Part One: Potter's Magic by Ben Merkle

A good discussion has risen about Harry Potter and LOTR (and even D&D has been thrown in) here at work. I thought I'd pass the discussion on. I am highlighting quite a bit of the article to which I linked. I think it explains our discussion. To give background to the discussion, we have two viewpoints - mine is the same the article points out and the other viewpoint is "Magic is bad. Period." To sum up my viewpoint: Basically, there are stories of "magic" in both the OT and NT. Saul sought help from a witch of Endor (1 Sam 28:7). Paul faced a couple in the book of Acts. There are witches in Scripture who did "magic." But one can look at some OT prophets and NT apostles and say that they did "magic." So the point is not that they do magic. The point is from whom their "magic" comes. In LOTR, those who get their magic from Sauron are shown to be evil. they are NOT shown to be good. Gandalf and the elvish "magic" are from the creator which is what you learn if you read The Silmarillion. So Tolkein was not making black magic look good and good magic look evil. he was handling it biblically. That's the short of it. Read on for the deeper length of it. "An amused DJ on a local classic rock station reported on a pastor in New Mexico who had organized a Harry Potter book burning. Apparently the pastor had claimed that the books taught children to do magic. How accurate the DJ was being in his representation of the event is probably questionable, but the existence of the event points out how typical it is for evangelicals to grab the entirely wrong end of the stick. ... ... Most of the defenders of the Potter books attempt to defend them by arguing that they are more or less "harmless." And this is where the real problem with the book comes in. For the most part, the book is harmless. Not only that, but, for the most part, the magic is harmless. The magic of Potter is frequently a cheap mimicry of modern technology. Little magicians covet the latest model of flying broom (the Nimbus 2000), eat Jelly Beans that taste like ear wax, and agonize over their homework for courses like Levitation 101. In the Potter books, an encounter with magic is not an encounter with the transcendent, but merely a mimicry of the pedantic. ... ... This is where the book becomes dangerous. Magic is anything but pedantic. ... ... Potter's magic is a magic for materialists. It is a magic that comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere. It attempts to make magic a neutral category that can be approached however one wishes. Everyone gets a degree from the same school and does with it whatever he or she deems fit. But the magic itself is impersonal. Sure there is a hero and an arch-villain. But they both draw from the same neutral force. And it would seem that this impersonal force could probably care less whether either of them existed, let alone which one of them was to win. ... ... This is one of the things that Tolkien did well. His magic is always personal. The Forest of Lothlorien feels the way it does, because it is under the power of Lady Galadriel. Mordor feels the way it does because it is under the power of Sauron. One can't use magic in Middle Earth without immediately orienting oneself to cosmic powers. Every spell is biased. It comes from somewhere and leads to some ultimate purpose. ... ... Consequently, Harry Potter doesn't need to be burned, unless of course we are going to burn the bulk of our literature collections. He's a fine read for a Christian, so long as we pity all the things that the book is missing."

How Stuff Works

Have you ever used something and wondered, "How does this thing work? Well, there is a place you can visit (virtually) that explains how your cable modem works, or how microwaves work or even radios work. The topics include: ComputerStuff AutoStuff ElectronicsStuff ScienceStuff HomeStuff EntertainmentStuff HealthStuff MoneyStuff TravelStuff PeopleStuff Enjoy!

Strange Homes

Thanks to Boing Boing, I found this interesting site about The Mushroom House. There are two versions of the site - FLASH or HTML. The FLASH site is pretty cool. That's pretty wild it took 22 years to make this house. I wonder if they made The Shire too? :)

Peter Jackson

I was checking out Peter Jackson, the director of the LOTR trilogy. He has done some pretty strange/weird movies - mostly horror types. His next big project? King Kong. Then when KK is done he's considering the prequel to LOTR, The Hobbit.

The Case for OSS (in other countries)

Check out the case for OSS. Windows isn't for everyone, especially at the current price point M$ has slated. Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting viewpoint....

DVD Aficionado!

ok - Here's My DVD List at DVD Aficionado. Now to start cataloguing my PS2 games....

DVD Collections

Just recently I began to look at my ever expanding collection of DVDs. I remember when Digital Video Discs were being invented. I heard all the hype and wondered if they would ever catch on. They did. And 47 DVD sets later, I am still going strong. Let me see.... I don't have the collection in front of me, but I'll give a whirl in trying to think of the titles.... Anna and the King - Excellent remake of The King and I Annie - Good remake of a classic Bed of Roses - gak!! suppose to be a chick flick, but we're planning to get rid of it - so my collection? 47-1 Bugs Life - Funny, funny Chicken Run - Funny Clear and Present Danger - Good suspence Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) 2nd Season - One of my fav programs Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Drunken Master - I love Kung-Fu Fighting! Family Man - Ho Hum... It's ok (Chick Flick) hehe Frequency - Intriguing story about life choices Gladiator - Great story - incredible graphics Ice Age - Cute, sorta funny movie Jonah - Veggie Tales - Trying to get our 'kid friendly' DVD collection going Jurassic Park - Loved it Jurassic Park 3 - Can we say 'smackendy-doich?' Knight's Tale - If you're a history purist - it's not for you Little Princess - Shirley Temple - Old classic LOTR - Need I say more? LOTR: Two Towers - wow. Matrix - Great action flick - awesome effects Matrix: Reloaded - ditto Michael Jordan: To the Max - I like b-ball & MJ Mission Impossible - Decent remake, it turned out to be 'Hi~ I'm Tom Cruise' kinda flick - although it was good... Monsters Inc - Funny movie Mummy - Good stuff Mummy 2 - Even better National Geographic: LOTR - Interesting history on LOTR & Tolkein Patriot - Great action flick - Classic Mel Gibson Pearl Harbor - Good story - too long - shoulda cut the 'love story' which made it too cheesy Peter Pan - Disney Quigley: Down Under - Very funny Tom Selleck movie - "Wow. That's good shootin', Tex." Recruit - Great action - good twists Reign of Fire - Not my first choice in movies, but it's ok Road to Perdition - Good/Sad drama movie - I loved it Sabrina - Good/Funny remake of a classic Shrek - hehe Signs - It's amazing what you'll find at yard sales.... Sixth Sense - Good suspense Snow White - Disney Spiderman - Another good adaptation of the comic book Superman - Great classic Swiss Family Robinson - Great adventure of a family Time Machine - Different, but good adaptation of the classic Toy Story - Funny, funny - great animation TS 2 - ditto Unbreakable - Another good suspense Xmen - Great adaptation of the comic book Hmm... I still have 1 or 2 that my bro borrowed. I forget which ones. I still have some more I want to get to add to my collection So roughly, that's 48 DVD sets and 70+ Discs

Yahoo! Sets Up Christmas Tree With Internet Receiver

Yahoo.com has set up a Christmas tree in Herald Square with a wireless Internet receiver on top. "And every shopper who logs on to the wireless tree gets an ornament with his or her name on it. Yahoo! will donate $5 to the Salvation Army on behalf of each user." Neat idea....

Blogshares Down.... Permanently!

Blogshares Down Bummer. That was a fun service. Oh well. Such is the life of technology....

As date with Supreme Court nears, man seeking pledge ban is relentless - Part 2

Mr. Michael Newdow says "I'm for the country as much as anybody,'' said Newdow, 50. ``But I'm for the Constitution." Wait a moment. Take a look at my first comment in my last post: "When it comes interpreting The Bill of Rights (and other such documents), you must interpret them by the language (and the use thereof) during the time period written. In other words - stop trying to place our particular modern meaning of a word to a word that does not mean that specific meaning b/c of the time period it was originally used (the word meant something different than it does today)." When you look at old documents (such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or anything else), you need to read the document in the vernacular the authors wrote. When the authors penned the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), they meant that the government has no jurisdiction dictating what the religious realm can or can not do. They did not mean that the religious realm can not have an influence on government. Think for a moment about our laws. From where do laws come? Opinions? I say, 'no.' From where does moral conduct come? Opinions? I say, 'no.' If that were true, then how do we know which 'opinion' is right? How would we know what is right and what is not right? (See previous post). If our laws are based on opinions and not absolutes, then what validates them? Or what legitimizes them? My point? Religion must have an influence. Whether you want to admit it or not, your philosophical/theological standpoint influences everything you do. Whether you believe in God or whether you are an atheist. Atheism is a religion. Just as any Theism is a religion. The basic idea of religion is a belief in "powers that control human destiny." Most Atheists still believe they are in control of their own destiny or fate - of which they place themselves as a god - thereby they can not be an atheist, but an agnostic theist. err.. something like that. You could look at Mr. Michael Newdow (and others like him) as an oxymoron. He's trying to take out the very thing he (indirectly) claims to be - god. Why is 'In God We Trust' so disturbing to him? Can't he just say, 'I trust in myself' ? Just another course in food for thought.... (I may say something more later)

As date with Supreme Court nears, man seeking pledge ban is relentless

DRIVE AGAINST `UNDER GOD' ONE FACET OF HIS LEGAL EFFORTS. Wow. What a crock. What is this guy smoking? When it comes interpreting The Bill of Rights (and other such documents), you must interpret them by the language (and the use thereof) during the time period written. In other words - stop trying to place our particular modern meaning of a word to a word that does not mean that specific meaning b/c of the time period it was originally used (the word meant something different than it does today). I have decided to change the topic from what I've just said to what I'm about to say It is typical for people to say, I'll believe in God if you can 'prove' that he exists using reason and science. But God is a foundational concept, an ultimate criterion--for believers he is the way we explain and understand everything. Therefore, he cannot be proven any more than skeptics (ie - our dear Mr. Michael Newdow) can 'prove' their foundation, their 'ultimate criterion'--namely that through reason and science we must explain and understand everything. No one can 'prove' an ultimate criterion for truth without using it (or using another one). For example, if you say, "we can only be sure of what scientific observation proves" we can ask, "how do you know that, how can you 'prove' that?" You can't. Foundational concepts are assumed, and used to understand the world we see. Therefore, the way we test one foundation over another is by asking: "which view of the universe explains rationally what we see?" That is how we test scientific theories about entities that are not observable (such as quarks)--that is also how we test faith-based worldviews, which we all have (including our dear Mr. Michael Newdow - he has faith that God does not exist). When we put the theistic (believing in God) world view up against the non-theistic world view, we see that it makes much more sense of four things we see: matter, morals, mind, music. Let's take a quick look at morals. What do we see? That we recognize some behavior as wrong absolutely, not just as a matter of opinion or taste or culture. If there is a God, the universal experience of a moral obligation, of moral outrage would be perfectly rational and expected. If there is not a God, we would not expect them at all. These things are (in a non-theistic world view) difficult to account for yet impossible to live without. When the secularist says, "well, though there's no God, some things are definitely wrong!" that means that though the Christian world view DOES lead to expect this experience and conviction, and your world view leads you to expect the opposite, you are simply going to hold to your theory anyway. But if your premise/theory--that there is no God--does not lead you to expect what we know (that some things are wrong, that some laws are unjust despite what the populace says)--why not change the premise? If God does exist, we can see that there is a true basis for morals. But if God does not exist, then what makes our morals (and thereby laws - laws are based on morals) legit? If morals are not based on absolutes (ie - God exists), then what makes one opinion more right than another? How do we know what is right? The funny thing is a person who says there is no God is asserting himself to know more than anyone else (General public assumption is 'God exists'). You also assert that without any question everyone who believes there is a God is wrong. Since you can't prove there is no God, you are at best an Agnostic b/c you can only ask 'is there a God?' The Bible says, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." The Bible does not try to prove there is a God. It simply assumes He exists. The Bible then explains what and how He does the things He does. Just food for thought...

Disneyland Ride Kills Rider...

"Poor maintenance blamed for coaster crash" at Disneyland. "'Our own analysis found that the accident was caused by incorrectly performed maintenance tasks required by Disneyland policy and procedures that resulted in a mechanical failure...' ... Less than an hour before the accident a third train was added to the ride. The train had not been in use since it underwent routine maintenance three days earlier. The report found that workers had erroneously failed to tighten two screws properly." uhh.... I can understand cutting costs, folks, but "Don't tighten that screw" is a little, uhh... let me see.... stupid!!!