Random Ramblings from (One of the) Two Young Whippersnappers
The poor poor neglected blog. Why? Why have you become so... un-posted-in?
I went and saw Eragon. Without spoiling it at all, it felt like they took 4-6 hours of material crammed it into two. The result was visually stunning (sometimes), emotionally detached (though they did a good job with the protagonist's brother), and altogether too rushed for even my considerable ability to suspend disbelief. One major *plot* difference between the book and the movie that I was disappointed in was the dragon herself. In the book she's just a kid along with Eragon - they had to *learn* *together* how to do all the things a dragon and her rider could do. In the movie Saphira seems to have it all under control and it's only Eragon making the mistakes. All in all, just go read the book. While I make this suggestion for nearly every book-to-movie story anyway, in this case it really will be time better spent.
While we're on the subject of media, I recently acquired the Zombie Survival Guide. It's fascinating reading, researched very thoroughly, and the author has some unique insights I would not have thought of (especially if a moaning putrid corpse was trying to sink its teeth into me). I have yet to double-check his "Outbreaks" section (because I haven't read that far yet,) but most of the outbreaks he lists seem to be within the last 20 years which will be a boon for both double-checking and belief. It's silly to think that a zombie outbreak will be the end of the world (God has *way* more imagination that that), but it could easily be the end of a small or even large city. I choose life.
More entertainment! I read "Voyage of the Slaves" awhile back, Brian Jacques' new book in the Castaways of the Flying Dutchman series (Along with "Castaways of the Flying Dutchman" and "The Angel's Command"). While I enjoyed his writing as much as I always do (his descriptions are excellent examples for aspiring authors!), the plot was pretty much his standard act with some changes here and there. (Slaves get captured, slaves get free, climactic battle at the end between good and evil with a good guy sacrificing himself for others, and the bad guy goes insane. Classic Jacques.) It's true that if something works for you you should keep with it, but it's also true that if you don't like Brian Jacques' previous works, you probably won't like this one either. You weirdo.
Mental_floss is awesome.
Credenda/Agenda magazine had a cover story ("Thema" in C/A-speak) that was a good reminder about what really holds the universe together. Read the entire article before you make any conclusions about Jones' sanity (although with the flak they get out there you certainly wouldn't be the first!). It's called "Against Gravity." (Note: They don't have the most recent issue up yet, sorry I can't get you a direct link. It should be up there soon since I have my grubby little paws on a hardcopy already. Read the other issues while you're waiting; it'll be good for you.)
I don't have the geek-energy built up to rave too much about the new Nintendo Wii (pronounced "whee!") since I expended most of it yesterday roleplaying with friends (stupid mummy-monster killed my character!). Suffice it to say that the Wii is not only cool technology-wise, it's totally fun game-wise and playing-with-friends-wise (which as we all know is the important reason *to* game). ExciteTruck, Rayman: Raving Rabids, Wii Sports, Red Steel... Good times, mate, good times!
Here's a question for you: At what point should a Christian's quest for right liturgy (defined as "what a congregation does,") give way to love for his brothers and sisters? Or more specifically, if you're serving in a capacity that you are proficient in and appreciated for, yet the music the congregation sings every Lord's Day is silly at best and trite/irreverent at worst, do you leave or stay? Should you love God's people by serving them, or should you love God by worshiping Him with reverent music that takes (oh my gosh!) a modicum of skill? Is one more important than the other? Is there even an objective answer, or should it be subject to the believer's conscience?
That's all for this time. - "Pops"
I went and saw Eragon. Without spoiling it at all, it felt like they took 4-6 hours of material crammed it into two. The result was visually stunning (sometimes), emotionally detached (though they did a good job with the protagonist's brother), and altogether too rushed for even my considerable ability to suspend disbelief. One major *plot* difference between the book and the movie that I was disappointed in was the dragon herself. In the book she's just a kid along with Eragon - they had to *learn* *together* how to do all the things a dragon and her rider could do. In the movie Saphira seems to have it all under control and it's only Eragon making the mistakes. All in all, just go read the book. While I make this suggestion for nearly every book-to-movie story anyway, in this case it really will be time better spent.
While we're on the subject of media, I recently acquired the Zombie Survival Guide. It's fascinating reading, researched very thoroughly, and the author has some unique insights I would not have thought of (especially if a moaning putrid corpse was trying to sink its teeth into me). I have yet to double-check his "Outbreaks" section (because I haven't read that far yet,) but most of the outbreaks he lists seem to be within the last 20 years which will be a boon for both double-checking and belief. It's silly to think that a zombie outbreak will be the end of the world (God has *way* more imagination that that), but it could easily be the end of a small or even large city. I choose life.
More entertainment! I read "Voyage of the Slaves" awhile back, Brian Jacques' new book in the Castaways of the Flying Dutchman series (Along with "Castaways of the Flying Dutchman" and "The Angel's Command"). While I enjoyed his writing as much as I always do (his descriptions are excellent examples for aspiring authors!), the plot was pretty much his standard act with some changes here and there. (Slaves get captured, slaves get free, climactic battle at the end between good and evil with a good guy sacrificing himself for others, and the bad guy goes insane. Classic Jacques.) It's true that if something works for you you should keep with it, but it's also true that if you don't like Brian Jacques' previous works, you probably won't like this one either. You weirdo.
Mental_floss is awesome.
Credenda/Agenda magazine had a cover story ("Thema" in C/A-speak) that was a good reminder about what really holds the universe together. Read the entire article before you make any conclusions about Jones' sanity (although with the flak they get out there you certainly wouldn't be the first!). It's called "Against Gravity." (Note: They don't have the most recent issue up yet, sorry I can't get you a direct link. It should be up there soon since I have my grubby little paws on a hardcopy already. Read the other issues while you're waiting; it'll be good for you.)
I don't have the geek-energy built up to rave too much about the new Nintendo Wii (pronounced "whee!") since I expended most of it yesterday roleplaying with friends (stupid mummy-monster killed my character!). Suffice it to say that the Wii is not only cool technology-wise, it's totally fun game-wise and playing-with-friends-wise (which as we all know is the important reason *to* game). ExciteTruck, Rayman: Raving Rabids, Wii Sports, Red Steel... Good times, mate, good times!
Here's a question for you: At what point should a Christian's quest for right liturgy (defined as "what a congregation does,") give way to love for his brothers and sisters? Or more specifically, if you're serving in a capacity that you are proficient in and appreciated for, yet the music the congregation sings every Lord's Day is silly at best and trite/irreverent at worst, do you leave or stay? Should you love God's people by serving them, or should you love God by worshiping Him with reverent music that takes (oh my gosh!) a modicum of skill? Is one more important than the other? Is there even an objective answer, or should it be subject to the believer's conscience?
That's all for this time. - "Pops"
posted by Nate Mathews at 09:24
2 Comments:
Pops, I owe you one. Thanks for taking up the slack and helping the poor neglected blog along.
I haven't seen Eragon, but I had a distinct feeling that your synopsis would be correct.
I didn't know there was another Jacques book in that series. It makes me happy.
I'm skipping around a bit, but you have a good question. I know you read the Screwtape Letters, and one of my favorites deals with "church hopping and splitting of the congregation." It's not a good idea to keep moving or creating splits in congregations in order to find that perfect worship time or perfect church body because ... quite frankly ... it doesn't exist.
"Please sir, I want some more."
-Matt
A pastor once told me about a wish of his that churches were still organized according to city. That there was a "Church of Seattle" just as there was the "Church at Thesselonica." It's a very interesting idea, but it still wouldn't really solve my question: If your conscience and the accepted practice of the Church disagree, with which do you go?
To most modern Americans this question is a no-brainer, but that's just because we've lost the idea of the Mother Kirk. Which is a whole other topic.
-"Pops"
Post a Comment
<< Home