I just got slammed from behind on the way to work and my neck is killing me. My Black Kitten has been in better shape too. Poor, poor kitty. I still have the shakes pretty bad and so can't really type anything more than this right now. *owi-owi-owi-owie*

Lunacy in the Name of God:
Case File#3:
Yesterday, Nancy Missler said on her one-minute audio devotional that we should be ready to forgive people and "give God permission to love them through us." Uhm. Yeah, it's cuz we're soooo powerful that we tell God whom he can and can't love. That's like saying to Mike Tyson, "Mike, you know what? Unless I, The Dane, give you permission to bite Lennox Lewis's ear, you simply cannot do it." Of course Mike's gonna bite his ear! It doesn't matter whether I approve or not. And if I can't stop Iron Mikey from making an appetizer of Lewis's ear, then how can Nance expect me to tell God whom he can or can't love? *sigh*

Dear Blogary,

Today, there was somebody at work who said "infer" everytime he meant "imply." *sigh* I know this is a common mistake, but he might as well have foolowed up by saying he was going to return "from whence" he came.

Yours always,

LingoSnob

Lunacy in the Name of God:
Case File#1:
Douglas Wilson, who I swear just gets nuttier and nuttier, ranting about girls in sports says that athletic depts. in secular universities are "hotbeds of lesbianism" and that "much of what goes on in the name of wholesome athletic activity is actually dedicated to the recruiting and training of lesbians." Ouch. My side already aches from laughter.If a girl, he says, does not have a biblical reason for pursuing her athletic activity, she is not left with no reason - she is left with an unbiblical reason. Wow, I'm glad this only applies to girls, cause I didn't have a biblical reason to go skimboarding either. Uhm, or turn on my computer. Or read Wilson's asinine article. He goes on to say basically that if a girl involves herself in athletics, she'll more than likely end up uncomfortable in a dress, slouching, and horror beyond all earthly horrors, she might occasionally don sweats and a ball cap (can you hear it? the very fabric of the universe ripping apart at its seams). Wilson ends with a wasted caveat: after bringing anyone who still agrees with him to the inevitable conclusion that girls should stay out of athletics and ostensibly spend their leisure hours at tea parties, he says that to say "no girls in athletics" is typically fundamentalist (I love when he tries to make other faith-groups sound weird - it gives me the giggles) and not a mature way to deal with the problem. Huh? But that's what everything added up to - I czeched my math twice.
[attn. thanks to krisNine]

Case File#2:
From a seventh Day Adventist sermonette booklet on dietary concerns (they strictly adhere to Mosaic dietary laws) called Death in the Kitchen:

Have you ever noticed that three-fifths of the word DEATH is EAT? [have you ever noticed that three-eighths of RETARDED is DED and that's almost like DEAD?]

and

Did Jesus go contrary to the Old Testament and turn the water into alcoholic wine? It is unthinkable that He should do so. He obeyed the Word of God. The wine He created was the unfermented kind [oh, of course, that's the kind that's such a big hit at parties, right?].

and

Don't try to taper off on the use of something that is morally and physically wrong to indulge. It just doesn't work. It is much like cutting off the dog's tail a little at a time to make it easier on the dog! It is actually more painful that way. A habit is a habit. If you cut off the "h" you still have "abit" left. Take off the "a" and "bit" remains. Remove the "b" and "it" is still with you. Even after taking away the "i" you are left with "t." And if your problem is tea-drinking, you still don't have the full victory [nah, I don't think my wry comments are necessary here either].

and finally

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31. Isn't that amazing? God is concerned about such small matters as what and how and when we feed our body system [How on earth they construed a passage in which Paul is celebrating the liberty we find in Christ to be in all honesty a foundation for legalism is beyond my reckoning].

Psalm 34:19 -
Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.

Though affliction be the promise to the sons of God and though suffering fills their paths on this earth, still does the Lord promise deliverance. Still does the Lord promise comfort and still does the Lord promise salvation. And O what a deliverance - what a comfort - what a salvation! For but a moment's trifling pain, what rare jewel is bought the believer! Glory eternal! Love unceasing! Joy unquenchable! For the merest pinprick's bother, the believer is given all. Now rejoice! Take up your weightless cross and follow unto the way everlasting!

Oscar Picks

Who should win:

Best Picture:

I'm really torn between A Beautiful Mind and LOTR, but I think LOTR deserves it. Moulin Rouge is fun but doesn't have either the sweeping grandeur nor the human spirit of the two biggies.

Best Director:

Peter Jackson desrves this one hands down for pulling together such an enormous project as LOTR

Best Actor:

Russell Crowe. He didn't derve one for last year's Gladiator but there wasn't a moment onsceen that I didn't believe he was John Nash.

Best Actress:

I haven't seen enough of these to properly choose, but the fact that Kidman was actually likeable in Moulin Rouge shows she was doing a great job acting.

Best Supporting Actor:

Ben Kingsly's performance in Sexy Beast is the one that's knocking everyone's socks off, so I think he ought to win. Plus, he's bald.

Best Supporting Actress:

I haven't seen enough of these actresses' nomination roles....

Best Cinematography:

The Man Who Wasn't There may not have been a top-notch film, but its cinematography was absolutely dead on - the most beautiful B&W film I think I've ever seen.

Best Makeup:

Wow, this is tough, but think about how reliably old Russell Crowe looked and I think A Beautiful Mind should get the snatch.

Who will win:

Best Picture:

A Beautiful Mind - the Academy loves human drama.

Best Director:

Ron Howard - for body of work.

Best Actor:

Denzel Washington - he's black and Crowe is a jerk and won last year (and might recite poetry).

Best Actress:

Kidman - sympathy for the Cruise fiasco and her work in The Others was strong (although Berry's recent "boob work" both in Swordfish and Moster's Ball may grab some Academy attention).

Best Supporting Actor:

Ian McKellan - Academy loves Brits.

Best Supporting Actress:

Marisa Tomei.

Best Cinematography:

LOTR - it was beautiful photography.

Best Makeup:

LOTR - the orcs were plenty nasty AND highly visible make-up work.

You know you live in Southern California when the traffic announcer on the morning drive reminds all Academy members to have their ballots in by Noon.

I received the following eugoogoly in the email basket this morning:

Megan was a wonderful young lady. Constantly thinking of others and pondering how to make life more enjoyable and humorous for all. That is after all how she came to such a fatal cafeteria incident where one of the females on her hall stabbed her with a fork. It came about the week before banquet. To set the stage Megan, being the amazing PA that she is, wanted to give the girls a smile and printed out a series of entries from gravenimages.com about the author, "Seth"'s wonderful experience at his first prom. Having put up a new entry everyday it soon became the eve of banquet when she realized that the final continuation, "The Aftermath", was no where to be found. Upon realizing that the continuation was not up and waiting on banquet day one of the girls went postal, as those entries were the very medicine that cheered her aching heart each day, and subsequently stabbed Megan with her fork while eating lunch.

Hmmm... perhaps I'll write the conclusion to that desperate tale that it may be rested upon the breadth of her casket that from her heavenly abode she might smile to know that her final wish lay ever granted.

I spent long enough writing this email response for work that I thought I'd post it here for all to, uh, enjoy?
________________________________________

The person that said that man has no free will was correct. Sort of. Technically, nobody would say that man's will (his decision-making faculty) is entirely free - that is, wholly apart from the influence of any outside forces. Think about it this way: in every decision you make, there are a number of circumstances acting upon you to influence your choice. You might be influenced by a friend’s advice, the amount of sleep you had the night before, the lack of time to properly consider a choice, the stress or tension involved in the choice, personal prejudices, environmental considerations, or even bodily stimulus. These are all things that narrow the range of ones choice in any giving situation.

Another limiting factor that plays ultimately upon the choices we make is desire. In truth, in every situation, we choose only the thing that we most want in the moment we make the decision. This can be confusing as we often choose to do things we don’t necessarily like – such as when we agree to hang out with old friends with whom we no longer have any commonality when we could be relaxing at home with a favorite movie. Still, even in these situations, we are choosing to do what we most desire – perhaps in the example just stated, we would desire more not to hurt our old friends’ feeling than we would desire to relax at home.

In any case, you should be able to see how our wills are limited in these areas - limited both by outside factors and by our own overriding desire. If something is limited, than by definition, it is not entirely free. However, though man’s will is not exactly free, he does freely choose among all the options that are within the scope of his realm of choices. What I mean by this is that by no means, though I have all these factors playing upon my ability to make a decision, do I ever conceive of my decisions as not being my own. When I saw your email in the queue this morning and chose to answer it, there were a number of factors playing on my decision to do so: I was in the mood to answer it, I was confident in my familiarity with the subject, I thought you would prefer to hear from me than one of my co-workers, there was a spark of compassion because I remember how I felt when working through the same issues, and of course, though I couldn’t feel it or sense it with any bodily feeling, the divine ordination of God plays no small part (I’ll get to this in a little bit).

So while in one sense, you could say I had no choice but to answer your question (because of all the forces acting upon my will), in the sense most readily apprehendable to me, I would say you were dumb for saying so. Who cares about those outside factors in real life? I made the choice. I wanted to do it. I bear full responsibility for my decision. I freely chose to do the only possible thing I could do. The only time this ever bothers people is when they begin useless philosophizing on the matter.

So what else about man’s will? In his unredeemed state, man’s range of choices is limited by something more than just the usual day-to-day circumstance. His spirit is corrupted. Because of his sinful nature (duly demonstrated in Paul’s epistle to the Romans), man in his natural state can only choose evil. His will is far from free when it comes to the things of righteousness and indeed, of God Himself. Man’s will is bound by the chains of sin. He is, in fact, dead to the remotest chance of choosing good – dead in trespasses, Paul would say. This is why we say that of his own, man cannot possibly choose to follow God. Man chooses freely to hate goodness. And he can be held guilty for that choice for though he is bound to it, he still chooses it freely.

In the act of man’s salvation, God recreates the man’s spirit, touching his will, and giving him a new range of choices. Man is reborn. Regenerated. And from this point forward, he has another overriding desire that affects his will. Now man desires to serve God. God creates a desire so strong in the person He saves that the person God chooses to grant this gift can nowise resist it – and why would the man wish to resist it? It is his greatest desire? What man is drawn kicking and screaming toward that thing he desires more than anything else? So here again, we see man freely choosing what he is bound to choose – this time he chooses God. Incidentally, this is why John says that we love God because He first loved us; in truth, we could not possibly love God but for the fact that by His love we are made new.

So then, how does God’s sovereign plan fit into all of this? We know he ordains everything that comes to pass. We know that nothing happens apart from His will. And yet how does this play a role in our responsibility for our own choices? It doesn’t. No man can begin to postulate the means by which God works the destiny of the entire universe, weaving innumerable threads to His greater glory. And we have no need to do so. Whether God foreordains every circumstance and choice or not has no bearing on the fact that every choice we make is one freely chosen. Rather, when approaching the supremacy of God’s will, we ought only take joy that by His power and ordination, all things are working together for the good of we who are His chosen people.

More about Mrs. Irons's piece on same-sex marriages
While I don't agree with all her assertions about either the nature of homosexuality or the church's need to support its civil legality, I do think most people have missed the overarching point of the article. In truth, it's not so much a discussion of homosexuality as it is a supposition of how the church ought to approach any matter political.

She never claims homosexuality to be anything other than grievous sin that can only be overcome by the power of Christ's conforming work in the life of the redeemed. What she does, rather, is question the relation between morality and the civil law of a country. I think this is a very good question as the two may not necessarily be related. Steven Cooper comments on the matter, distilling the argument into two questions which must be answered before any judgment can be rendered:

1. Does the Bible support the idea that non-theocratic (non- Israel) geo-political government should be a means of common grace, supporting the rights of believers and unbelievers to live with safety and enjoyment?

2. Is it legitimate for us to take the civil laws of the Old Covenant, even redemptive-historically altered, and apply them outside the church? When I say redemptive-historically altered, I refer to the way that other laws from the Old Covenant are altered— circumcision becomes baptism which applies to male and female, Sabbath moves from 7th day to 1st day, capital punishment becomes excommunication, etc.

Good questions I think. And I also think the answer is "no" to both, but of course men with more than an incomplete Community College degree argue about these things, so I don't expect my answers to be given much weight ;-P

The funny thing is: if America would just embrace my political philosophy (please?), this would never have come up. Y'see, I don't even think marriage should be a thing legislated at all. There shouldn't be government perks for married couples (gay, straight, curvy, or anyway) and as far as the American government should be concerned, the only part of marriage that should have legal ramifications is the contractual end (and so then marriage would be treated no different from any official contract - with sanctions and stipulations).

Ah, once more does theological travesty rear its head, ugly, rotted, and tragic, for all to behold (if they wish to). Due to a recently and hotly contested piece asserting the lack of Biblical imperative to direct the church in its pursuit of civil legislation forbidding homosexual union, the overheated denizens of the realm of Christian Fanaticism are blustering and foaming in their self-righteous fury. Charges of heresy and demands for repentance are being bandied fro and elsewhere as so much idiocy. Without sense or reasonability.

Far too often, a simple disagreement with a pet interpretation of Scripture will be foully named on the basis of nothing more than distasteful whim. A local pastor decries Calvinism to be "doctrine from the pit of hell." A Christian leader relegates an opposing-though-orthodox eschatology to being "the closest thing to heresy without actually being heresy." Christians declare non-denominational churches to be either not true churches or only churches marginally because such congregations don't practice their liturgy in the same manner.

Disgusting. Despicable. And this is the state of the church so often throughout history. It's no wonder that we are called the foolish things of the world. Only by Christ's sustaining power and our inherent unity in him as his bride do we even still exist. The infighting is mournful. Pitiable. There are people who have never heard the gospel of Christ preached and yet believers - more! the leaders of believers! - waste breath on such pettiness.

O wretched men! O priceless idiots! O sons of redemption! O children of the Lamb! Remember that God loved you in spite of your worthlessness. Remember that Christ so loved you that he paid the penalty infinite for your souls. Remember your identity in Christ, that you are united unto eternity in his body - united in his life, his death, his resurrection, and so in his glorification!

Remember this all and love your brother even as Christ loves you.

[note: for those curious, I make reference to reactions heard and seen against a recent article entitled "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" by Misty Irons, the wife of an OPC pastor]

When my lease runs out on the state park land upon which my home rests, they plan on removing all residences and devolping the area into a camp ground/RV spot. Incidentally, I live within a two minute walk of an elementary school. Does this strike anyone else as a dumb idea? Talk about tragedy waiting to happen. Now there are two types of people who utilize these types of grounds: vacation campers and transients. Of the transient sort, many are emotionally disturbed. Personally, I wouldn't want emotionally disturbed transients lounging around my children's elementary school. But maybe I'm just being old fashioned.

All I know is that ten years down the road, when there is some incident where a second grade girl disappears at recess only to be found (mostly) a month later, people will be asking tough questions like: What numbskull thought it was a good idea to put camp grounds next to an elementary school?! Well, this is me, making good and certain that I don't get blamed for the screw up. Cheers!

Yes! The ultimate proof that I am on this world for the betterment of society.

The following exchange is one of two reasons why a debate between a Christian and an Atheist could never interest me:

ATHEIST: Everything you can say about the existence of God is foolishness!

CHRISTIAN: I know.

ATHEIST: Good.

CHRISTIAN: Are you confounded yet?

ATHEIST: [sighs] Absolutely.

CHRISTIAN: Good.

This is really the ideal debate between the Christian and the Atheist because it follows exactly the path that Scripture lays out for us. The Truth is foolishness to those who are perishing and God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

The other reason is that I already believe staunchly my Christianity. My faith, though I think it reasonable, stands beyond the ability of any man to tear down by anything so pedestrian as an argument. Because of this, the only reason I would go would be to see one man (and his brainpan) make a buffon of another man (and his brainpan) - and honestly, if I got off on this sort of thing, I'd have more issues than you think I have.

I am a dead man. Passed from this earth. Fodder for the ages. A meal for worms. I've kicked the bucket. I'm pushin' up daisies. And I'm taking a dirt nap.

Or so the rumours say.

My momma (who is visiting 'til the 26th) returned from a walk this morning with the disturbing news that my number had come up several weeks back. Or so thought the neighborhood. She was halted by a long-time neighbor who had to know the horrible truth.

"Was it your son?"

"What?"

"Was it your son?"

"What do you mean? What are you talking about?"

"That they found? A couple weeks back. Was it your son?"

From here, my momma proceeded to discover that a few weeks ago (or so rumour held), a twenty-something young man had embarked the road to cross the river Gjallerbru. Found dead in his trailer. Nobody knew exactly where this had occurred or the circumstances leading to the tragic demise, but it seems a quiet assumption has arisen that the dead lad is me! It seems also that my parents' visit has bolstered this decision (they must be here to take care of my personal effects!).

So. I am dead. And I have a single solitary question. Do I still need to pay taxes?

Wow! Incredibly important news! Especially for John.

My Top 5 Love Stories Committed to Film:
(In no order beyond alphabetical)

1. Casablanca
2. High Fidelity
3. The Princess Bride
4. Say Anything...
5. When Harry Met Sally

What can I say? There have been so many love stories committed to film that to choose "the best" would be a task to daunt the greatest of souls. These were just the top five that have probably either had the greatest influence over my life or best reflected some portion of whom I am as someone who loves or reminds me of some poignant detail that has shaped me into the semi-well-adjusted Dane I am today. I'm sure if properly reminded, other choices might take precedent, but these are them as they exist in my head now.

In the aftermath of the disaster we call Cox, Blake has arisen from his ashes as a freshborn... uh nah. Too cliche. And, uhm, hopefully we'll have the images back soon too.

New comedy site!

I recieved the following in my mailbox this morning:

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have visited your website: www.jh3k.com and found that you didn't register it with enough search engines. As a result, this may impede your business expansion. We believe that our service will definitely increase the browse count of your website. At present, there are about 500,000 search engines in the whole world, but fortunately FullPromote is the rare breed that can help you register your website with the famous search engine companies. What we provide is a kind of service which is highly efficient as well as swift, but truly low cost. With our service, you can find that there will be countless browsers to visit your website. To get more details, please go to www.fullpromote.com.

We will try our best to publicize your website.

Best Regards,


Melissa Kahley Sales & Marketing www.FullPromote.com

I'm just glad that somebody cares enough about Jim's site to let even his net-pals know when he could be running his online business more successfully. I think I may write Melissa back to thank her personally. Of course I'll mail the letter to melissa@netscape.com.

On Anime:
Generally speaking, I can't stand the stuff. I've talked about this before, so let's take a different tact today. Let's take a look at what I like about the anime that I do like.

Since I'm no fan of the hyper-realistic kiddie-tripe of monikers like The Record of Dragon Tank Iron Robot War Cronicles Z OAV, I tend to enjoy the scant offerings to reach these shores that present at the least, semi-believable characters in semi-believable situations (I don't ask for absolute believability even in my live-action fare so I won't demand it here). I enjoyed the everyday sort of life of pop singer/burgeoning actress, Mima, in Perfect Blue (I know, I know, pop singing actress aren't really a dime a dozen in the real world - but it sure seems like it). I enjoyed the absent-kinetic pacing of Lain. I enjoyed the realistic human depravity of Jin-Roh. I enjoyed the touching sensativity of The Gave of the Fireflies. I enjoyed the father-daughter interaction in My Neighbor Totoro (it conveyed a sweetness untouched in many live action films endeavoring to do the same). I think really what it comes down to is that I don't enjoy the poorly conceived sci-fi/fantasy that seems to rule the anime marketplace these days.

I think the greatest advent for anime would be to make animated dramas like 12 Angry Men or noir pieces Double Indemnity. I want film-as-literature-class animated pieces. Disney certainly hasn't come close (though Beauty and the Beast was simply wonderful). There are few feature animation that have. I can't say I've seen a wide bearth of Japanese animated films because, well, if I want a great space opera, I'll just watch Star Wars: A New Hope. Though it had its problems, I want more films in the vein of Jin-Roh. Any recommendations of available stuff? Any suggestions on how I might convince Japan?

Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade (1998)


The watching of Jin-Roh recalls themes from many great films — from Orson Wells’s vain flight through the under-city tunnels in The Third Man to the social upheaval of Akira’s 21st Century dystopia. Yet director Okiura’s film recalls nothing so much as it does the greatest tale espionage and intrigue to ever grace the cinematic screen: John Le Carre’s The Spy Who Came in from the Cold.

First the mood. Jin-Roh wallows in that otherworldly and dismal gloom that is so native to the life and ultimate doom of Le Carre’s undercover protagonist, Alec Leamas. Nearly the entire experience of Jin-Roh occurs through a sort of visual fog. The animation is dulled — as if by its muting Okiura seeks to drag the viewer into the same ethical mire lived day in and day out by his world’s inhabitants. Their lives are grim. This is a re-envisioned Japan of the early 60s. Social and political battles are the only joys of the malcontented throngs. Death is an ever-present spectre.

Next the characters. Fuse (pronounced ‘Foo-say’), like Leamas, stands in the employ of a government who cares little for him more than his disposable use as a pawn in Its greater games of intrigue. Both immersed in life’s futility, they have cut themselves off from the world of emotion around themselves. The two men stalk through their respective worlds as animatronic utilities, simply existing for existence’s sake. When they are finally confronted point blank with love and vanity, with the potential for a life beyond their life and the realization that such would be meaningless, they do react differently. But not so dissimilarly.

Finally the story elements. Jin-Roh is steeped in the same hand-biting, back-stabbing counter-intelligence realm as The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Jin-Roh bleeds that same spirit of guesswork and political ambiguity. To catch a mole, you must create a mole. No one is whom he seems. And when they are, you expect them to be otherwise. There are no heroes in these worlds. There are no happy, faery tale endings.

Jin-Roh succeeds on many levels: as a turgid tale of social defiance; as a political thriller; as anime as honest-to-goodness film; even as a tale of romance. Its failure, however, is marked. A primary theme intended to weave throughout is the metaphor that “Little Red Riding Hood” serves as a broad matrix for the two key figures: government bad-man, Fuse, and his love interest, Kei, sister of an anti-government terrorist. Fuse, though disillusioned and seeking something more to life, is portrayed as the Wolf, ferocious, untamable, and ultimately corrupt. Kei, consistently seen wearing a red-hooded cloak, is the innocent Red, wanting only to love and be loved in return. The imagery, though occasionally striking, is more often heavy-handed. The viewer is beaten down with the fact that this man is the Wolf.

In short, seen as a political thriller following in the footsteps of giants, Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade is a wonderfully grisly (though not often gratuitous) tale of love, intrigue, and futility. The poor use of the faery tale imagery, however, thwarts the film from rising above being merely good — it wouldn’t have made so great a difference if such imagery hadn’t been so central to the film’s meaning and purpose.