehow better because we are automatically forgiven for our sins. We all have our skeletons hiding in our closet. Some of us have them buried so deep that it would unravel the very fiber of our souls if it was ever to be discovered. Yet what do we do about it? We lie and pretend that it doesn't exist until we can make it beyond the threshold of those almighty doors that magically take our sins away just by stepping through them. See, one of the major problems within us all and the thing that corrupted the doors of the church is our own inability to humble ourselves and admit that we sin. We just want to be a doctor for the needy and skip all of the steps in between. There was only one doctor though and there will only ever be one. Paul summed it up when he said, "follow me as I follow Christ". You all, whether by good intentions or by evil plans have become whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside, but inside you are dead, decaying, festering corpses pointing your fingers at the sins of the world.The days have come for the downfall of the church. I have news for you, you are not God's chosen and you never will be. God's chosen do not congregate, they do not gather in mass and they do not fill their hearts with the false deceit that they are the chosen one's. God's chosen people are a scattered race of people living out their lives doing whatever they can to help someone else. They have love for the people that borders absolute insanity. They have hope that they will survive even though their heads are cutoff, and they have faith to believe that there is a difference between right and wrong and that the difference is worth fighting for. With all of this said, I am not going to be one of those hypocrites who is going to outline all of the difference's and then sit here and try to proclaim that I am a Christian and an example worthy of following... I am not. I am simply a blind man who was given a message. You see, they say that with knowledge comes sorrow... well I wasn't able to bear the sorrow of knowing the heart of God so I left some years back. I don't know if He will ever invite me back to that place, which I guess is the eternal penance for the sin that I committed. Though while I was there, I learned a few things that may prevent others from making the same mistakes that I made long ago. You're not a Christian because of what you say or because of the shallow actions that you perform "in the name of Christ". What makes you a Christian is your willingness to commit yourself to the idea of God to the point in which you would be willing to die for what you believe. Now this can be taken too far also (hence the war in Iraq), so please don't misunderstand what I am saying. The ideals are Love, Hope, and Faith with a sense of anger over what is right and what is wrong. Live you life as if you were actually a living breathing person who cared. In a word, it's about self sacrifice.
| | |
| Alright, so I took this test on tickle.com that kind of caught my eye. It was labeled spiritual faith compatibility test. I'm not really sure why I decided to take this test, seeing as how lately I have just been trying to hide under a shell and not deal with spiritual issues, but I took it none the less. It turns out that I am most compatible with religions that deal with salvation. Now tell me that isn't a vague answer. I looked at what other people got, and I saw stuff like Christian, unitarianism, atheism... and other really well known religious faiths... but I got that vague crap. Then again, there was one thing that I noticed while I took the test and that was that none of the questions and answers that they provided to choose from really depicted my personal beliefs. So I thought that I might slip back into my old ways for a moment and explain what those beliefs are (I know some of you that knew me way back in the day, which was a Wednesday according to Dane Cook, are probably a little confused about this topic... so here goes).
I should warn you, this one's a little long...
Well, I guess to start, there will have to be a point of reference for everything else. So I guess it would be best to start by stating that I believe in God. Not a god, one of many gods, some gods, or oh my god's... but the God. I believe that the world was created by Him and that it is the only rational explanation. I know that many atheists believe adamantly otherwise, but the mere fact that Darwin himself did not truly believe in the theory of evolution brings me enough evidence to clearly say that to believe in evolution takes more faith in an ideal system than most church congregations have combined. I have had many people say that to believe in God and creationism is an intellectual crutch; that in some way, it is the easiest answer to say that God created everything rather than trying to search for the root of every organism on the planet. The problem with that statement is that most of us who do believe in God find a fascination with our beginnings in some way shape or form and find ourselves irrevocably bound to a moral code of conduct ruling almost every fiber of our way of life. Now if that sounds easy to you, then you need to address your concerns to the talking monkey with a golden banana sitting to your right because you my friend have fallen off of the crazy train. It seems to me that the simplest and most intellectually dulling explanation is the one that only provides us with a beginning and leaves us no responsibility or accountability in accordance with the rest of our lives except not to do things that are socially unacceptable. There's no higher purpose, no moral expectation, and no motivation to do or be anything other than what we personally feel is right to us. You don't look at the bigger picture unless it further benefits you, and you rarely ever find within yourself acts of real kindness. Now in this paragraph, I referenced my beliefs in a broad association with Christians through the belief in God, I am not going to further define the word Christian so that I would not be dis proven by some religious wackjob that has been riding that crazy train in a monkey suit and holding a golden banana.
The belief that there is a God and that Jesus was His son is not enough to be called a Christian. Now I know that many of you out there are throwing John 3:16 at me right now, but if you pulled your head out of your ass for just a few moments you might understand what it is that I am saying. The word Christian quite literally means "little Christ". Now if your definition of Christ is a person who attends church once (maybe twice) a week, religiously gives ten percent of all his money in the tithe, joins prayer clubs, and volunteers at events taking place at the church as often as he can then your view is a little askew. You aren't a Christian, you are a believer. There is a distinct difference in those two words. One defines who you are, and the other defines where you are going. Seems contradictory to those in the faith doesn't it? Well answer me this, when was Christ ever seen in a church where he wasn't attempting to correct and teach the pharisees? Yes, he taught many of His lessons on the footsteps of the synagogue and in close proximity to the church, but most of the time he spent in places and homes that were just as culturally unacceptable to his time as if he taught in a strip club or a bar in our time. He didn't hang out with "righteous" and "holy" men. He hung out with thieves, liars and prostitutes. When questioned about his actions he stated simply this, "The healthy do not have need of a doctor, but it is the sick who have need". In other words, he didn't spend time around groups of people that made him comfortable, but around people that needed most to hear what it was that he had to say. It wasn't an approach that said, "ok, I believe so I'm going to heaven and I'm good". It was an approach that said "I have the cure for cancer and I am going to give it to as many people as I possibly can". There is a distinct difference. As churchgoing "christians", there is often the teaching that you should never surround yourself with those who do not believe in God, for eventually they will pull you down to their level and make you believe otherwise. It isn't all too uncommon for people to have the reference of being "unequally yoked" tied in to that. Now that's all well and good and it has to it a certain element of truth, but if we are constantly surrounded by the healthy, the sick and the needy will get neglected... and that is exactly what has happened with the church. It's called complacency and here's the bitch of it all, we're all to proud to admit that it COULD be us. As Christians we are great at looking into the lives of others and judging their sins as if we were God Almighty but when it comes to judging ourselves it's like a blind man looking at his reflection in the mirror and saying "What zit? There's no zit on my face!" We look at the way things appear in a simply shallow manner and we judge the whole world based on that but when it comes to ourselves, somehow we miraculously find an exception to the rule. There's on word that sums it up... hypocrite. Now back to what I was saying, let's assume that I am right here and that this is what a Christian really is and that is what a believer really does. There is a huge difference in the two words. So you can still pull out John 3:16 if you'd like and just close your web browser right now, or you can forget John for the moment and just hear me out. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he made a very interesting statement. He said that true religion was to care for the helpless and to defend the widow. In essence, love and justice. He didn't say anything about attending church, prayer, tithing, or any of the other facets that most "christians" hold onto. And in another passage in Corinthians he stated that the greatest of all gifts were faith, hope and love. Almost as if to say that nothing else mattered. Now applying this to what we know of Christ let me sum up his actions for you. He had faith in the God and the message of God, he had love for the people who didn't believe in the message, and he had hope that the people would accept the message. He didn't dilly dally with people who liked to walk the lines of Christianity and never really choose a side, but instead he moved on to the people who would accept what he had to say.
and this is a work in progress that I will have to continue at a later time. Happy 4th of July!
| | |
| Now here's something for you all...two reviews in one day. How about that! (They didn't have the right picture for it in the database, so that's why the first Spider-Man is up there)
Spider man three (despite it's cynical criticism's from comic fanatic's who have no life other than tearing down movie's that didn't follow the story line to the letter) was an incredible flick. It held to the standard set by the other two movies and even exceeded them in some ways. The way that they performed the correlation of events and the progression of the climax was incredible. Now, it did not hold true to the comic book in every way. I will be one of the first one's to admit that. But as a movie, it was still incredible. I'm one of those people that will critique a film for not holding to the story of a comic book, but I can still enjoy the movie as long as the elements are believable and the story is well done. The whole progression of the black suit was very much like the comic books. They did a good job explaining the appearance of the symbiont and it's affect on Spider-man, and the relationship between Harry Osborne and Peter Parker was done brilliantly. Now there were a few things that were completely out of place for the story (in regard to the comic book) like the fact that Sandman wasn't the real killer of Ben Parker; Harry Osborne did die in the comics, but not in the manner, time, or place that was in the movie; Eddie Brock was a hell of a lot bigger than in the movie (why they chose Topher Grace for that role, I'll never really know); and Venom was never killed but instead was the long time nemesis of Peter Parker... and at this point Gwen Stacy was supposed to have been introduced, fallen in love with Peter Parker, and died on the bridge scene that took place in the end of the first movie. So a lot of people saw this film as being a complete blasphemy of the comic book, but the thing that people have to keep in mind is that comic books, if followed to the letter, don't make good movies. The dialog is always cheesy and impersonal and the story always has gaps and holes in it that are left unexplained. I guess the easiest way of explaining this is by just coming out and saying it. Comics are for kids. that is the simple truth of it. Kids don't need well written lines that reflect reality of human emotion and story line that makes complete sense for them to believe in it. You can have unexplained gaps and crucial character's die and mysteriously come back to life without explaining how it was possible and they will still love it. Adults are not the same way. when you make a movie that is geared towards adults, you will irrevocably have to make adjustments to the script to accommodate for the fact that it has to be two hours of gripping story line that will make you want to see it again and again. I know how most comic book enthusiast feel about this story. After all, I was one of the first one's to note the changes in the story line from the very beginning. Like the fact that Spider man didn't have his web shooters as a natural ability. He developed those. And as noted earlier, it was not Mary Jane who was on the bridge, it was Gwen Stacy...and she died! All of this goes to say that there are some artistic developments that movie makers have to incorporate in order to make the movie in two hours, and make it believable. Now if they had gone off and made major changes to Spider man, like give him monstrously huge fangs or something, then I would be right there on the boat with the rest of the comic freaks saying how terrible it was of the movie makers to have done this. But the fact of the matter is that they held true to the core of who Spider man is and the challenges that he faced. For that reason, I thought that Spider man three was a great movie and I will be proud to be one of the first people to buy it in stores when it comes out. (Notice that I said BUY IT and not DOWNLOAD IT! Piracy is a crime and a great way to get a computer virus no matter what anyone tells you)
| | |
|  | Currently Watching
Stay
By Ewan McGregor, Ryan Gosling, Kate Burton, Naomi Watts, Elizabeth Reaser
see related |
Alright, here's a thought I had that kind of branches from the movie critique for just a moment (no need to worry though, it will be at the end).What is the deal with Atheist? Did the rest of the world do something to piss them off? or is the requirement to be an atheist just to be a complete dick. You know what I have never met? An Atheist that said, "well if that's what you believe, then best of luck to you". The are always really smug and arrogant about what they believe and can't wait to explain to you how your beliefs are wrong. Now I know that there are some really radical Christians and Muslims that some might say are the same way, but the key word to that sentence is RADICAL! Most Christians and Muslims I know are very peaceful, loving people. Don't get me wrong, Christians and Muslims evangelize their faith too, but when they do it they generally have a tone of respect towards the other persons beliefs.Now, They've got their nut-jobs too, but the fact is that I have met a lot of Atheists and they are all that way. I may be way off base here, so if you are an Atheist who feels like he/she is being misrepresented and you are reading this, then please comment and let me know. I haven't met every Atheist, just quite a few, so I am willing to admit that i am wrong on this subject so please let me know. It's just something that I had been thinking about lately.
Now onto the review...
Stay was an incredibly unique movie. For those of you who haven't seen it, you may not want to read past this point because it could spoil the ending for you. I thought the movie overall (though well directed with an extremely talented cast) just didn't make a whole lot of sense. It was very well written, except for the fact that the ending left too many piece's unresolved. It seemed to me that the movie was supposed to be about a man's last dream as he lay bleeding to death. The only problem is (and this is the part that really kind of screwed things up) when after the main character had died (Ryan Gosling), they did a close up on Ewen McGregor's face and flashed a bunch of scenes from earlier in the movie as if he had remembered these things. Now the problem with that is this movie was supposed (I think) to be Ryan Gosling's last dream as he lay dying... so how could Ewen McGregor remember something from someone else's dream? Other than that, the movie really was quite good all around.
| | |
| Alright, I think that since its release, everyone has become familiar
with this movie. Now before I begin to have every fan of 28 Days Later
begin to hate me, let me just start with the pro's of the movie...
First off, the story and the imagination behind the movie was a very
different and extremely interesting take on the whole zombie thing. At
first, I thought it was going to be just like Resident Evil. But after
seing what the movie was about, I realized that the concept for this
film was much more terrifying in nature. The fact that the zombies were
faster and pumped full of the adrenaline of true rage made for a much
more formadable apponent and overall contributed greatly to the
hopelessness of the movie. Another contributor to that element was the
speed in which the virus was contracted. Overall, it was a very
compelling story with a talented cast. Now for the con's...
Does anybody out there actually think that this movie was scary? I dont
know about everyone else, but personally, I found this movie (despite
it's compelling story and talented cast) to be a total waste of my
life. I dont know what the director was thinking (or if he even was for
that matter) when he decided to shoot the film in the manner that he
did. He was way to chaotic in the angles. It was impossible at moments
to see what was going on because he never stayed with anything long
enough to really comprehend the scene. The chaotic movements of the
camera only left me with a feeling of frustration, not one of fear. I
personally think that this entire movie was ruined by the astoundingly
horrible directing of this once promising story. On top of that, I
really didn't need to see a fully naked man. So thank you, sir, for
completely violating my eyes and making me feel as though I needed to
cut them out.
...oh, to hell with it. Nobody reads this website anyway. The Film
sucked ass because Im pretty sure that the director had his head up
there!
| | |
|
