Ginny microwaved some Almond Bark (candy coating) tonight. She removed the plate, set it on the counter, and then there was a "pop," which resulted in this:
The two pieces of the plate were about 3 inches apart! (She didn't touch the plate after the pop.) I wonder why the plate broke, but even more, I wonder why the pieces ended up so far apart. Any guesses? Any answers?
I saw Avatar (in lowly 2D) on Sunday afternoon. I wasn't particularly excited about it. I had read a number of reviews, most of which raved about its implementation of cutting edge technology but were much less complimentary about the movie itself. Consequently, I was only interested in watching the film because of the new technology. Unfortunately, the cinema we attended didn't offer it in 3D. I don't know about the 3D version, but in my opinion, the 2D version is not worth watching.
By the way, whoever first called the movie "Dances with Smurfs" was pretty accurate. The only difference is that the makers of Dances with Wolves had enough restraint to let the good guys lose. Comparisons to Ferngully: The Last Rainforest are also well-founded.
Rather than write a comprehensive review--I recommend checking out the links to reviews at Yahoo movies--I thought I'd mention a few things about the movie that really "grind my gears." A few are superficial observations, but for a visual effects spectacle, they're important.
1. Find a new font! The Na'vi speak their own language throughout the film, and often this is translated via English subtitles. The makers of the film--I want to blame James Cameron--chose to use the Papyrus font. Yes, Papyrus. (It screams exotic, yet stately!) At least it wasn't Comic Sans.
2. Hire a grammar Nazi. The subtitles featured such phrases as "The People." They capitalized "the" in the middle of a sentence. Even if they wish to use "people" as a proper noun, I don't think that justifies capitalizing an article. I know it doesn't with, say, newspapers (e.g., "the New York Times").
3. Can we avoid racial stereotypes? The Na'vi are represented as savages. They are labelled such by the bad guys, they dress like savages, they are hunter-gatherers, they have primitive societies, etc. Despite all of this, apparently the makers (casting director(s)?) felt that this was unclear and therefore deemed it necessary to cast black actors as the voices of the Na'vi. Good thing there are white scientists and a white ex-Marine to save the poor black savages. (And while I'm scolding the casting directors, let me ask, "Why cast Michelle Rodriguez?" Oh, you wanted a one-dimensional "tough chick." I see.) And, of course, the greedy, heartless villains are white males.
4. Apparently natural selection is inapplicable on Pandora. On at least one occasion, a large animal chases a good guy through the jungle. (I should mention that, in a stroke of cinematic brilliance, Cameron has the initial threat removed and supplanted by a larger predator. How original!) Much to the surprise and relief of the audience, our hero is saved because the large animal is apparently very inept at moving swiftly through a jungle. Branches hang too low, trees are too close together, etc. You'd think that nature would have weeded out those predators who were too big to be efficient hunters, but I guess not. (This is not that important, but still worth mentioning. The bigger the predator, the scarier. I get it.)
5. "Unobtainium"? Really? The precious substance being mined on Pandora is called "unobtainium"? It's that rare, I guess.
6. Religious and political overtones are manifold, thinly veiled, and pathetic.
7. The Na'vi sex scene, while far from graphic, was awkward.
I should congratulate the makers on a couple of points.
1. Thanks for not providing pseudo-scientific explanations (like, for example, The Hulk) for the more fantastical elements. Floating mountains. Anatomical connections between rider and mount. Cool. This is a movie; I suspend my disbelief.
2. The "avatar" concept is pretty cool. I find it noteworthy that the concept preceded current manifestations (e.g., the Sims).
I just finished reading Greg Boyd's Letters from a Skeptic. While I don't consider myself a skeptic, I have been holding an ongoing conversation with one. (He's no one I know through Xanga.) Having heard of Greg Boyd, I was curious how he'd respond to the common objections to Christianity. Overall, I think he does a pretty good job, but I was surprised (and disappointed) at how hackneyed some of his responses were. Sure, he's an open theist and he is sympathetic to annihilationism, but he still offers some standard (and in my opinion, unsatisfactory), evangelical responses. (I should mention that the correspondence which is the content of the book was written twenty years ago. Perhaps his opinions on some of the issues have changed. Or maybe he's still wrong. Kidding.)
One of these responses was in an attempt to answer the question, "How can another man's death pardon me?" In responding to this question, he talks of God's holiness being incompatible with sin:
"God is an all-holy God. Sin is thus fundamentally incompatible with Him. It is contrary to His nature, like arsenic is to ours. What is more, since God is perfect, He must be self-consistent. If God were ever inconsistent with His own character, He could only be so in the direction of imperfection. Thus, God is perfectly opposed to sin, and is perfectly consistent and unqualified in this opposition."
[I don't know how to code for a block quotation. Sorry.]
While not my primary point of contention, I must say that I'm not a big fan of discussions that include the words, "since God is perfect, [we know that] He must..." The notion of God's immutability, in my opinion, is a conclusion drawn from Aristotelian philosophy more than the Bible. But, again, that's beside the point (although I think it has bearing on it).
My main point has to do with God's holiness. Boyd seems to uphold the common claim that since God is holy, God cannot tolerate the presence of sin. But what does this even mean? Boyd himself acknowledges that God embraces sinners before they're "clean." (But shouldn't they have to take a pill or something to purge themselves of sin before God could stand their presence?) He acknowledges that the Spirit indwells Christians who are not perfect (i.e., sinful). (Must the Spirit then wear a hazmat suit which is impermeable to sin?) How then can he affirm that God cannot tolerate sin?
Furthermore, I don't understand how this jibes with the kind of life that the New Testament claims Jesus lived—a life that included eating with tax collectors and "sinners." I'm not suggesting that Jesus was sinful, but I think it's clear that, in some sense, he tolerated the presence of sin. Boyd likens sin to arsenic. It's toxic to God, apparently. Well, it seems that Jesus didn't try to avoid it. On the contrary, he seems to have spent a lot of time with people in whom it was imagined this arsenic was most heavily concentrated.
In other words, it seems like Boyd is saying that God is a young child who must see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. If any of these things happens, God will die of sin poisoning, or perhaps God will just explode. At the very least, God's perfection will be tainted (oh noes!). And then what would we do?
I recognize that our sin is fundamentally incompatible with God's reign. I realize that living contrary to that reign, in a sense, disqualifies us from being a part of it. But to conclude, then, that God cannot tolerate anything contrary to this rule seems unnecessary.
I imagine that Boyd would make some distinction that I have failed to perceive. (I'm sure that he would acknowledge that Jesus hung out with "sinners." I know that this wouldn't surprise him.) As it now stands, however, I think his classical theology is the problem.
Ginny and I went back to Big Ivy today. I was attracted because of the cold weather. (I saw icicles last Friday, but I didn't bring a camera.) Of course, this meant driving on snow and ice, which in turn meant actually using the 4-wheel drive capabilities of the Trooper for something besides our driveway. That's always exciting. On our way down, we saw the tracks of lesser vehicles, the drivers of which were compelled to turn around. Fortunately, we were able to make it and enjoy the rewards.
Walker Falls, full and just the top
Douglas Falls
A wall of icicles, left of the waterfall
The waterfall is slowly obliterating this log; the ice is really thick at the base of the falls
Icicles loom on the edge of the rock face; dripping water freezes below
Ginny and I wondered why this tree hasn't fallen yet
My favorite shot of the day, "snow flower" (as usual, Ginny spotted the object)
Almost a good picture of Kate; Kate rubbing her face in a frog's rotting corpse
Fungi growing on a tree; mysterious plants (too small to be trees, right?)--UPDATE: they're ferns
A friend of mine saw this video on Yahoo's front page, and apparently it was aired on CNN. I only point it out because I went to seminary with the minister.
