Top 25 grossing films worldwide (theatre)

Los Angeles (photo from Ron Niebrugge)

Table and description from:

The table above includes movies that have grossed over $200,000,000 at the box office during their theatrical runs.

All amounts are in USA dollars and only include theatrical box office receipts (movie ticket sales) and do not include video rentals, television rights and other revenues.

Totals may include theatrical re-release receipts. Figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Some movies may still be in general release; all figures are estimated and subject to change.

All-Time Worldwide Box office

Rank Title Worldwide Box Office

1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $1,060,332,628
4. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,657,891
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $958,404,152
6. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $937,000,866
7. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $921,600,000
9. Jurassic Park (1993) $919,700,000
10. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $892,194,397
11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) $885,430,303
12. Shrek 2 (2004) $880,871,036
13. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $866,300,000
14. Finding Nemo (2003) $865,000,000
15. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $860,700,000
16. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $848,462,555
17. Independence Day (1996) $811,200,000
18. Spider-Man (2002) $806,700,000
19. Star Wars (1977) $797,900,000
20. Shrek the Third (2007) $791,106,665
21. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $789,458,727
22. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $783,577,893
23. The Lion King (1994) $783,400,000
24. The Da Vinci Code (2006) $757,236,138
25. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $756,700,000

I realize that inflation dictates that the newer films will have an advantage over much older ones on dollars generated. However, since I became an adult in the late 1980s, I reason that Hollywood has been able to produce some of the best movies ever in the last 20-30 years. I am not stating that I consider all of the films on the list as among the best, far from it.

I remember attending a few movies as a teenager and they were often disappointing and it seemed as if there was rarely a potentially really good film to wait for in anticipation. Today there are many films that appear worth viewing. I am in no way defending the often philosophically non-Christian or anti-Christian ideas presented within Hollywood, but I reason that the advent of much improved computer technology, and computer generated images has assisted in the potential quality of a theatrical films and the DVD versions as well, of course.

Superhero movies such as produced by Marvel and DC are far more true to the comic books than could be done in the 1970s or 1980s. Lou Ferrigno is a huge, muscular human being and played the Incredible Hulk on television, but he was quite small compared to the comic book Hulk who is basically a superhuman beyond the physical size of any human being. Superheroes such as the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four are now presented in ways very true to the comics.

I admit from watching the occasional old black and white film that the dialogue was generally superior, in comparison to today's movies, but interesting dialogue can be presented very well in modern films if the producers are seriously dedicated to having quality dialogue.

As much as Christianity should oppose Hollywood when its philosophy and morality counter Biblical standards, a positive is that computer technology seems to have ignited the God given creativity of many in Hollywood and a result we have many reasonably good movies to view. An ultimate goal of a film should be to entertain with both quality dialogue and interesting imagery, and I hope that this occurs in the future often, and that computer generated effects do not become overused at the expense of good story.

Christmas with Colonel Sanders

Are you dreaming of a white meat Christmas?

Richard Dawkins versus Richard Dawson, sort of

Dr. Dawkins

Since this post has received thousands of hits and page views, and with my increasing traffic, I decided to make some slight changes (always trying to improve my writing and with theses writing experience revisions are the norm) and post a newer version below.


Reprise 2010

Mr. Dawson

I have nothing against either gentleman. Richard Dawson is a fine comic actor and host.

This is posted for educational and satirical purposes.


Quotes from:

'Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests".'

This seems to be an extreme viewpoint. There is also room for persons who are educated in both science and religion. It is closed-minded to overlook such a possibility. This would not make someone a 'know-all', or 'no contest', but simply someone with education in both science and religion.


A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).


If at first you don't succeed....kill 'im. (Family Fued)


"I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "

Christian theism and other forms of theism can appeal to first cause philosophical arguments which reason that an immaterial, non-measurable, infinite, eternal, first cause created the laws of science, but this would be primarily an appeal to philosophy and not science. Christianity primarily appeals to historical, Biblical revelation for a belief in God, and does not look mainly to philosophical ontological arguments.


Richard Dawson: I asked you to name a time when people usually get out of bed. And being the Einstein you are, you said..."Morning." Our survey said...

Richard Dawson: Zero. And then as if that wasn't bad enough, I asked you, name a time when people usually go to bed. You said, of course..."Night." Our survey said...

Richard Dawson: Two!

Concerning Einstein:


"...when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity.

A good point, but then some of us are educated in our religious philosophy and faith, and do not simply follow the worldview of our parents. I reason that many non-religious adults grew up in non-religious homes.


"It's all part of life's rich pattern."


"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Those who hold that empiricism and science provide the ultimate answer to all questions operate under faith as well. They may very well place faith in energy/matter as its own cause, whereas Christian theists see energy/matter as finite, requiring an infinite, non-material first cause beyond time and space.

Educated Christians do not necessarily have blind faith, but trust primarily in God who has revealed himself in this world, historically in Scripture. Christians can also reason on ontological, first cause argumentation. Religion can be a cop-out, but so can simply following pop science philosophy which can in ignorance and without proper religious education, reject all religion as blind faith.

Anyone that dismisses all religious academia and its philosophical and theological complex workings as pseudo academic is intellectually ignorant on the issue, and there are plenty of these people on-line.


“ABC has told me that a sponsor has complained about my making anti-Nixon jokes. I would just like to say that I believe Mr. Nixon did his best to destroy this country.”


"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

There is not historical documentation from many sources over many years from different geographical areas for fairies at the bottom of a garden. There is Biblical historical documentation of approximately 3500 years of actual persons, from various religions who experienced God. There are scribes, prophets, apostles and of course the resurrected Christ who are actual documented persons.

I conclude:

The documentation would still be actual even if the Scripture contained some falsehoods, meaning a false comparison and false analogy is presented.

Definition of False Analogy:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.


“There were people I know that got upset that I kiss people. I kiss them for luck and love, that's all. That's what my mother did to me.”

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

The formation of the Biblical canon

I like to present information from other sites at times on this blog. I am aware that I can look in my textbooks, for example, and find opinions differing from the material in this article, as can many others, but the information below is helpful overall.

From J. P. Holding:

However, if we believe in the inspiration of the Bible, then it is also reasonable to assume God's hand in the matter of the compiliation of the canon. Although skeptical of many traditional positions on the canon, McDonald rightly perceives that "(t)hose who would argue for the inerrancy of scripture logically should also claim the same infallibility for the churches of the fourth and fifth centuries, whose decisions and historical circumstances have left us with our present Bible." [MacD.FormCB, 255] One cannot sensibly argue that God inspired certain books of the Bible and then allowed us to mix in books with it that were not inspired. It was either all inspired at its origination, or none of it at all, other than at a basic human level of inspiration - and though, thanks to transcription errors and the like, we have some chaff mixed in with the wheat at present, the ambiguity that is reality at the textual variant level does NOT affect our position on the canon level.

I reason that within the apostolic era the original Scriptural letters were inspired and infallible in regard to the message the Lord conveyed through the writers. I do not think we can take the idea of inspiration and infallibility into the fourth and fifth centuries, although I do grant that God did guide the correct texts to be included within the New Testament text. I reason that without holding to an infallible canon formation, we can accept the idea that God used reason and evidence to formulate the entire Biblical canon. This means it is possible, although very unlikely, that a lost manuscript could be found at a later date that may be considered part of Scripture. The written content, to be accepted, would not contradict the teachings of the other Biblical books. My view is that the original Scripture was inspired and infallible and that we have essentially accurate copies by which a proper canon was formed.

Per Metzger, NT works cited or alluded to - in actuality and in probability - by Apostolic Fathers are:

All Four Gospels;
All Pauline epistles except three (see below)
1 John
1 Peter

Not cited or alluded to are Titus, Philemon, and 2 Corinthians; 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John.

However, no conclusions may be drawn from this for two reasons:

First, except for 2 Corinthians, all of these books are so short that it is possible that there was never any need to refer to them - especially in light of the fact that:

Second, as Metzger indicates, the total extant works of the Apostolic Fathers fits "a volume about the same size as the New Testament"! (ibid., 72) It would therefore have been very fortunate if we had indeed had witness to all 27 NT books.


Human beings will never agree unanimously on anything, even the canon of Scripture. Even today, many groups (such as the Mormons) seek to add to what has been written. This, of course, is their right; but the fact remains that the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." (ibid., 275) The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon. We are each free to take it or leave it; and if it offend thee - take up scissors and paste, and make what thou considerest a better effort than others!

Here is yet another scammer email. The email came to undisclosed-recipients, and is written with the usual magnificent command of the English language:

Queen Elizabeth's Foundation And The Nigeria FoundationWoodlands RoadLeatherhead Court LeatherheadSurrey KT22 0BN.

BATCH NO: (N-222-6747,E-900-56)

Attn: Beneficiary

Congratulations The Queen Elizabeth's Foundation And The Nigeria Foundation has chosen you by theboard of trustees as one of the final recipients of a Cash Grant/Donation for your own personal,educational, and business development. To celebrate the 30th anniversary 2008 program, We aregiving out a yearly donation of 250,000.00 Pounds each to 40 lucky recipients, ascharitydonations/aid from the Queen Elizabeth's Foundation, ECOWAS, EU and the Africa UNO inaccordance with the enabling act of Parliament.which is part of our promotion To file for your claim You are required to contact the ExecutiveSecretary below their email

Executive Sec: Edwin Johnson


Regards.Mrs Tracy Peterson

And yet another:


Dearest One,
My name is Miss Vianney Aliababa, the only Daugther of late Mr.and Mrs Aziz Alibaba (A GOLD MARCHANT). I have a preposition important which permits me to request for your assistance in a financial transaction. And I wish to invest in Manufacturing management in your country.

I inherited Eight million Five houndred thousand Dollars.(8.500,000) to invest in your country with your very help, and I will require your assistance in helping me stand as my late father's foreign business partner who will receive the whole money in your coperate account for my self keeping and the investment project as we will agree together.

The Fund was deposited in Prime Bank in fixed suspense account.I will be glad to give you 25% of the total sum for your assistance.

While we will discuss on your percentage, on the Capital investment that you will introduce me to.

Please know that I have not gotton a good financial Education to control the whole money in your country.That is why I real need your help to secure a better financial education that will enbale me not to make poor money decissions later in life that might take years to over come.

please it is very important you contact me immediately on my private email address.( for further explanation.

Awaiting your immediate response Thanks and God bless.
Best Regards,


A future satire and theology blog troll?

My Mom sent me links featuring interesting paintings. I am not making a political/social statement.

Global Warming from Robert Bateman

A thought:

O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, Robert Blake and Phil Spector should form the Society of Celebrity Super-Villains.

What is with Site Meter?

Leeds Castle (photo from

I reason that Site Meter (SiteMeter) is useful, and therefore I use it. But, I have difficulties with the program.

I have noticed since adding the BlogRush widget that BlogRush records my traffic as more than twice that of Site Meter per day. Which program should I trust? I lean towards BlogRush with the number of comments I receive (thank you very much commenters and readers!), and since I know that many times persons have stated that they read my blog, but there is no record on Site Meter of a person from that geographical area visiting. My friend from down the street comments often and I can see no record of his visits on Site Meter.

The difference in traffic from Site Meter to BlogRush is the difference between a small blog and a small/medium-sized blog. I am beginning to change the view of my growth progress slightly, but thanks to others, and God.

My satirical (fictional) explanation:

There is a ‘conspiracy’ against my blogs of course. Someone at Site Meter hates my blogs and is determined to limit my traffic, in the hopes that I shall pull the plug on my blogs and deprive the public of the beautiful images of me with different stages of sleep apnea. Perhaps the person at Site Meter is an atheist, liberal or Baptist.;)

On a serious note:

In my web searching for Christian blogs, I left a message in regard to a post involving the value of attending church and growing closer to God, although these were not the exact words of the blogger.

My reply:

True, it takes fellowship with Christians, study and prayer, all by the lead of the Holy Spirit, to be performing God’s will obediently.

The blogger answered along the lines that the primary thing for a Christian to do is focus on Christ, and that study, prayer and fellowship may be a result, but cannot replace the relationship with Christ and will not help one grow closer to Christ.

I answered:


To focus on Christ requires prayer, study, fellowship and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One cannot adequately focus on Christ in isolation. I certainly believe in a personalized relationship with Christ, but this does not happen on its own; it requires what I noted above in order to know Christ well and do God’s will obediently. But, we can agree to disagree, but I am coming from a Reformed perspective.



My explanation:

I have come across the idea of focusing on Christ is this manner before. My points:

To focus on Christ, Biblically speaking means being guided by the Holy Spirit (John 20: 22, Acts 2). The Holy Spirit both inspired Scripture and is to guide persons as they serve Christ. In John 20 the disciples received the Holy Spirit and Pentecost occurs in Acts 2. The work of the Holy Spirit cannot be isolated from adequately knowing Christ. As a theology professor taught at TWU, the Holy Spirit is to lead the believer to Christ. Prayer is always vital in this process, the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6) being one example of this concept. Prayer cannot be isolated from the process of adequately knowing Christ.

Christians are to study the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:15-16, 2 Peter 1: 20-21, 3: 14-16). I reason that theological studies and other disciplines can also have importance, as all truth is God’s truth. Christ is revealed and explained through the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture. Therefore Christ cannot be known adequately without serious study of Scripture and I would reason that good theology books assist in this process. Scripture and study cannot be isolated from the process of adequately knowing Christ.

There is also the important matter of Christian fellowship in order to discuss spiritual, Biblical, theological and philosophical issues, etc. Christians are not to forsake assembling together. (Hebrews 10:25). Christians are not to interpret Christ in isolation, this is not adequate. Christ is an objective historical figure who was and is both God and man, and he is known both objectively and subjectively by the follower. To isolate knowing Christ from the Holy Spirit, prayer, study and fellowship is to risk overemphasizing the subjective at the expense of the objective.

Please check out my latest on thekingpin68.

I would appreciate feedback concerning my third question on my philosophy of blogging. I would like to read your views.

Gossip is a waste of time.

Speaking of Muppets:

Evangelize while in a fight for your life

Essex (photo from

The Archie Comics version, courtesy of Jeff Jenkins: Thoughts and Theology in my links.

The Marvel Comics version.

From 1991 to 1995 I attended a Mennonite Bible school. Much of the teaching was very good and I am appreciative of earning that first degree and interacting with professors that were fine human beings, by God’s grace.

A doctrine of non-resistance was taught at the school. I reasoned, and still reason that Romans 13 allows that state to use force against lawbreakers in order to maintain law and order. Mounce (1995: 243-244). God has divinely appointed the governing authorities. Cranfield (1992: 322). Governments do sometimes overstep God’s given boundaries, and in these cases Christians cannot obey the state. Mounce (1995: 243). Christians are not to take vengeance into their own hands. Mounce (1995: 241). Vengeance against evil actions will be up to God to administer, if he so wishes, and the state can be used in the process concerning legal matters. I reason that Christians can participate in the legitimate use of force to maintain law and order within both police and military forces.

A Mennonite Greek professor taught that Christians should never resist physical evil in the sense of hurting or killing an attacker since the attacker was likely unsaved. The Christian could however, stand in the way of an attacker for the sake of another. Since the Christian was saved and would be part of the culminated Kingdom of God, if killed, he/she should sacrifice himself/herself as a witness in hopes the attacker would turn to Christ. Although Biblically there is a place for martyrdom, there is also no solid Biblical reason to simply give up a life to the assailant for the sake of the attacker. I could counter that by allowing an attacker to commit violence against self and others that the violence will increase as future victims will be impacted. A greater problem of evil will likely occur. I think self-defence within the law is a reasonable Christian action and not the same as vengeance. Self-defence is attempting to prevent law and order from being disrupted when an official of the state is not present to do the job, while vengeance would be seeking ultimate justice for one self or others after the crime as been committed. Legal vengeance and justice should be issued by the state, and ultimate vengeance is in the hands of God. The Christian should not seek personal vengeance.

Another Mennonite professor and personal friend told me after two guys tried to intimidate me outside of a mall in 1994, that I should have attempted to witness to them rather than fight them in self-defence if needed. I had managed to walk away from the incident and the one punk tracked me down and spit on my car as I drove away. He did not have the guts earlier to throw a punch at me even with his friend by his side. He had threatened to shoot me…what a man.

Let us take the philosophy of my professor to the satire zone:

Perhaps an interview could be done with a thug or thugs in the process of trying to hurt and possibly kill me. This could be very helpful for an original post and I could try to get up to number 1 on Traffic Jam in the Religion and Spirituality category, if I lived.
My blog headline could read:

1. I witnessed to a guy while he stabbed me!

2. I witnessed to this thug before I beat him with my Bible

3. Repent and follow Christ or I will choke you out...Rick B's fav

Rick B can be found at:

4. Evangelize while fighting, details inside

5. A mugger stole my wallet and went to Hawaii on my Visa, and all I got was this lousy blog article

6. The blood of Christ meets the blood of the thug I just beat with the club I conceal under my jacket when I go for walks

Ernest Angley method: Use an open hand technique to the forehead of your attacker and yell…

7. Demon (Daemen) of mugging come out!

8. A thug shot me in the heart, while Jesus touched his heart

For Roman Catholics.

9. I attempted to perform an exorcism on my attacker and the last rites on myself at the same time!

10. Christians: Buy hardcover rather than soft-cover Bibles; they are more useful in street fights

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.