Search
Search results
David McK (3207 KP) rated Batman: Knightfall, Part Three: Knightsend in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The final part of the Knightfall trilogy, the earlier parts of which are oft credited with providing the template for Christian Bale's last outing as Batman in The Dark Knight Rises.
In this, Bruce Wayne - mentally and physically scarred by his encounter with and defeat by Bane - finally gets back to full capacity and returns to Gotham to reclaim the mantle of the Bat from Jean-Paul Valley (aka Azrael): a mantle, however, that Jean-Paul is extremely reluctant to give up.
And after Bruce manages to win it back, he promptly passes it on (in a temporary nature) to his former Robin Dick Grayson, now Nightwing. Cue about 2/3rds of this collection really following how that 'new' Batman copes with the costume and responsibility ...
Definitely a very 90s comic, I personally feel that this rides a lot on the fame of the first part of the trilogy - that is, the one in which Bane 'breaks the bat' - more so that it is able to stand on its own 2 feet.
In this, Bruce Wayne - mentally and physically scarred by his encounter with and defeat by Bane - finally gets back to full capacity and returns to Gotham to reclaim the mantle of the Bat from Jean-Paul Valley (aka Azrael): a mantle, however, that Jean-Paul is extremely reluctant to give up.
And after Bruce manages to win it back, he promptly passes it on (in a temporary nature) to his former Robin Dick Grayson, now Nightwing. Cue about 2/3rds of this collection really following how that 'new' Batman copes with the costume and responsibility ...
Definitely a very 90s comic, I personally feel that this rides a lot on the fame of the first part of the trilogy - that is, the one in which Bane 'breaks the bat' - more so that it is able to stand on its own 2 feet.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Centurion's Wife (Acts of Faith, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book was a wonderful surprise in both its accuracy in utilizing the Biblical account, as well as its mastery in enlivening the recorded events pulled from the Bible by weaving in the fictional story of Leah. I have read these parts of the Bible more times than I can count, but this novel made the events fresh and exciting, as if I were living in the time period and watching them first hand. It made me realize as I read it how much I take for granted in having the completed Bible, which those first believers did not have. I could relate quite easily to some of the characters, especially the portrayal of Mary Magdalene. I also especially loved how the authors described the scene at Pentacost, as well as the allusions to the wedding in Revelation using Leah's wedding plans.
This book is the first book in the series Acts of Faith, which I like because not only are all the loose threads not accounted for, but also because I would love to see other Biblical characters portrayed by these authors, such as Paul. I look forward to continuing the series with the next book, The Hidden Flame.
This is how Christian fiction should be written, in my humble opinion. The beliefs and doubts of the characters are real and believable - even to the point of looking messy and contradictory. Their faith hasn't been softened and molded by political correctness, too afraid to quote more than a few fee-good verses from Psalms or even use the name of Jesus. A Christian is not a one-dimensional type-cast description, and neither should the characters in a Christian fiction novel be.
This book is the first book in the series Acts of Faith, which I like because not only are all the loose threads not accounted for, but also because I would love to see other Biblical characters portrayed by these authors, such as Paul. I look forward to continuing the series with the next book, The Hidden Flame.
This is how Christian fiction should be written, in my humble opinion. The beliefs and doubts of the characters are real and believable - even to the point of looking messy and contradictory. Their faith hasn't been softened and molded by political correctness, too afraid to quote more than a few fee-good verses from Psalms or even use the name of Jesus. A Christian is not a one-dimensional type-cast description, and neither should the characters in a Christian fiction novel be.
Ali Abbasi recommended Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Magic Christian (1969) in Movies
Apr 11, 2020
Laborious satire proves that no matter how good your cast is, it can't save a film with a lousy script. Subversive multi-millionaire Guy Grand (Sellers) and his adopted son (Ringo) embark on a series of lavish practical jokes to demonstrate the venality of western society. Basically a series of too-contrived-to-be-funny sketches clumsily making fun of the sacred cows of British society in particular.
Some people (Paul Merton for one) would have you suggest that The Magic Christian has a reputation as a bad movie because it ridicules things the establishment holds dear (the boat race, high art, grouse shooting, etc). This is not true: it has a reputation as a bad movie because it is a bad movie, clumsy, smug, and not nearly as insightful as it seems to think it is. The main reason for watching is the cast list, which is eye-opening, although how well the various cameoing stars emerge tends to be in inverse proportion to the size of their role. One of those films that proves the swinging sixties weren't all that great.
Some people (Paul Merton for one) would have you suggest that The Magic Christian has a reputation as a bad movie because it ridicules things the establishment holds dear (the boat race, high art, grouse shooting, etc). This is not true: it has a reputation as a bad movie because it is a bad movie, clumsy, smug, and not nearly as insightful as it seems to think it is. The main reason for watching is the cast list, which is eye-opening, although how well the various cameoing stars emerge tends to be in inverse proportion to the size of their role. One of those films that proves the swinging sixties weren't all that great.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated CSB Worldview Study Bible in Books
Nov 4, 2019
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features extensive worldview study notes and articles by notable Christian scholars to help Christians better understand the grand narrative and flow of Scripture within the biblical framework from which we are called to view reality and make sense of life and the world. Guided by general editors David S. Dockery and Trevin K. Wax, this Bible is an invaluable resource and study tool that will help you to discuss, defend, and clearly share with others the truth, hope, and practical compatibility of Christianity in everyday life.
Features include:
Extensive worldview study notes
Over 130 articles by notable Christian scholars
Center-column references
Smyth-sewn binding
Presentation page
Two ribbon markers
Two-piece gift box, and more
General Editors: David S. Dockery and Trevin Wax
Associate Editors: Constantine R. Campbell, E. Ray Clendenen, Eric J. Tully
Contributors include: David S. Dockery, Trevin K. Wax, Ray Van Neste, John Stonestreet, Ted Cabal, Darrell L. Bock, Mary J. Sharp, Carl R. Trueman, Bruce Riley Ashford, R. Albert Mohler Jr., William A. Dembski, Preben Vang, David K. Naugle, Jennifer A. Marshall, Aida Besancon Spencer, Paul Copan, Robert Smith Jr., Douglas Groothuis, Russell D. Moore, Mark A. Noll, Timothy George, Carla D. Sanderson, Kevin Smith, Gregory B. Forster, Choon Sam Fong, and more.
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features the highly readable, highly reliable text of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The CSB stays as literal as possible to the Bibles original meaning without sacrificing clarity, making it easier to engage with Scriptures life-transforming message and to share it with others.
This is a wonderful Bible that not only gives us God's word but teaches through credible editors about the Christians view of the world. There are articles that show us the Biblical view of that issue; such a: the Biblical view of music, Personal Finances. Ther is an article on how Christians should relate to the government along with various other interesting articles.
This is a great study Bible for new believers, for discipling, for those interested in how God's word relates to issues around us today. How we as Christians should respond to a world that is turning against Christians.
This is a beautiful Bible, that is easy to read and has full-color maps. This will be a great addition to anyone's library.
CSB Worldview Study Bible
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 : Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Features include:
Extensive worldview study notes
Over 130 articles by notable Christian scholars
Center-column references
Smyth-sewn binding
Presentation page
Two ribbon markers
Two-piece gift box, and more
General Editors: David S. Dockery and Trevin Wax
Associate Editors: Constantine R. Campbell, E. Ray Clendenen, Eric J. Tully
Contributors include: David S. Dockery, Trevin K. Wax, Ray Van Neste, John Stonestreet, Ted Cabal, Darrell L. Bock, Mary J. Sharp, Carl R. Trueman, Bruce Riley Ashford, R. Albert Mohler Jr., William A. Dembski, Preben Vang, David K. Naugle, Jennifer A. Marshall, Aida Besancon Spencer, Paul Copan, Robert Smith Jr., Douglas Groothuis, Russell D. Moore, Mark A. Noll, Timothy George, Carla D. Sanderson, Kevin Smith, Gregory B. Forster, Choon Sam Fong, and more.
The CSB Worldview Study Bible features the highly readable, highly reliable text of the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The CSB stays as literal as possible to the Bibles original meaning without sacrificing clarity, making it easier to engage with Scriptures life-transforming message and to share it with others.
This is a wonderful Bible that not only gives us God's word but teaches through credible editors about the Christians view of the world. There are articles that show us the Biblical view of that issue; such a: the Biblical view of music, Personal Finances. Ther is an article on how Christians should relate to the government along with various other interesting articles.
This is a great study Bible for new believers, for discipling, for those interested in how God's word relates to issues around us today. How we as Christians should respond to a world that is turning against Christians.
This is a beautiful Bible, that is easy to read and has full-color maps. This will be a great addition to anyone's library.
CSB Worldview Study Bible
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 : Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Point Blank (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Point Blank starts when emergency room nurse Paul (Mackie) is preparing to have his first child with his wife Taryn (Parris), she is due within weeks, but she gets kidnapped by Mateo (Cooke) who wants Paul to help his injured brother Abe (Grillo) escape from the emergency room after being accused of murdering the DA.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Prisoners (2013) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
Hugh Jackman (1 more)
Jake Gyllenhaal
How Far Would You Go
Prisoners- is a excellent movie. Its very sad and depressing movie. It ask you the question of "how far would you go if your daughter gets kidnapped/missing"? "What whould you do"? Denis Villeneuve does a excellent job. The whole cast is excellent.
The plot: Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) faces a parent's worst nightmare when his 6-year-old daughter, Anna, and her friend go missing. The only lead is an old motorhome that had been parked on their street. The head of the investigation, Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), arrests the driver (Paul Dano), but a lack of evidence forces Loki to release his only suspect. Dover, knowing that his daughter's life is at stake, decides that he has no choice but to take matters into his own hands.
Aaron Guzikowski wrote the script based on a short story he wrote, partially inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart", involving "a father whose kid was struck by a hit and run driver and then puts this guy in a well in his backyard". After he wrote the spec, many actors and directors entered and exited the project, including actors Christian Bale and Leonardo DiCaprio and directors Antoine Fuqua and Bryan Singer.
Ultimately Guzikowski would credit producer Mark Wahlberg for getting the project on its feet, stating, "He was totally pivotal in getting the film made. That endorsement helped it getting the film made."
Its a excellent film.
The plot: Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) faces a parent's worst nightmare when his 6-year-old daughter, Anna, and her friend go missing. The only lead is an old motorhome that had been parked on their street. The head of the investigation, Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), arrests the driver (Paul Dano), but a lack of evidence forces Loki to release his only suspect. Dover, knowing that his daughter's life is at stake, decides that he has no choice but to take matters into his own hands.
Aaron Guzikowski wrote the script based on a short story he wrote, partially inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart", involving "a father whose kid was struck by a hit and run driver and then puts this guy in a well in his backyard". After he wrote the spec, many actors and directors entered and exited the project, including actors Christian Bale and Leonardo DiCaprio and directors Antoine Fuqua and Bryan Singer.
Ultimately Guzikowski would credit producer Mark Wahlberg for getting the project on its feet, stating, "He was totally pivotal in getting the film made. That endorsement helped it getting the film made."
Its a excellent film.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.