Note THIS article is something that really interests me. It kind of relates to my incomplete review of Godzilla if only remotely. I never took the resurrection of the body (as told by Christ) to be literally the actual body that one once possessed. I took it metaphorically, or, a new body, as it says.

I always assumed the resurrection of the body that they spoke of was a heavenly body, not this crude matter. I still think that is what was meant, for why raise such a body again? If it is to be the same body – literally – would it not be prone to the same failings as the original/same?

I’ll have to read the article in a more metaphysical mood. I have found over the last two years that these ideas make more sense on a certain “mental level” , or approach.

I am always leery of such trappings as attempting to bring the great mysteries into the wink of current stretchings on man’s scientific grasp. I wary of such things because I think, if we ever get to have a look under the hood of this thing called being, or existence, or Ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh, no science will cover it, no human concepts will encompass it nor penetrate it. Agape, as Aristotle’s celestial bodies upon the unmoved mover will be the proper order.

I view such attempts as I do understanding heaven to be a place of harps, clouds and angels with wings. It is cute and quaint, but it is a human construct, image making – it is a tool, a map even – with the understanding that the tool is not the object and the map is not the road.

One would think that if Christ himself did not put the wonders of heaven into literal terms, how or why could we? Likewise, why assume that the resurrection of the body is literal? After all, it is a far different thing for Lazarus to arise than it is for Socrates. Or one dead for thousands or millions of years.

And, one has to wonder, why, if God made man with an immortal soul, would he have to bother with such a thing as raising an old body of scattered atoms?

The Age of Non-Myth or What is Wrong With Godzilla


When I was a kid I LOVED the Godzilla movies. 

When I was a 28 year old I hated the Godzilla movie with Matthew Broderick.

Let’s just say it was retarded. 

It was with some trepidation that I found they were attempting the film again. 

Let me state what I did like about the film. It was done with reservation. Which meant Godzilla wasn’t given 90 minutes of screen time to mash up Manhattan. I think in this film he had perhaps 10 minutes total screen time and maybe not even that. 

I would say it could have used maybe just a touch more Godzilla. They even used an old technique that I call “the gun fired offscreen technique”. When Godzilla finally attacks one of the – forgot the name but they were basically mothra from the original – mothra, you only see him quickly as he collides with the other beast and the camera goes dark to the sound of Godzilla’s wail. 

The movie attempted a less modern pacing, they attempted not to overload our deadened senses with as much CGI as is possible to fit into every single frame. I said they attempted, but they did not fully succeed. 

I don’t know what it is with screenwriters of modern action/monster movies and the human characters. It is always the same, empty, characters. I felt more, I felt something, when it appeared Godzilla may have Continue reading “The Age of Non-Myth or What is Wrong With Godzilla”