*cynicism alert*

*jaws drop!*

Trust me.

One of the few good things about the hunger games adaptation is that it added a black leading figure.

I am disappointed that Rod didn’t call you out for your catwoman comments in your rant.

Let’s see, ugh, 3 different big bads, Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane alive at the same time, fighting for Peter’s love? The emo dance with 20 minutes or more to go in the film?

It was terrible. On an epic level.

Good call.

I agree, they could have done something different with Bullseye. Your idea would have worked. But I’m fine with the choice they made.

THIS. THIS. THIS.

Well, I like Jennifer Gardner, and I watched Alias. Good show.

You caught me and my little secret. I liked DareDevil and Electra. Ben Affleck sucked, I thought it was Colin Farrell who was awesome, and I liked King Pin as a big muscular black man.

Okay. Secret’s out.

I thought the bullseye tat-scar was neither dumb nor arbitrary. The eternal problem with comic book movies is that costumes that look awesome in comics look astonishingly lame in real life. Putting Bullseye in a spandex bodysuit would have made him utterly non-scary, but we need some visual cue that makes him Bullseye instead of Random Guy Who Throws Stuff, and a trench coat is not enough, so we see that he carved a bullseye into his forehead. Since Farrell was chewing the scenery playing him up as a nutjob instead of a cool professional, it seemed to me that the tat-scar worked.

My problem with Daredevil was Affleck’s performance. That and his “I just got out of bed and can’t find my comb” hairstyle.

These changes might not be arbitrary. Still might be dumb, but there could be a reason.

I think I’ve become cynical. Hollywood is not interested in telling a good story, so much as they are interested in turning a quick buck. Maybe Hollywood will pay attention to the Avengers. Good story can and does make a boat load of bucks. If Avengers had been done by Michael Bay (who can’t tell a good story even if he tried) it would have flopped horribly.

Not complaining, for the sake of complaining. Complaining because I deeply care about the source material, and to take it or leave it for arbitrary reasons is inexcusable after such great movies lately have shown it un-needed.

Oh. No. Wait……

And as someone else pointed out, Smallville took a lot of liberties yet it lasted for 10 years. This whole column seems like it’s complaining for the sake of complaining. Actually watch the show and see how it comes together before judging. If it still sucks… that’s when it’s fair to rant.

On the others, unless we know the reasons for the changes, because they might exist, even if they are legal ones we aren’t privy too which happens a lot with names, etc., we can’t just say they are arbitrary.

I’m just saying, unless they come out and say Ollie is a conservative who kills evil doers or something completely against the established character like that, that we should wait to judge the show itself until after we’ve seen it.

I am not against changing things in an adaptation. Chloe and black Pete Ross being examples. However, none of your examples of change were both arbitrary AND dumb. The organic webshooters may have been dumb, but they weren’t arbitrary. Cameron simply couldn’t wrap his mind around the web-shooters and made a call. The wrong one, but at least he had reasons. Jarvis AI was not dumb. Probably not even arbitrary, as it would make Tony seem even more the bastard to be ordering his manservant around. Duncan was a good choice for kingpin, neither dumb nor arbitrary. Ant-man and Wasp not being in the Avengers may have been arbitrary, but not dumb.
I have a problem with the seeming randomness of it. All things being equal (for example, a name like Dinah vs. Laurel, Larry vs. Quentin, Star vs. Starling), why bother to change it, unless you really don’t give a fig about the source material? And if that is the case, am I really watching a show about Green Arrow, or am I watching a show that ripped off an established idea and somehow managed to steal the name as well?

Oh, and Bee-Tee-Dubs, if he doesn’t get around to being a liberal, I will hate the show on principal…

If Black Canary becomes Black Canary, I’m pumped for that, regardless of when they met or if Dinah’s her first name or not (which it could still be, she just might not go by it).

The only thing that actually bothers me is the thing with Ollie’s mom, but I am more then willing to give this show the benefit of the doubt. It may turn out to suck, but a few name changes and new characters doesn’t necessarily mean it will.

Smallville introduced us to Chloe and a black Pete Ross – didn’t suck (at least at first)
Spiderman (first movie) gave Spidey organic web shooters and erased Gwen Stacy – didn’t suck (the third movie did suck, but that’s another story)
Iron Man made Jarvis AI – didn’t suck (although I think Jarvis is AI in Ultimate Iron Man)
Avengers didn’t have Ant-Man or Wasp as part of the original team, didn’t ever utter “Avengers Assemble” – didn’t suck
Daredevil was pretty close to the source material, and making Kingpin black wasn’t a terrible thing, especially considering Michael Clarke Duncan in a better movie probably would’ve rocked as Kingpin – but Daredevil still sucked, and not just because Colin Farrell had a literal bullseye tattooed on his head

Let’s watch it before we judge it. I haven’t seen anything to tell me that Ollie is fundamentally different than he should be (the way Diana was in the new Wonder Woman show that didn’t get picked up). As long as they get Olliver Queen right, the rest probably doesn’t matter as much.

No Jason Skipper, please do not place the blame on me because YOU cannot back up your BLESSED talking points with facts, and especially prove to me that these “laws of logic” are anything but human constructs, and that your use of ONE Bible passage is anything BUT PROOFTEXTING. You haven’t proven any of the sort to me, only that you are incapable, as I said before, going beyond talking points.

Next,

Show me anywhere in this post where I claimed that you used Ad Hom.

“I find it quite strange that you can comment to me, but I cannot reply and contradict you. I am then misrepresented, maligned, and run down with all sorts of trash talk.”

What? Boo hoo? Show me where. I think you are just throwing accusations just to make arguments personal. No where, even in my posts on presuppositionalism do I trash talk you. You’re just throwing false accusations at this point, and it’s looking really sad.

Consider yourself fortunate that I even took the time of day to have this conversation.

Gracefully HomeschoolingMay 8, 2012Edit
ScottL,
This is truly disturbing.
Objective:being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective?s=t

ScottL, words mean something. Truth is not dependent upon us, our ideology, or anything external to God. God is truth. Scripture presents us that truth.
I am very saddened by all of this.

RodThe RogueDemonHunterMay 8, 2012 (edited)
+Gracefully Homeschooling

Words also change meaning, Words have historical contexts and have human community from which they are brought forth, therefore words can never be purely objective. God is Truth, yes, but what sort of truth, that is the question. Is God true to God’s word, and therefore, God can be True and Faithful, that we know from Scripture.

Jesus represents us Truth, and only through that Truth can we understand and read scripture. How do we know God? Revelation, yes? And who is that revelation? Christ, so Christ the Person is truth, Christ in his concrete, historical existence; therefore, the Christian idea of Truth should be different from abstract, objective propositional truth statements. It should come in the form of story.

Gracefully HomeschoolingMay 8, 2012Edit
You just made an abstract, propositional truth statement, so your position is contradictory.

RodThe RogueDemonHunterMay 8, 2012
By using the ‘you’re being hypocritical’ answer typical in conservative circles, I can only assume you have no real rebuttal to me.

Gracefully HomeschoolingMay 8, 2012Edit
No, I’m using the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
Seeing you remain the same ROA who refuses to engage in charitable discussion, I bid you farewell.

RodThe RogueDemonHunterMay 8, 2012 (edited)
Farewell? Like Piper on Rob Bell I see……….

Just exactly where have I been uncharitable, Jason? Did I resort to calling anyone names? Did I go after arguments you believe with all of your heart but refuse to be critical of? Of course! Thats your charity for you. Your inability to “convert” me or +Joel Watts to your Calvinist brand of fundamentalism. Pathetic really.

Again, I am just gonna assume you have no real rebuttal because you don’t; Language comes from humans. The end.”

The question isn’t a matter of relevancy in this particular instance, it’s a matter of responsibility, and responsibly holding to account those who “created” these so-called ‘laws of logic” you have been appointed to enforce.

Agreed.

Passive aggression? Maybe you should leave them a note: http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/

Since your definition of confessional scholarship represents an impossibility, though, I have no problem seeing my work as confessional. At the moment, I am working on a project involving the positive psychology movement, and it is striking how deeply this movement is shaped by these psychologists’ beliefs about human nature, about the ideal form of human functioning, and about the ways and means of moving toward that ideal. As a Christian positive psychologist, my approach is deeply shaped by a different set of beliefs about the human condition. The work that I am doing would be most unwelcome if I moved down the highway to the University of Regina, so I am grateful that confessional schools like Briercrest exist, providing me with the freedom to operate as a Christian psychologist. The difference that I see is that a Christian institution will be honest that certain ideas do or do not fit, while a secular institution will claim freedom and neutrality, and then deny a prof tenure for holding an idea that does not fit. So I find myself in 100% agreement with BW3 and Hurtado. If you have been finger-waved-at by Evil White Men who think of themselves as “objective”, then that looks to me to actually support their points about handling disagreements properly (BW3 specifically criticizes those who think that their own take on orthodoxy is the pure unvarnished truth straight from the mouth of God).

I myself am a former calvinist and that’s how I saw things, and I think in the end, no matter how much nuance Calvinists add, it boils down to determinism.

Oh, yes, and there are distinctions between Calvinists, I know that, Dutch vs Neo-Calvinist vs NeoReformed vs Reformed, etc. I used to be in the circle, I mean the Circle of The Black Thorn…wooopps

Maybe I’m too cynical about human nature, but I don’t see real change happening as long as people can avoid it, so a bit of rage is often necessary.

Rage on, Angry Black Man. This Grumpy White Man is listening.

Let’s not overstate the case, Rod. I lean toward the arminian side of this debate myself, but there is a big difference between claiming salvation to be all about the sovereignty of God, and utter determinism. I spent six years working at an overwhelmingly-calvinist college, and not one of the scholars there were determinists as you describe, in fact, the calvinist whose office was next door to mine is known for his defense of free will as a viable psychological concept. I don’t put up with calvinists who claim that arminians are just a bunch of pelagians worshiping an impotent God, and I’d rather not see my side guilty of the same overstatements. You might think that calvinism equals determinism, but most calvinists don’t.

With that said, I don’t quite follow what you’re trying to prove with the Ephesians verse. It’s true that wine in the ancient world was often diluted, but it could still get people drunk if consumed in excess. The warning in Ephesians 5:18 is hardly the only indication of this, especially when you consider other ancient texts outside the Bible. The association of immoral behavior with excessive alcohol isn’t anything new either. Bacchanalian orgies were probably wilder than most college parties. While alcohol in the ancient world was not the same as today, I don’t think it was so radically different that Jesus’s use of (and creation of) wine is irrelevant.

Full disclosure: I have a beer (good beer, not domestics) almost every day after work, though usually not more than one.

I don’t think you fit into the category of confessional scholarship; you use Freud.

Odd. My experience has been the opposite. In my positive psychology work, Nancey Murphy’s combination of Anabaptist theology with neo-Aristotelian philosophy has been tremendously beneficial to my psychological investigations of human flourishing. Also, I just had a chat the other day with an Old Testament scholar about an interdisciplinary project involving Ecclesiastes, Becker’s philosophical anthropology, and terror management theory. Briercrest Seminary is currently taking steps to advance our counseling program by hiring a phenomenological existential psychotherapist into the faculty, and Briercrest College is known for it’s interdisciplinary Humanities BA.

I look forward to seeing the specifics you mention. Please, though, remember to not draw too many conclusions about the whole population of confessional institutions from a small sample ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization ).

I would welcome your disagreements, but you are right 100%, I did not put up any concrete examples, which will change soon, in a follow up post.

FTR, you do interdisciplinary studies, therefore, you cannot be confessional, confessional is anti-interdisciplinary, in my experience. Thus a certain seminary’s push to rid itself of Christian counseling.

I’m sorry to see that you consider me a fraud. I’d post my disagreements with your claims, but I wouldn’t want to be accused of being a finger-waver.

Congrats, Rod. This is so cool.

[/whispering]

Having regrettably watched several videos it is extremely obvious that your friends and agenda and over confident ambitions remain the same. You have not declared your ‘Rook Hawkins’ persona. You do not understand how to tell the truth or what honesty is. It is not just me who dislikes dishonesty.

As for this: “I would have thought the quality of my person, my posts, and my interactions would have spoken louder than that.” It demonstrates an overwhelmingly over confident self assurance and lack of ability of self critical assessment.

Furthermore, untruths have been pointed out by Maurice Casey on his comment on Joel’s post.

Also your pretentious so-called ‘public apology’ to me was dishonest as you did not acknowledge what you were apologising for and pretended that you wrote it because you felt ‘bad’, rather than the fact that you had read Maurice Casey’s rebuke. If you had linked to the post your readers would have seen not only your rant, but Casey’s rebuke. It wasn’t an apology that anyone cared for but if anything, an acknowledgement of your dishonesty and deception.

I had planned on writing a book with Bob, and I have all the emails of our correspondence about it (as well as those of Joe Hoffmann who has the same problems you have with me, which is curious); however Bob got busy and I became busy and it has never materialized. The proposal is still written and if I wanted to I could submit it but I have other projects that have taken my time.

I eagerly await something I have been dishonest about. Do tell! Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

Again, I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. You can hate me all you wish to; I just don’t want to show up at a conference next year and feel I have to act differently around my friends because you’re also around. I like Joel, and Jim, and Philip, and NP, and EP, and frankly nobody deserves to be put in an awkward situation. That is all I am trying to avoid. I can ignore you, and believe me if you keep this up I will, but I won’t put them in awkward situations because you have a problem you can’t get past.

Having regrettably watched several videos I read no evidence of Rook Hawkins in the links you provide. Memorably Rook Hawkins, also, boasted about Carrier and Price and writing a book… I dislike dishonesty. Coming clean? I don’t think you understand how to tell the truth or what honesty is.

“I would have thought the quality of my person, my posts, and my interactions would have spoken louder than that.”

No. Ironically, quite the opposite.

I wasn’t trying to undermine you; I am just asking questions.

Neither of the posts provided mention Rook Hawkins. I wouldn’t exactly call that coming clean.

I’m sorry you have it in for me. I never thought I would see an ‘Anti-Thomas Verenna Fundamentalist’ in my lifetime.

Yes, I’ve never hidden this fact. In fact I have written on it several times. It would have been nice if you would have contacted me personally about the matter, however.

You can read my posts here:
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/why-i-choose-not-to-support-blasphemy-day/

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/atheism-a-brief-autobiography-with-a-word-of-caution/

But there are others. Frankly, McGrath is correct. I was young (this all began in 2005, about seven years ago) and I left it in 2008 (about four years ago). The pseudonym was for two reasons:

(1) I was a radio DJ first (the original concept was to have a radio show dealing with the discussion of atheism/theism). Almost all DJ’s use pseudonyms and that was the one I went with.
(2) For security reasons. We got very popular very quickly. And we also started to receive death threats from very religious people. It made sense to protect ourselves.

Granted all of this is now all in my past. I was not in school at the time and I had a weak understanding of academia. I would like to hope that as I grow I learn more and gain a better understanding about life and now that I am trying to attain credibility (through the typical process of going to school to earn degrees) I hope I can be forgiven my past mistakes.

But when friends in the Biblioblog community go behind my back like this it undermines my efforts to put all of that behind me and make a better step forward in my life. I hope you understand. I would have thought the quality of my person, my posts, and my interactions would have spoken louder than that.

Uncertainty might have killed Schrodinger’s cat.

The internet never forgets, but I don’t feel that we have any duty to keep dragging up the past simply because it remains out there online. Indeed, it is one of the ethical questions that the world now faces: how will we deal with the evidence of immature behavior in the years from one’s life when everyone is immature (no one gets to skip it altogether, although we do not all act in the same way during that phase in our lives), when that evidence remains online indefinitely, perhaps even permanently, and thus can be there throughout the rest of one’s life?

You know, I work harder on my blog post titles and subtitles more than anyone else out there! That is what keeps us relevant.

I forgot all about him too! Olson does a lot of things relevant for the church.

Good call.

Yeah, I don’t blog on church that much, maybe this person thinks theology and biblical/religious studies aren’t relevant for the church.