An Apology, And Several Facts About Chuck Norris
Before I forget, I think I need to write a retraction. On November the 18th, 2003, I wrote that Gretchen Forsythe hates NPR. That's wrong. That's just flat out wrong. And she told me so in person. She just can't stand that one tune they play on NPR. The one that goes Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-DA!!! That's what I remember her saying, and I mistakenly thought by that she also meant she abhored the whole public radio thing. Sorry, Gretchen!
Matt and Gretchen were in town last-last weekend and had rented a cabin. I and Brent and Marci stayed the night. Kevin and Lydia joined us for dinner, but went home after that, I think because Kevin's back hurt. Over dinner the guys started trading Chuck Norris facts. If you've never heard of Chuck Norris facts, they are the awesomest thing ever. They are facts... about Chuck Norris. THE Chuck Norris. Apparently they've been going around for a while and we got wind of em late, but boy, better late than never, I say. Here's a sampling:
"Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills people."
"The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain."
"When the boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris."
"Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, went back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart while she was flying over the Pacific Ocean."
"Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding."
"Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch, he decides what time it is."
"Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head."
"If you ask Chuck Norris what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds 'til." After you ask, "Two seconds 'til what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face."
"The quickest way to a man's heart is with Chuck Norris' fist."
"When Bruce Banner gets angry, he turns into the Incredible Hulk. When the Incredible Hulk gets angry, he turns into Chuck Norris."
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool Chuck Norris once and he will roundhouse you in the face."
You can find a bunch of others facts about Chuck Norris here. Get educated!
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Did Jesus Want People To NOT Understand Him?
I've been attending a bible study at the Navigator office that's really close to where I live, and last week we looked at Mark 4. This chapter of Mark has a problematic little ditty in it I'd always wondered about but never dug deep into. The gist of the issue is in verses 10-12:
Then he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "
The problem here is Jesus seems to be saying he speaks in parables so people won't understand, and repent, and be forgiven. At the time we were studying this I chipped in and said this might have to do with Jesus wanting to fulfill the prophesy in Isaiah 6:9-10(which he was quoting), but I wasn't sure where I was getting that from. Also, Paul Slay said Jesus had a specific timetable in mind in which he wanted to reveal truth about himself bit by bit (this goes hand in hand with Jesus telling people he had healed to not speak about what he had done at early points in his ministry).
Later on I decided to do a little digging on the internet for commentaries and opinions. The skeptics as usual had fun things to say, but I did find a couple things that I thought were pretty helpful. First, there's the parallel passage in Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10-16:
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Now that's probably where I got the idea that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. But the next question becomes 'Is fulfilling prophecy sufficient reason in and of itself, or do parables say something else about how God deals with us?' The main concern behind that question is this: would God make it more difficult for people to believe simply to prove the point that Jesus was the Messiah?
There are folks who might say God does not owe it to any member of the rebellious race of man to reveal any divine truth, and that the parables were the device by which God darkened the understanding of some, while leading others into the truth. Some may say this is accomplished by the parables firing up imaginations and getting people to ponder the nature of the kingdom of heaven. Others might say parables serve merely as a sieve, and that these things are not possible to fully comprehend unless God's spirit allows it. Those are not bad explanations, but they don't really fit with the historical accounts of Acts and the epistles, where we find everyone trying to be as clear as possible about who Christ is, what the kingdom of God is, and what you have to do to be saved. The gospel of Mark itself tells us what the parable meant right after the parable itself, so it wasn't meant to be kept mysterious forever.
I guess that's where the idea that Jesus was timing the dispensation of truth begins to make a lot more sense to me. My guess is what Jesus was really saying was so topsy-turvy that he might've gotten crucified before he was done mentoring the disciples. That's the first thought that comes to mind. I guess there could be other reasons if I just dig deeper, but I'm about done thinking about it for now.
I did look up the passage in Isaiah that Jesus was quoting:
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
When it says "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed", I get an image of God in my head rolling his eyes and adding "... and we wouldn't want THAT happening now, would we?!" I guess when God has to deal with people who sees a deliverance one minute, and forgets the deliverer the next, we get a little divine exasperation in the form of sarcasm.
I've been attending a bible study at the Navigator office that's really close to where I live, and last week we looked at Mark 4. This chapter of Mark has a problematic little ditty in it I'd always wondered about but never dug deep into. The gist of the issue is in verses 10-12:
Then he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "
The problem here is Jesus seems to be saying he speaks in parables so people won't understand, and repent, and be forgiven. At the time we were studying this I chipped in and said this might have to do with Jesus wanting to fulfill the prophesy in Isaiah 6:9-10(which he was quoting), but I wasn't sure where I was getting that from. Also, Paul Slay said Jesus had a specific timetable in mind in which he wanted to reveal truth about himself bit by bit (this goes hand in hand with Jesus telling people he had healed to not speak about what he had done at early points in his ministry).
Later on I decided to do a little digging on the internet for commentaries and opinions. The skeptics as usual had fun things to say, but I did find a couple things that I thought were pretty helpful. First, there's the parallel passage in Matthew Chapter 13, verses 10-16:
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Now that's probably where I got the idea that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. But the next question becomes 'Is fulfilling prophecy sufficient reason in and of itself, or do parables say something else about how God deals with us?' The main concern behind that question is this: would God make it more difficult for people to believe simply to prove the point that Jesus was the Messiah?
There are folks who might say God does not owe it to any member of the rebellious race of man to reveal any divine truth, and that the parables were the device by which God darkened the understanding of some, while leading others into the truth. Some may say this is accomplished by the parables firing up imaginations and getting people to ponder the nature of the kingdom of heaven. Others might say parables serve merely as a sieve, and that these things are not possible to fully comprehend unless God's spirit allows it. Those are not bad explanations, but they don't really fit with the historical accounts of Acts and the epistles, where we find everyone trying to be as clear as possible about who Christ is, what the kingdom of God is, and what you have to do to be saved. The gospel of Mark itself tells us what the parable meant right after the parable itself, so it wasn't meant to be kept mysterious forever.
I guess that's where the idea that Jesus was timing the dispensation of truth begins to make a lot more sense to me. My guess is what Jesus was really saying was so topsy-turvy that he might've gotten crucified before he was done mentoring the disciples. That's the first thought that comes to mind. I guess there could be other reasons if I just dig deeper, but I'm about done thinking about it for now.
I did look up the passage in Isaiah that Jesus was quoting:
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
When it says "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed", I get an image of God in my head rolling his eyes and adding "... and we wouldn't want THAT happening now, would we?!" I guess when God has to deal with people who sees a deliverance one minute, and forgets the deliverer the next, we get a little divine exasperation in the form of sarcasm.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Snikt! Snikt! Snikt!
It's a little late, but I thought I'd speak up and say how great a movie Xmen: The Last Stand is. I enjoyed it more than the first two. The reviews have me dumbfounded. X3 is exactly how a movie with a gajillion super-powered characters should be handled. Everyone just chugs along and does what needs to be done, says what needs to be said, and doesn't pause to tease you with a little bit of heavy philosophizing that the movie's not going to have time to give you a good payoff for anyway. We know most of these guys and their motives, already... we can extrapolate what's going on in their heads just by watching what they say and do, the little gestures, the passing comment here and there. That's what the movie gives us in a fairly brilliant manner. No one is allowed to get on a podium and preach to the audience for anything more than five seconds. They are always talking to each other, relating to each other, or beating the crap out of each other, and the audience is just there to watch these guys live out they're lives as honestly as they can.
X3 does share one problem with X2 that had me very annoyed with X2, and that is there were too many characters to keep track of, and no time to give everyone their due. But X2 gave just a little of bit every character to remind the audience they're missing something of everyone's story, and after each bit of exposition rudely yanked your attention away to something else. Some folks like that little bit of weight. Me? It feels lukewarm and a little A.D.D. to me. It frustrates. Either focus on a couple of things (like X1 did and did pretty well) or don't bother with the heavy stuff at all. X3 doesn't try to meet every one of its characters halfway. Instead it assumes you know these guys already, throws them into situations where you sort of know know what everyone's thinking, and then lets the battle play itself out. That works. Really, it does.
Granted, X3 is not as character-driven as the first two. I'd argue however, that that it didn't need to be, because again, we already know the important players here. We just need a good story for them to be in, and there's a pretty good story to be found here. The new characters admittedly do not get as much attention as some would like, but I thought what little there was was sufficient. Hank McCoy was handled fairly brilliantly (and never overstayed his welcome on the screen, which made him all the more endearing), and Angel, Juggernaut, and Multiple Man get to show off their abilities, which is all I needed them to do.
My one major complaint is that, once again, Cyclops gets the shaft. Some things never change, I guess.
It's a little late, but I thought I'd speak up and say how great a movie Xmen: The Last Stand is. I enjoyed it more than the first two. The reviews have me dumbfounded. X3 is exactly how a movie with a gajillion super-powered characters should be handled. Everyone just chugs along and does what needs to be done, says what needs to be said, and doesn't pause to tease you with a little bit of heavy philosophizing that the movie's not going to have time to give you a good payoff for anyway. We know most of these guys and their motives, already... we can extrapolate what's going on in their heads just by watching what they say and do, the little gestures, the passing comment here and there. That's what the movie gives us in a fairly brilliant manner. No one is allowed to get on a podium and preach to the audience for anything more than five seconds. They are always talking to each other, relating to each other, or beating the crap out of each other, and the audience is just there to watch these guys live out they're lives as honestly as they can.
X3 does share one problem with X2 that had me very annoyed with X2, and that is there were too many characters to keep track of, and no time to give everyone their due. But X2 gave just a little of bit every character to remind the audience they're missing something of everyone's story, and after each bit of exposition rudely yanked your attention away to something else. Some folks like that little bit of weight. Me? It feels lukewarm and a little A.D.D. to me. It frustrates. Either focus on a couple of things (like X1 did and did pretty well) or don't bother with the heavy stuff at all. X3 doesn't try to meet every one of its characters halfway. Instead it assumes you know these guys already, throws them into situations where you sort of know know what everyone's thinking, and then lets the battle play itself out. That works. Really, it does.
Granted, X3 is not as character-driven as the first two. I'd argue however, that that it didn't need to be, because again, we already know the important players here. We just need a good story for them to be in, and there's a pretty good story to be found here. The new characters admittedly do not get as much attention as some would like, but I thought what little there was was sufficient. Hank McCoy was handled fairly brilliantly (and never overstayed his welcome on the screen, which made him all the more endearing), and Angel, Juggernaut, and Multiple Man get to show off their abilities, which is all I needed them to do.
My one major complaint is that, once again, Cyclops gets the shaft. Some things never change, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)