Movie Review: Tron Legacy

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Sorry about missing last night. My wife and I went out for dinner and a movie and I just didn’t find the time. Seeing as I saw a movie, I do plan to write on it tonight as you can tell by the title. Be warned. I do have spoilers in here so if you plan on seeing the movie, just wait.

The movie takes place several years after Tron. Kevin Flynn disappeared leaving his son, Sam, behind, who has become somewhat of a renegade. One day however, Kevin’s business partner says he got a page from the arcade where Kevin worked. The arcade had been abandoned for years.

Sam puts a quarter in the Tron machine and finds a hidden passage behind it. (Interestingly, the music played at this point is “Separate Ways” (Worlds Apart) by Journey. Sam goes back to his Dad’s computer and by typing in some codes, finds that he has entered an alternate reality. He has entered the world of Tron.

Early on, after some combat, Sam meets his father who looks exactly the same only to be told that that he is not his father. Sam is then sent to a grid to enter a racing battle. Before the battle ends, he is rescued by a traveler that shows up on the track and brought to a place far away where he meets his real father. The traveler is a female named Quorra.

As it turns out, Kevin had created someone in his image named Clue to help build the perfect world. Recently, creatures had arisen out of the data in the world that were part human and part data and called “Isomorphs.” Kevin was fascinated with these and thought they would unlock secrets for humanity. There is an implication of an evolutionary process, and while Kevin is in many ways “God” in the world, he is not parallel to the God in Scripture as he is banished by his creation. Still there are parallels, with Sam being a Christ-figure and Clue being a devil.

Religious references abound. At one point in a battle with Sam, someone overseeing it tells the soldiers to meet the son of their maker. Clue refers to Kevin as a false deity that has kept them imprisoned. As said, the parallels are not perfect, nor should we expect such, but we should take what we can.

In the movie, Clue gets his hands on Kevin’s disk that contains his information. He plans to use it to open the portal to the real world and take his army there with them to eliminate the imperfections and as Kevin points out to Sam, our world has a number of imperfections.

Such dialogue can get one thinking about the problem of evil. Would it be right to be like Clue and eliminate all imperfections immediately? Kevin could be speaking in good Thomist language when he says that perfection was right before him and he never saw it. All of us have some perfection in us. We are not pure perfection, as God is, but we all have some perfections.

One other scene I must comment on is at the end so here are big spoilers. Quorra and Sam do escape and Quorra has asked what the sun is like in our world. Sam had said he’s never been asked to describe it. Sam, like us, could be taking it for granted. When Quorra rides with Sam on his bike, she looks in wonder at the sun.

I wonder how the director did that scene. Olivia Wilde played Quorra so did he have to say to her “You need to act like you’re amazed. Picture the sun as something amazing.” I thought about that thinking what a shame it would be if we had to be told that. Perhaps some of us need to be reminded how awesome it is.

Overall, this movie gives good food for thought. I do not recall any profanity and parents will be pleased that there is no sex in the movie as well. I think some of the action scenes were hard to follow, but overall, this is a good one you can take the kids to go see.

A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve spent a lot of time lately looking at atheist sound bites and now, I’d like to turn my attention to Christian sound bites. Why? Because I’m against bad argumentation no matter where it comes from and that includes Christians giving bad arguments. God is not glorified by bad actions. Neither is he glorified by bad arguments.

I know this one will be highly controversial, but I’d like to write about the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. To begin with, let us consider the position from the point of God. I will begin by asking this question.

Is God Lord of all creation by nature?

If you answered “No”, move to the head of the class.

“That’s ridiculous!” some of you say. “Isn’t it true that he is Lord of all?!”

“Yes. Yes it is.”

“Then isn’t He that by nature?”

No. The reason is that what God is, He has to be naturally, but He did not necessarily have to create. God could have willed to not create ever. It could have just been for all eternity the fellowship of the Trinity. No angels. No men. No animals. Nothing else. God would still be all that He is by nature.

Now once He does however create, he establishes a relation by creation to his creatures. Because of His position to them, He is their Lord. This position however does not change anything in the nature of God. God does not gain anything by being your Lord and if you never existed God would not be at a loss. However, by being the servant of God, you gain greatly and by not being the servant of God, you lose greatly.

Our relation to God does not change Him in the least. It changes us. We need to restore a divine holiness to the relationship and realize that no relationship we have on Earth can truly compare to it. Consider the four loves. Your relationship with your marriage partner cannot compare to it. Your relationship with your family cannot compare to it. Your relationship with your friends cannot compare to it.

Instead, we’ve treated the position we have with God practically casually. Hebrews tells us that we can boldly approach the throne of grace to be sure, but that does not mean that we necessarily march in like we own the place. We are still coming to one far greater than us by nature and we come with reverent submission.

The danger is that our relationship with Jesus is so different and we treat it as if it was similar. Just today, I read of an ex-Christian who left the fold saying he didn’t feel that personal relationship that everyone else in the church claimed to feel. Don’t tell me then that this kind of thinking focusing on our subjective experiences does not have an effect. It does!

Jesus never promised us a feeling. In fact, he promised us suffering more than anything else. How often do you hear that spoken of? Jesus did not command us to feel love or joy. In fact, that would be difficult. Suppose you were sad and I came up to you and said “I order you to feel happy!” I could even stick a gun to your head and say “If you don’t feel happy, I will blow your brains out!”

You couldn’t do it. Now I could do some things for you that might be able to bring about a feeling related to the state of happiness in you, but I could not make you feel happy. I am of course not against feeling happy. I also do not believe we can perpetually feel happy. There are times we should feel negative emotions and allow them to speak.

Jesus did command us to be holy however. We don’t hear that worked on. Holiness is something very much objective. You have a clear goal. Christlikeness. You are either getting closer to it or moving away from it. What about how you feel? Act first and let the feelings come later.

You wouldn’t want to base your relationship with other people on how you felt would you? As one who recently had surgery, I am sure there were times people did not really feel eager to help me in my time of need, but did so anyway. I do think my wife could be a great exception. Somehow, it wouldn’t surprise me that when I had to wake her up in the night to help me walk to the bathroom or to give me medication that she felt a joy in helping her husband.

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument however that she didn’t one time. What does she do? She does the right thing anyway. She gets up and helps her husband out. If the feeling comes, great! If not, oh well. Doing the right thing is more important than getting the feeling of doing the right thing.

Another way this relationship is different is communication. If I don’t understand something about my wife or she doesn’t about me, then we can openly ask each other. It could be we don’t even know the reasons for why the other is asking, but we can still ask.

Many Christians treat prayer as a two-way street. The Bible never does. Am I saying God can’t talk to us? No. However, I’m also not saying it’d be normative. God could raise your loved one from the dead, but somehow, I don’t suspect many of you are going to the burial site with that news and just waiting.

If you believe God has spoken to you and you have not fallen down proclaiming your unworthiness, I doubt it was God. I plan to write more on this in the future with the use of punting to God in another blog.

The Bible defines our relationship as being at peace with God now. He’s not turned against us. We have united ourselves to Him. We have become a part of the covenant with YHWH and this is a sacred position to hold. We are not to treat it casually. We ought to be able to spend all of our days in wonder and amazement that we are pronounced forgiven, and I am just as guilty of not doing this.

It’s my hope that we will drop this term as it tends to lower God down to our level instead of realizing He is the high and mighty Lord. I am not saying Christians who use this term don’t believe that. I’m saying the terminology however can easily lend itself to that thinking.

We shall look at another sound bite tomorrow.

A Case for Christian Environmentalism

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! I’m going to take a brief respite from atheist sound bites to give a brief case for Christian environmentalism. Why? Readers of last night’s blog will know I presented a link to my wife’s blog that she has started. It is called Evergreen Glades and it is the blog for Christian nature lovers, which should be all of us.

My wife is quite saddened that it seems like the new age movement is doing more to take care of the Earth than Christians do. Now I’m not one who believes in global warming and neither one of us are supporters of PETA. My wife loves animals, but she also knows that if it comes between an animal or a human, the human has to come first. We are different by kind and not just degree.

However, the Bible tells us we were put on the Earth to be in charge of it. We are also told in Proverbs 12:10 that a good man cares for his beast. When Noah entered the ark, he had a number of animals with him. When the Israelites were to lay siege to an enemy town, they were given specific instructions on how to tend to the trees in the area.

All of creation is good and we should celebrate that. The Bible uses animals as examples to us as well. We are told if we are sluggards to go to the ant and watch. Jesus tells us that we need not worry if we observe the birds in the sky and the flowers in the field. God takes care of both of them. Numerous Psalms look to the creation and view it as a cause to praise God.

My wife is the strong one in this area. I’m not. I don’t like being away from the wonders of modern technology. She wants to see each of the dogs that our neighbors have. (That is also another difference. She’s a dog-lover primarily. I’m a cat-lover.) I realize when this happens that this is a deficiency in me however rather than a deficiency in nature.

Taking care of the world around us doesn’t mean being a tree-hugger or buying into environmental disaster scenarios. God is in charge of this Earth. However, knowing he’s in charge doesn’t mean we don’t fulfill the Great Commission in evangelism. It also shouldn’t meant that we just ignore the planet and say “God will clean it all up.”

I don’t consider myself an environmentalist, but I am willing to recycle and we take our bottles every Sunday to a place near our church to recycle them. I am quite cautious to make sure I don’t litter. Is there really any excuse for throwing trash out the window as you drive rather than just waiting until you get to a trash can?

None of us also want to be caught in the New Age and worshiping nature. The secret to escape this however is not to love nature less. It’s to love God more. The problem with the New Agers is that they don’t look beyond nature. They take nature to be God. They should celebrate the wonder of nature and realize the awesomeness of the God that it points to.

We Christians on any ethical duty should be putting to shame the rest of the world. We should have the new agers wanting to do as good a job preserving nature as we do. Those of you who are scientists and such should celebrate every day that you get to explore the wonders of creation somehow and get to know the God behind it, who He is, and why He did it this way.

If you’re a fan of my blog, and I hope you are, then I ask you to become a fan of my wife’s as well. She will not be blogging every day, but your support of her in what she’s doing will be a great encouragement to her. Keep praying for us as well. We’re still in a tight situation as neither of us have a job due to no one hiring me yet. God has provided thus far, but we would like to see a job come up. I would love to work for my money.

Thank you for your support thus far of Deeper Waters and again, please be a fan of Evergreen Glades.

When Bears Attack

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Readers are aware I have a blogroll on the side of my blog and today, I am pleased to announce a new blog. My wife is a great admirer of nature and animals, much more so than I am. She has also started her own blog now to remind Christians of the wonders of nature. It’s called Evergreen Glades and can be found here.

Speaking of her, the best man at our wedding, an excellent friend of mine, saw my blog yesterday on stoning children and said he prefers letting bears handle rebellious ones. Now he is a Christian in case any one is wondering, and he’s quite the apologist as well. What he’s referring to however is another story often raised up by atheists supposed to make Christians embarrassed about their Bibles. It’s found in 2 Kings 2:23-24.

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

What’s going on here?

For one thing, these boys again were most likely not even boys. They were more like young men who were capable of inflicting some serious damage on the prophet if they wanted to. The same word is used to describe soldiers in the army. Considering Israel didn’t exactly live in peaceful times, they’d want there to be soldiers in the army ready.

Thus, the prophet could justifiably be seen as being in danger. There is more going on as well. This was just after the event of Elijah going up to Heaven in a whirlwind. The story would have been well known even if not believed by all and would have been a picture of the hand of God on the life of Elijah.

What the boys were saying was mockery first off. That would be enough actually. YHWH does not take mockery of Himself lightly and anything that would make YHWH be seen as less than holy would not be allowed. It would be a direct challenge to the honor of YHWH in the face of false gods in the area.

However, it’s more than mockery. It’s also a blatant disregard for YHWH and his rule in the lives of these men. They were in telling Elisha that he should go on up away just like Elijah did. They didn’t want to hear the message of Elijah and they don’t want to hear the message of his successor either.

This was the start of the ministry of Elisha and already it was being challenged and it was being challenged with violence. God’s response is to bring the stakes up to the level they brought them up. The young generation growing up would get the message that this messenger was to be heeded like Elijah was.

But they died!

Yeah. YHWH takes sin seriously. Why should I have a problem with that? I contend that the reason modern skeptics have a problem with this is that they do not see seriously the holiness of YHWH in the Bible. As long as they don’t see that, it will be their problem until convinced. We are under no obligation to lower the holiness of God to handle the outrage of skeptics.

Stoning Children

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve been looking lately at atheist sound bites that are thrown around on the blogosphere without proper study. Our next one to look at for this blog will be that the Bible teaches us to stone children.

The text is found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

So obviously, if little Johnny does not clean his room, then the parents must take him out and stone him.

Or is this again wrong?

The reality is that first off, this was not just a case of a little kid talking back to his parents, which would have been something serious in a culture where parents were actually to be respected. In our day and age, we glamourize youth and mock adulthood.

In that time, the sons were the livelihood of the family. They were the ones who would be the strongest workers out in the field. They were also the ones through whom the family line would be passed down. The loss of a son would have a huge impact on a family and so they would want to make sure that they did not lose one so carelessly.

Furthermore, in our day and age, we do have sons getting married or going off to college or both and leaving behind their natural family. In that day and age, it didn’t really happen. It would be common for someone to live with parents and grandparents still.

Thus, a rebellious son could include one who was a grown adult and was living with his parents. Why would they want to stop such a case? Because it is teaching rebellion to YHWH and his holiness and the one little contaminant could spread through the whole populace.

In fact, we have a clue in the text that this son is of age. He is described as a glutton and a drunkard. While we do know children can be problems at times, we do not normally see small children as being gluttons and drunkards.

Was such punishment serious? Yes it was. It was deadly serious. However, it was also extremely rare. Any child would have known about what the consequences were for going against YHWH. Left unchecked, such behavior would have reduced Israel to the level of the nations around it. (Many condemn the behavior of Israel without bothering to consider how Israel was in relation to the people around it.)

What’s required to know about the reality of this situation? Some serious study. Too often, skeptics have simply read something they don’t like in the Bible and then figured the whole thing must be wicked and evil. Such shallow thinking shows a lack of true research on their part.

Slavery

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to look at another atheist sound bite, although I hope soon to move on to the ones we Christians use that irk me oh so much. Last night, we looked at the topic of supposed genocide briefly and saw the main example of Numbers 31 and that it’s highly exaggerated. What about slavery? How is it that the Bible condones such a practice?

To begin with, one point I usually make with atheists is that they also need a moral standard by which they condemn this practice. Very few people I find who profess to be moral relativists seem to live this out. They tend to be relativists about the morality they want people to tolerate in them and absolutists about morality they won’t accept elsewhere.

Also, let’s clear something up at the start. If you’re an American thinking about slavery in the Civil War era, drop that idea immediately. That’s not what’s going on in the Bible. Keep in mind in fact that some slavemasters in the South were quite good to their slaves and the slaves didn’t want to leave. There were some blacks in the Confederate army. The north was hardly innocent either with child labor and poor working conditions.

In our times, slavery was done on people seen as racially inferior and was often done to exploit them. In the Bible, it was quite the opposite. If you go to work sometime and you come home referring to your boss as a taskmaster, you’re not too far from the slavery in the Bible in some ways. It was more akin to the employee/employer relationship.

Everyone needed to work to live and the only place you can go to to get a job is to those who have the money to pay you. If you were a poor person in ancient Israel, you had to hire yourself out to someone to work. Seeing as your livelihood and his depended on work getting done, a contract of sorts would be required, even if just an oral one. This was the system.

It was a staple of the ancient world and no one could function without it. People had to work for other people. Around the time of the Romans, some slaves had enough to become teachers and other professionals. The philosopher Epictetus was a slave. This was also allowed in Israel as a slave could have his own income and resources.

“Yeah? Well you could also beat a slave without fear of punishment provided he live!”

Sounds like it’s treating a slave as mere property at first, but not at all. When a slave is referred to as property, it means the owner has rights to the output that the slave would produce. Your employer, if you are the common American worker, just as much expects certain output from you. That’s why he pays you.

Well what about this in Exodus 21?

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

To begin with, you would be punished if the slave died. However, if the worker lives after a day or two, you weren’t. Why? The owner is being given the benefit of the doubt. He doesn’t want to lose that income from that slave and besides, if other future workers hear that X died under the treatment of Y, he knows he’s not likely to get replacement help.

The rod was also the system of discipline. We can scorn that today, as we prefer locking someone away in a cell for several years. It’s quite the difference as to us, solitude is seen as a great punishment. I believe the ancients placed great value on solitude.

But even if you beat your slave, notice what Exodus 21 later says:

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

The idea is that if a slave suffers permanent damage under the care of the person he was a slave to, then that slave was to go free. That’s something any owner would keep in mind when it came to discipline! The owner’s reputation again would also suffer as a result.

Well that works for Hebrews. What about foreigners! The system was biased towards those who identified with YHWH!

Yeah. It was.

What? You’re expected to think that YHWH running a system would not want people in that system to be devoted to Him?

The simple solution for any alien would be to convert to following YHWH. Abandon pagan gods and join YHWH. Why should this be a surprise to us? There is nothing immoral about it. If you are in charge of an organization, you get to call the shots on who gets what kind of treatment.

Is this ideal? No. It is not. However, it would not have worked for YHWH to have overthrown the system entirely. The ancient world depended on it, the rich and the poor alike. His plan was to take a less than ideal system and eventually through the transference of holiness make it better.

“Well Jesus could have done something about it! Why nothing in the NT!?”

The NT does tell slaves to work hard, but it also tells masters to treat their slaves well. Why nothing explicit? The gospel was not to be about overthrowing a political system, but rather the kingdom of the devil. It was through such transformation that slavery would eventually be overcome. This was through the work of people like Bathilda, wife of Clovis II, and William Wilberforce.

I recommend works like Kaiser’s “Towards Old Testament Ethics,” “The Rise of Christianity” and “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, articles at Tektonics.org, and the work at the Christian-thinktank.com, including a whole in-depth article on this topic.

The question to the atheist critic is, “What exactly have you read about slavery in the ANE?”

Numbers 31

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Our movie reviews are done for now, so we’re going to be going back to looking at topics that are discussed in the blogosphere in debates that Christians have with atheists. One common complaint brought up against the Bible are the conquests that take place in the Old Testament. If there is any that is pointed to more than others however, it is Numbers 31. In reading atheists on the topic of “genocide in the Bible” I expect it. I am not disappointed.

The whole chapter is about conquering the people of Midian. What happens is that Moses commands the Israelites to go and put the people to death. They are to kill everyone save the women who have not slept with a man. Obviously, this was just bloodthirsty murder and the women had to undergo an embarrassing physical examination to be determined if they would die or be kept as rape objects for the Israelites.

Or maybe not….

To begin with, the start of the chapter says that this is an act of vengeance. That means that we have to look for something earlier that will tell us what this is in response to. Fortunately, we don’t have to go too far. The incident that this is a response to is found in Numbers 25.

Israel had already defeated the Amorites putting Balak in a tough position getting him to contact Balaam to curse Israel. The plan didn’t work, but Balaam knew another way to get Israel to lose their blessing. All that needed to be done was to get Israel to violate their covenant with YHWH. What better way to do that than sex?

Not that sex is wrong of course, but that sex would be the lure. Adultery of course was wrong and that would be the start. Suddenly one day, Moabite women show up in town. They are working in conjunction with the Midianites, the Midianites taking the more authoritative role. The idea is to lure the men away and then in doing so get them to start worshiping other gods.

This was quite a trip, as these women would have come a long distance and left behind any family duties while away and their purpose was to come and have sex with the Israelites and lead them astray. Thus, Midian was really the aggressor in this case and Israel was in the defensive position.

As a result of what happened, a plague came upon Israel that killed 24,000 people. This event was a mark of shame to Israel later on. In Numbers 31, the time for vengeance has come.

Now what of the embarrassing physical examination for the women? No need at all. Why? Children were highly valued and one needed to know whose child one was talking about. Virgins then were identified by special clothing and/or markings as could non-virgins be. The reality is that no one would have needed to do an examination to know who was a virgin. It would have been easy to tell.

Well obviously they were kept for sex purposes. Not likely. Israel was condemned for many things. Pedophilia was not one of them. Most likely, these young women would have been kept as household servants in Israelite families. There is no mention of rape in the text and that was already condemned by YHWH.

Well what about the deaths anyway?

Of course, this is said in a society where government aid is available and social programs to care for the deprived. In reality, most of the time, people were driven out. Only the diehards would stay behind wanting to fight Israel. Children left behind would simply be eaten by beasts. Am I saying this is ideal? No. I’m saying however, that there were not many other options available.

Still, this is a favorite that is often used. The sad reality is that few atheists seem to study Numbers 31. It seems to be a pattern of criticizing things in theology without studying them.

Movie Review: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Last night, we did a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. As it is, over the Christmas break, my in-laws took my wife and I to see The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Unfortunately, it’s been awhile since I’ve read the books, but this one made me think “Perhaps I should get those down again soon and go through them once more.” Be warned of spoilers in advance.

I did recall some references, such as Eustace having a name that he almost deserved. In my understanding of the film, Eustace is a reductionist through and through. He doesn’t want to bother reading serious fairy tales. He only wants to read about facts. Of course, it’s questionable how many facts he knows. There is even a work that has made Richard Dawkins out to be Eustace, which I found interesting since I was thinking of a Dawkins type when seeing Eustace.

Whatever Eustace sees for awhile, he is tempted to think there has to be some explanation other than what is most obvious. It cannot be he is really in another world even though he was in a bedroom and then it filled up with water and he came out in open sky. Everyone must be in on a hallucination or conspiracy of some sort.

I believe it is only when Eustace comes face to face with a reality that he cannot deny does he change his tune. That is the reality of when his greed turns him into a dragon. At that point, he cannot deny both his greed, which is the evil inside of him, nor can he deny that he is a dragon. It is then of course that Aslan is able to help Eustace.

Interestingly, seeing the talk of Eustace reading makes me think that Lewis in this work is telling us much about knowledge. Consider the gnomish creatures who kidnap Lucy saying “This one reads!” They want her to go and break an invisibility charm that has been put on them by the one that they call “The Oppressor.” Not remembering this part of the story, I was preparing for Lucy to find a powerful enemy, when in reality, she found an old scholarly man who was not really an oppressor, but was one seeking to help the creatures.

Why? They could not protect themselves and part of the reason was that they could not read. They had no real access to knowledge in society then. Those who are not aware of the great ideas will be at the mercy of those who are. We need to read non-fiction so others will not do our thinking for us. We need to read fiction so that others will not do our imagining for us. Of course, we can benefit from the knowledge and imagination of others, but we should hone these skills that exist in us as well.

The biblical references I find quite strong such as Aslan’s table and I was pleased that the movie put these in. Aslan’s table was a place that could not be approached in violence and so a charm was put on the lords who sought to use it as such. We could also keep in mind that at Aslan’s table, there is truly only one Lord.

We should also appreciate the numerous references to temptation. We can all seek to be someone else, such as Lucy sought to be Susan, but we should all seek to be ourselves. That does not mean we cannot admire others or seek to emulate them in some ways. We should however not seek to be them. It does us no good to be jealous of another, something I still have to learn in many ways.

For Edmund, it was power. He wanted to be free. He didn’t want to be seen as “younger king under Peter.” He wanted to be king in his own right. It is however in realizing who he is in himself that enables him to be able to defeat the serpent. He does not need the power of the White Queen. He does not need to defeat the serpent to prove he is a man. His defeat of the serpent demonstrates that he is a man. He is a man in his own right, though not Peter.

Reepacheep was of course a favorite character again. It was a truly moving scene at the end to see him cross over the water and enter into Aslan’s country, a country which is made for hearts of those like him. Why are we sad at that? It is not for Reepacheep. He didn’t even experience the pain of death. He simply passed over. It is because of our loss. We have an attachment to this character and until we pass over, we will not see him again.

Special thanks to the producers also for including Lucy asking if they’d ever see Aslan in their world. Aslan tells them that in their world, he is known by another name. The purpose of bringing them to the world of Narnia and knowing him there was so that they would know him better in their own world. My wife and in-laws and I were quite pleased to see that.

I also found that the 3-D effects of the movie were just spectacular as it looked like objects were really coming at me. Every now and then, I’d lower the glasses to see if things looked different and indeed they did. The movie was incredible overall and had me spellbound the whole time. I found it to be the best one yet.

I also do think it’s family-friendly. Don’t hesitate to bring the little ones to see this one. It’ll give great openings for more conversation.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! I’m safely back from an enjoyable holiday with my in-laws and I do hope you had a Merry Christmas. I’ll be spending some time I’m sure reading some new books that I got and that’s not yet counting gifts from everyone else. Before we jump back into atheist sound bites, I’d like to do a couple of movie reviews. A week ago Monday, my wife and I went with some friends to see “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1.” Be warned of spoilers now.

Now I’ll tell you upfront that I am not one of those who believes that Harry Potter endorses witchcraft as a viable worldview in the real world. I think it’s a tool used in an allegorical way. An excellent look at this can be found in John Granger’s work that can be found at hogwartsprofessor.com and in his book “Looking for God in Harry Potter.” As it turns out, I have read all the books and seen all the movies and immensely enjoy them. I think Rowling is an excellent writer and storyteller.

I will however agree with a caution often given on this by Harry Haters as it were and I agree with them on it. Deathly Hallows is not a children’s movie. The movie has villains committing murder as well as a dark nightmare of Ron’s involving Harry and Hermoine. Parents should use discretion in bringing their children. In fact, while I am a supporter of Harry, I have no problem with parents who say they want to read the books or watch the movies before their children do. I think that’s an excellent idea.

Readers of Deathly Hallows quickly found out that the book would not be easily contained in one movie and I think this one wisely has been cut into two parts. While it has been awhile since I read the last book, the story does follow along with it well, including the departing of Ron from the party and the finding of the sword of Gryffindor. Others are more hinted at that readers should know about like the romance of Harry and Ginny, and that of Ron and Hermoine.

The story does move along at a brisk pace with plenty of action, though limited from the way it was in the books. For instance, the scene of carrying Harry away from where he had been living is played out in a brief form focusing only on Harry and his encounter with Voldemort. Of course, it does sadly have the death of Hedwig in there.

What was of great interest to me especially was the scene of the graveyard in Godric’s Hallow. This is where James and Lily Potter are buried and readers of the book know that the tombstone says “The last that shall be destroyed is death.” The graveyard was right outside a church on Christmas Eve with parishioners gathered together in the building to sing.

This was not a surprise to some of us in the series that an overtly Christian reference came out. The question of if Harry would die or not was lingering over us for the series as Harry I do not believe is meant to be a parallel of Christ, but more an idea of everyman in the battle against death and the good in his life is to remind us of the power of Christ. That will be for part 2 of the movie however.

There are many who are worrying about these movies. I would tell them that while I do view witchcraft and the new age movement as a threat, I do not consider Harry Potter a threat nor do I consider many other things a threat along the same lines. We would be better off fighting ideological opponents such as materialism or hedonistic sexuality than focusing on Harry Potter. It’s a shame more Christians seem to know what they think is wrong with the book than they do with books like “The Shack” or “The Da Vinci Code.” The sad reality also is most Christians have not even read the books but have simply gone by what they have heard.

Of course, if you’re one who does believe that this is something you should not do, by all means do not do so. I am not here to force you. The problem is that many of us usually come up with these rules for ourselves that we automatically make binding rules on everyone else. I am a devout Christian and I have no problem with the series. In fact, I find many lessons in it.

Readers of the book also will not be surprised where part 1 ends. I definitely look forward to part 2 and the Battle of Hogwart’s in it.

The Shoddy Research of the New Atheists

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve been looking at atheist sound bites lately and I’d like to post on something tonight that’s similar to that, but is not in itself a sound bite. I got the inspiration for this in posting earlier today on TheologyWeb.com in reply to a skeptic there who was pointing out the importance of fairly representing the other side. Do they? I wish to look at Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as two such examples:

Let’s start with Dawkins in “The God Delusion.” Here in the bibliography of books cited and recommended, I only count three that I could in any way consider evangelical authors.

Michael Behe of “Darwin’s Black Box.”

Alister McGrath: “Dawkins’s God”

John Polkinghorne: “Science and Christian Belief.”

How fares the index?

“Answers in Genesis” is cited once.

Thomas Aquinas is mentioned a few times, but I can assure you as one who studies at a Thomistic school that Dawkins badly misrepresents the Thomistic arguments. He frankly does not have a clue.

Augustine on two pages

Michael Behe gets mention on four pages in a row.

G.K. Chesterton on one page

Francis Collins on one pages

James Dobson on one page (And I would not count him an apologist)

Dostoyevsky on one page, though I would not necessarily name him an apologist either.

Dons Scotus on one page and I know that page and it never references his arguments.

Philip Johnson on three pages.

C.S. Lewis on two pages.

Alister McGrath on one page. (McGrath is also probably Dawkins’s main critic, seeing as they are both at Oxford and McGrath is an atheist turned Christian trained in the sciences and a theistic evolutionist. Dawkins’s only citation of him is incredibly weak as he doesn’t really acknolwedge McGrath’s arguments.)

Henry Morris on one page.

Blaise Pascal on four pages.

John Polkinghorne on three pages.

Karl Rahner on one page.

Richard Swinburne on seven pages.

Kurt Wise on three pages.

Note that these are only citations. It does not mean actual interaction with the argumentation. I have been doing some more checking lately and looking at what Dawkins says about Thomistic arguments. For instance, he says the problem with omnipotence and omniscience together is that God cannot change His mind. I really don’t see this as a weakness but as a strength. The point is that Dawkins cites a poem by Karen Owens that shows how apparently silly it is that God cannot change his mind.

Who is Karen Owens? No citation is given. No description whatsoever. A google search of Karen Owens along with Richard Dawkins points to a trustee in Richard Dawkins’s own foundation. What are their educational credentials? How old are they even? Don’t have a clue. Dawkins presents this as an authority, a move I consider dishonest.

If Dawkins is bad however, Sam Harris in “The End of Faith” is worse.

Harris’s bibliography?

Augustine’s “The City of God” and “Confessions”

Rene Descartes “Discourse and Method and Meditations.”

Paul Johnson “A History of Christianity.” (I believe I have heard he’s a Christian. I’m not sure.)

Bruce Metzger: “The Oxford Companion to the Bible.”

Blaise Pascal “Pensees.”

Richard Swinburne “The Existence of God.”

Might sound more impressive, but consider the index. I have each reference listed with how many pages they appear on.

Augustine, 8.

Rene Descartes, 5.

Soren Kierkegaard, 3.

Blaise Pascal, 5

The new atheists in these works are not interacting with Craig, Geisler, Habermas, Licona, Plantinga, Moreland, Kreeft, Zacharias, and numerous others. The argument is entirely one-sided.

As a student who still writes research papers, one of the first things I do when I have decided on my topic is to go and order books from the other side. I want my opponents to have their views presented in the best possible light so I can show all the more how weak that they are.

These books do not do that at all. Richard Dawkins does not interact with Alister McGrath, for instance, who is one of his strongest critics being an Oxfordian trained in the sciences. I find it hard to believe that Harris is a graduate from Stanford in philosophy when I read a book with such poor argumentation as the one that he wrote.

If I was a professor and a student turned in assignments to me written like these books are, that student would fail that assignment. The poor research and weak argumentation should have these authors being seen as shameful disgraces. Instead, there are actually pastors who apparently wrote to Harris saying they deconverted upon reading his book, enough to convince me that they should not have been pastors to begin with.

When I encounter an atheist who cites these books as authoritative, I already know that this is someone who does not take research seriously. The sad reality is that their works get absorbed by the atheists on the net and lower the quality of the debates. It’s really hard to have a serious discussion with someone when they think the question of “Who made God?” is an ultimate stumper that Christians have never answered.

If an atheist wishes to be an atheist, very well. Take my advice in this however. Distance yourself from the new atheism. Read instead the old atheists like Mackie, Martin, Nielsen, and Flew. (Granted, Flew did deconvert, but he was a giant in atheism in his time) These writers took theism seriously. They were not driven by an emotional hatred of theism and were willing to acknowledge some good Christianity had done for the world.

As for my Christian brethren, while our opposition is lazy, it is not necessary for us to lower our level of study. We will continue to study and see this as an opportunity. If atheism sees this as its pinnacle, then our serious studies in all fields if we do so can allow us to, as it were, corner the market. We need to have people of high education in every body of knowledge out there.

I also wish to let readers know that tomorrow I could be heading out to spend Christmas with in-laws. It all depends on what my doctor says due to my recent surgery. If you do not see a new blog in awhile, do not worry.