1. Some of my family watched Divergent this afternoon again on DVD. It's an interesting concept, dividing society into factions like the brave, the smart, the selfless, and the candid. It's a little like the four cardinal virtues of the ancient Mediterranean--courage, wisdom, self-control, and justice, although candor seems the weakest of the choices.
In this post-apocalyptic Chicago, you cannot change factions once you have chosen in late adolescence. It's reminiscent of the caste system in India (priests, warriors, farmers, servants, and untouchables) although there you were stuck from birth. It also reminds of Plato's Republic, where there are the philosophers (the head), the warriors (the chest), and the workers (the abdomen).
Of course it's a ridiculous system, but we are but dust. Anyone who thinks the human race has outgrown the most ridiculous of worldviews or that the West is somehow above all that is horrendously self-deceived. The average human being here is just as unreflective and capable of atrocity as the average human being anywhere else.
But what I find particularly fascinating about the first Divergent movie is the tension between the faction called "Abnegation" and the one called "Erudite." (BTW, I can't stand the way they pronounce the word in the movie. I know it's one way to pronounce it but, please, just say "air-oo-dite"--THERE'S NO Y IN THE WORD!!! It's like it cancels out what the faction is supposed to be... SMART!)
2. After Chicago emerges from its apocalypse and the faction system is created, Abnegation (those who are selfless and put themselves above others) are put in control. Why? Because it is against their own principles to do things in their own self-interest over others. They are, as it were, the Christian or Buddhist faction.
This actually is a profound idea. It reminds me of one of my favorite stories from Roman history. Cincinnatus in the early Roman republic is a hero of mine and many. The Romans called on him from his small farm to lead an army as dictator twice. The first time he had subdued the enemy in two weeks and surrendered his power the day the conflict was over. The second time he was raised to quell a rebellion and, again, immediately surrendered his power when the rebellion was defeated.
So the idea that those who don't want control or power would be those who had to rule is an idea full of wisdom.
3. Enter Erudite, the bookish, smart ones. In the movie, they plot to take over the city and to put all of Abnegation to death. They especially want to destroy those who are "divergent," individuals who are gifted in multiple ways and don't fit neatly into any one faction.
Several things are fascinating about Erudite here. First, being smart doesn't mean a person is right. Get ten "smart" people in a room from different tribes and you will often find ten different ideas. No one is objective and perhaps Socrates is still right that the person who knows how much he or she doesn't know is the wisest person in the room. No one is completely objective.
But many smart people are convinced that they know the right way to go or the right thing to do. In this case, the erudite are utilitarian. They believe that killing the enemies of the system will save society long term. So kill a thousand to save ten thousand.
Of course they are wrong in this movie.
A good leader makes decisions but wants to hear multiple perspectives before making it. And a good leader will make that decision not for selfish benefit but for the benefit of the mission, with a view to the team.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Saturday, April 05, 2014
Review: God's Not Dead
Spoiler Alert: While my youngest two were at Fusion and my wife was visiting the oldest two, I snuck off to see the movie God's Not Dead last night.
1. I love the Newsboys' song, God's not Dead. What a great song to culminate the movie with! Love it. Big spoiler (skip to the next paragraph). It's really moving when everyone texts from the concert that "God's not dead," and the characters who aren't at the concert read it. It's moving enough to feel a tear coming on. To me, there was especially a lot of power to that text coming to the (now formerly) atheist's cell phone, given the irony of where he's at when the text comes. I'll leave it at that.
2. I like the humility of the main character throughout most of the movie. He got a little cocky to me in the final confrontation with the philosophy professor, but that was a deviation from his character most of the movie. In most of the movie, he takes the position that 1) it comes down to choosing faith, since God is not ultimately a matter of proof and 2) there are moral people who just don't believe.
3. However, a critique I have is that, although the movie tells us such things, it doesn't show us. IMO, the overall tone of the movie is one of "the evidence demands a verdict" and "all atheists are sleazebags." And let's face it, a lot of people are going to enjoy this movie because they like seeing intellectuals and liberals get stuffed by Duck Dynasty. The calm qualifications are overridden by the overall tone.
4. Back to the good. Most Christians are portrayed as incredibly humble and loving in the movie. Let's ask God to make us actually be like that. :-) Most real churches are probably more like the church of Corinth in the New Testament than like the perfect believers in this film.
There was of course one Christian who wasn't portrayed in dreamy perfection--that nasty feminist girlfriend who obviously didn't get the memo that the man is the head in the relationship. (sarcasm intended)
5. Ultimately, most of the characters in this movie, both Christian and non, are "flat" characters. They are predictable caricatures rather than real people. The philosophy professor is a straw man rather than a real debate partner. I'm sure there are professors like that out there, but they are not good professors and certainly not good philosophy teachers. Philosophy is not about indoctrination but about examining assumptions.
To help illustrate what I mean by flat and straw man characters, there are some movies where Christians are portrayed negatively in a similar way to the way the professors are portrayed in this movie. There's a movie called Easy A where Amanda Bynes plays a Christian character who is infuriatingly flat and unreal. The way she acts, the way her circle prays, is an absurd representation of what Christians are like. That is exactly how this movie's philosophy professor will feel to real philosophy professors and non-believers. (John Hawthorne, did you catch the dig at sociologists ;-)
6. Josh presents two positive arguments for God and one defensive argument. The first is the argument that the world had a beginning, the cosmological argument. He gets Aristotle wrong. Aristotle actually argued that there must have been a first mover. Thomas Aquinas actually made the same basic argument Josh makes in the movie by building off of Aristotle's argument.
Josh mentions Lemaître, whom I mentioned last week as a twentieth century cosmologist who argued that the universe must have had a beginning. I may be stupid but I would at least agree with the tone of the movie toward Dawkins and Hawking, both of whom I consider cocky imbeciles when it comes to the question of God. Nevertheless, I find some of the dialog about them generally unbelievable, both in terms of how lame the philosophy professor is and in how Josh gets a little too "boo-yah" ish.
So yes, I think the cosmological argument makes it reasonable to believe in God. It doesn't prove God. It certainly doesn't prove the Christian God. It simply suggests that it is reasonable to believe in a Creator, given that the universe seems to have had a beginning.
7. The question of evolution and the problem of evil are big topics. For example, the "free will" explanation for why God allows evil is one of best, but there are other ideas and there are counter-ideas. It's really not believable that Josh could convince the whole class with as little as he presents (or that the professor would have so little to say in response).
We need to be humble as Christians about these sorts of arguments. A lot of them make basic sense but they are far from slam dunks. They do not "demand" our verdict. As Josh also says, however, arguments to the contrary do not disprove God either.
8. Josh is right that a lot of the angriest atheists are former believers. Josh is also right that some people say they don't believe in God because they are angry with God. It's hard to believe that a real college philosophy professor would be as stupid as this one comes off, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who say they don't believe in God because they are trying to get back at him.
9. So I left thinking that I might take my kids to see it. I didn't think I would want to, going in. I'll be honest, the characters in this movie are so far-fetched that the whole movie drove me crazy, just like secular portrayals of Christians often do. But I liked the ending, for the most part. The moment with the mother was striking too, I thought. Well played.
P.S. The quote, "God is dead," comes from Nietzsche, who said it almost as a prophecy of the moral chaos that would dominate parts of the twentieth century. Agreeing with Dostoevsky, Nietzsche thought that if people didn't believe in God, then anything would become morally permissible to them. The context of this statement in Nietzsche's writing is a madmen who tells people celebrating God's death that they don't know what they have done by killing him off.
1. I love the Newsboys' song, God's not Dead. What a great song to culminate the movie with! Love it. Big spoiler (skip to the next paragraph). It's really moving when everyone texts from the concert that "God's not dead," and the characters who aren't at the concert read it. It's moving enough to feel a tear coming on. To me, there was especially a lot of power to that text coming to the (now formerly) atheist's cell phone, given the irony of where he's at when the text comes. I'll leave it at that.
2. I like the humility of the main character throughout most of the movie. He got a little cocky to me in the final confrontation with the philosophy professor, but that was a deviation from his character most of the movie. In most of the movie, he takes the position that 1) it comes down to choosing faith, since God is not ultimately a matter of proof and 2) there are moral people who just don't believe.
3. However, a critique I have is that, although the movie tells us such things, it doesn't show us. IMO, the overall tone of the movie is one of "the evidence demands a verdict" and "all atheists are sleazebags." And let's face it, a lot of people are going to enjoy this movie because they like seeing intellectuals and liberals get stuffed by Duck Dynasty. The calm qualifications are overridden by the overall tone.
4. Back to the good. Most Christians are portrayed as incredibly humble and loving in the movie. Let's ask God to make us actually be like that. :-) Most real churches are probably more like the church of Corinth in the New Testament than like the perfect believers in this film.
There was of course one Christian who wasn't portrayed in dreamy perfection--that nasty feminist girlfriend who obviously didn't get the memo that the man is the head in the relationship. (sarcasm intended)
5. Ultimately, most of the characters in this movie, both Christian and non, are "flat" characters. They are predictable caricatures rather than real people. The philosophy professor is a straw man rather than a real debate partner. I'm sure there are professors like that out there, but they are not good professors and certainly not good philosophy teachers. Philosophy is not about indoctrination but about examining assumptions.
To help illustrate what I mean by flat and straw man characters, there are some movies where Christians are portrayed negatively in a similar way to the way the professors are portrayed in this movie. There's a movie called Easy A where Amanda Bynes plays a Christian character who is infuriatingly flat and unreal. The way she acts, the way her circle prays, is an absurd representation of what Christians are like. That is exactly how this movie's philosophy professor will feel to real philosophy professors and non-believers. (John Hawthorne, did you catch the dig at sociologists ;-)
6. Josh presents two positive arguments for God and one defensive argument. The first is the argument that the world had a beginning, the cosmological argument. He gets Aristotle wrong. Aristotle actually argued that there must have been a first mover. Thomas Aquinas actually made the same basic argument Josh makes in the movie by building off of Aristotle's argument.
Josh mentions Lemaître, whom I mentioned last week as a twentieth century cosmologist who argued that the universe must have had a beginning. I may be stupid but I would at least agree with the tone of the movie toward Dawkins and Hawking, both of whom I consider cocky imbeciles when it comes to the question of God. Nevertheless, I find some of the dialog about them generally unbelievable, both in terms of how lame the philosophy professor is and in how Josh gets a little too "boo-yah" ish.
So yes, I think the cosmological argument makes it reasonable to believe in God. It doesn't prove God. It certainly doesn't prove the Christian God. It simply suggests that it is reasonable to believe in a Creator, given that the universe seems to have had a beginning.
7. The question of evolution and the problem of evil are big topics. For example, the "free will" explanation for why God allows evil is one of best, but there are other ideas and there are counter-ideas. It's really not believable that Josh could convince the whole class with as little as he presents (or that the professor would have so little to say in response).
We need to be humble as Christians about these sorts of arguments. A lot of them make basic sense but they are far from slam dunks. They do not "demand" our verdict. As Josh also says, however, arguments to the contrary do not disprove God either.
8. Josh is right that a lot of the angriest atheists are former believers. Josh is also right that some people say they don't believe in God because they are angry with God. It's hard to believe that a real college philosophy professor would be as stupid as this one comes off, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who say they don't believe in God because they are trying to get back at him.
9. So I left thinking that I might take my kids to see it. I didn't think I would want to, going in. I'll be honest, the characters in this movie are so far-fetched that the whole movie drove me crazy, just like secular portrayals of Christians often do. But I liked the ending, for the most part. The moment with the mother was striking too, I thought. Well played.
P.S. The quote, "God is dead," comes from Nietzsche, who said it almost as a prophecy of the moral chaos that would dominate parts of the twentieth century. Agreeing with Dostoevsky, Nietzsche thought that if people didn't believe in God, then anything would become morally permissible to them. The context of this statement in Nietzsche's writing is a madmen who tells people celebrating God's death that they don't know what they have done by killing him off.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Christians at the Movies
I did a quick thought on the Wesley Seminary blog about the flood of movies of interest to Christians that are out right now: http://wesleyconnectonline.com/christians-at-the-movies/
My three warnings are:
My three warnings are:
- Avoid "three wise men" syndrome.
- Value Truth more than tradition.
- Remember the mission.
- It seems to be built out of a fictional urban legend regularly forwarded as email spam that I have heard repeatedly throughout my life.
- The philosophy professor has all the makings of a straw man. Any atheist professor of this sort should be fired from any respectable secular university. Although I can believe there are professors like this who exist out there, they would be mocked and considered incompetent by other atheist philosophy professors. Philosophy is about asking questions, not about indoctrination.
- It assumes a debatable model of faith, where faith is a matter of proof. It is a very popular apologetic but one that can be questioned. For me, the best model is one in which God comes to us rather than us trying to rationally come to God.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Review: The Noah Movie
Spoiler alert: Some of my family and I went to see the movie Noah last night. To be honest, I was hoping I would like it. There is a fundamentalist machine that goes crazy at all sorts of things, and it drives me crazy. Social media just seems to amplify the emotions of anyone who gets emotional--on all sides, conservative and liberal alike. America is this vast mob of irrationality.
I watched some Fox the other night and I said to myself, "Their job is to find something to mock or poke fun at about Obama or anything vaguely liberal." The night I watched, there wasn't much substantial to make fun of, so I thought they were in a kind of dry heave. Mocking but without a lot today to mock. It just came off as silly, I thought.
Well, I'm disappointed to say that I didn't enjoy the Noah movie at all. I know 1 Enoch. I know the Watchers (check out chapters 10 and 14, for example). If they were going to go apocalyptic, they could have done a much better job of it. Rock Watchers, really? (not to be confused with rock lobster) It's a nice touch that the fallen angels get to go back to heaven, although that's not at all what happens to them even in the Pseudepigrapha (it was like a sprinkle of Prometheus with a Gnostic twist). I kept thinking, come on, if we're going to go apocalyptic with this story, I could do a lot better.
Basically, I thought it wasn't done well even from the opening scene. I felt like I was watching some cave drawing or silent movie with sound. I thought Methuselah came off as something between goofy and creepy, despite Anthony Hopkins, like some character out of a Monty Python skit (Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here). (BTW, no one will be surprised to know that as a nerdy child sitting in church I added up the ages in Genesis 5 and, indeed, Methuselah does end up dying the year of the Flood ;-).
Ham made me uncomfortable although I suppose the point was well taken that the line of Seth was subject to sin just as the line of Cain. Believe it or not, there was just a touch of orthodox theology hidden in there. There were a couple points where I thought it was about to go a little deep but then seemed to end up coming off a little cheezy. I didn't like Tubal-Cain eliminating a species on the ark for a snack, but that probably was, reluctantly, quite a striking scene, a replay of the Garden of Eden.
It's hard to detach myself from the Noah story I know and watch the movie objectively, admittedly. There were some interesting ideas floated in the movie, for example, that animals can be on the ark because they're innocent (but did the movie end up endorsing that point of view?). There was a quasi-evolutionary, day-age interpretation of Genesis 1 that was interesting, even if strangely set out with time lapse photography :-)
I'm trying not to fall into "Three Wise Men Syndrome," though, when I say I just didn't enjoy it. Three Wise Men Syndrome is when someone gets upset because someone messes with the way they have interpreted a famous Bible story. I have no doubt that the Israelites read the Flood story quite differently than my Sunday School Pix cartoons pictured it. I suspect Jude and Peter read the story differently than my Picture Bible, given that they actually engage the Enochic literature I mentioned above. 1 Peter 3:19-20 may very well refer to the Watchers (cf. Gen. 6:1-4).
But I just didn't like it.
I watched some Fox the other night and I said to myself, "Their job is to find something to mock or poke fun at about Obama or anything vaguely liberal." The night I watched, there wasn't much substantial to make fun of, so I thought they were in a kind of dry heave. Mocking but without a lot today to mock. It just came off as silly, I thought.
Well, I'm disappointed to say that I didn't enjoy the Noah movie at all. I know 1 Enoch. I know the Watchers (check out chapters 10 and 14, for example). If they were going to go apocalyptic, they could have done a much better job of it. Rock Watchers, really? (not to be confused with rock lobster) It's a nice touch that the fallen angels get to go back to heaven, although that's not at all what happens to them even in the Pseudepigrapha (it was like a sprinkle of Prometheus with a Gnostic twist). I kept thinking, come on, if we're going to go apocalyptic with this story, I could do a lot better.
Basically, I thought it wasn't done well even from the opening scene. I felt like I was watching some cave drawing or silent movie with sound. I thought Methuselah came off as something between goofy and creepy, despite Anthony Hopkins, like some character out of a Monty Python skit (Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here). (BTW, no one will be surprised to know that as a nerdy child sitting in church I added up the ages in Genesis 5 and, indeed, Methuselah does end up dying the year of the Flood ;-).
Ham made me uncomfortable although I suppose the point was well taken that the line of Seth was subject to sin just as the line of Cain. Believe it or not, there was just a touch of orthodox theology hidden in there. There were a couple points where I thought it was about to go a little deep but then seemed to end up coming off a little cheezy. I didn't like Tubal-Cain eliminating a species on the ark for a snack, but that probably was, reluctantly, quite a striking scene, a replay of the Garden of Eden.
It's hard to detach myself from the Noah story I know and watch the movie objectively, admittedly. There were some interesting ideas floated in the movie, for example, that animals can be on the ark because they're innocent (but did the movie end up endorsing that point of view?). There was a quasi-evolutionary, day-age interpretation of Genesis 1 that was interesting, even if strangely set out with time lapse photography :-)
I'm trying not to fall into "Three Wise Men Syndrome," though, when I say I just didn't enjoy it. Three Wise Men Syndrome is when someone gets upset because someone messes with the way they have interpreted a famous Bible story. I have no doubt that the Israelites read the Flood story quite differently than my Sunday School Pix cartoons pictured it. I suspect Jude and Peter read the story differently than my Picture Bible, given that they actually engage the Enochic literature I mentioned above. 1 Peter 3:19-20 may very well refer to the Watchers (cf. Gen. 6:1-4).
But I just didn't like it.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
The Butler
Went to see The Butler tonight. The movie is loosely based on the life of Eugene Allen, an African-American who served for some 34 years in the White House. Lest the cranky shut down and not listen, it is only loosely based on Allen's life.
Allen didn't grow up in Macon. His father wasn't killed as a child. He didn't have a son who was an activist, although he did have a son. He retired because it was time, not because he came to see his job as racially patronizing. Yes, yes, Reagan may have had geopolitical rather than racial reasons not to sanction South Africa over Apartheid.
What the movie does portray well is both the situation of black Americans in the middle part of the twentieth century and, implicitly, the benefits of white privilege in America. It portrays the powerlessness of blacks in the early part of the twentieth century in the face of injustice. It shows the ridiculous prejudice of the South and its stubborn insistence on segregation. It shows the obliviousness of whites who were in position not to worry about such things or who even got righteously indignant at "law breakers" like the activists who worked to make it impossible to be oblivious.
"White privilege" can be a difficult idea for a white person like me to grasp because it is not about something that seems "extra" to me as a white person. I may still struggle to pay my bills. I may still have all sorts of challenges of my own. White privilege has to do with how much harder it would be for me if I were black or of some other race in my same shoes.
When I walk into a store or down your average rural American street, I blend in. A Hispanic or a black might get a suspicious look in a similar store. I might be watched, second guessed, profiled. Privilege is not so much about benefits I perceive as extra but about benefits I would definitely perceive if I were black or some other minority.
It is an amazing thing that even Christians can somehow convince themselves that they are standing up for right when "putting others in their place." No doubt many of those in the South thought they were justified in their anger toward troublemakers who refused to follow the rules and get to the back of the bus or use the right seats. It's not unlike the attitude today of some toward illegal immigrants who have broken the law in how they've entered this country. "We're right to tear their families apart because they're lawbreakers," as if Jesus and Paul were big on keeping the law.
The issues change, the attitudes don't. A lot of state's rights talk today is the same old attitudes hiding behind different issues. Don't worry, our grandchildren will wag their heads at us too. The more localized the decision making, the more likely the exclusion and injustice. The more people represented in the discussion, the more likely the fairness and evenhandedness.
I would have hoped that race would have disappeared as an issue by now. In the year 2000 I might have said it was happening. But 9-11 and economic crisis have set us back. People pull back into their cocoons when times are tough. Race seems as charged to me today as it has been since the 70s. I'm hoping it is just the last gasp before whites themselves become a racial minority.
I struggled not to cry as the movie ended. It made me feel the pain of a good man in that era, in those situations. The specific characters in the movie were fictitious, but the people they represented were all too real.
Allen didn't grow up in Macon. His father wasn't killed as a child. He didn't have a son who was an activist, although he did have a son. He retired because it was time, not because he came to see his job as racially patronizing. Yes, yes, Reagan may have had geopolitical rather than racial reasons not to sanction South Africa over Apartheid.
What the movie does portray well is both the situation of black Americans in the middle part of the twentieth century and, implicitly, the benefits of white privilege in America. It portrays the powerlessness of blacks in the early part of the twentieth century in the face of injustice. It shows the ridiculous prejudice of the South and its stubborn insistence on segregation. It shows the obliviousness of whites who were in position not to worry about such things or who even got righteously indignant at "law breakers" like the activists who worked to make it impossible to be oblivious.
"White privilege" can be a difficult idea for a white person like me to grasp because it is not about something that seems "extra" to me as a white person. I may still struggle to pay my bills. I may still have all sorts of challenges of my own. White privilege has to do with how much harder it would be for me if I were black or of some other race in my same shoes.
When I walk into a store or down your average rural American street, I blend in. A Hispanic or a black might get a suspicious look in a similar store. I might be watched, second guessed, profiled. Privilege is not so much about benefits I perceive as extra but about benefits I would definitely perceive if I were black or some other minority.
It is an amazing thing that even Christians can somehow convince themselves that they are standing up for right when "putting others in their place." No doubt many of those in the South thought they were justified in their anger toward troublemakers who refused to follow the rules and get to the back of the bus or use the right seats. It's not unlike the attitude today of some toward illegal immigrants who have broken the law in how they've entered this country. "We're right to tear their families apart because they're lawbreakers," as if Jesus and Paul were big on keeping the law.
The issues change, the attitudes don't. A lot of state's rights talk today is the same old attitudes hiding behind different issues. Don't worry, our grandchildren will wag their heads at us too. The more localized the decision making, the more likely the exclusion and injustice. The more people represented in the discussion, the more likely the fairness and evenhandedness.
I would have hoped that race would have disappeared as an issue by now. In the year 2000 I might have said it was happening. But 9-11 and economic crisis have set us back. People pull back into their cocoons when times are tough. Race seems as charged to me today as it has been since the 70s. I'm hoping it is just the last gasp before whites themselves become a racial minority.
I struggled not to cry as the movie ended. It made me feel the pain of a good man in that era, in those situations. The specific characters in the movie were fictitious, but the people they represented were all too real.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Les Miserables
We went to see several movies over the break, one of which was Les Mis. I'm not much for musicals and didn't really enjoy Hugh Jackman or Russell Crowe's voices, but I think the story is very interesting. I liked the Liam Neeson version better, but there were some things that stuck out about this one.
1. The first was how much better most of our lives are today than in the 1800s, even in tough economic times. The laws of the land really do seem to protect most of us most of the time. Sure, there is still injustice. Minorities still face discrimination. Urban areas still give rise to no win situations where a person has little choice but to join a gang.
But I would like to think that things aren't nearly as unjust as they used to be. I would at least like to think that much fewer women get forced into prostitution. I'd like to think that most people can eventually find a job. I would like to think that most policemen really do follow the law and that most judges can't be bought.
Still, I fear a lot of injustice goes on that I am not aware of because I live in comfortable circumstances (despite how uncomfortable they may be to me at times). A "great society" should have a path for anyone to make their way out of the mire. I have an unfinished and unpublished post somewhere in here called "Bring back the WPA."
2. In keeping with what I have just said, I do not believe that American society is less pleasing to Jesus today than it was in the 1800s. The world of slavery in the early 1800s was less Christ-ian than today's equal protection under the law. (It is ironic to me that the idea of equal rights or equal protection somehow seems less Christian than, what? What's the so called "conservative" alternative?)
The world of industrial revolution in the late 1800s was less Christ-ian than today's world of consumer and worker protection. (The problem with communism is that it doesn't work given human nature, not that the idea of "to each according to his need" is unChrist-ian).
Those who see America in a downward moral spiral are usually focusing on issues like sex or church attendance. But Scripture tells us that the measure of morality is love of neighbor, not violation of moral rules. The laws of America are more "loving"--giving rights to each as each would like to have rights--than ever before. Atheism is on the rise, but I consider that to a large extent the church's fault for making God look stupid and irrelevant.
3. I preferred the way the Liam Neeson version portrayed the Javert, inspector, character to the Russell Crowe version. It wasn't clear to me in the recent version why he would commit suicide. I thought the earlier version captured well the French sense of absolute law. Someone must pay, so he kills himself.
This ridiculous sense of penal substitution among some Christians is similar to how many unbiblically paint God, unable to show mercy on his own authority, required to make someone pay (in our case Christ). Scripture doesn't have such a rigid view of God's justice.
4. I also was reminded that no human tribe is inevitably civilized. Civilization must be perpetuated by education and by empowerment. No human tribe is beyond revolution if some portion is disempowered and kept down for long enough. A nation descends out of civilization if it does not pay attention to its despondent. French history is an annoying illustration. The wealthy must pay attention to the impoverished in their own self-interest.
1. The first was how much better most of our lives are today than in the 1800s, even in tough economic times. The laws of the land really do seem to protect most of us most of the time. Sure, there is still injustice. Minorities still face discrimination. Urban areas still give rise to no win situations where a person has little choice but to join a gang.
But I would like to think that things aren't nearly as unjust as they used to be. I would at least like to think that much fewer women get forced into prostitution. I'd like to think that most people can eventually find a job. I would like to think that most policemen really do follow the law and that most judges can't be bought.
Still, I fear a lot of injustice goes on that I am not aware of because I live in comfortable circumstances (despite how uncomfortable they may be to me at times). A "great society" should have a path for anyone to make their way out of the mire. I have an unfinished and unpublished post somewhere in here called "Bring back the WPA."
2. In keeping with what I have just said, I do not believe that American society is less pleasing to Jesus today than it was in the 1800s. The world of slavery in the early 1800s was less Christ-ian than today's equal protection under the law. (It is ironic to me that the idea of equal rights or equal protection somehow seems less Christian than, what? What's the so called "conservative" alternative?)
The world of industrial revolution in the late 1800s was less Christ-ian than today's world of consumer and worker protection. (The problem with communism is that it doesn't work given human nature, not that the idea of "to each according to his need" is unChrist-ian).
Those who see America in a downward moral spiral are usually focusing on issues like sex or church attendance. But Scripture tells us that the measure of morality is love of neighbor, not violation of moral rules. The laws of America are more "loving"--giving rights to each as each would like to have rights--than ever before. Atheism is on the rise, but I consider that to a large extent the church's fault for making God look stupid and irrelevant.
3. I preferred the way the Liam Neeson version portrayed the Javert, inspector, character to the Russell Crowe version. It wasn't clear to me in the recent version why he would commit suicide. I thought the earlier version captured well the French sense of absolute law. Someone must pay, so he kills himself.
This ridiculous sense of penal substitution among some Christians is similar to how many unbiblically paint God, unable to show mercy on his own authority, required to make someone pay (in our case Christ). Scripture doesn't have such a rigid view of God's justice.
4. I also was reminded that no human tribe is inevitably civilized. Civilization must be perpetuated by education and by empowerment. No human tribe is beyond revolution if some portion is disempowered and kept down for long enough. A nation descends out of civilization if it does not pay attention to its despondent. French history is an annoying illustration. The wealthy must pay attention to the impoverished in their own self-interest.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Hunger Games cometh...
My wife Angie bought us tickets to the midnight opening of Hunger Games tonight so after a short nap I find myself looking for something to do for thirty minutes. Our youngest don't know they're about to be awoken in thirty minutes, although they had begged to go.
We read the Hunger Games series with our youngest two just before and in Germany. I remember being very impressed with the first volume of the series, thinking it was profound enough to be more than just a good movie. It could become the kind of classic you read in a high school literature class. I never felt that way about the Harry Potter series, although they are also quite clever, just not profound IMHO.
This has to be the first time that I've read a book before seeing the movie. Usually, my wife and step daughters are disappointed with the movie when they do that. I'll have to see what my experience is tonight.
There, I used up 10 minutes...
We read the Hunger Games series with our youngest two just before and in Germany. I remember being very impressed with the first volume of the series, thinking it was profound enough to be more than just a good movie. It could become the kind of classic you read in a high school literature class. I never felt that way about the Harry Potter series, although they are also quite clever, just not profound IMHO.
This has to be the first time that I've read a book before seeing the movie. Usually, my wife and step daughters are disappointed with the movie when they do that. I'll have to see what my experience is tonight.
There, I used up 10 minutes...
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Perfect Movie
I was thinking tonight what the perfect movie for me would be.
1. It would have action like the Bourne trilogy.
2. It would be funny and clever like Pirates of the Caribbean.
3. It would move at a constant clip, like the first Hoodwinked, with little "monologuing," dialog, or transition. Don't blink or you miss something.
4. It would have a good love story in the middle of a broader struggle, one with tension. The movies that came to mind probably will seem weird--in terms of the woman role, Somersby and the Kevin Costner Robin Hood; in terms of the man role, maybe something like Bourne.
5. If it is an imaginative film, then I like either the retro-science feel of a Sherlock Holmes or the futuristic science of the recent Star Trek. I like main characters who are geniuses, tricky, one step ahead of you.
6. Some movies create a whole world with its own rules, language, etc., like the Harry Potter series.
7. A certain kind of movie can also interact with history, religion, or philosophy in creative ways. Time Bandits, Hitchhikers Guide, Matrix, Lost, etc...
8. I like double meaning symbolism as well. Alice in Wonderland...
What have I missed for the perfect movie? If it were clearer in my head, I'd try to write it... Obviously it's not ;-)
1. It would have action like the Bourne trilogy.
2. It would be funny and clever like Pirates of the Caribbean.
3. It would move at a constant clip, like the first Hoodwinked, with little "monologuing," dialog, or transition. Don't blink or you miss something.
4. It would have a good love story in the middle of a broader struggle, one with tension. The movies that came to mind probably will seem weird--in terms of the woman role, Somersby and the Kevin Costner Robin Hood; in terms of the man role, maybe something like Bourne.
5. If it is an imaginative film, then I like either the retro-science feel of a Sherlock Holmes or the futuristic science of the recent Star Trek. I like main characters who are geniuses, tricky, one step ahead of you.
6. Some movies create a whole world with its own rules, language, etc., like the Harry Potter series.
7. A certain kind of movie can also interact with history, religion, or philosophy in creative ways. Time Bandits, Hitchhikers Guide, Matrix, Lost, etc...
8. I like double meaning symbolism as well. Alice in Wonderland...
What have I missed for the perfect movie? If it were clearer in my head, I'd try to write it... Obviously it's not ;-)
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Watched Memento
I watched Memento (Latin for "remember") last night and this afternoon. It's messed up my mind. It's a guy who only has short term memory since his wife's death. He pursues her murderer by way of tatoos, notes, and polaroid pictures he takes of things and writes on.
The movie ingeniously gets you into his perspective by starting from the end and gradually moving backwards. You see a scene, then you see the scene before that scene, until you reach certain aha moments.
But it's messed my mind up. I just wrote some notes to myself on a chapter of the philosophy book I'm writing, knowing that I'll forget it if I don't put it there now. My psyche is disjointed enough already... it's why I blog so much... little snapshots of my psyche for as long as I can hold attention... But who am I--what's the glue that holds these moments together, that constitutes any of us as a whole person?
Oh well, maybe I'm just having some sort of psychotic break. No biggie... it happens.
The movie ingeniously gets you into his perspective by starting from the end and gradually moving backwards. You see a scene, then you see the scene before that scene, until you reach certain aha moments.
But it's messed my mind up. I just wrote some notes to myself on a chapter of the philosophy book I'm writing, knowing that I'll forget it if I don't put it there now. My psyche is disjointed enough already... it's why I blog so much... little snapshots of my psyche for as long as I can hold attention... But who am I--what's the glue that holds these moments together, that constitutes any of us as a whole person?
Oh well, maybe I'm just having some sort of psychotic break. No biggie... it happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
