Why should I vote for Ron Paul?


Well, I’ve heard that the thee things you’re “not supposed to talk about” in church are sex, finances, and politics. Figured I might as well break the ice…
In Article II, Section I, Clause XII, of the United States Constitution it says that the President is sworn

“to the best of [his/her] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I’ve done a lot of research (starting in 2007) and I haven’t found a candidate that has a better track record of doing that, and a commitment to that, more than Ron Paul. The biggest thing all of them trip over is the bill of rights, which severely limit the power and scope of the federal government. The biggest one I believe is being trampled all over is Amendment X which says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This means that the Federal Government is not authorized to do ANYTHING not expressly written in the constitution. Naturally, the federal government has gone way way beyond this and has completely distorted this basic right that we have been guaranteed since our country’s inception.
I had the pleasure of reading the book “The Rage Against God” by Peter Hitchens. It was interesting because the author had an extensive knowledge of the Soviet Union. The USSR was essentially trying to replace God with the State. The state (the government) grew and grew and provided more and more for the people. and as we’ve discussed in church, if the government is giving you everything, what is the use the church? and more importantly, what is the use of God?
This is where I learned the immense danger of having a large government. I believe it’s obvious in the old testament that God desires as little government as possible (see Judges) and this is for good reason, the government is the most dangerous entity in our lives. They have the power to literally force us to do anything and they routinely carry this out.
I cannot say we are a “Christian nation” by any means, however, I do believe that the founders of this nation were not stupid. They just ran away from a repressive government and they never wanted that to happen again.
I believe that we as Christians have a moral obligation to uphold the principles of individual liberty that have been granted to us by God himself and are protected by the Constitution. And thus, this is why I would encourage anyone to vote for Dr. Paul, because I believe that he will help protect the liberties that God granted us. This, I believe with all my heart, is the best thing for the church and for the non-believers. It gives us the freedom to do what we are called to do, rather than relying on the Government to do it for us.

1 Comments

Does Jesus hate religion?


Perhaps I am wrong, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I don’t think He was actually talking about the religion as in “our faith” in the bible, but the “religiousness” of people. Perhaps he should have been more clear, but I think Jesus was very much against religiosity, or someone being religious for the sake of being religious. I wouldn’t describe Jesus as a ‘religious man’ and it seemed that the people he had the harshest words against were the religious. It’s strange that the word can mean something good as in ‘our faith’ but can also mean something bad. Personally I think the difference comes down to religious traditions. Are we so stuck in our traditions that we can no longer help people? I think this is true more in this country than anywhere. We (the church) own 180 billion dollars in church property in the united states alone… would Jesus own that? did Jesus own anything? I think that’s the heart of what he is trying to say, but I agree that the video wasn’t all that clear, but hey, if you don’t like it, make a better one.

1 Comments

What is Favoritism?

This question has plagued me for a really long time. I have read this line several times before “My brothers, hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ without showing favoritism.” which is the first line of the second chapter of James.

If you were to just stop there some obvious red flags are raised. Wait a second, didn’t our Lord show favoritism to the disciples? And even more so to the ‘select 3′ that he took to see the transfiguration? What does it mean when God shows ‘favor’ to people?

These were the questions that really put a block in my understanding of what favoritism is. Let me see if we can dive a little deeper and figure this out….

The rest of the chapter shows what favoritism by giving a practical example. The example goes something like this:

“For suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring, dressed in fine clothes, and a poor man dressed in dirty clothes also comes in. If you look with favor on the man wearing the fine clothes so that you say, “Sit here in a good place,” and yet you say to the poor man, “Stand over there,” or, “Sit here on the floor by my footstool,”

Of course, when answering this question, the example above is an obvious case of favoritism and probably one of the most common forms of it. How easy it would be to show favoritism to some one because of their notoriety.

I once heard a man speak and he said something to the matter of “If Bill Gates walked in here, this place would go crazy, but Jesus is here, and this is how you act.” I’m certain the man was trying to show how we ought to treat Jesus better than we would treat the most ‘well to do’ in society.

Ironically, both are wrong.

Paul wrote in Romans…
“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”
Romans 8:17

Isn’t it that incredible! We are co-heirs with Christ! Let that sink in. If Christ, the begotten son of God is heir to the thrown, and we, the created sons of God are also heirs to the thrown, this means we are all first born.

If this is the case, perhaps our definition of favoritism is rather limited. In James 2:1, the word used for favoritism is the greek word ‘prosōpolēmpsia’.

This word is only used three other times in the New Testament:

“There is no favoritism with God.”
Romans 2:11

“And masters, treat them the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their and your Master is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him.”
Ephesians 6:9

“For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism.”
Colossians 3:25

According to the Blue Letter Bible, this word means:

  1. respect of persons
  2. partiality
    1. the fault of one who when called on to give judgment has respect of the outward circumstances of man and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is rich, high born, or powerful, to another who does not have these qualities

Correct me where I am wrong, but it looks like the word favoritism is not strictly limited to the example in which James supplied, but favoritism can in fact can be applied to anything that is not spiritual.

Perhaps this is the reason why God shows ‘favor’ to people, as apposed to ‘favoritism’, throughout scripture (including his son):
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people.”
Luke 2:52

However, the ‘favor’ used in this verse is the greek word ‘charis’ and means:

  1. grace
    1. that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech
  2. good will, loving-kindness, favour
    1. of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues
  3. what is due to grace
    1. the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace
    2. the token or proof of grace, benefit
      1. a gift of grace
      2. benefit, bounty
  4. thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward

Then James continues his analysis of favoritism with a series of questions:
“Haven’t you discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?”
“Listen, my dear brothers: Didn’t God choose the poor in this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that He has promised to those who love Him?”

Then James tells us the consequences of favoritism
“But if you show favoritism, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of [breaking it] all. For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. So if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you are a lawbreaker.”

May I be so bold to state this simple fact:
Showing ‘partiality’ to someone else, for any reason, other than a spiritual one, is sin.

If I am wrong, please, show me the way…

peace & love,
david

4 Comments

Notes on Zeitgeist

Today, one of my friendsposted a link to Zeitgeist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
I watched the video, and recorded my notes for you to read.

This video is unbelievably unbiblical. For instance, the bible NEVER says the day or even the month in which Jesus was born. Christmas, therefor, IS on a pagan holiday, but IS NOT when Jesus was born. If you would like, we could watch it together and I can show you that most of what they are saying about Christ is not in the bible, but has been constructed through pop-cultural beliefs about Christ. This is the problem. Most people, even most Christians, do not read the Bible, and they have no idea what it actually says about Christ. I would love to watch it with you, either in person or via phone, let me know.

Why December 25? | Christian History (thanks Brent)

However, it is interesting to see Pagan beliefs, but the film makes a non-biblical correlation between the two. That is like what is happening to Tiger Woods… the tabloids are making up the story, because they are not satisfied with that he has said… this is sad.

Jesus & Horus Parallels – A Christian Response

Investigating the Similarities between Jesus and Pagan Figures

The Bible never mentions that Christ was visited by 3 Kings. It says in Matthew 2 that he was visited by “Majis”. First of all, a Maji, is not a King. Secondly, We don’t even know how many their were (but obviously more then 2. In pop-culture their are 3, because 3 gifts were brought: gold, frankincense, and murr. The idea of visited by “Kings” and the idea of exactly 3, is completely fabricated from pop-culture.

Interestingly, in the video, they show the earth revolving around the sun in the astrological map. This of course, was not realized until much much later, when Sir Isaac Newton postulated the idea that the earth was not the center of the solar system.

In the video, they are taking the direct quotes way out of context. If I talked to you for an hour about a subject, but I took 1 line out of that conversation and made it your whole point, that would be an incorrect view of what you were trying to say. In the same way, the Bible needs to be read and understood in context. Here are the direct quotes in context, you will see that he is not talking about what the video says he is talking about:

John 9:1-12

Matthew 18:1-10

John 14:1-6

2 Corinthians 4:1-6

Romans 13:11-14

John 3:1-21

Mark 13:24-26

John 19:5-16

Also, the part about Moses is completely out of context. First Moses asked for ALL who were for the Lord, to come to him. And THEN he commanded them to go out and kill those in the camp who were not for the Lord. This is a representation of Salvation. Jesus is calling everyone to himself, but in the end (see Revelation), those who are not for the Lord, are destroyed.

Exodus 32:25-29

People have the Jesus fish on their car, because of Matthew 4:19:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”

The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh

The dinosaur fossils were not put here to test our faith… they haven’t been here as long as people think they have. Of course, this gets into a whole different scientific discussion.

The fact that Joseph has similarities to Christ, does not say that Jesus is a facsimile of the same character. It only magnifies God’s glorious purpose, as Joseph’s life is a foreshadowing to that of Christ. Just as the account of Issac finding his wife, is amazing allegorical to that of Christ finding his wife (the church). It only shows… that this was God’s plan all along.

Luke 9:58

Interesting how God had no place to rest his head at night, because he was not accepted (Luke 9). Why then do you expect it to be in every historical record? And, where in the world is this ‘evidence’ that Josephus’ account is not accurate?

The New Testament was canonized long before emperor Constantine was in power. So all of our beliefs had already been established, and from the resurrection of Christ to 300 years later, Christians were crucified for their beliefs. The notion that our beliefs were born for political reasons, is incredibly inaccurate and insulting. However, Constantine did make Christianity the official religion of Rome. At the same time, he set up the clergy system (that is copied from Pagan & Judaic religions). Sadly, this system WAS set up for control over the people, but I have been learning recently, that the clergy system, has no basis in the new testament. Hence the reason, at the moment, I do not belong to a church (but, I pray that God leads me to one).

I agree, religion is slavery. sin is slavery. righteousness is slavery. However, Christ is freedom, because, as I have discussed with you numerous times, I do not have a religion, I do not believe in a religion, I reject religion, and I hate religion… but, my friend, I am in love with Jesus, the Christ.

4 Comments

Synthesis of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

The first time I saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I stopped watching the movie when the opening credits rolled roughly seventeen minutes into the film. Unfortunately, the first time I viewed the film I didn’t stick around long enough for the most amazing parts of the film. When I finally finished watching the film all the way through I was thoroughly impressed by the use of a multitude of techniques to achieve a look and feel that can only be described as amazing. Once I started to analyze the film, I realized that the film combines elements from all of the concentrations of film to create a truly spectacular film.

One of the first things that I noticed in the film was the use of handheld camera movements in the beginning portions of the film. This was most likely done to give the film a realistic feel to it right up front. I believe that the cinematographer, Ellen Kuras, was trying to make sure that the audience knew that this part was “real”. Having a handheld camera made the distinction between the real word, and imaginative world (Joel’s memories). The realism of these scenes continues as lighting is brought into play. In the “real” word, most of what is seen is lit by available lighting. The film turns formalistic when the audience is traveling with Joel through his memories. The cinematographer used direct lighting to light the subjects. In most of the memories it seems that the camera is attached to a flood light, moving and focusing only narrowly on what can be seen as Joel’s memories are being erased. The camera moves smoothly around Joel increasing the stylization. The cinematographer creates a contrast between the real world Joel lives in and the memories he is seeing while they are being erased. The special effects in the film also add to the stylistic nature of Joel’s memories. In the beginning and end of the film, virtually no special effects are used to any extent. When his memories are being erased by the “eraser people,” books disappear from shelves, cars fall from the sky, and Joel is lost on a street that never seems to be going in the right direction. All of these elements of cinematography make this film an excellent example of when a cinematographer can mix realistic and formalistic styles to create a look that still flows with the story of the film.

Another concentration that screams at me during this film is the mise en scene employed throughout the film. One of the most obvious things that stuck out to me was Clementine’s crazy hair. Its obvious that her hair changes several times throughout the film (she even admits this in the beginning of the film), but most people might not realize that she changes her hair color at major turning points in the story. When she first meets Joel, for the very first time, her hair is green. After their first meeting she changes her hair to red. Her hair stays red the entire time she knows Joel. When she has her memory wiped she changes her hair again to blue. Ironically, she is changing her hair color, just as she is changing the plot. She starts the conflict in the story when she meets Joel, then she gets her memory wiped thereby creating the conflict in the story. Her hair is the only hair that changes because she is the one who is in control of the plot, everyone else is simply a follower. Another hair scheme is also clearly visible throughout the film, but not nearly as obvious. At first glance, it seems that all of the characters besides Clementine have dark hair. Actually there are three exceptions to the dark hair: Clementine, Rob, and Mary. Clementine is the Ring Master of the film and thus has crazy hair colors. This does not explain the light haired Rob and Mary. The only significant thing that both of these characters did was reveal the memory erasing with the use of the yellow papers. These two characters are the informers of the story and thus receive a near angel status. Dr. Howard Mierzwiak even mentions to Joel that “you weren’t supposed to see this.” These dark haired characters are essentially keeping the other characters in the dark about what’s going on. Dr. Howard Mierzwiak has a touch of grey at the end of his sideburns. This is because he reluctantly tells Mary what he did to her, but only does this because he is caught.

The mise en scene and the movement in this film almost seem to go hand in hand. In Joel’s memories, the Camera moves onto whatever Joel is focusing on. Moving from Joel to a subject and then back again. When Joel is out of his memories and with Clementine, she is the one that controls the camera and where it goes. As soon as they begin talking she is given complete control of the camera and the focus of the frame. Clementine, it seems, attempts to be the ringleader of the film. The camera obeys her spontaneousness.

The sound in the film is by far one of the most interesting parts of it. The sound in this film actually remind me of the visuals in The Matrix. In The Matrix the audience is unsure if the main character is dreaming or awake as the shots cut from him waking up, to him waking up again. Personally I think this is similar to what Joel is experiencing. When Joel is going through his “memory” sound effects and outside sounds are mixed with the audio from his memory. Joel thinks that he’s in a dream, but he is really experiencing the past. Through the sounds of the outside characters talking, he learns that they are erasing his memories and that a guy named Patrick is trying to assume his identity and steal Clementine from him. This happens because he really isn’t in a dream at all, but still a participant in what is happening in the real world. Another example occurs when he wants the erasing to stop and all he can hear is the song that is playing in the room. These sounds are presented in an extremely unique way to the audience. Sounds overlap one another in memories and in the real world suggesting a blending of the two which contradicts the cinematography.

The ideology of the film is also rather interesting. As Joel resizes that his memories are being erased he attempts to stop it from happening by running with Clementine through his memories. As this happens, the Clementine in the real world gets really upset, Patrick comes over and they retreat to a memorable place. Clementine gets upset and they leave. The drive home is the last point at which the audience sees Clementine with Patrick. This suggests that Clementine actually “leaves” Patrick to help Joel save his memories. Its as if while Joel is having his memory erased, they are connected through their love for one another. Clementine begins remember key things, like laying down on the ice and the word “nice.” She also comes “alive” inside of Joel’s memories. She starts offering Joel suggestions on how to stop the erasing. This film is idealistic because they are “connected” to one another, regardless of location and state of mind. This is perhaps symbolic to two lovers who have died. While one of them is dead, they are still connected to one another. When they both die, they find each other.

When I started thinking about what concentration of film I was going to focus on, I tried to find the most “important” area of the film. The part that stuck out. The part that was an absolute necessity. I then realized that all of them were equally important. I choose to write about Cinematography, Mis en Scene, Movement, Sound, and Ideology; which just happened to stick out to me the most. Without the Editing, Acting, Drama, Hero’s Journey, Story, and Writing; however, the areas that I wrote about would have been nothing but stupid techniques with no meaning behind them. If there has been anything that I’ve learned from this course, it has been the simple fact that a film requires much more than good Acting or Good Editing. It requires the whole kit-and-caboodle. The whole shebang. I think this film is one of the best I’ve ever seen, because, in my opinion, it includes the whole shebang. And that, my friends, is a wrap.

0 Comments