I Can Fly

Yes, it’s true. I can fly!

And I don’t mean “…in a plane” or “run really fast.” When the mood hits me, I can take off from the ground and fly like Superman. I can fly wherever I want as fast as I want. I don’t need wings, rockets, wires or even a cape.

There is, however, one catch. I need to be sleeping.

You see, for quite a few years now, I’ve been trying to get a handle on my dreams to the point where I can control at least one or more parts of them. It wasn’t until just a few months ago that I felt confident that I somehow cracked the cerebral code necessary to manipulate my dreams to the point where I could seize and maintain control over something.

I’m sure that tons of people can do as I do when they sleep, but this was a personal victory for me because I didn’t do any research or studying to figure this out. I just kinda willed it to happen and eventually, it did.

In my case, my biggest desire was to be able to fly like Superman whenever I wanted. For years, I’ve have the occasional, sporadic and totally unpredictable dream about flying over trees or buildings and such, but I never knew when I’d have those dreams again or how to continue having them whenever I wanted.

My dreams, much like my nightmares, seemed to be controlled by a part of my brain that I couldn’t quite reach using conventional thought. Most people who have regularly occurring dreams will tell you that everything feels real when you’re in the dream, but a quick analysis of the logistics of some of the things you saw in the dream after you're awake reveals that, had you been awake during that time and saw what you saw, there’s no way you would have accepted what you saw as normal.

That’s where I started.

I didn’t need to figure out that what I was experiencing was not real. I just needed to gain an awareness of the fact that what I was experiencing was abnormal. Once I was able to do that, I just needed to convince myself that, since my dreams didn’t obey the laws of nature or physics, I didn’t have to obey them, either.

So, if I fly in my dream, it’s because I’m choosing to do so; not because it's a random subconscious thought playing itself out. If I stay grounded, it’s probably because I’ve got enough interesting stuff going on at the time that I don’t feel the need to fly away. This may seem dumb, but being able to fly whenever I want has been so liberating and stress-relieving! There's not another feeling quite like it (IMHO).

Just the other night, my nightmare involved being chased down my own street by a cockroach the size of a house, scuttling towards me at a frantic pace. My wife called out to me and screamed, “Go on! Fly! FLY!” I remember thinking, “Oh, yeah! Cockroaches can’t fly.... but I can!” Sure enough, in mid-run, I took off and flew so high and so fast that the cockroach made one huge jump to reach me and missed.

Knowing that my wife was now in danger, I swooped back down and scooped her up before the cockroach could get her. I flew so fast that we reached the Prudential Tower in Boston in mere seconds. And so, my nightmare-turned-dream ended with us sitting on top of the tower, looking out over Boston as my wife remarked how happy she was that I learned how to fly.

So, no longer content with only having one of Superman’s attributes, I’ve moved on to flying AND having superhuman strength. In two of my most recent dreams, I was able to use both abilities. It makes me wonder just how far and how much I can learn to control in my dream world. Time will tell.

ATTENTION: Agnostics & Atheists

It's funny that, regardless of how many generations pass since His crucifixion, the name of Jesus still evokes great anger in people, particularly agnostics and atheists.

I had the good pleasure of meeting an old friend from my high school for lunch a few months ago. During the lunch, I mentioned that some acquaintances of mine had been saying negative things about me on account of what I believe. I, of course, don't have any problem with people who have a different opinion about Jesus or the merits of Christian living, but it's very telling of a person's character when they can't face me and rant about me to my face. They choose, instead, to make calumnious comments to other people of like-minded perspectives until they've reassured themselves that they're right and Christianity is wrong. They allege to have read my words, yet their feeble paraphrasing efforts only serve to twist them to mean something completely different.

Again, I don't mind if people don't believe in Jesus or consider those who do to be "a little overboard", "Jesus freak" or whatever…. but c'mon! At least muster the backbone to voice your disapproval to my face. All they do is make themselves look incredibly insecure. It's really quite pitiable. Though I never asked for this, my friend defended my beliefs and, as I came to discover, he's actually quite adept at shutting people down pretty quickly when they twist someone else's words to mean something that was never said (…turns out, he's now an attorney. lol).

I wonder what Jesus represents to these haters. Someone says, "I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God" or "I don't believe that Jesus ever existed?" Fine! You're entitled to believe that if you want, but many of us who live our lives according to how the Bible tells us we should live believe differently.

If you don't believe that Jesus said a certain thing, that's fine... but the fact that you can read these words on a page means that SOMEBODY existed long enough to think and say or write them down, so ask yourselves this question: What harm would following the advice within these pages do to me, regardless of who wrote them?

Honestly?

What? Wouldn't be able to drink yourselves into a coma every Saturday night? Guys, are you afraid that reading the Bible will force you to stop bathing in Drakkar in the desperate hope of finding your next meaningless one-night-stand? Ladies, afraid you'll have to stop dressing like cheap dimestore whores to placate some wretched man's wildest sexual fantasy every weekend?

Yeah, taking the words of the Lord to heart does have a tendency to clean a person's act up in more ways than one... and even if you don't believe in God, at least love yourselves enough to learn from the words that have been passed down for several centuries. Think they're antiquated our outmoded? Well, guess what. We still have homosexuality, rape, murder, gluttony, greed, sexual promiscuity and a whole host of other evils that tear us apart as a people.

Can you honestly tell me that we'd even be trying to find a cure for AIDS if people bothered to live and love as the Lord instructed? Think we'd be fighting this ridiculous battle against gay marriage if everybody learned something from Sodom and Gomorrah? Hell no!

Do you disagree? If so, try this: Instead of gathering together with other atheists and agnostics, tickling each other's ears with words of reassurance, why don't you try venting to a Christian, then hearing him/her out in return?

Oh, and one more thing for the atheists of the world: If you're right and we're all wrong, you won't be able to gloat about it when we're all dead.

If we're right and you're wrong, I'm afraid you've got an awfully long swim in a certain fiery lake. Everybody believes in God and Satan in Hell.

Think about it.

Superman Returns (2006) - My Review

SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't seen "Superman Returns" yet and don't want me to spoil anything, please see the movie before reading my review.

First off, I'm totally old school and I love the classic Richard Donner movies of Superman I and II. Though Donner had been fired after the first Superman movie rose to blockbusting success, enough of his influence in the scenes that he'd shot for Part II remained to make the second movie awesome as well (diehard fans know that scenes from both of those movies were shot simultaneously).

I'll admit that I was beside myself with glee when I first learned that a new Superman movie was in the works (I'd read a 2004 article stating that they were filming scenes in Australia of all places). I'll also admit that I was remarkably skeptical when I caught my first glimpse of Brandon Routh posing as the Man of Steel.

Remember how the public first regarded Christopher Reeve when he donned the red cape and blue tights? Too skinny, right? Well, Brandon Routh didn't exactly impress me with his musculature, either. After all, a quick look at the comics will tell you that Superman would be far more believable if he were to be portrayed by, say, a professional bodybuilder.

I was like, "Can't they, like, dye Jay Cutler's hair black and throw a cape on his ass? Who cares if he can't act. He's got muscles on top of muscles and, damn it, that's how Superman should look!" I was also thinking that Milos Sarcev had the perfect Superman look, but with his thick-ass foreign accent, they'd have probably needed to pull a "Darth Maul" on him and dub an American male's voice over his real one for the entire movie.

However, director Bryan Singer (of X-Men fame) went with Routh. "Fine, but if he's a suck-ass Superman, I'm done!" Or so I thought.

Well, last night I got my chance to see the greatly anticipated "Superman Returns." Having heard early (...and surprisingly harsh) reviews, I wasn't too optimistic. I heard Routh didn't fill the role adequately. I heard Kate Bosworth wasn't anything like what we would expect of Lois Lane. I even heard that Kevin Spacey was the worst Luthor ever.

Maybe that's why I loved this freakin' movie!

Give me a whole host of sh*tty reviews and my expectations pretty much have nowhere to go but up, right? I mean, maybe there wasn't quite as much action as everybody expected, but I certainly thought it had enough to lift my spirits and keep me interested. I mean, that big shuttle/ball park scene was absolutely f'n AWESOME!

Without a doubt, this was the first Superman movie that actually made Superman look like he was flying faster than a speeding bullet. Those frantic flying scenes were totally what you'd expect from Superman. Another criticism I read about was that whole Jason White (played by Tristan Lake Leabu) plot twist, but personally, I thought it was a great variation on the old tried-and-true Superman formula. I mean, who ever thinks of Superman as being the father of a child?

Director Bryan Singer made it no secret that part of his intent in making this film was to pay homage to the first two Donner films that I loved so much. To that end, he did a fantastic job. He kept the classic Superman orchestral music and even rendered the opening credits similar to the 1978 version. However, I'd say that Singer and company made what I consider to be the one small flaw in their rationale for the whole "son of Superman" idea.

Some would ask, "How could Superman be a father if he disappeared for five years?" Others might answer, "Just think back to Superman II when he and Lois consummated their relationship in the Fortress of Solitude." (...by the way, the Fortress in "Superman Returns" is pretty sweet). Well, if Singer was banking on that reasoning to allow for a Super-offspring, I'd make one tiny observation - Superman had just been nuked into a mortal man prior to their consummation, so he wouldn't have passed on any Super-genetics, per se, to Jason.

Then again, one could also make a couple of arguments against what I just wrote. For one, Superman's genetics probably weren't altered, even though his powers were taken away, right? It's like being a man who, in his early twenties, loses his arm in a car accident. If he were to subsequently father a child, that child would still be born with two arms, right? So, there's one rebuttal.

Plus, Supes and Lois could have conceivably (no pun intended) gone against Kryptonian consent and bumped uglies after Superman's powers were restored at the tail-end of Part II. We're left to speculate I suppose.

Well, at any rate, let's hop onto Lois - figuratively. As Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth might not have been as convincingly gritty as Margot Kidder was, but guys like myself can forgive her for that, given the fact that she's fairly easy on the eyes. I mean, there's no sense in me pullin' punches here - Kate Bosworth's quite the honey. Yet, in my mind, Kate's no Lois Lane (...at least not the 1978 version). She's a good-looking chick - no doubt, but she just kinda fell short of the Margot mark.

For example, when Kidder reached for a cigarette, it wasn't hard to imagine her being a human chimney, but Bosworth just doesn't look like much of a stress-smoker, you know? Her skin's too youthful and soft for that image. Trust me to tell ya, chain-smokers like Margot start to look like freakin' Leatherface by the time they hit their thirties. But on the Lois vein, hats off to Singer for incorporating some of those old, classic lines, pulled directly from the first movie.
"Uh, you really shouldnt smoke, Miss Lane!" Good stuff.

Also, big kudos to Singer for including Marlon Brando's voice in this movie. Back in the day, Brando was paid quite a hefty salary for the few minutes of film time that he had contributed, but it would seem that filmmakers are still benefiting from those classic lines that he recorded oh-so-long ago. Long after Brando's passing, his memory is kept alive, so.. money well spent, right?

Now for Kevin Spacey. I gotta hand it to him. In my humble opinion, he put the true evil and villainy back into Lex Luthor. Don't get me wrong. Hackman was good in his role, but he never really had that "strike terror in your heart" quality that Kevin Spacey summoned.

Spacey brought some authentic EVIL to the Lex Luthor role, while maintaining Hackman's lust for real estate, cheap women and easy profit. I mean, can you really imagine Hackman's version of Luthor kicking the sh*t out of Superman and then stabbing him with a Kryptonite dagger? That scene was disturbingly evil and, in my mind, it was that evilness that made Spacey's rendition of Luthor one to be feared. Excellent job, Kevin!

And for all of the crap that I said about Brandon Routh, I gotta admit that he did an outstanding job of accurately (...and respectfully) capturing Chris Reeve's mannerisms, while still managing to be just unique enough to add another layer to the Superman persona.

I know the trend with superheroes in the 21st century is to give them all haunted pasts and make them out to be tortured souls (Read: "Batman Begins" with Christian Bale), but Routh's rendition of Superman was edgy without being overly morbid. Brandon Routh provided an already multi-dimensional hero with another (very human) layer and, in my opinion, did it quite well (i.e.: his jealousy for the new man in Lois's life, his stalker tendencies, his feeling like an outcast, etc). And, not for nothin,' but Brandon Routh's not a bad-lookin' dude (...as I'm sure my wife will unhesitatingly attest).

Look-wise, Routh has that Reeve-esque quality about him that suits him well for the dual role of Superman and Clark Kent and while he's no Milos Sarcev, he's no pipsqueak, either. He packs just enough muscle to allow you to suspend disbelief when he performs some of the amazing feats of strength featured in "Superman Returns."

And for those who have always seen the Christ allegory in Superman, there's no mistaking the visuals you get from this film. For one thing, listen when Lois Lane delivers her line about how this world doesn't need a Savior. Superman takes Lois up in the sky to view the city from a great height. He asks her, "What do you hear?" She says, "Nothing," to which Superman responds, "I hear everything. You say this world doesn't need a savior, yet every day, I hear people crying for one." This is not a verbatim quote, but it's pretty close.

All I could think of was God on high as our Omnipotent Lord who hears all and knows all and it just seemed like they were trying to say that Superman has this same sort of far-reaching ability.

Then there was Luthor and his henchman kicking the sh*t out of a weakened Superman, right before Luthor stabs him with that kryptonite dagger. Not surprisingly, that scene brought an image of Christ's Passion to my mind as He suffered immeasurable pain prior to his crucifixion.
And finally, there was Superman's enormous feat of lifting that gargantuan, kryptonite-littered "island" into the sky (a buddy of mine went so far as to call it a continent). If you go to see the movie, notice Superman's body after he has pushed the destructive land mass into outer space. He passes out and falls through the earth's heat shield, plunging to certain doom. However, before he descends to earth, see if you notice that his near lifeless body takes on the form of Christ's body on the cross!

It's undeniable - Superman looked just as if he'd been nailed to an invisible cross before he plummeted to earth! That kinda irked me a bit, just because it was such an obvious allusion to Jesus on the cross. Jesus made an unimaginably huge sacrifice for the good of mankind, right? Well, suffice it to say that it's not too hard to see the similarities between the sacrifice of Jesus and the one made by Superman at the end of this movie.

I don't know how anybody else feels about that last scene, but Bryan Singer HAD to have been going for a crucifixion image with that shot. I just don't see how that could have possibly been a coincidence. It might seem weird, but one of my favorite scenes in the whole movie only lasts for a couple of seconds. It's right after Clark gets the coordinates that Lois faxed to the Daily Planet.

Clark slips away, the music starts and Clark gets in the elevator. He takes off his glasses in full Kent civilian attire, points his arm straight up and just flies through the elevator shaft. I thought to myself, "How cool is that? You're just chillin' in your work suit, decide it's time to fly.... and you just hit the skies." Who wouldn't LOVE to be able to do that, you know?

But, criticisms aside, I really thought that this was a triumphant return for the Man of Steel. From what I gathered, the movie was left open enough for at least one sequel, so here's hoping.

Free Will vs. Predestination

First of all, thank you for taking the time to visit and read my babblings and rantings. I am NOT a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I love God and love writing about my beliefs. I´m confident that not everybody will agree with what I believe, but that´s cool - just as long as you keep in mind that these are the convictions of just one man - ME.

So...... I thought I´d tackle a particular difficult topic in my debut blog.

I should start with my disclaimer - that being that, decoding the mysteries of our Lord is not exactly my area of expertise. I mean, how could it be? I´m only human, right? However, I do tend to mull over some of life's most perplexing questions from time to time when the mood hits me. Concurrently, I usually wind up with at least one possible answer to the question in my head. The answer never satiates me, but it does satisfy me to the point where I can wait patiently for the true answers to be revealed.

Lately, I've been thinking about FREE WILL.

Some time ago, I was speaking with a non-Christian about free will and he asked me something along the lines of, "If every single person has a predetermined fate, then where's the free will in that?" Well, I gotta admit - it's an excellent question to ask. No doubt, it's already been asked millions of times throughout the ages, but hey..... why not take a stab at it myself and see if I can come up with something feasible?

If you have a Bible and happen to be reading through the book of Romans, you'll see words like "predestined," "chose" and "elect," even though that same book also holds people accountable for their own choices (…or failure to choose). Elsewhere, we read and learn that each individual is expected to choose whether or not to believe in the Son of God. John 3:16 is probably the most well-known example of this basic truth.

In Matthew 7:26, we learn that people can choose whether to be foolish or wise and, in areas such as John 20:30-31 and 2 Timothy 3:15, we read various instructions on the way to salvation. From there, we're left with our own choices to make. Reject His words…. or choose to obey them. Our love for Him manifests itself through our obedience to His word.

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
John 14:21 (NIV)

So, if it's God's will that nobody should perish (2 Peter 3:9), then it must be someone else's choice that separates us from God, right? After all, how could God hold us accountable for our choices if we never had to free will to choose our path to begin with? Simply put, a fair God would not impose His ordinances and expectations on those who are not free to make their own choices.

Now, if what I've just written is true, then how can Scripture be so clear to say that God already KNOWS who's going to be saved?

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Romans 8:29 (KJV)

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
1 Peter 1:2 (KJV)

Personally, I try to wrap my head around passages such as the one in Ephesians 1:4 and always wind up with a headache. I mean, could our good LORD really have chosen us "…before the foundation of the world"? It makes me wonder if the mysteries of predestination and free will can ever be fully understood by our finite minds. Well, if Romans 11:33-36 is any indication of what we can expect with regards to full comprehension, the answer is a resounding NO.

As I tend to do with many of life's greatest mysteries, I have oversimplified the answer with an analogy that suits me. It doesn't do the mystery justice, but like I said, it'll hold me off until God reveals the truth to me. So, I see free will and predestination this way:

Have you ever watched a home movie, either your own or someone else's? Perhaps if you're handy enough with a camera, you've even filmed a home movie, like a family reunion or a barbecue or something. Anyway, you film your family doing all of the things that families do and when you're done, you've got a tape to watch, right? Someone pops your tape in the VCR and the first images appear.

You now have your family on film and you can watch their crazy antics as many times as you want. You say to your friend, "Oh, here's where Uncle Al spills his fruit punch all over Aunt Alice's dress. Watch this." You knew he was gonna spill his fruit punch because you've already seen it. You saw everything that your family did, heard everything that they said.... yet nobody on that film was controlled to the point where they weren't allowed to make any choices. Everybody moved and talked and acted in their own way. Their words were their own. Their actions were their own. Their blunders were their own. You caused nobody to do what you wanted them to do, yet you can watch that tape, knowing how it'll end.

So, how can you know all of this? Well, that's an easy one, isn't it? It's because you don't exist inside the tape. You live OUTSIDE of the tape. You MADE the tape and you can see what happens, but you're not living INSIDE the video itself. Now, imagine as you're reading this explanation right now, God is on His favorite easy chair and He's watching a video of you reading what I've written. You decide to log off and go to bed. God knew you were going to do that. As freaky as this thought might be, imagine that we're all on tape right now! We're on God's tape. Now, we really ARE inside of a video -- His video!

Now, if our timeline is like a reel of film, then we must conclude that God is timeless, which is to say that He exists outside of the fabric of time. He had no beginning and He will have no end, yet we can't say the same for that tape… or our existence, can we? God is an infinite Being, watching finite humans living their lives.... the way THEY choose. You can't fiddle with that VHS tape to prevent Uncle Al from spilling his fruit punch. And if you could prevent mistakes…. or sad happenings or tragedies, you could affect free will. With that power, you could even take free will away altogether. The difference is that God doesn't take that away from us. He lets us be free to make our own mistakes.

Have you ever heard people ask questions like, "Where was God on 9/11?"

I wonder what these people expected to get for a response?

For certain, God allows tragedies to occur. He allows us to experience the good and the bad. Yet, anybody who wants God's help in their lives can have it. He left us an instruction manual. It's as if God said, "I won't interfere with your free will. However, if you ever DO want Me to point you in the right direction, read this. It's a basic user's manual to happier living."

That's our Bible.

The answers are laid out. The choice to read or disregard it is still ours to make.

That's our free will.

In the end, I believe our role is pretty basic. We must choose to be obedient to the LORD and, in all likelihood, leave issues such as predestination, foreknowledge and free will up to God to explain to us when He feels the time is right.

Feel free to comment if you´d like to lend your input.... and I hope you enjoy the musings of the Guileless Vituperator.