Search This Blog

Saturday, August 27, 2011

The Cross at Ground Zero

I don’t know if you remember where you were when it happened but I do. I was living in Denver, Colorado at the time and had a day off from my job at the Hyatt Hotel downtown. I slowly woke up and decided to turn the TV on – I didn’t have many channels and as I was flipping through I landed on a religious channel where they were talking about some sort of incredible disaster. 

I actually thought they were talking about some future thing they thought was going to happen according to the Bible book of “Revelations” but I soon realized this was something current – as I finally found a news channel it began to sink in… the unimaginable had happened. The U.S. had been attacked , two of its massive towers had been brought to their knees and the tragedy was almost unthinkable.

I phoned my work to see if they needed me to come in, a solemn sounding boss said that they were alright – just in shock. 

In the following days I remember people from Denver that were in New York at the time were renting limos to drive them all they way home because all the flights were down. I remember buying a memorial T-shirt from a fireman on the street to raise funds for the victims…there was a rumour that the President was coming to the area to enter the “Nuclear Proof” military base inside a mountain ( just outside of Denver) – we honestly didn’t know if a nuclear attack would be next or not – it was all so confusing. Later on, “surreal” was the word everyone was using to describe it all.

To get to the point of this article I flip ahead a few years… my parents, knowing that I had been in the States when this had happened, found a picture in a magazine and gave it to me in a frame as a Christmas gift. 

The picture was of two twisted steel beams at Ground Zero – they had fallen in the shape of a cross – no person had shaped it. On the back was an account of a Pastor who had been there …

He told the story of how a fireman found the cross shape and was adamant that it was a sign. Whether the miraculous was part of that cross shape or not it reminded the pastor of the miracle of Jesus’ cross. He had been pulling corpses out of the debris, feeling there was no signs of life or hope – and then he was reminded of the cross – the source of all life ( including eternal) and hope.

 The cross is where Jesus took the sins of all humanity on his own shoulders – as if He had committed them – and took the punishment for us so that we could have eternal life.. hope .. a saving relationship with God.
The pastor, the firemen, 2 FBI agents and a police officer bowed their heads at that moment and prayed as they remembered the ultimate sacrifice made, an event that could give hope and life in even such a place as Ground Zero – the cross.

“But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Galatians 6:14

P.S. This steel beam cross is now in the National September 11 Museum in NYC

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Those North American Kids

I heard a preacher on T.V. the other day responding to a report on the increase in teen suicides in North America.   He rather callously made a comment to the effect of "they should try living in Africa for a while then they would know what real suffering is".

I would like to lovingly respond to this statement.

First of all you must realize I am not saying that North American kids could not learn a great deal from what their peers go through in other parts of the world.

 Nor am I in any way diminishing the terrible suffering of children who are starving and disease ridden - as residents of a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world we MUST reach out in aid to these children ( and adults) in an effective manner.

But here is what we must realize - once our basic needs are met ( food, clothing, shelter, medical care etc) this is when the epic battle for our hearts and minds really steps up. 

Again, I'm not saying that nobody in Africa faces these battles as well but we cannot and MUST NOT make light of or ignore what those in North America are struggling with.

It is serious, it is real and I have seen it put many kids in a pine box.

This is not because they are weak or stupid or trying to get attention.

A suicide "attempt" may be a cry for help but a death is most often when they see no other way out.  And there is always another way out - we must help them find it... or wait for it as the case may be.

We ALL have needs that are physical, emotional, mental and spiritual and we can all face starvation, suffering, disease or persecution in any of those areas.  

This is not about  enabling those who are consistently self-destructive ( although we need to find out how best to help them too)  but a call to tell the difference and seek to understand and help ALL people.  

Monday, August 22, 2011

The Logic in Interpreting the Bible

*** This note is actually fairly short – the extra reading at the end is optional !)

Yes, Logic and the Bible – same sentence. This note is an attempt to bring awareness to the fact that there is logic, common sense and even science to interpreting the Bible. So many ( even Christians) are under the impression that the message of the Bible is up for grabs – I can say this and you can say that and everyone’s right. 

Well in some parts of the Bible there is room for “agreeing to disagree” - the “disputables” as we call them ( see Romans 14). 

However the main message of the Bible is 
surprisingly clear and clearly non-negotiable.

Of course, as Christians, we come to the Bible having the pre-supposition that it is the very Word of God, inerrant and infallible. And this also is a surpisingly plausible conclusion but it is an entirely different subject which I wont’ get into here ( if your curious, a nice introduction to why the Bible is trustworthy as the Word of God is found in a book called “The Case for Christ”, Part 1 …. I highly recommend everyone reads this book anyways.) . 

By the way, I realized a while ago that its okay to have a pre-supposition ( or “assumption”) as long as you acknowledge that. The truth is that everyone – even the most hardened secularist – comes to the table with pre-suppositions. It is inherent to human nature to have some type of pre-conceived ideas and I would dare say that someone who claims to be completely objective is either lying or not in touch with reality.

Back to the subject at hand. “Hermeneutics” has been described as “The Art and Science of Interpreting the Bible” . It actually involves the theory of interpretation for many writings but in this article we will be focusing on Biblical Hermeneutics. Let me put this out there as a disclaimer – I is no scholar. 

I simply want to make it known to Christians and all others that there is rhyme and reason involved in understanding the Bible. There may be many applications of Biblical truth – but there is actually only one interpretation. I’ve attached a list of principles for interpreting the Bible as well as some “fallacies”. 

There is a lot to read but I highly recommend it . a small amount of effort and time to invest in order to begin to understand a book that has lasted the test of time, a book for which people have died in order to have it read by the common man, translated in their language, and preserved for you to read…

This Book changes lives…. but it needs to be read and understood.


Principle #1: The Literal Interpretation Principle
We take the Bible at face value. We generally take everyday things in life as literal or at face value. This is a common sense approach. Even symbols and allegories in the Bible are based on the literal meaning of the scripture; thus the literal meaning is foundational to any symbolic or allegorical meaning.

The golden rule of interpretation is:
“When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Therefore, take every word at its primary, usual, meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise.

Principle #2: The Contextual Principle
D.A. Carson has been quoted as saying, "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." By "proof text," of course, Carson means the abuse of a single verse or phrase taken out of context to "prove" a particular view. The word "text" is derived from the Latin word, which means to “weave.” The context is that which accompanies the text. The Word of God is a perfect unit. The scriptures cannot be broken; they all hang together, a perfect unity. We must look and consider the verses immediately before, after, and around the passage. We must consider the book of the Bible and the section of the Bible in which the passage occurs. The Bible must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible.

Principle #3: The Scripture Interprets Scripture Principle
We may rest assured that God did not reveal an important doctrine in a single, ambiguous passage. All essential doctrines are fully and clearly explained - either in the immediate context, or somewhere else in the Bible. This principle is best illustrated by what is known as "topical Bible study." There are two essential 'rules' for applying this principle: 1) The context of the two passages must be the same; and 2) The plain passage must be used to guide our interpretation of a less clear passage - not the other way around!

Principle #4: The Progressive Revelation Principle
The Word of God is to be understood from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a flower unfolding its petals to the morning sun. God initiated revelation, but He did not reveal His truths all at one time. It was a long and progressive process. Therefore, we must take into account the then-current state of revelation to properly understand a particular passage. For example, an interpretation of a passage in Genesis which assumed a fully delineated view of the "new Covenant" would not be sound. As the saying goes, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

Principle #5: The Accommodation Principle
The Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite. The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Bible was also created in space, in time, and in history so that man could understand it. The truths of God made contact with the human mind at a common point, the Bible, to make God (and, indeed, all of reality) knowable. We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is.

Principle #6: The One Interpretation Principle
Every verse in the Bible has only one interpretation, although that verse may have many applications. The one correct interpretation is that which mirrors the intent of the inspired author.

Principle #7: The Harmony of Scripture Principle
No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible. The Christian presupposes the inerrancy and harmony of Scripture as a necessary result of a perfect Creator God revealing Himself perfectly to Mankind. Proper application of hermeneutical principles will resolve apparent conflicts. The key here, of course, is the word "proper," for exegetical fallacies can easily result from a zealous but ill-informed attempt to "save" Scripture from an apparent contradiction.

Principle #8: The Genre Principle
Genre is a literary term having to do with the category or "genus" of literature under consideration. Proper interpretation must take the general literary category of any given passage into consideration. Are we dealing with poetry or prose? Are we dealing with history or prophecy? It is important that when we interpret the Word of God, we understand as much as possible the author's intent. For example, if the author is writing history - the genre of the Pentateuch of Moses - it would not be proper to interpret a single reference (such as the speech of Balaam's ass) as a poetic personification, unless a variety of contextual markers compelled us to do so.

Here are some books of the Bible and their respective genres:

Psalms - Poetry
Proverbs - Wise Sayings
Isaiah - History and Prophecy
The Gospels - Biography and History
The Epistles - Teaching and Doctrine
Revelation - Eschatology and Prophecy

Principle #9: The Grammatical Principle
The Bible was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While we have several highly accurate translations of the Bible in English, all translation involves a certain amount of interpretation on the part of the translator. Thus, the study of word meanings, grammar, and syntax of the original languages is important for a proper understanding of Scripture. This doesn't mean that every student of the Bible must learn Hebrew or Greek. There are a number of tools available - lexicons, Bible dictionaries, detailed exegetical commentaries - that can provide a deeper understanding of crucial passages.

Principle #10: The Historical Background Principle
The Bible was composed in a specific culture at a particular point in time. While they are universal in application, the truths in the Bible can most fully be realized only when taking the surrounding culture and history into account. For example, when Jesus is called "the first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20), we may have some understanding of this title from the Old Testament, but a study of Jewish religious practice in the first century can provide a deeper understanding of why Paul chose this title in this passage, as opposed to another title with the same general meaning of "first."

The Grammatico-Historical Method
The exegetical commentaries on this website generally follow the "Grammatico-Historical" method of interpretation. As its name implies, this method of interpretation focuses attention not only on literary forms but upon grammatical constructions and historical contexts out of which the Scriptures were written. It is solidly in the "literal schools" of interpretation, and is the hermeneutical methodology embraced by virtually all evangelical Protestant exegetes and scholars. It embraces each of the ten principles enumerated above.

Some Common Exegetical Fallacies
Unfortunately, each of the principles of interpretation we have considered may be abused in various ways. Fortunately, the remedy for the resulting misinterpretation is generally as simple as recognizing which principle has been abused and the proper reapplication of that principle to the passage in question. Here are some common exegetical fallacies resulting from the misuse of hermeneutic principles.

Taking Figurative Language Literally When Jesus says that He is the "door," few would take Him literally. Some, however, take figurative language, such as Jesus "sitting at the right hand of the Father," to mean that the Father has a literal right hand (and thus, a physical body). The phrase "at the right hand" was a figurative expression in Semitic cultures in Biblical times, signifying a position of authority. It did not mean that the one exalted literally sat next to the one doing the exalting. The Literal Interpretation Principle does not mean that we woodenly take every word in the Bible literally, but rather that we approach it as we would any other book, taking figurative phrases, hyperbole, poetic personifications, and other figures of speech into account in our interpretation.

Over-Contextualizing Some view Jehovah's declaration that He does not "know" of any other gods in Isaiah 44:8 as limited to the immediate context. Since Jehovah is here engaging in a polemic against idol-worship, some would suggest that Jehovah is really saying that He knows of no idols who are real gods - but leaves open the possibility of other subordinate gods who are not idols. While we must safeguard against taking words or phrases out of context, there is no warrant for taking an absolute statement and confining it to immediate context. Jehovah says He knows of no other gods. He says this in the context of chastising those who worship idols, but this context does not limit His statement, any more than the Great Commission is limited to the disciples who heard Jesus speak it.

Allowing the Implicit to Explain the Explicit Jesus is called "firstborn" on several occasions in the New Testament. In Colossians 1:15, He is called the "firstborn of all creation." Many non-Trinitarians see in these verses evidence that the Son of God was a created being - the first creation of Jehovah. Trinitarians point to verses like John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, which state that the Son pre-existed all things. Non-Trinitarians argue that we should interpret these verses in light of Jesus as "the firstborn." Thus, "all things" must mean "all other things." Trinitarians argue that the "firstborn" passages must be viewed in light of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, and thus must be a figurative title. The term translated "firstborn" has a figurative as well as a literal connotation. Even if taken literally, non-Trinitarians typically do not believe that the Son of God was literally born, and thus they believe that it implies the creation of the Son in some fashion. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, on the other hand, explicitly state that the Son existed before all things, and indeed that all things came into existence through Him. Allowing the implicit to explain the explicit - the possible to explain the certain - is not a sound interpretive principle. Scripture indeed interprets Scripture, so long as clarity explains ambiguity, and not the other way around.

Modern Day Revelation Some groups claim that God continues to reveal Himself in various ways to an elite cadre of spiritually mature and/or gifted individuals. Some, like Latter Day Saints, believe that this modern day revelation has produced new scriptures. When contradictions between these "revelations" and the Bible are pressed, these groups often respond that God's revelation is progressive, and thus may accommodate new or revised doctrines for the modern era. But progressive revelation may never be used to overthrow the principle of the harmony of Scripture. God may have chosen to reveal Himself gradually to humanity, but He does not contradict Himself.

Harmonization by Denial The Bible declares that Jesus was a man (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:5; etc.). It also calls Him God (John 1:1; 20:28; etc.). God says in Hosea 11:9 that He is not man. Non-Trinitarians that hold to the principle of the harmony of Scripture, believe these verses present an apparent contradiction, and they resolve this contradiction by denying the fully Deity of Christ. They either favor grammatical arguments that remove the attribution of "God" to Jesus, or they argue that He must be a lesser divinity and not true God. It is certainly exegetically valid to deny what Scripture does not explicitly or implicitly affirm. However, to deny what Scripture affirms both explicitly and implicitly is not a sound hermeneutical methodology. If we truly believe in the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), we should allow Scripture to shape our theology (or, in this case, our Christology) in such a way that Scripture is harmonized by complete affirmation of its teaching. Thus, when Scripture tells us the Christ is both Man and God, we should allow these truths to shape our view of Christ's nature, rather than deny one or the other.

Problems Relating to Literary Genre To properly take genre into consideration, we must first understand the genre in its historical context. In most cases, this is not difficult. However, some genres - such as "proverbs" - offers some considerable challenge. A proverb is not a promise - those who approach the book of Proverbs in this fashion are likely to be disappointed when the expected promise is not fulfilled. Further, as D.A. Carson notes, Proverbs 23:3-4 seem to offer contradictory advice: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly ... Answer a fool according to his folly." (Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 137-138). Careful exegesis is necessary to resolve this and other apparent contradictions, and such exegesis depends in no small part on the proper understanding of genre.

Misunderstanding Proper Application of Grammar A wide range of fallacies can result from a misunderstanding or misuse of grammatical. tools. For example, a simplistic approach to "word studies" can produce a number of problematic interpretations. A common misuse of lexicons or Bible dictionaries is to assume that the "literal" or "original" meaning of a word pertains in a given context. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, defend the rendering of the Greek word kolasis in Matthew 25:46 found in their New World Translation (NWT) with what may be termed an "etymological fallacy." The NWT translates kolasis as "cutting off." While kolasis originally had this meaning in classical Greek times, by the 1st Century, kolasis had taken on the meaning "punishment," which is why the majority of English translations render kolasis this way. Witnesses confuse the original meaning of kolasis with the common meaning in the contemporary setting. Some Witnesses may cite older lexicons in favor of the NWT translation, but no modern lexicon provides "cutting off" as a valid translation of any 1st Century text, and a careful examination of the older lexicons reveals that they were dependent on classical Greek texts, not texts contemporary with the New Testament.

While word studies are important to proper interpretation, we must be careful to use them as a part of an overall methodology that takes all aspects of the text - including then-current word usage - into account.

Historical Fabrication The reconstruction of Biblical history presents a whole host of opportunities for interpretive fallacies. The interpretations of the New Testament offered by scholars such as those in the Jesus Seminar depend largely on theoretical reconstructions of various "communities" in the early years of the Christian Church. While the reconstructions may originate from deductions based on certain passages of Scripture, they soon become intertwined with the interpretation of other passages to such a degree that it is difficult to separate the theoretical reconstruction from the interpretation. This fallacious approach to Scripture is true whether the reconstruction in question is the result of liberal Historical Criticism run amok, or the superficial attempts by Non-Trinitarians to portray "Biblical Monotheism" as anything but monothesim. The problem is that we have almost no access to the history of 1st Century beliefs outside the New Testament. Some speculation based on extra-canonical texts is certainly possible, but it is a fallacy to think that speculative reconstruction has any force in informing our interpretation of Scripture.

Interpretation of Scripture will never be an exact science. The beliefs we bring to the text - our theological presuppositions - will inevitably color our interpretation to some degree. In fact, "pretended neutrality" - the attribution of bias to one's opponent while implying that one is theologically neutral - though common in apologetic circles, is an exegetical fallacy as potent as any other. By applying the principles briefly delineated in this paper (and expanded in the resources, below), we can minimize the possibility of error and bias. We can never eliminate our presuppositions (nor should we, if they are Scripturally sound), but we can "test all things" - including our interpretations - and "hold to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21 ).

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Norway Memorial Speech by Dagfinn Høybråten

"-All that lives is subject to the recreative power of love, our national poet Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson wrote in his poem "Love your neighbour". This is the power that is now let loose in Norway"

From the Speech by Dagfinn Høybråten* at the Memorial for the Norwegian terror attacks...

"The acts of terror offends what we hold dearest as a people: Human life and dignity, freedom and democracy. But the Norwegian plural democracy can not be stopped by bullets. After this, there will be more unity and more plurality. Plurality does not threaten our culture. It strengthens and builds our culture.

Today I want to say thanks to Norwegian muslims in general and the Pakistani community in particular for your contribution to build Norway as a society of culture and welfare. I have worked with muslim leaders for years and in them I have met a strong feeling of responsibility and desire to contribute to a peaceful, non-violent and more human society....... It is meaningless to label the suspects confused thinking Christian fundamentalist. His acts and his thinking is contrary to true Christianity.

-All that lives is subject to the recreative power of love, our national poet Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson wrote in his poem "Love your neighbour". This is the power that is now let loose in Norway. Love is strong enough to conquer hate and desire for revenge. The power of life is stronger than the power of death. Greatest of all is love. By focusing this way, the leaders of our land may release new strengths and energies among the people. "

Love Your Neighbour
by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson 

Love your neighbour, you Christian leal *
tread him never with iron heel
though in the dust he’s lying.
Living creatures will celebrate 
love’s mild power to recreate
given the chance of trying.
 To be “leal” means to be “true or genuine”

**Dagfinn Høybråten
Leader of the Christian Democratic Party
In office
23 January 2004 – 30 April 2011

Saturday, August 20, 2011

I Don't Take Pictures of Ugly People

Great story out of the U.K.....

Photographer refuses to take 

the pictures of high school Facebook bullies, telling them 'You're too ugly... on the inside' 

Last updated at 3:09 PM on 20th August 2011
 A photographer has refused to take pictures of a group of high school girls who were bullying other teens on Facebook.
Pennsylvania photographer Jennifer McKendrick was scheduled to shoot the school girls for their senior photo.
But when she came across a Facebook page with cruel comments from four high school girls whose names matched her scheduled clients she saw red. 
Photographer Jennifer McKendrick says she won't photograph 'ugly people'

Photographer Jennifer McKendrick says she won't photograph 'ugly people'
McKendrick emailed the girls and their parents to cancel their portraits, including screen-shots of their comments to explain why she was calling off the session.
McKendrick wrote more about her decision on her personal blog, in a post titled 'I Won't Photograph Ugly People.'
She wrote: 'I mean how could I spend two hours with someone during our session trying to make beautiful photos of them knowing they could do such UGLY things.'
'Realistically, I know by cancelling their shoots it's not going to make them 'nicer people' but I refuse to let people like that represent my business.'
The comments were 'vicious' the photographer told WTAE-TV.
Facebook: Online bullying is a growing concern to parents
Facebook: Online bullying is a growing concern to parents
She added: 'It was beyond 'your clothes are ugly' or 'you don't have any brand clothes' or 'you are ugly, your hair is not right.' 
'It was vicious. It was talking about sexuality.'
'If you are ugly on the inside, I'm sorry but I won't take your photos to make you look pretty on the outside … I simply don't want to photograph ugly people.'
Her Facebook page has since been flooded with hundreds of comments from people supporting her decision. 
According to her blog there has been no backlash to McKendrick's decision so far, but she's prepared if she does. 
The photographer said that two of the girl's parents responded to her with apologies, noting that they were surprised by their daughters' actions.

Read more:

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Rhianna "Man Down"

Finally watched Rhianna's video "man down". Not a bad song and understand the point but there is a big difference between self-defense and vengeance.... I don't think she is ready to accept any responsibility as a role model ( who is these days ?) so it is (and should be ) up to the parents to watch what their kids are watching.....

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Top 5 World Cities and the Ways They are Measured

The following information was collected mostly from Wikipedia, and

Its always good to know your geography and demographics!

Ambiguities in measuring the "size" of a city

The question of determining the world's largest cities does not allow a single, simple answer. It depends on which definitions of "city" and "size" are used, and how those definitions are applied. Complex political/cultural/social situations, sometimes controversial or disputed, further confuse the discussion. Debate on this field is highly vulnerable to bias or manipulation, as people[who?] tend to prefer whichever definition most flatters their own city.
The "size" of a city can refer to either its land area or, more typically, its population.
The boundaries of a city can also be defined in any of several ways:
Morphological / Urban    ( Space, Density)
"City" defined as a physically contiguous urban area, without regard to territorial or other boundaries. The delineation is usually done using some type of urban density, such aspopulation density or density of buildings (for example, "gaps between structures may not exceed 200 metres"). Satellite and/or aerial maps may be used. For statistical convenience, such areas are sometimes adjusted to appropriate administrative boundaries, yielding anagglomeration.
Functional / Metropolitan  (People, Demographics)
"City" as defined by the habits of its demographic population, as by metropolitan area, labour market area, or similar. Such definitions are usually based on commuting between home andwork. Commuter flow thresholds into the core urban area are established by the national censusauthority, determining which areas are included.
City Proper (Administrative, City Council)
"City" as strictly defined by a given government (city proper). Typically based on a municipality or equivalent entity, or sometimes a group of municipalities under a regional government.

Urban / Morph - Wikipedia 

New York

Urban / Morph – U.N.

New York
Mexico City
Sao Paulo

Urban / Morph -

Mexico City
New York
Sao Paulo

Average:    Tokyo /  New York / Mumbai / Mexico City / Sao Paulo

Metro / Functional  – Wikipedia

Mexico City
New York
(Jakarta, Sao Paulo)

Metro / Functional - -

New York
Sao Paulo
Mexico City

Metro –

1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000 
2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000 
3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000 
4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000 
5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000 
(6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000  7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000 )

Average:  Tokyo /  Seoul / New York / Mexico City / Mumbai / Sao Paulo

City Proper – Wikipedia

(Sao Paulo, Moscow, Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo)

City Proper  -


City Proper –

Shanghai, China 13.3 million
Mumbai (Bombay), India 12.6 million 
Buenos Aires, Argentina 11.92 million 
Moscow, Russia 11.3 million 
Karachi, Pakistan 10.9 million 

Average:  Shanghai / Mumbai - Karachi / Delhi / Moscow / Buenos Aires / Istanbul

Metro –

1. Tokyo, Japan - 32,450,000 
2. Seóul, South Korea - 20,550,000 
3. Mexico City, Mexico - 20,450,000 
4. New York City, USA - 19,750,000 
5. Mumbai, India - 19,200,000 
6. Jakarta, Indonesia - 18,900,000 
7. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 18,850,000 
8. Delhi, India - 18,680,000 
9. Õsaka/Kobe, Japan - 17,350,000 
10. Shanghai, China - 16,650,000
11. Manila, Philippines - 16,300,000 
12. Los Angeles, USA - 15,250,000 
13. Calcutta, India - 15,100,000 
14. Moscow, Russian Fed. - 15,000,000 
15. Cairo, Egypt - 14,450,000 
16. Lagos, Nigeria - 13,488,000 
17. Buenos Aires, Argentina - 13,170,000 
18. London, United Kingdom - 12,875,000 
19. Beijing, China - 12,500,000 
20. Karachi, Pakistan - 11,800,000

Friday, August 12, 2011

Oh Be Careful Little Eyes What You See - Kids & Movies

Some great advice for parents with young children....

Plugged In

 479 Posts

Oh Be Careful Little Eyes What You See

Posted by Adam_Holz Aug 12, 2011
Here's a paragraph I didn't write, but I certainly could have:

I see a lot of movies for my job, and at almost every R-rated offering, I see someone trot in holding the hand of a toddler, or I hear that child's telltale wail after the violence begins. Sometimes I can't hear the child once the film starts to roll, but yes, my judgey mom side is still worrying about them, wondering what they're thinking when that guy gets brutally stabbed in The Expendables or almost every single character gets violently torn apart in Predators.

Those words come from contributor Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, as she confessed one area in which she's not shy about being judgmental as a mom. At the end of the article she added, "Yes, I can only control what my child sees, not the decisions other parents make. But that doesn't mean I'm not sitting there in the dark, getting my Sanctimommy on."

And I have to confess that I sometimes get my, um, Sanctidaddy on for the exact same reason.

One of the foulest films I've reviewed in the last year was Your Highness. And I watched it while sitting next to a man who saw fit to bring his barely adolescent son with him. Before the movie rolled, he asked me what publication I wrote for (our press seats are reserved, so he knew I was a movie reviewer), and I told him a bit about Plugged In. I said that one of our goals is to give parents the information they need to help make good decisions regarding their families' media choices.

Original article link  here