I've had an interesting relationship with Christian apologetics in the last couple of years. I began with The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, went on to stuff like The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and so on, and they were able to satisfy me intellectually at the time, but I'm ready to move on to bigger things. I'm ready to read more academic stuff that's actually discussed among scholars (which I have been), not the layman apologetics books you see on church shelves. I'm ready to read more stuff by nonbelievers so I can understand them and avoid misrepresenting them. Not that I have a problem with books like the ones I mentioned. They all helped me get started on this intellectual journey of mine. They helped me see that Christianity is something that I can think about and not just "have faith" blindly. They helped me see that I could defend my position and argue against opposing viewpoints. For that I am thankful to them. I'm going to start my major in philosophy next semester and I can't wait. It'll be a challenge, but I'll pull through.

I'm now reading Aristotle's Rhetoric and recently ordered David Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Doubting Thomas

I recently read an article on USA Today by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne called Science and Religion aren't Friends. In this rather angry article, he vilifies religious faith for supposedly being incompatible with science, supposedly being against evidence, and causing much of the violence in the world. I'm not going to talk much about the article (and there's a LOT to talk about), but I wanted to bring up something he said about faith and evidence:

"Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude." (1)

First off, I think his view of Hebrews 11:1 is too simplistic, but I was more focused on what he said about Thomas. He is right that Thomas, one of Christ's apostles, is often times seen in a negative light by the church because of his demand for evidence of the resurrection. Michael Williams says that “the church has often condemned him for this doubt. The hymn 'These Things Did Thomas Count as Real' criticises Thomas as being unspiritual because he wanted physical evidence of the resurrection,” (2). Let's look at the story and go on from there:

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:24-29

This happened after Jesus had resurrected and and showed himself to his disciples. It's true that this is sometimes talked about within the church as one of those embarassing stories of the apostles on par with Peter's denying Jesus and the disciples arguing over who's greater. But was his demand for evidence really such a vice? Let's look at what the Bible says rather than look at how Christians have reacted to it throughout history.

First, the Bible is not against evidence, it's all for it. One could deny that the Bible records any historical truth, but just looking at the text itself shows that the characters in the Bible were never given no reason to believe in God. The Israelites were given reason to believe and fear God because of the miraculous things he did before them; bringing them “out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (Deut. 5:15). In 1 Peter 3:15 Peter says, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you...” Giving a reason, of course, means that you have a reason for your hope. Hope itself isn't its own answer, but the reason that you have that hope is. I think a few more verses will suffice:

“... for he (Apollos) powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures sthat the Christ was Jesus. (Acts 18:28)

“And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.” (Acts 19:8)

“Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me...'” (John 10:25) (Jesus isn't just using his own words to tell people who he is, but uses his signs as evidence for who he is)

So Biblically it looks like reason and evidence are very important. So what is my point exactly? My point is this: it wasn't wrong for Thomas to want evidence for Jesus' resurrection. What Thomas asked was completely normal and expected. Michael Williams says it like this:

“Yes, Thomas wanted physical evidence. But Christians have often gotten the story wrong: Thomas was right, not wrong, to want it.” (3)

If you read the passage you'll notice that Jesus doesn't rebuke Thomas in any way. Eight days after he demanded evidence (who knows what Thomas may have struggled with in those eight days) Jesus appeared to him and said “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe,” (v. 27). Jesus grants his request and gives him the evidence that he desires. Jesus understands the need for evidence and he understands the fallen nature of humans (Hebrews 4:15). After seeing Jesus Thomas immediately starts worshipping him. It would seem from the text that he didn't even need to touch Jesus' wounds, he was just convinced right then and there. After that Jesus says “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (v. 29). Again, he's not rebuking Thomas at all, but he is saying that we who have not seen Jesus in person are not disadvantaged in any way. We're blessed in a certain way because we believe without seeing him risen in person. So it would seem to me by looking at the passage that Thomas wasn't ultimately wrong for wanting evidence that he could see.

This doesn't mean Thomas' demand isn't completely without sin though. Jesus told the disciples several times that he was going to die and rise again. The disciples all told him that they saw Jesus- which is something they wouldn't have lied about considering the circumstances- but he still didn't believe them. It's obvious that sin had made his heart so hard that he wasn't letting himself be convinced by the evidence being revealed to him. Still, though his request wasn't completely righteous, as any thought and action of a person isn't, ultimately it wasn't wrong for Thomas to want to see Jesus physically to really believe. One of the things the Gospels stressed about Jesus' resurrection most was the fact that it was a physical resurrection, not simply a spiritual one. This points towards God's redemption and restoration of ALL things, not just spiritual things. And we await the day that all things are restored and made new.

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.” (Romans 8:20-24)

(1) Coyne, Jerry A. "Science and Religion Aren't Friends." USA Today. N.p., 11 Oct. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2010. .

(2) Williams, Michael D. Far as the Curse is Found. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005. 3. Print.

(3) Ibid., pg. 4.

Truth and Desire

I recently watched the panel discussion that took place in Mexico debating the topic "Does the Universe have a Purpose?" It was three atheists against three theists. The most well known of the panelists were biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher William Lane Craig. Hopefully someday those two will do a full-fledged one-on-one debate. This isn't the topic of my post though. One of the things that Dawkins said kinda struck me (actually a ton of things struck me, but I'll talk about this one thing in this post). I'm not going to be quoting the panelists word-for-word so please bear with me. Rabbi Wolpe had ended his segment saying that believing in meaning, purpose, the afterlife, etc., aren't irrational. When it was Dawkins turn again he said it is, of course, nice to believe that you're going to a better place when you die; of course it's nice to believe there's some purpose for you; but that doesn't make it true.

Dawkins makes a good point. The very act of believing something doesn't make that something true. However, I don't think this was Wolpe's point. He wasn't saying it must be true because he and so many people believe it, he was just saying it isn't irrational. Second, the argument is a double-edged sword that works just as much against atheism as it does towards theism. Some people want atheism to be true. They believe there isn't a God, but the fact that they believe it doesn't make it true.

Let's look at this a different way though. Why is it that so many people believe there's purpose and meaning and desire to have it? Why is it that so many people desire God in some way or in life after death? When I say this I don't mean that people just desire to make up their own subjective purpose, but that's part of it. However, many people also ask why they're here and what the meaning in life is. They're asking if there is an objective purpose to their existence; one that they wish to find. Could it possibly be because these things are true? Humans typically have desires that can be fulfilled in some way. We desire sustenance, so there's such a thing as food to fill that need. We desire love, so there's friends and family to fill that need. The fact that we desire these things doesn't guarantee we'll get them, but it points to the reality that there are such things that can satisfy us; otherwise why would we have those desires? Maybe the reason we desire purpose, life after death, and God is because there's a satisfaction for those desires; they're real.

C.S. Lewis put it well in his book Mere Christianity:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exist. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." (1)

(1)Lewis, Clive S. Mere Christianity. New York: Harper One, 1952. 136-37. Print.

The Crimes of the Church

One of the biggest arguments against Christianity today (it's used against religion in general, but I'm going to focus on Christianity) is the claim that the church has caused unspeakable violence throughout history. People usually point to the Crusades or the Inquisition in the middle ages as examples of the terrible moral evils that the church has committed. People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens usually argue against Christianity in this fashion; pointing out how bad for society it is. Hitchens doesn't just point out the big examples like the ones I just mentioned, but small examples like the hypocrisy and intolerance of individual Christians. With such a bad track record, how can Christianity possibly be true? Here are some of my thoughts.

First, we must concede that the church HAS done evil in the past. We can't ignore it. We must concede that Christians, even these days, can be very intolerant and bigoted. We must acknowledge this and grieve over the truth that the people who claim the Name of our Lord have done bad things in the past.

However, we need to look at the full historical context to get a better understanding of what religion has done for the world. The church may have done evil, but it has also done much good for the world. Many of our hospitals and universities were started by Christians. It's Christians and Christian organizations that give so much to the poor and work to alleviate their suffering. I'm not saying that non-Christians don't do good things too- they do- but the love and mercy of Christ has motivated many people do do good for the world. What about unbelief? Non-religious and anti-religious regimes have killed millions of people in the 20th century. I don't want to stress this though. It gets us nowhere to make a list of the good things and the bad things that Christianity or unbelievers have done in the past.

Second, what does it say about God's existence? Nothing. Many seem to use this argument to disprove God's existence, but it's a huge non sequitur to conclude that God doesn't exist because religion has done evil in the past. It simply doesn't follow.

Third, what does it say about the truth of Christianity? Again, nothing. Even if the church has done evil, it doesn't follow that Christianity isn't true. Some might object by saying the Bible promises that people will experience a new birth and do God's will if they believe in Christ (Ezekiel 11:19-20, Ezekiel 36:26-27, 2 Corinthians 5:17), so if Christians are no better than anyone else, doesn't this prove it to be untrue? No. First of all, not all of the people in the church have been or are genuine believers. The Bible speaks of people in the church who look like sheep but are actually wolves wearing sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15, 2 Peter 2:1-4, Acts 20:29-30), so the church can have evil people in it that don't have true saving faith in Christ. Is this true of everyone in the church? Unfortunately, no. Many people in the church who do evil things are genuine believers. While the Bible does say we'll seek to do the Lord's will and aren't slaves to sin anymore (Romans 6:4-7), it's also quite honest that Christians are still imperfect people. We may not be slaves to sin, but we still struggle with it and often fall short (Romans 7:15-23, 1 John 1:8, James 3:2). The disciples of Jesus were quite imperfect; a good example being Peter denying Jesus three times (Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62, John 18), the disciples quarreled about who was the greatest (Luke 9:46), and so on. Christians can still grieve the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30). So the fact that the church has done evil is tragic, but not incompatible with what the Bible says.

Thank God that it's not our works that save us! Christians aren't better than anyone else. It's not their goodness that makes them right with God. Jesus clearly said that no one is good but God alone (Luke 18:19). But "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8). The church is full of sick and broken people, but God graciously saves us through faith in Him (Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:8). We aren't saved by God because of what we do, but because of what Christ has done for us.

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. Colossians 1:21-23

Here's a great blog post from my own church on the subject.

http://www.everysquareinch.net/2010/11/embarrassment-of-church.html?crossingpermalink=true

A great article on Christian singleness.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/11/17/singleness-with-purpose/

Bill Craig and Dawkins

Many people have wanted to see a debate between philosopher William Lane Craig and biologist Richard Dawkins for a long time. Dawkins is quite emphatic that he doesn't want to debate Craig, but they both appeared in a panel discussion at a Mexican conference called La Ciudad de las Ideas (City of Ideas). Also part of the panel discussion was Skeptic magazine's Michael Shermer, Matt Ridley (whom I don't know much about), Doug Geivett, and rabbi David Wolpe. Hopefully this will appear on youtube very soon. Here's some links.

Craig's description of the event.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8499

My Future

I'm highly interested in majoring in philosophy now. I've never thought about being a teacher, but it looks like I have no choice considering that's really all you can do with that degree! I'd be interested in looking for opportunities to do some teaching so I can get some practice and refinement in that skill.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:28-30

People often think the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to deny God's existence. That may be part of it, but it's not that simple. William Lane Craig says that it's really a matter of relative indifference to God whether people believe in Him or not. Simply believing or disbelieving Him changes nothing about one's position with Him. Even the demons believe in God, but they do not have saving grace (James 2:19). Israel at Sinai certainly believed in God and saw His power, but still rejected Him (Exodus 32:4). What God is interested in is an actual relationship with people. It is in relationship with Him through His Son that we are given the Holy Spirit as a gift of salvation (among others). It's important to note that blasphemy is something you do verbally and intentionally. There's two possible things Jesus is talking about when He mentioned the blasphemy. In this context, the Pharisees were comparing Jesus's work with the work of the devil (v.22). They see his miraculous powers, but say it's the powers of demons. Looking at it in this context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit may be doing this very thing: comparing the work of the Holy Spirit with the work of demons. The other possibility, and this is what most theologians and pastors seem to think, is that the blasphemy is a persistent, stubborn, and intentional resistance of the Holy Spirit's work in their lives. They consistently "suppress the truth" (Rom. 1:18) in their hearts by their wickedness. Eventually, God gives them up in their sin because they've exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:24-25).

This is also recorded in Luke's Gospel (Luke 12:10)

Jesus: The Way

Here's another lazy post where I just copy and paste my notes on certain Bible passages!

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:1-7

Jesus makes some very profound and exclusive statements here. He says "Believe in God; believe also in me." This again shows Jesus Christ's equality with the Father (v. 7, John 10:30). He also makes the most unequivocal statement of his exclusivity. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus is "the way" because by believing in Him, a person will receive eternal life. In other words, Jesus is "the way" to Heaven. He's the truth because He is God, and God can't lie (Hebrews 6:18). Jesus is truth embodied, and all who are on the side of truth listen to Him and do as he says (John 18:37). He is "the life" because He is the source of all life (Acts 17:25) and He is the way to eternal life (John 3:15).

Ananias and Sapphira

“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” Acts 5:3-4

We see here that Satan filled Ananias's heart to lie. Satan's influence is subtle and I highly doubt that Ananias had any idea that Satan was influencing him. It's the same with Judas, who betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15), but probably didn't think in his mind that he was being influenced by Satan and doing his work (John 13:27). Elaine Pagals, in an interview with Stephen Colbert, erroneously thought that there was a contradiction with the different accounts on why Judas betrayed Jesus, but one doesn't nullify the other.

Lying to the Holy Spirit is on par with lying to God. This is a clear indication that the Holy Spirit is indeed God, same way the Father is God and Jesus is God. It is also clear, despite the claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Holy Spirit is a person. Only a person can be lied to. Impersonal, non-living powers or energies cannot be lied to.

This verse, among many others in the NT, also shows that God still judges wickedness and carries out justice in ways that we might consider "extreme." He didn't just stop being "wrathful" and start being loving in the four hundred years between the testaments. God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8). These people are examples to us, showing the seriousness of sin, but also how gracious God is that He doesn't justly do this to all of us. He instead sent Jesus to die for us so "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

Review- Avatar: The Last Airbender

Aang (front), Momo (on Aang's shoulder), Katara (girl in middle ground), Sokka (boy in middle ground), Appa (creature in far back)

STORY
The world is divided into four nations: The Water Tribe, the Earth Kingdom, the Fire Nation, and the Air Nomads. Each nation has special people called "benders" that can bend the elements corresponding to their nations element. The Avatar is a special person who is able to master all four elements and also communicate with the spirit world. His job is to keep balance and peace across the land. One day, the Fire Nation decided to attack the other nations and rule the world. Unfortunately, the next Avatar, a young airbender named Aang, gets frozen under the ocean for a century. After one hundred years he is freed from his stasis by a pair of southern water tribe siblings: Katara and Sokka. After over a century of war, the Fire Nation has heavily scarred the land and the people of the other three nations, even completely wiping out all of the Air Nomads. Aang is a great airbender, but still needs to learn the other three elements. Together with Katara, Sokka, and his flying bison, Appa, he must learn the other three elements and face the Fire Lord, ending the war once and for all and restoring balance to the world. But the Fire Lords banished son, Zuko, along with Zuko's uncle Iroh, endeavor to capture the Avatar in order to restore his honor and return to the Fire Nation.

Aang is a fun loving kid who needs to learn to grow up fast.

The story at first glance doesn't sound like anything innovative, but it's the execution that really matters. For a kids series that airs on Nickelodeon, it deals with some pretty heavy themes such as war, love, death, loss, and a host of other things. It also has a continuous story line rather than a more episodic format. Characters also mature, develop, and change as the series goes on. In fact, the characters and their interaction is what really makes this series shine. Each character is easily identifiable by the first episode and it's amazing to see how they grow. Twelve-year-old Aang, who is the main character, the Avatar, and the last airbender (that's a lot of pressure!), is a fun loving and goofy kid who adds a special charm to the series, but also deals with the weight of his past mistakes and the weight of his current responsibility. He never gets emo and certainly never gets too goofy, but has the right balance. He grows a lot throughout the series as he gets a better idea of the urgency of his situation. He gets more confident, mature, and authoritative as the series goes by. He even gets better at fighting. Other characters are the same way. Aang's main love interest is fourteen-year-old Katara (I thought monks were celibate!), a young water bender who still has a lot to learn. She's an incredibly strong female character without being too feministic. Fifteen-year-old Sokka, her brother, isn't much of a fighter, but his smarts and quick wit gets them out of tough situations all the time. He's also the shows main comic relief character. Toph, a twelve-year-old earth bender who joins their team in the second season, is blind and has a really big mouth. She's not just all talk though. She's a formidable fighter. One of the most interesting characters in the series is Zuko, the banished Fire Nation prince. In the beginning he's set up as the shows main antagonist, but it's obvious that he's more than just a guy who's bad for the sake of being bad. He's incredibly conflicted and has a complicated past. The strange rival relationship that develops between Zuko and Aang is an interesting one that goes in intriguing directions during the show's progression. His uncle, Iroh, is a kind and wise man who, on one hand, is basically a saint who can warm your heart, but on the other hand is also a formidable fighter. Many of the fire nation characters aren't simply portrayed as evil despite their nationality. They each have their pasts and loyalties that are developed throughout the series. This series shows the contradiction within humans that makes us capable of good on one hand, but also evil on the other. Why do seemingly "good" people do bad things to others? The answer is never simple There's tons of others: such as Zuko's sister Azula, Zhao, Long Feng, Ty Lee, and Mae, but I can't get into them all. The series is made up of three seasons referred to as "books." The first two seasons are each twenty episodes or "chapters," with the last season being twenty-one episodes. Each season is named after the element that Aang tries to learn. First season is water, second is earth, and third is fire. Each season has incredibly awesome finales. The finale's manage to be very different from each other so there's no repetition. First season ends with the siege of a well fortified city that the gang must defend. The second season finale is a surprisingly complex political conspiracy. The third season's finale is an epic final battle. The show also manages to get better with each season. The first season is entertaining, but can have a more noticeable Nickelodeon type goofiness to it. It also contains more filler episodes (but also some of the best episodes of the series). The character development and storytelling get more focused and well-written in the second season, even having improved "filler" episodes. The third season gets even better, and even darker, as characters go through huge metamorphoses and prepare to achieve their goal, all leading up to an incredibly satisfying ending with most, if not all, of the loose ends tied up. The series does have a few "throwaway" episodes that are almost completely superfluous, such as The Great Divide in the first season, Tales of Ba Sing Se in the second, and The Painted Lady in the third, but other than that each episode adds something to the story and character development. Overall this series has wonderful storytelling, feels like a grand adventure, and has memorable characters.

Zuko using firebending

ANIMATION AND SOUND
Being an American cartoon, one should expect pretty good quality animation. The thing about most American cartoons these days is that they're smoothly animated, but tend to be simplistic. Avatar is a series that not only has fantastic animation, but incredibly beautiful artistry as well. A person with a trained eye will be able to spot animation shortcuts in the first season, but it still contains fast-paced action scenes with fighting styles based on real-life martial arts, great bending effects, gorgeous backgrounds, and hardly a lack of character movement. The animation improves with each season, not only getting larger in scale, but also doing some interesting camera angles to make it feel like there's really a camera out there filming all of this. It can especially help with the artistry, camera angles and colors all being used to create some beautiful scenes. The environments the character visits are varied and beautiful, often times based on real-life locations that the creators photographed. Each nation has it's own style that gives your eye something new to look at in each season. Sometimes details with the backgrounds, especially interiors, that seem easy to miss are somehow never missed by the animators. Character designs have a noticeably anime appearance, but usually more subtle. They are each distinct and visually appealing, there's no gender ambiguity in any of the characters, and there's even noticeable physical changes to characters as the series goes on. Aang gets buffer, some character's hair get longer as time goes on, and little details in the designs that seem easy to miss are always there. The music in the series fit each scene well. I can listen to a song from the series and be able to imagine the scene it plays in even if I don't remember it on the top of my head. The music is never exaggerated too much and they even make good use of silence in order to enhance the mood of a scene. The voice acting is absolutely top-notch in this show. Not a single performance is bad. Everything, from everyday conversations to more intense emotions are convincingly and realistically acted. They used actual 12-13 year-olds to play as twelve-year-old characters like Aang and Toph. Zack Tyler Eisen is an incredibly talented actor and it's hard to imagine Aang as lovable without him. That age is usually about the time that a young boy's voice starts changing, but his actually manages to help the show. As Aang gets more mature, confident, and authoritative, his voice reflects that, so it's helpful that Zack's voice is a bit more mature sounding. Mae Whitman as Katara, Jack DeSena as Sokka, Dante Basco as Zuko, and Mako as Iroh are all pretty unforgettable. Grey DeLisle has a deliciously evil voice that suits Azula perfectly, and Mark Hamill's Fire Lord Ozai is intimidating and scary. It's amazing that Hamill has such range, since Ozai sounds nothing like either the Joker or Luke Skywalker. Each actor sounds the part and bring the show to life.

Toph becomes a member of the Avatar team in season two.

OVERALL
This is perhaps the best American animated series to come out in the last decade. It's well written, gorgeous, has unforgettable characters, and eargasmic voice acting. I highly recommend this series to anyone who likes animation.

The gang visits many beautiful and varied locations during their travels. The artwork is gorgeous.

PROS
- Well written story and characters
-Deals with pretty heavy themes for a kids show
-Gorgeous animation and art
-Satisfying ending
-Terrific voice-acting

CONS
-A few superfluous episodes here and there
-Some contrivances used to move the plot along

Review: Eureka Seven

Eureka (left) and Renton (right) in front of the Nirvash.

STORY
(Anime News Network story summary) Renton Thurston is a 14-year-old boy who lived with his mechanic grandfather in a backwater town. Every day he dreamed of being with the mercenary "Light Finding Operation (LFO)" aircraft pilot group "Gekkostate" and riding "Trapar" particle waves-- a sport called "reffing"-- with their charismatic leader Holland, especially when faced with his father's acclaimed past or his grandfather's desire to protect him. When a young girl named Eureka riding the original LFO, the "Nirvash typeZERO", asks his grandfather for a tune-up, she inadvertently brings the attention of the military to the garage; as a result, the garage is destroyed and Renton is forced to deliver a new type of interface-- the "Amita Drive"-- to the Nirvash. After a heated fight in which the Nirvash destroys the military LFOs by unleashing an immense amount of power, Renton is invited into Gekkostate. However, he quickly realizes that behind the facade of a traveling group of mercenaries is a very bitter reality.

Even after watching the entirety of this series I STILL don't know how I feel about it. I'm going to try to be as unequivocal as possible in explaining what I think about the story. The rest should be easy. Thank God for ANN's story summary, because I don't think I could adequately explain what this show is about without spoiling anything. This series puts us in a setting we don't know anything about and often times drops important information on us that, on one hand, makes the characters in the show react strongly, but on the other hand, we don't know how to react or what to think because we know nothing about it. What is this world? Why do the mechs ride boards? What are the scubs? Who is Eureka? Of course, the characters react the way they do because they KNOW what's going on in many cases, but not us. This show puts things in front of our faces and doesn't explain them until some indefinite time in the future. Many shows do this but this feels like too much. I almost feel like I keep on watching this series not because I want to, but because I'm being suckered into it because my curiosity will kill me if I don't. It's an exasperating way of telling a story, but I guess there's a hidden genius in the writers way of telling it. Despite the vexation, it DID keep me watching, and it DOES all pay off in the end. I guess since we're mostly following Renton's life, the show wanted to keep us about as ignorant and naive as he is, only finding out things about the mystery of the planet and the scubs, and some of the characters when he himself finds out. Those who keep watching till the end will get rewarded with a satisfying ending. Being a mecha show, there is action, but it's mostly plot and character driven. The show has a huge cast of characters so it's good that it has 50 episodes to develop them. Unfortunately not all characters get any development. We don't learn anything about Ken-Goh, Jobs, or Woz for example. The greatest amount of character time is spent with Renton and Eureka, along with Holland, Talho, the kids, and even some characters on the enemy side like Anemone, Dominic, and Dewey. It's interesting to see the changes that these characters go through as they mature, but my GOODNESS there's so much crying! Despite the light-hearted and fun feel of the first dozen or so episodes, this show gets pretty dramatic and even violent later on. The amount of drama can grate on the nerves sometimes as it possibly reminds the viewer of how emo other mecha shows are like Evangelion and Gundam. Despite this, the show never falls into despair like Evangelion seems to, and the characters do grow from all the hard times. Since Renton and Eureka are the main focus, this is the most important aspect of the series. I usually prefer romantic relationships between two characters to be a subplot, but in Eureka Seven it's a big part of the main plot. I imagine it must be difficult to keep a developing relationship between two characters interesting when so much time is spent on it, but I think the writers did well. It probably helps that they're both young and experiencing these things for the first time, so watching how things go can be pretty priceless. There's positive and negative aspects though. On the good side, the naivety and innocence of the two characters as their relationship grows has a certain charm and purity to it. I feel like in most shows, especially here in America, attraction and relational development is mostly physical. In this show there's a deep emotional connection being built up that goes beyond simply the physical. On the negative side, the dialogue between these two characters past the half-way point is friggin' priceless. Many times I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs "NO ONE TALKS LIKE THAT! ESPECIALLY NOT 14 YEAR OLDS!" And yes, Renton, we know that you want to protect Eureka and be together with her forever and blah blah blah. You soliloquize and narrate it to us just about every episode. But there can even be a charm in those too. There's also pleeeenty of awkward moments to be had with those two characters. Has anyone noticed how the terribly awkward moments between new couples in T.V. shows are always the most vicarious? What a feeling. Actually I have a pretty strong feeling some people will find Renton and Eureka to be completely annoying. Thankfully I have a high tolerance for such things and I will leave the viewer to decide on that. There's a lot of things I appreciate about the character Eureka. In the beginning she looks like she'll be another Rei clone (Evangelion), but you'll notice the difference between them when you see that Eureka actually has a personality. I'll get into other things about her later. Fanservice is also kept pretty minimal in this series. Rarely does the series feel the need to flaunt fanservice gratuitously in our faces just for the heck of it. Talho is pretty scantily clad, but it's not flaunted at us, it's just there. If some people want to gawk, they can, but it's not forced down our throats. This series also has a unique feel to it that makes it its own thing and not just a copy of other mecha shows. It's not really like Evangelion or Rahxephon, and it's not really like Gundam, though it's obviously influenced by all of them. It's got its own style and spunk, and that's kind of refreshing. So despite all this I still don't know what to think about it, but I would put this in the category of a good show and I recommend you try it out to see for yourself.

The crew of the Gekkostate.... Except Eureka it seems

ANIMATION and SOUND
The animation was produced by Studio BONES, which shows for the most part. Animation is fluid, action scenes are fast paced and make use of some pretty cool camera angles, and the mechs don't seem to lose any detail during all the animation that is taking place. It's not always perfect, as stillness can set in at some points. After the half-way point, the adult character designs can show signs of slightly sloppy drawing and the animation takes a lot of shortcuts during certain scenes (usually unimportant ones), but overall it's pretty high quality for a 50 episode series from Japan. Character designs have a rounder, more American look than the more angular, skinny, unnaturally colored hair look of most anime. They also seem to sport more detail in the faces, men consistently LOOK like men, characters all look very distinct, and it's an overall refreshing departure from the generic look we're use to. One character design I had issue with was Anemone, mostly because of that stupid dress she wore, but this is a minor gripe. The only characters that have unnatural hair colors are Eureka and Anemone. I like this because it emphasizes that they're special (but I can't get into that without spoilers). Another thing I admire about Eureka's character design is that she's not made with a super-sexy supermodel body with large breasts that we must be reminded of every episode. She does have that short skirt-thing, but she's modestly dressed and has realistic proportions. At some point in the series she even gets pretty beat up, which messes with her hair and face so she doesn't look like a picture perfect mannequin. I think this also helps with the relationship between her and Renton. Attraction is more than just how someone looks. The mechs in the series have pretty cool designs. The military mechs are more blocky and bulky, while the specially made mechs, including the original ones like the Nirvash, have pretty sleek designs. Despite the weirdness of the surf boards they fly on and the question of why they need those (which is kinda explained at some point), I do think it's pretty awesome. The music used in the series is a mixture of orchestra, soft piano, j-pop, j-rock, and techno. Techno seems to fit the show best, but is usually used as the music playing on characters stereos. The orchestral music isn't masterpiece material or anything, but it can be quite beautiful and they always enhance the scenes well. The opening and ending themes are j-pop and j-rock songs. The first opening is catchy and one of my favorites along with the fourth opening. I'm not sure why the fourth opening has John Newton's Amazing Grace in the beginning, but it sounds great! I've only heard the dub of this series so I'll only comment on that. Purists will probably not be satisfied with it, but for those who like dubs it might all come down to how much you can tolerate Johnny Yong Bosch's performance as Renton and Stephanie Sheh as Eureka. As Renton, Johnny has to speak in a high pitch that can sometimes sound unnatural or just plain friggin' annoying. Fortunately he does get better and the acting itself isn't a problem. Sheh's Eureka has the same problem of an adult actress trying to sound like a young girl when she really sounds like an adult actress trying to heighten her voice pitch so she sounds like a young girl. Still, it's not grating, the acting itself is fine, and she does get better as the series progresses. Other actors like Crispin Freeman as Holland, Kate Higgins as Talho, Kari Wahlgren as Anemone, and Peter Doyle as Dominic all perform their roles well and I have no problem with them. Overall there was good visual production behind this series that has some good music and acting to back it up.

The mechs ride surf boards!

OVERALL

Overall I'm going to be anticlimactic here.... Just watch the series for yourself and decide what you think. A bit of a cop-out ending, but I am still confused on whether I think this is a good or merely an okay show and I can see some things about it that would either turn on viewers or turn them off. So I recommend a watch to see what you think. In the end I think I was satisfied with it, even if getting to the end was a bit rough.

They seem to whimsically fall to their impending doom a lot.

PROS
-Good production values and English dub
-Has it's own style and flavor despite its inspiration from other mech shows
-Ends well
-Character designs
-Renton's and Eureka's relationship

CONS
-The dialogue between Renton and Eureka can get pretty cheesy and repetitive
-Likes to dangle plot mysteries in our faces like someone dangling a piece of yarn in front of a cat
-Renton's and Eureka's dub voices take getting use to

Authority and Submission

My ethics professor often times likes to quote the Bible. He'll do this with verses he approves of and verses he disapproves of. His favorite among the verses he disapproves of are the ones about the roles men and women play in marriage. "Men have authority over women," he'll quote as he slaps the desk with his palm. "Women should be submissive to their husbands," he'll say in a louder voice, slapping the desk again. I told him I thought he was quoting those verses in a vacuum, which causes us to put our own connotations of "authority" and "submission" in those verses instead of understanding how the Bible defines them. It's a common danger in Biblical interpretation, reading a verse all by itself without reading the rest of the paragraph or even the rest of the chapter. Sometimes one must understand the entire Bible to get a good idea of what more specific Biblical principles mean. Those verses that my professor quotes sound bad when read by themselves, but not so when we understand what the Bible means by them. Let's take a look.

The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. So we see here that Marriage is a picture pointing us to something greater. We are analogous to Christ and the church. What does the Bible mean when it says that? "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27). So we have someone to compare ourselves to when in a marriage. Act as Jesus did towards the church. How did Christ love the church? He loved her as a sacrificial servant. Christ, the head of the church, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, humbled himself to the point of washing the feat of his disciples (John 13:5). The God-Man who suffered an unjust, torturous death in order to redeem and forgive the church. This is a high calling for the man. The woman isn't the man's property that he can lord over, but is someone who is so important to him that he'd die for her and cultivate her. This is but a taste of what it means for the man to be the head.

A wife is the "helper (Genesis 2:18), but is this a lowly calling? No, not at all. Throughout the Old Testament, God Himself is called a helper (Psalm 10:14, Psalm 118:7). The Holy Spirit is also called a helper (John 14:16). Is God weaker and less important than Israel or the church? Certainly not! God is much more than we could ever be. His strength is exactly why He can be our helper. Far from being a lowly position, having the "helper" status in marriage is an area of great honor. Wives are a strength that men don't have, which is why God provided Adam with Eve after saying "it is not good that the man should be alone," (Genesis 2:18).

Sounds a bit more noble now that we look beyond those initial verses and our own connotations, right?

Colossians 3

I'm back! Haven't blogged in a while. I just thought I'd post some thoughts I had while reading through the third chapter of Colossians. Here's part 1.

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things that are above, not on earthly things. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
Colossians 3:1-4

We have died and no longer live. Christ lives in us (Galatians 2:20). This brings us out of self-centeredness, self-pity, self-worship, and into love and service of one who is greater than us. When our hearts and minds are set on things above, we do not idolize things on earth. Earthly bread will never satiate us forever. Earthly drink will always leave us thirsty again. However, Christ, who is above, is the bread from heaven that always satiates and the water that brings eternal life. We are freed from the bondage of our sin and the bondage of self-worship and become slaves to Christ, which is where true freedom is found (John 8:31-32). On the day that he appears, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

Mark Driscoll's "Doctrine" series

I love theology. I have read almost all of Wayne Grudem's Bible Doctrine (though I wish I had the longer version, Systematic Theology) and will eventually read J.I. Packer's Knowing God. Mark is going to release a book on his Doctrine series. He has the habit of making book versions of different sermon series of his, but I might actually buy this one.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/doctrine?page=1