A couple thoughts about Terminator Salvation

Of the many sights there are to see in our grand capital, tonight I chose the Regal Cinemas on E street. More specifically, I went to see Terminator Salvation, which I've been really wanting to see, but Jenny is less interested in (and because this is my 5th trip to DC - which I love - and I've done most of the touristy stuff at least once before).

Anyway, I went into this movie with a little trepidation. I'd seen the previews, which excited me greatly, but then I read reviews like those at GeekTyrant (here and here) and Rotten Tomatoes, and as I generally respect those opinions (especially GeekTyrant), I was a little wary.

But I went and saw it, and I have to say, I loved it. My chief worry - in spite of the complaints of the reviewers above - was that it would be too divorced from the previous films (full disclosure: when I say "previous films" I mean Terminator and Terminator 2, which are great movies; I've never seen Terminator 3). But the continuity worked well for me. There were several subtle references to elements of the previous movies that tied the whole thing together nicely, I thought. This is especially impressive in light of the subtle genre shift between the first two movies and this one: Terminator and, to a lesser extent, Terminator 2 are at horror movies at heart (though with strong action-movie overtones). This one is a straightforward action movie. That this movie has such a similar feel (to me, anyway) to the first two in spite of that is pretty impressive.

Also, though the folks at GeekTyrant criticized both the script and the acting, I thought both were fine. Christian Bale is one of the best actors around, in my opinion, and he did a fine job as John Connor. Moon Bloodgood (of the late and much-lamented Journeyman) played her part well, as did the woman who played Connor's wife, Kate. The actor who played Marcus did well, apart from his occasional shifts in accent. On one point, though, I quite agree with the first GeekTyrant review: Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese was phenomenal. I was a little worried that I'd have trouble forgetting Ensign Chekov (whom he plays in Star Trek), but quite the opposite. He played the part extremely well, and made it easy to think of him as a young Michael Biehn (who plays Reese in the original Terminator).

So to sum up (because it's late and I'm sleepy and still need to pack), this was an excellent movie. If you liked the first two movies at all, you ought to like this one.

Test #2

Okay, so Twitterfeed is supposed to check my blog feed every half hour. I posted an hour ago, and nothing... Peculiar. Trying again.

Twitter Test

I think I've linked this to my Twitter feed, so it'll show up there if I make a new post... let's see.

Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

One of the perennial questions Christians ask when we're bored is, "Does God have a sense of humor?" The answer is usually yes, but the reason varies. "Of course. Have you ever looked at a giraffe?" or "He must, since he made my goofy kid brother. Hur hur hur." or "He must because we do."

Now, I don't think that God has a sense of humor because of giraffes (though giraffes are pretty funny), and I don't think anybody really believes God has a sense of humor because of their goofy friends or relatives. I think the fact that humans have a sense of humor is a good answer, but today I though of a better one: What makes me so certain that God has a sense of humor is the fact that nothing in this world delights me more than being made to laugh by my child.

Breaking the Silence... with a quiz

He lives!

And by "he" I mean me, not Jesus. Though he lives, too.

Anyway, I always say I'd like to blog here more, and I really would, I just can never seem to squeeze it in among all my myriad commitments. Not that I really have many readers anyway - if Sitemeter is telling me the truth, I rarely get even ten hits in a week here. Which is probably just as well - if I posted more, God knows what kind of crazy stuff would come out.

Anyway, I just took a short quiz on my view of the use of the Old Testament by New Testament authors. Here are the results.

NT Use of the OT -- Test Your View!

Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents view You seem to be most closely aligned with the Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents view, a view defended by Darrell L. Bock in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). This view affirms the singular nature of the meanings intended by the OT and NT authors when OT texts are cited in the NT. In spite of this essential unity in meaning, however, the words of the OT authors frequently take on new dimensions of significance and are found to apply appropriately to new referents and new situations as God’s purposes unfold in the larger canonical context. Often, these referents were not in the minds of the OT authors when they penned their texts. For more info, see the book, or attend a special session devoted to the topic at the ETS Annual Meeting in Providence, RI (Nov. 2008); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns will all present their views.

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by

Courtesy of the Koinonia blog.

Faith, Works, and Baggage

Please pardon any incoherence in what follows - it's late, and I'm getting sleepy, but I wanted to get this down while it's fresh, and figured that cyberspace was as good a way to do it as any. I welcome any and all comments.

I was just reading Romans 1, and read for the gazillionth time a certain little verse that gets quoted so often, verse 17: "For the righteousness of God is revealed in it [the gospel, cf. v.16] from faith into faith, just as it is written, 'The righteous one shall live by faith.'"

Now, if I recall correctly, this verse was the center point of Luther's epiphany (note: I haven't actually read Luther on this point, and I probably should), and has often been cited in discussions of faith and works in the writings of Paul. The common interpretation is, or seems to me to be, that the one who seeks to be righteous attains life by means of faith, rather than by means of works.

It strikes me now, reading it for the gazillionth time, that that's not what's going on. What Paul (and Habakkuk, from whom the verse is quoted - Habakkuk 2:4) seems to be saying is that the righteous person lives in a manner consistent with faith. That is, the righteous person lives faithfully. The righteous person will conduct his or her life in a certain way because of his or her faith in God.

Luther's interpretation, though, well suits the context in which he was reading. The faith-works contrast that much of Protestantism has seen in the writings of Paul and in the gospels is reflective of their experience of medieval Roman Catholicism. How reflective it actually is of Paul's thought, or of Jesus', is up for debate. In this case, though, I think that understanding "the righteous shall live by faith" to mean that we achieve life through faith and not works is not what Paul (or, again, Habakkuk) had in mind.

Biting Off More Than You Can Chew

I just read an interesting news story on MSNBC about a group of forensic dentists who are attempting to make a computerized database of bite mark characteristics. Apparently, bite mark evidence is fairly controversial among attorneys and forensic specialists, because of how skin may or may not distort a bite pattern. The end result being that sometimes you get experts testifying in court who have reached different conclusions from the same evidence. What intrigued me, though, about the article - and what prompted the post - was this quote by one of the people in the bite-evidence-is-bad camp:

"If the discipline lends itself to opposing experts, it's not science," said Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project, which works to free wrongfully convicted inmates.

The question I have is, what the heck science journals is this guy reading, anyway? I'll grant I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about the sciences in general to know that there are debates in the scientific community, just as there are debates in every academic field.

What's significant about this, to my mind, is the way it's reflective of the popular conception of "Science" (capitalized on purpose) as the final arbiter of truth, and the assumption that Science is something that can be done with pure objectivity, therefore leaving no room for debate. This latter position, of course, is often used to characterize one's opponents as having some sort of underhanded agenda: they disagree with the Science, and since the Science can't be wrong, they must be trying to pull something.

There's more there that I could tease out, and is certainly worthy of discussion, but that will have to wait for another time.