Hate Sin, Love [to exploit] Sinners. 08/22/2011
 I remember back in high school sitting in my world religions class, while the teacher taught us about the rules and traditions of Judaism - the Sabbath in particular. She explained how Sabbath keeping among the Jews were once so strict (and might possibly still be in other parts of the world) that they wouldn't even turn on their lights to refrain from working ... except there was a catch; rather than remain in semi-darkness on Friday nights, they would hire 'gentiles' to turn the lights on for them! I guess as long as THEY weren't working... I had asked my teacher why Jews felt it okay to hire others to sin for them, and she explained that Judaism, among many other world religions, past and present, believed that the God they served was their God alone and had little concern for the righteousness of other 'people groups,' that the Laws of Moses were for the Jews to follow, and no one else. Even still, did they really believe that God saw their actions as a legitimate loophole? ...many Christians seem to think so. 'Jersey Shore' ranks among the top fifty television shows in America, while America also happens to be 70-80% Christian. Now, I could go off, ranting about how ungodly the state of Christianity is in Western culture that we could actually look forward every week to watching people glorify godlessness, sexual sin, drunkenness, etc, etc ... but I won't. I think there is a much deeper, heartbreaking problem that goes 'beyond' it just being sinful. Christians who like Jersey shore must be so apathetic towards those they watch, that they're next to sociopathic - inhuman even. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but there is no denying that a certain level of apathy must be maintained if one is to enjoy watching eight people suffer in a state of spiritual deadness all the while accumulating more and more deeds for which God will judge and send them to hell. That's what it is. It's like walking into a room where you find a woman trying to hang herself and instead of trying to get her down, you pull up a chair, possibly some snacks, and have a laugh. I mean, walking back out of the room and leaving her to suffocate is miles lower on the 'apathy scale,' than what Christians do to the unbeliever for entertainment. I used to LOVE Jersey Shore. I began watching it online at the invitation of a friend (not Christian), and after the first episode I was hooked until the second season. I didn't stop watching it for the reasons I gave just now, I stopped for mostly selfish reasons. I remember cringing every time Pauly, the Situation, Ronnie, or Vinny would call even an above average looking girl a 'grenade.' How could I laugh, like many others do, when if any of these men (boys) had been asked about me, I too would've been called 'grenade?' ...not to mention the majority of women who declare their love for them?! By the end of the second season, that uncomfortable feeling had gradually moved from my own self-consciousness to the fact that ultimately, when I watched Jersey Shore, I glorified in the things that God hates, and I couldn't watch it any longer. It was not until a few weeks ago, when I was overwhelmed by the amount of excitement for the fourth season coming from Christians that it really hit me what it was that Christians REALLY do, when we glorify in the sin of others. We exploit them. Because we ourselves cannot go out drinking, cannot have uninhibited sex, cannot 'act a fool' just because, we then turn to those we THINK are just going to hell anyways to 'flick the switch' for us, so that we may live a life of sin through them. The only problem is, God saw that 'loophole' from a mile away! Romans 1:32 ** Hey all... Of course, I enjoy blogging for the sake of blogging, but the point of any blog is for it to be read! If you think there is even one person who might enjoy what I write, don't be afraid to share it with them - your involvement with the growth of my readership would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks for reading, and please share your thoughts below. Avey. 2 Comments Babies are Atheist? 08/02/2011
 This claim has caused a great controversy throughout the theist/atheist community on YouTube. It is one of those topics that keep popping up every six months or so, where the majority of atheists regurgitate this phrase to better propagate the idea that atheism is the default position therefore children are indoctrinated into religion, and theists (as well as a very small minority of atheists) attempt to explain again and again why this is not so. The best counter argument I’ve heard by a theist so far goes along these lines: The only way we can identify anyone as atheist or theist is when they’ve addressed the proposition, ‘God or gods exists.’ An atheist is one who rejects said proposition where as a theist (or deist/pantheist) is one who accepts it, and an agnostic is one who has not enough knowledge to answer it. Considering the fact that babies cannot understand, much less address the proposition, they are just as much atheists as a shoe or cracker is. I immediately began to use this counter argument against the various atheists I would come across for the last week or so parroting ‘Babies are atheist,’ and despite the fact that it wasn’t well received by them (figures), I was completely confident in its logic and truth.. ...but not so much anymore. It’s not because I’ve found the counter argument to be illogical (or wholly untrue), rather because it was completely devoid of the Christian reality I hold, this reality forcing me to agree with the atheist! I believe babies are born atheist, and my reasoning is strictly biblical – which is why I have no qualms with ‘voting’ alongside the atheists, as they’ll find what I say detestable all the same (as will most Christians). Now there are a number of passages in the Bible that tell us the natural born state of humanity; enemies of God (Rom 5:10), alienated from God (Col 1:21), dead in sin (Eph 2:1-5), and unable/disinclined to seek god (Rom 3:11). The Bible tells us we were all born unbelievers! Yes, I do understand that ‘unbelievers’ is an all-encompassing term of the varying false beliefs within humanity and does not just mean ‘atheist,’ yet God does not differentiate between the idolatry of false gods and the idolatry of self, celebrities, sports, entertainment, food (in other words, false gods) – so neither will I. Nor does God give any more credit to the Muslim or Hindu, let’s say, for believing a god exists, than the atheist who does not – so neither will I, as Islam, Hinduism and atheism are all expressions of one's distaste for God anyway! We do not need to respond to the theistic proposition of God’s existence to be moved from a kind of non-existent neutrality, to the ‘atheist,’ ‘theist,’ and ‘agnostic’ slot. There are only two categories; those who are unbelievers in the all-encompassing sense for those who reject the God of the Bible and gratify ‘the cravings of their flesh’ whether it be through the worship of false gods or through the worship of self; or those who accept the God of the Bible and gratify Him alone. We are BORN into the first and are invited into the second. We are BORN atheists and are invited (by the grace of God through the death of his Son) to become TRUE theists. ** What I find unbearable about Christianity on YouTube is that the Christians seem almost ashamed to use their Christianity or the Bible as the foundation for any view that they hold, whether it be on the topic of abortion or homosexuality – or whether or not babies are atheists. The secular world already knows how to contemplate and philosophize and can do it for hours without ever coming up with an answer. Yet, we as Christians have definitive answers for why we believe what we do due to the truth in the Bible, but waste our time playing philosophers among the Greeks and magicians among the Jews (biblical reference). ‘Abortion is wrong because God values life.’ Why is this not good enough an answer for the Christian to give? Maybe the Greek and Jew won’t be satisfied, but it’s not our job to satisfy, as no matter how hard you philosophize, unless it is among those who God has awakened to the reality we hold, it will all be pointless! ...Like explaining colours to the blind. So for the sake of those truly looking for answers - or at least a belief system that can confidently justify their answers, why not look to satisfy them?  You won't be watching any Prime-time cartoon show or cartoon network for too long without coming across a character who's a pedophile or one who hints of some sexual depravity; Herbert the Pervert and Quagmire ("Family Guy"), Cecil Creeper ("Morel Orel"), Roger ("American Dad"), and the innumerable characters in the "Robot Chicken" skits ... and these characters are also among the most popular ones. Why? LIKE WHY??? Why do we find them funny? How far has the humor of Western society sunk? I literally cringe at the thought of those who were sexually abused coming across characters like these for the first time - or having to sit among friends who quote Herbert the Pervert like we would Plato. Then there are those who use the term 'rape' to describe the way in which they handle video game controllers or eat a sandwich; is it really that much of a surprise that we hardly blink when Quagmire hits an unsuspecting women over a head and drags her behind a bush? What could be more insulting to rape victims (and women) than joking about the women who are so unattractive that they can only get sex by being raped (or so unattractive that even rapists won't rape them) like Robot Chicken so often portrays some of their female characters? How long will pedophilia merely be a joke and start becoming an accepted reality? After all, CATHOLIC PRIESTS molests children and people just shake their heads, 'Oh, gosh darnnit. Those darn Catholic priests are at it again...' ...and then it's the big joke on the "Late Night with 'whoever' Show" for a night or two... ...and everyone forgets about it. *** Almost five minutes after finishing this blog - I log onto YouTube and this is the first video I clicked on: Zulway: God of Mercy in my subscription box. It is a perfect example of how our society, for whatever reason, finds rape and other sexual depravities funny.  This will be another post responding to a YouTube video about atheism and purpose. To see the video click here What I found interesting, though not surprising, is that the things you listed that made your life worth living, AgentofDoubt were all self-centered and temporal. I like helping people. I like having communal loving experiences with my family. I really enjoy following the progression of technology and art. Well, what happens when you become physically and emotionally incapable of helping people or following the progression of technology and art? What happens when you lose your family? Where do you find meaning and purpose then? Would it be fair for me to say that a mentally handicapped quadriplegic is incapable of seeing their life as one worth living – as a person who can barely interact with their environment and needs more help than he/she can give? Is your life more worth living than someone who cannot interact with their environment as well as you can? No, you may not have to give credit to ‘magic,’ as you put it to find your life meaningful, but that is because you are lucky enough to have a functioning body as well as a functional environment to enjoy. Take these things away little by little – something we will all inevitably experience as we grow older and our hearing fails, our sight fades, our bones begin to ache, our friends and family die one by one, the technology becomes too complicated and the art more and more distasteful ... and your life becomes less and less worth living. This is why God is not only important, but necessary. God is one who creates nothing for any purpose outside the glorification of himself and that is reason enough for one to find their life worth living. Even the life of the mentally handicapped quadriplegic glorifies God, even the life of the lonely elderly, with no family or friends, with poor sight and poor hearing, glorifies God. What greater worth could one’s life have than to satisfy the purpose for their existence? You say that the life of the atheist and theist alike finds worth in the same exact thing. ...and I agree. What makes the Christian’s and atheist’s life worth living is the fact that their mere existence, flourishing or stagnant, glorifies God. The difference lies in that the Christian was invited to join God in his self-glorification and the atheist was not. ...not yet, hopefully. "I Don't Need God to be Good." 07/10/2011
 I recently began going to a new church and this week they had their 8th year anniversary. As the pastor, his wife, a friend of mine, a few other congregants and I sat together after eating a kind of celebration Indian lunch, we found ourselves on the topic of Indian vs Western culture. Now, if you were to ask a westerner’s opinion about Indian culture, their response would sound like something right out of ‘Eat Pray Love.’ Yet, as the pastor and wife explained it – it went something along the lines of harsh, everyone for themselves, and dishonest. They shared that Indian culture was rife with thievery, so much so that servants weren’t even afraid to admit stealing a ring from under a pillow, or money from out of a purse when they got caught. A friend of theirs shared that the Muslim/Hindu conflict was once so bad, that it wasn’t uncommon for a pregnant Hindu or Christian woman to be chased and have her child cut out of her – a fate that was so close to being her own. These behaviours are well contrasted by that of ours in the West. The pastor’s wife remembered the first time she had lost her purse in Canada at a grocery store; a teenage boy turned it in to the manager, money and all, and when she had tried to give him twenty bucks in return, he refused it ... ‘It was my duty’ he said. In Canada, a pregnant woman doesn’t have to wait more than a second after boarding a bus before someone offers up their seat for her. ...How can the atheist say they can be good without God? It sounds abysmally ignorant of the world around them! Imagine growing up in Indian culture, where theft and dishonesty was the norm, where violence almost always went unpunished? For the atheist to make such a statement, they rely on the fact that Western culture has already been infused with such values as ‘equality among persons,’ and ‘respect of human dignity’ by their early Christian heritage. Otherwise, their highest standard of good would be theft and dishonesty and violence, as is present not only in Indian culture, but Middle-Eastern, African and East Asian as well. But I guess when slogans are the driving force behind your movement, you have no time to deal with such fickle ideas.  I'm a Capitalist, and the mistake made by many of those who are anti-capitalists is that capitalism is synonymous with consumerism - but it's not. I love the freedom and progress that is the fruit of the capitalism... I hate the dishonesty, bribery, and slavery that is the fruit of consumerism most often evident in the commercials we are force-fed through the idiot box. Believe it or not, one of the main reason why I stopped watching television is because of the commercials; no matter how funny, not matter how serious, they literally make me seethe. Why? ...because they're all LIES, just utter LIES!! Every single benefit is over-exaggerated, every single product is over-glamorized, and every single statistic is misrepresented - for example, a recent L'Oreal commercial for hair mousse colour. Half way through this L'Oreal commercial of a woman flipping her glossy hair, which they conveniently fail to mention isn't solely the result of a mere hair dye, the narrator casually mentions that 98% of Canadians agree that their new hair mousse is as easy as shampoo. Now, granted - common sense tells us that the statement 'mousse is as easy as shampoo' is obviously true, but that's not the problem; the problem lies in the statistic they give. First: 50% of Canadians are men (derp-derp), those for whom washing hair is a chore, much less dying their hair... Second: only 55% of woman colour their hair on a regular basis. That leaves only 25% of the population to which this statistic would hold any meaning, yet NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of Canadians agree that dying hair with mousse is easier than shampoo??? It is only after a very, very close look at the television screen (but in my case, a computer screen) that you see in small print: 'Based on a survey on Canadian women who observed application.' That's right; the statistic is NOT based on Canadian people who used product, but based on Canadian women who OBSERVED application (don't get me started on the number of things that look easier than done - keeping a blog, for instance). This kind of thing happens one EVERY commercial, so you can just imagine how frustrating it would be to watch TV with me beside you, sighing and scoffing... What really get's me is that people buy into it! Why else would they bother to put something so blatantly dishonest in their commercials? So, I turned to YouTube, where the content is better, more creative and more personal ... and commercial-less?? NOT ANY MORE! Now, many, if not most Tubers are unfortunate enough to be subscribed to some goof who thinks what he/she has to say is so important, so valuable, so ... profound that his/her viewers must sit through a 30sec commercial as a fee of sorts to watch his 2min video! In which case, I end up watching just as many, if not more commercials per hour online than if I were to suffer though Liberal nonsense on TV!!!!! *inhales* AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!! ...like, am I crazy? Am I blowing this all out of proportion??  So, it has happened. I've been waiting for the day it would. The Sims is moving to Facebook. I know ... this doesn't seem as dramatic as the title suggests, but it is - or at least, to me it is. We've all seen the IMVU ads around the interwebs. It is a virtual chat site that allows it's users to make virtual selves and interact with others in a virtual world. I'm not too ashamed to say that I've tried it, though I was only sixteen or seventeen and I haven't been back since. It was fun at first, but the lag, bad graphics, and limited freedom due to having a free account made me grow disinterested after a few tries - not to mention the fact that the site was filled with twelve and thirteen year olds... What the site's now like, I couldn't say other than what the ad presents; even more sexually explicit The first thing I did when I registered to IMVU was create an avatar. It was one of the most self-conscious experiences I've ever had (other than walking down the aisle of a bus). The avatars came in one size; skeleton, the eyes; golf balls, the noses; Micheal Jackson, and the hair; silk from the finest of silk worms... So you could imagine being encouraged to make an avatar that most looked like you, and then realizing that 'you' isn't even an option to begin with ... but not in The Sims. The Sims allows you to tweak almost every aspect of the avatar - fat or skinny, Bambi or beady eyes, straight or flat nose, kinky or straight hair, human or alien, and everything in between! ... making it worrisome. "But why?!" You ask. Well, have you watched the movie "Surrogates" with Bruce Willis? The plot of the movie is of a futuristic society where everyone has advanced robotic avatars through which they live the majority of their lives from home. It is a society where everyone is beautiful and virtually everyone is successful. You then would think that after freeing up humanity from illness and disease and unnecessary death, they would then aim to increase in wisdom and virtue, but no, this society becomes increasingly materialistic, narcissistic, egotistical, apathetic - almost sociopathic, etc. As the story progresses, the characters as well as movie viewers realize that the avatars, though they may strengthen humanity in some ways, they weaken the part of us that actually separates Men from pleasure seeking animals. "But that's only a movie, Avey!" Maybe so. I can't remember the quote verbatim, but I once read that Hollywood movies, especially the ones that deal with the future, are not entertaining us with futuristic fantasy. They reflect what is already happening; sometime's very subtlety sometimes very over-exaggeratedly... ...So over-exaggeratedly that we find reality stagnant, and flock to virtual worlds to recreate what the movies and television has brainwashed us into believing reality is. The Sims, which I believe along with IMVU and other 'virtual-life' sites (even Facebook, blogging, video games and the like, to be fair), would only feed our unquenchable hedonistic tendencies and pull us farther and farther away from reality, from being virtuous human beings - after all, virtues are no longer necessary in a world where there are no real vices. Thanks for reading, and be sure to tell me what you think! Here is a trailer to Life 2.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t89fZ0RqEw Arrest these Children!! 06/19/2011
 As I stepped off my porch on my way to a friends, a little girl called to me. I raised my eyes from the pavement to find her and a boy sitting behind a table no more than fifty feet ahead. 'Would you like to buy something?' She said. Overtaken by nostalgic memories of my own lemonade stand, my hand instinctively went to my bag only to remember that was one of the many instances I never had any change. 'Once second,' I said. I ran back up the steps to retrieve the five dollar bill I had found in the washing machine that morning from off my dining table. Then I hurried towards them. They grinned at one another. 'Hello,' I said. 'Hello, would you like to buy something?' Their table was covered in chips, candy, cans of pop, and of course lemonade - and a menu listing the pricing as well as a few more items. 'I'll take a bag of chips, and a freezie.' 'Okay.' The little girl handed me the chips and raced inside to get the freezie. 'Do you have change for a five?' I asked when she had returned. She took out her wallet and counted out the change; $4.75. 'You owe me $3.75,' I said. 'The chips and freezie came to $1.25, so you only owe me $3.75, not four.' 'Oh.' The girl handed me the correct change. 'Thanks. Goodbye.' 'Goodbye,' the girl and boy (who had done literally nothing) both chimed. ...capitalism at its finest. They knew what their customers demanded on a hot, humid day and then supplied it. They were not forced into paying dues to the mafia - I mean, unions to protect their 'rights.' These children had no permit to sell merchandise on the side walk. They will not be taxed for their earnings, nor would I be taxed for my purchases. ...yet they're breaking the law (oh,the horror); now arrest them. Unoriginal 06/18/2011
 I spend a considerable amount of time on YouTube each day and every now and again, I'll stumble upon an atheist video challenging the theist (Christian) with 10 or so questions about theism (Christianity). Now, despite popular beliefs, Christianity is open to challenge - and so am I, but the one thing that frustrates me the most is that these vloggers challenge Christianity with an air of originality, like after 2000 years since the death of Christ, they have finally discovered the ultimate, most devastating questions that will single-handedly send Christianity/Judaism back to the Middle-Eastern desert where it belongs. A user who goes by the Tube-pseudonym, mcdonaldscott24 has asked 15 questions about theism (but really Christianity) in his video, 'My Challenge to Creationist theists,' all of which I will attempt to answer - hopefully to your satisfaction. Q1: If there is a God, why do we see no substantial evidence for his existence? This can be answered in a number of different ways. The first answer that came to mind was the old, 'absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.' It does not follow that because God is not evident to some, he therefore does not exist. In fact, on would think that if said God existed in the way the Bible reports, He would be capable of hiding himself from specific individuals within humanity - why not? I could provide you with a Biblical/Christian reason - because sight does not equal faith. You don't want to see God so that you may then serve him, but only to satisfy your selfish curiosity. Q2: If God created the universe in six days, then why do we see the universe still expanding and the formation of new galaxy? I am not a creationist, neither a young-earth creationist ... but, it does not follow that because God created the world, regardless of the amount of time it took, that the universe would therefore remain stagnant. For all we know, the expansion of the universe is necessary for the existence of our solar system, and therefore, the existence of life. Q3: If the Bible is true, then why do we find contradictions between what the Bible says and what history records? ...such as? You cannot just assert that there are contradictions between the Bible and history and then demand a response. Q4: Why is there no evidence of the enslavement of the Jews by Egypt, or signs of migration of the Jewish nation? I have no idea... but we have no evidence outside the Bible for, I would say, about 80% of what's in it. But once again, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence - there must be historical evidence that contradicts the Biblical story of Egypt for said story to contradict history. Not answered as well as one would like, but it's the best I've got :P Q5: If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then why do we see so many variations in its stories from one author to another? Now, I genuinely don't understand this question. The only Biblical 'story' that is retold by different authors is the Gospels ... people perceive the same experience differently, and recount it in a way that best reflects what they perceived... The same goes for the Gospels. Q6: If the Bible is the true word of God, then why do so many argue about what it says? ...because people are not infallible. Granted: Christians do not argue about primary doctrine - the Gospels - rather secondary doctrine (evolution vs creationism). 'Sects' of Christianity that do not hold to primary doctrines, are not Christianity (JW, Mormonism, etc.) Q7: If God is all knowing, why do we see him talking about having regrets and making mistakes, and why does he change his mind. Why wasn't he able to get it right the first time? It is called 'anthropomorphism,' or 'personification.' It is a literary device. When we say, 'the trees danced in the wind,' we use personification to describe the way the tree moves in a way that you or I can relate to. Just as when the Bible says that ' it repented the Lord that he had made man on the Earth, and it grieved him at his heart,' anthropomorphism is used to describe God in a way that humanity can relate to ... You might as well have asked, 'how can God feel grief in his heart, when he doesn't have a heart?' Q8: If the Bible is the literal word of God, why haven't we found the pillars of the world or the dome that covers it? Now, this question is just silly. The Bible is not the literal word of God. What's worse, Job said these words, not God. What's EVEN worse, is that it only goes to show your lack of understanding of what the Bible is... Job is a book of poetry - trees don't literally dance; mountains don't literally tremble. Q9: Why don't theists follow the Ten Commandments outlined in Exodus 34, the REAL Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments with which everyone is familiar, is the REAL Ten Commandments. What Moses wrote down in Exodus 34 was the covenant renewal between the people and God after they had succumb to the worship of the Golden Calf. If you actually READ Exodus 34, you would've saw that God, Himself, said he would rewrite the Ten Commandments, while Moses wrote down something entirely different. Once again, lack of understanding. Q10: If Jesus wasn't sent to do away with the Laws of Moses, then why don't Christians follow the other 613? Jesus said that he did not come to do away with the Laws of Moses but fulfill them, and he did. Christians TODAY do not belong to the Israelite theocracy 1500 BC, so ritualistic and cultural laws need not be followed as their purpose was fulfilled in Christ. Christians are still held to the moral laws - the Ten Commandments - through which Jesus reaffirmed as "Love God and love your neighbour.' Q11: If Jesus was God in the flesh, why wasn't he able to recite the Ten Commandments?? POPPYCOCK!! Q12: If the Bible is the authority on Morality, then why was slavery and beating slaves justified by the Laws of Moses. Slavery was not THE law, nor was beating slaves... It was a regulation. It was not required that the Israelite have slaves, nor was it required that they beat them - slavery was very much a part of ancient cultures and it still exists today. It was a NECESSARY way of life as it is illustrated in our society; not everyone can be owners - most everyone must be workers, and the laws about slavery (like the labour laws today) were to regulate the treatment of slaves. *Employers have only been banned from beating employees in then 1900, anyways! Q13: Why was rape, molestation, and genocide justified and commanded by God? First: Rape and molestation were not commanded by God ... but being so unoriginal, I can easily assume what you man by 'rape and molestation.' In the instance where God commanded that the virgins and children be spared from slaughter, and then taken by the Israelites, does not justify rape. When God had commanded for such an act to take place, the Midianite woman had enticed Israelite men with sex into turning from God and following Baal (Baal worship is rife with sexual immorality and child sacrifice). The virgins, having done nothing to deserve judgement were spared. Q14: Why do we not see a difference in morality between the religious and the non-religious throughout history? Wow, this is definitely the first. The last I checked, religion made people evil, evil, evil!! ...but which non-religious people throughout history? The phenomenon of atheism is relatively recent, and where/whenever there were atheists, they were unimportant... But Christians do not claim that atheists cannot act morally, only that they have no basis for acting morally (especially if they will not get caught). Phew! That was laborious. I hope that even one of these questions were answered to your liking. If you've got anymore or need clarification, feel free to ask - and I'll do my best. Pottermore; more money spent! 06/17/2011
 ...don't get me wrong, I love Harry Potter and I'm wholeheartedly glad that Rowling's series was as successful as it was ... but man, do you know how much money I have spent just to enjoy it? ...and, I'm not even what other Potter fans would call a 'real fan!' I own only FIVE of the books (three of which I borrowed from a friend, but after years of not returning the books, she said I could have them - and one of which is the seventh that I pre-ordered for twenty bucks), nor do I own any of the movies, or any sort of Harry Potter paraphernalia. The most by which I've expressed my love for Potter/Rowling is skipping school to go see the movies on opening night (lunch time), and I am definitely planning on seeing the last at the mid-night show if there is one. I would say that I've spent a whopping $160-200 ... I know, it's a fortune!! But seriously. I only became a fan of HP after the fifth book came out at the age of twelve or thirteen, so my mother was spared the costs an what not as I would just borrow the books from the library. But let's say, Rowling decides to write even a single HP book that stands alone from the rest of the series going for $50 bucks at Chapters or wherever - and then there's the movie (we would probably have to wait until 2028 to see, and by then movie prices will probably have increased to $20 or more a ticket ... it might even be split into two movies). What if it is another seven book series? Goodness gracious, great goblets of fire!! Okay, but seriously. Why write ANOTHER HP book? I want to see Rowling invent something new. Maybe you, like I, and everyone knows she'll never, ever be able to top the profound creativity of the HP series, but so what? Writing another HP will be no challenge, it will mean nothing when she sells her new book by the millions like the media drones will report - absolutely nothing. Granted: the world of HP is so vast that an infinite number of creations can be spawned from it (you can thank copyright laws that there won't be) ... but still. I can't say that I'm not excited though. I'm intrigued by what road Rowling may choose to go, maybe HP the next generation - actually, I'm quite sure that it'll be about the next generation ... maybe Potter's children??? Wouldn't it be an interesting twist if the son of the great Gryffindor, Harry Potter, were to become a Slytherin! Rowling can only tell... ...but I might as well begin to save right now. Here's the site: pottermore.com The owls are links to her YouTube channel. *Edit (June 23): It turns out that Pottermore is not a book at all!! It's an online RPG!!! | ...me;a Christian, conservative, piercing  ...archives:August 2011 ...categories:All |
RSS Feed