Religion Friday

I was surprised while checking my email this morning when I found a comment had been made on this post made nearly 4 years ago. I invite you all to take a moment and read the post and Anonymous' comment because that is where whe shall lead off for today's post.

First of all, thank you for the comment, Mr./Ms. Anonymous. I'm being absolutely serious, I'm glad to hear what others have to say. That, and your comment gave me a chance to go back and get into details about that post/the story behind it and the themes that I should have discussed then, but was still a lazy college student.

Now, we had no intentions of arriving so late for our trip to JJ, but Thursday nights were crazy busy at that point - we had BSU (Baptist Student Union) meetings on Thursdays at 7, and that year I was in charge of putting together the service, so by the time it was over, we had gotten everyone together, and were able to leave it was already 9. Add to that the mentioned wrong turn (made by yours truly) and we were way later than we wanted to be. The reason we never ordered tickets is because they said that that particular night was free for college students, and (being a college student) I couldn't afford to go any other time. Anyway, when we got there, we talked to a very nice woman who we asked if we would be able to get these free college tickets for another night, but she was unable to do that for us. So yes, we left dejected and sad, but I understand completely that you don't want people staying up so late night after night.

Here's the rub though. If a church is honestly as concerned about saving peoples' souls, why should they have to order tickets in advance? Why in the world do you want people to have to pay in order for you to have the chance to witness to them? I'm not trying to be funny, I honestly don't understand. I know that it costs a ton of money to put on the project each year, but why be willing to spend so much money to save people if you can only save those who can afford to come? Wouldn't that money and volunteer time be better off spent going to a Christian soup kitchen so that not only can you be a witness during service, but you are also meeting people where they need assistance most?

Moving on, I actually can use the Word of God to substantiate my claims. Can you? You see, the book of Revelation (no "s" for those of you who say Revelations - that annoys me, I'm a stickler for that) is what we call metaphorical and is therefore open to much interpretation. I daresay that while Mr./Ms. Anonymous thinks that I have "heard someone in a position of importance" tell me what to believe about JJ/Revelation, I must refer you back two weeks to my post about Sunday School and learning your beliefs/theology. I can ask the same of you though, have you read any books or articles for both sides of this particular argument? I know I have. In fact, I used to be a firm believer in pre-millenial, pre-tribulation theology, but then through my own studies and thought I realized that the God that Jesus Christ preaches about and John had his Revelation about is one of love and forgiveness. Sure there are stories of his wrath and judgement, but after Christ brought in the new law, I don't ever find him mentioning God plucking away his "favorites" and leaving the rest of the world to die in horrible twisted ways without a chance of redemption.

The comment also mentions that it is one thing to say something "in love" and another to truly say something in love. So in love, may I ask how many of those people that you "lead to Christ" during JJ you/your church actually actively disciples? If I remember correctly from previous experiences there, when the trip was over, we were brought into a prayer tent, a prayer was said, and those who accepted Christ were given a Bible and sent on their way. Maybe I'm missing something, but discipleship is an integral part in anyone's relationship with God and just telling someont tha tthey are "saved" and then letting them out on their way doesn't seem to me like discipleship and leaves these brand new Christians with no idea as to actually what they believe aside from that they are now saved from a place called Hell (which they don't really know much about).

As to the question about "when was the last time I lead [sic] someone to Christ," I can honestly (and happily) say never. I don't save people or "bring them to Christ," God alone does that. But, I do spend time each day trying to follow Christ's commandments to love everyone (that includes homosexuals and those who have abortions - a part of JJ that truly irks me, but is way too big to go into here) and to love God. If that provides me the opportunity to talk about God (like every Friday - right here on your favorite blog channel), then I will gladly discuss my faith with anyone. I don't go out of my way to walk up to strangers and ask them if they know Jesus because really, without any sort of context or relationship with that person, why should they believe anything you say about your God and your faith?

Aso for what passion the world sees in me... well, that's a toughie... maybe something that I spent 4 years studying in college and just spent the past 5 pages (at least in my little notebook it was 5) talking about religion, I'd have to say that I'm quite passionate about the subject. In fact, I'm pretty passionate about all the things I write about here - that's why I do it.

Thank you again Mr./Ms. Anonymous for your comments, I enjoyed writing back.

Oh crap, I almost forgot - Scare Tactics as a way to salvation has always seemed sketchy to me and not just because of the tent experience that I mentioned earlier, but mainly because it feels kind of deceptive. A decision made under any major duress, particularly that of fear, isn't a very logical though. I ask: if someone is in a terrifying position (make one up, my brain is fried) and their way out is by denying their faith, would you say that they ever had that faith to begin with? Shouldn't the same ring true for the opposite situation? Does someone really and truly believe something if they are pressured or scared into saying that they do? I honestly don't think so. That, in a nutshell (probably pistachio), is why I don't really like or agree with using fear for salvation.

P.S. No Soapbox Saturday this week, I think I used it all up today, sorry.

Gamer Thursday

Before we hop into today's subject, I need to take a moment to clear house and respond to some comments that have been left. For Tim of Bookish Tuesday, I have not read any of the online graphic novels for Heroes, I was really disappointed by the end of Season 1 and Season 2 never really caught up to the best stuff within Season 1. It's not that I think Season 2 is really that bad, I just haven't watched it since it was originally on air and I'll agree that it is probably not as bad as I originally claimed, but I don't really have time to give it more than one chance at the moment, but I am looking forward to Season 3 and where it takes the story. Aside from Heroes Tim, just pick a book from your pile, I'm definitely open to new books, I just need something goot to read. On that subject, Mr. cp of the Bookish Tuesday post... I know who you are and I will punch you in the throat if you mention that book again.

smartyP, I have to say that your comment on yesterday's post said exactly what I wanted to say only much more intelligently and eloquently and I thank you very much.

Now to games!!! Burnout: Paradise is a wonder to behold. I don't particularly like car games (particularly racing ones), but the Burnout series has had a special place in my heart ever since I picked up Burnout 3 a few years back. That game had the wondermous Crash mode, where it would set up a particular road and (in a puzzle type form) ask you to crash and cause as much monetary damage as possible. Many an hour I spent hurtling my metallic wreckage in hopes of hitting a couple of buses and that elusive oil tanker worth $20,000 (I think, its been a while).

Anyway Burnout: Paradise doesn't have this Crash mode, and for this I was definitely hesitant about ever buying the title. Back in January when it was first released I loved playing the demo over and over, but for some reason I could never really justify dropping $60 for the game. So, when the price dropped to 30 here recently, my brother and I decided to go ahead and snag it (plus there has been and will be tons of free downloadable content for the game) and I am now truly happy that I did. Since Paradise is an open world game, there is a ton of driving around finding shorcuts, bashing barriers, and taking on random races whenever you want.

As you all now know how much I love online co-op, Paradise truly is a winner. With easy invites and the ability to join in someone wherever they are in the city at any time... it's perfect for my gaming time. Before I get in too much and start to repeat myself, I'll just say, Burnout is a super fun game and that's all I need.

World News Wednesday

Well, here is the big news tonight, as I'm sure you've all seen.

While it's not exactly surprising news, it is definitely pretty big news as most people are noting - if only because Senator Obama is the first African-American in a major party presidential nomination. I don't know what I really want to say about this. I know that part of me feels like it shouldn't be big news because by saying this, it kind of seems as though its a huge surprise and a massive leap forward in relieving racial tension. We all know that this isn't really the case and that Obama got the nod because he was good at his job. He's a good politician, and regardless of race (or even gender, had Hillary received the nod) I think the Democratic party picked who was right for them at this time in history.

I honestly don't know what else to say. I'm really glad he got the nomination because I genuinely like the guy (at least what I've read/seen, I don't actually know him), I guess we'll just have to see how things go down in November to see how everyone thinks of him.

Bookish Tuesday

Rather than talking about a book, I thought it would be a good idea to propose something to you faithful readers. Would anyone be interested in picking a book to read together and discuss (as much as possible through comments and my posts) each Tuesday? I think it would be a good thing to see what everyone who reads this actually thinks of different styles of books and such. If you like this idea, say so in the comments and put up a couple of options for books and we'll pick one out soon.

Aside from this, I've been lending a friend some Batman comics to show him what the new franchise is basing (loosely) some of their story ideas. For those who are interested, Batman Begins takes a lot of cues from Batman: Year One by Frank Miller (yes, the same guy who wrote 300 and Sin City). The Dark Knight takes a few, although not as much, from Batman: The Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale. Loeb and Sale are a fantastic team and have written some really great stuff that goes back to origin tales and the early years of many of the most famous heroes (Superman, Spider-Man, Hulk, Daredevil). Sale's art is what really grabs me. Something about the way he draws people reminds me of a 50's style of comic and it always fits in perfectly with Loeb's stories. Both of them also do work for Heroes, but since that seemed to drop off quite a bit in the second season, we'll have to hope that they weren't really paying attention last year (although season 3 looks like it could be cool, so there is hope).

Sorry so short, but as you can tell by the posting time, it's been kind of a long day. See you tomorrow for some World News.

Movie Monday

The summer movie season is over. By that I mean nothing good came out this past weekend (that I could see anyway - I wanted to see Hamlet 2) and now I am in a slump for movies. The only movie that I watched in the past week was The Goonies. Luckily, it brought up an interesting point watching it.

See, movies that we love as kids, no matter how much nostalgia may be attached or how awesome it may have seemed at the time, they still kind of suck. The Goonies is actually no exception. I like the movie just fine, but having to watch two hours of kids constantly yelling at each other and saying pretty stupid things? I can get that by babysitting. The plot holds up pretty decently for being what it is and that movie is still a lot of fun at parts, but it's not what it used to be. Part of this can be blamed on the times (it's fine for Data to be nerdy and a tech wizard - he's Japanese), but part of it is just plain kids. The whole time I watched the movie, I was thinking that it was probably really fun for the kids to run around screaming and playing with each other and it's probably a bunch of fun for kids watching who can relate (I know it was for me).

That's all it's meant to be, I'm sure. Just a movie for kids to watch and identify with (well at least as much as a Millenial kid can identify with the 80's), and that's not a bad thing. Anyway, aside from movies, I've been watching two really good shows about selling drugs, each one from a completely different point of view (nice segue, huh?). Weeds is a comedy about a suburban mom who sells weed. It's funny, but we've gotten into season 3, and I think it is starting to get a bit old. On the other side of the fence we've got The Wire, which is all about a group of cops set to take down a huge drug operation in Baltimore. Since I'm only halfway through season 1, I can't say too much about how good it gets or what's in store, but I can say that so far I'm enjoying it very much.

I'll try to watch a movie or something this week so that next Movie Monday isn't so sparse. Either way, I'll see you tomorrow for.... crap, I haven't read a book in a long long while...

Soapbox Saturday

Get ready for a doozy!

When your government isn't yours anymore...
by: Jody Dunn

"A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." from the Gettysburg Address, by Abraham Lincoln.

This high minded ideal, stated plainly by Abe Lincoln, to me, sets the standard of what the United States of America is really all about.

We choose everyday, through our routine and mostly mundane observance of its laws, to create an institution that binds us together: a government OF the people.

Further, we choose its guiding leadership from among our own number. Any one of us has the right, the opportunity and those us with the talent, have the duty to step up and serve in the leadership of our mutually agreed upon institution: a government BY the people.

Lastly, this institution has the self evident obligation to exist solely for the short, intermediate and long term benefit of its citizenry: a government FOR the people. Our government does not exist for its own self interest.

This rhetoric is not new or innovative, but is apparently easily forgotten by the leadership of our governmental agencies.

I am a long time active citizen. I have worked to raise money for our local Chamber of Commerce. I vote. I make an effort to meet personally those who represent me in government. I try to remain informed so that I have reasonable opinions about the things that effect me and my family. From personal experience I have seen how easy it is to get caught up in the idea that the "City" or the "County" or the "U.S." or the "PTA" for that matter are so righteous and wonderful that they deserve to exist and grow and be successful, well , just because it's so great! Who doesn't want to see their city grow? Or the economy expand? or raise more money for good causes? It's difficult to argue the point. OF COURSE THESE THINGS ARE GOOD. But it is the motive that matters.

An example…

I live, work, and play within the metropolitan area known as Mobile, Alabama. I love this place; I love everything about it. I am loyal to our area and a wild cheerleader of its greatness as a place to, well, live work and play. The City of Mobile as an entity resides within Mobile County, and like most urban areas in the last 25 years has experienced economic declines as white flight, and more recently black flight, have cratered the tax base within boundaries the city.

Note that the metro area as whole is BOOMING. Domestic and international businesses have "discovered us" and this area is becoming a hotbed of amazing economic activity. Visionary leadership on the part of our City, County, State and Business Community (Chamber of Commerce) has made this possible. Holy Cow, have they done a great job!

I think that's why it's even more heartbreaking given our successes and the obvious talent of those responsible, when those same people seem to forget whom they serve.

The suburbs surrounding the city are a growing field of commerce, sprouting to support the exploding middle class who are leaving the city to find cheaper, more comfortable housing, better schools, less crime, and fewer zoning restrictions. Clearly there are things that the City of Mobile must address within its current borders in order to remain viable as an urban population center. People move for a reason. These are difficult problems to face and cannot be solved overnight. There are hard and unpopular decisions that must be made, like laying off employees, attacking blight, overhauling whole areas of government. The long term beneficiaries of such a strategy are the people, who would come flocking from all corners to live in a City so well managed and committed to a dynamic future.

Unfortunately, it’s a lot easier to keep things just they way they are, but that's not possible when the tax base is RUNNING AWAY! The easy solution? Chase the revenue.

The logic of local leaders seems to go like this: The people have moved outside our boundaries and taking their money with them. They are happy in new houses and living good lives in self managed homeowner's associations instead of zoning commissions. They have safer children in racially integrated new schools. They are closer to where they work. Sure this is all great for the people, but bad for the "city" as an institution. So... let's
expand our borders to include the stores where the people shop so that the City can benefit from the sales tax generated there.

But wait! The majority of the people that shop in those stores do not want
to be a part of this city because of our aforementioned problems. Well, let's draw the new city borders so that only the people that will vote in our favor will be eligible to vote at the polls. Then we can get the revenue "for the city" regardless of what the majority of the people really want... In addition we can collect taxes from the entire county, not just city residents, since nearly all the big grocery stores will be inside the city limits. As a special bonus, we as city leaders won't have to face with any of the REAL issues that plague our fair City, the ones that are really hard and might not get us re-elected...

And so annexation moves forward.

When did the health of the institution (in the case City Government) and its coffers become more important than the happiness and overall success of the people at large? When did City Revenue become more important than fair and open elections? I would say it happened when our leaders became convinced that if it's good for the city, it must be good for all of us... instead of the other way around.

This whole upside-down notion of the role of government is not unique to Mobile. In fact, it’s pervasive throughout our country. In the short to intermediate term, it may not even be harmful. In the long term however, I think it reinforces the idea that our government is not looking out for us. We simply are here to feed the machine. It’s very difficult to be excited about the direction of our community when our government so clearly intends to betray our trust and abuse it position by manipulating the system to raise revenues for its own sake.

Our country is built on optimism; on the idea that with hard work anything is possible, that tomorrow will be better than today, and that collectively we the people are in charge of our own destiny. Every time our leaders put the governmental institution ahead of the common good, we lose a little of what makes us great.

We are blessed that so far our greatness as a people has been sufficient to overcome the weaknesses of our government. I pray that this is always the case.


P.S. Vote No to Annexation.

Religion Friday

Due to requests, this Religion Friday post will be about five of my favorite religious books. It was supposed to be 10, but honestly I couldn't think of 10 without repeating authors. Either way, these aren't necessarily in any sort of order, but they are all amazing reads that are fantastic works of writing. Without further ado, lets get started:

Reaching out Without Dumbing Down by Marva Dawn.
This book was actually one of my class books in college for a Christian Worship class. Dawn does a fantastic job of breaking down how we can be welcoming to visitors and encourage worship without making it too simple for those who are craving depth for their services and churches. While it is definitely a book that is more directed to leaders in church/worship, the book definitely has some amazing nuggets of truth throughout that I seriously think everyone should read.

What's So Amazing About Grace? by Phillip Yancey
It was hard for me to pick which Yancey book to put on the list because all of his writings are so good, but none really had as much of an impact on my thoughts as this one. Obviously, the book is a focus on grace and our understanding of it, and Yancey ties in his theology with a bunch of stories (like he normally does) and it really makes it a great read. On a side note, this book goes along well with The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which would have made my list but since I haven't finished it, I disqualified it from my list (sadly). Back to the subject at hand, I really think any Yancey book could fit in this list, but if you need to grab one (for budget's sake or something) this is it.

The Return of the Prodigal by Henri J.M. Nouwen
Like the previous book, it is fairly obvious what Nouwen's book is about. The book is broken down into three sections: the prodigal, the father, and the other son. While a lot of sermons/recitations of the story do a good job on focusing on one of these characters and how their story is interweaved into Jesus' parable, I really think that Nouwen's relationship with each of the characters and how it relates to different times in his life is truly fantastic.

The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis
My two favorite pictures of the theory of Heaven come from C.S. Lewis. One is from this book and the other is from The Last Battle. Basically, this is an allegorical tale about a man who is stuck in purgatory and then gets to move up and experience Heaven. It's a really good story, but I'll admit it has been a while since I last read it, so I can't go too much into detail without getting my lazy butt off this chair to actually go get it.

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
The only book on this list to make my Top Ten Books of all time post from way back when, I first read this book as part of a book club where we were trying to find classic religious books that none of us had read. This book continues to stand out in my mind whenever I think about religion if only because Chesterton is an amazing writer. He is funny, intelligent, and snarky - what else could you want. The only thing I do have to warn about this is that I have recommended it to people who say it's really hard to read. I never felt that way, but it definitely requires that you pay attention to what he's saying in order to move on to the next paragraph.

So there you have it. Stay tuned tomorrow for another Soapbox Saturday (this one is a little more serious than last weeks) brought to you by Jody.

Gaming Thursday

This past week has been a week of XBOX Live Arcade titles for me. The first game I picked up is a remake of an NES classic and the second an "art nouveau" type game all about hidden meaning. Both of them are completely fantastic games, but in two totally different ways.

Bionic Commando: Rearmed is a remake of the Nintendo classic called (oddly enough) Bionic Commando. Some say that it is one of the best games on the NES, but I can neither confirm nor deny this, since I never played the original. The remake at least, is great. It's definitely got that old school difficulty that can be so frustrating and yet (for the most part) it sucks me in and makes me want to keep trying (at least until I bought Braid, but more on that later).

The gameplay takes a bit to get used to mainly just because you can't jump at all and really have to learn to use the bionic arm (I forgot to tell you - the hook for the game is that you are a commando with a bionic arm, hence the name) toe get aroudn efficiently and even though I'm a few hours into the game already, I still haven't gotten the hang of the arm and I fall to my death pretty consistently. Maybe it's just me, but I'm more forgiving to these sort of classic titles for their difficulty, if only because I know that when I die, 90% of the time it was my own fault. I have no crappy camera or wonky controls to blame my death on, because both work just fine. On the other hand, enemies can be a bit cheap and you do get hit a ton by stray bullets flying around you if you try to move too fast, but I think it's just that I need to learn to go slowly and methodically through this rather than trying to blast through. Simply put, for ten bucks, this game is a serious steal.

Speaking of great deals, you can also download Braid on XBLA for only 5 bucks more, but holy cow is it a great experience. Although it's only about 5 hours long (on the first play through - subsequent times are shorter, obviously), it is a fantastic thinking man's game. While Bionic Commando is a straight action title, Braid is definitely a lot harder to define. I guess the closest I can put it is a 2D puzzle platformer - like Portal, only side-scrolling. For those of you who may not have experience Portal, let me just gush over what is probably one of the best (if not the best) games of 2007 (and not just because of the awesome song at the end). The only major difference (outside of that whole 2D/3D thing) between the two games is the humor. Portal was filled with smart ass robotic comments, but Braid is completely serious, even dark.

Both the story and the gameplay for Braid are a little hard to define, the story much moreso (I beat it on Tuesday and still don't really know what it is about). Basically, what I understand is that you are Time and you are trying to track down your Princess. There really is a ton more than that and a megaton twist at the end, but I really can't say much more without spoiling and I can't do it justice anyway. So instead, I'll just tell you to play it - no seriously, go play Braid.

The gameplay is basically a series of logic puzzles strung together to collect puzzle pieces. That's actually it... but while it sounds simple, these little pieces can be trickly little devils to get. Even though they can be extremely difficult (at times, some are really easy), it makes the game so much more rewarding when you finally figure out that little bit that you were missing to grab that piece. The creator of the game (Jonathan Blow) says not to use walkthroughs or FAQs to get through the game, and I actually agree. Normally when I get stuck on a game, I shoot off to gamefaqs.com for help, but I held out here and holy crap do I feel good. The harder puzzles in the game can take bunches of messing around to get or even just time away from the game. Seriously, I went to bed on Monday after a particularly difficult part, only to wake up to have the answer come to me. Speaking of time, the hook for Braid is time-twising. Kind of like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, only a bit more in depth and completely crucial to the gameplay. It seemed to make the game a bit easier to take for me, since deaths and mistakes are only temporary and easily reversed and tried again.

I know I'm starting to ramble about this game, but it really is that good. Between these two games, I've now played some of the best games in a really long time. If you've got a 360, I think there really is no excuse for you not to get at least one of these fine titles.... now if only I could get paid for these endorsements....

World News Wednesday

Here is your link, and here we go!

This week's article is very difficult to write about because I'm not exactly sure that there is a clear cut answer to the question. For one thing, I highly doubt that the "legal age" to buy alcohol really is the issue here. Since the article is focused on this specific point to the issue, we'll try to stay focused on it and look at both sides and maybe even find a solution (although I doubt it).

One of the big points for lowering the legal age to buy alcohol is the idea that so many other things happen when a kid hits 18 (voting, draft, smoking, etc.) that adding in alcohol would seem to be a logical step. A quote in the article is one I've heard a number of times... "If you're old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink in your country" (or however they end it). I'll admit that there is logic to this argument, but I'd rather use it backwards to flip the draft age so that 18 year olds don't go dying. Aside from that, it is a decent point. If the government somehow (I have no idea how) judges that when a kid hits 18, they are an adult who can choose to die in battle or from lung and mouth cancer and yet can't relax with a cheap wine cooler after a hard day working at McDonald's (sorry, cheap jab), it just seems to be an odd boundary.

Another point pushed by this camp is the "forbidden fruit" idea wherein underage kids drink so much because it is something that is rebellious and that if it were legal, the amount of young binge drinkers would drop. While there might be some validity in this argument, I'm not too sure how well it holds up. For one, it's more of a responsibility/maturity issue than a legal one, young kids have no problem getting ahold of alcohol as is, so making it easier to procure is kind of a solution to a non-problem.

On the other side of the argument are those who think that the legal age needs to remain the same and responsibility needs to be held to (at least in the article) college campuses and "of age" people to monitor and keep people from this binge drinking phenomenon (if you will). The problem I find with this argument is that it is what is allegedly already in place and seems to not quite work. The problem is deciding who exactly would be responsible. While the kids may indeed be at college, I don't think it is the college's job to watch kids and keep them "straight."

The answer that I can come up with is twofold. One is obvious, the other is pretty twisted and more than likely won't work. The first is to educate and raise kids right. Help them to learn that drinking (like everything) is best done in moderation. It's not something that is wrong and it's a fine thing to do (drink, that is) but it's something that can get out of control very easily and therefore boundaries need to be learned early on in order that overconsumption becomes the rarity and not (as it seems to be reported) the norm.

The second of my answers is the twisted one and deals with colleges: make them completely dry. That means not just a slap on the wrist, but full suspension/expulsion for drinkers. Yeah, it's really harsh and alcohol/drinking is supposedly a huge part of the college experience, but if we are expecting people to go to college in order to learn and not party, take away the party. I know this idea will never work, but it is also part of my whole theory that college is way too much of an emphasis in our culture as is. Kids are nearly forced to go and good jobs require some sort of higher education so we kind of bring this culture upon ourselves rather than providing alternate ways to get into the workforce.

Okay, I know that my second theory needs a lot of work and would probably never really work, so what needs fixing? What are other solutions? Should the legal age actually be dropped to 18?

Bookish Tuesday

I mentioned something about it last week when I was talking about the Harry Potter books, how things changed from the books to the movies, and how the movies kind of change how you picture the books in your head. In that vein, I thought we'd take today and talk about the age-old question, why is the book always better than the movie?

The simple answer for this is: because it was written as a book, not as a movie. Book authors choose their medium because it was what they thought was best to express the story they wanted told. By choosing books, authors aren't constrained by the limit of sight and sound. Instead they allow the imagination to work and fill out pieces of the space within the story. A book also allows for greater detail, because they don't have to worry about going overbudget building the next ginormous set.

Books also allow for time to get sucked into the story. This happens in movies, I'll admit, but because a good book can rarely be read in 3 hours or less, they provide more of a chance for the reader to develop a relationship with the characters and the book as a whole so that the reader oftentimes feels like they are part of the story, observing it all happen within their mind. Not to say that good movies can't suck you in, I'm just saying that books offer more of an opportunity for this.

The opposite of this original theory also comes true. Novelizations of movies that are created for the sake of cashing in are never as good as the original piece. Just like the author of an original book, the director/creators of a movie chose film because they felt that it had some sort of draw that set it apart from another medium. Neither is necessarily a better way to telling a story, but when a piece of art is created within a specific medium, it tends to thrive best within that home turf. Do you agree?

Movie Monday

Today's Movie Monday might get a little bit cluttered, but I'll try to keep everything contained so that it is easy enough for you to understand. Let's start off with new releases in theaters this past weekend.

I tried to see both Tropic Thunder and Star Wars: The Clone Wars, but thanks to a wonderful misunderstanding, which I still blame on fandango, we missed Clone Wars last night. That's okay, I think, if only because Tropic Thunder was really good. I realized that (particularly for comedies) I really need to quit watching trailers because it always seems to ruin some of the good parts by knowing the punchline to the set-up. That being said, there were some great surprises in the movie that kept me laughing. The movie starts up with trailers for upcoming movies for Stiller, Black, and Downey's and I still think that they were one of the best parts of the whole experience (Downey's movie in particular). Tom Cruise has now lost some of his Scientology creepiness thanks to his awesome role in this movie, which is always a good thing. My main gripe with the flick is that the comedy seems a little forced at times, particularly with Jack Black's character. The other thing isn't really a gripe, but has to do with all the negative attention due to the use of the "R-word." It didn't really hurt the experience, but everytime I heard it, I felt those stupid propagandists nagging me and telling me not to laugh or enjoy that part. Neither of these is really a dealbreaker, and I found that Tropic Thunder (while maybe not as good as Pineapple Express) is definitely one of the funniest movies I have seen in a good while.

Leaving the theaters for a moment, a couple guys and I watched Layer Cake this week. Supposedly, this was the film that got Daniel Craig picked to be the new Bond for Casino Royale, and I can definitely see it. It's a good movie (made by the guy who made Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrells which I loved), but I don't really see how it could have secured Craig as Bond, if only for the reason that Mr. XXXX (his name in the movie) doesn't really like guns and gets his butt handed to him throughout the story. On the other hand, his character is very cool and calculated which lends to the Bond character quite well. On the whole, it was quite a good movie, and I'll give it my recommendation.

Lastly, as I mentioned last week we were going through the Harry Potter films. We finished up with Order of the Phoenix just in time for the announcement that Half-Blood Prince is being moved from a November release to sometime in July of 2009. I think that (as with the books) Goblet of Fire is still my favorite movie but that I think they do keep on getting better and better as the kids become more accustomed to acting and the characters they are playing (it also can't hurt that they know all the outcomes now). To put it quickly, the first two movies aren't exactly good, three is better, four is the best, and five is right in between three and four. How would you rank them?

And that's that. I'll see you tomorrow for Bookish Tuesday, where I will scramble to think of another great book seeing that I haven't turned a page of either of the books on my dresser in two weeks.

Soapbox Saturday: Rachel

My friend Maria made a simple, yet well-said tweet today. And I started thinking, "Whose idea was it to include raisins in a cookie?"

Cookies contain sugar, flour, a little salt, and some optional items such as chocolate or butterscotch chips. I see no reason to bring fruit into the mix. I don't put raisins in my oatmeal, so I dang sure don't want them in my oatmeal cookies.

Cookies make me feel like a kid - young, careless, free. As a kid, I ate cookies without regard to how they will look on my hips or whether they'll cause diabetes. A great-tasting sugar high was in my sights and that's all that mattered.

Raisins are for old people. They're only one step removed from prunes if you ask me. People eat them to stay regular - what does that have to do with cookies? I denounce the odd juxtaposition of stinky, old, good-for-you raisins floating in my platter of chocolate, peanutbutter, or butterscotch. Who invited the old people anyway? Do you party with your granny? Then don't party with raisins.

Now you may be thinking, "But I like the taste of raisins." Good for you. Buy those cute little boxes with the sunshine lady on the front and have at it. But stay away from my cookies.

I must admit raisins aren't the end of the world. Even Maria shows that you can simply eat around them. But that's like ignoring a problem and hoping it will go away. Then again, I wouldn't waste a good cookie either, and I've been known to eat around a few raisins myself. It's like seeing a bad opening band at a concert. You have to put up with the raisins to get to the good stuff.

Religion Friday

Sunday School is an interesting thing to me. I know that it can be a great thing for churchgoers of all ages, but I haven't exactly had any fantastic experiences on my own. Maybe its nothing to do with the structure and everything to do with me, but I doubt that... I'm awesome. So, what I think we need to do is work out what Sunday School might should be.

Early Sunday School lessons for little kids I find to be really good. They get to spend time just reading and learning the stories of the Bible. I think it's a great idea for young kids to just learn these stories as a foundation for their life in faith. However, as the kids get older teachers begin to add in their own theology to the stories and morality lessons, I start to have issues. It's not that I think kids need to learn this morality on their own, but I don't really think that teacher's own theological theories should be presented as fact... especially to kids who are impressionable (like me).

Once kids get into middle and high school, they begin to have questions about their faith and I find that to be a really good thing. The problem lies in people giving straight answers without providing any sort of alternate thought (this doesn't just lie with Sunday School teachers). It's not that we should dodge questions, but answers need to be given with the caveat that it may not be the right answer, but it is just what you believe yourself. I know it is a very hard to do this, if only because when you discover your own answers they are right for you, but it may not be the same thing that someone else believes and when a child/youth is told that something is the only answer and they hear something new, what is new is automatically seen as wrong.

This was a hard thing for me to get over and took quite a transformative time within college to work out my own answers. That is why I think that we should use Sunday School (particularly during youth ages) as a time for questons and discussions, and not just a lecture/lesson. Even though discussions may have everyone on the same side of the issue, it leaves teachers a chance to nudge and prod the kids to find out why they believe what they do. A lot of it seems to come down to what their parents believe they take as their own, and is never questioned as to whether it fits in with their beliefs (or even that of their faith).

I know this has morphed from a discussion of Sunday School to something about the formation of beliefs, but I think they are part of the same thing. I really think that Sunday School is a fantastic place for people to learn about their faith and the faiths of those who they worship with. It's also a really great place for a discussion of these beliefs so that everyone has a chance to hear other's beliefs and accept them, even if they don't quite fit with you.

Okay, now that Religion Friday is over and you've made it this far, it is time to introduce the next phase of the blog.... Soapbox Saturdays! You know what is so great about Soapbox Saturdays? You get to write them! That's right, you can write a post as an argument against something I've written or just something new that you want to write about. All you have to do is e-mail it to me (length is not an issue, it can be short or long - whatever you want). So start sending 'em in! Tomorrow's post is brought to you by Rachel, so I hope you all give her more respect than me and not skip over the post, but actually read it all. Until then!

Gaming Thursday

So, last week was all about my love for cooperation in gaming and here I am about to talk about a game where comptetition is the only thing. Soul Calibur 4 is a fighting game (yes, that is the name of the genre, and it is exactly what it sounds like) and I actually really like it. Outside of Smash Bros., Soul Calibur 2 was the only fighting game that I bought for the last generation of consoles (I got it on Gamecube if you must know), and unless Street Fighter IV makes a massive impression on me, it looks like SC4 may be my only fighting game for this generation too (again, not counting Smash Bros.).

I'm not exactly the best at fighting games, so while I know that there is a ton of combat depth to be found in this game, I currently haven't progressed much past random button mashing yet. But, even with that said, it's still a really fun game to play. To me, the best thing about the Soul Calibur series are the characters. I bought 2 because you can play as Link, and here in 4 the special characters are Yoda (for 360, Vader for PS3) and the Force Apprentice (from the upcoming Force Unleashed Star Wars game). Aside from him being incredibly cheap (he can't be thrown), Yoda is a blast to be. He plays just like the Yoda you see in Episodes 2 and 3, where he bounces around fighting Dooku and Palpatine. The Apprentice is still a little cheap (although not nearly as much as Yoda), but I can't help playing as him because his moveset is so great and he is such a BA. Outside of the special characters, I really like Maxi (with the nunchucks) and the zombie pirate Cervantes (for obvious reasons). The only thing is that I really need to nail down who I want to be so that I can actually get better at being them, rather than just fooling around.

My only real problem with the game lies there... I'm not good at it, and to be good at it will take time and practice. It's the same problem that I mentioned last week about shooters. You've got to put too much time in to be really competitive at any sort of level. That's why I just play against my brother when we don't really have time to do a longer game, but still want to get a couple of matches in. The other problem has nothing to do with the game. It's just that a game like this really needs one of these, and I really can't justify 60 bucks (the same price as the game) for a game stick that I would only use for a couple of games. And yet, every time I see that Arcade Stick... I want it bad, because playing a game like this on a regular controller pad just doesn't cut it and is actually a bit difficult.

I'm just being nitpicky here, the game is really good and it's tons of fun to play.

Oh, and by the way, I really don't like Mario Kart Wii and I regret buying it. It's going to Gamestop soon and I'm going to get some MS points to get Braid and Castle Crashers on Xbox Live Arcade. Speaking of, I got Bionic Commando: Rearmed yesterday, so look out for that next week (unless I get Braid first, because I really liked that demo).

World News Wednesday

I thought about doing something on the Olympics, but I think it's been well covered throughout the media. Instead, I thought we would read on about the problem with social networking and student-teacher relationships. Click here for your article.

Now, this article (like our previous discussion on Marijuana) isn't really all that clear cut. Sure, a vast majority of these teachers who keep a facebook or MySpace site are just on it for their own stuff, and when kids find it, all they want to do is seem cool by being friends with their teacher. The problem (as is quite obvious), lies within that percentage of teachers who either don't understand boundaries correctly or those that are just predatory and took to the job "because of the easy availability of kids." Should we err on the side of caution and ensure that kids can't have this out of school contact with their teachers? Let's look at each side.

The first side is that allowing teachers and students to have these relationships through social networking sites allows them the chance to build more trust between the two parties and could even help with student's grades and their willingness to learn. It also could help with cases of abuse (not between the student and teacher, although it would provide evidence for court cases - that's a good thing) because as the teacher gains the student's trust, they can become more open to things that are happening outside of the walls of the school. Aside from this little trust thing, it gives the students that one more way to feel like they are part of the community. By being "friends" with other students and teachers, the networking provides them this opportunity to see that they belong.

On the other side of the coin comes the abuses of all of the points mentioned above. Teacher's sites and comments can be taken out of context and used to destroy careers and lives. Relationships can become much more than they were originally intended, leading to legal troubles (we won't get into the ethics of love between a 30 year old teacher and a 15 year old student, because I don't really know the answer to that). There is also the point that relationships need to be fostered in person, and not through stupid online "networking."

Basically, I think that although there are ways to look at each side of the issue, but I really don't think that a complete ban of networking between the students and teachers to be a real solution to the problem. Truth be told, even if we take these steps, predators will find their way through. The real solution comes from us being a tightnit community with not only our own children, but those in our churches and neighborhoods. This way, odd behavior and trouble can be spotted and stopped before things get out of hand.

Until tomorrow, wherein we shall discover the amazingness of button mashing in Soul Calibur 4.

Bookish Tuesday

Quick, name two things that are awesome. Zombies you say? I think I heard comics from somewhere in the back. Zombies and comics actually make the perfect match. First up, because I have to make a throwaway mention to the fantastic cover art, the Marvel Zombies comics are decent. The plot is funny and the art is really good, but there is really no substance beyond that. The zombie comic I'm here to takl about is one that I've been behind for about 2 or 3 years now: The Walking Dead.

All of the best zombie stories aren't just about zombies. The zombies are just a backdrop for the artist to build a canvas to tell the story of humans and the way they respond to fear or catastrophe, and The Walking Dead is extremely good at this. Yeah, there are some really great scenes of zombies getting their heads chopped off and people getting all eaten up, but the true strength of the series is the characters.

The story revolves around Rick, who was a police officer in a small Georgia town (yay) when he was shot and fell into a coma. When Rick wakes up, the dead have risen and his hospital and town have been overrun by zombies. Rick then leaves to head to Atlanta to (hopefully) find his wife and son. What follows is a fantastically well written survival story, not just of Rick, but of the people he encounters. They are constantly facing trouble within the pages, but this rarely comes from the zombies (at least later on). The survivors are forced to learn how to create their own society in a post-apocalyptic world, and the author (Robert Kirkman) does a great job in pulling all the difficulties together. Also, seeing as this is a comic, I cannot neglect the wonderful art style. The entire series is done in beautiful black and white that perfectly matches the mood of the writing.

Since I don't have a comic shop around here, I've been getting the series as it comes out in collected trade form and I'm up through Volume 8, so that's what I'm currently talking about. The series does a great job of changing everything each few issues (I don't want to spoil everything, since I think it would be a good idea for everyone who likes zombies to go ahead and pick this up). Pretty much all I'm trying to say here is that if you like zombies, this is some of the best stuff out there (outside of the two Max Brooks books - which will be discussed at some point soon, I should think), and you should be reading it.

Movie Monday

So, after a number of failed attempts, I finally got to see Pineapple Express on Sunday evening. I was quite excited before I even saw the movie, and I'll say that it did live up to expectations, although not much more. The comedy was great, it was well written, and the action was actually really good. My only issue with the movie was how straightforward it was. There were a couple points in the movie that looked like something different was going to happen and I got really excited, only to have my hopes dashed when they took the same old route. Not that this detracted from the film in any way, it just knocked it down from being that much better. Also, the humor in the movie isn't as raunchy as the other movies in the "Apatow library," which was surprising, and made the movie easier for Katie to enjoy as well. Basically, the movie was really really good, and it makes me all the more excited for Tropic Thunder this week, which is allegedly funnier.

Aside from Pineapple Express, I've been re-watching the Harry Potter movies with Matt, and I must say that the first movie really isn't that good. It's not bad either, but when you get to Prisoner of Azkaban, you look back at the first two and see how bland and almost lifeless they were. A lot of it comes from the kids growing up and becoming better actors, but it also comes from the change in directors and themes. It happened in the books as well. As the series continues, the books become darker and the plots get deeper and more interesting (as do the movies). We've only watched through Prisoner, so I'll be sure to update more thoughts as we continue through.

Religion Friday

This may seem like a cop out, but I had a long day. Read this article. The article is very well written and does a great job discussing a (at times) difficult topic. I will try to give more of my own thoughts on this later tonight or tomorrow, but no guarantees.

Gaming Thursday

So, I was planning on doing a new game today, but since it won't come in until tomorrow, I'll be doing Soul Calibur 4 next week. Now, instead of being able to discuss a hardcore fighting game, I decided that I would do a little discussion of the awesomeness of co-op (particularly online co-op) in video games.

You see, I never really got into the whole Halo thing, or really the online FPS gaming in general all that much. There is something annoying to me about playing a game and just dying over and over again because you are either really good at the game and spend hours playing (other people) or just like to play a little bit here and there and be a waste of game space (me). On a similar note however, I really do love playing games with other people (see Rock Band), and it makes game time all the more fun when you get to run through Liberty City on the back of a motorcycle driven by someone else yelling "Crazy Dogggz for life!" without having to worry about that one camping sniper hitting you in the back of the head just when you feel good.

Thanks to the wonders of technology, this wonderful thing of online co-op has allowed my brother and I to finally get back to playing games like we used to back in our room at home. We recently finished playing through Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, which really isn't that amazing of a game, but when you get to play it through with someone else and make up stupid stories about your characters and what they would really be saying in the game, makes it priceless. For this reason, he and I have now aligned our schedules of game buying to ensure that we both get the same games at the same time to be able to play through together. If a game doesn't have an online component, it automatically goes back a notch on my list.

Not to say there aren't some fantastic single player experiences (I loved Half-Life 2 and the Zelda series), but as I said before there is just something about being able to play through a game with someone else that makes it infinitely more enjoyable.

World News Wednesday

Here is your story for this week.

So, I found this one to be quite a bit more interesting than our story from last week (although last week's was admittedly pretty good). Anyway, I find there to be some huge implications that can come from this story.

I mean, think about it, scientists were thinking that there were only 50,000 of these gorillas left, and then all of a sudden someone walks into the middle of a swamp and finds over double the number of what is thought to be left... in just one location. We already know that there are millions of things in the deep ocean that we've never seen, and now this discovery opens up the possibility of how much we could be missing on land.

To me, the biggest prospect of all this is that maybe we'll find all the dragons that are left in the world (although most were probably killed during the Middle Ages, when it was fashionable to slay big beasties). I know, this almost feeds into the "Creation Science" idea (which is complete bunk, in my opinion), but I find it fascinating that there is so much out there that we don't know about. This could lead into a whole God discussion, but I will steer away from that for the moment, since we have a full day on that subject each week.

Before I ramble too much on about things that don't relate, I'll let this stay a short post since I'm getting distracted and not making too much sense. Until tomorrow!

Bookish Tuesday

I was having a bit of a time figuring out what book to talk about. I just finished a couple of graphic novels and am in the middle of two books right now. One of those books, I have discussed at some length before (H2G2), but I can always talk about how much I love Douglas Adams. But, rather than me going on about my love for Hitchhiker's Guide, I'll go ahead and gush about my other book.

To preface this, I really don't much like all that many nonfiction books (at least that I've seen/read). However, there is something I really like about Bill Bryson's writing style that really sucks me in and keeps me interested in things, even if I don't really understand. The first Bryson book I read is titled A Walk in the Woods and is one of the big inspirations for a book that a friend and I are currently working on (which in turn is one of the main reasons I've been updating this blog). Anyway, I've been currently reading Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, and while it hasn't yet inspired a book idea, it's still a fine read.

The book (so far) is about hte history of scientific discoveries and achievements in the world, from paleontology to the splitting of the atom. Perhaps I really like Bryson so much because he likes to go off on tangents easily, and I know how that is (I do it all the time, in case you haven't noticed). Also, the book makes me feel smarter (at least while I'm reading, I forget everything about 20 minutes after putting the book down). He does a great job of taking some really complex scientific theories and notions and dumbing them down just enough for me to understand. I'm sure someone who really understands physics and such might argue that he may be butchering things, but since I don't know the difference, I don't really care all that much.

All in all, I must say (if you couldn't tell) that I am highly enjoying Bryson's work and will be looking up more of his library to read as soon as I get the chance. Stay tuned tomorrow for some ape talk in World News (yeah, I cheated a little and found a story today).

P.S. In case you didn't know, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is amazing (I couldn't resist).

Movie Monday: Mummy and More

For my group's weekly movie, we went and saw the new Mummy flick, and it's exactly what you think it would be: cheezy, predictable, and fun. I have to admit that I really like Brendan Fraser, so no matter what, I knew I'd have to at least like the movie. The plot isn't anything to write home about and neither are the effects really, but I wasn't expecting anything but a simple summer popcorn movie and I got exactly what I expected. Basically, it's worth your time if you want to see it, but if you have any doubts, just wait for DVD.

Wait, don't go away yet. I'm not done. I also watched the always fantastic Toy Story yesterday afternoon (just for kicks), and it is still a fantastic movie. Fun side note: Joss Whedon (of the amazing Firefly and Buffy fame) worked on the screen play. Also, the movie is actually even better than I remembered, and I knew it was great.

Last week, I watched Southland Tales... that's all I will say about that. I also got Katie to watch The Departed with me, and I was quite surprised that she liked it, even with all the violence.

And finally, I went with a couple of friends to see Hellboy 2 again (they missed the first time I went). As one told me during the movie: this would make a great TV series. The movie is a blast to watch, but I found myself agreeing. Rather than having to fit all their plots and development into 2 hour blocks, Hellboy would be a really fun show on the telly. Also, for those who have seen the wonderful Princess Mononoke (mentioned in this blog nearly 2 years ago), the big forest elemental is definitely a nod to the big forest god there. I must recommend Mononoke over Hellboy, but Hellboy was definitely a fun ride (much better than Mummy). Either way, I'd better wrap up here before I get into every little thing I watched last week. See you tomorrow for the lovely book talk (I don't know what it will be about yet, so it will be a surprise to me too).

P.S. I just have to say that I've been watching Spaced again, since I got it on DVD, and it's one of my favorite shows! Go watch!

Religion Friday

I was trying to find the article up on Yahoo! News' Opinion page from Wednesday, but I can't find the link. Anyway, the piece was about the American flag within the church and the separation of church and state. I don't remember the details, but the writer was making a lot of points that I completely agree with, although I don't think she ever said what I wanted, so I decided I should.

First of all, the American (or any country's flag) really has no reason being inside of the church. I know that sounds harsh, but as the church's body, we are supposed to be a worldwide family that is connected through our belief and when you add in patriotism, you automatically put yourself aside from people outside of your specific country. It seems to be particularly a problem here in the U.S., where religion is placed into the spotlight within the public as a kind of spectacle. I mean, you have arguments about Barack Obama's religion, James Dobson's reluctant (not quite) approval of John McCain, Televangelists, Megachurches, and so on. These big religion "talking points" do a great job of dividing the Christian faith over stupid trivial issues that really have no meaning. Sure, politics and our next president is important, but it really should do nothing to change the church or our worship.

I got a little off subject there, but when an object, such as the flag is placed into the church, it (whether subconciously or not) gives it a place in our worship that people begin to connect with their faith, no matter how little it truly does add in. It also brings to mind a wonderful experience that my wife and I had in a church. You see, neither of us are exactly patriotic and even less so when it comes to interrupting my worship of God, so when we were at a church that was saying the Pledge of Allegiance (yeah, to the flag, not to God) we were a little upset. Instead of standing with my hand over my heart and facing the flag, I kind of remained seated and read my bible (yes, I know in retrospect, I should have at least stood so we didn't get caught). Anyway what happened was that we "upset some of the members of the congregation" and were (in so many words) kind of kicked out of the church (it was quite a bit more political than that, but suffice to say, we don't really feel welcome there anymore.

Again, that is a little beside the point, but you can see how bringing patriotism into the church can bring more than you would really want. I know that we all bring some sort of baggage into our worship, but what is the point in adding more to that? Why add something that could needlessly hurt others in the middle of what is supposed to be something focused completely on God? I'm not sure, but I do know that I really don't think that a country's flag belongs within our sanctuary.

Have a great weekend, drop me a line to let me know what you thought. I'm going to see The Mummy tonight and will probably have impressions up for my Movie Monday post. Thanks to all who are leaving comments. Oh, Tim... the Wii version of Rock Band is just the same, but if you have a 360 or PS3, I highly recommend those, if only for the fact that Downloadable Content is so important for this game (also, if you are ever in the LaGrange Area you -or anyone else- is more than welcome to come play with me).