Grace and Peace to you all. Based on your arrival at this site, I can assume you are using the internet for more than pornography. For that, I applaud you.

So last Friday, I was doing my daily check-in on the sites I’m linking to, and I realized that on Jason’s Blog, some new links were up, one of which was to Skeptic magazine, a publication dedicated to scientifically debunking the myths of our time and the archaic belief systems of primitive cultures. Yes, Christianity is incuded in that–but so is Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, so I won’t take it too personally. After looking at a few offerings from the Skeptic web site, I searched for “Michael Shermer” (creator and editor of the mag) on Youtube and found a few vids. This then led me to coming across the name of Richard Dawkins, a staunch scientist believing God could not exist. After viewing several of his vids, I then found some videos with random posters throwing hatred at Christianity, with some responses from so-called Christians offering vitriolic diatribes at damnation and hellfire. On top of this I came across a few interesting pieces from propaganda reagarding Creationism as well as a few arguments against paranormal or supernatural experiences of any kind. It was a full day.

I gotta say, there’s a wealth of information I don’t have; and I found much of the discussion to be incredibly engaging, even if I disagree with it for the most part. I’m actaully making that an aspect of my weekly surfing rotation, hoping to find more various views of the world and our existence–there’s alot of them. Anyway, I was struck with one unanimously consistent aspect of all the anti-religous speakers I found. This is not to say they are bad or even rude or discourteous people, but I found this part of their delivery and communication to be very interesting. There was a great deal of arrogance in the tone and demeanor of each of the speakers. Whether it was a well-educated author, random Youtuber, or scientist trying to de-bunk old religious ideas about science, each of them really held an aire of pride in themselves and their knowledge. I don’t mean the “I am very smart” style of arrogance but rather an “I am smarter than you, and I always will be; and your faith makes your opinion irrelevant” style of arrogance. Now, some may agree with that feeling of superiority, and that’s fine; but to me it was highly off-putting–particularly from a scientific or Humanitarian outlook. I would assume that sceintists would be much more open to possibilities beyond their sphere of knowledge, not so dismissive. I would assume that questions would arise, such as “What is it about spirituality as an aspectof personhood that is so inherent in cultural civilization?”; “What in the brain fuels this?”; and most importantly, “WHY does that fueled ’spiritual belief’ trump so many ‘obvious’ facts about the nature of the world?” Maybe it’s just me, but I found the individuals I ran into to be rather smug.

Then I took a personal inventory, as I oftentimes do, and I realized something. Christians are pretty much the same. In fact, Christianity is arguably the most elitist and smug of all religions, for it is the belief system that says, “It’s our way or the highway, and by the way, the highway takes you to eternal damnation.” Yeah, that’s arrogance. I won’t try to play that off. In fact, that’ll be an issue I write about to some extent in the upcoming weeks. I haven’t decided how to format the issue, but I think it’s an important one to address-particuarly since I saw it in others and said, “What a turn-off, that they think they are so much better than me simply becuase I hold a belief—oh, wait, that’s what I do, too. Dang I hate it when that happens–thinking someone else is doing something wrong only to realize I do the same thing. This sucks…. I want to go watch Aqua Teens, particularly episodes with the Mooninites or Plutonians. ‘Universal Remonster’ sounds pretty good.” I actually didn’t watch “Universal Remonster”, but I did watch the first episode with the Mooninites. I felt better, and I will address this “Christian Arrogance” issue in the coming weeks.

Also, Special Thanks to Jason for his recent encouraging e-mail about the “Faith vs” articles.

SONG OF THE POST: “Ataraxia” by Team Sleep, from the Album of the same name. It doesn’t really have relevance to the post, but I just got this album, and I enjoy this song.

Grace, Peace, and Thanks to you. It is my hope that you are not bitten by anything radioactive that gives you special powers, for life is hazardous and stressful enough WITHOUT having great power that comes with great responsibility.

BUT I am glad that Peter Parker found himself in that scenario, because the Spider-man movies are awesome! I love the these movies, particularly the first act of Spider-man 1 and the train fight from Spider-man 2. Spider-man 3 shows alot of promise, particularly with the Venom sequences. We’ve not seen Spider-man fight a villain with powers similar to his own, and I am hoping Raimi cashes-in on that with some hot stuff. Plus, I totally dig Topher Grace as an actor and personality. He’s charismatic and has been self-effacing, so I trust he’ll imbue Venom with some insane crazisness. Sandman looks okay. He’s never been one of my favorite villains, and I think the attempt at making him “the real killer of Ben Parker” is a stretch. I get why they did it, but that doesn’t make it right. Frankly, I think they should done like the cartoon from the 90s and given us some Shocker action(oh, the sexual innuendo is priceless), since Shocker looks awesome and shoots beams of high voltage, which I think are much more frightening than mounds of sand. But forget my opinion, they’ll make a better movie than I could any day of the week. Anyway, I am looking forward to this flic, and I’ll toss up a meview by Monday for it.

Also, to answer eveyone’s question, “Yes, I have already purchased my official Spider-man Movie Action figure of the wall-crawling hero in black costume, and it is nice.

SONG OF THE POST: “Spider-man theme” sung by anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Pylean Slave Fred

from the Angel, Season 2 finale

Figure:
Pylean Slave Fred

Series:
Angel

Recipe:
This figure was ridiculously easy to make. I simply put a DST “Season 3″ Fred head on an “End of Days” Buffy Body, then cut off one of Fred’s ponytails in order to look like all of her hair was on one side of her head. I then added a “Slave tunic” from a MAC Slave Cordelia Figure. I then painted dirt onto Fred’s face and legs.

Accessories:
This Fred includes a sharp shard of stone, a romveable Slave Tunic, a torch, and a shovel.

Reasoning Behind The Effort:
IN an attempt to use more parts and create yet another Fred variant. I made this figure in particular becuase I had a Pylean Demon Angel and a Pylean Lorne, and I knew Pylean Cordy was en route from DST. This variant was an obvious pic for the character, and the MAC accessories made for a great figure.

Additional Thoughts
Luckily, this Fred went perfectly with my other Pylean adventure figures and was a great addition to my collection. I rarely keep my customs, but I kept this figure–which really saying something. She’s fantastic, one of my easiest but best customs. (FIGURE COMPETED IN FALL 2006)

Red Kryptonite Clark in Metropolis & Smallville Lana Lang

From the Television Series SMALLVILLE

Figure:
Red Kryptonite Influenced Clark & Smallville Lana Lang

Series:
MISC, Smallville

Recipe:
These figures were a lot of fun to make, but they were somewhat difficult. The Clark was made from a DC Direct Clark head on a DST Season 4 Wesley body, with a “Parting Gifts” Wesley jacket. The shirt was then painted a dark plum color and clarks pupils were painted red. The Lana was made by cutting off the top half (that is, from the waist, up) of DC Direct’s Lana Lang Figure. I then Filed the waist down to an even flat surface and glued it to legs from a SOTA Charmed Phoebe figure. I painted this figure’s top. The bases are both customized as well from a painting over DST “Ice Cream Man” Xander’s bases.

Accessories:
Both of these figures came with a variety of accessories. The Clark included a Bike Helmet, sunglasses, and a suitcase full of Money. Lana included a schoolbag, purse, book, and 2 pieces of Kyrptonite.

Reasoning Behind The Effort:
I watched Seasons 1-4 of Smallville in a matter of about three months while prepping to move Cross-country in the beginning of 2006. Later, I was able to come into a large quantity of parts for both Clark and Lana in order to make figures beyond the common DC Direct figures that had been on the market for several years. These were two variants about which I was extremely excited, the Red Kryptonite-influenced Clark, and the lovely, hometown girl, Lana Lang.

Additional Thoughts
I approached this set of figures very excitedly, and I must say that I was pleased by the ending result. Both figures look fantastic. Their accessories are appropriate and really cool as well. I love the Clark especially since I felt the red Krytponite episodes were the best. Overall this set was a great venture—it was a pleasure to make and a very rewarding addition to my portfolio, which was later sold on ebay in a sale of customs in Fall of 2006 (FIGURES COMPLETED IN FALL 2006).

Here’s some hot news. I’ve been recording my published reviews on Figures.com, but I was totally unaware that I was being posted elsewhere at all. Figures.com is part of the Action Online Network, so some of my more genre-specific reviews have been posted on other sites as well. Here are re-publications of two of those reviews.

THE WARRIORS: BASEBALL FURY

ROCKY III: ROCKY’s CORNER 3-PACK

Batman Begins, after The Mask of the Phantasm, is undoubtedly the best of the Batman films. It’s just awesome. The fights, the characters, the story, the surprises, the effects–all of them serve and enhance one another into a fully cohesive and wholly entertianing piece of cinema. I love this movie.

The movie follows the pre-Costumed days of Bruce Wayne and the significant events leading him to choose the life of Batman, from his childhood through his training. The movie begins with Bruce’s terrfiying initial encounter with bats, inspiring his later symbol to strike fear into criminals everywhere. It then cuts to his current state as a convict in an Asian prison and follows his training, flashing back to the key events that lead to his incarceration. Once he believes he has completed his training, he returns to Gotham City, his home, to dawn the famed cape-and-cowl and uncover a plot to destroy the city linking the mob, a psycodic doctor, and a group of international warriors. The film ends with Batman and Detective Jim Gordon (who will later becomes Commissioner Gordon) cementing their relationship and looking forward at the problems to come.

The first half of Batman Begins, from the opening through where Bruce Wayne first dawns the cape and cowl is probably 70 of my favorite minutes in the history of film. It’s ridiciculous. Prison fights, Ninja dojos hidden in the mountains, the building of the batsuit, a training montage, a mount-up sequence, what more could I have possibly wanted in a movie. I just can’t watch it enough. The second half, wherein Batman himself actually gets things done, solves the mystery, and goes after the villains is about a third as intersting and engagin, but a third of perfection is still pretty danged entertaining, particularly the sequence with the new batmobile.

My only qualm with this whole movie is that some of the fight direction is shot too close and edited too choppily to be followed or enjoyed. I love everything else about this flic, though! I really want to point out the performances in this movie also. I know that Katie Holmes gets alot of flack for her work in this movie, but here is the thing, when you turn in a serviceable performance against fantastic performacnces by a cast of well-established veterans of the craft, your work will look shoody. Frankly, I thought she was fine for her function, and I thought she brought an innocence to Gotham that was very engaging and sympathetic. I know others will disagree with me, and that’s fine. As I said before, the rest of the performacnces are amazing. Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer, and Michael Caine in particualr are stunningly strong. Each of them could have gotten a best supporting actor nod if the academy did that kind of thing. Ken Watanabe, that kid who plays Scarecrow, and Liam Neeson are also good.

Batman Begins gets a 7 from me. It is one of my favorite movies and my second favorite comic book film, even if I like the second half only a third as much as the first. I love this movie, and I can’t get enough of it!

Thank you for coming back to the stage! May grace, peace, and all manner of success find you today.

As many of you know, I have been looking at questions that others have brought to me regarding their reason for not believing in God. This doesn’t make sense or that’s not possible, etc. Here’s another question that’s come to my attention.

4) The Bible has problems. It can’t be true because it is self-refuting and inaccurate. And C.J., don’t say that “contextually” everything makes sense, cause it doesn’t. This-and-that don’t match up. It’s obvious. God says this here, and he says that there. Furthermore, the Bible was put together by man. Man is fallible; hence the Bible cannot be perfect. Plus, what about this unenclosed Gospel or that book of the Apocrypha? Or the corruption of the church? How do you believe anything in the Bible at all?

Okay, this is a tough one; and I have really only been able to reconcile with a blanket belief.  Different scholars, many of whom have spent their LIFETIME studying the text of the Bible disagree on certain things. Men who claim to love God and live lives that reflect that have argued til they were red in the face over this proof for accuracy or the reason for fallibility.  These men are all more intelligent than I. They are better educated and more intelligent. Many of them also have a love for God that is deeper than my own.

The only way that I, in my own life, have been able to reconcile all this information to my faith is just to have faith. If God is who he says he is; if God has the capacities which I believe him to have; if God is who he claims to be, then he has all the capacities and power to form and maintain the Bible as he wants to have it, despite man’s intentions to do otherwise. This covers fallibility and corruption. If God can do all things, than certainly he can ensure that his Word is kept secure as he wants it kept.

Furthermore, as far as ANY innerBible contradictions, I accept that these exist within the Word in a way that does not contradict the Bible at its most basic purposes–to point to Christ and Communicate his love to the world. If two facts in the Old Testament contradict one another based on this finding or that finding, then I believe that such contentions, such obvious problems are NOT truly contradictory in terms of ultimate truth or purpose that are intended to be communicated by the Bible as a whole.  In fact, these supposed contradictions are most likely intended to seem as such in order to tell us something larger.

 I think one of these problems has been dates. “This date doesn’t match this date.”  or some such, I don’t remember. As far as dates are concerned, I have found that without fail, these contradictions are rectified by circumventing the mismatched dating problem and addressing the context problem.  One book was written at this time in this place, and based on the calendar used at that time, while the other book or text was completed based on this calendar or so on or so forth.  Some such explanation is usually available.

Regardless, as far as I’m concerned, any contradiction in this way, even if one of the two facts is completely and totally incorrect, that would not negate the other 99.99957% of the Bible. If I look at an encyclopedia from 1984 that says that someone did something in 1912 when in fact the event occurred in 1618, would I then throw away the rest of the encyclopedia?  Does one, even 10, even a 100 mistakes (not the Bible ahs that many) out of a book containing thousands upon thousands of proven facts nullifying the work completely?  Just something to think about.

FOLLOW UP: But you are an idiot, and your reasoning is self-refuting, because you say if “God is who he says he is” and you know who he is based on the Bible, you can’t use his being who he is to prove the validity of the Bible.

I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m just explaining how I personally have come to accept things that have required my faith to supplement my understanding in order to make sense of things beyond my personal knowledge and mental capacities.  If that is problematic, I’m sorry.

What to even say…How to even begin.
Ong Bak is awesome. Or rather, Tony Jaa is awesome. Not since Bruce Lee has the raw power, not timing or size, but POWER of a Martial Artist been so completely evident and awe-inspring. Tony Jaa, the film’s star, may not be the next Jackie Chan or Jet Li, but he is the next Bruce Lee. He is the only martial artist to display Lee’s charismatic perfection of martial arts and power to match it. When Jaa hits people in this movie, you can tell he’s holding back, BUT it still looks like he is beating the tar out of them–and isn’t that what martial arts flics are all about.

Jaa stars as a villager seeking the stolen head of his home’s idol/buddha in this fish-out-of-water flic filled with martial arts mayhem. He encounters former citizens of his village in the big city, uniting with one and hunting another. He is taken advantage of, constantly attacked, and cheated; but the stoic hero never loses sight of his goal, never stops his pursuit, and never lets up–culminating in an ending move on one of the film’s main villains that my friend Dean lovingly Dubbed, “The missile”. If you watch the movie, you’ll know it.

I really can’t praise this movie enough for its action. The story, the characters, the jokes, everything surrounding the action is serviceable but nothing overly interesting or entertaining. But that’s the beauty of current DVD technology. You can pick this thing up and just watch the fights, and they are worth the price of admission or rental. Jaa really gives the audience something they haven’t seen before, elevating a very mediocre movie to something really exceptional and worth owning.

I am giving Ong Bak a 5. It’s no masterpiece of cinema less its relentless fight choreography and its star’s charimsatic martial arts talents. Those things, however, are well worth multiple viewings.

My buddy Chris Chandler has begun a video game review archive on his site, Christopher Chandler.net; and it is AWESOME. The man knows his games and he writes some solid stuff. Recently he reviewed “Zombies Ate My Neighbors”. This is an excellent game, and he really does a fantastic job reviewing it. Jump over to his site to check it out! Oh, and go buy “Zombies Ate My Neighbors” for SNES.

Grace, peace, and thanks to you all. May you find a person in need and bless them with your your generosity.

3)The Bible cannot be true because the story of Noah’s ark could not have happened based on what we know of the earth.

There are different schools of thought on this, but here is one to which I hold. How do we know the state of the world thousands of years ago?  How can we define or limit the phenomena that could or could not have occurred in a world so different than our own?  Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, deep sea tectonic shifts–any or all of these could have contributed to a singular anomaly or event which may or may not have flooded the world. It’s difficult to know exactly the nature of the flood itself as well as the state of the earth at the time of it’s occurrence. In fact, who’s to say the flood covered the whole of the globe. THE WORLD from an Old Testament perspective could have meant “the known world”, or “the world as far as the eye could see” or “the world as far as man had inhabited”. As far as the flood is concerned, there are too many unknowns about the science for me to accept an explanation that completely and utterly refutes the possibility of the flood in its various, possible interpretations from the Bible. So the lack of known science fails to threaten this story for me.

Furthermore, this question usually comes from those who refute creation theory and believe in the big bang or evolution, and to them, the response is much simpler. If one can “scientifically” accept that (a)the world began as a result of a 1-in-a-million chance of very particular events and occurrences happening perfectly, and (b) as a result, life evolved at an even lower possibility of success;  how can one say that no 1-in-a-sextillion cataclysmic event could have occurred in the history of the world. If our very existence is based on an infinitesimal chance of success, how likely is it that OTHER events with infinitesimal chance could have occurred in the history of the world and civilization.