When I read a letter by someone written to theStar, I was quite amused. Amused because he quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary to establish his view that homosexual "union" is, in fact, marriage and amused because the fella's research was as deep as a search on Dictionary.com.

I was amused because he defined marriage as something you do with another person that involves love, commitment, trust, respect etc. I find that amusing because if that is the criteria that it takes to get married, then your sister, brother, father, mother, daughter and son qualifies. After all, you do share love, commitment, trust and respect with them, no? I find it amusing because even animals like a dog could qualify based on that fella's definition. Greg Koukl's quip "You Can't Marry Your Canary" comes to mind.

So what is marriage, then? Marriage is what is instituted by God. In the beginning, God performed the first marriage- and it was between a man and a woman. And throughout the Bible, we find only that- marriages between men and women. Not men and men or women and women. Or human and dog.

It's that simple, and some out of deference to political correctness and to that of their own wants, want to define marriage as something else.

And I find that very amusing.

Yep, it's about 10 minutes past twelve and that means its Christmas! I've did some last minute Christmas shopping (Keeping with the Malaysian last minute spirit, hehe...) and boy, am I tired. I'm going to sleep soon, and I wish to everyone,


And my grateful appreciation for Sivin Kit who sent me this wonderful picture of his family:

Let's skip straight to my thoughts on Narnia's religious elements. They are there, thankfully. Except in the stone table scene where Aslan is sacrificed (and his resurrection and talking about the Deep Magic), any other Christian allegory is non-existent- or maybe hard, hard to find. That's enough for anyone, I suppose.

But enough of that. Disney's rendition of Lewis' classic work is faithful enough (story wise) to the book, and that is satisfactory enough. I have to admit that I am indeed disappointed in the movie. It wastes too much time (especially in the beginning) on the build up to the climactic battle. And in the process, much excitement was sacrificed. But I am half-certain that I'm expecting too much.

LWW is a good, but not great movie. It could have done much better, but it also could've been a lot worse. It is enchanting and captivating in some scenes- in others interest in it is almost lost completely. I felt that the relationship between the Pevensie children could've been built up better, and that the makers of the movie banked too much on the battle scene (which was, indeed, the best part of the movie) to atone for the slower pace of the movie begins with. This movie, as good as some moments were, just lacks the magic that I found in the book.

As for the special effects, they were the best out there, I suppose. Considering the budget the movie had ($ 200 Million), one will have to believe that every scene was done to its best. The effects are believable enough- and that's about enough, isn't it?

I think Aslan was presented well enough. Of course, you can't but help notice the voice. Perhaps a relatively unknown person would've been better suited for the job. Certainly, Aslan's character and voice conveys majesty- but one can't fight back the presuppositions that come with a familiar voice.

The White Witch, Jadis, is imposing enough. Some scenes could have been done to impress upon the audience how evil she actually is, but this is a children's movie- and the director, Andrew Adamson, does show restraint.

How would Christian audiences take it? My Christian friend was surprised by the Christian elements he noticed in the movie (He hasn't read the book, of course) and it certainly piqued his interest in C.S. Lewis' work. As for me, it didn't do much. But, when I first the book, I was filled with hope. And I was proud to be a Christian.

While this movie might be effective enough to bring (or at least interest) its secular audiences to Christ, this certainly must not be a substitute for the clear Gospel message. At least, that's my opinion.

Well that's about all I have to say. I've been harsh on the movie, no doubt (I believe it is due to my unfulfilled expectations, but I can't say for sure). But at least give credit to it's producers- for managing to capture some of the magic and making a good movie that could've been better; but also a lot worse. That is good enough, no?

Well, I've created another blog to write on other non-related (and trivial!) subjects. Check it out.

Yeah, I've just came back from Melaka a few hours ago. The hotel room there, although rather good, was very dusty. And me, with my sensitive nose (and lungs) is recovering from a bad reaction to them dust =)

Narnia has finally came out, and I just can't wait to see it. It is not just because of the Christian themes behind it (I am, of course, interested in how they play out), but also because I can't resist a good movie. The critical consensus- and I take them quite seriously- came out with mixed reactions. Overall, they regarded it as an above average movie. And somewhat in the shadow of LOTR. Ah well, all movies along this line will have to be compared with the Tolkien benchmark as set by Peter Jackson.

I, of course, expected lots of homework to do during my time off college. My lecturers certainly met them. And I have to seriously catch up on my homeschooling. Been fooling around too much on books.

And, after a few hours in a van whose air conditioning is not in top condition (with a scorching sun to boot), rest in a cool bedroom is certainly warranted.

Soli Deo Gloria

Following behind Hedonese, I'll pick (I guess that is the word to describe it) on a letter written to the Star (7 December) I received just now. It sounds quite similar to that of Yvonne Foong's commentary on the issue linked to by Hedonese, who posted on the same subject.

Dave brought up, I think, an important issue when discussing with other people on these kind of issues. Namely, that of love and respect. Too often we get caught up in polemics that we forget those things.

Anyway, people have been saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" recently. Here are some excerpts of one letter to the Star:

Who defines normalcy anyway? Who is to decide how a person lives his life? What is so wrong about two people in love marrying each other?

Here is an interesting but logically self-refuting emotional response. For, if nobody (by that writer's logic) defines normalcy or how a person lives his life, then he has no write to say that there is nothing wrong with "two people marrying each other" (he is defining normalcy) and condemning those whose who criticise their marriage (he is telling people how to live).

Then he goes on to say that if it is about religion, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. But I wonder if we follow that logic when we condemn rapists and murderers.

Methinks the unbeliever has no coherent worldview to live by. I also think that this is the best moment a Christian ought to come in and show the Truth.

And to use Hedonese's words, "At least that's how I see it."

Another post on my previous post would perhaps suffice.

Certainly some have been horrified at how some Christians have snatched on the "sex sells" concept to attract youths (male only, I reckon) to Christ. So it is with the so called "Bible Calendar", which features erotic (?) scenes from the Bible.

I question their tag "erotic". For, scenes which they claim to be erotic (such as a nude Eve) are actually not at all. They seem to latch onto instances of nudity in the Bible and transform it into "erotica". I am going to such lengths to point it out because when the pastor who defends this calendar says that "it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you are forbidden to show yourself nude", I say that he confuses nudity with sexuality. Those two are seperate things and although they both overlap at times, the point is they are nevertheless different entitities.

So, it goes to show that the point is not about nudity- what is found in the Bible- but rather nothing more than pictures that strive to titillate the males to Christ. This "effort" to promote Christ misses the mark. You cannot bring people to an otherwordly kingdom using wordly means. I think that this just goes to show how apostate some churches have become. No doubt this is probably a rather liberal church, but it is nevertheless an extreme instance when the "church" tries to win the world with worldly methods. It may seem to work- but what are the end results?

Ah...I guess I better not dwell on this any longer. We Christians have a bad reputation of being obsessed with issues concerning sex. I personally believe we've got to focus ourselves on other issues too. Anyway,

Soli Deo Gloria!

I'm kinda happy because this is the last week of college, before I take a break until January. I unfortunately missed blogging over the weekend due my internet- which was out of order- on the most convienient of days as well. Only this morning I managed to get it fixed. Sheesh.

Phil Johnson- being alerted by John Tate- post on what I see to be both a funny and extremely sad affair. It both show the lengths some churches would go to get people to Christ (a good intention carried out through the wrong means) and the lack of faith in the Holy Spirit (a sign of the times).

Phil's post can be found here yourself. The news report can be found here. I recommend you read Phil's post before venturing to the news report. You've been warned.

During a conference I attended two years ago, I heard this phrase uttered by a youth pastor. I was just a clueless thirteen year old back then. But, that sentence had a particular impact on me and forced me to rethink whether I was truly meaning what I sang.

When we sing such songs as "Lord I Offer My Life To You" or "To The Ends Of The Earth", do we really mean them? Do we really offer our life to the Lord? Do we really go to the ends of the earth for Him?

And another thing- do songwriters really believe that we can live up to the lyrics that they pen? Or do we merely say sing all the "powerful" words to God and then leave the church and not really care whether He will hold us accountable for what we sing?

All of us- which includes myself- need to ask this question and need to continually dwell on it each thing we open our mouth to sing that hymn or psalm or song.

Well, I've finished my examination and am here typing this down. That means it went well (At least for me!). The questions were easier- and harder- than I expected. I guess you get the idea.

Andrew Jones has begun writing down his thoughts on the "hammering of the Emerging church". His reply, I think, is typical of many other Emergents (Meaning I'm not too satisfied with his response). But it is still very interesting nonetheless. He has written (so far) the intro and the first post of the series.

And Phil Johnson once again includes the name "homeschool mom" on yet another of his comic book cover. I am already certain (or, in other words, beyond any doubt) that he is obsessed with them. I think its time he confesses his obsession. And, hopefully not through the medium of a(nother) comic book cover with a(nother) homeschool mom on it.

Sheesh.