*actionpack - and why do I think of C.S. Lewis' Narnia books?
This is a strange combination somewhere between * dark and * happy. And the sift needs an *epic channel.

Huh, yep. Disney totally had 50 years of suck in the movie department.

Unless you include
101 Dalmatians 1961
Sword in the Stone 1963
Mary Poppins 1964
The Jungle Book 1967
Bedknobs and Broomsticks 1971
Freaky Friday 1976
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh 1977
The Rescuers 1977
Pete's Dragon 1977
Tron 1982
Honey I shrunk the Kids 1989
The Little Mermaid 1989
Beauty and the Beast 1991
Aladdin 1992
The Muppet Christmas Carol 1992
Homeward Bounds 1993
Cool Runnings 1993
The Lion King 1994
Pocahontas 1995
Toy Story 1995
Hercules 1997
Mulan 1998
A Bugs Life 1998
Tarzan 1999
Toy Story 2 1999
The Emperors New Groove 2000
Monsters Inc 2001
Lilo & Stitch 2002
Finding Nemo 2003
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the black pearl 2003
The Incredibles 2004
Chronicles of Narnia 2005
Cars 2006
Meet the Robinsons 2007
Ratatouille 2007
Enchanted 2007
Wall-E 2008
Up 2009
Princess and the Frog 2009
Toy Story 3 2010
Tangled 2010
The Muppets 2011
Brave 2012
Wreck it Ralph 2012
Monsters U 2013

But, other then that, yeah, no, nothing since 59. Except the other hundreds of classics that I didn't bother mentioning.

Somewhat ironic: Aslan is Turkish for Lion, and is also the name of the Lion in C. S Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, a character who represents Jesus, at least in parts. COINCIDENCE? probably. but still!

I think the outrage is not that it paints Jesus poorly, but that the implication is that he is "merely" an extraordinary man rather than the Son of God and our Saviour. You know, kinda like how calling a stick figure Muhammad somehow diminishes his glory.

Oh, and books, lots of books.

Read to them lots and let them see you reading - that's how they will learn and not know they're learning.

All the good stuff from Alice in Wonderland, Narnia, Wizard of Oz.
As they start to read, get all the early readers based on super heroes, star wars and all the geek stuff. Make sure you stick to variety or they'll get bored and you'll lose them.

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

* "death" --> Rule: Death exists

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.

There is a story about a King who decreed that anyone who committed the crime of adultery would have their eyes put out. This was enforced in the land for some time, until one day the prince of the kingdom was caught in the act. The King then was faced with a dilemma. On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This story is similar to the reasons why God sent His Son to the cross. It was the solution to the conflict between His justice and His mercy.

* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin. It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God. That is why Jesus serves as a bridge between man and God, because it is only through His righteousness that we can reach God. Our good works are not good enough; they are like filthy rags before a Holy God.

So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

Why did he invent death if he loved us so much?

Death was a punishment for sin. However, it was also a tender mercy. If mankind was immortal, we would be eternally separated from God.

Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)?

It wasn't a rule, but simply a consequence. When He created human beings, they were not made such that they would sin all of the time. It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted. It's like how traits are passed down from their parents genetically..we inherited their sinful nature.

Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me?

We don't know whether there was an offer of reconciliation to Satan or not. What we do know is that today they all stand condemned. Salvation is not "God loving us enough so we'll be good again".

Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

I gave an explanation for this earlier. I will say that His standard for goodness is moral perfection; that is inherent to His nature.

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

As you learn more I hope you will begin to make the connections between what we have been talking about for the past year or so. Although you are developing a more in depth understanding of the gospel, it is still on a superficial level and you have many misconceptions. If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it. There is nothing logically contradictory about the gospel. It is internally consistent in every respect, and its depths are inexhaustible.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

Let's say you have a perfectly well behaved son, but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum? You don't want to do anything that would harm your son, because you love him, but neither are you going to approve of his behavior, or endanger the well being of the rest of the household. You are going to let him know there are very real consequences to his behavior and enforce the rules.

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

God has given us progressive revelation. As I've said before, you don't go to hell for what you didn't know, you go to hell for what you do know and reject. Everyone prior to the cross was saved according the amount of revelation God had given them. For the gentiles, it would on the basis of their conscience. For the jews, it was on the basis to their adherance to the law.

The words holy and just wouldn't mean anything if God hadn't give us revelation about Himself. They mean something because of who He is. It is without Him that they would become meaningless. Essentially, it is all to say that God is perfect. Or as they say in philosophical circles, that He is a maximally great being, possessing every possible perfection.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Revelation 21:2-5

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

For the same reason that if you wish to enter a door you must first walk through it.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

Here are the ones you mentioned --> with my paraphrasing of the metaphysical "rule" as I understand it:
* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.
* "death" --> Rule: Death exists
* "He created [Hell] for the devil and his angels" --> Rule: Hell exists and has those properties.
* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.
* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.
* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The fact that these rules exist means that God decided they should exist, right? So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place? Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement? Why did he invent death if he loved us so much? Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)? Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me? Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. ... God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

Nice. I was just looking through previous what are you readings yesterday for suggestions.

Starting The Mote in God's Eye. Looks promising.

Skim-read The Reluctant Fundamentalist this afternoon - it's rather dreadful.

Finished Crime and Punishment a couple of days ago. Loved it. One of those few 'classic' novels that isn't all hype. It's engaging and enjoyable, and very rewarding. The ultimate message that we should stop trying to think for ourselves and just do what Jesus says is possibly not the best, but that doesn't overwhelm and the style isn't preachy. I have yet to read a novel more perfectly structured.
It was a little distracting that one of the characters is basically Columbo. When he did the 'just one more thing' routine I had to put the book down for a minute. Turns out Columbo was based on Porphyrius. Man, that makes it weird for the modern reader.
I'm developing a taste for golden age russian literature; I hope to read a lot more soon.

Before that I burned through I Am Legend in one sitting. It's electrifying.

Brave New World needs to be more widely read.

The Algebraist is notable for having one of the least likeable villains ever. Genuinely, I think that's its main literary achievement. I have huge respect for Iain Banks for writing a world-conquering, star-spanning tyrant who is in no way cool or enviable. Archimandrite Luseferous is like a parody of a fourteen-year-old's power fantasies; not a Magnificent Bastard, he's just a contemptible, nasty (occasionally terrifying) creature with no charisma or real intelligence and we need to see more of that.
There's great stuff in this book, but it does follow the standard disappointing SF novel arc of: 'big ideas, big ideas, oh no the plot is taking over, narrowing focus, narrowing focus, now it's just about this guy and his Quest, how did the galaxy get so small, inevitable convenient climax.' Very much worth reading to pick out the many great elements in this book, but those elements don't really come together.
I'll get round to the Culture novels eventually.

Oh, I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for the first time since I was five, but couldn't carry the enthusiasm on to the rest of the Narnia books.

Thinking about Crime and Punishment reminded me, I really need to pick up a cheap second-hand ereader so I can stop paying for public domain books.

I like the sound of The Quantum Thief, that goes on the list.

Wow, this is such a tiny, tiny sampling. It's done all the time, just two more off the top of my head... Harry Potter (all of them I think), Chronicals of Narnia: The voyage of the dawn treader... does a nice blend of the Walden logo into a stain glass window. And yeah, as mentioned, how the hell can they include the LAST Indiana and not the iconic opening of the first?




Oh, and Sunshine was a shit film. Was built up by so many and yet failed to deliver on pretty much every point. So many other sci fi films had done it all before, and far better.

Thanks,

It's strange, I remember learning evolution around grade three and then it was just always a given from there out.

I always hit patches of religion when I grew up, mainly when I went to Grandma's house but it was always something other people were in to and no one ever preached it. It's the type of thing that is there but each to their own.

I believed in Christin religion the same way I believed in anything. (Narnia, LOTR, Greek Myth, Star Wars, etc.) Every set of stories had their cast of players but non of it was ever taken more than the fiction it was. And no one ever argued or pushed their views - no debates.

Which is why I find it so bizarre that people even can conceive of putting creationism above scientific fact like it is equal on the same scale of reality. People are blurring the lines of fiction vs. reality and I truly don't understand it.

In reply to this comment by Januari:
Sage,

Hey i saw your post and wanted to clarify... from at least my perspective. I'm a recent grad and am from a state where this is most certainly an issue.

It is my understanding and personal experience that evolution is part of the curriculum in all biology courses in public school (barring minority exceptions).

The debate seems more focused around it being the only 'theory' taught. In many states folks would like to see competing 'theories' added to the curriculum, most notably 'creationism'.

Again... only my experience... i'd be willing to ask friends from other parts of the country now that i'm at university... but i really do suspect that they would have similar experiences.

In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
So what I'm hearing here is Evolution isn't taught in many US High schools (??)

I'd like to try something, everyone answer these two questions.

Question One: Were you taught evolution in school?
Question Two: Which one do you sway towards? Evolution or Creationism

furthermore, the oversexualization and base degradation of women is seen all over the media and culture at large. a lot of it can be passed off as an archetype. a lot of it seems innocuous and goes largely unnoticed. but we are incultrated from birth with a sense of our sexual identity. infants are dressed in pink or blue in case people have a hard time knowing which gender to treat them as in the first years of life. on the surface, i have no problem with pink or blue. my kids wear pink and blue. my daughters walls are pink. it's just a color.

but saying that identity is almost entirely genetic and not imposed by society is certainly naive.

there is a distinct lack of pro-social female role models for little girls in the media. girls are bombarded with images, with what to emulate as grown ups, what to pretend during playtime, how they should be. and those images are largely of the sexpot or the saint. there's very little female archetypes that embodies the middle ground. there are very few females represented by the media and marketing that are neither whores nor saints. that are just women, comfortable with their sexuality and their bodies, but not consumed by it either. women in movies rarely talk to other women in movies and those conversations are very rarely about anything other than men.

i'm reading the golden compass to my daughter right now. and it's a rocking book for little girls. phil pulman is an atheist novelist who noticed there were no kickass female protagonists in kid stories. and that the only action/adventure/fantasy novels were judeo/christian in nature, see narnia. so he wrote a book for his daughter.

the protagonist is a badass little girl. she goes on an epic battle against the oppressive church, fights the forces that want to control the masses with imposed morality and sexual repression. at the end of the series, she finds and kills god. everyone should read this shit to their kids. it's amazing.

@spoco2 i highly recommend reading it to your little girl when shes older.

it's also helped initiate an age appropriate "what is sex" talk with my daughter. in the beginning of the first book they use the word "sex" as like, the biological sex, male vs female. and my daughter stopped me and asked "which kind of sex are they talking about" ... so i realized she's picked up on the existence of the act of sex and has probably been formulating her own ideas about it.. so we've been slowly having the "talk". it's terrifying and awesome.

>> ^vaporlock:

dead


Fixed and thanks.

The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.

All of them are artists. All of them are entertainers. I dig all three directors. If I had to make a personal top 10 list, it would probably include The Shining, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Brazil. I don't see a reason to beat down Spielberg just because he is more commercial. Most commercial films suck. (Current box office champs: Tron 2, Yogi Bear, Narnia 3) Spielberg consistently puts out intelligent, meaningful films that can be appreciated by people of all walks of life - not an easy task.

That said, Gilliam's last 3 flicks were horrible. I hope his second shot at La Mancha goes well, the released footage from the 1st abandoned attempt looked really good.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

dead


Bah, I can't find a replacement.

Narwhals... straight from Narnia.

From what it seems, this prick is under the impression that all men feel the urge to fuck other men and only gay people lack the restraint necessary to control this urge. This guy is so deep in the closet he's likely to trip and fall into fucking Narnia.

I think this might be my favorite daily show interview ever.