Ghostbusters #0

 Dan Aykroyd had (has?) been throwing about this idea of the Ghostbusters back when they were in high school.  I guess if it were just Stantz and Spengler, it'd be **kinda** plausible without being a completely different movie, just a regular comedy without any sfx spectacling... etc...I really got the impression that Stantz and Spengler had no first hand knowledge of ghosts .... I suppose that mayve been just an assumption that could be broken rather painlessly.  They can't put all 3 of the guys in there, because Venkman was obviously a skeptic and genuinely thought that the other guys were full of it.  If it were all 3, what would the story be???  Three guys goofing around?  I guess it's possible Venkman could be in the movie but completely absent from any of the moments of supernatural phenomena.  Like "I swear to you, he was **just** here!" "Suuure...I believe you.  No, I really do..". Idk.  I guess it could work...I have to wonder if Aykroyd has actually written a script that demonstrates this concept as being workable.

"everything that happens"

 Mr. C was telling me that "everything that happens is of God's will

And then I responded "So we're all just operating on puppetry?"
He responded with a contradictory response, like He wants me to submit to His will.  And that "when you have a sinful thought".....
This was prompted by a rather open ended question that I answered as accurately as anyone can.  "What does The Bible say about God's sove renty?" 

The Bible doesn't say anything about God's sovereinty other than to say He's sovereign.  The Bible makes a lot of references to God's sovereinty that give us a good reason to pause and think for a moment.  But it doesn't say anything specifically about God's sovereinty. 

For instance --
DANIEL 5:23 

Daniel here, talking to King Nebuknzr's successor
"...but you have risen up against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your nobles, your wives, and your concubines have been drinking wine out of them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see, nor hear, nor understand. But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified"

That simply refers to the idea that God is able to make and break people's decisions.  If God were merely self serving, He probably would do that.  God does not merely look out for His own interests.  I don't recall any other passages that are even as clear as that passage is about God's sovernty.  I certainly don't recall any passages that talk about His sovereinty in any greater detail. 

I'm not sure why God desires our faith to be tested, if He knows everything.
I don't know why He wants us to repent when He knows everything from beginning to end.
I don't know why He wants to give Hellbound souls an opportunity to repent when everything is pre-ordained.
---
I have to wonder if there are moments --- however precious few they may be --- where God is genuinely surprised.  Not like a person would be surprised.  God is always ****at least**** 15 steps ahead of us, He knows how we come to our decisions and what the consequences of yesterday's actions have on today's actions and what today's actions will store up for tomorrow and so forth.  It's usually pretty predictable.  But when God sees something, a choice, a sliver of goodness, that He didn't directly cause, but no less is qualified to take full credit for because He is the author and creator of all goodness (He may grant some of that credit to the co-author, so to speak, but I don't think He wants us resting on our laurels, so He does often hold back His applause...)

Anyway...
I don't know what I was going to say further.  Or if there is anything to say further.
Sorry for the abrupt ending....  I'm probably just talking out of my ass anyhow.........:/

ultimate toxicity

People were expressing gratitude that Sony had omitted the 2016 reboot of GHOSTBUSTERS from the 2022 "Ultimate Collection".  And then someone was saying something to the effect of the people doing so were "toxic"
I guess nobody's ever going to read this, but I can dream................
The fact of the matter is the 2016 reboot of GHOSTBUSTERS is an ENTIRELY different film.  It has very little in common with the

humor
aesthetic
tonality

of the first two Ghostbusters movies.

From a technical standpoint, sure, maybe GHOSBUSTERS: ANSWER THE CALL is a "better" film than GHOSTBUSTERS II (1989) was.  After all, it was more "original", in the sense that it had none of the original cast (and I'm talking about the people who were in the movie for more than 5 or 10 seconds)...  The story was not any more original.  Different than the first film, yes, but different does not equal better.  That's like saying the man who'd been dubbed The Elephant Man was a better person than everybody else because he was different.  Sure, people aren't movies, but there is a respectability to be found in a movie that delivers what it promises in spades.  GHOSTBUSTERS II did that.  GHOSTBUSTERS: ANSWER THE CALL didn't make any promises.  The creative team that did the movie didn't even seem to know what they were doing.  They had some ideas up their sleeves and did the best they could, but seriously, that is not an achievement.  All fillmmakers do the best they can.  That doesn't make the quality of the movies they make any better.

The ULTIMATE COLLECTION GHOSTBUSTERS 4K set that was released in early 2022 could have included the reboot.  It would not have been the end of the world.  But it also would not have been the end of the world or any minOOTe tragedy had they included THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.  Or CASPER.  Or a random 15 episodes of EXTREME GHOSTBUSTERS.  Sure, why not?  Am I toxic for wanting my stuff to be MY stuff?  I'm not going to spend $100+ on a boxed set that someone made for someone else.  Or, worse yet, made for everyone, and, consequently, nobody.

images made of wood

 I have to wonder, HOW exactly did people in Pegan nations get the notion that their prized carvings were anything more than sculptures?  Not to put down sculptures, but compared the expansiveness of Yahweh, what could a collection of art really accomplish?
It's of course due to note that in these days, God doesn't **seem** to be doing anything all that special.  But, really, He's never stopped holding up this planet by the corner of His shoulder bone (figuratively speaking).  Tragedy strikes, of course, stuff happens that we'd really rather not think about, but, IMO, God's intention is for us, collectively, to work so that we love each other as much as we possibly can, in Jesus' name.  We should not have home invasions, school shootings, children hooked on drugs and whored out, we should have peace and prosperity, not material blessings necessarily, but prosperity of soul.  We should be glad to be alive, glad to have neighbors, glad for family and friends, welcoming strangers, giving generously to those who ask for help.  Yes, we should rebuke each other when we know of another's sin.  We should challenge and encourage one another toward good works, not set people's lawns on fire for their sin or call out curses.  People who don't know God, what do you expect them to do?  And believe me, there are A LOT of people, not just "in this day and age", but through the 20th century, who do not/did not know God.  Sure, churches were more prevalent in the first half of the 20th century, but were they churches that did anything to pass the faith on to the next generation?  Obviously not.  In some instances, said apostacy wasn't even challenged.  In others, it was met with nothing more than bigotry.  And of course, others still bear their own guilt entirely, being aware of the truth, having had it articulated as well as it possibly can be, knowing the beauty of it and still turning away from it.  There's nothing that any mere mortal can do about such cases.  But for churches who teach The Gospel weekly and weakly, there's some blame to be had not only on those who declined to accept The Invitation to the wedding, but on the entirety of some of these churches that have popped up over the years, despite the fact that there may have been some genuine believers in those churches.
I don't know much about the various denominations.  But I know a lot of people have become disenchanted with government solely because of a pesky thing called bureaucracy.  

From Wikipedia: The term bureaucracy (/bjʊəˈrɒkrəsi/) refers to a body of non-elected governing officials as well as to an administrative policy-making group

In other words, if God hasn't told you to say something, just SHUT UP!  If you want to chit chat or blog (heh), cool, fine, shoot the breeze, yak at each other, yak at yourself, whatever.  But sermons that consist of political propaganda, theoretical stuff that isn't even discussed in The Bible or inserted in the mouth of a modern day prophet, then what use is it if not to be a stumbling block to the weak minded?
I myself have learned to lean less on my pastor and more on God.  It's not really a **Huge** deal to me that not everything preached at church is directly from The Bible.  It probably bothers me more than it should.  People talk about how God created the world just by His word.  God doesn't say how He created the world in His book.  He does say that He created the world and was satisfied with what He created.  It does say "God said..." "and it was so", etc., but it doesn't say that "it was so" as a direct result merely of Him saying anything.  It also says later in Genesis that God "withdrew" from Abraham.  How does a God who is everywhere all the time withdraw from someone?  First of all, I'm not even sure The Bible says that God is literally everywhere all the time.  It does describe Him as being omniscient and available when/if needed and it seems logical to think His presence would fill all space, and on second thought, I think I do remember reading something along that verbiage in The Bible somewhere, but let's just say, flat out, The Bible says He's omnipresent.  How, then, is it possible for Him to withdraw?  Obviously, there's varying degrees of presence.  Just like there's varying degrees of intent.  God wants the world destroyed and forgotten.  But does He want that as badly as He wants redemption for as many people as can be reached by The Word?  Probably not.  When God says "Let there be light", the only definitive takeaway from that is God wanted there to be light and He made light.  It doesn't say that Adam & Eve were formed instantaneously like a magic wand just whipped some dust up and viola, His masterpiece!  It doesn't say that all the animals that exist today existed back then.  People assume way too much.  And it's understandable to a degree.  People tend to fill in the blanks when reading.  For instance, Mary & Joseph couldn't find room to birth The Messiah.  It doesn't say they tried going to an inn for that purpose.  But people assume that's where they sought space to go about the birth process because just reading it without that information implied in one's head just sounds a little odd.  Were they going around knocking on door to door?  Probably not.  Maybe they sought shelter from a friend?  Or a relative?  It's not really relevant but it's kind of like reading a sentence and missing a couple of the words.  You can figure out what it means, but, really, the words aren't acutally there, so how do you know??  Truth is, you don't.  There's all kinds of possibilities most of the time when a sentence is missing even just one word.  A somewhat imaginative person like myself can maybe come up with 2 or 3 examples of what the person might be trying to say in that blank space, but that's likely not encompassing all the possibilities.  It really annoys me when people try to post stuff on the internet and don't seem to care that their post is missing some fine detail.  Why take up someone's bandwidth if you care that little?

Anyway...
The God of all creation is not a concept that I find is genuinely up for competition.  There is only one book that has had the longevity of The Holy Bible that makes the claims that it does.  Buddha did not create the world, not make any such claims.  The deceased loved ones of Hinduism hold no power over anybody except what you give them, which in itself is limited because there's only so much you can give to someone else.  Reincarnation is a joke.  Anyone remember being here before?  I sure as hell don't.  I guess Islam makes some of the same claims about God, and that religion has gained a lot of traction, but I honestly believe it's because it's close enough to the real thing to feel authentic but it's also detached just enough to feel right to fallen man.  I don't know a lot about Islam.  I do know there's a lot of people who are "Muslim" who are not fully practicing their faith.  Of course, people say that about Christians, that we're supposed to stone people to death etc but we don't.  A nation that is entirely subjected to God is free to carry out God's laws in full.  There is no such nation.  There NEVER HAS BEEN such a nation!  Israeli law was never upheld in full.  If it was, it wasn't done so for any significant amount of time.  People grew weary and selfish and just did whatever they felt like doing.  God will deal with those who are responsible for said things, but we, in everyday life, are not called to overthrow our government so that we can stone people freely.  We each have our own blind spots and weaknesses and we need to be the best we can be, each of us, and we need to help each other out on that.

Like grasping for air

In one of John McArthur's sermons he tried answering the question "What is a reprobate mind?"  He answered it by saying "It is a mind that is no mind at all"  Actually, a reprobate mind is a mind that God disapproves of and finds no value in.  If you want to turn that into an insult, then you can do so, I suppose, by phrasing it the way JM did.  And he of course declares Roe Vs Wade was an act of terrorism.  If a family needed food for themselves and their children after recently losing their job, would THE CHURCH have been guilty of "terrorism" for not giving the applicable resources to those in need?  Because that's what ended up happened during the Great Depression, back in the "Good ol' days".  "But those people weren't in church.  That's just an unfortunate circumstance"  Of course, after the children are born, who cares if "all life is precious"?

I don't know what John MacArthur's stance on welfare is.  He may be all for it but with some grievances on how it's used.  IDK.  If that is the case, John MacArthur can rest easy knowing he, out of a nation of millions, is right while so much of the world is wrong.
I don't think overturning RVW has changed anything.  People who don't see a single thing wrong with getting an abortion and can't afford to travel across the country to go get one when / if they want one will probably have no choice but to go through with the pregnancy.  And so the cycle of poverty continues.  Of course, people **COULD** and **SHOULD** just accept what the Supreme Court says as if it were a dictatorship, because until The People take action to make themselves heard by gov't, the gov't is what it is and the law is what it is.  From which the consequence it seems would be: quit having sex unless you want children.  If only if it were that easy.