Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Dad tries to save son from transgenderism

And to piggyback on Steve's post as well:

1. If all the reports are accurate, then I couldn't agree more. It's maddening, infuriating, lamentable. The kid has no more hope for a happy childhood.

2. Not to mention by all accounts I've read the 7 year old boy doesn't want to be a girl but his mother is forcing her choice onto the boy. Does this set a precedence for parents to transition their children into a different sex against their children's wills? At this point, it looks like progressives are arguing women should be able to abort their child even as newborns no longer in the womb and women should be able to turn their children into whatever sex they wish their children to be despite biological realities. Is there anything women can't do to their children according to progressives?

3. The mother is a pediatrician who should know better. However she's a terrible and evil person. Indeed, it seems to me there are many women like her.

4. Women have had a loud and clear voice for generations, but who will speak on behalf of men? Men seem to be increasingly unfairly discriminated against in our society. Boys and men are increasingly tyrannized by third wave feminists and progressives in general. For example, Christina Hoff Sommers has documented a lot of this.

5. I don't know if there's any more hope for the father to win a court case. I don't know if he can appeal. Or even take it to the Supreme Court.

6. However, if there are no more legal options open to the father, and assuming most people bow to the evil judicial decision, then if it were me I think I'd consider trying to "kidnap" my son (in fact both of my sons since they're twins) and fleeing to another state or even another nation. I realize this is desperate, but I don't know what else the father can do. It seems he's only left with hard choices for his sons: a choice between state-sponsored child abuse under an evil mother in the US vs. a more normal childhood under a good father but living life on the run. But I think this kind of "kidnapping" is arguably justifiable on Christian ethics.

7. Remember this case whenever you hear liberals and progressives say things like "transgenderism doesn't harm anyone", "transgenderism is not a mental illness", "everyone should get a choice", "it's their choice, not yours", "you're bigoted against transgendered peoples", etc. The truth is liberals and progressives are always pushing their abnormal values onto normal people, but acting like they're the victims when normal people dissent.

What is death?

The following is an excerpt from Louis Pojman's book Life and Death (1992), pp 158-164. It discusses criteria for death as well as organ transplantation. I strongly disagree with Pojman on these matters. However, he gives a decent enough summary of the main categories for death and related issues that I'll quote it here. In addition, Pojman's argument (which was made in 1992) doesn't seem substantially different from how progressive ethicists argue today. I'll have to interact with Pojman at a later time.

Venial sin

i) The Bible doesn't have an exhaustive list of sins.

ii) Catholicism has made-up sins.

iii) The gravity of sin ranges along a continuum. While it's easy to spot the extremes, it's blurry in the middle. So sin doesn't neatly bifurcate into two kinds of sin: mortal and venial. 

iv) Even the same sin can vary in culpability.

v) Outside of Christ every sin is a mortal (i.e. damnable) sin. 

Overturning human wisdom

https://www.amazon.com/Redemptive-Reversals-Ironic-Overturning-Wisdom/dp/1433563282

Halloween's creation and recreation

https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/10/30/halloween-creation-recreation/

The Chosen

Praetorius was sitting alone on the front deck of the ferry, taking in the ocean view and sea breeze, when an agitated young boy came outside and sat next to him. Concerned about his state of mind, Praetorius asked the boy what was wrong. The boy said he was being pursued by two men who intended to abduct him. 

Praetorius wasn't quite sure what to make of this. Kids have a lively imagination. But the boy's fear was palpable. He asked him if this was the first time. The boy said, no, he was constantly shadowed and hunted by the two men. He was always able to give them the slip, but now they had him cornered. There was no escape. Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. 

Praetorius introduced himself to the boy and asked his name. The boy said his name was Michael Angelus. Praetorius sensed something else about the boy, but couldn't quite place it. 

Then two men came out onto the deck and fixed their eyes on Michael. Praetorius had his arm around the boy, so the men stood there, mulling over what to do next. 

Praetorius could see that they were unrelated to Michael, so they might well be kidnappers or human traffickers. But there was something even more sinister about the men. Praetorius instantly sensed that they were demoniacs. 

Praetorius wasn't an ordinary man. His grandparents were witches. And they acquired occult abilities through sorcery. But that came at a terrible cost. A family history of insanity, nightmares, depression, suicide, and violence. For that reason, Praetorius shunned Satanism. Indeed, he wore a cross and went to church. Nevertheless, he inherited the occult abilities of his grandparents. But he figured he could use his powers for good. Ultimately, all supernatural power derives from God. 

Not only could he sense their true identity, but the demoniacs could sense something uncanny about him. Praetorius and the demoniacs both had antennae for the realm of spirits. So there was a standoff until the ferry made port, at which point Praetorius got up to chaperon Michael off the ship and protect him from the trackers from hell. The demoniacs immediately blocked the doorway. 

Then, with a wave of his hand, Praetorius immobilized them and threw them overboard. Michael was shocked, but pleasantly surprised by his wizardry. 

Praetorius drove Michael home with him. He found out that Michael had been in and out of foster care after his parents died in a freak accident. As a very young boy, Michael frequently sensed something malevolent watching him, lurking in the shadows. But it was only as his coming of age became imminent that he was seen to be a looming threat. That's when they began to stalk him in earnest. But by seeming miracles, he was able to elude them whenever they were about to close in on him. 

Praetorius always wondered if he'd ever have a chance to use his hereditary powers for good. It couldn't be a coincidence that he as on the ferry at the same time Michael and the infernal trackers boarded the ferry. Some invisible benefactor must have guided Michael to the ferry. From now on, Praetorius became his bodyguard and guardian. 

Drowning the demoniacs bought Michael and Praetorius some time. Of course, that didn't obliterate the evil spirits. But the trail went cold as they had to rustle up new human hosts. Praetorius had misgivings about drowning the demoniacs, since that killed the human host. It was a snap decision under duress, to protect an innocent boy. But as it turns out, the trackers only possessed humans who dabbled in the occult. 

Praetorius was able to generate a field around Michael and himself which made them indetectable to infernal surveillance. But Praetorius wasn't omniscient or omnipotent. His powers faded over distance. And his conscious powers waned when he slept. Through lucid dreaming and telepathy, he was able to draw Michael's mind into his own when he slept, and shield him from surveillance outside the dreamworld. But Praetorius could only direct or concentrate his powers when he was awake or lucid. It was draining to be in a state of high alert all the time, and sometimes his concentration flagged, which gave the trackers a chance to catch up. 

One time the demoniacs were able to track down his house. But as they got closer, Praetorius sensed them and woke up. He and Michael got dressed. As they were about to leave, Praetorius saw the trackers in the driveway. He went outside, then encircled them in a ring of fire. That posed a dilemma for the trackers. If they tried to escape through the fire, the human host would burn to death. The demons would survive, but they'd be impotent to interface with Michael or Praetorius until they commandeered two new hosts. That gave Michael and Praetorius a window to skip town. By the time the trackers took possession of new hosts, they lost the scent.

After that they had to live on the run, moving from place to place. One time, when Michael and Praetorius were working at a tavern, and Praetorius became distracted, the trackers zeroed in. But Praetorius could always sense their approach. When the trackers arrived at the bar, they were confronted by Hell's Angels. This was, however, the first time Hell's Angels came face-to-face with real angels from hell. They were outmatched because the demoniacs had superhuman strength. But the diversion enabled Michael and Praetorius a chance to flee the scene. 

Praetorius could never discern what was special about Michael. Then one day, Praetorius accidentally spilled boiling water on his hand in the kitchen. Praetorius required medical attention. But Michael instinctively pricked his finger with a needle and smeared a few drops of blood over the scalded hand. It healed within minutes. 

Praetorius then realized that Michael was a golden child. A healer. His blood had therapeutic properties. Yet he still didn't understand why the dark side felt so threatened by Michael. But a year and a half-later, a well-funded group of antinatalists, bioterrorisits, and ecoterrorists developed an airborne, mutant strain of leukemia. People began to die by the millions. The human race was on the verge of extinction. 

Evidently, the dark side foresaw this event. Indeed, the dark side engineered this event behind-the-scenes. Michael was immune to the contagion. He was a carrier, but a therapeutic carrier. He offered his blood. Of course, there was only one of him. How could a single blood donor save the human race? Yet a transfusion from his blood not only cured the patient but changed their blood, so that each cured person could cure others by becoming blood donors. The rate of healing was as exponential.

Yet millions continued to die. Children were cured, and Christians were cured, although not all churchgoers were cured.  But the blood didn't cure people who persecuted Christians. The disparity didn't go unnoticed, leading to Christian revival around the world. 

Praetorius was seriously injured in a traffic accident. Comatose for days, the trackers were able to detect Michael. By that time it was too late change the outcome. The contagion was broken. But that made the dark side all the more vindictive. They infected Michael with a scratch. A mutant strain of bubonic plague. He died hours later, hugging his Bible. Having healed millions, he couldn't heal himself. 

When Praetorius regained consciousness, he was enraged and grief-stricken. He couldn't fathom why heaven let Michael die. But after watching coverage of world-wide mourning, he changed his mind and concluded that perhaps it was better for Michael to die young, lest he become an object of worship, and all the adoration go to his head.

Still in his twenties, Praetorius hadn't married, in part because he was guarding Michael, and in part because he feared transmitted his occult powers to his own children. But now that he no longer had Michael to protect, he renounced his hereditary abilities, got married, and became an exorcist–using ordinary means of grace like prayer, Scripture, and hymn-singing to combat the dark side. 

Is evolution settled science?

https://www.prageru.com/video/evolution-bacteria-to-beethoven/

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Education begins at home

Sure, that's true. However, if so, then why are so many public school educators vehemently against parents having more say in their children's education? Why do so many public school educators oppose, say, school vouchers? Why are so many public school educators against taxpaying parents using their taxes in ways they deem more beneficial to their children? Why do so many public school educators oppose alternative choices including private Christian schools and homeschooling? Why do so many public school educators attempt to promote if not indoctrinate public school kids with worldviews disagreeable to many parents such as Christian parents (e.g. LGBTQ agenda)? Why do so many public school educators stand against Christian parents instilling Christian beliefs and values in their children? Why do so many public school educators regard secular values as the default if not standard? We the people are one nation under God, are we not?

Quantum gravity

I recently asked an eminent physicist [Don Page] a question about the relationship between Relativity and quantum mechanics. Here's the exchange:

I was reading an interview with Roger Penrose from 10 years ago:


The idea of parallel universes—many worlds—is a very human-centered idea, as if everything has to be understood from the perspective of what we can detect with our five senses. 
The trouble is, what can you do with it? Nothing. You want a physical theory that describes the world that we see around us. That’s what physics has always been: Explain what the world that we see does, and why or how it does it. Many worlds quantum mechanics doesn’t do that. Either you accept it and try to make sense of it, which is what a lot of people do, or, like me, you say no—that’s beyond the limits of what quantum mechanics can tell us. Which is, surprisingly, a very uncommon position to take. My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that. It’s just not direct experimental evidence within the scope of current experiments.

You have called the real-world implications of quantum physics nonsensical. What is your objection?
Quantum mechanics is an incredible theory that explains all sorts of things that couldn’t be explained before, starting with the stability of atoms. But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right.

Of course, this debate has raged for decades, with competing interpretations of quantum mechanics.  Penrose offes an interesting criticism, but it seems to beg the question. What if the world we see around us isn't all there is because there's more than one universe? In that case, the theory shouldn't describe or predict just one outcome, should it? 

Suppose both theories are true, only Relativity is true for our universe while quantum mechanics is true for more than one universe, including ours? Maybe Relativity accurately describes the space-time structure of our universe, but the quantum world is more fundamental than the macro world, which is generated by the quantum world, and the rules for the quantum world transcend the macro world of our particular universe? Our universe represents one set of quantum outcomes, but there are others. The rules of Relativity are specific to our universe, unlike the rules of quantum mechanics. Both theories would be mutually consistent because they describe distinct, overlapping domains. Perhaps the quantum structure of a universe is variable, so quantum mechanics must be more flexible to accommodate the variance, which makes it probabilistic in reference to any particular universe, since it doesn't single out any particular universe.  Does that make any sense? 

I tend to agree with you.  Roger Penrose seems to be among what I think is a small minority (which does not prove that he is wrong, though on this issue I tend to agree with the majority) that spacetime and general relativity is more fundamental than quantum theory.  My tentative position is that quantum theory is universally true (at least as what I see as the most conservative option), and that it implies that general relativity is not universally true but has a limited range of validity, though that range does seem to include most of our observable universe (the part we can observe, taking the very early universe, where GR may not apply, not to be observable by us).

Where was Jesus from?

http://www.craigkeener.com/was-jesus-from-nazareth-or-was-he-from-bethlehem/

Judicial child abuse

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition

Because human beings are social creatures, there's an inbuilt tendency to submissively follow orders. No one should enforce the judge's ruling. The time is long past due for Americans to defy judicial tyranny. 

And what does it say about the moral blindness of the jury. A Texas jury, no less. 

Does God punish people through natural weather events?

I'll comment on a post by progressive theologian Randal Rauser:


Before I get to that I have a preliminary observation. It's striking that his post is hosted by a Catholic apologetics website. In particular:

StrangeNotions.com is the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists. It's built around three things: reason, faith, and dialogue. You'll find articles, videos, and rich comment box discussion concerning life's Big Questions. The site was created by Brandon Vogt (brandon@brandonvogt.com) and operates under the aegis of Word on Fire.


That's revealing with regard to how Catholic apologists like Brandon view the Bible. Perhaps sweet little Brandon is just too gullible and guileless to suspect where Rauser is going with this. It should be obvious that Rauser doesn't think the Biblical accounts he alludes to are true. The reported events never happened. And the narrators misrepresent the character of God. From Rauser's perspective, these accounts are pious fiction, or in a sense, impious fiction. 

Regarding Rauser's argument:

1. No sophisticated Christian thinks all natural disasters are divine punishment. The fact that some natural disasters are divine punishment carries no presumption that every natural disaster, or any disaster in particular, is punitive. 

In the case of  Scripture, we have the benefit of inspired interpretation. Outside the Bible there may be some personal calamities that are so fitting and antecedently unlikely that they appear to be divine judgment. 

2. Rauser commits an elementary blunder by failing to distinguish between judgment and the side-effects of judgment. Because human beings are social creatures, punishing human behavior sometimes necessitates collective judgment.

That doesn't mean everyone who suffers as a consequence to collective punishment is being punished. Innocent people may be harmed as a side-effect of collective punishment. If parents are chronically tardy in paying the monthly dues on their apartment, and if they are evicted, both for failing to pay the landlord, as well as trashing the apartment, their children will suffer as a result of parental delinquency. But eviction isn't punitive with regard to the children. Rather, that's a necessary but incidental consequence of their inextricable involvement in the lives of their parents. 

3. It's striking that Rauser's morality is completely independent of the Bible. Indeed, from what I've read, he doesn't think that God necessary to ground moral realism. So it's hardly surprising that he often stands in judgment of biblical ethics. 

Rauser is basically an atheist with a thin coating of Christianity. That's why so few people on either side take his progressive alternative seriously. It's not consistently Christian or secular, although secularism represents his center of gravity. His residual supernaturalism is cobbled together from philosophical theology and the paranormal rather than biblical revelation. 

Legacy

Image result for willie nelson i think youngsters need to start thinking about what kind of world they are going to leave for me and keith richards

The wood between the worlds

There's a sense in which The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy are Christian allegories, although Lewis resisted that classification: 


Here's another way we might draw the distinction: a necessary element of allegory is for an allegory to be set in our world. The Pilgrim's Progress is set in our world; likewise, Dante's comedy is set in our world, according to medieval cosmography. 

By contrast, Narnia represent a parallel universe. Narnia, Charn, and English represent parallel universes in a multiverse. The wood between the worlds exists outside any particular world. Likewise Aslan's Country exists outside individual worlds. Although the worlds are separate, it's possible to travel from one world to another. 

So, for instance, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe illustrates how Christian theology might play out in a fallen world with a different world history and talking animals. 

The Space Trilogy is superficially different. However, the Mars and Venus of The Space Trilogy were never meant to be astronomically realistic descriptions of Mars and Venus as they exist in our universe. So they're not allegorical in the sense that they're not set in our world, but a different kind of world. Perelandra is not an allegory of the Fall because it belongs to a universe with a different world history than the Venus of our own universe.  

Of course, there's a sense in which they are allegorical because they are fictional, and their theology derives from the real world in which Lewis exists. And they are products of his imagination. So we might say the stories are allegorical from a viewpoint outside the world of the stories, but are not allegorical from a viewpoint inside the world of the stories. 

Correcting Catholic revisionism

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1186274501237055488

Isa al Masih

This is a story you’re going to love. This is God’s story and you’re invited to be part of it. Bring your questions. Find the truth. Was the Injil corrupted? Did Isa al Masih die on a cross? What do Christians mean by saying Isa al Masih is the Son of God? (Source)

Can Christians be possessed by demons?

A tentative foray into the question:

1. One argument for why Christians can't be possessed is there's no example in the Bible of a demon possessed Christian. Of course, that's an argument from silence at best.

2. To my knowledge, the main argument that Christians can't be possessed is based on the fact that Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and as those who have the Holy Spirit abiding in them, Christians can't have an unclean spirit like a demonic spirit abiding in them at the same time. Hence, the argument goes, Christians can't be possessed. Supporting verses like 2 Cor 6:15-16, 1 Jn 2:13, 1 Jn 4:4 are cited.

3. However, empirically speaking, I've heard of credible cases about Christians who have been possessed. For example, the evangelical Lutheran pastor-scholar and exorcist Robert Bennett has talked about such cases in various interviews. I don't see any good reason to doubt Bennett at this time, but to be fair one could question the legitimacy of the evidence.

4. That said, assuming the evidence is reliable and credible, if it's true Christians can't be possessed, then the only alternative is that these weren't bona fide Christians in the first place. Yet if a person has a credible profession of faith, has lived a godly life committed to Christ, and so on, then why doubt they were a bona fide Christian in the first place?

Also, if it's possible for Christians to be possessed, but possessed Christians are treated like non-Christians, then that might do a disservice to these Christians. It might make them question their salvation. It might make them despair. Like fighting a two front war: on the one hand possessed by a demon, but on the other hand their profession called into question by fellow Christians as if their faith isn't genuine.

5. What about the argument itself that Christians can't be possessed because Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

Bennett brings up the point that even as Christians we have a sinful nature. We're still warring against the flesh though the Spirit dwells in us. As such, it's possible for two contrary "natures" (there's got to be a better word or term for this) to co-exist in the same person. Bennett seems to believe this is analogous to an unclean spirit like an evil spirit dwelling in the same person as the Holy Spirit.

However, I don't know if that's necessarily the case. Maybe, maybe not, for it seems to me our sinful nature is still part of our person, unlike an evil spirit which would be a completely separate entity or being.

6. Let's step away from persons. Consider a haunted house. Can a Christian live in a house that's haunted? I don't see why not. If so, then wouldn't the house have the presence of God as well as the presence of an evil spirit within its confines? Of course this is another argument from analogy and it assumes that people are like places or houses. Maybe that's not the case.

7. I suppose all this goes to the question of what it means for the Spirit to dwell in the Christian. What exactly is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

I don't see how the Holy Spirit can be physically present in a person, for the Holy Spirit is not physical. Likewise neither is an evil spirit. So it seems to me we can rule out a purely physical sense of dwelling. I think that's fairly obvious.

This doesn't mean a spirit can't interact with material objects including human beings. Hence a relevant question may be the question of how a non-physical spirit interacts with a physical human being.

Is being indwelled by the Spirit synonymous with regeneration? Union with Christ? Is it something else or something more?

Anna Murray (1968-2019)

https://raggedtheology.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-life-well-lived.html

Monday, October 21, 2019

Robert Bennett interviews

Several good interviews on the paranormal and exorcism with Robert Bennett (PhD, Missiology, Concordia Theological Seminary). Bennett is a Lutheran pastor and scholar.

DACA

I'm getting propaganda about DACA in my news feed. There are two ways to view DACA: on the merits or from a process standpoint. It's striking how many people think DACA is sacrosanct. But DACA was never enacted into law. It's simply a policy of the Obama administration. Executive policies can always be changed by the next administration. DACA is kepy alive by renegade judges who operate outside the law as members of the Resistance.

Even if you think DACA is a swell idea, so long as it's nothing more than Executive policy, it can be rescinded. If you think a president doesn't have the Constitutional right to revoke Executive policies of former administrations, if you think courts have the right to block the Trump administration from revoking DACA, you support a dictatorship. Our system is based on consent of the governed. We elect officials to represent our interests. If they fail, we can vote them out of office. 

To insist that Executive policies have the force of law, which can't be revoked by successive administrations, you don't believe in consent of the governed. The alternative is an unaccountable ruling class. 

Suppose a gov't official likes your house, or your car, or your daughter. What's to stop him from seizing whatever he wants for his own benefit? In a representative democracy, the law restrains him. But if secular progressives have their way, everyone will be at the mercy of a banana republic or totalitarian state. Think China, N. Korea, Stalinism, Papa/Baby Doc Duvalier, Robert Mugabe, &c. So many Americans are too stupid to think three steps deep. 

War orphan

-i-

Sherman was a G.I. fighting behind enemy lines in a war-torn country, ravaged by civil war. He found a war orphan in a burnt-out village. A young boy named Jason. At first the boy was terrified, until he saw that Sherman meant him no harm. Sherman gave him a pat on the head and some chocolate, which the hungry boy wolfed down. The boy was hoping Sherman was his rescuer. Sherman looked into his trusting, pleading, desperate eyes. He felt a strong instinctive pull to take the boy back with him. 

But attempting to rescue the boy would put Sherman at risk. The boy would slow him down. They were surrounded by the enemy. 

He hated the idea of leaving the kid behind to die–or worse. But he knew that was just his evolutionary programming. He was being manipulated by blind evolution to be altruistic and sacrificial. 

Fact is, the kid was just a temporary biological organism like the rest of us. Eminently and ultimately replaceable. One child is pretty interchangeable with another. What difference does it make to world history if there's one more child or one less child, a thousand more or a thousand fewer? It's all so random and arbitrary. 

Why should Sherman risk the only life he's got to save a child's life? Sure, he'd feel rotten if he abandoned the boy, but that's just evolution guilt-tripping him. Why should he let himself be suckered by his biological brainwashing? It's like a phobia: you can't shake the feeling, but you know it's irrational, so you have to override it to do what's necessary.

It reminded him of the movie he saw one time–Screamers–where killer robots disguised as war orphans clutching teddybears mimic vulnerable children. They emit plaintive cries. But underneath it's just a heartless machine, like evolutionary psychology in camouflage. 

Regretfully, he turned his back on the boy and walked away. The boy was later captured by combatants from a rival clan. They took him to a compound with war orphans of all ages, whom they rounded up. The older boys brutalized the younger boys. And the guards brutalized all the boys to toughen them up and turn them into the next generation of soldiers for the revolutionary cause. Jason grew up to be a pitiless killer who massacred old men, mothers, daughters, and young children from the wrong clan, raping the women before shooting them in the head. 

-ii-

In a parallel universe Jed was a G.I. fighting behind enemy lines in a war-torn  country, ravaged by civil war. He found a war orphan in a burnt-out village. A young boy named Jason. At first the boy was terrified, until he saw that Jed meant no harm. Jed picked him up in his arms and hugged him. 

There was no question about leaving the boy behind. Here was a child with an immortal soul. Yet Jed knew that attempting to rescue him was very risky. They might not make it out alive.

As much as possible they had to avoid public roads and open fields where they might be spotted. Stick to the woods. But that made for slow going. Hunting slowed them down. Often Jed had to carry Jason in his arms through the underbrush. Sometimes they shivered in the rain. While hiking, or huddling before a campfire, Jed told Jason Bible stories about creation; the garden of Eden; Noah's flood; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph; the Exodus; King David; Daniel–and especially the Gospels. He taught Jason the Lord's Prayer. Every night, Jason slept in Jed's arms. 

They had many miraculously narrow escapes as they were pursued by the enemy. They sometimes used streams to cover their tracks, and mask their scent from dogs. One time, when the enemy sent hunting dogs to track them down, Jeb had to shoot them. That wasted bullets he might need for self-defense, and the shots gave away their location. Thankfully, the enemy was far enough away that it couldn't find them. 

This went on for weeks. As they were approaching the border, the enemy finally caught up with them. Jed and Jason were cornered. Jed figured it was better to die together than for them to be captured alive. The enemy had a terrifying reputation, confirmed by firsthand observation. He prayed the Lord's Prayer with Jason. Then he pulled out his revolver. It was empty. All the bullets were spent from shooting game and killing the dogs in hot pursuit. But the enemy didn't know that. He pointed the revolver at the approaching combatants. They machine-gunned Jeb and Jason, who died in his arms. 

A moment later, Jeb and Jason stepped out into an amber-lit garden. They heard unearthly music in the distance. Then a nimbic Jesus came to them. He embraced Jeb, then took Jason by the hand, and led them towards the music. 

Sunday, October 20, 2019

A good movie in a bad movie

Perhaps it's the amateur fiction writer in me, but I seem to see or look for different things in a film than professional film critics or most movergoers. Sometimes, when I'm watching generally bad movie, I think to myself, "There's a good movie trapped inside this bad movie." Of course, most bad movies are just plain bad, but there are exceptions. 

Paradoxically, a bad movie with a good movie struggling to get out can be much more interesting than a conventionally good or even great movie. For instance, Casino Royale (2006) is a great movie of its kind. Flawless craftsmanship in terms of acting, smart dialogue, clever plot, exotic locations, and all that. So many movies suffer from shoddy indifferent craftsmanship because they're made for a quick buck, so it's refreshing to see a movie where real care went into every element of the movie. But it's a pity that the flawless execution is wasted on a Bond vehicle. At the end of the day it's just an high-end popcorn film. 

Now let's compare it to Skinwalkers (2007), a low-budged werewolf flick. It was panned at Rotten Tomatoes. Indeed, I don't know that any major movie critic even deigned to review it. It was beneath them. 

Yet it has some compelling dramatic ideas. Much more interesting than a better film like Casino Royale:

• A Golden Child (Timothy) who's a savior or natural-born healer

• The Golden Child was heralded by an ancient oracle

• The curative power lies in his unique blood type

• His blood can break the curse of lycanthropy

• But his life is threatened by werewolves who don't want to be cured

• Several characters sacrifice their lives to protect the Golden Child 

• The film has a conspicuous number of Christian names: Adam, Caleb, Huguenot, Jonas, Rachel, Timothy

I think many people panned the movie because they're too theologically illiterate to recognize the sublimated biblical motifs. Admittedly, given the widespread animosity to Christianity, they might pan the movie if they did recognize the biblical themes. 

It's striking how often secular films will appropriate and allegorize Christian theology. There are variations on the theme of humans facing a plague or mass extinction, but one person has a curative mutation, viz. Children of Men (2006) and "The Nest" (The Outer Limits). 

As we approach Advent, I've been listening to Handel's musical setting of Isaiah 9 ("For unto us a child is born…"). There are obvious parallels between the Christchild and the character of Timothy in Skinwalkers. Ironically, some secular filmmakers unintentionally do what C. S. Lewis intentionally did, by encoding Christian motifs in stories, which slip under the radar. 

One change I'd made to the movie is that in the original, Timothy is hunted by Varek, who doesn't realize that Timothy is his son. Varek bites him, but ingesting the blood restores his humanity. Biting Timothy is a simple efficient plot device to get the cure into Varek's system.

However, I think it would be more dramatically effective if, when Varek is about to attack Timothy, as he comes within striking range, he senses a mysterious affinity between them, which restrains him from attacking Timothy. Later he finds out that Timothy is in fact his son. Perhaps at that point he willingly accepts the gift his son offers. 

There are many improvements that could be made to the film. The point, though, is that it has some elemental themes that transcend the material and the execution. It could be turned into a much better film because some of the raw material is so potentially powerful, whereas there's nothing to work with in the case of Casino Royale. That's as good a film as you can make, given the raw material. It can never transcend its intrinsic superficiality. What you see is all you'll ever get, whereas there's more to Skinwalkers than meets the eye if you know what to look for. Watching Skinwalkers, I think it myself, "There's a good movie trapped inside this bad movie!" Someone like Brian Godawa might be able to extract the core elements and rework them into a powerful film. 

From Pepé Le Pew to progressive theologian

Today, however, I found myself contemplating another disturbing expression of violence in Looney Tunes, in this case, the sexually aggressive stalking behavior of everybody’s favorite amorous skunk, Pepe Le Pew.

According to Julia Lipmann, the stalking tropes in romantic comedies can serve to normalize abusive and threatening behavior as part of romance. It isn’t a stretch to suppose that the attitudes which may bloom in one’s teens and twenties might be seeded in one’s childhood.

Increasingly, Looney Tunes are facing a similar exile, first for the ubiquitous violence and gun violence, in particular. I would argue that the sexual violence and aggression of the Pepe cartoons has earned them a similar ignominious fate. 


i) Rauser's a progressive theologian with progressive politics to match. His hearing is attuned to progressive dog whistles inaudible to humans with normal hearing. He's on the prowl for examples of what he deems to be retrograde attitudes to demonstrate how society has improved thanks to progressive values. Of course, it's easy to come up with bad examples from the past. No intelligent social conservative thinks the past was a golden age. 

ii) But he's chosen an especially lame-brained example to illustrate his thesis. To begin with, Pepé Le Pew was never major character in the Looney Tunes canon. The major characters were the Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote, and Buggs Bunny. In addition, a number of other characters were foils for Buggs Bunny. So that in itself limits any potential influence.

iii) Then there's Rauser's pansy progressive aversion to guns. Enough said. 

iv) A basic reason the cat finds Pepé's overtures repellent is…well…she's a cat and he's a skunk. Different species. So if you wish to posit a real-life parallel, a homosexual hitting on a heterosexual or a transgender whatever hitting on a normal man or women would be good analogues. Rauser's objection is ironically counterproductive to his progressive agenda.

v) But saving the best for last, the dumbest thing about Rauser's analysis is his failure to recognize the blindly obvious fact that Pepé is a satirical character designed to parody the French lover and Gallic debauchee (or Latin lover generally). Cue Maurice Chevalier. No normal boy watching Pepé Le Pew is going to think to himself, whether consciously or subconsciously, "Yeah, that's my role model! I want to be just like a lecherous skunk with a thick French accent when I grow up!" The whole point of the character is to make what it represents the object of mockery and derision. 

If you were going to criticize it on politically correct grounds, you'd object to the ethnic stereotyping. So Rauser has projected an artificial narrative onto the character that isn't remotely related to the character. 

But I do appreciate Rauser tipping his hand. He's admitted that as a boy he subliminally identified with Pepé Le Pew rather than Buggs Bunny or the Road Runner. Pepé was his childhood hero. That explains a lot about his political and theological odyssey. 

This too shall pass

"...What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes." (Jas 4:14)

What is your life?

Is your life a sterling success? Remember your life is a mere breath. There may be a heart-racing pause between air inhaled and air exhaled. An exciting if brief span of time when the atmosphere of the party revolves around you. Indeed, when your life is in the stratosphere. However, breath will expire, and your spirit with it. All you are, all you have, shall fade and diminish as life draws to a close. You cannot bring your social status or worldly goods into death with you. Who remembers Ozymandias? Rather remember your Maker. The one who gives and the one who takes away. The one who enrichens and the one who impoverishes. The one who elevates and the one who humbles. Your life is too short to be wasted on success. However dazzling its accoutrements, they shall fizzle away, recede to nothingness, when you turn to dust and ashes and stand naked in the light of eternity.

Is your life a disappointment and a failure? Do you despair over the foolish and even sinful decisions you've made? Is your life one unmitigated disaster after another? Do even the lowly look on you in disgust? Have close friends and beloved family lost faith in you, are unsure what to think about you, or have altogether left you? Do you have nothing? Are you no one? Remember God, for he remembers you, even if no one else does, even if your own mother has forgotten you. Turn to him, your refuge, your true life. The good news is life is a vapor, it too shall soon end; and this life isn't all there is. So much more and so much better awaits you in the world to come if only you cling to Christ. Where else will you go? Where else can you go? There is no solace in the wilderness. There is no life in the desert. There is only one who has the words of eternal life.

Is your life a middling mediocrity? Remember your life is a mist. It has some form, it has some substance, it has some function, but it is entirely fleeting. Like smoke from a cigar. It might taste pleasant enough, smoke rings look cool, but smoke dissipates. One day may bring wealth and prosperity, but the next bring doom and gloom. Or vice versa. Nothing is guaranteed in life. Not even life itself. The young may be suddenly plucked from this life like a flower in full bloom. The old may wither in sadness or harden in bitterness. Those in the middle grow old, grow old, and wear the bottoms of their trousers rolled. They were never meant to play Hamlet. Perhaps at best start a scene or two. Men won't remember their lives nor deeds, but labor in God's vineyard is never wasted. After all, God's eyes saw our unformed substance. God wrote in his book every single day formed for his children before any of them had ever come to be. Like a man in love preparing a beautiful picnic for his beloved, God has planned and prepared each day for us before we ever arrived on the scene. And each of these days, lived for him, will echo in eternity, even if they appear insignificant to the blind eyes of this world. Why trust what the blind say about that which they cannot see? Yet in God's light do we see light.

Take a deep breath in, breathe out, and the breath is gone. Life is hebel.