This is a rant. I am rather angry because my computer has recently been infected by an anti spyware program. Yup. Apparently, "Spyware Strike" claims it has found out that you're computer has been infected by spyware. In fact, it is spyware. And there's no way you can stop it from bugging you to "purchase" it (if you have been infected by it, rebooting in safe mode still won't help). Don't bother using its uninstall program- as you will do nothing but install it into your computer. Yup.

This is an extreme example of a rogue spyware program. There are less in-your-face "anti" spyware programs out there (like Spyware Cleaner) which, although does not bug you like Spyware Strike does, instead "diagnoses" your computer with "spyware" (even though you might not have it) and scares you into buying it.

I am not to blame for bringing the annoying program into my computer however (blame my father!). Anyway, for all those who don't want to be annoyed by these (and other programs), you can do one thing- exercise caution. (Okay, not using the internet is the safest option out there- but I'm not sure if most of you are willing to do that!)

And in case you have been infected by Spyware Strike, download this remover here. Thank goodness it works.

In the case of good anti-spyware programs, the Ad-Aware/Spybot S&D/Spyware Blaster/Spyware Guard combo is recommend. Yes, that's a lot of programs, but at least it keeps you safe. Other (non-free, but good) anti spyware progs out there: SpySweeper and Spyware Doctor. There are others, but I don't think they are as good as the ones I've listed.

I did like Syriana. I really did. However, what I didn't like was the way it was presented as to fit real-world parellels. There aren't much, I would say (at least, not much that are true).

Gaghan, the writer-director, has made what I see as an interesting political thriller centred upon...oil. Some have criticized it for its despairing outlook on the Middle-East situation. That's quite true- Syriana offers no cure to its diagnosis of the "problems". However, it may be said that the director has served up an exciting "cautionary" tale of where he sees this business might lead.

The film's premise, I think, centres upon the intervention of the U.S. in the Middle East to protect its primary interest (You guessed it)- oil. I don't see it the way as Gaghan does, however. There is little evidence of United States' intervention in the Middle East when it comes to the oil industry. (I obviously do not buy Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 hysterics.)

The story is one that requires patience. Patience to see how the seperate stories of the different characters all come together (only until halfway into the film do we get the idea of how the character's stories may intersect). But it interesting nevertheless. I haven't, by the way, seen Gaghan's Traffic, which I've read is similar in terms of the construction of the story to Syriana.

Brief violence punctuates the film throughout, though there is one particularly gruesome torture scene. This story, anyway, is best told with little guns and explosions. Overall, Gaghan pulls it off quite well.

In any case, you should see it because it is interesting- nevermind its factual accuracy.

The problem with my (now deleted) other blog is, well...

Okay, let me explain the purpose of my other blog. It was made so that I could write down what didn't seem to fit here. Unfortunately, what didn't fit here usually didn't fit anywhere else, and even if it could fit my other blog, if it didn't fit on Think Christ then it's usually not worth it to write down anyway.

If you can understand, then you can understand why I deleted it. If you don't, well...

Anyway, expect me to blog more often from now.

Let's see if I can hold myself to that.

The majority of them I've run into are pure "Dave Hunt" esque critics (bashers?). They usually swoop down in forums and start pounding away at the emotional chords of human beings (often without any Bible verses!). We hear "Calvinism makes God unfair", "It makes God a tyrant" etc.

Yes, I do get fed up. But often I bother enough to ask them for any biblical justification. Then the verses start pouring in from them to support Arminianism and devastate, apparently, Calvinism. I happily link to web articles that interpret them correctly, all in vain of course. I could only shake my head when someone- after I linked him to John Piper's treatment on the two wills of God- said something like along these lines concerning his article:

"I haven't read everything yet, but what he says is nonsense."

Sounds like a made up mind to me. I don't bother after that.

Just some thoughts. Calvinism certainly needs more sane, reasonable critics who don't rehash the same old arguments. Who bring a "come let us reason" and learn spirit. If so, then we can make much more progress when it comes to deciding its truth. And hurling cries of "heresy" to Calvinists certainly doesn't help much.

Now, I don't take much, if any, of Pat Robertson's supposedly "prophetic words" seriously. Much less his claims of his conversations with God. It's rather easy to slip into sarcasm when I and some others write about this, so I'll certainly do my best to show some restraint.

What shall we say of Pat Robertson's declarations about this and that which has made him pop up into the press? Publicity stunt? Misguided zeal (a.k.a. bad theology)? Or maybe something else?

I honestly admit I'll grant Pat Robertson everything except my concession of him being right. Of him (really, trully) talking to God.

Of course I will need to cover other things such as whether God speaks today or whether prophecies still go on being made. I'm not going to cover these issues here, but perhaps sometime else.

Until then, I've said to myself "Take everything he says with a grain of salt" and "Discuss with those who think he is right".