Monday, March 31, 2014

Preachers Promoting "Noah" Propaganda

Some Christian leaders and Pastors have been making some pretty big leaps to actually recommend that Christians not only embrace Darren Aronofsky’s Noah movie but pay to see it. 
A couple of such articles I have read include one written exclusively for ChristianPost.comby John Snowden, the Biblical Consultant to filmmakers on the 'Noah' movie and another by Phil Cooke titled Why I'm Recommending Christians See the Movie "Noah"

Many tweets by supporters have echoed some of the main points in those two articles so I will focus on Mr. Cooke’s article.  Before the film was released, these leaders contended that they were bothered by the fact that Christians in opposition had not actually –seen- the film yet and were basing their remonstrances on hear-say.   I was one who was basing mine on Glenn Beck’s take.  But after I viewed the movie on Friday, I was actually more appalled and later wrote my review Don't Get Punked by Paramount's Pagan "Noah" Film.

Mr. Cooke opened his article by writing "Here’s why I think Christians need to see the movie:
1. I’ve been on the set.  I’ve talked to the Chairman of the Studio, as well as the producer, director, set designer, and even the star – Russell Crowe. Not once did I ever get the feeling they were anything but serious. They didn’t mock the story..."

It seems that Christians, being human are easily enchanted by the famous.  To Mr. Cooke I say congrats on being in the inner-circle.  I'm happy for you being on the set and participating on conference calls with big power players.  But I will not say to Hollywood "Thank you sir, may I have another".  Christians these days are becoming like the Hellenized Jews.  They want so badly to be cool and accepted.  If everyone accepts you in this world, it may be time to reflect upon the question of why.  Narrow is the road.

The Director (Darren Aronofsky) is the first indicator that the intentions of this film are not in harmony with the clear intent of the Scriptures.  Watch his prior work Black Swan and you will know you're dealing with.  Actually, don't subject yourself to Black Swan.  According to The Washington Times The producer of the movie “Noah,” a self-professed atheist, says he is proud of the fact that he’s taken a story inspired by God’s word and turned it into something so secular.  Director Aronofsky called his movie “the least biblical biblical film ever made...” Read more:
Mr Cooke continued in his treatise, “For at least a decade, we’ve been asking Hollywood to produce movies based on the Bible.  Now that they’re doing it, let’s be more encouraging... Our expectations may be unrealistic.  Paramount Pictures is a business – a secular film studio.  Should we really expect every Bible based film to be 100% accurate? Whatever extra-Biblical elements there are in the film, that doesn’t overcome the fact that Paramount Studios is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and promote a Bible story."
To that I contend that the notion that we should just be happy that Hollywood is WILLING to make a movie ABOUT the Bible is misguided.  He didn’t just add and omit characters, Aronofsky changed the entire point of the Noah story into a screenplay that reads like a love-letter written by Al Gore for PETA and Green Peace.  Paying atheists like Aronofsky to make films distorting Biblical accounts actually encourages --more-- distortions of the Bible.  If they see that the controversy of producing such offensive films will still result in Christians shelling out hundreds of million of their dollars, what kind of biblical renditions do you suppose they will create?  The answer is the same kind that reflects -their- beliefs.

When it comes to the word of God, accuracy does matter.  Should we be glad when people are drawn into the sanctuaries of cults?  The vulnerable in such cases are seeing specious interpretations of the Bible – but hey, it’s the Bible.  Look at John’s warning to those who add or detract from the book of Revelation at the very preface.  Is the reasoning any less applicable to other books of God’s word?

Cooke continued “This will be a national conversation that millions will participate in, and Noah will be water cooler conversation for the next 6 months. What an opportunity for the Christian community! Instead of condemning it outright, let’s join the conversation. Rarely does an event come along that begs us to present our side of the story. But if we don’t see the movie, we’ll be wasting the opportunity”

Should we be glad and patronize them with our money when "artists" prominently display "art" with the cross in a jar of urine or Mary splattered with cow dung because it gives us an "in" to share the Gospel at the water cooler?  Ah Phil, I don't think I need that kind of help thank you. 

Assessments by Christians who like to be part of the action reminds me of naive new Christians who make arguments in favor of "night club ministries".  Using weak rationalization some might want to start a strip club ministry where we go and slip cash and biblical tracts in g-strings for that matter.  Crazy as it sounds, it is as substantive as the notion that we need some kind of Hollywood spring-board to share the gospel with the lost. 

I understand that Christians want to live worldly lives and be entertained.  I'm guilty!  But I'm seeing what is happening in this country and am feeling more shallow by the day - every time that I participate in the trivial pop-culture conversations around the proverbial water cooler, in my case with sports talk as a huge football fan.  God promised Noah he would never again destroy the world - by a flood.  Perhaps it is not ironic that while we debate this inane Noah movie, we seem to be pushing God's patience in ways approaching "the days of Noah" as Christ said it would be “like” on Earth when He returns.

Mr. Cooke concluded "Do we as a Christian community really need to “protect” ourselves from a movie that isn’t 100% Biblically accurate?  Would the Apostle Paul have run from the challenge? Rather than withdrawing from the discussion, I suggest that we seize the moment, turn the tables, and use this to our advantage."

To that notion I say that Paul may have gone to Ephesus, the location of the Temple of Artemis; however, being there and boldly proclaiming the Gospel to the people is very different than patronizing their work.  I don't think he participated in their idolatry and cannot see him making a financial contribution to it.

The church is more distracted than I have ever seen in my lifetime.  It is now far too consumed with money, building mega-buildings and pastors selling self-esteem books about how to have "Your Best Life Now" to recognize how far into depravity our world has fallen.  If only Paul, Peter and the early church knew how easy it could be to obey the great commission and make disciples of all men, when we are merely asking them to be disciples of themselves and their own entertainment.  To think all of the stoning, crucifixions, beheadings and being fed to Lions could have been avoided by early Christians if they had only had –OUR- special tactics.

The "Bride of Christ" now focuses on and reveres Hollywood as much as non-believers do.  I cannot shake this feeling that when the American church refuses to deal with what is going on in this country - yet has plenty of time to defend this preposterous movie, when America finally has our true come to Jesus moment, it will end like final scene in Schindler's List when the shame overcomes Oskar Schindler. 

It would be nice to see Christian ministries and churches in America focus on the leftist coup d'état right before our eyes.  THAT is what they are going to be thinking shortly when the federal government forces them to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, when MDs are forced to perform abortions and euthanasia, when the government tells pastors and their congregations to bow to their image.  Yes, like Schindler, this effort to justify a pagan Hollywood film will end in a Schindler-like moment as they contemplate - what could have been.

America needs to be embarrassed for being preoccupied by this nonsense and ask ourselves the question:  Is life so dear and entertainment so sweet as to be purchased as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take...

Friday, March 28, 2014

Don't Get Punked by Paramount's Pagan Noah Film

At last I can write my remonstrance on the Noah movie without the “elite” dismissing me for not having seen it.  This week I wrote based upon “hear-say” and now I can tell you that every word of my conjecture was confirmed after sitting through this film.  Not only was my thesis confirmed but the movie was actually –worse- than I had originally expected.  After viewing Darren Aronofsky's Noah, I am astounded by the number of Christian Pastors who joined in the promoting of of this propaganda piece – but that is for my follow up column.

Paramount says the Noah Movie was "inspired by the story of Noah" but it appears more likely it was inspired by the story of Al Gore’s protégé Ted Kaczynski.  Paramount would have been more accurate if they had made a movie about the Uni-Bomber because this Noah had more in common with Ted then the Biblical Noah and Russell Crowe’s rendition would have required very little tweaking.  The film was full of absurdities like creatures made out of rock who helped Noah make the ark.  The "rock people" as Glenn Beck called them in his review, were very similar to Transformers.  Artistic license is one thing but that was so far out that I couldn’t engage in the requisite suspension of disbelief.    

Twisting Scripture for Left-wing Indoctrination Purposes

Right out of the gate Noah was scolding his son for wanting to pick too many wild flowers from the ground for fear that it would throw the earth out of balance.  He later taught his son that those wicked people also dared to kill animals and eat thembecause they think it makes them stronger”.  The recurring message was that The Creator was going to destroy mankind because of what man did to the EARTH rather than man – sinning against God!  Many have questioned why the film doesn’t mention “GOD” by title or name but rather refers to “the Creator”.  It’s probably because the self-professed atheist Director, not believing in God - is less threatened by the term - creator.  A “creator” in the minds of the atheist could be a highly evolved space alien, which allows a lot more leeway for a perverse world that is becoming (not ironically) more like those who God “regretted having created” (according to Genesis).  This creator was not a personal God like the God of Noah and The Bible.  This Noah was a true environmentalist psychopath like Ted Kaczynski. 

The film was unambiguous in the assertion that God intended to wipe out ALL human life so the animals and nature could live on and the Earth could return to its proper “balance”.  The ultimate kick in the nuts to me was in the end when – the main “evil” leader of the Earth – shows up as a stow-away in the ark (even after being bludgeoned by one of the giant rock-transformers).  What were his evil attributes? 

1. They have him eat some of the animals on the ark
2. He tells Ham that we are above the animals and that “God gave man dominion over the
animals”.  So the villain stating at least one thing that was actually true to scripture in this film - was what made him diabolical. 

Judging from the message, despite Darren Aronofsky being a professed atheist, he seems to have more pagan influence.  True to leftist pagan principles, man is evil because he pollutes the environment, picks flowers and kills animals.  Those are the hollow beliefs of the left today and the only thing in the world they might actually think is “sin”, which is why they distort the scriptures in this way.  They have no compunction whatsoever for the millions of baby humans murdered every year.  Why would they?  This movie sends the message to the world how they feel about human life as the raving lunatic Noah planned up till the last moment to kill his son and daughter in-law’s baby with a knife if it was a girl, so as to end procreation for the sake of the Earth!

To the left, murdering innocent human life is to do the Earth a favor.  There’s no room for the possibility that at least one of the –sins- that grieved God enough to destroy the world could have been say, sexual immorality, as was a clear reason God had destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, was a thread that was prevalent during Israel’s times of captivity, was a highly prevalent factor in the fall of Rome, historically and archeologically confirmed up to the volcanic destruction of Pompeii... (Subsequently, in consistency with leftist attacks on scripture, History Channel has a special on Sodom & Gomorrah in which they maintain that the chief reason why God destroyed it was that their level of hospitality had become abhorrent to God.)  The destruction of Pompeii and Rome are not in scripture and I’m certainly not asserting to have heard from God on those but it seems intuitive that so many nations are brought down by sexual immorality as logically it leads to the breakdown of the family, which leads to anarchy (and which as Marx predicted could bring down America).

Noah said “God picked me because He knew I would carry it out” (not because he was any different than the rest of mankind).  That is why this is a perversion of the Genesis account and a –deliberate- insult on the part of the Director and Paramount studios.   

The good news for those of you and millions of others who have not seen the movie is that you can save your money.  I would advise against the error of letting curiosity from the ensuing controversy entice you to pay your hard earned money to see this bomb.  You KNOW desperation has already set in to recoup some of the $250 billion Paramount wasted on this when they start advertising the old "If you liked Braveheart, Gladiator and …. You will love…"BS (see actual ad appearing on “Noah” Google search below).

 As I tweeted half-way through the 2 hours and 17 minutes of boredom:

Stay tuned for my follow up column addressing the numerous Christian pastors who joined in the pimping of this horrible propaganda piece.

Facebook: The Most Reluctant Growth Stock in Contemporary Market History

A recent column at asked the question of whether it is time to sell Facebook and Buy LinkedIn.  It inspired me to reflect more on the first part of the question more than the latter because of the recent pull-back in Facebook shares apparently emboldening short-sellers .

As for the first part of the question, I have no issue with LinkedIn (LNKD) but I seriously doubt it is time to sell FB and buy LinkedIn.  I have accounts at both.  I am connected to Facebook every day, throughout the day as are hundreds of millions of their billion+ users.
I rarely go into LinkedIn because the protocol of what is appropriate is so narrow.  I like -having- a LNKD account but only go into it maybe once or twice a month.  If I was unemployed maybe I would step it up there but that would only be a temporary situation.
It reminds me of a local Chamber of Commerce meeting where most of the people there are there to do some "card jamming".  You will have a bunch of sales people like insurance agents all trying to sell to each other.  Nothing wrong with that except it gets boring quickly for the average person not looking to sell something to someone.  The CONTENT is what makes FB so superior to others and that isn't going to change anytime soon.
The FB shorts are going to be in a world of pompous agony just like during last earnings call.  You can see them circulating the same tripe filled, wishful thinking talking points as they did then.  They have happy ears.  They look for some BS to which they can jointly cling and then tweet the living hell out of their insipid fallacies.
They can fool a few people in the short-term but they will die by the sword because they have little perspicacity when it comes to understanding business or the nature of "bubbles" ( a word they parrot ad nauseam and erroneously equate it to 1999, a time they apparently spent in middle school while YHOO had a $200+ BILLION market cap before they had a business plan).  Well they just  have not yet reconciled themselves with the fact that Facebook produces more revenue and eps in a single quarter then YHOO achieved in years.

2 lessons of 1999
1. When the media pundits are crying bubble in every article every day for a year, rest assured, you are not yet in a bubble.
2. REAL success stories still arise during and immediately after a bubble.  Google steadily executed and justified its market cap by delivering revenue and earnings.  Facebook is on the same path as it executes and reveals the ignorant and underhanded in the market.  The short sellers circulate rhetoric about "mo mo" like a flock of sheep.  They are the "mo mo" traders.  They circulate hype in the direction that is expedient for their short positions but the hype they circulate is disingenuous.  They talk in terms of "support and resistance" or the number of Puts or Calls purchased as though that were a sound basis for a legitimate investor to engage in ownership of a company at a particular price - or not.

What they do is not investing.  It is not savvy.  It makes them sound as though they have investment acumen to those with rudimentary understanding of investing.  However, they are no different than those clowns who purport to be sages of sports betting. 

Statistically, when you have tens of thousands of people in a room selling their magical system, a group will ALWAYS have a run of luck but in reality they are no better at it than anyone else.

Rest assured there is nobody on that Forbes 400 list that got there by trading momentum long or short or by magical charts.  Most of the people there own great companies and are more often insiders because insiders do not make impetuous mistakes by taking profits way too soon because they do not allow the bottom feeders to scare them out with constant underhanded scare tactics and baseless criticism.  Most people who have invested early in the MSFTs, AAPLs, GOOGs & FBs usually do not make the fortunes that the less emotional minority make because most of the herd sell too early as they fall for the misconception that a 100% return is an obligatory sell signal.
The interesting thing about the Facebook rise that is so different from the unjust rise in1999 bubble stocks is that the rise in FB's share price from lows after the IPO has been the most reluctant rise I've ever seen in a company's stock. 

I was short all of the right tech stocks in 1999 as I can document with time-stamped proof.  I remember the climate well as I then described it on my radio show.  Virtually NOBODY wanted to talk bubble.  It was "new paradigm..." and the praise by analysts and constant celebratory press releases from those companies came at a constant daily torrent.  FB has not been met with the fanfare. 

The climate around FB since the week the IPO was launched has been a chorus of negativity ever since. Look at Wall Street Journal columns, the daily barrage of coordinated Tweets and listen to financial broadcasts.  Any honest person of discernment will see that with regard to Facebook, negativity and polemical of Mark Zuckerberg overwhelm the total body of work out there.  

Facebook skepticism is always given deference in the media.
Facebook is simply the most reticent and reluctant growth company of its caliber.  They talk about direction but they do NOT hype.  They simply execute.  I will take a pass on the "altruistic" inanity of the mo-mo short sellers and stay the course.