The Good, the Bad, the Tiger

The Good:
A person who does not hurt another. A person that does not rob stores, banks, or pedestrians. A person that has never been to jail. A person that causes no harm to puppies. A person who is generally "nice." A person who works to accomplish what is expected of them.

The Bad:
A person who is opposite of "The Good;" a generally mean person that has either been in jail for robbery, assault, or kicking puppies and who does not accomplish what someone else thinks he ought to accomplish.

The Tiger:
A monetarily successful professional golfer considered "A Good" by the general population of those that deem themselves to be judges of such categorizations, until his badness became public.

The problem with the members of the general population that deem themselves worthy judges is two-fold:
1). They have never actually seen themselves in the figurative mirror.
2). They believe themselves to be apart of "The Good," of which they are, but only according to their own standards as they coincide with those of society. Therein lies the greatest problem.

Being an active member of society, how does a person who believes that they are generally good respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Easy.
They "sign up."
They repeat the words of a prayer.
They stand up and sit down when prompted to.
They drink the little juice and eat the cracker not understanding that it was the fit of anger earlier that day that nailed Jesus to the cross.
In other words, they don't respond to the gospel of Christ.

Jesus came to save sinners. Sick people need doctors; everyone is sick; Everyone needs a doctor. Sinners are saved when they recognize their sin for what it is. You cannot repent of what you do not recognize. It is deeper than just a "mistake" or a "slip up" or a "moment of weakness."

Every "little" sin, momentary weakness, slip up, stumble, fall down is that which DAMNS you.

People simply do not understand. It makes no sense to them how an all-knowing God chooses to forgive the murderers, prostitutes, drug addicts, thieves, sex offenders, and not their noble grandfather who fought in the war and raised his kids and supported his family the best he could. "It's not fair," they say. The confusion comes because they only see labels; this one is good, while that one is bad. They fail to acknowledge that "a good person" does not exist. "There is none righteous, no not one." This is hard for people to swallow, because they don't want to be compared with thieves, and hookers, and murderers. They think that God will see them more favorably, I mean... after all... at least I've never cheated on their wife. Forgiveness requires understanding the severity of your sin. God forgives those that turn to him through his son Jesus whether it be a prostitute, murderer, me, or you. If you think that you are "pretty good," then you are very wrong.

The truth is that "There is no distinction: all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith."

There is no distinctions between sinners. All of society's categories and scales of goodness and badness are merely shades of black. It is the recognition of sin, the turning from it, and the devotion to Jesus through faith that saves. There are two types of people: those that believe and repent of sin, and those that don't. Unfortunately, the majority do not. "I think I'm a good person," they say.

Every "good" person is bound for hell; they have deceived themselves into thinking that they are good, therefore, they are bad. A bad person may or may not know that they are bad, but the sooner they figure it out, the better off they will be.

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

I know I said "a little Tiger," but I must say more.
I am glad his sins got exposed. What bothers me about this whole situation, aside from the constant media coverage, is that hoards of people are bombarding him with stones from their lofty homemade pedestals. Even christian circles are throwing stones, and acting like we haven't fantasized about doing exactly what Tiger did (which Jesus said is the same thing). We need to start seeing ourselves as Paul saw himself-the foremost of sinners. If we do not see ourselves as such, then we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are not really "that bad." This is the trap that everyone falls into. We need to stop thinking that there is more than one shade of black.

One's and Five's

Of course it could all be a coincidence. I'll let you decide.

The story starts with the fact that I randomly find money more than most people do. If you've ever walked with me you have probably noticed that I pick up every penny that I see, even (no, especially) if it is covered in only God knows what. I like to do so because it reminds me of who I am, or at least who I'd like to be. I would like to be someone who has the upmost gratitude for anything and everything that is added to him, even if it is the smallest amount. So I pick up pennies, but sometimes it's more than that.
One time it was a trail of pennies each about a foot apart that morphed into a hand full of nickels, then 2 dimes, and caped off with a quarter. One other time I was riding my bike to work, as always, and it was raining when I spotted a dollar bill smashed on the curbside (That's 100 pennies!!!!!). I hit the brakes, hopped off the bike and saw that there were actually two dollar bills, and a couple feet from that was a fiver, and a couple more feet from that were two twenty dollar bills (if you're adding, that's $47).

Okay, either I'm lucky or blessings are coming back.

Another fact about me is that ever since I've had an income I have given 10% of it back to the church. I am very blessed in that it hasn't been a struggle for me to do that. I do struggle with doing it cheerfully though. I always saw it as something of a duty, something that was simply good to do. For the past 4 years however, I've been tithing a little differently than I had ever done before.

*WARNING* The next couple of sentences may challenge you in ways that you may not want to be challenged.

I had been challenged by my cousin/pastor to give 10% of the "gross" income amount. He explained and I understood that my "first fruits" should go to the Lord and not to uncle sam. I know now that for me it is the right thing to do. "So whoever knows the right thing to do and does not do it, for him it is sin." James 4:17.

Okayokayokay. So I give to the Lord and I find money; maybe a big deal, maybe not. Who knows?

Let me move on to the most recent maybe-not-a-coincidence.

So there I was calculating me and my wife's latest paycheck, when for some reason or another I decide to give 15% of our combined gross incomes to our church. It was a stretch for me to do so, because we are anything but well-off.

Within the week, while at work, I received a small package from my uncle in the mail. On that same day, the owner of the New Balance store that I am blessed to work at handed me a "congratulations on getting married" card. Both gifts arrived 2 months after our wedding. I am not upset in the slightest about that, rather, I am very grateful; I think it just turns out to be extra coincidental because if they had arrived on time, then they couldn't be apart of this coincidental discussion.

Before I give you the sliding decimals, I must say that after giving 15%, I began to wonder if I set a new precedent for myself. And I think I received my answer because:

In the same week that I decided to give 15% I found $15 in the mud by a tree on 32nd street while walking in the rain, then I received a $150 wedding gift check from my boss, then a $150 visa gift card from my uncle, and finally, the catalyst for this blog entry, a $15 dollar target gift card from a good high school friend.

So basically, when I've been debating about 15%, all the monetary blessings coming my way are One's and Five's with sliding decimal points. Of all the possible amounts to give and to find... 1.5.0

*I tell these stories because I think they are fun, possibly challenging, and mostly true, not because this is always how it is. I am not saying that if you give, then you will get. If this is your attitude, then it needs to be checked. Where do your devotions lie? Who are you serving?

If you believe something to be good, then you should do that good thing, because it is good, not because it brings you good.
Your own personal benefit should not be a motivating factor.

This Girl

I know this girl...
She's not afraid to tell me what she thinks, or ask what I'm thinking.
She challenges me to be honest, which is something that I want and try to be.
She is a very humble, yet gifted musician.
She has shiny, soft, beautiful blonde hair,
and drop dead gorgeous green eyes.
She is a perfect hug.
Her hand fits perfectly in mine.
She loves all my silly forms of affection, and even returns them.
She is encouraging, yet challenging.

She is completely devoted to her Savior,
and seeks to serve Him all of the days of her life with whatever she has.

I am blessed beyond measure.
I'm going to marry this girl.

My Battle

I got the idea from my brother and his friend Christian (the guy that inspired the "Disc Jockey" post). The idea is to introduce a guest blogger to the blog as Christian did with my brother on his blog "Illreezon". This is something of an introduction. I brought the idea to my wonderful girlfriend because she is often on my mind and is what I deem important. She was a little hesitant but agreed. So if what you read/see from here on out doesn't sound like me, that would be because it's not me.


Always running, never resting
Needing to know, not letting go
My fingers are digging into this cliff
Though I know You're waiting to catch me

So much to do, so much I need to be
When all You want me to see is
Your Grace

Guilt and fear threaten to steal the
peace You have given me.
Will I enslave myself to what Your
blood has already been shed for?

I am free to choose a life of righteousness
I am free to approach Your throne with confidence
Your love is not dependent on my performance
But I cut myself off from You when I feel I'm undeserving of You
Sometimes I wonder -
Am I trying to please You or prove my worth to
myself?

Teach me to TRUST
Force me to REST
Loosen my GRIP
LIBERATE me.

An Even Happier Ending, but Mostly a Beginning

Preface:
This entry leans largely on my previous two posts. So if you haven't read them, then you may end up more lost than when you began. On second thought, (get used to shameless plugs) you should start at the bottom of the page and read everything I've ever put on public display. Maybe you'll think me a genius, or perhaps an idiot, or wildly narcissistic, or mildly entertaining, or incredibly offensive, or incredibly defensive. I don't know what you'll think of me, but I'm curious to find out, so let me know.

Real Post:

For a long time I lived with the idea that single people should remain single until they are content with being single. And I guess, to a certain extent, I still believe this, but not in the same way as I did in the past. My prior thinking was that you shouldn't go out looking for someone to fill a figurative void in your life by means of a relationship. I guess I should stop using words like "my prior thinking" because it is still my thinking, but my thinking has since been modified a little. I cannot speak for anyone else in saying that this is how it has to be, but I have come to find out that I needed to be content with my status as a single because I needed to find contentment in Jesus alone. Contentment in Jesus was, and is, necessary still. I can survive (by the definition of the word) without a significant other, but I cannot survive (by the definition of the word) without my Savior. I think this point needs to be reached for every believing hopeful couple participant in order to achieve a successful relationship.

I did not just learn this; I was taught.

I had been praying that I could keep the Lord first throughout my relationship, and honestly I thought I was doing a pretty good job. But my standards are not the ones that needed to be learned. My prayers were answered in a way that I probably would not have chosen. She was removed from my life. She had expressed areas in my life that needed changing (not that she demanded it or that they were requirements for us to continue together). She pointed out, as a good sister who cares should, that some things are not for the best. After she broke it off, I truly believed that we were done for good. But I still had decisions to make. Someone I cared about and respect brought to light some issues and could either reject or respond to these. I did a little self examination and found that she was right. I wasn't living for the best, not with us or myself. Since there was no "us" anymore, I had to make some self sacrifices which boils down to less selfish unholy entertainment and more God. I also committed to a new set of standards that I was going to hold to with my next girlfriend, whoever she might be.

And then Starbucks happens. Apparently we needed to talk, and by "we" she meant "she." I missed her like crazy, but I was flying high (not in a Harry Chapin's "Taxi" kind of way, rather a "with broken wings" kinda way... ya know?) -- I was really sad, but mostly joyful-hurt because I was still healing, but loving it because I had the best doctor... ya know? (if you don't know, then you need to be told). Anyway, she spills. It was so cute because she had to build up her courage and mentally prepare her speech and she was so bashful. "I'm gonna say a whole bunch of stuff, and you can't respond until I'm finished," were not the exact words that she used, but they're not too far off. Anyway, she realized that some of the criteria for breaking up with me was not entirely fair and was actually possibly limiting to what God can do. She also couldn't get over her feelings for me, and she determined that there must be a reason for that. All of which I agreed with, but didn't know if she would ever make these realizations. I didn't realize how big of a person she was and is at the time, but I'm learning.

So we agreed to get back together. However, I had made a commitment for myself and whoever I dated next that there would be a new standard to be followed, and I must hold to it even if the person I date next was the same person that I dated before. She agreed and was nearly as excited as I was. So we're still learning and still seeking the best, but none of it could have happened without the Lord refocussing my path. I needed to be broken down so that I could look up, and with nothing, obediently follow Him.
And follow Him, I will... we will.
Forever together.

A Sad Story

I am nearly 23 years old and have "dated" exactly 3 girls. I think dating is generally a good thing because of the lessons it can teach, but it can also be a very easy trap to fall in to. I have fallen into traps with 2 of those relationships.
Trap 1: Deceit. Thinking I was in love with a girl so much I wore a mask of holiness in order to be the "man of God" she's looking for and thereby deceiving her, myself, and trying to deceive our God.
Trap 2: Selfishness. Caring only about myself and my plans, and knowingly using a girl for the way she makes me feel, and in doing so I trampled on whatever feelings she may have had for me.

I have grown a lot after climbing out of these traps. It took a long time.

I met a girl. I fell for the girl. We were happy. Never had I been so emotionally invested in anyone. Everything was real. She was who she was, and I was who I am. We were noticeably a great couple. I prayed for her and she prayed for me. I was committed to her until God told me no. But God didn't tell me; He told her.

Breakups are tough. I didn't understand; it seemed so sudden - so without warning. It didn't make sense. I was confused and angry.

I went away for four days - prior obligations. Lots of time to think. Lots of pain to feel. Weak and seemingly alone, I turned to the only one I could. On my knees I found comfort. He told me that He would never leave me, and I felt it. More clearly than I ever have before, I felt it. It still hurt and I was still confused, but He gave me hope. It was all I had, and all I needed. I allowed Him to pick me up off the cold hard ground I was smashed on.

I needed more clarity, and got it in the form of a well written letter waiting for me at work. I read it and immediately returned to the place I was. I listened to the lies. I wasn't good enough; I didn't deserve her; these are your faults in a list, you are worthless. I tore myself down. She was gentle. She told me what I needed to hear, but I didn't hear it. I listened to the lies that didn't come from her.

I was on the ground again, even lower than before if possible. Although the lies swirled around my head, one truth still remained, and I ran to Him. The God of all comfort wrapped me in His arms letting me know that I wasn't worthless and He has a plan for me, and that plan is better than anything I can see at present.

And so, I'm okay. I understand. I'm not mad or bitter. I'm healing. I'm thankful for not bringing ruin on a relationship. I'm thankful that we can leave each other having been a blessing in each other's lives and not a regret. I'm thankful I didn't break this flower.

She's a treasure, but not my treasure.
I'm a knight, but not her knight.

and I'm okay.
Praise God that I'm okay.
Praise God that this story has a happy ending.

The Past Tense

She keeps talking in the past tense.
I was...
We were...
I felt...
I knew...
We had...
I gave...
I thought...
I wanted...
You made...
I meant...


and now I am...
alone...
again




*"She" is a wonderful girl, and I will not hear anything bad about her. Comment if you want, but this is only an expression of a painful subject.

The Sun's Glory

"No thank you. I think I'll stay here in the shadows for a while. The sun is out again today; always shinning; always burning; always blinding. No thank you. I'm fine right here.
Ridiculous? You think I'm being ridiculous? Well step out then; make a shadow of your own; give the sun what it wants. Go on, give it the satisfaction; feed it's ego.
Me, I know better. It's my life, and I'm fine right here."


"What are they doing down there? Why are they hiding in the shadows?
Come out, come out, come out.
See me.
Feel me.
I shine for you.
I burn for you.
In me there is warmth; there is comfort.
I delight in your delight of me.
Step out. Please step out. You need me.

A Fragile Flower

What are you doing? Think about it. Think.
What do you want? Turn around. Look what you've already done.
You haven't been forgiven.
Don't be selfish. Think of the other.
Don't crush her because you're weak.
You've broken enough followers.
Think about what you're thinking.

Don't.

An Unlikely Situation

Before I begin, I would like to preface this by saying that this will by far be the nerdiest post I have ever created. To say that I created this would, in fact, be incorrect. I cannot say that I created this conversation, but I have taken part in it (perhaps too much). It is a hypothetical situation, but it's a worth a thought (or maybe not, but it is kinda fun). So here is the situation:

The entire world has fallen under a zombie epidemic. You are the only survivor aside from three others. You get to choose those survivors. Who out of an infinite amount of fictional or real characters do you pick to defend youself from the impending doom?

When I first heard this question/scenario, I came up with three almost immediately. However, upon further review, I realized that my team needed editing. I actually cannot remember my initial reactionary characters, but by the end of this post I will reveal my final team, but up until then, I want you to think about yours. Think about it...

So one thing you have to consider is what a "zombie" actually is and how do you kill it. Next you have to know the tendencies and character of the characters that you choose. First, what do we know about zombies? Easy. They are mindless, slow, and hungry. They crave flesh, and once bitten, there is no hope for a cure. They are the walking dead and have no particular attributes. What makes them a formidable foe is that they swarm and their disease, if you can call it that, is easily transmitted. Not only is the disease transferred through saliva but also any bodily fluid as we found out from "28 Days Later" where one character gets zombie blood in his eye and turns into the raving evil un-dead. They can be killed only by decapitation or consuming fire.

Perhaps you need to edit your team.

For some reason, when I thought about who I wanted on my team, I gravitated toward Notorious villains. I was looking at their awesome skills and not their character. What would they do if we won? Can they be trusted or would they turn on me?

Perhaps you need to edit your team.

Then I thought about some character's fighting style. Some characters fight at close range and are therefore at risk of being overrun, and if they are overrun, then what do you have? Some sort of superman zombie. That would be a major backfire.

Perhaps you need to edit your team.

Then I thought about life after the battle. If I'm left with an awesome a trio superhero dudes, then what? We hang out and then eventually die without ever having a future because of who I chose. There needs to be some sort of female I think. If you have a wife or significant other, then you're set. I did not at the start of this conversation, so I was free to choose anyone. I preferably wanted someone who could defend themselves. Hmmmmmmmm.

Perhaps you need to edit your team.

My first instinct was the Predator. He would see me as no threat at all and would therefore attack the mob of zombies. He could blast them with his ion cannon, throw bow-staffs through them, huck razor Frisbees at them or slice there heads off with wrist claws. The Predator is an awesome fighter, but is flawed in this situation because he will eventually have to fight in close proximity in which he will be susceptible to blood splatter and then turning. Then I'd have to deal with a huge predator zombie, granted that he would not have the mental capacity to operate his awesome weapons. The other downside to having a Predator on the team is that, by nature, the Predator is an intergalactic bounty hunter that hunts merely for sport, which is fine when you are the most nonthreatening thing around, which I would be, but the other studs on my team aren't. The Predator is liable to change targets based on who he thinks is the toughest fight, which in this case would be the other fighters on my team. The last thing I want is quarrelling on my team during this invasion.

The prospect of blood splatter transformation cuts out a lot of characters in my mind. Maximus, William Wallace, Zorro, Wolverine, Mufasa, Xena, the Hulk, and the like are not making the cut for my squad. Characters that have limited resources aren't making my cut either. Sorry Batman, Iron man, but your toys will run out and I can't have that. I also don't really want ordinary humans no matter how talented.

Finalize you team.

So for a long time, and after much consideration, my three where as follows: Dumbledore in his prime after defeating Grindelwald and in possession of the wand of destiny, Darth Maul from star wars episode 1, and Buffy the vampire slayer season 7 with that awesome sythe. My reasoning for Dumbledore (the headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the most powerful wizard in a world full of wizards, and personal mentor of Harry Potter for those who do not know) is that he can basically conjure anything. In this case it would be losts of fire not unlike he did in "The Half-Blood Prince" against the inferi (corpses controlled by dark wizards). Also I am sure that he could put charms on me as well as the rest of the team to make them impervious to blood splatter. Next on my list was Darth Maul. I love the double sided light-saber. It would keep zombies from sneaking up from behind and there would of course not be any blood splatter (it's a light-saber). Also, he can use "the force" to thrust a mob of zombies away should he get surrounded. Then my reasoning for Buffy is that she would be the final line of defense should my two studs go down. I also want a Barrett .50 cal sniper riffle and a safe high spot to contribute.

I have since amended my final roster. I thought initially that Maul would be subservient to Dumbledore because he is the highest power like he was to the soon-to-be emperor in episode 1. but he wouldn't. Then I thought that Dumbledore could keep him in check perhaps through the imperius curse. He could, but I don't know that I want to divert my MVP's attention from the task at hand. So I replaced Darth Maul with Yoda episode 3; basically the same fighter except shorter and not a threat to turn on me and Dumbledore. Then, as much as I hated to do it, I subbed Buffy out for (dudum dum dum) Hermione Granger "Deathly Hallows" (Hhhhhhh). Here is my reasoning. When you bring in a character, you also bring in a part of there world. In "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" the fact is that in every generation a slayer is born and she alone is the one who will have the power to fight the dark forces of the world. Because humanity will be starting over, that would mean that if we had a daughter she would be a slayer and so on and on. What I was afraid of was an over sense of femininity. Because the girls would have super powers the society dynamic may be very different in a very bad way. Therefore, I temporarily switched to the lovable genius wizard Hermione Granger (I am speaking of Hermione books, not Hermione movies). However, due to a massive change in my life occurring on August 8, 2009 I am ditching Hermione for my wife Bethany and not for her fighting abilities; we will be the second Adam and Eve.

Some other things to consider are that just like in every zombie movie, there will be some sort of arms depot to be used, and resources. Supplies are limited, meaning you'll need food/water/shelter, which means you'll need to be mobile. Another reason I went with a the greatest wizard (in your face Gandalf lovers) because they can apparate meaning teleporting through limitless distances.

I'm happy with my team.



Who's on your team?

Four Square

............ "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" ............

To the left of the stage stood a line of people. Four square. Having never played before, I awaited my shot. It was dark, and that's my excuse for an early exit. Shocked at my fairly un-athletic performance, I made my way back to the end of the line. And then I saw her. She stood out from the others. She smiled at me. Beautiful. I needed to know her immediately. "Be cool. Be normal. Be yourself". Waiting and playing, I couldn't stop watching her. She's was so... attractive... interesting. The more I gathered the more I liked. Everyone around her loved her, even strangers. I couldn't fight it; I didn't want to.
I didn't want to play four square. I didn't want to listen to music. I wanted these people to go away. I wanted to meet this girl.

St. Louis isn't close. I wanted more time. One day doesn't turn any heads, except mine. Two completely different lives briefly intersecting for an insignificant amount of time. Insignificant.
What are her hopes?
What are her expectations?
Could I ever fit in?

Will I ever know?

First Impressions

A part of my life that I rarely talk about, especially in my blog, is what I do for money. For the vast number of fans who don't know, I am a shoe salesman at the New Balance store in Chicago. In my job, I have seen some awful feet, most of which belong to the elderly. As time progressed, I have developed some predispositions. Within five feet of the store's entrance, I develop an opinion of a possible customer. Most often I try to pre-analyze what type of shoe the type of person may want or need. This approach to selling is stupid. Not only is it bad for customer service, but it is also a very judgemental move on my part. Generally, I do not like to help the elderly, and here are my reasons: (1) Most times they have been wearing the wrong size all there life and refuse to change it. (2) Because they have been wearing the wrong size all there lives, their feet are messed up (hammer toes, bunions, and everything else) (3) They want to show me their messed up feet as if I didn't believe them when they told me. (4) They don't believe me when I tell them what they need and ask for additional help from a more experienced worker. (5) I have trouble communicating with them. (I'm really not trying to say "them," as if there is some sort of segregation going on; there isn't). Senior citizens can be great or they can be awful; I have helped and enjoyed some truly sweet old couples and also some really bitter individuals. There hasn't been too many in the middle.
Now that a little history is out of the way, I have a story.
It was raining at work on this particular thursday, which meant that people weren't buying shoes. It was slow, and I was bored. Then this old guy comes in with the help of his assistant. This guy was dressed in an old fashioned white rain coat and a white 1920ish gangster hat. He looked like a southern plantation owner or something. My initial instincts were, "He's old. he's rich. But this is gonna suck because he can barely walk. I wasn't thrilled, but I had to help him out. Luckily, he knew what he needed--velcro. Easy. I measured, and what I saw when he took off his shoes was not pretty, but I've seen much worse. He had swollen ankles and heels , which made it somewhat difficult to fit, I had to pull a few tricks out of the hat, but I got the job done, and he was happy. He liked his shoes. i was happy he was happy, but more happy that it was over and I could go back to staring at the wall. Throughout the fitting process, there was something familiar about the man, but I had certainly never seen him before. He was very pleasant, but I was struggling with appearances and communication. I wanted to get him out as soon as possible in order to ease my own discomfort. As a result of my inner attitude, I was not as respectful or professional as I could have been. I realized my error when I discovered his name. He gave me his credit card so he could remain sitting while I rung up the sale, and there it was. I had just fit, sold shoes to, gave half of my effort and all of my judgement to national radio legend Paul Harvey.
And now you know the rest of the story. I'm Matt Kolb. Good Day!
I do not agree with everything he says in the link above, but I love listening to him talk.

Poop Stained Mirrors

So lately I've been listening to a band called Paramore. And while I love this band as well as both of their CD's, I have just been reminded of why I love Flyleaf more. Consequently, it has everything to do with lyrical depth. I'm going to try not to bore you with comparisons of two bands that you probably have never heard before, and get straight to the insight (insight?). So Flyleaf has this awesome playlist on their web-sight in which they have more songs than are on their CD. One of these songs is probably my favorite Flyleaf song (perhaps an exaggeration, but what do i know) and it's called "Penholder." I'm quite certain that i have mentioned it before in my previous post about the band. Anyway, one of the lines in this song got me thinking a little, and during the thought, I realized that to write about it would be to further bank on something I already wrote about in my "Great Artist" post (am i really plugging my own blog?). At the risk of sounding redundant here is the line of the song; I hope it makes you think:

"All the art that I supposedly create is simply a faded reflection of something He's already made. I don't deserve this."

The song, as I've said before is called Penholder. In the song the band is imploring the listeners to stop looking at them as if they are these great artists with powerful lyrics, because as they see it, they only hold the pen. Contrary to what you may be thinking, the line hit me more as a "How great is our God" moment rather than a "how humble is this band thing. In this line I thought that she's right. Anything that anybody can do or can create is only a faded reflection of something He's already made. It's not just a reflection; it's a bad reflection. The best painting, the strongest singing voice, the most creative story, is a faded reflection of what He has already created. Not to mention that HE is something entirely different and infinitely greater than what He's made. It's unfathomable. But just trying to fathom it gives some kind of perspective albeit a bad one (not because your mind is so little, but because He is so very big).

Disk Jockey

My introductions are always bad. On my previous entry, "Tomato Soup," I had one commenter. His comment was full of insight, and while i cannot say that it radically changed my thinking, it did give me a new angle at which to observe my current situation (my current situation really isn't a situation; it's more like a lack of situation). Anyway, this commenter was one of my older brother's friends that I met on two occasions. The first was at his house on the west side of this windy city to watch a very important football game that I can't remember (that's how important it turned out to be). The game was bad, but watching his son Henry (I forget his real name, so I made this one up) play around with a football simulating real game situations, specifically goal-line offense where the only way to score is to leap over the pile of fierce pillow defenders. Good times. The second was when he gave me opening round tickets to the first round of the NCAA tournament at the United Center. Kansas destroyed Niagara; Kentucky beat Villanova; Kansas destroyed Kentucky; that's all i have to say about that (Forest Gump, for those who need a clue).
So that's how I know the guy. And since he commented, he must be a long time fan of whatmattdeemsimportant (see how logical my logic is). That puts my number of known fans at 3 (quality not quantity). Anyway, that big long introduction was all for the reason which goes as follows: Christian, the guy who commented and allowed me to watch the Kansas Jayhaawks destroy some pathetic Niagara team, has a wife, Betty (probably incorrect, but in my defense, I only met her once and only for a short amount of time, because instead of watching manly football with the men, she and my brother's wife whose name I am fairly certain is Rachel, went out to do whatever it is that girls do). In the comment, Christian mentioned in a personal example, that Betty only owned ONE compact disk before marrying him. So i thought about that. She must have really liked that particular CD very much. I mean, to decide to have only one type of something when there is an infinite amount of types out there, would have to be something incredibly special. So I wondered what it was, then I wondered, if only allowed to listen to one CD, what would it be? Naturally my taste in music fluctuates almost daily, but as of right now, at this point in time, my answer would be Flyleaf's "Memento Mori" expanded edition. For me it is a perfect blend of harder, slower, rock out and emotional songs and is a little better than their self titled debut album which up until now, I didn't think was possible. Honestly, it wasn't that difficult of a decision but I do have some honorable mentions: Paramore "Brand New Eyes" and "Riot," in that order. Linkin Park "Hybrid Theory" and "Meteora," ("Meteora" before "Hybrid Theory") Blindside "Silence," Shawn McDonald "Live in Seattle," Spoken "Last Chance to Breath" Avril Lavigne "Under My Skin" (don't judge me) and David Crowder "Illuminate." Mostly I'm a big fan of the female vocalist hence... yeah.

what are your favorite albums?

Tomato Soup

So, I've heard a lot of stories, and have been thinking about them. Don't let the title make a fool out of you; this is not a commentary on tomato soup (Tomato soup is stupid. Not only is it bad tasting, but also because it is not soup yet people insist on "eating" it with a spoon).
Perhaps the story of my title "Tomato Soup" will be explained. If not, then i wigged out at the last second and decided to not be honest with you or myself. Getting back to my original thought, I think, How does one know that they are supposed to be with someone? Using me as an example (I am a man, or maybe still a boy... male) am i going to "just know" as some say, or is love a learned thing? Does persistence matter? At my age (22) and many a friend getting married around me, not like that has a huge effect on me, but I gotta feel like any "girlfriend" has to be a serious thing, after all my goal is to get married sometime in my life.
So here is what I know, or at least what I think i know: there needs to be a mutual attraction... Am I shallow for saying that? (please don't answer that question in the "comments.") What I mean is not only physical attraction, but also everything else: intelligence, humor, kindness, humility, and beliefs and such.
Do these attractions have to be apparent from the get-go? Can they be learned? If they can be learned, then maybe not so much stock needs to be put in the search for my "ideal." Should I then dive into a relationship on the chance that I may fall in love with someone. Is love a choice? I think love is a choice but what i am afraid of is this: settling. I don't want to settle on what is convenient. Selfish? Sounds like it. Am I too good for someone else? Do I deserve something more? Is that what I'm saying? Is that what you're hearing?

If you can't tell already, I'm fairly confused about the whole thing.
I want to be blown away by the girl I marry, but is my mind going to be blown off the bat? Or am I going to have to test the waters? I feel like the more I might test, the more hearts could get broken.

Gimme that girl with the red hair and the microphone that I only know from pictures and interviews (Just kidding... or am I... Yes I am... OR MAYBE NOT!).

Hmmm. Doesn't look like I'm going to spill the origin of the "Tomato Soup" title. Maybe if you ask me nicely, or if I get bored and have nothing better to write about... this is very likely to happen, but who knows when.

WHACK. BAM. KA POOF.

Have you ever been absolutely kicked in the teeth by something you read in the Bible? Well it recently happened to me. So there I was picking up my Bible after a much too long hiatus, and BAM!!! Oh my pride. On a side note, I have come to realize that long spiritual droughts are bad (perhaps this is obvious, but it is not for the one who is slowly dying of thirst). You really have to be persistent. I think the reason people go so long without reading or praying is that there is a disconnect with the mothership (been watching too many "Alien" movies too) I hope my clever references are not too distracting. But seriously, after you've wandered off track, it takes a lot to get set right again. You have to first find the path before you can advance on it. In the past, when I was wandering around aimlessly in my spiritual walk I would say to myself, "It's time to get right." Then I would read, get lost, think about Kansas Basketball, and Paramore, then say, "Good job. Now you're holy." Then I'd fall asleep, and would wake up then next day unchanged. But most recently, I've been reading consistently and praying honestly. Sorry. Another side note. Pray honestly. What are trying to hide? When your in the dentist chair, it matters (ahhh... you have to be really cool to get that one). Issues are issues. I spend a lot of time thinking and worrying about some pretty ridiculous things. Talk about it.
Where am i? OK. Let me, as they say in the biz, "Cut to the chase." So I've been thinking way too highly of myself, apparently, because I've been praying for the Lord to convict me. Honestly, I thought my actions weren't that bad. Why? because all that time I was wandering aimlessly, I was also rationalizing. Why was I rationalizing? Because deep down I didn't think I could get over this sin. And it turns out that I cant-- by myself. And if I can't get over it, then it must not be sin (dumb. dumb. so dumb). So I found myself through "random" occurrences in second Peter chapter 2 and it talks about punishment for unrighteous men and rescue for the righteous. Anyway, the verse that clubbed me was 9: "The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation..." See, I was one of those with little faith. Couldn't do it in my own strength, but it turns out that my God is in the business of rescue and not the misery business (oh yes. use google if you're not chuckling).

I hope you were informed, entertained, confused a little, and enraged with anger (possibly, that last one was a joke, but how much do you really know me?)

Pssssst. I try to attach links to my titles. Maybe you will get a better idea of who I am if you click it. But do what you want.

EPELLIARMUS!!!

Let me start off by saying that my imagination is easily captured and I fall in love with good characters, which explains why I like some of the things that I like . I love good fantasy stories like: "The Chronicles of Narnia," "The Lord of the Rings," and "The Ransom Space Trilogy" and various superheroes as well. Basically what I'm saying is that I'm a nerd. Having accepted that, i have very recently jumped on the Harry Potter band wagon, and let me say - WOW! I must admit that I have joined the Gryffindor team a little late in that I only started reading the series starting with "The Order of the Phoenix" in preparation for the upcoming movie. The book was very good; the movie was the best of the Harry Potter movies so far, but as far as great cinema goes, it was only better than mediocre. After starting with the fifth book, I moved to the sixth, "The Half-Blood Prince." it was better. At this point, I couldn't wait for the final book to be released. "The Deathly Hallows," certainly did not disappoint me (it would be one of my desert island books). I have never been so into a fictional book in all my life. It was so good I didn't want it to end, so I took my sweet time. While people were finishing hours after its release, I finished a month later. It was the best ending to any form of narrative media I've ever experienced (this is a bold statement). All questions were answered with jaw dropping understanding, and on more than one occasion I had to sit back and let what just happened sink in. After finishing the book, I thought about it a lot. Not only did I think about the story itself ( as there is a lot to think about there ), but also underlying deeper themes.
I remember while I was bargain shopping for "The Half-Blood Prince" in borders I found next to the Harry Potter rack a book titled something like "Searching for God in Harry Potter." Anyway, I looked through it a little and essentially the author was claiming that the Harry Potter series is a christian allegory on the same plain as "The Chronicles of Narnia." A little surprised by the comparison I kept the idea in mind while reading the final Harry Potter books. And while I'm not prepared to say that Harry Potter is as allegorical as Narnia or that Harry Potter is an allegory at all, I am prepared to say that there are good qualities expressed in the books as well as (could be a SPOILER if you are somewhat in tune) one huge very very "Christian" event in the final book.
So far as I can tell, the basic themes of Harry Potter are the following (mind you that these are very general and I am no literary genius or theologian): Family, Friendship and befriending the lowly and outcasted, Love, Racism, Classism, and Good vs Evil.
Harry's parents have been killed and so he doesn't have any real family, but his best friend Ron has a big one and one in which Harry becomes an unofficial part of. The conflicts Harry experiences himself because he has no family in themselves stress the importance of family. Friendship is also a huge part of the book. Harry understands that he is nothing without his friends who are always there to support him. Throughout the series Harry befriends the outcasts (Hagrid, Luna, Centaurs, house elves) and opposes the corrupt "in crowd" (Malfoy's, the ministry of magic). In the fifth book, the embodiment of evil is in the process of taking over, and Harry is publicly ridiculed because of his warning against the coming darkness. In reaction to this, Harry teaches a small group of followers that believe him in how to defend themselves against evil powers (WHOA!! not even trying to make a references. just saying). Then of course there is the thing that is often left out of the "Is Harry Potter good or bad" discussion, which is the class and racial warfare. Muggle borns vs pure bloods, rich vs poor, muggles vs wizards, wizard vs goblin, wizard vs house elf, wizard vs centaurs. In all cases, Harry and his group of close followers take the moral road in which they have no prejudices, both toward the various races and classes. Then there is naturally the good vs evil aspect to the Harry Potter series. Harry vs the dark lord, the order of the Phoenix vs death eaters, dumbledore's army vs the inquisitorial squad, gryffendor vs slytherin and probably others that I missed.
Like I said before, I'm saying that Harry Potter is an allegory, but let me jump to the very christian event I eluded to earlier. (SPOILER) I can't provide the backstory because there is far too much and I'm afraid that this blog is already a becoming too long. In the end of "The Deathly Hallows" Harry comes to the realization that the only way to defeat the dark lord is to offer himself up as a sacrifice for his friends. Harry is scared but brave as he walks past all of his friends on his way to meet his end. He knows what is required of him and he seeks it without a fight. Harry enter the forbidden forest and up to a swarm of death eaters ( followers of the dark lord), and removes his invisibility cloak. The dark lord mocks him but is curious as to why he's come to face him alone and defenseless. Then Harry is struck with a killing curse from the dark lord's wand. Then Harry finds himself in a sort of purgatory-esque place where he meets his deceased mentor, Dumbledore. It is there that Harry is offered the choice whether to stay where he is or to go back and fight. Harry chooses to go back, and in a one-on-one duel between good and evil, the dark lord is disarmed.

**So I'm still in the process of researching the evil and holy aspects of the Harry Potter series and have come across an interesting quote. When asked whether she was a christian, J.K. Rowling responded, ''Yes, I am. Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.''

Based on this quote, who knows what she actually believes. It could be generic christian fluff, but it does tell me that the ending of "The Deathly Hallows" was intentionally significant.

Based on what I've read, I am willing to make a statement. And it might be a doosie for some. Prepare yourself now:
heregoes...

Based solely on the written words and events of their stories and not what we know about the authors, the Harry Potter series is AS christianly relevant than The Lord of the Rings trilogy IF NOT MORESO.

Chew on that for a while.

FLYLEAF

A couple days ago I went to a Flyleaf show. Flyleaf is a band I first saw briefly at the Cornerstone Festival. After only catching one of their songs at the festival I had to buy their CD. The CD is very good. Some people can't handle the style of music but their lyrics are fantastic. So here's my problem:

It's with all the believers who focus on the surface images. It's true that Flyleaf toured on the "Family Values Tour" with very secular bands like Korn and Puddle of Mud. It's also true that the bass guitarist has long hair and a wolverine like beard. How else are christian performers supposed to reach secular audiences? They sure aren't flocking to the churches for the hymns. Flyleaf is in the world and, so far as I've seen, they certainly not of it. They are out there on the front lines. We should be praying for and encouraging them, not criticizing.


piece of "all around me"

And so I cry
The light is white
And I see you

I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive

I can feel you all around me
Thickening the air I'm breathing
Holding on to what I'm feeling
Savoring this heart that's healing

Take my hand
I give it to you
Now you own me
All I am
You said you would never leave me
I believe you
I believe

piece of "penholder"

I'll show you what he did
But I won't take the credit
It's not mine anyway
I just held the pen that day

And I don't deserve this
This time right now
It's not something for which I can take the bow
And I don't deserve this
It wasn't me
I can't take glory for something that I can't be
I don't deserve this

I know what perfection is like
And I cannot stand before its might
And I'm so far from what you think that I must be
I just drown myself in mercy

The lead singer of Flyleaf, Lacey Moseley, has an incredible testimony. (You can hear it from her by clicking the title of SAMTHEHERETIC666 on this page)
The final song Lacey sung at the show at the house of blues is called "There for you." toward the end of the song she dropped to her knees and sang occapela the chorus of "Hungry" "I'm falling on my knees, offering all of me. Jesus your all this heart is living for."

Next time they're in town I'm definitely going and so should you.

**Check out Flyleaf's music by clicking the title of this post "Flyleaf" up at the top. There is a playlist on the left side of the page. Quickly becoming favorites of mine are: "Penholder" "Supernatural" "Christmas Song" and "Justice and Mercy"

The Great Artist

i've been asked more than once who is my favorite artist. and more than once i replied that it is a split between van gogh and monet. i see some of their paintings and they are filled with brilliant colors and textures; you cannot help but be impressed. but i've been thinking lately that there is an artist greater than all others. i say this not only because he created these particular artists (that would be to easy) but because it is his creations that all the others are trying to imitate.
take for instance monet's haystacks (monet was notorious for painting the same things over and over i different light. a field haystacks is one of them and you can see them at the art institute). they are beautiful. but how much more beauty does the actual haystack field hold.
this Artist is beauty. i know this because i see His masterful artisty. all the elements and principles of design are present. look at the rythm of the stars or the symetry of a spider's web; the texture of the earth or your skin, a peach, a snakes skin, a lion's velvety fur or muscle tissue. think about all the shapes both negative and positive or organic and geometric; the planets are perfect spheres. how about size; there are an infinate amount of size differentials from the tiniest molocule to the galaxy. He sees them all. everything has been meticulously crafted. look at your finger prints. no one else has those not to mention the same hair count on your head or the pattern of your eyes. and what about the color? think about color: flowers, the rain forest, tigers, blue jays, clown fish, the ocean, catapillers, coral snakes, butterflies, ladybugs, autmn leaves, red hair, blond hair, and brunnette, green grass, rainbows, and of course the sky. it's there every night; brilliant colors blended differently than the night before.
that's another great thing about the Great Artist: His works are in perpetual motion. they are perfect from the begining, yet He continues to bless us with more visuals: wind blows the long grass to and frow in a wavelike rythm, the waves themselves continue to roll in, the colors of the sky change just slowly enough so that if we watch continueously, we wouldn't see the change. His art goes beyond what we can see anyway. humans see only a small part of the light spectrum. God sees all types of light all the time. we cannot comprehend what that beauty is like, which is probably why he made our eyes the way they are. we can only get glimpses of the other light either through man made prisms or when there is the right amount of moisture in the air namely when it's raining and the sun is shining, or the right amount of gas in the air like the northern lights. both of these phenomena, by the way, are also dictated by this Artist. it is only by His grace that he lets us see His works.
my favorite artist is He that is above all names. He calls Himself I AM.

P.S. click on the title of this post to see a guy truly geek out about one of God's greatest greatest visual displays of mercy. It's funny to see how God's creation affects even non-believers.

SAMTHEHERETIC666

this is an e-mail conversation (debate) i had with some 19 year old dude over the internet. he commented on some youtube video saying that believers in God are childish. he also lashed out at some Christian commentor who said that he was as evil as Hitler. SAMTHEHERETIC666 replied, between many curse words, that he is nothing like Hitler because he respects people's beliefs. so i sent him an e-mail.

*i copied and pasted and took no time to censor anything. just like most of the world, he uses curse words (this is sapposed to be some kind of warning).

ME: i'm just wondering why you think that believing in God is childish. i'm also wondering how much you know about the subject. you say you respect everyone's views and that makes you unlike hitler, but how is calling what someone believes childish respecting their beliefs? then there is the name "sam the heritic followed by three 6's. it seems to me that even your screen name disrespects other people's beliefs. do you want to be known for opposing christianity, or are you just trying to fight with anyone who is a christian? because that is childish. still, i'm interested in what you believe. what i gathered so far was that the Bible cannot be taken literally and that you support abortion.

SAMTHEHERETIC666: i respect peoples RIGHT to believe stupid shit, but i dont respect the stupid shit they believe. i would stand up for a christians right to believe in creationism, but i would still think he was a stupid dick. i know alot about christianity, ive done multiple papers on it. my SN is samtheheretic666, cuz i love slipknot, and my name is sam. its also an add on, that i hate the church. i dont hate jesus, i hate whats been done in his name, and all those literally, thousands of priest, that rape little boys, and the church covers it up, like a bunch of boy fuckers. i dont feel like going into a deep debate, and i hope you understand what i think, and the reason i think believing in god is childish, is because theres no big man in the sky, just like theres no santa, tooth fairy, or easter bunny, and i refuse to be forced to respect stupid shit.

ME: i'll agree. religiosity is crap. there is way too much harm done in the name of religion. but not every faith is a religion. religion was made by man; it's a set of rituals and needs to stop. but just because people take the Bible out of context and use it for evil things does not make what it actually says untrue. you said you don't have a problem with Jesus. i don't see how that is possible, if in fact you hate the idea of God. Jesus claims to be the son of God and one with him. so either (in your case) you like liars or insanity. because you cannot take Jesus any other way except for the real deal. anyway i know you don't want to debate, but if you have questions i recomend reading "mere christianity" by c.s. lewis. it's a rational look at the ideas of God.

SAMTHEHERETIC666: i dont hate jesus, because, although he was just a mental case, he did try to do good, and feed the hungry, cloth the naked etc. why do we need the bible, anyway. there are so many, better, less selfish reason to do good, than to please god/get into heaven. yes, there is good in the bible, but there is also bad, so how about we just throw the whole book out and use common sense and decency to do good? and, what the bible says is untrue, because the earth was not created by a big man in the sky however-many thousands of years ago, the number escapes me right now.

ME: doing good to please God is not selfish. every good deed done without God is selfish. good deeds don't get you into heaven anyway. "for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
you said that there are "so many other reasons" to do good. do you have an example that's not selfishly motivated? and what exactly is the proof that the Bible is untrue?

SAMTHEHERETIC666: um, how about to be a good person? to help other human beings. not to please anyone. and, i have proof that there is no god, as defined by the bible. the bible says, that god created the earth in 7 days, and biblical scholars say taht happened, sometime within the last 10,000 years. we have indisputable evidence that thats not true. thats proof right there.

ME: to be a good person is satisfying yourSELF. to help others is to gain there approval which bennifits yourSELF. six days actually, the seventh He rested. and what is this indesputable evidence, because if it is the carbon dating system there is also evidence that it is unreliable and therefore none of the "evidence" it provides can be considered indesputable by definition. plus all this "proof" is putting human confines on God. the formation of the world will never be a proof against God because there is no definative way to proove anything. either way you gotta have faith in something. i have faith in God, if you don't then you must have faith in some cosmic accident where the chances of something creating the lives we have today are astronomical, and that's of course assuming that there has always been some kind of matter or force out there. things do not spontaneously generate, that much is certain. a man makes a watch, a man and a woman make children, trees produce other trees. nothing can just be. except for God. you may think that is crazy, but the way i see it, you can either believe that God is the creator or nothing is the creator of something.

SAMTHEHERETIC666: alright. there is NO evidence, NOOOO evidence that there is a god. there IS evidence of the big bang. and regardless, even if you dont accept the evidence of evolution, than theres no reason to jump to the conclusion of a big man in the sky creating it. so, this is stupid argument. youre arguing with faith. faith is blind. have you ever heard of uri gueller? the famous magician from the 80's? he said, he bent the spoons because, "if you just want it enough, itll become truth." he was proved a liar by james randi, famous debunker. this proves a good point. just cuz you believe it, doesnt make it so.

ME: i agree. just because you believe it does not make it so. but you still haven't supplied any evidence to any of the things that you say there is evidence of. you usay there IS evidence, but what is it. and you're right, i cannot give you any concrete (and by concrete, i meen the kind you want) evidence that there God exists. however, the belief in God is logical and rational. if you are walking in a forest and you come across one of them old time watches that dudes kept in there vest pockets with the chain hanging down, what would you think? given that you've never seen a watch before would you assume that somehow nature through the blowing wind and the pressures of the soil and water erosion formed over time this ticking time piece. probably not. you would, however, assume that it has an iteligent designer. so why is it not the same with something even more complex than a watch: complex ecosystems, molecular structures, circulatory systems, etc. it's all too precise to have been a mistake.


SAMTHEHERETIC666: no, because we have evidence. and here it is. archiologists (sp) have found bones of lower species, slowly progressing into what we now know as man. thats evidence right there. national geographic had a story: was darwin wrong? first word of the article. (in gigantic font) "NO."


ME: i can see that you are a hard core doubter of christianity and that's fine. one of the best ways to arrive at truth is to doubt. but it seems to me that you doubt everything biblical but have no doubts about the authenticity of the national geographic. you should be as skeptical about this as you are about christianity. with that i'd like to say that although it may appear to be a proof of darwin's theory, it actually is not. now i'm not sure exactly what kind of bones you're talking about, but it does not matter. the reason it does not matter is because all these variations in bone types (and by types i meen sizes and general shape) have nothing to do withone species slowly becoming another. the bones they found were probably a human. i have no doubts that people of old didn't look exactly like we do today, but they were human. darwin's theory that every species is constantly changing for the better is a direct contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is the truth that everything is working it's way to destruction. things do not biologically get progressively better, they get progressively worse. you don't have to believe me (and you probably don't) but i urge you to look into it. forget everything you've learned in high school biology or national geographic and be skeptical of everything. if people honestly would stop seeing what they want to see and really looked into biology, physics, astronomy they would see no other option but a creator.

Animals vs Humans

i wonder what the deal is with people cherishing animal life over human life. i went to see clint eastwood's "letters from iwo jima" (very good unlike his crappy "flags of our fathers". maybe i'll write about it some other time). anyway, i don't like watching things get killed whether they are human or animal (unless it is in a "Predator movie, then i like both). so I'm sitting in the theater watching this war movie and for some reason the filmmakers really played on this animal thing. it seemed as if they were really trying to play with the audience's emotions by harming animals. and it worked. there is this one character who had a horse on the island. turns out he was an Olympic horse rider and now a ranking officer and for some reason or another, he was allowed to have a horse.
now, this is a war movie and so you expect violence, but what i've never seen before was honorable suicide. in the movie and i suspect real life, when the japanease soldiers got cut off from the rest of the group in the tunnels they would end there life. i gathered that there is more honor in ending ones own life rather than it being taken by the enemy; that also mixed with the fears of the savage torturous americans. anyway, this group of characters who you have come to know get the order to suicide. some do it very stoically while others are obviously wishing there where some way out of it, but all who do it do it the same way (except the officer who shoots himself) that being pulling the pin and smothering the grenade. one by one they do this. it was hard to watch.
earlier in the movie when everyone is alive, the soldiers hear planes. americans bombard the island; people run for cover; bodies fly everywhere; it's that typical battle thing. but when its over we get to visit the olympian with his dead blown up horse (not really blown up, but certainly not pretty). when this hit the screen the crowd collectively gasped and made other sorrowful sounds. where were these when the main character's best friend, who has a wife at home, pulls the pin and explodes himself all over the main character's face. i guess that kind of thing is normal, but a dead horse, that's the real tear jerker. WHAT'S GOING ON! because personally i would rather exterminate the horse as a species rather than kill one person.

they also killed a dog (awwwwwwwww...)

Santa To Who

I've been thinking lately about the idea of Santa Claus and it's effects on the children. I anticipate that I will not be very popular with many of you readers (look at me, thinking that I have an audience). Anyway, my point is that teaching kids to believe in Santa Claus is a bad idea.

Let me start off with a little about myself. I never believed in Santa Claus; as a kid I was very skeptical and a little rebellious. Growing up in a Bible believing home, my parents didn't go out of their way to teach me about Santa. Instead, they taught the nativity story which at that age I may or may not have believed. The first I heard of Santa was from friends and teachers at school. It turns out that I was missing out on this guy who gets pulled around by flying reign deer one of which has a nose that lights up so the guy can see in the fog as he travels around the world delivering presents that he and his elves manufacture up in the north pole and stuff into one very large bag to bring to every house of every person in the world in one night so long as they are deserving enough to receive such blessings. Even in first grade it never made sense to me. What I can't figure out is why families are perpetuating these beliefs.

If I were to go up to a five year old and say, "There is no Santa Claus" people would be outraged and rightly so, because I crushed their child. they'd be mad at me for being honest, but don't seem to care about lying to their kids for ten years or however many it is before the cat's out of the bag. In reality they are not crushed because I told them; who am I to them anyway? No, they are crushed because the people who they are supposed to trust most lied to them. I'm talking about their parents. If there were no initial lie, then the child would not be hurt. What is the purpose of carrying on the santa game. It seems to me that they are
setting their children up for a big fall. WHY?

I've been on the unpopular side of this argument from the beginning, and so I've heard many different views. The first is the one where it helps kids behave because if they don't, then they will not get any presents, or worse... coal. If anyone truly believes this then I worry about their ability to observe. You'd think that the threat of the death penalty would stop homicides, but they don't; they only produce craftier criminals. It is the same with kids. Furthermore, I wonder if the threat of not getting stuff is a good threat at all. Getting stuff contributes to selfishness. Assuming that this threat really works, do you want your child's decision making to be based on what they gain from it. Wouldn't you rather them do good for the sake that it is good and not because it benefits themselves.

Another defense of santa claus is that it makes christmas more fun. "What's wrong with fun?" they say to me. "You're just a stick in the mud." To which I reply that nothing is wrong with fun, but why does there have to be lying and betrayal involved with this fun? Can fun be had without Santa Claus? Is Santa the creator of Christmas fun? I doubt it. I believe kids can have fun without the mythical gift giver. I'm only speaking from experience; I missed out on the Santa experience and I feel like I didn't miss a thing. Christmas was just as much Christmas knowing the gifts were from my parents. In fact, it made me more thankful.

You get stuff from Santa. Why? because that is what Santa does on this particular day. Did i earn it? Of course I earned it; if I didn't earn it, then I wouldn't have gotten this much or anything at all. I must be a very good little kid. I'm way better than tommy down the street with the small house and the rusty cars. He didn't get nearly as much as I did; he must not be as good as I am; he only got the leonardo action figure; I got all the Ninja Turtles, splinter, and the Turtle Van. I must be the best kid in town or at least in the neighborhood. It only makes sense.
Are these thoughts we want our kids to have?

Then I get hit with "Well you're one of them Christian kids. You don't understand. You probably want everything to be about Jesus." To that I reply, "Yes. Yes I do." I won't be shy about that. He is after all, the reason for the season (cliche, but true). If everyone understood the significance of the Almighty humbling himself into man and believed it as i do, I'd be absolutely thrilled. However, I don't see that happening (not that I don't have faith in God, just not in people). That being said, I want everyone to switch from Santa to Jesus, but realizing that this is unlikely, it should be about family.

When Santa is in the minds of children, then the presents come from him and not the family. The cards say from: santa (in mom's handwriting) therefore it is unlikely that the child is grateful to the real giver of the gift. The family in the Santa Claus scenario is merely the audience who watches Santa's benevolence. There is no jumping into daddy's arms giving thanks and looking at him with the wonder of how he knew exactly what I wanted. Santa takes not only the Christ out of Christmas but also the family. Is the idea of santa worth it?
I don't think so. I also don't like lying.

down with "full screen"

full screen version movies are an abomination. the term "full screen" itself is misleading. people think "oooo full screen. full screen = bigger. bigger=better." these people have been fooled (or are fools ). let me explain: standard tvs (like mine, because i'm poor and literally picked it out of the garbage) have an aspect ratio of 1.33:1. 1.33 being the width to the height ratio. that's great for television programs, but not films. films are shot in a much wider format; the academy aspect ratio of motion pictures is 1.85:1, but can go much wider. for instance, "the exorcism of emily rose" was shot with a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. therefore, when the film is adapted to fill the height of a standard tv, the width of the picture has to be cut by 45%; audiences lose an entire length of the height from the length of the width, THAT'S ALMOST HALF THE PICTURE!!!!! "but the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen annoy me." GET OVER IT and watch movies the way they were intended to be seen. "widescreen" formats do not cut the tops and bottoms off the picture; "WIDESCREEN" ADDS THE SIDES while "full screen" cuts them off. still, people hate the black bars and will do anything to get rid of them. i was in best buy debating whether or not to buy "the exorcism of emily rose" and these two ladies came up and looked at the cover, "oh man. it's widescreen," one of them said disappointedly. "that's ok you can just zoom in" the other assured her. WHAT!!!!!!!!!! WHAT!!!!!!! "did she really just say that?" i thought to myself as i pounded on my forehead. zooming in on a "widescreen" format is the utmost level of idiocy a movie watcher can achieve while watching a movie. first of all...no, there are far to many reasons why even the idea is stupid. if you are one that does this i want you to watch the movie zoomed in and again without. make sure to take note of image quality, and framing differences. then blog me a 500 word essay on how they differ. comment me if you have any questions.
to sum up:
i try to educate people on the evils of the "full screen." cutting the intended picture is an insult to the filmmaker. it would be like cutting an artists masterpiece to fit your square frame so you can hang it on the wall. DOWN WITH "FULL SCREEN"