Foot Place Self Directly In Mouth Featuring Pat Robertson

It's amazing that Pat Robertson has made it twice on my site in reference to things Christian leaders should never say. His rant went something like this:

Here, Robertson is attacking Ken Ham, the Creationist who just debated Bill Nye, about his belief in Young Earth Creationism (YEC). While I might have my own disagreements with Ham on the subject, though I would agree that macro-evolution is not real scientific inquiry, the last thing Pat Robertson should be doing is attacking him on such a huge platform. Interestingly, instead of taking issue with Bill Nye's comments mocking the Biblical Flood or asserting that the Bible is not a historically accurate account of the world, Robertson decides to attack Ham and his view of Creation.

Never mind the fact that Robertson's argument is filled with mistakes and ridiculous assumptions, the real issue is his willingness to give so much ammunition to our common enemies. His comments are already making the triumphant rounds through secular circles (you can see the disgusting truth here, here, and here). It's funny that these secularists will decry Pat on his views of homosexuality but will praise him in his assessment of evolution. Is Pat Robertson so naive to think that his comments wouldn't be interpreted in this fashion?

Unity is needed in the Church today, but all Pat Robertson has done is encourage more division by attacking a whole movement of Christianity.    

A Review of Arrow.

When thinking of the big two comic book companies (DC and Marvel), the strengths of the respective media empires come to mind. Lately, with all of the super hero content available on screen, one can surmise that Marvel is better at the movie making business and DC knows how to produce television programs. While the Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel were huge successes at the box office, DC seems to only know how to make good movies with only Batman and Superman and Marvel seems to be able to eek out gold using even its B and C-list heroes. However, the opposite can be said concerning television where DC seems to have the upper hand. There has always been a special place in my and many geek’s heart for the DC animated universe (DCAU). Starting with Batman: The Animated Series and terminating with Green Lantern: The Animated Series, the DCAU provided quality programming with superb writing, respect for legendary characters, and nods to the audience.  Marvel does not have this type of presence on the small screen. 

Why bring this up? Well, in addition to animation, DC Comics has been fairly successful adapting its universe into live action television shows as well. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, The Flash, and Smallville (let’s not bring up the horrible Justice League adaptation that thankfully didn’t make it past the pilot) all were met with various commercial and critical successes. I will say though that I am not as big of fan of the live action shows as I am of the animated programs. The latest series on the list is Smallville which, in my opinion, only had two good seasons (the first two) and left much to be desired. This brings us to the topic of the article, Arrow. 

Due to my experience with Smallville, I was very hesitant on giving Arrow a chance but I would like to report that I was very wrong. This show has been very enjoyable so far with very little weak points over the first season and a half and contains enough inside nods to DC fans that you can’t wait to see who they place into the next episode. 

The first thing about the show that I just love is the atmosphere of the setting. This show could easily fit into the Dark Knight or Man of Steel continuities which I think is a very good idea. DC Comics through the aforementioned movies and Arrow are establishing a screen mood that is very different than the light-hearted, playful tone of the Marvel screen continuity. This is a very important point because it makes it easy for the public to distinguish between projects from the two companies. 

Second, the arc of both the present day adventures of Oliver Queen interspersed with an arc of his island experience provides the audience with two quality stories to follow. Many movies and shows that use flashbacks usually have a weaker story of the two and the audience can’t wait to see the stronger story. However, I have never found myself wanting to find out what happened in each plot while waiting impatiently for the other story arc to continue. 

Another strong point of the show is the opening up of the DC universe to the show and it’s incarnations of many different characters. Green Arrow does not have a strong rogues gallery and many of the villains have been taken from Teen Titans and Batman. We have been able to see versions of Merlyn, Count Vertigo, Brother Blood, Deathstroke, Firefly, the Royal Flush Gang, the Huntress, and many others. However, some of these villains have been the weak point of the show. Firefly was probably the weakest villain with an interesting set up but an anticlimactic end and the Royal Flush was also very weak. 

Lastly, what keeps me invested is the acting with a special nod to Stephen Amell as Oliver Queen/Green Arrow. His performance is a subtle one where you can see that maturation and change of Queen from an irresponsible playboy to a distant, brooding individual. I like the fact that through his island story line his voice slowly becomes less high-pitched as his experiences grow more and more horrific. Paul Blackthorne as Detective Lance is also a highlight of the show. His character has been through a lot emotionally throughout the series and you feel everything he’s going through. David Ramsey as Diggle and Emily Bett Rickards as Felictiy Smoak put in great performances as well. 

I would definitely recommend this show to anyone who is a comic book fan or just a fan of quality television. Traditionally, I really had not been a big fan of Green Arrow as a character because the superhero has been considered a far leftist in the comics. Don’t believe me? Read Denny O’Neill and Neal Adams’ run on Green Lantern/Green Arrow. However, Arrow does not cover that aspect of the character and has quickly become my favorite show on television. Additionally, the series has led me to read some Green Arrow comics after all. Hopefully, there will be a place for Stephen Amell as Green Arrow in the upcoming Justice League movie.             

Don't Blame Him, He Is Just The Messenger.

I initially wasn’t going to chime in on Phil Robertson’s comments from GQ addressing the ideas of sin and homosexually. However, I was asked to write a piece by a couple of individuals and have decided to write something in concordance with those requests. First off let’s examine the “controversial” comments of Phil Robertson on the subject of sin: 

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men…Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right.

He was paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which in the New Revised Standard Version, states, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.” While he said other things contrasting the male and female reproductive anatomy, I am mainly concerned about the quote concerning 1 Corinthians. In 2010, Robertson similarly spoke about homosexuality paraphrasing Romans 1:26-31: 

Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.

As one can imagine, one of the stars of the second biggest cable show commenting on such a polarizing issue has drawn a lot of attention and criticism. Josh Barro of Business Insider says of Robertson’s remarks, “His views on gays are hateful, inasmuch as they are full of hate.”  Wilson Cruz of GLAAD called Roberton’s comments, “vile and extreme,” and Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post labeled the statements as “outrageous and uninformed.” What these and many other “uninformed” critics fail to realize is that the remarks do not come from Phil Robertson. No, those statements originated from a different source, the Word of God. 

What does the Word say about Its own origins?

Because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. -2 Peter 1:21

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. 

- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. -1 Thessalonians 2:13

So, according to these verses, the author of the Bible is none other than God Almighty which brings up a disturbing notion from those who are criticizing Robertson. The passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians which he alluded to are very clear on the harsh relationship between homosexuality and sin. Thus, by calling the Duck Dynasty patriarch hateful because of his remarks, these people are calling the Word hateful, God hateful, and Christian belief hateful. Are we to believe that because the Bible is not a fan of homosexuality that it is in essence hate speech? This is a very dangerous precedent to think that believing in the Word and the Will of God is an accessory to hate and bigotry. 

Robertson has found himself in a situation I have found myself in countless times when quoting the Word and its views on different issues. People become angry following my quotations to which I say, “Don’t blame me, I am just the messenger! God wrote it.” God wrote Romans 1:26-31 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and He is very clear about His condemnation of homosexuality; therefore, do not blame Phil Robertson for those quotes, he is just the messenger.  

My Top 10 Science Fiction and Fantasy Characters: #4

4. Terry McGinnis (Batman Beyond) 

It is not secret that I am a huge Batman fan and I have been one ever since I was a little kid watching Batman: The Animated Series. Kevin Conroy, in my opinion, is Batman and nobody else in television, film, or video games will ever take his place. As time progressed, Superman received his own show and it was only inevitable that the two heroes would cross paths. As the popularity of these two shows increased and the DC animated universe became intertwined, spinoff series were discussed and greenlit. Enter the first of these series, Batman Beyond. What could have just been a kid show about a young futuristic Batman turned out to be my favorite out of the DC animated universe. Wait, did I say Kevin Conroy is Batman? Oh, sorry, I meant Will Friedle. 

Ok, I am somewhat joking because Kevin Conroy will always be Bruce Wayne’s Batman, but Friedle portrays Terry McGinnis who is my favorite Batman out of them all. But, the original Batman is a classic, why would I like the beyond counterpart better? Well, there are a number of reasons I like Terry McGinnis better than Bruce Wayne. First Bruce Wayne is utterly psychotic. Have you ever read any of Grant Morrison’s run on Batman, the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh, anyone? Bruce Wayne’s Batman is a man who is just too obsessed with his war on crime that it has clouded and pushed out every other aspect of his life. Terry McGinnis, on the other hand, experiences a tragedy in the death of his father but deals with this death in a much saner manner. While, he does don the Batman suit to carry out vengeance against those who caused the death of his father, his main purpose for being Batman is to make up for past sins. Also, McGinnis is able to still lead a somewhat normal life. He even gets married eventually  which is something Wayne was never able to do.

Second, I like my superheroes with powers and I consider Batman Beyond as a batman with superpowers. His suit provides flight, super strength, and super vulnerability. He is able to take punishment the original could only think of. Last, the dynamic of having two minds behind Batman instead of one makes Batman better in that if Wayne can’t think of something McGinnis can come up with a solution which he does on different occasions. Plus, the entertainment of having the two superb voice actors converse back and forth is great and enjoyable.

Something that got me really interested in the character again is the fact that DC Comics brought Terry McGinnis into the comics proper and even put him into continuity with Damian Wayne behind the computer instead of Bruce Wayne. However, with the death of Damian Wayne, I don’t know what that does to the continuity. I have been enjoying Adam Beechen’s writing in the Batman Beyond Unlimited series which continues the continuity of the animated universe (It is not a kid’s comic by any means, however) and it is my favorite ongoing comic series at this time.   

  

Best portrayal: Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker

Favorite moment(s): Terry at the behest of Bruce Wayne takes out the Justice League after one of their villains ransacks the mall where Terry’s Mom and Brother are shopping.

As he is chasing after Aquagirl in a water tank in the Fortress of Solitude, hundreds of Starros latch onto Terry to control his mind. With the batsuit, he electrocutes every one of them.  

My Top 10 Science Fiction and Fantasy Characters: #6

6. Henry Jones, Jr. (Indiana Jones)

We go from the superspy, James Bond to a character who was partly inspired by one director’s (Spielberg) desire to direct James Bond. Number six was probably my most contested spot on the list. Which character did I like enough to place before some great characters listed so far, yet is not worthy of my top five? Well, I came to a conclusion which settled on Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is just a character that exudes coolness and one thing I have always admired about him is that he is actually an academic travelling on these quests. His profession is not as adventurer but as professor of Archaeology. 

Indiana Jones, as with any great character in Sci-Fi or Fantasy, is not just relegated only to the movies everyone has seen, but he has appeared in many books, video games, and television series. I will admit, though I have only seen the movies with Harrison Ford and The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles with Sean Patrick Flanery as a young Indy, these portrayals of the character were a good enough sample to make Indy my number six character on the list because both the show and the movies were just so enjoyable and fun.

Another reason why I love the character and the movies so much is the type of artifacts he searches for in both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. In Lost Ark, Indy attempts to beat the Nazis to the Ark of the Covenant which is of particular interest to me because of my Biblical research. However, for the record, the Bible never speaks of the Ark “leveling mountains and laying waste to entire regions” as Brody says. In the Last Crusade, it is a fitting continuation of stories of Arthurian legend concerning the Cup of Jesus Christ.

     

Best portrayal: Raiders of the Lost Ark

Favorite moment(s): Through knowledge of how the Ark of the Covenant has worked in the Bible, Indiana Jones realizes the best course of action is to keep his eyes shut when the Nazis decide to open the Ark.  

What Can We Learn from Pat Robertson's Comments About Cheating?

Attention all you current and aspiring Christian leaders. Don’t ever do this:

Despite the fact that the answer to this woman’s search for an answer is pretty chauvinistic and trivializing, the “this” I’m talking about is speaking out of your butt when a person comes to you with a genuine question.  For any Christian leader, one must realize that people are going to ask questions expecting the answer to be from a study of what God has said in His Word. However, what Abby got at this particular moment was solely coming from one man’s point of view and not God’s.

What does God have to say about cheating and adultery, anyway? I am pretty sure it has less to do with “men tend to wander” and more with sinfulness. Romans 13:9, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Galatians 5:9, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.” God seems to consider cheating on the same level of many other sins. Thus, in this particular situation, the sin of adultery should not cast be upon the poor Abby in this subject, but upon the man who has actually committed the sin.

Now, God’s point of view seems to be very far from what Pat Robertson said on the subject which highlights a sad fact of many Christian leaders today. Many leaders spread their own opinions instead of the Word’s opinions and this is not to be taken lightly by God. 1Timothy 3: 1-7: 

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

This last part of the passage about having a good report is especially important because it has everything to do with teaching. Where does this good report come from? Does it come from the leader’s experience? Heck no, it comes from the Word of God. In other translations the phrase, good report, is the word, testimony, and testimony is found multiple times in the Word of God. Every time we see that word, it is in reference to the truth of God, the truth of Christ, or the truth of the Word. Revelation 1:2 is a great example, “Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”   

God’s children are precious to Him and He wants His children to know Him. If the people who have made themselves leaders in the Church don’t carry a testimony concerning God’s Truth or Word, as we see in John 17:17, then what’s the purpose?

Lastly, a big problem in this world of social media is that something like this is a horrible witness for the Church because it will go viral in no time and the media is waiting to destroy any Christian it can. Talking out of your butt and not from God’s Word does absolutely nothing to help the Church and only hurts it as it gives the devil ample chance to ridicule a Christian. So, for any of you out there who want to someday be leaders in the Church, start studying God’s Word to align your opinions with God’s opinions and, thus, exhorting His children while building up the Church in a positive light backed by the testimony of God.