Category: Popular Media

God’s Not Dead

What did I think of “God’s Not Dead?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

So tonight, my wife and I went with my folks to see “God’s Not Dead.” This is the kind of movie that I was eager to see. Maybe it’s just me, but movies that are often made to be “Biblical” don’t really do much for me. I need something that hits my mind as well as hits the heart. Most Biblical movies seem to just want to appeal to the feelings of the audience. But then, I think that Aristotle did say to reach someone with the mind first and then go for the heart.

So now we have a movie that does engage the questions of the mind. Now of course, it’s not perfect. There are a lot of things I’d change and one point I wish would have been different is that apologetics should have been mentioned at least once. There were apologists referred to, but no mention of the field itself.

Most of you already know the premise of the story. A philosophy professor tells his class to say “God is dead” and then move on, but one student refuses and then has to defend the claim that God is not dead before the classroom. Now to be sure, most philosophy professors are not like this one. I’ll guarantee you this, the good ones aren’t. Good philosophy professors can be Christians or atheists. Their goal is to get their students to wrestle with the questions themselves. Sure, they’d like their students to agree with them, but it’s more important that their students know how to think than it is what they think exactly.

Of course, in our day and age, that’s not the case. Just take a look at what someone like Peter Boghossian is doing in his classroom. There are many professors who want to teach atheism and assume that it’s critical thinking or the result of philosophy.

So this young student in the class has a Boghossian type professor. What happens then is the student interacting and speaking before the class and answering questions and one will find reference to people like Dawkins, Lennox, Strobel, and Hawking. The arguments largely are scientific aside from the question of the problem of evil, which I agree is the main reason most people walk away from God.

The movie does contain much emotional appeal and I don’t think the apologetics is the best necessarily, but that’s okay. Why? Because a movie like this gets the conversation started. Unfortunately, I’m afraid Christians are going to do too often what they do when they get tossed the ball like this. Drop it and act like nothing happened.

If we could see a resurgence in our churches to learn that indeed God is not dead and to be able to learn why that is the case, then yes, we could change things in the world today. Some people think I am too hard on the church a lot of times. I don’t think so. We are to be salt and light and we had the advantage in our culture for a long time. We lost it because we did nothing with it. We retreated to a place of safety and isolated ourselves. I get furious with Christians who say “Well as long as I’m saved and my children are saved that’s all that matters and let’s wait for Jesus to come.” That is direct disobedience to the Great Commission.

So my recommendation? Go see this movie. Yes my apologist friends, realize it’s not perfect, but you know what? This is a speaking opportunity that you’ve been given. This is a chance to use this as a conversation. This is a demonstration piece that can be used for the spread of the Gospel. We dare not disregard a movie because not all of our requirements are met. I have no intention of doing so. In fact, Allie and I are both in agreement. We want this movie when it comes out on DVD and I’m hopeful area churches might now suddenly wake up to the need for apologetics.

And yes, one more thing.

God’s not dead.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Thoughts on Joseph Atwill

Did the Romans invent the Christians? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There has been much talk lately about Joseph Atwill and his claim that Jesus was invented by the Romans. It’s still bizarre to think the Romans would create a religion that they would go out and persecute. Still, many are claiming that Atwill is a biblical scholar as even the press release about the announcement said.

Reality? He’s not.

Is that the opinion of someone like me, a Christian who believes strongly in the reliability of the NT? No. That’s even the opinion of a Christ myther himself like Richard Carrier. Unfortunately as Carrier points out, news of this has not reached Richard Dawkins. Carrier also adds that Robert Price and Acharya S. disagree with this idea. As Carrier says about these people like Atwill:

They make mythicism look ridiculous. So I have to waste time (oh by the gods, so much time) explaining how I am not arguing anything like their theories or using anything like their terrible methods, and unlike them I actually know what I am talking about, and have an actual Ph.D. in a relevant subject from a real university.

If those three, some of the biggest names in Christ-mythicism, say that your theory is bunk, it’s quite likely that it is.

Now it’s rare to find scholarly talk about an idea such as this. Why? Because by and large scholarship ignores crank theories like this. In fact, most people if they really thought they had something would want to take their idea to the scholars first. Larry Hurtado has said that

I haven’t heard of the guy before either (Joseph Atwill), largely because, well, he’s a nobody in the field of biblical studies. No PhD in the subject (or related subject), never held an academic post, never (so far as I can tell) published anything in any reputable journal that’s peer-reviewed, or in any reputable monograph series, or presented at any academic conference where competent people could assess his claims. Instead, per the flimflam drill, he directs his claims to the general public, knowing that they are unable to assess them, and so, by sheer novelty of the claim he hopes to attract a crowd, sales, and publicity. It’s a living, I guess (of sorts).

In saying why he doesn’t bother with it that much, Hurtado says that

It’s not necesssary to engage something so self-evidently unfounded and incompetent. If his press releases at all reflect his stance, it’s not worth the time. We scholars have enough to do engaging work that is by people with some competence. There isn’t time or value in dealing with nonsense. And Atwill and his ilk don’t really want scholarly engagement anyway. Again, let it go.

And when told Atwill would want scholarly engagement Hurtado says

No. He wouldn’t. Otherwise, he wouldn’t avoid the normal scholarly venues to test theories. These people know that they would be shredded by competent scholars.

And yet, it’s making a buzz. Fortunately, even some atheists like P.Z. Myers are condemning it. Myers does not hold back.

I think a few too many atheists are seeing “Scholar Says Jesus Was Fake” and are not thinking any more deeply than that. The whole idea is ridiculous.

If you’re one of the many atheists who gleefully forwarded this to me or credulously mentioned it on twitter…hello, there. I see you’ve already met the good friend of so many half-baked wackos in the world, Confirmation Bias.

That many atheists did in fact spread this immediately and treated it seriously shows that there is indeed a great deal of ignorance in the atheistic community. “Well what about your Christian community?!” I’ve been saying for years the church has failed to educate its members and their fear at something like this is a prime example of it. Our tendency to want to protect ourselves more than anything else keeps us from really isolating with these issues going on in the real world. As I told one skeptic recently, I condemn ignorance on all sides.

Here are some of my problems with the whole theory.

First off, it will HAVE to deal with all the counter-evidence. Can he deal with Tacitus? Can he deal with Josephus? (I know his theory claims to rely on Josephus, but will scholars of Josephus support it?) Can he deal with Mara Bar-Serapion? How about a question of the reliability of the NT? Can he deal with claims for that?

Second, what about the Pauline epistles. The earliest epistles come before Josephus wrote. These epistles also include a creed such as in 1 Cor. 15 that comes to within a few years at most of the resurrection event. Can Atwill’s theory deal with this?

Third, can he demonstrate that the gospels in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies would be able to be read in this way? This theory has been tried over and over by so many people and it has never ended well. Why give Atwill any credit?

Fourth, does he have any evidence from the Roman perspective? Does he have some ancient mention of Jesus that we have never found even though scholars have been looking through works of ancient society? What would this say for Christ mythers who say that there is no mention of Jesus? Why mention Jesus if Jesus was not being talked about?

Fifth, can his theory account for the dating of the NT? Would this not presuppose that the gospels were written after the writings of Josephus? Has he made a case for that? If Josephus based his account on the gospels, which he didn’t, then Atwill’s theory is in trouble. Atwill will require a late date. It would also require the writings of Josephus to also be in Jerusalem at the time already and being read, which will be problematic enough even if just Mark dates to before 70 A.D.

Now by all means, let Atwill present his evidence, but keep in mind he’s trying to bypass the scholarly community and go straight to the sensationalist route. That might be a more popular approach, but it’s not the proper approach to academic work of this nature. The reason one seeks to bypass the scholarly community is most likely because one cannot survive scrutiny under that community.

Check the sources always on claims like this. That so many atheists have passed this on shows that there is just as much blind faith and lack of biblical scholarship in the atheistic community as in the Christian community they rail against. That so many Christians get scared of something like this is an important demonstration of why the church needs a good education in basic apologetics.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

What Don’t You Like?

Is morality just a set of personal preferences? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There’s an image going around Facebook again with a message like this:

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one. Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it. You can see from here how it is going. I also see there are some variations of it online. However, the last part of each one is “Don’t like having your rights taken away. Don’t take away someone else’s.”

It is sad that our society today considers this sound reasoning.

At the start, let’s consider that it is saying that if you don’t like something, don’t do it. Okay. Let’s suppose it was the opposite. Let’s suppose I do like those things. Does that mean that if I did like taking away someone else’s rights, then I should be free to do that? Does this come down to what we like?

Second, images like this ignore the main question. Why aren’t these things liked? (And furthermore, why are we even using the term “like.” It makes me think I’m not discussing what moral practice I want to uphold or condemn but what movie I want to watch at the theater.) Could it be there are actual objections that say that “I don’t support X because X is wrong.”

Take abortion as an example. Could it be that some people oppose abortion because they believe the following statements are true?

Human life is in the image of God.
Human life begins at conception.
When conception take place, a new human life has entered the world.
Innocent human life should be protected.
All innocent humans have a right to live.

If we believe those things, then it follows that we should conclude abortion is immoral. For the sake of argument, our position could be wrong. It could be one of those statements or more is false. The aspect we cannot be wrong on is that we know that we believe those statements to be true. Again, you can say we’re wrong, but we condemn abortion because we believe it to be immoral.

Porn is an example of this. I know men who are addicted to porn. You know what? Some of them would say they like porn! They want more of it! They want to see it! They just know that it’s wrong. You can like something and know it’s wrong. In fact, the reason we all return to our sinful habits some is because we like them. If sin was not something we liked, sin would not be such a problem.

When we get to the end, what we note immediately is that this switched from personal preferences to moral absolutes. The others were things you did that generally involved your own private life. (though not entirely) This last one involves your interaction with others directly.

However, if the other statements are not based on moral truths, why should I think this one is? If all others are just personal preferences, could we not say that this is a personal preference as well? In fact, why should I care about someone else’s personal preference, which is a moral claim. Suppose it’s just that I don’t like abortion. Okay. I condemn it. Someone else does like it. Why should I care? By what moral standard will I be told that I should not go against what someone likes if there is no moral truth?

Someone could say I’m being a hypocrite. This is interesting since for all the stances people have on morality, most of us condemn being a hypocrite. Last month, I debated an atheist on the Razor Swift podcast who had said that God was not consistent with his moral principles. I found this interesting since he had espoused a moral relativism and so I just started asking that if morality is relative, what is wrong with being a hypocrite? It’s saying “There are no moral standards, but it’s immoral to not follow your own personal standard.” That becomes a moral standard that is put on everyone else.

Cliches like the ones used in the image lead to the lack of thinking among the masses and shut down good discussion. It is those who do not think who will be persuaded of this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Secondhand Information

Would you let someone chew your food for you? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

On Facebook, I’m part of a discussion group between Muslims and Christians. It is not because I am an expert in Islam. I’m not. It’s because I was asked to come and defend the NT, and that is what I do. Hence, I do not make comments about the Quran generally (Other than that it denies the crucifixion) or about specific Muslim doctrines. I don’t because I don’t know them. There are people who do. Let them do that.

Unfortunately, that is not a two way street.

One of the great benefits in the internet age is that there is a world of information at your fingertips just waiting to be discovered.

Unfortunately, one of the great curses in the internet age is that there is a world of information at your fingertips just waiting to be discovered.

How does this work? Let’s give an example. My ministry partner makes YouTube videos. Now I know the reasons in the videos he makes quite well, but I think the videos are an entertaining and informative way of expressing the ideas. Therefore, I can sometimes link someone to a video and if we want to discuss it, then it is discussed.

On the other hand, I can be talking to a Muslim who tells me that the Bible has been changed. I start asking him about textual criticism. At one point I can say something like “Do you know what a gloss is?” only to receive the question “Gloss?” In other words, the idea has never been thought of before.

What happens? Instead, a video is put up with a Muslim authority talking about how the Bible has been “changed.” For the sake of argument, let’s suppose it has been changed. Here’s the problem. I would be wrong then in my defense of it, but my opponent not knowing the subject matter is really unable to talk about it. If I am wrong, he has no way of demonstrating it. If I am right, he has no way of refuting it. Instead, there is just blind reliance on the authority. Most shown in this is the remark I got of “I can’t read the whole book on textual criticism.” (Yes. I recommended a book. How dare me recommend books.)

A topic like this requires a quote from Dr. Tim McGrew, head of the Christian Apologetics Alliance.

“One of the most disastrous illusions of the internet age is that an amateur plus Google is equivalent to a scholar. A search engine offers information, more or less relevant according to the skill of the searcher. But it does not sift that information; it does not sort fact from fancy, wheat from chaff. It does not explain which facts are relevant and which are beside the point. It does not weigh the merits of competing arguments and tell the user where the balance of evidence lies. A bright amateur armed with the internet may at best be better informed than he would otherwise have been, and he may occasionally catch a real scholar in a factual error. But it will not turn him into a scholar himself. There is no such thing as effortless erudition.”

He’s right entirely. This is why in our day and age discarded theories have come back with a vengeance as people treat old ideas that were thrown out as if they were new. It is as if we were rummaging through someone’s garbage and found an old black and white television and treated this as if it was the latest invention.

The internet is the place of zombies as dead ideas constantly arise to receive new life.

Now of course, most of our information comes from other sources, but if we want to learn it, we must do the necessary research. There are excellent sources online, but you need to know how to sift through those sources and find what is true. Who does that podcast you listen to? Who runs that web site? Who produced that YouTube video? This is much easier with books.

Also, most scholars will not put their work out there for free. They will make you pay for it, and who can blame them? They worked hard to get it to you. Why should they receive nothing for their work? This will require time on your part as well. I find it incredible how many people just can’t be bothered to read books these days.

If you do link to a source, make sure you know something about the source. If you don’t, you lower yourself as you will be embarrassed even if you don’t realize it. You will also be insulting your own opponents as if telling them that your doing a web search is equivalent to their reading of books for years.

Besides, if you are sure your position is true, what do you have to fear from reading the opposition? If it is not, you have the blessing of getting to change a view that is no longer true. It is a win-win situation either way. You will either be more informed in what you hold to be a true view for now, or you will abandon a view that is false.

Either way, you must make sacrifices. As McGrew has told me, you cannot exercise by watching someone else do push-ups. If you want to argue like an authority, study to become one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Movie Review: The Green Hornet

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’m putting a pause for the time being on the look at the Watchtower pamphlet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” due to my wife and I going to see “Green Hornet” last night. Since we got back so late, I decided to forgo the blog and write on it today instead. Be warned of spoilers if you haven’t seen this and plan to.

I’ve been a fan of hero flicks for some time now. Green Hornet is one not as well known to the generation most familiar with Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and the X-Men. In that light, it’s good to see that they’re bringing back older heroes for a generation that might not know them as well.

Britt Reid is a young boy who in our first view of him is brought to his father’s office for misbehaving at school. Based on Reid’s description, he wasn’t misbehaving. He was trying to rescue someone from some bullies and got seen as the bad guy. His father will not put up with this, seeing as he’s busy running a major newspaper, so he takes Britt’s superhero toy and rips the head off.

Fast forward and Britt is living the life of a playboy going nowhere. He wakes up one day in his house next to a girl whose name he can’t even pronounce right when his father comes in and asks him if that’s what he wants his life to amount to. Britt doesn’t really listen however, but it was refreshing to see a statement like this in light of the hedonism often seen in our culture today.

Britt is driving in a car later and sees on the news that his father has died. While several come and offer their sympathies, Britt has no tears. He didn’t like his Dad at all. The next time we see him getting emotional in fact is when he wakes up to find out his coffee is terrible and goes to complain to the staff who tell him that Kato is the one who makes the coffee and that he had been fired by Britt. Britt demands that Kato return.

When Kato shows up, Britt soon finds out he’s a genius who’s been adding nifty gadgets to the cars in the garage and has built a machine that makes the coffee. Britt and Kato start talking about Britt’s Dad and how it would be nice to see justice since none of them liked Britt’s Dad. Thus, they decide to go take the head off of the statue that has been put up in honor of him.

While that’s being done, a mugging takes place. Britt tries to stop it only to find himself the next target, at which point Kato comes in and using some martial arts wipes the floor with all of the thieves. Britt is quite excited about the whole event and tells Kato that they’re both meant for more, especially Kato. Wouldn’t it be great to be doing this regularly? Britt tells Kato in great line that it’s not dying Kato’s afraid of, but never having lived.

What will set them apart? Britt suggests that they be seen as characters that the police don’t know what to do with? If they’re known to be the good guys, then the bad guys can use that to their advantage. If they’re not however, the bad guys won’t know what to do with them and that will give them leverage. Being the head of a newspaper since his Dad died, Britt brings up a picture of someone running from the statue of his Dad carrying the head and saying he wants that man and the name is given to him of “The Green Hornet.” Thus, the newspaper provides the publicity needed and Britt and Kato start hitting areas of crime making it seem like a gang war is going on. The main villain of the movie is the crime lord of the city in charge of all crime and what will happen in his interactions with the Green Hornet and Kato.

Themes to see? I think about the idea of the noble lie, whereas a community is told a lie that is known to be a lie for their greater good. The Green Hornet seeks to do the same, not wanting to be seen as a hero entirely for the sake of truly being a hero. We see a similar theme when Batman and Spider-Man are seen as villains, but when the real villains know they’re dealing with heroes, then they know there are some boundaries that the heroes can’t cross. What if the villains themselves don’t know however?

Friendship is a major topic in the movie as the Green Hornet and Kato have numerous ups and downs in their relationship and it comes to the question of forgiveness. When all the cards are on the table, where will your loyalties lie? Are you willing to set aside that which angers you about your partner for the greater good? A question the viewer will be asking is how some actions will affect the relationship between the Green Hornet and Kato.

No doubt, both have good intentions in wanting to rid crime, but the intentions are not enough. For instance, Kato is everything in the team. He builds the gadgets, does the driving, and does the fighting. How does that affect things when the Green Hornet is seen as the main character, especially in light of how egotistical the Green Hornet is in the film?

Because of his inability to fight and lack of foresight, the Green Hornet can get in over his head and rely on Kato to save him. Is that the way of the hero? Should the Green Hornet be out there? Or, could it be the Green Hornet gets his wings as it were by being willing to take a risk? Does that mean some who are unskilled in an area should take risks? When? Do you really want to fight evil when evil will not treat it like a game?

Thus, it’s really hard to describe this one. The heroes are not always the heroes we’d think, and that could be a good thing. It could be encouragement for the rest of us who sometimes just want to do a little bit of good and wonder if we can do it. Do we simply want to be like Britt in the beginning and be leading hedonistic lifestyles for only the moment? Is our worst fear dying or never living in the first place?

Parents will want to provide some caution. There are some sexual references throughout the film and there is profanity. However, it is a movie my wife and I both enjoyed and I look forward to a possible sequel in the future.

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.

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 Karate Kid Review

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. Our study of the doctrine of God in the Summa Theologica will have to be put on hold yet again. This evening, I went to see The Karate Kid with a friend. It is an excellent movie I highly recommend. Thus, as is my custom, I offer a review. If you plan on seeing this soon, wait until after the movie before you come back and read this lest I spoil anything, which is certainly never my intent.

The movie starts out with the main boy, Dre Parker seeing wall markings of himself at his home of how he’s grown. Conspicuous by its absence is one event. “Daddy died.” I found this odd as nothing is ever said about this Dad. The kid never refers to him. His Mom never refers to him. He disappears just as quickly as he’s introduced.

I found this saddening as I have a deep concern about the disappearances of fathers in the culture. Men are disappearing from view. A boy can grow up without a father and no one thinks anything about it. However, this boy is not growing up well as he is twelve years old and he and his Mom are moving to China.

How this Mom gets the money, I have no idea. They live in luxury apartments and the only thing we’re told is her job has something to do with cars. The absence of a man in the boy’s life is apparent and he has is seen early on to be one with no work ethic, no respect, and no discipline. He doesn’t want to learn Chinese and he’s concerned because everything there is old. If only we could get our youth past this to appreciate the rich heritage of the past!

When he gets to China, early on, he starts trying to impress a girl, only to end up being bullied, and this bully is no ordinary bully. He’s a student of kung fu and Dre is outmatched. Later on, Dre gives him and his buddies a rude awakening by throwing a bucket of sludge on all of them.

Why would he do that? Well you have to understand the way a boy is and a man in turn. We have to fight something. We don’t like being beaten down and we will do what we can to fight back. It is often our manhood that is on the line. The bully, Cheng, and his friends chase after Dre and knock him down. One of the students tells Cheng that they’ve done enough, but Cheng reminds him of what was seen in Cheng’s class earlier under Master Li. “No weakness. No pain. No mercy.”

As Cheng comes in to add further injury, a hand stops him. It is Master Han, the maintenance man at the apartment Dre lives in, and singlehandedly, Han ends up defeating all of the bullies for Dre. They then go to Master Li’s studio where Han challenges Master Li on what his students did. Master Li says either Dre or Han must fight him since his studio has been disrespected. Han says Dre will fight at a kung fu tournament.

So begins the long trek of teaching Dre, Kung Fu. What happens? That’s for you to find out as a viewer, but it is a story of wisdom and determination and respect and attitude. Dre matures throughout all of this and watching him learn the art is an enjoyable part.

And yet, I wonder how often we take time to enjoy that part. We live in an instant society and we’re so busy looking on a destination, that we lose sight of the excitement of getting there. I can sadly read books checking to see how long they are and how much time till the end. We enjoy a movie, but we can still look at our watches. We want the gratification without the investment of time. For non-entertainment goals, such as goals of overcoming difficulties in our own life, we can spend so much time looking at how far away we are from our goal that we never spend time enjoying getting there.

Han wants Dre to focus. Maybe we need to do the same? Have we lost focus on what really matters and are so caught up in ourselves that we cannot truly enjoy the world around us?

Maybe we need to return to the past some. Maybe the past as in 2,000 or so years ago in an area called Palestine.

In conclusion, I highly recommend this movie. Enjoy!

Iron Man 2 Review

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the doctrine of God and we’re going to continue that later, but this weekend I did get to see Iron Man 2 and since there were two people who I wanted to see it with and since I couldn’t go with both of them at the same time, I went and saw it twice. Be warned that I will be having some spoilers in here. If you plan to see this one and want to wait, feel free, but do remember to come back.

Now I loved the first Iron Man. I consider it my favorite superhero movie. This one was good, but I don’t think it was as good. I do believe there could have been more done with the villain in this one and the problem was there was no sign of where everything was going until you suddenly realize “Oh wait. This is the final battle.” Even then, the battle was way too short.

There are a number of themes I want to speak on that show up in Iron Man 2 however. First, a line shows up early from Howard Stark, Tony Stark’s Dad, that everything is possible with technology. Now I’m not opposed to technology. Technology is a wonderful thing. However, not everything is possible through technology.

One reality Howard Stark believes can come about through technology is world peace. This could be possible if we lived in a world of machines. Unfortunately, any look at our world around us should show that this is not so. Iron Man may be able to stop a lot of violence with his suit, but even if he could stop every incident, the suit could not remove the evil that is in the heart of man.

Our modern era has an idea that science will solve everything and mankind will progress more. Now I’m not against developing strong weaponry as a nation and I’m not saying we should dissemble our nukes and beat our swords into plowshares. As long as there are other nations out there that want us in America dead, I am for keeping our defenses strong.

However, salvation is not found in science. It’s found in Christ. The further away we move from Christ, the more chaotic our world will become. If we believe that more technology will develop virtue, we will find the opposite happens. Technology is a tool. It will be used for good or for evil depending on who’s wielding it. It is not capable of bringing virtue to people. It can be used to enforce the law and reward the good, but it can’t change the heart.

Another point I wish to comment on is that of people in the movie like Justin Hammer and the Senate who say that what Tony Stark is doing with Iron Man isn’t fair. If he has the technology to make a suit like that, then he is obligated to share it with everyone else.

Well, no.

All people are equal in that they are all equally human, but if you have something, you are not obligated to share it with someone else. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a good thing for Tony to share the information and help out his country further in doing so. However, I am against the idea that it’s not fair for him to do so.

Years ago, I worked at a job where the store I worked at had a computer on sale and the price was increased. I don’t know who increased it or why but a lady called and said “You had it at X price and then you increased it and that’s not fair.” I was wanting to say “How come? Isn’t it our computer? If we want to sell it at a higher price because we believe people will pay more for it, that’s our right.”

The reality is our parents were right. Life isn’t fair. Someone will be smarter than you. Someone will be more athletic. Someone will be more artistic. Someone will be more beautiful. Someone will have more money. We are not told that we will all be equal beyond our human nature nor should we expect to be. It is better for us to play the cards we are dealt with rather than complain that we didn’t get another person’s cards. It wouldn’t work to do that in a card game and it doesn’t work in real life.

So my conclusion is that the politics and idea behind this Iron Man is hardly the best. Now I did enjoy the movie and if you’re a fan of the series, by all means go and see it. On the way home, if you take kids, have a chance to talk to them about technology and life being fair and see what they think. Make it a teaching moment.

We shall continue discussing the Summa tomorrow.