Posted by Jack Aubrey
Our nation's Independence Day got me thinking, like most holidays do, of Tradition.
Why do I care?
To sum up all of my thoughts and conversations and more in brief, I must be to the point:
Traditions are fun. That is ALL they should be. Celebrating a birthday, anniversary or what have you is good. But any religious tradition or family practice that you end up going to out of guilt then feeling like there is no alcohol hard enough to make Uncle Rick tolerable are not in the true spirit of Tradition. They falsely represent a good thing by putting a buzz word like God or Family on it. No. Say 'NO' to this. Traditions should remind us of accomplishments or struggle or whatever. If it matters to YOU. Not to your people who you hardly identify with any other time.
To be fair I am not too proud to be in the same grouping as people like Glenn Beck, Carrot Top, and my old pal Tim as Americans; but I do celebrate the 4th of July. Why? Because
1) it represents something of ideals in practice and
2) it is fun, not boring, guilty or imposing some moral principle I only adhere to during that holiday.
SO
Celebrate everything and anything for sake of those things. That time you won that game in High School with your old buddies?Sure. Your first date with your wife of 25 years. Yes (and you just might get lucky... *wink*) But Jesus being tacked to a piece of wood for your metaphoric sins? Do you believe it every other day of the year? Do you really want to spend a boatload of money on people you don't like and see Uncle Rick be a jerk? No. Not if you don't want to.
Take it or leave it. Tradition.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Karate Kid 5: The Kung Fu Kid
Posted by Susan Calvan.
I recently saw the remake of The Karate Kid, starring Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan. Here are a couple thoughts...
Firstly, I should say that it was basically a frame-by-frame reshoot of the original Karate Kid, the only differences were in the little details. Instead of California, it took place in Beijing; instead of Karate, Kung Fu; instead of wax-on, wax-off, it was jacket-on, jacket-off. But there was one difference that really struck me, that instead of high school senior, it was twelve years old.
My hypothesis is that the producers thought that a remake wouldn't appeal to an older audience, so the target demographic is very young. To get the target audience to better identify with the main character, he is twelve. This isn't inherently a problem, until you consider that the remake follows the original so closely.
In the original version, Danny Larusso was about the age of seventeen, so the coming-of-age story where he defeats a powerful nemesis at his own game, against all odds, growing and learning about himself and even getting the girl makes sense. But at the age of twelve, this story line becomes problematic. For example, although they try to play it off as a just-friends relationship, the male and female lead share a kiss pretty early on in the movie, and there is a brief scene with some sexually suggestive themes between them.
Another example, in the original version, Danny plays a childish prank on the bully, and is chased all the way to the gates of his apartment complex where they begin to savagely beat him. Just in time, Mr. Miyagi jumps in and kicks their asses. It comes off as a badass-but-wise sage defending a beaten victim against a gang of thugs. In the new version, however, Jackie Chan is just beating up a group of school children, and it's quite off-putting.
Something about the original made the karate tournament seem like a sportsmanlike competition for honor and glory. Something about the remake made it feel like a bunch of seventh graders were beating the piss out of each other in front of a cheering audience.
Ignoring the fact that preteens should not be bodybuilding, maybe I'm just romanticizing the beloved Karate Kid movies of my past, but I just find a problem with twelve year olds being pitted against each other in violent competition.
Also, the healing scene was inappropriate.
I recently saw the remake of The Karate Kid, starring Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan. Here are a couple thoughts...
Firstly, I should say that it was basically a frame-by-frame reshoot of the original Karate Kid, the only differences were in the little details. Instead of California, it took place in Beijing; instead of Karate, Kung Fu; instead of wax-on, wax-off, it was jacket-on, jacket-off. But there was one difference that really struck me, that instead of high school senior, it was twelve years old.
My hypothesis is that the producers thought that a remake wouldn't appeal to an older audience, so the target demographic is very young. To get the target audience to better identify with the main character, he is twelve. This isn't inherently a problem, until you consider that the remake follows the original so closely.
In the original version, Danny Larusso was about the age of seventeen, so the coming-of-age story where he defeats a powerful nemesis at his own game, against all odds, growing and learning about himself and even getting the girl makes sense. But at the age of twelve, this story line becomes problematic. For example, although they try to play it off as a just-friends relationship, the male and female lead share a kiss pretty early on in the movie, and there is a brief scene with some sexually suggestive themes between them.
Another example, in the original version, Danny plays a childish prank on the bully, and is chased all the way to the gates of his apartment complex where they begin to savagely beat him. Just in time, Mr. Miyagi jumps in and kicks their asses. It comes off as a badass-but-wise sage defending a beaten victim against a gang of thugs. In the new version, however, Jackie Chan is just beating up a group of school children, and it's quite off-putting.
Something about the original made the karate tournament seem like a sportsmanlike competition for honor and glory. Something about the remake made it feel like a bunch of seventh graders were beating the piss out of each other in front of a cheering audience.
Ignoring the fact that preteens should not be bodybuilding, maybe I'm just romanticizing the beloved Karate Kid movies of my past, but I just find a problem with twelve year olds being pitted against each other in violent competition.
Also, the healing scene was inappropriate.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Crazy Creationist of the Month: June
Posted by Lionel Boyd Johnson.
This month, it's Ray Comfort, for the usual reasons (even I'm starting to get bored by this).
In a blog post he made last month, he attacks the claim that atheists have any right to say that pedophilia is wrong.
Comfort then broadens his claim to all morality.
And, of course, the punchline.
In other words, it's okay to cause harm to a person, if God says it is.
None of this is new, especially not from Ray Comfort, but this deserves the prize of Crazy Creationist of the Month because of his follow-up post. When he first made the claim that atheists have no right to declare that pedophilia is wrong, but Christians can because they have the absolute moral standard of God's word to rely upon, the comments section lit up with the observation that the Bible never condemns pedophilia. This is a problem for Ray Comfort because he has already claimed that pedophilia is wrong, and also that right and wrong are specifically determined by the Bible, and nothing else. So if Ray Comfort can't find a verse in the Bible that says pedophilia is wrong, he'll have no choice but to admit that morality does not come from the Bible alone. Here's what he came up with (emphasis added)...
In other words, atheists' problem is that they decide what's right or wrong by the standards of the imperfect society in which they live, but Christians can take comfort in the fact that they have God's unchanging moral standard, which includes society's imperfect and ever-changing standard, thanks to this minor loophole found in one obscure verse.
This month, it's Ray Comfort, for the usual reasons (even I'm starting to get bored by this).
In a blog post he made last month, he attacks the claim that atheists have any right to say that pedophilia is wrong.
The basis of your argument is that pedophilia is morally wrong "because it harms the child." Therefore, if a professional photographer used a two-way mirror, and took photos of naked children without them being harmed (and paid them well for their time), you would therefore consider it to be morally acceptable. The child hasn’t been harmed in the slightest. It fact, he (or she) has been greatly benefited with monetary gain.
Comfort then broadens his claim to all morality.
Your problem is that you cannot say that anything is morally wrong, because your morality is dictated by changing ideals.
And, of course, the punchline.
This isn't so with Christianity. Morality isn't dictated by sinful society nor by "does it harm the person." It is solely dictated by what God says is right and wrong.
In other words, it's okay to cause harm to a person, if God says it is.
None of this is new, especially not from Ray Comfort, but this deserves the prize of Crazy Creationist of the Month because of his follow-up post. When he first made the claim that atheists have no right to declare that pedophilia is wrong, but Christians can because they have the absolute moral standard of God's word to rely upon, the comments section lit up with the observation that the Bible never condemns pedophilia. This is a problem for Ray Comfort because he has already claimed that pedophilia is wrong, and also that right and wrong are specifically determined by the Bible, and nothing else. So if Ray Comfort can't find a verse in the Bible that says pedophilia is wrong, he'll have no choice but to admit that morality does not come from the Bible alone. Here's what he came up with (emphasis added)...
"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust" (1 Timothy 1:8-11).
In other words, atheists' problem is that they decide what's right or wrong by the standards of the imperfect society in which they live, but Christians can take comfort in the fact that they have God's unchanging moral standard, which includes society's imperfect and ever-changing standard, thanks to this minor loophole found in one obscure verse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)