OWNING AN IPOD AGAIN IS AWESOME.
That's all.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Living for God PART TWO
Before I begin, I'm really tired right now and lot of it probably won't make any sense, aka I ramble a lot. And it's all opinion; I'm one guy who is wrong a lot, all of this is just my thoughts. If you don't agree, just let me know, and why.
_____
“how you come to your own terms of sacrifice is between you & god.”
This denotes (Denotes? What a trying to sound brainy guy…) the possibility that the will of God is overruled by what we want. Our terms may be our terms, but they can never be the final say in what is right. According to Christian theology (Unless I’m mistaken? By all means correct me if I am), we can only decide to obey or disobey Him; at no point do we have a say in what should or shouldn’t be done, even by us.
“so because Christ's love is patient, kind & unconditional & when we take on that attitude & apply it in our own life it means we have the mindset to lead a life where we can not just "tolerate" people but love them & being more understanding towards life & the people we meet means that we have the space to change the world. - yknow, like a ripple effect.”
I agree with this. I would just add that even Jesus got annoyed and told off Pharisees for being dickheads. If we are to be like Him, we do love and understand, but there must be times we must know to speak out loud, even if it seems like we’re not being loving and kind, we are following His example. The key is knowing when to speak and what to say. That’s a whole different matter however, and I do digress. I must get back to the topic at hand.
To add on to what I said before, finding out what ‘living for God’ means that we have to examine whether or not there are a certain set of rules or commands that must be kept, or if it’s merely ‘doing what God tells us’. Are the times we live in so much different from Biblical times that we dismiss specific commandments in favor of “Oh well, you know, God works differently in these modern times and we can’t just go around doing exactly what the apostles did.”? More on this later; for now, I’ll go back to the Mother Teresa thing.
If we are to say that she followed her calling, then we agree that said calling is quite extreme. Or it is compared to our way of living anyway. But for me personally, I don’t feel the obligation or particular desire of any sort to do such a thing. And come to think of it, I don’t have an obligation or particular desire to do a lot of things I know Christians are called to do. The last time I prayed for a non-Christian outside of Church? Last year. The last time I tried to share the gospel with a non-believer? Ages ago, I can’t even remember. (I didn’t want to write it because I’m not proud of it, but I’m being honest because this isn’t a debate, it’s an honest question.) I do read my Bible still and pray and attend church regularly, but I seem to be lacking what a lot of people would refer to as the fire of God, or the passion. So examining this evidence, are we to conclude that I am not living for God? (I really hope not.)
I happen to believe that God has placed me where I am (U of A represent!). This is good, because hey, that’s where I am and it’s where I should be. 5 points for getting something right Jesse! But while I’m here, should I concentrate at all costs to get my degree? Or am I supposed to be starting a Christian group or joining one or something? I haven’t joined or started one, nor do I intend to, but I’m saying this because I feel that not only do I not have to, I probably shouldn’t. If God has put me here to get a degree, then I will. It must be of use for His kingdom in the future, or else why would I be here; but must that be my sole focus? I could be wrong. (lol of course I could, trying to make it sound like I never am… I’m no Dumbledore :D) I continue to live my life in a way that does still promotes His ways and is in line with scriptures, but this is not out of obligation, but merely out of what my heart now wants as it has been filled with the Holy Spirit.
In a previous post however, I mentioned that I didn’t always follow what I knew was right by God, and that I most probably followed them less than the greatest men and women of God ever did. I believe however that seeing as God is not a God that keeps count of our mistakes, this is irrelevant. I do slip up a lot but I think because I know I am in God’s will (well, mostly, I’m probably never going to be fully doing God’s will), it would be safe to say that I am living for God. There is still much more on this matter and I will cover it later.
Note: Gus, I’m saying all this in the assumption (well, more than an assumption) that God exists and that He is the Biblical God of the New and Old Testaments. A discussion on whether or not he exists will happen someday, but it does not concern this post. Sorry about not having it in Java too :D
_____
“how you come to your own terms of sacrifice is between you & god.”
This denotes (Denotes? What a trying to sound brainy guy…) the possibility that the will of God is overruled by what we want. Our terms may be our terms, but they can never be the final say in what is right. According to Christian theology (Unless I’m mistaken? By all means correct me if I am), we can only decide to obey or disobey Him; at no point do we have a say in what should or shouldn’t be done, even by us.
“so because Christ's love is patient, kind & unconditional & when we take on that attitude & apply it in our own life it means we have the mindset to lead a life where we can not just "tolerate" people but love them & being more understanding towards life & the people we meet means that we have the space to change the world. - yknow, like a ripple effect.”
I agree with this. I would just add that even Jesus got annoyed and told off Pharisees for being dickheads. If we are to be like Him, we do love and understand, but there must be times we must know to speak out loud, even if it seems like we’re not being loving and kind, we are following His example. The key is knowing when to speak and what to say. That’s a whole different matter however, and I do digress. I must get back to the topic at hand.
To add on to what I said before, finding out what ‘living for God’ means that we have to examine whether or not there are a certain set of rules or commands that must be kept, or if it’s merely ‘doing what God tells us’. Are the times we live in so much different from Biblical times that we dismiss specific commandments in favor of “Oh well, you know, God works differently in these modern times and we can’t just go around doing exactly what the apostles did.”? More on this later; for now, I’ll go back to the Mother Teresa thing.
If we are to say that she followed her calling, then we agree that said calling is quite extreme. Or it is compared to our way of living anyway. But for me personally, I don’t feel the obligation or particular desire of any sort to do such a thing. And come to think of it, I don’t have an obligation or particular desire to do a lot of things I know Christians are called to do. The last time I prayed for a non-Christian outside of Church? Last year. The last time I tried to share the gospel with a non-believer? Ages ago, I can’t even remember. (I didn’t want to write it because I’m not proud of it, but I’m being honest because this isn’t a debate, it’s an honest question.) I do read my Bible still and pray and attend church regularly, but I seem to be lacking what a lot of people would refer to as the fire of God, or the passion. So examining this evidence, are we to conclude that I am not living for God? (I really hope not.)
I happen to believe that God has placed me where I am (U of A represent!). This is good, because hey, that’s where I am and it’s where I should be. 5 points for getting something right Jesse! But while I’m here, should I concentrate at all costs to get my degree? Or am I supposed to be starting a Christian group or joining one or something? I haven’t joined or started one, nor do I intend to, but I’m saying this because I feel that not only do I not have to, I probably shouldn’t. If God has put me here to get a degree, then I will. It must be of use for His kingdom in the future, or else why would I be here; but must that be my sole focus? I could be wrong. (lol of course I could, trying to make it sound like I never am… I’m no Dumbledore :D) I continue to live my life in a way that does still promotes His ways and is in line with scriptures, but this is not out of obligation, but merely out of what my heart now wants as it has been filled with the Holy Spirit.
In a previous post however, I mentioned that I didn’t always follow what I knew was right by God, and that I most probably followed them less than the greatest men and women of God ever did. I believe however that seeing as God is not a God that keeps count of our mistakes, this is irrelevant. I do slip up a lot but I think because I know I am in God’s will (well, mostly, I’m probably never going to be fully doing God’s will), it would be safe to say that I am living for God. There is still much more on this matter and I will cover it later.
Note: Gus, I’m saying all this in the assumption (well, more than an assumption) that God exists and that He is the Biblical God of the New and Old Testaments. A discussion on whether or not he exists will happen someday, but it does not concern this post. Sorry about not having it in Java too :D
Friday, May 22, 2009
Film Review: Twilight
"Don't believe the hype." - Alex Turner (arctic monkeys)
Gotta love the Hype Machine right. It is merciless, and only the truly strong and can survive in the aftermath of it's onslaught. Glorious victors (The Dark Knight, The Return of the King, and Titanic for example) stand apart from those things that are merely good. They are so good that despite all the expections we build up for it, we are still surprised by how good it is. Others just barely make the mark, like 300 (was great but lacking in all scenes that didn't involve Spartans cutting others' arms off), while others still get absolutely trampled (Spider-Man 3 I'm looking at you).
I mention this because Twilight is in my top 5 list of things I hear way too much about. Even before it came out, Robert Pattinson was already topping the Google-search charts, and the Paramore smash-hit Decode did even more for it (number one for how long on C4 Select? who can even count that high?). It was all I heard about for months, and now months after it was in cinemas and out again, I've finally seen it. Is it all worth it?
Yes. And no.
It's what I expected, with a little more. While watching it, I couldn't help but feel that it was skimming over certain details from the book it's based on, though seeing as I havn't read the book, i can't confirm whether that feeling is reality.
We are thrust into a small and quiet town along with Bella (Kristen Stewart), and things start happening quickly. She sits next to the pale Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) in class, quickly deduces that he is a vampire, he stops her from being meat in a car sandwich, and then... falls in love with him! Ooooo... Wait, what? How did that happen? They didn't even hang out together much, never got to know each other, never had all-night txtfests... I thought that's how teenagars fell in love? *shrugs*
Up to that point, I watched it like a guy, as in thinking "it's not really my kind movie, but it ain't too bad. I guess I can see why some people love it." But oh no, they had to include other killer vampires into the story who want to eat Bella. Great, now it's like a fricken Heroes episode with everyone getting hurt or killed because Sylar is obsessed with Claire. Yawn.
This is where the film falters. It just doesn't work as an action flick. Scenes with some vampire named James trying to capture Bella just don't have any intensity, and you never really feel that she's ever in any danger, even when he does capture her and is just about to bite her. You think "Edward's gonna be here in 3... 2... 1...." BAM! He randomly jumps in and tackles James; despite James' apparent skill in smelling people out he still gets surprised. And James?? I'm surprised they didn't name him something like Vlaxor or Pheonzaq.
However, when this film focuses on how cute the human girl/vampire boy couple is (all together now: awwww!), it does work, and even I was sold that they truly did love each other eventually. As a character piece, it does it's job of establishing the vampire Cullen family as well as the relationship Bella has with her father well, but in the end it all takes a backseat and it becomes nineties vampire flick, complete with "I'm gonna have to suck all the venom out of her!" Gasp? Umm, no.
There was a character in there named Jacob who is a werewolf I believe, who was underused; the film would have been much better served as a vampire vs werewolf film with a child from each world falling in love with Bella as the starting point, starting all sorts of fantasy teen drama. Overall though, it was still a decent movie, and while it doesn't completely conquer the Hype Machine it does manage to stay standing, setting up for what looks to be a much better sequel.
Final Rating: 3 (out of 5)
Gotta love the Hype Machine right. It is merciless, and only the truly strong and can survive in the aftermath of it's onslaught. Glorious victors (The Dark Knight, The Return of the King, and Titanic for example) stand apart from those things that are merely good. They are so good that despite all the expections we build up for it, we are still surprised by how good it is. Others just barely make the mark, like 300 (was great but lacking in all scenes that didn't involve Spartans cutting others' arms off), while others still get absolutely trampled (Spider-Man 3 I'm looking at you).
I mention this because Twilight is in my top 5 list of things I hear way too much about. Even before it came out, Robert Pattinson was already topping the Google-search charts, and the Paramore smash-hit Decode did even more for it (number one for how long on C4 Select? who can even count that high?). It was all I heard about for months, and now months after it was in cinemas and out again, I've finally seen it. Is it all worth it?
Yes. And no.
It's what I expected, with a little more. While watching it, I couldn't help but feel that it was skimming over certain details from the book it's based on, though seeing as I havn't read the book, i can't confirm whether that feeling is reality.
We are thrust into a small and quiet town along with Bella (Kristen Stewart), and things start happening quickly. She sits next to the pale Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) in class, quickly deduces that he is a vampire, he stops her from being meat in a car sandwich, and then... falls in love with him! Ooooo... Wait, what? How did that happen? They didn't even hang out together much, never got to know each other, never had all-night txtfests... I thought that's how teenagars fell in love? *shrugs*
Up to that point, I watched it like a guy, as in thinking "it's not really my kind movie, but it ain't too bad. I guess I can see why some people love it." But oh no, they had to include other killer vampires into the story who want to eat Bella. Great, now it's like a fricken Heroes episode with everyone getting hurt or killed because Sylar is obsessed with Claire. Yawn.
This is where the film falters. It just doesn't work as an action flick. Scenes with some vampire named James trying to capture Bella just don't have any intensity, and you never really feel that she's ever in any danger, even when he does capture her and is just about to bite her. You think "Edward's gonna be here in 3... 2... 1...." BAM! He randomly jumps in and tackles James; despite James' apparent skill in smelling people out he still gets surprised. And James?? I'm surprised they didn't name him something like Vlaxor or Pheonzaq.
However, when this film focuses on how cute the human girl/vampire boy couple is (all together now: awwww!), it does work, and even I was sold that they truly did love each other eventually. As a character piece, it does it's job of establishing the vampire Cullen family as well as the relationship Bella has with her father well, but in the end it all takes a backseat and it becomes nineties vampire flick, complete with "I'm gonna have to suck all the venom out of her!" Gasp? Umm, no.
There was a character in there named Jacob who is a werewolf I believe, who was underused; the film would have been much better served as a vampire vs werewolf film with a child from each world falling in love with Bella as the starting point, starting all sorts of fantasy teen drama. Overall though, it was still a decent movie, and while it doesn't completely conquer the Hype Machine it does manage to stay standing, setting up for what looks to be a much better sequel.
Final Rating: 3 (out of 5)
Angry Adam Lambert fans FTW
Okay, Adam Lambert fans are officially the funniest people in the world. After Kris won American Idol, I suspected there would be backlash from the Glamberts in the form of angry posts on countless Idol blogs, and they didn't dissapoint. Some highlights of scrolling down:
"This sucks.i hate it i hate it i hate it i hate it. Screw denial, I’M BLOODY ANGRY."
"I am absolutely beyond devastated about this sick injustice"
"Adam may have lost the battle, but he will win the war."
"I AM SO UPSET I COULD PUKE!"
"BULLS**T! Seacrest announced the loser… this can’t be!!! i spent two f**ken hours voting for ADAM LAMBERT."
"A great show but I came away throughly disgusted."
"Can you say….BullSh#$! I will never watch Idol again… "
"American Idol will never recover from this fiasco. MARK MY WORDS!"
And one of my personal favourites, sums it all up:
"I WILL NEVER WATCH AMERICAN WTF IDOL AGAIN!!! ADAM LAMBERT WAS THE VERY BEST THIS SHOW HAS EVER HAD! HE SHOULD HAVE WON HANDS DOWN!! ITS A MAD WORLD WHEN SUCH A TALENTED AND GIFTED SINGER WOULD COME IN SECOND PLACE, ESPECIALLY TO A SINGER LIKE KRIS…WHAAAAT ? ..COME ON NOW!"
:D
Yes, Adam is a better singer, maybe if he just sung more and screached less more people would have realized that. And all those notes that his tongue hung out... *shivers* I know in the long run Adam will be remembered more and will probably have a more successful career, but it's still hilarious poking fun at all the really really mad Glamberts.
"This sucks.i hate it i hate it i hate it i hate it. Screw denial, I’M BLOODY ANGRY."
"I am absolutely beyond devastated about this sick injustice"
"Adam may have lost the battle, but he will win the war."
"I AM SO UPSET I COULD PUKE!"
"BULLS**T! Seacrest announced the loser… this can’t be!!! i spent two f**ken hours voting for ADAM LAMBERT."
"A great show but I came away throughly disgusted."
"Can you say….BullSh#$! I will never watch Idol again… "
"American Idol will never recover from this fiasco. MARK MY WORDS!"
And one of my personal favourites, sums it all up:
"I WILL NEVER WATCH AMERICAN WTF IDOL AGAIN!!! ADAM LAMBERT WAS THE VERY BEST THIS SHOW HAS EVER HAD! HE SHOULD HAVE WON HANDS DOWN!! ITS A MAD WORLD WHEN SUCH A TALENTED AND GIFTED SINGER WOULD COME IN SECOND PLACE, ESPECIALLY TO A SINGER LIKE KRIS…WHAAAAT ? ..COME ON NOW!"
:D
Yes, Adam is a better singer, maybe if he just sung more and screached less more people would have realized that. And all those notes that his tongue hung out... *shivers* I know in the long run Adam will be remembered more and will probably have a more successful career, but it's still hilarious poking fun at all the really really mad Glamberts.
Living for God PART ONE
About 3 months ago, I was having a discussion with a friend, who asked me what I thought being a christian was all about. My answer, while already very vague, ended with something like "and you give your life to God." My friend then kindly asked me to elaborate.
Yeah, I couldn't.
What DOES it mean? I mean, seriously, I never thought about that. I've been a christian now for about 5 years, and I've heard that phrase a hundred times, but I've never stopped to think what that meant. And I found that when I did stop to think about it, I wish I hadn't. If you're already feeling like that now, maybe you shouldn't read on. Or maybe it's precisely that feeling that means you should.
Take Mother Teresa for example. Is her life a testimony to what REALLY giving our lives to God really means? Like, I'm gonna admit here that I really really hope that I stay in the relatively comfortable living conditions that I'm living in now, for the rest of my life. But that does that mean I'm less of a Christian? Well, most christians at this point would say something along the lines of "No, because whatever God tells you to do, you should do it, whether its going to Africa or going to the neighbors in your street." Which is fine, I agree too. But that still doesn't answer the question of what it means to live for God. Because I'm preparing to bet that (this is an assumption, but I'm quite confident about it) Mother Teresa followed her ridiculously difficult instructions way more than i follow my seemingly lightweight ones.
And so, is the level of whether or not we're living for God counted by the number of times we obey God per total number of opportunies to obey God? Hmmm. More posts to come later.
Yeah, I couldn't.
What DOES it mean? I mean, seriously, I never thought about that. I've been a christian now for about 5 years, and I've heard that phrase a hundred times, but I've never stopped to think what that meant. And I found that when I did stop to think about it, I wish I hadn't. If you're already feeling like that now, maybe you shouldn't read on. Or maybe it's precisely that feeling that means you should.
Take Mother Teresa for example. Is her life a testimony to what REALLY giving our lives to God really means? Like, I'm gonna admit here that I really really hope that I stay in the relatively comfortable living conditions that I'm living in now, for the rest of my life. But that does that mean I'm less of a Christian? Well, most christians at this point would say something along the lines of "No, because whatever God tells you to do, you should do it, whether its going to Africa or going to the neighbors in your street." Which is fine, I agree too. But that still doesn't answer the question of what it means to live for God. Because I'm preparing to bet that (this is an assumption, but I'm quite confident about it) Mother Teresa followed her ridiculously difficult instructions way more than i follow my seemingly lightweight ones.
And so, is the level of whether or not we're living for God counted by the number of times we obey God per total number of opportunies to obey God? Hmmm. More posts to come later.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Kris Allen... really? Sweet!
Kris Allen won, and I'm ashamed to say I didn't see it coming. In hindsight, it seems so clear why he did, but I guess I didn't wanna get my hopes up right (yes, I am a Kris fan, sue me).
1. He got Danny Gokey's votes! The top 3 consisted of one non-christian and two WORSHIP LEADERS from church. One had to go, but when they did, it was only inevitable that their voters would throw their lot in with the remaining one.
2. Kris is more relatable to those who don't know much about music. To the trained ear, Adam's control over his vocals is incredible; to the untrained, they're both good, just different. While Adam's talent was always harnessed for more out-of-it use, Kris' voice is much more tailored for the top40 hit-making music business we all seem to buy into.
3. The judges seriously over-pimped Adam. "You're a rock God", "You're the best BY FAR!", "You set the bar for everyone else to follow". After a whole season, it just gets annoying. While their compliments may have been true, it just put Adam in the unfair position of being judge's pet. And lets be honest, who really wants to vote for the ridiculously pampered favourite?
But in saying that, Adam was not the 'loser'. Both have done extremely well, and besides, Adam Lambert isn't suited for the ready-made pop songs the Idol writers have already written; if he doesn't became famous with a random glamrock band (I wouldn't mind catching their show), he could stick with Broadway, that man's got SERIOUS theatre chops.
Oh, and also...
YAY KRIS WON!! WOOOOT!! Underdog... Black horse... Too quiet... Pfft! He had talent, and he peaked at the right time, near the end of the competition. No one was sick of him, and we were all caught unawares by how he good he suddenly seemed; well played Kris, well played. He may not have the vocal chops that Adam possesses, but he's a smart man who knows his strenghts and played to them well, sticking to his gameplan and adding in his own arrangement genius into the mix every now and then.
Heres to the first season of Idol that the person I rooted for won!
1. He got Danny Gokey's votes! The top 3 consisted of one non-christian and two WORSHIP LEADERS from church. One had to go, but when they did, it was only inevitable that their voters would throw their lot in with the remaining one.
2. Kris is more relatable to those who don't know much about music. To the trained ear, Adam's control over his vocals is incredible; to the untrained, they're both good, just different. While Adam's talent was always harnessed for more out-of-it use, Kris' voice is much more tailored for the top40 hit-making music business we all seem to buy into.
3. The judges seriously over-pimped Adam. "You're a rock God", "You're the best BY FAR!", "You set the bar for everyone else to follow". After a whole season, it just gets annoying. While their compliments may have been true, it just put Adam in the unfair position of being judge's pet. And lets be honest, who really wants to vote for the ridiculously pampered favourite?
But in saying that, Adam was not the 'loser'. Both have done extremely well, and besides, Adam Lambert isn't suited for the ready-made pop songs the Idol writers have already written; if he doesn't became famous with a random glamrock band (I wouldn't mind catching their show), he could stick with Broadway, that man's got SERIOUS theatre chops.
Oh, and also...
YAY KRIS WON!! WOOOOT!! Underdog... Black horse... Too quiet... Pfft! He had talent, and he peaked at the right time, near the end of the competition. No one was sick of him, and we were all caught unawares by how he good he suddenly seemed; well played Kris, well played. He may not have the vocal chops that Adam possesses, but he's a smart man who knows his strenghts and played to them well, sticking to his gameplan and adding in his own arrangement genius into the mix every now and then.
Heres to the first season of Idol that the person I rooted for won!
Film Review: Knowing
Ok, so it's got Nicolas Cage in it. Not a good start, im biased against it before I see it, but whatever lets give it a go.
Then I watched it, and I was right, it let me down; but not in the way I thought it would. The plot was actually quite interesting to start with, and develops quite well over the first hour or so. It helps that Cage seems like he's at home in this blockbuster pic too, and I found him surprisingly tolerable; much more so than usual. Then again, most people don't share my sentiments on the actor, and this could easily be seen as him being as good as always is.
(I will note though that it's probably the crap movies he always seems to be in, rather than his acting itself, that puts me off him.)
No, it's actually how the narrative ends that lets me down. After building up tension with a solid (albiet predictable) story, things begin to unravel when the film tries to answer the questions that it brought up earlier. The ending then is not one that doesn't explain the mystery, but one that fails to do so with shock and awe. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say this: there are spaceships.
I know.
Well it seems silly to judge a film based on the last 30 minutes, it's the emotional return that you get for investing in the characters that makes these kind of films work, and sadly this movie seriously lacks that. Key characters die without any real sorrow, felt either by the viewers or the other characters in the film. What is sad is that a movie with the potential to really impact viewers could veer off so badly into an unsatisfying turn of events, turning from a cold and suspenseful thriller into a bad sci-fi (a really bad sci-fi).
Final Rating: 2.5 (out of 5)
Then I watched it, and I was right, it let me down; but not in the way I thought it would. The plot was actually quite interesting to start with, and develops quite well over the first hour or so. It helps that Cage seems like he's at home in this blockbuster pic too, and I found him surprisingly tolerable; much more so than usual. Then again, most people don't share my sentiments on the actor, and this could easily be seen as him being as good as always is.
(I will note though that it's probably the crap movies he always seems to be in, rather than his acting itself, that puts me off him.)
No, it's actually how the narrative ends that lets me down. After building up tension with a solid (albiet predictable) story, things begin to unravel when the film tries to answer the questions that it brought up earlier. The ending then is not one that doesn't explain the mystery, but one that fails to do so with shock and awe. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say this: there are spaceships.
I know.
Well it seems silly to judge a film based on the last 30 minutes, it's the emotional return that you get for investing in the characters that makes these kind of films work, and sadly this movie seriously lacks that. Key characters die without any real sorrow, felt either by the viewers or the other characters in the film. What is sad is that a movie with the potential to really impact viewers could veer off so badly into an unsatisfying turn of events, turning from a cold and suspenseful thriller into a bad sci-fi (a really bad sci-fi).
Final Rating: 2.5 (out of 5)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)