Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 7:00 AM If you love kittens, you'll love this episode. Or sex. But not together. That's just gross.
Craigslist, comedy, elderly, internet, kittens, kosher, news, sex in Top 3 Video Monday, March 15, 2010 at 7:00 AM I don't care how you try to shake it, it's pretty hard for anyone to make a lot of stories in the old testament relevant to today's society. Maybe it's because I don't own any goats. Sure, you can "cross the hermeneutical" bridge and look for the principles that apply to today. That's what every good pastor should do, so we are taught. But bible scholar or not, it's impossible not to notice the difference of themes between the old testament and new testament. Hardcore conservatives will put their hands in their ears and scream, saying that there is no difference. But why do you think that this is one of the first things people notice about the bible when reading it? It would be ridiculous to ignore it, but I think this difference is one of its biggest strengths.
Say what? For a majority of Christians, that statement seems "incorrect," but hear me out. Perhaps this change of theme represents something about what the bible as a book is, a changing understanding of God. This is what theologian Brian McLaren thinks anyway. While most conservatives would shoot down McLaren in cold blood, the man has a point. It's not that God is changing, but it is our understanding of who he is that changes. I mean, do you really think that the Hebrews would really have a better understanding of God than those who spent time with Jesus? As we grow as a people, we learn more and more, and thus our understanding evolves.
So what does that mean for us now? It means that our understanding of God needs to evolve to a modern day setting. The new testament as we know it took over 200 years to be formulated and decided upon. The reason it took so long was the early church fathers argued about what was canonical and what wasn't. Their main argumentation was that an author of a piece of "scripture" needed to have personal ties to Jesus. But what happens to us now?
None of us have personal ties to Jesus today. That is to say, one may "know" him through prayer and worship, but you did not really live life with Jesus. So now we're stuck in this awkward place where all of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a Christian in the modern age. Some argue that the best way to do this is to make the bible translate for situation to situation to today. This is certainly one way to do it. But then you run into problems like "cultural significance" and "literal significance." For example, a lot of the passages about women in the bible are often referred to as culturally significant because we would never treat women like that in our modern society.
So the big question is, who gets to decide what is culturally significant? The whole book is steeped in culture and to read it without a cultural lens would be foolish. The only way that "Christian truth" can be understood today is subjective as best. The reason is because nobody has spiritual authority. If someone claims that "God told them the truth," will we believe them? Most people are going to say no. And rightfully so, because the logic of "God told me to" has been misused and abused throughout all of history.
The best that we can do today is compare notes with one another and see what others think. Those that are prone to having everything wrapped up in a black and white box do not like this, but to force spirituality and Christianity into this absolute box is a disservice and manipulative. To say that discussions cannot occur because your understanding is "right" and an abuse of power. Think about the traditional Christian system. In order to have a legitimate voice in Christendom, you must got to school and then seminary. The power structure is explicit and clear.
The biggest challenge for us today is to figure out how Christianity works in today's society. We can only do that by living life together and having open discourse about the process. In the process of the discussion, I think we find the freedom so often proclaimed by Christianity and the bible. But what do you think? Does this make sense to you, or have I now branded myself as a heretic? Sound off below!
Brian McLaren, Jesus, bible, christianity, epistemology, evolve, truth, understanding in Culture, Theology, Worldviews Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM Why would we call something "trenta" when it's only episode 10? These mysteries and more answered on this week's podcast!
Friday, March 12, 2010 at 7:00 PM Yes, I know the title is cryptic. But I couldn't post the full title of what I wanted to call this post because it would only give away major plot points of the movie. So let's get this out of the way up front. Moon is a fantastic sci-fi movie, a real thinking man's movie. In fact, this is what sci-fi is all about, getting people to think about abstract hypothetical situations. This is what makes this film so powerful. It's not about watching how much stuff you can blow up in space or cool robots, but it's about trying to explore the human condition. The cinematography is beautiful, the music is awesome, and Sam Rockwell does a bang up job acting. Okay, the rest is spoilers. You've been warned. The rest of this review is going to be about dissecting the major themes of Moon.
What I wanted to call this post was "Attack of the Clones." If you've seen the movie, then you know why. But let's face it, putting that in the title would have given too much away. Moon raises a lot of interesting questions to think about. The biggest one of course is, "What does it mean to be human?" After coming to terms with the fact that the two Sams are indeed clones (at first, I thought they were hallucinations), we are left to contemplate the idea of which Sam is real? Gerty says it best when he says that both of these Sams are the real Sam Bell. But are they though? The first Sam we meet (here on out called "Sam A") is a patient and laid back individual. However the new Sam ("Sam B") is a rash and proactive person.
At this point it is clear to see that we are examining the fine points of character growth. Sam A is forced to see the person that he was in the incarnation of Sam B. But the question this raises is if every iteration of Sam has seen the same growth over the course of their three individual year stints? For instance, Sam B is unlike any Sam that has come before him in that he was able to escape from the moon. It's true the circumstances Sam B faced were unlike any of the previous Sams, but he was still able to do something different.
What I'm proposing is a mixture of alternate universe theory and cloning. What I mean is that this is how Sam would have turned out in these different scenarios. Given the extreme different situations between Sam A and Sam B, we see two completely different Sams. The only thing that separates them is time and circumstances. But are both these Sams the real Sam? Absolutely. They've just been dealt a different set of cards. Moon is a collision of what happens if two alternate universes were to collide. What's makes the situation even more complex is that Sam A influences Sam B. But Sam B would not be the person he has become without the impact that Sam A had, which is unique to the circumstances Sam A faced. Damn. Confused yet?
While there are many major ideas to discuss, I think Moon is trying to get at the heart of what it mean to be alive. No matter where we came from, we are always a product of the circumstances that life presents to us. We don't have control over these circumstances, but it is the way that we react that shapes the people we become. In life, it doesn't matter what decision you make. What matters is being able to discern how life would be different if you had made other choices and learn from these non-existent parallel universes. How will you let your Sam A influence you?
This is what I got out of Moon. I know there are others that have seen other things from this movie. Feel free to leave your ideas on what you think about Moon below.
Oh, and I think it goes without saying. 5 out of 5.
Duncan Jones, Moon, Sam Rockwell, Sci-Fi, movie reviews in Culture, Media Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM I'm not sure what is up with my obsession with the end of the world lately, but as promised in the podcast a couple of weeks ago inspired by this article from NPR, here is the official mathematical formula I have derived through scientific research. Use this formula to predict what the chance of dying from a solar flare is in your specific location at the time of calculation.
The variables and constants defined, then explanation.
By calculating this formula, you will arrive at a probability of how likely it is that you will be destroyed by solar flares, otherwise known as d.
First, we take the absolute value of the latitude (l) plus the longitude (g) of your current location. The reason for this is because one's location has a direction impact on your position to the sun, thus increasing your chances of being engulfed in a solar flare. Obviously.
Then you multiply this value by the current temperature of where you are. It is very important that you use the current temperature, otherwise you will not get accurate results. Simple logic follows that the hotter it is, the more likely that the sun will kill you.
The next step is to multiply by r, Tone's random constant. Because a lot of catastrophic projections involve wild speculation, it is only appropriate to include your own wild speculation. Thus, feel free to choose any number between 1 and 10. It makes for the best science. Look it up.
Finally you take this value and divide it by s, the speed of light. This is because the chance of destruction is directly impacted by how quickly the solar flares will advance towards the earth. You can't argue with science. I encourage you to try this equation to see your chance of imminent destruction by solar flares.
For example. the absolute value of my latitude and longitude is 67.767. I then multiply that by 8.889 (for the temperature) and then multiply that by 7 (a good lucky number). This results in 4,216.667. Divide this by the speed of light, and you get .000014. This means that I have a .0014% chance of dying from a solar flare at this moment.
You're welcome. Use this information wisely. Tell your mom you love her.
Solar Flares, apocalypse, end of the world, fact, math, science, the Hoeft Equation in Culture, Media