Logs of War

The publishing of "The War Logs" by Wikileaks [1] has been seen as a seminal moment by many, comparable to the release of the Pentagon Papers. And while I think this is a great leap forward for freedom of information and brings renewed attention to an increasingly futile "war", I suspect that by making the U.S. once again the target of global scorn, this will only draw attention away from countries that should also be brought into the light.

To name a few: China, North Korea, Iran. I take a special interest in China especially - I have read and heard all too many stories of abuses of government officials (see this revealing case [2]).

Transparency, like sunlight, should shine down on everyone.

Inception

Not much superlatives this time. Ah, where do I start.

Firstly, Christopher Nolan has saved the summer. We had the disappointing Iron Man 2, the so-so Robin Hood and the dreadful Prince of Persia. Let's just say The Last Airbender doesn't count. There's Toy Story 3, but unfortunately no decent entertainment for the more sophisticated set (ha).

Until now.

Inception is about dreams. Best description? Imagine The Matrix as a heist film. The whole idea about entering dreams (besides the having fun part) is so that you could steal ideas. In this case, however, our ensemble attempts to plant one. Ah, gone are the days when there was truth serum and low-tech Manchurian candidate mind-control.

The whole concept is very,very interesting. The execution could have been better. Nolan can't have it both ways - a movie set in a dream world, which by definition is wispy and evanescent. Instead he treats us to a world as lucid as The Matrix. It's a slightly complicated story. The framing and editing of the scenes don't help, and I am always unimpressed with films who chop up their chronology in order to look complex.

I confess I am a little disappointed. Come on - you're in a dream world with infinite possibilities for an action sequence and all we get is a generic car and snowmobile chase, the latter much less entertaining than the one found in Modern Warfare 2. There is, however, an outstanding but all too short zero- gravity sequence. Give me more folding cities, please.

Inception is one of those stories that seems to cry out for multiple viewings. I would say that isn't quite necessary - despite it's many layers, it's easily deciphered if you're quick enough. Satisfying and disappointing.

Movie Notes - 15/05/10

Robin Hood - Origins story of the fabled archer. In a time where LOTR has many sword and shield battles redundant, the generic battle climax shows an insensitivity to the need for product differentiation. Nevertheless, the middle portions of the story are most enjoyable as we see Robin's fortuitous rise to glory and eventually, to become that famed outlaw.

Kick Ass - What would have been a heroic (and realistic) story of a non-hero devolves into yet another series of superhero battles, culminating in yet another assault-on-boss'-HQ sequence. Certain parties have raised questions over an 11 year old character (actually 13) involved in scenes of violence, although one does wonder if she were 7 years older then that would be okay. Is there an age of consent for violence?

Waiting for a theophany.

I have never had a "religious experience".

I have not attempted to ascribe any curious incidents that may have occurred to me to undigested portions of meat, euphoria caused by the electric guitar or what have you - simply because I have not had any.

To know God, so we are told, is to not simply know God. The demons know God, and they shudder. But a Christian, for example, knows God in another way. He knows God "personally". She needs to have a "relationship" with God. Not just of the head, but of the heart

Notice the dualism here - the head is rational, the heart is emotional. Both are needed, but if there is to be only one, then it should be the heart. But need I point out the obvious fact that the heart's main and only known function is to pump blood and not to generate feelings of joy or sadness?.

I do not understand such things. Should I treat God like my father? But I can see my father. I can talk to him and have him respond immediately. God remains silent - by that I mean he does not reply as your friend would when you ask him a question.

So clearly God is not a visible human being to which we can sit down with and talk to. He is not visible but he is nevertheless there, or so we are told. Yet we are to treat him like a close friend, a father or whatever anthropomorphic relationship model you have.

How then, should we treat God? At the very least, it should be evident, our relationship with such a being would not be like those we have with family and friends - the visible human beings we interact with daily. So why do people continue to frame their discourse as such - that God is knowable like a human being?

I have heard and read countless stories of miracles, voices from God, from saints, from angels, from demons. I have never experienced such things.

Many say that they believe in God/gods because of such experiences. I do not doubt their sincerity. Unfortunately, I have never had the benefit of such events occurring to me and as such lack such proof.

So throughout the ten years or so I have understood what "God" is, my belief was sustained in something other than direct, sensory experience of such a being. It was belief based on knowledge - head knowledge, some might say derogatorily. (As an aside, is there a difference between someone who believes but does not understand and someone who understands but does not believe?)

I do believe that there is a God. But all this while I have noted something. I have been waiting for the silver bullet, the justifying evidence. The appearance of a God before me. This has hindered my assurance somewhat. And now after many years, I think it is time to let go.

I no longer expect an angel of the Lord or the Lord himself to appear before me. But like a  jungle native who has never experienced snow, that does not mean I should not believe in a foreigner's description of such a thing. And my feeling is that we should not let others think that they must have such an experience as well - lest they see themselves as inferiors.

To those who somehow can frame their relationship with God as a parent, brother, friend - may they be edified. To others who might never had a parent or brother or friend and who thus cannot understand God in such terms (and yet believe in him anyway), all the better.

I do have parents, brother and friends. Yet I cannot see God in such a way. I am unable to do so, for reasons I am not sure of. Instead I see him as God. I know him from scripture. I might also have understood him from natural revelation. He is distant, yet he is close. He has spoken once and for all (in scripture) and yet he continues to speak (through nature). Has he spoken in my ear, like a human being? No. Do I expect him to? No. Should I? I don't think so.

God has revealed himself enough so that some may believe and has hidden enough so that many others  refuse to believe.

To those who have seen, I envy you. Yet I suppose for those who have not seen and yet believed, blessed are they.

And On the Seventh Billionth Year...

Somewhere in the far corner of a world, there is a "controversy" stirring about a seminary professor's resignation due to his (positive) views on evolution [1]. That is an interesting piece of news; what is more interesting, however, is the reaction. Consider this opinion piece posted on a blog [2], who claims that theistic evolution (i.e. God-guided evolution) is a "hermeneutical trojan horse":

The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword.

That's a valid point about a slippery slope, and the author of the blog post also asks "What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection?"

Another good point.

But that is only if someone assumes naturalism (by this I mean natural and not supernatural explanations of the world take priority, if not being the only possible explanation) from the outset. Assuming that the professor who resigned believes in the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it is clear he does not hold to that belief.

From history we know that what was once ascribed a supernatural explanation is now no longer, although a Peretti enthusiast might object if a psychiatrist were to ascribe a mental illness to natural causes, and not demons.

I do not wish to compare the church's treatment of evolution to, say, geocentrism. (We do not have 400 years behind us to make that judgement - yet) Biblical interpretation does take importance if you believe in such things as inerrancy. If you do, but you also believe that evolution is solid science, then I suppose you ought to begin some reconciliation processes.