Movie Review: Star Trek

Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine

by Pilgrimsarbour

It's rare indeed that I see a new movie on its opening day. But of all the possibilities for this upcoming summer movie season, this is the one that most demanded my attention. It's also very rare that I write a review of a movie that is still in the theatres at the time of my writing.

The much-anticipated Star Trek opened today to what is, by all accounts, going to be record audiences. Which means record profits.

It was time. The franchise, having long been faithfully helmed by Gene Roddenberrry's successors Rick Berman, Michael Piller and Brannon Braga had nonetheless, frankly, overstayed its welcome. And while the most recent TV incarnation, Star Trek: Enterprise had its shining moments and competent cast, the audience started to sense that the energy and originality had finally drained out of the system. What seemed to be needed was both a hiatus and eventually a fresh perspective.

When talk of re-energising the movie franchise with a new cast based on the characters of the original series, J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Fringe) was brought in to co-produce and direct. The film was slated to be released in December 2008 but Paramount delayed it until May 2009 to maximize audience interest. A synopsis of the story can be found anywhere on the net, and it's not my purpose to publish spoilers here. But I do want to comment on my experience with two of my boys today.

Rarely in my experience has a film so hyped lived up to its lofty ideals. This is one occasion where the film far exceeded all my expectations. There is so much to praise about it, notably in the areas of story, directing, character development and acting, musical score and of course, special effects.

Story

The Trek films have suffered, in my view, from a kind of mental block when it comes to the storyline. In fact, I would argue that every one of the now eleven films is merely a variation on the same theme: a bad guy, seeking revenge for some perceived wrong done to him or his people, or seeking to otherwise advance himself at the expense of others, hatches a plan which puts the galaxy (or the entire universe) in peril. Only the Enterprise captained by Kirk or Picard is in the right place, at the right time, to thwart the evildoer's plans and restore order. And such is basically the plot to Star Trek XI. The addition of a time-travel element to this storyline is welcome, however, and is reflective of the best episodes of the various television series. Whereas I found the tenth film, Star Trek: Nemesis, boring, incongruous and lacking in many of the best elements to be plumbed from the Star Trek universe, this new Trek explodes off the screen fresh, as if something entirely new. It's an odd way to state it, I'll admit, but I really did feel like I was watching a different kind of story. The advantage of going back to Kirk's origins--his upbringing and subsequent joining of Star Fleet--has its potential pitfalls. But the beauty of the time story here is that the timeline has been altered before Kirk is born, or as it happens, as he is being born, making the continuity of the Star Trek canon much less of an issue. Since the timeline has changed, never before seen adventures with the new actors playing the roles of the original characters are not only possible, but the possibilities are nearly limitless. So while recognising the same basic plot up on the screen, albeit very interesting, the other elements were so spectacular that I really didn't care that I'd seen the story before. It was, in fact, a good story. Familiar, yes. Boring, no.

Directing

After several years of producing and directing in television, J.J. Abrams made his feature film directorial debut with Mission Impossible III. Having had no formal connection to Star Trek prior to taking the reigns of Star Trek XI, that needed fresh perspective was in full view today. The pacing of the film was quick and consistent. When it needed to slow down, it was never dull. Nor did it drag on. When the film came to an end, I couldn't believe it was over already, even after more than two hours. The editing was quick, but not overwhelming. By way of contrast, I recently watched the latest James Bond flick Quantum of Solace on DVD. It had a great deal of action, but the editing was simply dreadful. Apparently catering to an internet audience of steadily diminishing attention spans, Quantum's action sequences cut, zoomed and jerked me around so badly that I knew while I was watching it that I hated it. Landing on a different shot every one or two seconds, I simply gave up trying to follow the action. It became, well, boring. Not so with Star Trek. As I said, although the pacing was fast, the editing was excellent, and at no time did I not understand what was going on. The cinematography is breathtaking and the CGI is seamless and not overwrought.

Characters and Actors

The temptation to parody the original actor portrayals must have been strong. In some other hands, they might have failed. But this cast and this director were able to pay homage to the orginals without camping it up. This is not to say that the film is without humour. There is plenty to smile about, and occasionally laugh out loud at. And the portrayals were stunning. In fact, it all seemed so natural. Kirk was Kirk, Bones was Bones, Spock was Spock. There were times when a mannerism or a turn of the head caused the original actors' faces to pop into my mind. It was uncanny, really. This happened for me especially with Spock (Zachary Quinto), Scotty (Simon Pegg) and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban). And Abrams is not stingy with his cast; each of the main characters gets their "moment in the sun," none of which is frivolous or forced. Chekov, Uhura, Sulu and Captain Christopher Pike are here to round things out and add to the tapestry. Even Leonard Nimoy makes a substantial contribution to the film as "Spock Prime," a role with a lot more meat than I had expected. The cast balance is unusually well moderated without seeming laboured. But make no mistake; James T. Kirk is still the focus, the glue which binds this ensemble together. And Chris Pine does an excellent job of doing just that. It's easy to get the impression that Pine's portrayal of Jim Kirk as a bad boy and chronic underachiever who steps up when the crisis arises is not too much out of character for Pine himself. It just seems natural.

Scoring

I received my soundtrack CD from Amazon on Wednesday May 6. As is my habit before going to a new movie I expect to enjoy, I listened to the soundtrack over and over from then through today. Curiously, it was while listening to the samples at Amazon before I got the CD that I found I was unable to shake Michael Giacchino's theme from my mind. It struck me originally as more like a motif than a theme, but the more I listen and think about it, the more I'm convinced it was the right approach. And that theme is heard in variations throughout the film. I'm not listening to it as I write this, but it's running through my mind anyway; a haunting and poignant simple melody which adds to the film in unexpected ways, making the entire experience more palpable. Giacchino has collaborated with Abrams for some ten years now on various projects. He is most familiar to me having scored The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Lost and Alias, among many others. He has also won awards for scoring the Medal of Honor video game series.

　

Effects

This is, without a doubt, one of the most impressive effects movies I have ever seen. And it has the added benefit of not being overblown or otherwise frivolous. I saw nothing that was unnecessary to the storyline or that was there simply for the "wow factor." The Enterprise has been beautifully re-made. All the original lines are there, with some eye-catching updates to the nacelles and a bit sleeker secondary hull. It may not be my favourite Enterprise; that title is still reserved for the refit Enterprise of 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture. But it comes mighty close. It strikes me as somewhat reminiscent of the Enterprise-C featured in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The bridge is bright and airy, with a "window" where the viewscreen is. It is made of (no doubt) transparent aluminum and features a 23rd century version of a heads-up display. A big change is in the layout of the engine room. It is more akin to something seen in TV's recent Battlestar Galactica, a kind of industrial factory chic where pipes, tubes, valves and hatches remind one of an enormous submarine, as opposed to the smooth, shiny, hi-tech look of the various television series. The overall effect is both futuristic and realistic without either the excessive weathering of Star Wars or the sterile, pristine look of previous Treks.  The regular use of shuttlecraft is another practical and welcome touch in a universe where transporters can take you just about anywhere you want to go. The transporter effect is less flashy than what we've seen before, but it's so much the better for its minimalist approach. I even like it better.

　

In conclusion, I say emphatically that this movie was engaging, touching, exciting and enjoyable. But it was more than that. It was flawless. I'm going to see it again. And again. And then I'm going to buy the DVD. The one with all the frills, bells and whistles. The one that costs extra. If you like science fiction, you'll probably like this film. If you're a fan of Star Trek in its various forms, you'll love this film. If you're a Trekkie and are still stewing about all the other television and movie incarnations of Star Trek, and if you're a strict constructionist when it comes to the Star Trek canon, you don't deserve this film. Sorry if that sounds mean, but you people really don't know what you're missing. When my sons and I left the theatre, we had two things on our minds; "When can we see that again?" and "I wonder when the next one is coming out?"

Again on the Verge...

Pilgrimsarbour at work AND play

Back in December 2007 I posted about my experience tuning for George Winston.  I had the privilege of tuning for him again at the same venue on March 18, 2009.  This time I had my number two son Thomas with me and we had a blast!  Beyond the thrill of seeing my favourite pianist in concert and meeting him again is the thrill of having had a small part in his performance.  In the audience that night were several regular customers of mine.  When Mr. Winston thanked me from the stage at the end of the concert, my customers applauded, and my boy was proud of his Dad.  It was a blessing and a very nice affirmation of appreciation on their part that I'll never forget.

Fool Me Once, Shame on Me...

Pilgrimsarbour about to go medieval on somebody's arse

Last year around this time I received a notice from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that I was in violation of an E-ZPass toll. I made it clear that they were mistaken, they relented, and that was the end of that.

Today I received another E-ZPass toll violation notice in the mail. This time I supposedly ran through an E-ZPass toll plaza somewhere in New York state at 7:30 p.m. on February 27, 2009. Now this is pretty hard to do when one is sitting at home in Philadelphia eating dinner at 6:30 p.m. that same evening, hundreds of miles from the location of the alleged infraction. Below is my e-mail to them on their website:

What the hell is wrong with you people?! I have not driven in, around or through New York State since 2002. I have never, at any time, driven through an E-ZPass lane anywhere, or held an E-ZPass account in any state at any time. The car which has the license plate in question has been out of service in my driveway since November of 2008. You targeted me with a violation last year at this same time with a different license plate and were proven wrong. I was patient with you then. You are either mistaken again now or running a scam against me. Which is it? There is no other possibility. I'll tell you what; you tell me what kind of car the license plate is attached to, and I'll tell you whether I have that car or not, just like the last time. One time is a mistake on your part. Two mistakes is a scam and harassment. You people had better get your act together! I'm getting sick of this crap!

I think my spiritual condition is worsening. Do you think I should have waited until I calmed down?

The Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism

The Westminster Assembly

Chapter XXVIII

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

C.S. Lewis on Modern Man: Embracing the Spirits of the Fallen Planet

"What should they find incredible, since they believed no longer in a rational universe? What should they regard as too obscene, since they held that all morality was a mere subjective by-product of the physical and economic situations of men? There was now at last a real chance for fallen Man to shake off that limitation of his powers which mercy had imposed upon him as a protection from the full results of his fall. If this succeeded, Hell would be at last incarnate."

Debating Calvinism Part 3: What Madness Is This?

by Pilgrimsarbour

Back in December 2008 I wrote a book review on the book Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, followed up by a second part a few days ago. Since my itch hasn't been fully scratched, I'd like to continue to look at the arguments presented in the book.

One of Dr. White's exasperations with Mr. Hunt is due to Hunt's debating "style." Hunt's idea of Reformed theology is a straw man of his own making, something of which he is either ignorant or is deliberately misrepresenting. In chapter 10, Mr. Hunt takes up the issue of the order of salvation. Reformed believers take seriously the Bible's description of man as being "dead in trespasses and sins" (cf. Ephesians 2). From this and other verses is derived the understanding that we are incapable of coming to Christ unless He first takes away our "heart of stone" and gives us a new "heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). Hunt finds this idea offensive and spends the entire chapter refuting White's understanding of Paul's teaching in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, and in the gospel of John and elsewhere. In so doing, Hunt regularly takes Scripture passages that speak of believing and being saved, and (in his mind) replaces the word and with the word then. In this way he attempts to argue that these verses delineate a time line of activity, that is, that faith must by necessity precede regeneration. However, "believe, then be saved" is unwarranted by any fair reading of these passages and is directly contradicted by the rest of White's presentation of the pertinent biblical texts.

Backtracking a bit to chapter 9, we see Hunt's understanding of the relationship between evangelism and the sovereignty of God. Hunt states the following: "One of the most disturbing things about Calvinism is their lack of concern for the lost" (p. 256). Ouch. Perhaps I should stop sharing the gospel with people since, according to Hunt, I already know that if predestination and election are true, preaching is futile. I think my church's missionaries would take exception to that, as would all the other Reformed churches and their congregations. In fact, our denomination has had the sad honour of burying fellow believers who were cruelly martyred for their faith while sharing the gospel with unbelievers. Is this not something which all Christian denominations have experienced? Once Hunt's version of Calvinism has been established, he pours all his energy into tearing it down. He then projects onto Reformed believers what he thinks they must believe about the uselessness of evangelism. Throughout the book, James White patiently explains the fact that Calvinists don't know who the elect are, so the gospel call is to be preached to everyone. Alas, the Reformed argument once again falls on deaf ears.

On page 307 of his final remarks, Hunt examines White's statement in White's final remarks about the relationship between regeneration and salvation. White explains that it is common for theologians to use the term salvation as an umbrella term for God's entire process of the redemption of man. Regeneration is often discussed in terms of being a subset of salvation, that is, one aspect of the whole plan. Apparently offended by this distinction, Hunt sets out to show that other Calvinist writers equate salvation and regeneration absolutely. Just as Hunt refuses to let God define what He means by love, so too the words salvation and regeneration can only fit his own peculiar definitions; they must mean exactly the same thing at all times and in every manner and situation. Further, Hunt states, "White says that regeneration is a 'subset of...salvation.' Subset isn't a biblical or theological term, but White must resort to it to extricate himself from Calvinism's web of contradictions." Since the word subset is not found in the Bible, White's statements, in Hunt's view, are to be completely dismissed as false.

Wow. For real?

One doesn't even know how to begin to deal with such nonsense. In addition, Hunt's excessive use of ellipses when quoting passages, for example, puzzles us so that..we're...not sure...if we're getting...the whole...story. Is so much of the context of the material from which he is quoting truly irrelevant to his argument? Or is he just lazy?

Hunt continues his caricature of Calvinism in chapter 11, where he says that God "withholds the ability to repent and believe" (p. 309). Of course, the Scriptures tell us that man is by nature unrepentant, faithless and unbelieving (cf. Hebrews 7:25; Romans 3:10-18; Romans 8:5-8; Ephesians 2:1-2; Colossians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:14; John 6:43-44; John 8:31-34, 42-47). His condition is such that he must be granted the ability to repent and believe by God Himself (Ephesians 2:8). Despite having been corrected on this matter several times, Hunt continues with his own imaginary theological vision of Calvinism.

In spite of the clear biblical evidence that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5), Hunt insists on man's innate ability to choose God. For without free will, he reasons, "man can do nothing on his own initiative, not even evil--and certainly not good" (p. 310). Man, whose every inclination is toward evil and rebellion against a holy God cannot even choose to do evil without a so-called free will? What a-Scriptural madness is this?

The chapter continues with a discussion of God's ordaining of events, including the existence and purpose of evil. Hunt describes scenarios of a fatalistic nature and attributes these to his idea of Calvinism, again projecting onto its adherents his own misunderstandings and misgivings. Here he makes the claim that Calvinism teaches that God causes "every evil thought, word, and deed..." (p. 314), ignoring, once again, Dr. White's discussion of compatibilism on pages 42 through 45. White sums up his views on this chapter succinctly: "If God's decree does not include the evil of mankind, that evil has no purpose, and Hunt is left directing us to a God who creates the possibility of evil, starts this universe off on its course, and then tries His best to 'fix things' as they fall apart in a torrent of wickedness. This is supposed to comfort us? This is the God who says that He works all things after the counsel of HIs will? Hardly!" (p. 320).

Without a coherent answer to White's objections, I imagine that for James White, debating Dave Hunt must be like debating Martin Short's Saturday Night Live sketch character, the sleazy lawyer Nathan Thurm. No matter how many times White explains the issues of the relationship between God's decrees and man's intentions, and between evangelism and the sovereignty of God, one can hear Hunt saying, "I know that! Don't you think I know that? Is it me, or is it him? It's him, right?"

Debating Calvinism Part 2 - More Piddling and Twiddling

by Pilgrimsarbour

The more I ruminate on my recent reading of Debating Calvinism - Five Points, Two Views, the more I come to the conclusion that Dave Hunt is the most sophist-icated writer I've read in a very long time. Now lest you think I'm paying him a compliment, allow me to add that I'm using the root of my "compliment" as the derisive term sophistry, that branch of ancient Greek philosophy which used clever rhetoric to argue in a specious manner.

My recent review of the book was not intended to be in-depth. But looking back on it, I realise that there is quite a bit more I could have said, and I have a great deal more I wish to say. I have had an itch that needed to be scratched, so here it is.

I like to be careful with my words, so I assume that everyone else who writes is likewise careful with theirs. I take it for granted that everything Mr. Hunt writes is well calculated to make a certain impression and to drive a certain point home. However, I could be wrong, but I'd hate to think that he is merely sloppy and incoherent. So I have tried to put myself in the place of a synergist follower of the Dave Hunt School of Sophistry. This is not especially difficult for me, really. For many years did I follow Christ synergistically before embracing the Reformed faith, that which is found in the Scriptures.

I-ffirmative
Beginning in chapter 8, the second half of the book is designed to be Hunt's positive argument in favour of his theological system. I found that I had to wait at least until chapter 9 for anything remotely resembling an affirmation, since chapter 8 was a rant on the character of both Augustine and Calvin. I don't know of any Calvinist today who would want to defend some of Calvin's behaviour in Geneva. Likewise, I find errors and sin, sometimes cruelty by our standards, in men from every age, even believers. This should not automatically preclude our examining their teaching to see how it squares with the Scriptures. Roman Catholics would, I presume, agree with me that we should not judge Catholic Church doctrine solely on the basis of the behaviour of certain Popes or priests. Character issues are certainly to be taken into consideration, but as James White points out, we are Calvinists because of what the Scriptures teach, not because we are followers of John Calvin. Calvinists don't really desire to be labeled as such. If a label must be used, then "Reformed" is certainly sufficient since it is those biblical principles of the Protestant Reformation which drive our thinking. But the reality is that labels exist and we have to make the best of them. The fact that Hunt repeats over and over again the mantra that we follow John Calvin, and that he is unwilling to take correction from the people he is slandering, is a sign either of ignorance or deliberate malice on his part. From my perspective, it's a tough call.

In chapter 8, Hunt proceeds to question Calvin's own statements about his conversion evidently based on Hunt's own concept of what conversion is. He says, "Calvin's one brief account contains nothing about receiving Christ as his Savior" (p. 228). It seems that if you don't walk the aisle, raise the hand, write down the date and time, all the things that the decisionists claim make for legitimate "conversions," then you are not genuine in your faith. There are going to be many believers on that Great Day who may point to God's gradual working in their lives but not to specific dates and times when the Holy Spirit regenerated them, unless that information becomes available to them at that time. They would be surpirsed, no doubt, to hear that Dave Hunt places them among the goats with his myopic view of conversion, one that the New Testament does not support as God's bona fide method. Just ask Saul of Tarsus if he "made a decision" for Christ; it looks to me like it was made for him.

Hunt is determined to follow through on what he had written earlier in the book, which in my review I called "Piddle, Twiddle and Resolve," regarding the origins of so-called Calvinism. He thinks that if he can demonstrate that Calvin's thought is essentially repackaged Augustinian thought, Calvinists will just throw their hands up in the air and fall before his dizzying intellect. Again, the basis of belief for Reformed believers is the Scriptures themselves; those who systematise biblical truths in the service of the Church are to be noted, but they are not ultimately the issue. We are disciples of Christ.

He fails to note the dichotomy between Augustine's view of the Church and his view of grace. It has been argued that these two strains of thought are not complementary, and that the Roman church followed his view of the Church while the Reformers followed his ideas on the nature of saving grace. Calvin held Augustine in high regard, and that fact is an occasion for Hunt to charge Reformed believers with a kind of theological schizophrenia. Finally, Hunt sees an opportunity to accuse Reformed believers of being, (God forbid!) close to Catholicism because of Calvin's teachings! I doubt my Catholic friends would see it that way.

God is Love, Dammit!
Chapter 9 focuses on the love of God. Each of us who has had a church upbringing has been told from the beginning that "God is love." This phrase is so ingrained in us that we hardly have given any thought, beyond our own understanding and traditions, to what the Bible really means by it. It is true that the Bible speaks of God's common grace to sinners in which He "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). But Hunt, arguing against J.I. Packer's statements about common grace, protests, "It is not love at all for God to predestine people to eternal torment, no matter what temporal 'kindness' He shows them!" (p. 260). Well, then, is it not equally "unloving" of God to send anyone to Hell in the first place? Hunt adds, "It is not loving--period--for God to damn for eternity anyone He could save" (p. 260). Really? I should think to let the Bible define what God's love is, not Dave Hunt. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Romans 9:15). Why Hunt isn't an avowed Universalist remains for me a mystery.

Hunt's idea, hardly biblical, is that God loves all people equally without qualification, and desires the salvation of every single human being to the extent that Jesus paid for the sins of every individual past and yet to come. Despite Dr. White's repeated attempts to get Hunt to explain how it is that rebellious sinners suffer eternal torment in Hell despite having all their sins propitiated and expiated at the cross, Hunt remains steadfast in his decisionist system which places the onus of man's salvation squarely on his own autonomy. In Hunt's world, love, as he defines it, is the first and most important attribute of God. He writes, "That 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) can only mean that love is the very essence of God's nature. This is the only attribute of which it is said that God is. Of nothing else--not His justice, holiness, truth, goodness, grace, or purity--is this said. All of God's attributes must be understood in relation to the fact that He is love" (p. 256).

Isaiah 6
Hunt's statements sound good and heartfelt on the surface. But in his book The Holiness of God, R.C. Sproul discusses an ancient Hebrew literary device found in the Old Testament which is designed to emphasise only one particular attribute of God. He writes: "Only once in sacred Scripture is an attribute of God elevated to the third degree. Only once is a characteristic of God mentioned three times in succession. The Bible says that God is holy, holy, holy. Not that He is merely holy, or even holy, holy. He is holy, holy, holy. The Bible never says that God is love, love, love; or mercy, mercy, mercy; or wrath, wrath, wrath; or justice, justice, justice. It does say that He is holy, holy, holy, that the whole earth is full of His glory" (p. 26). It is the holiness of God which demands His perfect justice. It is in tandem with justice that we see God's love and mercy operate; everything is subsumed within God's holiness. But even Hunt's idea of God's justice is myopic as seen through his decisionist system. Referring to a quote from John MacArthur, he asks, "God who is perfect in justice doesn't manifest justice in every case? God requires us 'to do justly, and to love mercy (Micah 6:8) but God is not just 'in every case'? We are to be merciful to all, but God Himself is not? Yet the psalmist said, 'The LORD is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works' (Psalm 145:9)" (p. 257). Of course God's justice is perfect in every case in which He chooses to exercise it. But He has not obligated Himself to deal justice to every person. If He did, we would all be in Hell for eternity. But He has chosen mercy for some of humanity and justice for the rest. In this way is God holy, holy holy. He is perfectly righteous in His judgements. He is not obligated to give mercy to anyone, but He does. Sproul puts it something like this: "One group receives justice, the other receives mercy. No one receives injustice." It should be a continuing marvel to us that anyone is saved at all. And against Hunt's constant drumming of the deliberately misleading phrase "a select few" when referring to the elect stands the beauty of God's love in stark contrast in Revelation 7:9-10: "9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'"

to be continued...

Islam Declares a Fatwa on Welch's, Minute Maid and Sunny D.

(Photo Courtesy of Little Green Footballs)

I guess there was one left behind after all...

From Our House to Yours...Merry Christmas!

(Photo by Stephen)

The New Iraq and the Real Bush Legacy

Thanks to CNN and Hot Air.