Noir Stylings of The Dane
(self-portraits)

Because I knows you wants to be jealous: My humble abode. Happy Thanksgiving ;-Þ

The review snippet that will make half the people I know angry.

Waiting for Guffman (1996 - mocumentary)
Quite riotous mockumentary chronicling the events surrounding a small-town theatre production. Like Spinal Tap, but good.

We came, we saw, we golfed:

From comment on Krisnine's site (simply because I thought the comments worth saving - I know how finnicky Blogback can be *grin*):
I think mainly the interest in Harry Potter stems from Ms. Rowling's ability to craft a story and lend flesh to characters that goes beyond anything we've seen in recent literature of adventure. The books focus more on the fantastic than on some vague interpretation of "witchcraft" - they combine the pressures of everyday, run-o-the-mill childhood with the faery-taled imaginarium that exists within the minds of all children. And they do so splendidly. As did Tolkein and Lewis (excepting perhaps, The Silver Chair), Rowling spins tales that are imaginative and at once intriguing. Rowling's tales are no more godless than any number of other pop literary specimens (which, though removing the wonderful possibility of the use of a mythology as sweeping as Tolkein's, does not make the books wrong in any way). The characters are not Christians, so why should we expect them to speak of Christ - or express disappointment when they don't. I think many of us forget just how easily we, as children, distinguished between the real and the fantastic. My brother and I played continuously in realms of fancy - yet never did we mistake the faery tales, cartoons, books, myths, and movies of our imagination for real portraylas of the world around us

Vexation #8: Means and Ends
As it turns out, I meant some time ago to whine about this topic, but simply posted to the DYL site in a comment instead. So, here we are..."the ends don't justify the means."

See, the way it works out is that the phrase isn't always inappropriate, but some people (by hearing the phrase) have come to believe that no end ever justifies the means by which one comes to that end. The fact of the matter is: it is only the end that can justify the means. The popular phrase simply means that a particular end didn't possess enough inherent value to justify the particular means associated with its accomplishment. Some examples:

1) If I abort my child simply because it is an inconvenience to my standard of living, this would be wrong. The end (maintaining convenience) does not justify the means (abortion) because the life of the child holds more inherrent value than a convenience of lifestyle.

2) God commanded Israel to slay even the suckling children of the Amalekites (nearly the same act as in example #1, though far mor gruesome) and this was right. The end (fulfilling the righteous requirement of God) DOES justify the means (the slaughter of infants) in this case because the life of the child holds less inherrent value than does the command of God.

Now these are two extreme examples to illustrate the point. Most real life case fall in between somewhere. Most of the time there is some question as to whether the end does or does not justify the means.

Well, after a three-month hiatus, I've began to catalogue my movie experiences again. The Last 10 begins afresh!

My Top 5 Soft Drinks
(in no order beyond alphabetical):

1. Cactus Cooler
2. Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi
3. Mr. Pibb
4. Ruby Red Squirt
5. Souix City Sarsaparilla

I walked into the office this morning to be greeting by the most atrocious petition. Well, maybe not the most atrocious. But it was pretty dumb. See?

As you can see, people are trying to make a number of silly points with said petition. They want us to believe that 1) it is Christian to support the actions and policies of Israel, that 2) America was founded and blessed (??) by the same God that created Israel (and presumably some other god founded and blessed other nations - e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, &c.), that 3) there is an actual strip of real estate that belongs to the Jewish people, and that 4) if one doesn't support the statements supplied in this petition, that person is in danger of the curse of God.

*sigh* Since I imagine there are probably one or two out there who won't immediately see the comedy inherent here, I shall briefly elucidate. Rather than touch on each point individually, I shall simply talk about the broken foundation upon which these sillinesses are based (since they all stem from the same misunderstanding of Scripture). This is a problem of understanding the covenants properly. Generally speaking, there are two covenants that speak of Israel and the land she would inherit (I know there are more, but these all function as extensions or refinements of the initial two covenants).

The first is the Abrahamic Covenant. This was an unconditional covenant by which God promised to grant Abraham a kingdom, a people, and a land. This covenant would be kept by God's faithfulness rather than man's. The Abrahamic covenant, while obtaining typological fulfillment in the national Israel of the Old Testament, can only find its truest consummation in the Christ and the people who find their only identity in him. The New Testament helps us better understand the Abrahamic Covenant by letting us know that though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all dwelt in the earthly Promised Land, they indeed were not satisfied with such and sought a better place - a heavenly city (Hebrews 11:10-16). We find that Christ, and indeed we as his body, are the holy people and chosen Seed of promise (1 Peter 2:4-10; Galatians 3:15-18,26-29). So the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled. In Christ. In the Church. In the heavenly places.

The other is the Mosaic Covenant. This was a conditional covenant between God and national Israel by which God would allow Israel to remain in the land of Canaan prosperously if they would obey His commands and would scatter them as cursed if they disobeyed His commands. Israel dwelt in the land for a time but was exiled from the land for their disobedience. The Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled when Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem in 586 BC and sacked the city, capturing the land and driving it's inhabitants to the winds.

So then, what land is still covenantially promise to the true children of Israel? The heavenly city of Jerusalem. And what is this city? This city is the church. With Christ as chief cornerstone. Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets (Ephesians 2:19-22).

And what does this mean for this petition? 1) One's support for Israel is not dependant upon one's Christianity but merely a function of his understanding of international politics (and why I am free to believe we should have never supported Israel's plight. 2) America came about by the same sovereign God as did Russia, Germany, Iran, Lybia, Sudan, China, France, and Israel. To suppose that America is some special nation of the same order as was Old Testament Israel is a presumption of the highest order. 3) There is no covenantal land belonging any longer to a national or ethnic Israel. No matter how much the Zionist movements would have you believe otherwise. 4) What then is New Testament fulfillment of the prohibition against cursing Israel? If there is any, I suspect this would refer to the blessing and cursing of New Testament Israel. And what is New Testament Israel? Christ himself. Therefore those who curse Christ eventually shall be cursed and those who bless Christ shall inherit true blessing. Easy enough?

I guess the real question now is whether I should sign the petition or no?

Fun times with my brother! He's a superhero too.

If anyone has time to give brief critique, I'd appreciate it: In the Beginning: Science, Scripture, and God's Creation

My Top 5 Dream Jobs*
(in no order beyond alphabetical):

1. Film Critic
2. Graphic Novelist
3. Vocalist in a band (preferably jazz or lounge)
4. Proprietor of a highly selective** video store
5. Superhero (but sorry, no tights)

* my runner-up Dream Job would be that of President of the United States (although some might consider the fulfillment of this dream to be a nightmare)

** by "selective" I mean that I would only stock films that I deemed worthy for the store (i.e., no film that Julia Roberts has yet made). Ideally, the store would become hip and cater to the cultural elite. And then I would franchise it (hey, I may have particular tastes, but I'm still a capitalist).

---

Oh yes, and this does mean I'm back. Mostly. My monitor broke 10 days ago at the beginning of my vacation and as I don't have the scratch to buy a new one, I'll be blogging occasionally during my breaks at work. And then if I decide to stay after hours. So, it's good to be back. And I hope not to disappoint you again. Make you mad maybe. But never disappoint.

My Top 5 Nicknames for Me
(in no order beyond alphabetical):

1. Canute [thanks Jim]
2. Gangster of 5683
3. Kenashito
4. Spooky
5. The Dane*

* NOTE: That's right. I'll bet you you didn't know that "The Dane" is just a nickname did you?

My Top 5 Comedies
(in no order beyond alphabetical):

1. Airplane
2. Better Off Dead
3. Fletch
4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
5. Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie