That's My King!

Mr. Moon

Mr. Moon won't you please
Tell me what it is you see
Lovers in harmonious harmony
And birds sittin' in the willow tree
Glassy lakes and silver seas
Spread beneath the starry sky
While children weep and widows cry
People questioning, wondering "Why?"
Wars are fought, battles won,
You go down, up comes the sun.
The same story's told throughout the day
People journeying different ways
Wandering down this path of life
Some filled with anger, grief, strife
Others with joy, peace, and love
Like a gift from up above
Mr. Moon oh don't you know
Sometimes I just want to go
Find out what's around the bend
Find out how the stories end
But you don't know the secret either
So as I sit under your glow
We can sit and ponder together
Just what tomorrow will hold

Do You Really Think He Cares?

Today I heard someone mention that John Edwards was paid a crazy sum of money to address the issue to poverty. I thought "surely not" though I knew I would not be shocked if this report was, indeed, true. The report is true. He was paid $55,000 to speak on the issue of poverty at University of California at Davis. Please. If you were really that concerned about poverty give your speech for free. That way people can afford to hear you speak, and might actually be inspired to do something. I mean it's not like Edwards actually needed that $55 thousand.

(Sources below)
San Fransisco Chronicle
Media Matters for America
Texas Rainmaker
Associated Content
News Busters
Scared MonkeysAOL News
Digg News

Melancholy

Today I have been melancholy about many things - some of which was encouraged by melancholy/saddening classical music in a particular setting. It was not that melancholy I wish to speak of, though.

Today I realized, again, that I cannot comprehend anything after death. Not that I don't believe in life after death or the judgement that is to come, or the new heaven and earth and Jerusalem, etc, I do, believe me I do. I just cannot wrap my mind around it. My flesh is convinced this life is it. My spirit urges me otherwise, but cannot fathom what it means. There is a mistaken concept that there will be no time in [the new] heaven (TNH). I say mistaken because there cannot be months in TNH without time. How do I know there are months? Revelation 22:1-2 say, "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." How could there be months if there was no sense of time? How could anything change consistently according to a measure of time if there was no time? Anyway, I digress.

No longer do I have to try and imagine life without time, it will still be around. I cannot fathom eternity though. Living forever ... I mean I can barely conceive of living to 120. It just doesn't happen (except on rare occasions when it does, logical, I know). But we will live to be 120x120x120x120 and so on forever. I cannot comprehend (for the curious that problem I put forth comes to 24,883,200,000 [24 billion, 883 million, and 200 thousand years old] !!!) Not only does this bother me, but I cannot imagine standing before God giving an account of my life. We will be held accountable for every careless word we speak (Matthew 12:36-37).

What a frightening thought.

How am I to account for my sinful actions that I willing did in spite of knowing God's command. Praise the Lord for grace and the death and resurrection of Jesus! Still I cannot fathom what it will be like to realize how holy He is, and how wretched I am. This is quite disappointing for it does not help instill in my the fear of the Lord, and it does not help me realize how stupid I and my sins are. How embarrassed shall we all be to stand before God and say "I know I really should have said I took so and so's pen but I said Suzy took it because it was a really cool pen" (or some similar, equally ridiculous statement). How utterly dreadful.

But I write this with no feeling.

My mind, strangely enough, tells me it will be dreadful and a horrible sight to behold. My heart, it just feels slightly numb trying to make me stop thinking about it (Jeremiah 17:9). I think my flesh is scared that one day, on earth, I will realize the utter horror of my sin and actually focus on God as I should. See I know I ought to serve God more than I do. I know I ought to really focus on Him, and I desire to. My spirit desires to, but when I want to do good evil is right there with me (Romans 7:21).

Thus the reason for my melancholyness.

I desire to know God; I desire to do His will wholeheartedly; I desire to understand His way; I desire to grasp the horror of sin and the amazingness of His grace; I desire to understand the joy of being with Him eternally. I don't though. I don't, and I really want to. I want to glorify Him. I want to point people to Him. I want to be a reflection of Him so that when people see me they see straight to Him. I fail so often. I need to snap out of this funk because I'm not going to be a very good witness moping about not comprehending Him or His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

So, here I am.


original image source

"And the Virgin Will Be With Child"

This may seem heretical to some (but those who know me even semi-decently would know my intent is not such) but it is an exploration into something that has held my mind captive for sometime now. Perhaps I shall write a book about it (so no one steal my idea!). We shall see. Onto the meat of this though: If Jesus had been born 2,000+ years after he was, his birth wouldn't be miraculous. Now allow me to qualify. 

Of course if everything happened as the Scriptures say now it would still be miraculous, but unbelievable, possibly a seemingly commonplace experience. At least in America. Sperm banks are available for women to go to. Virgins could go and have a sperm artificially implanted in them and bear a child. Virgins or not, single women are taking that option. Here is an interesting article by WORLD magazine (for those who don't subscribe, I'm sorry, its a very good, interesting, and informative article). Virgin birth isn't miraculous anymore. Does it discredit what happened to Mary? Absolutely not! Things like sperm banks weren't around neither was the technology. I'm glad Jesus wasn't born 2,000+ years later than he was. Something I am very thankful for.

Sunken Treasure

For some reason there is a general thought that our lives will continue without any startling revelations for as long as we live. I, for one, am glad this is not the case. How boring would it be to live in a time where nothing was being discovered about the past? In discovering the past, not only do we learn about culture, people, places, environment, etc of other times and places, which helps us today, it is exciting. Just like this sunken treasure that has been found. There are also archaeological digs that rediscover the past. Things like this don't just happen in storybooks - they actually happen. I don't know about you, but now I want to go out on a dig or on an underwater expedition. Then again, what else is new?

 picture credit

The Same Sun Still Rises

Thinking about the sun amazes me. It has been in the sky essentially since the beginning of time. Forget about the walls speaking - what if the sun could speak! Think about the sun in the sky ... it has seen the rise and fall of nations, some of which we probably know not of. It looked down on Abraham, David, Malachi, Jesus, Paul, Jerome, Aquinas, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth, Washington, Lincoln and Lee. The sun has seen the advance of technology, the brutal acts of man and beast, and the kindness acts of compassion from the same. The same sun that Aristotle looked for in the morning, Hume said might not rise tomorrow. Nevertheless it has faithfully risen and set for thousands of years. How great is God! How great is His faithfulness. I stand rapt in awe.

original picture source 

A&E's Pride and Prejudice {Movie Review}

A&E/BBC's version of Pride & Prejudice is wonderful. Of course it is not completely accurate to the book, I have yet to see a movie that it that way, but, considering the circumstances, I was well pleased.

Not to give the story away, for those who do not already know, but tension is seen much better in this rendition of the book than in the newer version. The conflict, tension, emotions, were all excessively better - mainly because it is much longer than the newer version. I like that, though. It is nice to sit down and watch a movie in leisure without feeling rushed, and without feeling bored. This movie had a nice balance. Could they have added a few more hours to the movie and made it more accurate? Of course, but very few would watch that movie (though I probably would be one of them).

I do recommend that both male and female what this version of Pride & Prejudice. I don't know of any females who have watched it and not liked it. And the guys I know who groaned being forced to watch it ended up enjoying it too.

To fill out the movie, however, I do suggest that you read the book, which I will also review at a later time. This movie, however, I recommend without any apprehension and without any qualms at all. I highly suggest that you pick it up next time you want to watch a movie, just make sure you have 5 hours to watch it, or that you can watch it in two sittings.

As nice as this version is, though, it's not my favorite.

3.5 out of 5 stars

This post does contain affiliate links; thank you for your support.

Apathetic People Living Apathetic Lives Leads to an Apathetic World Causing Apathy to Prevail as Apathetic Generations are Raised

I'm sick of all of the apathy in the world. At least in America. The voices heard in America (the squeaky wheels) get the grease to shut them up. The rest of America seems largely apathetic to the way things are "going down" these days. No massive outcry about the hate-crimes bill the House recently passed, no speaking up for capital punishment, no outrage against the perverted "sex education" in the public schools. Instead "oh well, if that's what they think should happen..." THINK PEOPLE. THINK! The world is not going to get any better on its own. If you don't like the way something is done - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Speak up. Talk to Washington, talk to your local officials and/or boards. Sign petitions, write letters, make phone calls. No, this does not happen. Of course there are some who will take a stand - a few more who will on "really" important issues, but the vast majority who complain about the direction America is taking in her slide downhill don't do anything about it. They are apathetic about apathy.

Absurd, huh? Unresponsive, indifferent, unemotional, not interested or concerned, these are words used to define apathetic in the dictionary. People are generally indifferent about being indifferent. In other words, many people do not care, or at least are unresponsive in their caringness of what happens, but they are not concerned with correcting the lack interest. They are apathetic about being apathetic themselves. WAKE UP now, before its too late. One day, when all religious freedom, when all freedom of speech and of the press is gone and you wake up in a Communist nation you will realize that now it is too late to do something to curb the tide. Act now, while you still have the chance.

Edit - This quote speaks to how the nation goes:

"National progress is the sum of individual industry, energy, and uprightness, as national decay is of individual idleness, selfishness, and vice."
- Samuel Smiles 

picture credit

2001: A Space Odyssey {Movie Review}

"An epic drama of adventure and exploration" says the movie poster.

NOT.

Made in 1968 this movie is hailed for its stunning effects and groundbreaking outer space sequences - a true classic. Don't let that dupe you into seeing the movie. If you were to look in the dictionary beside "pointless," "lame," and "waste of time" this movie should be pictured. For the time, yes the features and colors and sequences were quite amazing, now, in 2007, it is nothing extra-ordinary at all. The almost 2 1/2 hour movie could be effectively done in 1/2 hr to a full hour. After watching the movie I was left scratching my head going "I'm so confused."

Question: "What do Brighty of the Grand Canyon and Napoleon Dynamite have in common?" They are both more interesting than this movie (and I didn't find either particularly compelling). The book Brighty is very good - the movie plods along as slow as a donkey. Dynamite at least has cheesy humor. 2001 can't even offer that. I never thought I would say this, but I would rather watch Napoleon Dynamite again than this movie ... in addition to the "humor" it also is about an hour shorter in length. The only good thing that I see coming out of this movie (besides the then stunning effects) was inspiration for space vehicles for George Lucas' Star Wars. It is apparent he was influenced by this movie. I think that also might be why, 9 years later, Star Wars was a sleeper hit. Not only did it have stunning effects (!) it also had a plot, and it was interesting.

I'm told that 2001 was made from a book. The book must not be very thick if they accurately interpreted it. It must be more interesting than the movie though, and hopefully it will help clarify what I saw. I will probably check it out of library sometime. Does anyone know if the book is more interesting than the movie?

SPOILERS (if that can be said for this movie):
Essentially this movie starts at the "Dawn of Man" and shows a black monolith which (I guess) helped the apes evolve. In 1999 a black monolith is discovered on the moon - its origins are Jupiter. In 2001 a team ventures out to Jupiter to find out more about the mysterious monolith. On the way the infallible computer, HAL, messes up, kills people, and must be shut down (this has nothing to do with the main plot, however). Eventually only one guy is left who makes it to Jupiter and finds himself in a strange room where he grows old, is visited by the monolith and transformed into a giant embryo. The embryo is next seen as large as the earth gazing at earth - I presume this is supposed to be the next evolutionary step. Sounds pretty interesting, right? Basically this is not expanded on and I virtually just gave you the script. Don't waste your time watching this movie. To view other plot summaries go here - I'm telling you, it's the whole movie.

Do I have to give this movie stars?

Negative 3 out of Positive 5

It's that boring.

PS - by today's standards, the movie would have at least a PG rating.

This post does contain affiliate links; thank you for your support.

The Princess Bride {Movie Review}

"Not just your basic, average, everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, ho-hum fairy tale."

So goes the advertisement for Princess Bride. Since I had seen part of the TV version many years ago and I was not thrilled about watching it again. I'm glad I did, but don't watch the TV version, I missed some very important parts as a result. Princess Bride is a borderline-hilarious movie. A few words slip here and there, and there is one reference that stands out as particularly undesirable, but, that being said it is worth watching.

Princess Bride deserves the PG rating for the shrieking eels, ROUSes (Rodents of Unusual size), torture machine, sword fights, and other such fairy-tale-ish things, along with what is mentioned in the previous paragraph. For the time, the creatures were pretty good graphically (it was made in 1987), most kids have probably seen worse than the creatures in this movie. I still think it would scare very young children. Around 8 or so I'd probably give it a go.

This is a funny movie. Everyone needs a good laugh once in awhile. It does not rank near my favorite movie category though.

Princess Bride is a story about true love. Sappy, right? Not really. Of course there are the kissing scenes (which the young boy to whom the story is read protests about), these are not the selling point of the movie. That was refreshing. The humor and action were much more appealing.

"But you're a female, you like romance and action isn't something that really interests you." Yes, I am a female, but I detest sappy romance movies. And, no, gratuitous action is not my "thing" but this had just enough action and romance to make it enjoyable. Both sexes should be fairly pleased with this movie. I know the men in my life enjoyed the movie about as much as I did.

And read the book. Given that the author did the screenplay for the movie ... for once, a movie and it's book are on par.

3.75 out of 5 stars.

(And did I mention that Prince Humperdinck looks like Lord Farquaad from Shrek?)

This post does contain affiliate links; thank you for your support.