Doctor Who; Big Bang Review…

SPOILERS ahead, don’t read if you haven’t seen the last episode of Doctor Who.  Ok, so I’m going to skip straight to editorializing the last episode from my Christian POV.  As many of my readers already know, I’m fascinated by atheists writing storylines that actually support certain contentions of Christianity, especially when it is not the writer’s intentional, conscious aim.

As I’ve said before, I do believe many atheist writers show the internal “knowledge” of God by what they write about even though they very publicly state they are against the idea of there being a God.  This episode wasn’t an exception.  Moffat was indeed the writer for this season ender, BTW.

The name of the episode catches the attention right off the bat; the big bang…modern science’s label of the declaration that the universe did indeed have a beginning.  Why that title?  Because during the course of the episode we discover the Doctor’s answer to resetting the universe is to create Big Bang Two (or Too would work I suppose ) Why do I find that particularly interesting?

Well, apologists will recognize that one of the main arguments for God is the Cosmological argument which I have blogged on previously.  With the recognition that the universe had a beginning, one should be ready to admit that it had to have a Creator.  Something transcendent, something un-caused and ultimate…that is God.  Atheists attempt to deny this and to dance around the issue.

Well…in the show we have a set up for Big Bang 2.  Ok.  Big Bang 2 is set up and executed…it is designed.  It would not come about unless it had a designer.  Isn’t that interesting?  So Moffat can conceive of a second big bang, but that big bang has a creator…isn’t it possible for him to admit that the first big band also had to have a Creator as well?  Add another layer on.  I’ve already discussed the Messiah-like attributes of The Doctor (and it’s linked above)…who designs and executes the second big bang?  The Doctor, the Messiah-like figure on the show.  Hmmm…..

As far as a review; I enjoyed the finale…but the ending was a bit anti-climactic, and I do mean the very end.  I got used to the series setting up an exciting hook and catch for the next season…Big Bang didn’t really do that for me.  I am indeed looking forward to next year, but it is because of the show in general, not just because of the ending of this eppy.  Big Bang was fast and fun, and of course we got to see a side of the new Doctor in his new style of dancing and his interactions with the kidlings.  Downside to the eppy?  The presence of River Song…boo.  I really hope I’m right in that she is not who the writers want us to think she is!  I suppose we’ll see…

Lost; The End Review

I haven’t talked about Lost much on here, but it is a show that I’ve watched since the very first episode, and now that it ended the way that it did, I have to comment on it. SPOILERS abound; if you haven’t seen it, don’t read on!

Ok, the main thing everyone is asking is, “Did you like the ending?” Well…that is an odd question for me. I can honestly say that I give it a 4/10…but that score requires some explaining.

First, the writers did a good job with the character arcs. They wrote a scenario that gave the audience a sense of closure without putting in much detail. So, all of our Losties wind up dead one way or another, surprise surprise, and in our world we are not sure when or where the off screen deaths took place. Take Hurley for example; we know he was the Protector for a bit, but did indeed pass away at some unspecified time and place in our future.

We know that their souls (the essence of who they were) all wound up together in what is now popularly labeled “Purgatory.”  I have to say, I think the writers kind of went PC overboard on the Universalist style church…how many religious symbols, statues, books, artwork, etc… can one crew put into one set dressing?  I would point out that to do that, but then have Christ prominently displayed outside the church in many shots, “Christian Shepherd” being the one to open the door to the “next step,” and the Christian faith of several of the Characters throughout the seasons, is an odd choice, since that is enough to get all those against the Christian faith riled up without fully committing.

Now, here’s the thing about a story…it has a plot and it has characters.  The characters are there to further a plot and to enrich it.  They are not the plot, they are a part of the plot, they are part of the story.  That is what I think the creators of the show either neglected to remember, or deliberately ignored in the finale.  So, the second part of this review is about the plot in general, not the characters.  The plot was, for all intents and purposes, completely ignored.  Think about it; we know absolutely nothing about the island or the surrounding mysteries.

We don’t know what the light is, energy of some sort, perhaps tied to spirituality, perhaps not.  We don’t know who first populated the island, who the “mother” of Jacob and “Esau” was and why we should believe anything she’d say (or her nutty sons), who built the “plug” that keeps the energy in, why certain people can see dead people, why Walt could control the island off and on the island, why did Kate see a black horse, why did the smoke beastie peer into people’s souls for no ultimate apparent reason, and on and on and on…  The island was the main setting, and the main plot device, and it was completely neglected during the finale.

Look, I like good books, movies, and tv shows that make people think and ask questions…so a lot of people really liked the ending.  But, here’s the thing…I know about the afterlife, I know about spirituality, I know about the love of a group of people, and friendship, and adventure.  I don’t need some vague reference to what happens after someone dies.  I was hooked on the show because of the mystery of the island, not the mystery of the humans on the island except as it pertained to the island itself.  I love character driven shows too; but the plot is what needs to be advanced through the advancement of the characters.  To me, the writers did a fine job on the characters, and a bad job on the plot.

Could this be for future profits and storytelling?  I do hope for future storytelling, or answers.  The writers did a bang-up job setting a scene and a world full of possibility as far as the island is concerned, they just didn’t give any answers in this series.

To be fair, I’ve seen many criticisms of the show, or aspects of the show, that are based on people just not thinking things through (surprise surprise).  For example; no, Jack did not just dream the whole island and all the people up; it really happened.  The rules put in place that people are nitpicking; who could and could not leave the island, who could come to the island, were set in place by Jacob (remember the game Jake and his brother were playing, and the brother told him someday Jake could make up his own rules for his own game?  Jake used the island to do just that). Purgatory was transcendent, and that is why they could all be there at the same time.  Jake picked who he did because they had issues to deal with and needed a life change anyway, so he brought ‘em there for his own ends, but also to try to get them to change, etc… etc…

So, there ya have it.  I’m glad I watched the show, didn’t love the ending but have my reasons why.

Doctor Who; Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone

Okay, spoilers everywhere, so if you haven’t seen it don’ t read any of this.  I talked a bit before about Time of Angels…it did indeed contain bits that were very interesting to me pertaining to matters of faith/religion.  I have to say that Flesh & Stone took it up a notch…and I was pleasantly surprised.

Some of the themes brought up were faith and fear…how they are related and the limits of both.  The discussions back and forth betwixt The Doctor and Angel Bob were very interesting.  Bob did have some good points about the fact that the Doctor keeps making promises that he might not be able to keep; he gets people to put their trust in him, then does indeed let some of them down.  Sometimes being afraid is the most intelligent position,as Bob kind of alludes to…and of course, one can’t truly be brave without fear.

The military nature of the church wasn’t explored much further than in the first part.  In Time of Angels it is said that the church has “moved on,” whatever that might mean (kind of an odd comment seeing as how the church did have a military nature in the past (rightly or wrongly)).  The Bishop, Father Octavian (BTW, the real St. Octavian was martyred by the Vandals) was one of the most interesting characters Who has had on it in a long time.  A solid military man of moral character with strong faith in God, and a willingness to help the side of good even unto death.  No bones were made about his belief, it was pretty straightforward in the phrases he used.

I have to admit I was caught off guard by the way Moffat handled Octavian and The Doctor’s relationship.  When Octavian was caught by an Angel, he faced death with extreme courage, saying that The Doctor was seeing him at his best, “For that I thank God, and bless the path that takes you to safety.”  Eleven had actual tears in his eyes, with no witty comebacks.

It’s always interesting to speculate how many things I can spot in plots that line up with scripture are there intentionally or just by coincidence.  Two examples; the first is Octavian reply about giving up his life, he said he was content…when we look at what Paul tells us in scripture: Philippians 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. 12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

The second was the idea that the angels needed Eleven to sacrifice himself to save them…and he didn’t do it.  Again, perhaps a messiah-like allusion that actually matches the biblical idea pretty closely.  Christ, the true Messiah, did not die to redeem the fallen angels; His sacrifice was not for them, nor efficacious for them, but rather His sacrifice was for humanity.

A difference that I noted between the Doctor and Christ; a big deal was made out of the fact that the Doctor doesn’t always tell the truth, yet he expects to be trusted despite that.  God’s nature is such that He does indeed always tell the truth, and that is one of the reasons why we know He can be trusted.  It is an interesting juxtaposition.

I really enjoyed these episodes…as far as plot, Blink was better, but as far as characters, I preferred these (that is, if I leave Dr. Song out of the equation, I despise her character, not the actor, but the character).  Who else out there doesn’t believe that Song is the Doctor’s future wife?  Maybe that’s just me hoping…

Doctor Who; The Time of Angels…

Already had some feedback asking about my perspective of the religious content of the latest Doctor Who eppy (here in the states, at least).  I’m holding my review and my thoughts until the second part is on, because that will change things, I’m sure.  Obviously there are both spiritual and religious references in this eppy; the church (perhaps the Anglican church is implied) has obviously become militaristic, the angels are back, and there is a lot of talk of faith, trust, fear…and being saved, or lost.

It was a good episode on its own, but not as good as Blink!

Doctor Who review; The Eleventh Hour…

This is the latest eppy of Doctor Who to air (in the US, that is), and also the first to feature the new Doctor.  This is the Eleventh Doctor (and we won’t mention Ten… *sob*), and he is played by Matt Smith.  Other “firsts” in this eppy?  The unveiling of the new TARDIS, both the outside and inside got a bit of renovation, a new companion (Amy Pond), a new sonic screwdriver, and this ep is also the first with Steven Moffat at the helm instead of RTD.

As always on the Christian Scribbler, I look into any religious implications, or discussions that arise from the actors, the writers, the script, the directors, etc… This new incarnation of Doctor Who seems it will also set up nicely for me to comment upon from time to time.  With Moffat as the showrunner, will we see as much of the Doctor’s Messiah complex?  I dunno, but we already have religious/spiritual implications creeping into the show.

A quick summary of the ep follows, with mild spoilers, and then I’d touch upon the religious bit.  Ok, Eleventh Hour sets up a plot line to introduce us to all the new stuff in Doctor Who, so we have a basic episode with a basic alien baddie.  We meet Amy Pond as a young girl who has a suspicious crack in her bedroom wall.  It is a creepy crack to be sure, and we are left to no other conclusion than the Doctor is directly involved.  Said Doctor, in his newly regenerated body, crashes the TARDIS in Amy’s back yard.

One of the funniest moments in the show ensues as Eleven tries to figure out his favorite food…MAJOR SPOILER…fish fingers and custard. hahaha…Anywho, we also find out the alien baddie of the week is; “prisoner zero.”  The Doc has to take off for a bit and promises to return in five minutes in the TARDIS…twelve years later he does manage a return and we get to meet Amy again.  Teaming up with various extras results in Eleven and his human helpers saving the day in a basic Who plot carried out very well.  Another standout scene was a montage of all the previous Doctors (including Ten…*sob*) leading up to Eleven.

So, my opinion?  Matt Smith did the role proud and I will happily tune in every week.  I really enjoyed Amy’s character  as well (played by Karen Gillan), and she seems like the perfect companion for The Doctor.  The new control room for the TARDIS is going to take some getting used to; I liked the organic feel to Nine and Ten’s TARDIS a bit better.  I also realized after watching all the Tennant specials and this episode, that the changes to the show were needed to advance the storyline past the Rose/Nine&Ten romance subplot.  I’m a fan who really enjoyed the romance aspect, and am also glad they found a way to move the story on now.

Anything really negative?  No, I just hope that Smith relaxes into the role and makes it his own…I don’t know his acting well enough to tell if the manic edge to Eleven was a deliberate overlap in the transition from Ten to Eleven, or he’s trying too hard to match Tennant, or that’s simply his acting style.  I hope that there is unifying storyline through the season, as in seasons past, and that all the writers are on the same page as to where to take the Doctor as far as character goes.  And I would absolutely love a TARDIS centered episode or two…or three..or…

As to the religious aspect, once more, it can’t be helped: the theme of the Doctor arriving in the nick of time, as if it was arranged and orchestrated by a higher power was definitely there.  In fact, attention was drawn to it by having the child-version of Amy Pond praying at the very beginning of the show for help with the crack in her wall; and what a blatant prayer it was with kneeling and prayerful hands and everything .  The perhaps (atheist) dig of having her pray to Santa instead of God is easily overlooked by the underlying point; her prayer was answered regardless (she was a little kid too, and these misunderstandings do happen)…perhaps she’s Roman Catholic and was indeed seeking Saint Nick’s aid?

For readers just joining in on my Doctor Who discussions, I’ve blogged about the interesting themes I see in Doctor Who, esp. when those themes that are religious in nature are coming from atheist writers; for those blogs that will help explain my interest and where I’m coming from in my reviews go here:  Doctor Who, Atheism and God pt. 1 and Doctor Who, Atheism and God pt. 2

Overall?  Two thumbs up; like the new Doc and companion and am looking forward to all the new episodes!

Wishful Thinking…

There is an actual fallacy in formal logic usually labeled something like “wishful thinking.”  This is when someone either accepts a claim, or urges acceptance of a claim based solely on the fact that it would be great if it were true.  Now, most times this is a lot more subtle in nature than stating the phrase outright (“wouldn’t it be great if…”), and is used by some of the best public speakers.  There is a subtle manipulation of emotion involved and it is more of an appeal to that emotion than to any type of actual logic or reality.

Now, why is this a topic for the Christian Scribbler?  I actually see this in a lot of apologetics for non-scripturally backed “Christian” religion.  What I mean by this is that a true Christian that studies the scriptures, and believes them, are a lot less likely to fall pray to this particular fallacy.  As an example there are some people who profess Christ that believe that God is like a cosmic Genie who is bound to answer every request…wouldn’t that be nice?  Wouldn’t that be the way God would operate in an ideal world?

At best, this approach is a misapplication of scripture, at worst it is idolatry; forming God into an image instead of learning of God Himself, how He really is, NOT how we would “like” Him to be or “wish” Him to be.  I see this amongst most non-believers as well.  They paint pictures of God as they wish to see Him, and then reject those pictures; you see “wishful thinking” can work the other way as well….”Wouldn’t it be great if this wasn’t true!?”  So it can apply to the rejection of claims too (again, it is a lot more subtle than this, but you get the point).  This can go hand-in-hand with the straw man fallacy.

One of the other areas I see this in is the idea of Christ alone as the approach to God.  Meaning there is this undercurrent of  “wouldn’t it be great if Christ wasn’t the only way to God, and all religions actually wind up taking people to God?”  The sad thing is, is that I see this amongst people that claim to be Christian.  The fallacy is that wishing it does not make it true.  Truth is all about reality.  With God, the fallacy of wishful thinking is even more dangerous; it elevates what we think would be best over God’s plan that is absolutely the best, since it springs from a perfect mind that has perfect power, including perfect love.  We should trust what God reveals over our own opinion about what would be “best,” for the evidence abounds that He can indeed be trusted in every circumstance to work it out to His perfect plan in His perfect timing, which winds up being best for humanity.

The reminder is this; don’t let sentimentality or wishful thinking blur truth, and just because we want something to be true doesn’t mean it is.  What we find in objective Truth is actually more wonderful, more “freeing” than anything we could ever come up with on our own.  One last thing, this fallacy is not the same thing as hope.  Hope is not a logical fallacy, hope accepts the truth, accepts reality,  and it also trusts, and expects good.  Hope makes us stronger, whereas the logical fallacy of wishful thinking actually weakens us, and our positions, because it is not based in truth.

Feedback; The Bible…

I had a recent question on my stance on the Bible; here is the link to a previous article on my blog: The Reliability of The Bible.  I encourage all the new readers to my blog (hello, BTW!) to utilize the “search” function on the side of the page when looking for certain topics.  As always, comments welcome…

Christians and Alcohol…

Oh, boy.  Yes, I’m tackling this totally non-controversial issue.  This is one of those issues that I urge my readers to research for themselves directly from scripture and to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  With this issue there are actually multiple things to consider when trying to answer the question, ” is it permissible for Christians to drink alcohol?”

The first thing to consider is, what does scripture teach?  Is ingesting alcohol inherently sinful?  The plain, straightforward answer is, no.  If a person approaches scripture with an open mind and not some dead set agenda to prove that alcohol is from the pit, it is quite straightforward that alcohol is not sinful, and neither is drinking it in moderation.  Jesus Himself drank alcohol, and He also turned water into wine, and no, it wasn’t grape juice.

Quite simply it is bordering on silly to think that the wine drunk at all the various Jewish festivals, including Passover, was really grape juice.  The Bible, cultural tradition/history, and the state of agriculture and storage at the time all contradict the grape juice idea.  We are also told in the Psalms;

Psalm 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; 15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.

Who is ultimately to be thanked for the things in these passages?  The Lord.  What you will notice as you study these things for yourself, is that when you are reading an author that disavows drinking any alcohol that the passages that clearly support yayin (a Hebrew word for wine), or hold it up in a permissible or even a good way, are said to refer to juice and mysteriously yayin changes meaning when it causes trouble in scripture, then it is suddenly alcoholic.  I would point out that another form of alcohol is indeed usually warned against; strong drink or shekar.

Obviously what this is building up to is a warning against addiction and drunkenness.  But to try to force scripture to be against alcohol in any strength or form doesn’t line up.  Here is another reference to both yayin and shekar;

Deut. 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

There is clear permission to buy both, and ingest it at the God-prescribed festival, though notice that it does not permit drunkenness.  Wine is clearly held up as being something that can be a part of being merry and rejoicing, and it is given by God.  Too much, however, and it leads to sin and trouble.  This is where a very important analogy can be made; and it is with food.  Food is a good thing, it is a blessing, and a gift from God.  If we partake in moderation there is nothing sinful about liking the food we eat.  However, if we eat too much or become addicted to food that is a sin…it is gluttony.  Gluttony does not make all food evil, or wrong, just as drunkenness and addiction to alcohol does not make every drop of alcohol evil.

The scriptures are indeed equally clear that misusing alcohol is a big no-no, and that drunkenness and addiction can lead to bad situations and bad choices.  I will add here that it is fully possible that the wine consumed during OT and NT times was mixed with water to cut the alcoholic effects, and I’d also point out that that means more could be consumed without feeling its effects; for example there are several cups of wine to be ingested at a Passover meal, not just one.

Next, another scriptural truth; we are not to eat or drink anything in front of another that would cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble.  If your friend is an alcoholic who does not drink, and you drink in front of them, how is that loving and respecting your sibling in Christ?  We are to make sure that we don’t offend someone in our freedom, while at the same time, we are to teach the truth; that we are indeed free in Christ, and truth as presented in scripture.

1 Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

There is also another important matter to consider here; the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  As we walk and live by faith, each of us, as individuals, should be paying attention to the leading of the Spirit for each of our own lives. It is quite possible, and I do believe this happens, that the Spirit will convict certain believers not to drink at all.  For example, for the alcoholic fighting their addiction, total abstinence from alcohol is sometimes the only possible way to go.  It is  very very important to seek His guidance in such matters where scripture neither prescribes nor prohibits certain things; in this case imbibing in alcohol.  Perhaps the Spirit guides certain people to abstinence from alcohol, not for the person themselves, but for someone around them, or one of their children, or for health reasons.  For others, the Holy Spirit may not guide into total abstinence from alcohol.

It is also important to note that the Bible mentions wine in a manner that touches upon health issues.  Many people that preach against any alcohol claim that it is bad for the one’s health; however, modern science has modified its tune and now recognizes some health benefits from very moderate intake of things like red wine, which actually seems backed up by scripture.  The wide access to alcohol in our culture simply means we need to monitor the amount, our health, and our motives when it comes to purchasing and consuming alcohol.

My opinion, that I obviously feel is backed by scripture, can be summed up like this; alcohol in and of itself is not evil.  The simple ingesting of alcohol is not a sin either; however, drunkenness and addiction is clearly taught against in scripture.  We need to study this and let the Holy Spirit guide each of us in our own personal actions.  We should each do as He guides; for some that means imbibing alcohol in a responsible and respectful manner in moderation will be ok, for some, He’ll guide away from it for their own good.  Emotions run high over this issue because we each know someone who has been adversely affected by alcohol…but we also have to make sure our stances on it are scriptural and that we are seeking guidance for ourselves from God.

Latest Lost episode…

I felt compelled to make a post about the latest episode of Lost, Ab Aeterno, mainly because of the religious content; there’s SPOILERS ahead.  In this eppy, we get to see Richard’s backstory, and his run in with a Catholic priest.  It highlighted several things that are worth commenting on, theologically speaking, and this just gives the chance:

1) God can and does forgive people for murder.  In the show, the priest refuses forgiveness on the grounds that Richard doesn’t have time to perform acts of penance.  This is especially emphasized since it was “murder” that Richard had committed; folks, one sin is just as heinous as the next.

2) Forgiveness does not hinge on works, but rather faithing on the finished work of Christ.  The priest made it abundantly clear that his refusal to forgive Richard was again based on the fact that Richard did not have time to commit acts of penance.

3) We are instructed to forgive others as God has forgiven us.  The priest showcased the attitude that Christ despised; an open-hearted individual  truly seeking forgiveness turned away by someone who would fully expect to be forgiven if the roles were reversed…and more importantly, if the priest had been a believer, he was already forgiven, so we should also forgive.

4) We do not have to go through a mere human being to receive forgiveness, in fact we are instructed that Christ is the mediator betwixt God and man; we go through Christ directly to the Father.  Poor Richard (in the fictional show, of course), is left thinking that another mere man can refuse to forgive sin, and hence he remains unforgiven.  Only God can forgive, and Christ died so we could go directly to Him.  Once we faithe on Christ, all our sins are paid for.

5) As previously posted on my site; the Devil is not in Hell at present, and He’s not “in charge” like some king of Hades.  Several references in the show hinted at the fact that the Devil was in charge of Hell.

That’s enough for now…

Breaking Benjamin interview…

For those of my readers interested in delving into the minds of Ben and Chad of Breaking Benjamin a bit more, there’s a good interview to listen to.  It is broken down into parts, so you can pick and choose topics if you don’t want to listen to the whole thing.  They both talk about spiritual stuff, Chad more than Ben, no surprise as Chad is really open about his beliefs. Click here for the link.

Interesting bits; Chad backs up the fact that he’s a Christian, and his feelings about following God…also his feelings about how abused drummers are (lol).  He also makes an interesting comment about not really knowing Ben’s faith either, because it is a private thing.  For Ben’s part, the interview focuses on his fight with alcoholism, but he talks (briefly) in general about God, and won’t come out and talk about songs like “Without You,” again, perhaps he feels it is a private thing, as well as his rule about not telling what a song is about so that fans can read into it what they like.