Is the SCIFI series Battlestar Galactica anti-Christian?

I must say that I have been watching the new Battlestar Galactica remake. For those unfamiliar with the new series it is a remake of the 1978 series starring Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, and Dirk Bennedict. The broad outline is 12 planets (named after the signs of the zodiac) are at war with a race of robots that become self aware. The robots call a truce and sneak attack the planets with heavy casualties and destruction. Once this happens the Surviving Battlestar, a spaceship that would be comparable to an aircraft carrier leads a fleet to find the 13th colony known as earth. The new series spins the Robots (known as Cylons) to have evolved into a race that looks human.

Okay, here is where my questioning of the series comes in. The humans use the "Arrow of Apollo" at the Tomb of Athena on the planet Kobol to point the way to earth. There seems to be heavy use of Greek mythology. Also, the Cylons refer to a single deity (God) and use words like image of God, etc. The humans on the other hand will use gods in the plural. It seems to me that the writers, producers, directors, etc. are painting those who believe in a single deity in a negative light. The Cylons hold their deity up above all others and the humans have many among equals (there were 12 Lords of Kobol).

Does this make the show anti-Christian? I guess I'll have to keep watching and find out.

Does God care about our happiness?

I am currently taking a class called reformed spirituality where the teacher is having us read books by Puritan writers such as John Owen, Thomas Watson, Thomas Boston, etc. as well as parts of the Westminster Larger Catechism and Calvin's Institutes. While reading Owens Communion with God I came across something that struck me. Here is the quote from the abridged version translated by RJK Law page 28: "And the Father's love is such that he does not seek his own happiness and satisfaction only, but ours also."

This sentence has caused me to do some contemplation with regard to the question is God concerned with our happiness. I searched the English Standard Version bible online and found only 2 verses that said anything about 'happiness' (Isaiah 52:7 and Lamentations 3:17). However, there were 230 concerning 'joy.' I am trying get to what Owen means by happiness? Is he using it as a synonym for joy? Perhaps, happiness is an emotional response to an event. This then begs the question of does God have emotions (we may deal with this later). If God is the source of our joy then our joy is infinite. I guess what it boils down to as what is the source . This seems like an incomplete post, I may have more to say on it later.

My 3 month whirwind

This posting is more for those who I do not see on a regular basis. The past three months have been pretty hectic for me and I will going through a lot of changes personally and professionally. First, my last day with my employer will be September 29th. After 6 and 1/2 years, I'll be out of a job. Second, I will be attending Westminster Theological Seminary in Dallas. Thirdly, through my denomination (Presbyterian Church in America, http://www.pcanet.org) I'll be applying to receive endorsment to become a military chaplain. Right now there is a HUGE need for chaplains in all branches of service. Fourth, as a part of this chaplaincy, I'll have to be ordained in my denomination who's requirements are very extensive (M.Div with biblical languages, a written exam and a oral exam).

Vicariously Live While the Whole World Dies

I recently picked up the new tool CD 10,000 day's and the first track prompted me to post again after a long hiatus.

The first track on the disk is a song call "vicarious"and the first line that struck me was "It's no fun until someone dies." It seems to me this is the approach of most news outlets on T.V. If there is something bad going on, it is all that they'll report on and the more catastrophic the better. The second line that struck me is "why can't we just admit it!" Another observation from the so called "news junkies" is that they are glued to the T.V. under the assumption "I am just trying to find out what's going on in the world..." On one hand I agree that we shouldn't bury our head's in the sand but at the same time we should as the song say's "Stare like a junkie into the T.V."

Perhaps I am being too harsh or you may be asking what is your point. Ok, here goes. It seems that we are buying in to the commodizing of our news. To get people to tune in, it must be violent and gorrey. I sometimes wonder why we cannot take the Joe Friday approach with "just the facts maam." Also, if we are only getting our news from one or two sources chances are good we are not getting the facts, we are getting the product they are selling.

I don't have a soluton for this epidemic, not is the point of this post to find one. I just hope is causes people to think and not take what we see on the T.V. news reports at the whole truth.

Value of a research doctoral degree

This is somewhat of a departure of my normal posts, however I think it is relavent in some way. Recently I can across a article online by Gary North, a noted Christian Reconstructionist called Ph.D Glut Revisited were basically he layed out the economics of earning a Ph.D. First, the information he is basing his article on is 35 years old. Second, in his article he offers no solutions. It is real easy to criticize, it is much harder to come up with solutions. As one who is currently pursuing a Masters degree and more than likely a Ph.D I thought I would offer my $0.02.

What value do you place on education? How much is it worth? Is it only worth the dollar amounts spent? Is it worth the dollar amounts lost while studying? I propose that it is worth something more. Now, in my chosen field, philosophy you're never gonna get rich. I assume that in other areas of the humanities that is also the case. But, what it does for me is far greater than the dollar amount I can place on it. In my chosen area of study I have to read large amounts of material, comprehend what it is saying, synthesize it with other material, present it in a logical coherent manner. Also, I have to logically think through arguments of my peers and analyze them. I also have to present arguments (not argure with people) in a logical, coherent manner.

So why am I pursuing a degree in philosophy? First, I love it. Will it make me wealthy and famous? Not by a long shot. Second, I do hope to become a professor at a college. Is this a guarantee? No, but name one thing in life that is a guarantee.

Anytime you decide to pursue a higher education you need to assess why you are doing it. What is it worth to you? If you make your decisions based solely on earning power when you graduate you'll may find yourself extrememly unhappy. Do you enjoy it? If you do not enjoy computer programming then a masters/ph.d in computer science probably isn't your best way to go. If you enjoy studying whatever you field is, you may find it worth far more than the dollar amount.

Paul at the Areopagus

Acts 17:16-34 tells of the apostle Paul in Athens and preaching at the Areopagus. In witnessing their city, he saw it was full of idols. One in particular that struck him was the one labeled "to the unknown god." Paul used this as a seque into proclaiming the gospel to the Stoics and Epicurieans. Finally (after hearing of the resurrection) some began to sneer and others said "we will hear you again concerning this." Here is what I find interesting in this passage. The first thing is that Paul made a connection from the pagan literature that his audience was familiar with to affirm his point. The reason I find this interesting is because I hear a lot of Christians who say "I hate philosophy." Now what some probably mean is they hate philosophy as an academic discipline. However, this is an example of the usefullness of Christians engaging secular philosophy, not as a replacement for Biblical truth, but to be knowledgable of the culture around them. The second interesting thing is the alter to "an unknown god." This is interesting because I think it is overlooked at the significants. While the Athenians were probably hedging their bets with this alter I think there is an important spiritual truth here. Romans 1:19-20:19 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." When Paul wrote this, I sometimes wonder if he was thinking of his experience in Athens. Even if that isn't the case it shows that God does not leave himself without witness. However, knowledge of God through nature isn't enough and in the example of the Athenians it took Paul to explain it to them. It was the witness by the Apostle and now through scripture is what can bring about saving faith.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution in the classroom

Unless the reader of this blog has had their head in the sand I am sure that they have seen or heard something about intelligent design. A school in California recently was ordered to stop teaching the course after a group of parents sued the school district for violating the seperation of church and state statues. But what is intelligent design? Basicly is it an offshoot of William Paley's watchmaker analogy where if one were to find a watch with all it's complexity one who say it had to have a designer. In this same way the world (universe) with all its complexities had to have a intelligent designer. Those in the camp of evolution or big bang will hold to that there is no evidence for intelligent design and that all the evidence points to evolution. Ok, to be fair I do have to agree in some respects with the evolutionist. When you examine the layers of earth and examine fossiles it does point to examples of change. So I have no problem with the evolutionist saying "All the evidence that we can gather leads us to theorize that there is an evolutionary process." Since, we cannot reproduce evolution teaching it as fact seems irresponsible. Facts are those things that we can reproduce. So, in conclusion to this rambling, where does that leave intelligent design? Can intelligent design be taught as science? Perhaps not, as science due to the fact that we cannot reproduce it in a lab either. It is something like the proponents of evolutionary theory, that is needed to be taken on faith.