Doctor Who: The Rings of Akhaten - What Should Have Been

It's been a while since I've blogged on the topic of Doctor Who, but I felt tonight's episode held some exceptional points that I wanted to reflect on. Now I know some of the physics was a bit dodgy to say the least... and the main antagonist very much reminded me of Wilson the volleyball from Cast Away, but  the acting and philosophy in the episode were great.

 

The essential plot revolved around a group of alien species who inhabit a cluster of asteroids that nestle within the rings that surround a red sun. Every thousand years the species gather to pay emotional tribute to a sleeping "god". The most important person in the ritualistic festivities is the Queen of Years, whose job it is to lead the gathered pilgrims in a song of lullaby that keeps the god asleep... thus allowing life in the Rings of Akhaten to continue. The current Queen of Years is a little girl named Merry, who is afraid of her inadequacy in the role thrust upon her.

 

Her fears appear to be justified when she is pulled into the pyramid on the asteroid where the god is presumed to sleep and confronted by a vampiric alien that is stirring from slumber, hungering for her song - her soul. Burdened with the knowledge that her people may die if the god is not appeased, she is petrified and yet willing to sacrifice herself to the beast. The Doctor recognises the beast for what it is however, a parasite that leeches on emotion and will not allow Merry to throw her precious and unique life away, to merely satiate the creature for a time.  The creature is apparen00tly defeated when it releases a beam of some kind of energy into the sun... and The Doctor, Clara and Merry prepare to make their escape.

 

There is unfortunately a catch.

 

The creature was not the "god". In fact the god is the sun itself, that hungers for the souls and songs of the people... and The Doctor realises the enormity of his error as it begins to become unstable, threatening the life of all who inhabit the rings.

 

 The Doctor tells Clara to get Merry to safety and attempts to face off against the parasite god.  From a distance, Merry decides to do what she can to help and sings melody to try and quell the sun.  The Doctor is invigorated by the voices of Merry in the pilgrims as they sing in the face of doom.  Knowing that the entity feeds on emotion and experience... and that he has over a millennium of such things under his belt, the Doctor gives an impassioned speech - challenging the entity to be satiated with all that he has seen, known and become:

"Can you hear them? All these people who lived in terror of you and your judgement; all these people whose ancestors devoted themselves... sacrificed themselves to you. Can you hear them singing? Oh you like to think you're a god.... but you're not a god, you're just a parasite eating now the jealousy and envy and... longing for the lives of others, you feed on them. On the memory of love and loss and birth and death and joy and sorrow. So... so... come on then.  Take mine. Take my memories. I hope you've got a big appetite because I have lived a long life and I have seen a few things.  I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords; I saw the birth of the Universe and I watched as time ran out, moment by moment until nothing remained - no time no space... just me. I walked in universes where the laws of physics were devised by the mind of a mad man. I have watched universes freeze and creation burn. I have seen things you wouldn't believe. I have lost things you will never understand and I know things... secrets that must never be told and knowledge that must never be spoken... knowledge that will make parasite gods BLAZE! SO COME OOON THEN! TAKE IT! TAKE IT ALL BABY! YOU HAVE IT ALL!"

Yet it is not enough... and as the Doctor slumps, the sun expands once again.

 

Clara has an epiphany and realises that she possesses something even more precious. She holds an autumn leaf whose falling brought her parents together and was regarded by her father as "the most important leaf in human history". She remembers her mother's promise to come whenever she was lost... and how that promise had been snatched away from her when her mother died. Flying back to the pyramid asteroid (I'm assuming the space scooters have some kind of ambient oxygen life support field), she holds out the leaf and points out what it represents - not memories of a life lived, but an eternity of what if's - possibilities that never came to pass because of what happened to her mother - days that should have been and never were. Completely overwhelmed by the influx of experiences and emotions that never were and gorged beyond its ability to satiate itself, the sun collapses in on itself... never to demand sacrifice ever again (major physics goof as the sun's destruction would result in the end of all life in the system).



Clara & The Doctor confront the parasite god at Akhetan

As the Doctor put it: "Infinity is too much... even for your appetite"

 

I know that with its theme of a jealous false god who greedily consumes the sacrifices and faithfulness of his followers, many saw the episode as a vitriolic attack on religion - particularly as The Doctor gives gentle digs at the people's belief that Akhetan is where the universe began... citing it as a "nice story" and reiterating the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe (something that I as a Christian have no problem with). However I found myself quite spiritually inspired by this story.

 

Just a week after commemorating the events of Holy Week, I saw parallels with the story of salvation that I felt compelled to share. We are like the people of Akhetan. We live our lives under the gaze of an entity that longs to consume us... that feeds off our pain and sorrow and unfairly revels in our eventual perishing... but that entity is not God. That entity is our broken human nature that we helplessly orbit, unable to escape. It doesn't matter how good we are... how wondrous our achievements, how noble our beliefs and intentions. Nothing within us is capable of satiating the hunger of the sinful nature. Just as the Doctor's vast storehouse of experience was incapable of staving off the hunger pangs of Akhetan... even the most reverent and devout of humans falls prey to the universal phenotype of our condition. We are all sinners, we all make mistakes.... it is an inherited condition:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Romans 5:12-14

Into this hopeless fray stepped hope itself.

Jesus is a human - He shared in our sorrows and our sufferings and yet being in very nature God, He was not automatically subject to our brokenness. Jesus Christ represents everything we should have been, everything we could have been if we had not followed the pattern of the World. Jesus represents the obedience of all humanity... that never was.

 

In Jesus there's quite a difference isn't there? There's an awful lot of sin but there's an infinity of righteousness on offer. Infinity is too much, even for death's appetite.

 

The unjustness of the Righteous One giving his life - an eternal abundance of obedience and goodness, for us in our corruption... completely satisfied the previously unending hunger of sin:

 

"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

Romans 5:18-19

Not for nothing did Jesus use the Greek word "Tetelestai" (which the English usually translates to "It is finished"), as he died on the cross. It is a word that means debt is paid in full.

 

That's our debt... we can have it paid. All we need to do is put our trust in the risen Jesus and accept what he did for us.

 

Jesus is too much... even for sin and death's appetite.

 

Sometimes We Sting... Sometimes We Save

In the past on this blog I have referred to a couple of images/anecdotes that look at the different behavioural attitudes we adopt in our relationships with people. What has been on my heart for a little while and what I thought I'd do in this post, is combine all three... and look at them together.

The first is a joke; an amusing anecdote that we are supposed to use to look at life when it gives us one of its occasional knees to the groin. The saying goes like this:

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon and some days you are the statue".

I know its a joke... but I have never felt comfortable with it. What it says to me is that when life drops a bucket load of guano on your head... its okay, because some day you'll be the one depositing the guano on somebody else.

The second is the infamous story (once referenced in Star Trek: Voyager), of a scorpion who wanted to cross a swollen river.  Aware of his shortcomings and knowing that any attempt at swimming would result in certain death, the scorpion attempts to coerce a nearby fox. The fox being cunning and wise points out that its a stupid thing to do because the scorpion will sting him and kill him. The scorpion reasons with him and points out that if he does sting the fox, they will BOTH drown in the river and die... so it isn't in his interests to betray his unlikely ally. The fox can't fault the scorpions logic and allows the arachnid to hop on his back. The couple begin their crossing and all is going well. However, when the fox reaches the deepest part of the river... the scorpion rears up his sting and plunges it into the neck of the fox.  As the neurotoxin begins to take effect and the creatures begin to sink below the waterline, the fox gives one last look over his shoulder, stares forlornly at the scorpion and asks "Why? Why did you do this? Now we'll both die!"

The scorpion answers "I'm sorry... I couldn't help it. It's just my nature."

That story is a constant reminder to me that we all carry an element of the fallen nature inside of us... that even when our intentions are good and honourable, some times we fall prey to the remnants of the sinful nature that lurk deep inside waiting for moments to strike... just like a scorpion's sting.

The last anecdote also contains an equally aquatically challenged scorpion who is in dire peril. This scorpion keeps slipping off a riverbank and falling into a river to his doom. Fortunately for him, two monks are washing bowls in the river nearby. One of the monks spots the scorpion and rescues him. In return for the monk's kindness, the scorpion... yep you guessed it... stings him before scuttling off. However, the scorpion is soon in trouble again and falls straight back into the water. The monk wastes no time in rescuing the scorpion again... and again. Each time he does so, he receives a sting for his trouble. This goes on until the monk's companion asks him "Why do you keep doing that? Don't you know that scorpion will just keep stinging you?  That's its nature!"

"Ah..." replies the other monk "... but it is my nature to save."

Looking at those stories together tells us something quite profound about life. There are going to be times in all our lives when we mess up and hurt the ones around us - the ones who we care about... and who care about us. We can't help it... its in our nature (albeit a nature we need to resist). However if we strive with all our heart to adopt Christ's nature... the one that His Spirit calls us to, we can bear with one another's brokenness and faults with mercy and compassion... encouraging those around us to do likewise by the righteous examples God works through us.

Sometimes we sting, sometimes we save... how we feel about those two facts reveals a lot about our character and our relationships with one another and God. What it is NEVER okay to do is to be the pigeon.  Everyone knows what it feels like to be the statue... everybody knows how bad it feels when someone bombs your life with emotional excrement. We all know what it feels like to be stung... so can we really afford to take a blasé attitude with others, every time we feel an irresistible urge to unfairly offload our rubbish attitudes on those around us?

We can't.

Sometimes we sting.  When this happens (as it does), we need to recognise we are doing it, what is driving it and ask forgiveness in all sincerity for it.

Sometimes we save.  We need to be watchful for those around us who are openly hurting. We need to go the distance and do what we can to help them out, even if it is just praying for them. They may sting you for your trouble, but never forget their value... or the fact that someday you may need a friend to save you in spite of your own stinging.

Bad Questions

I've been pondering.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you knew if you asked a question, you would get an answer that would irritate/upset you... and stick in your craw? In fact you would know the very answer that would come back to you. Going on from that have you found yourself being inexorably drawn into asking that very question regardless anyway?

I've done this very thing recently. Why do you suppose we do it? I can't believe I'm the only person who would do it... or is it just me after all?

I think it's a combination of things that leads us to act in this manner. Firstly I think we want to be proven wrong... we ask the question knowing full well what we expect the answer to be and we want to be surprised and not disappointed. Perversely our flawed human nature also wants us to be proven right and provokes us to ask the question just so our subconscious can say:

"Well? What did you expect?!"

I think the worst thing is that I don't necessarily disagree with the answer given... I just find it extremely hard to believe that same answer is something that is applicable to myself - no matter how hard I wish it were so... in fact given the way I am as a person... I think I actually need it to be so.

You see I kind of feel back in that place where every other Christian on planet Earth seems to get everything given to them on a silver platter... and I'm just the neglected butler in an "Upstairs Downstairs" Christian world.

I know that isn't what is going on... it just seems that way - I do appreciate that everybody gets their fair share of trouble.

Part of what reinforces that false idea I have, is the attitude of many who seem to see me as subordinate to them and only talk to me when they want something... very rarely do they contact me as a person. I think this is why the Martin Luther King quote I spoke of yesterday has remained in my mind so solidly. I'm not so much bothered by the things in life that beset me... I am far more bothered by some friends apparent indifference. They perceive me purely as an asset.

I'm not.

I'm a living human being with a heart that beats just as firmly as theirs... sometimes more so.

I'm also an equal partner in the kingdom and I'm not a "newbie". I don't appreciate it when people talk down to me or lecture me. I am fed up with "one upmanship". We are supposed to be building one another up as a body... not competing and jostling for position like the pharisees did when they tried to trap Jesus with "superior" theology.

This is the first time in a good while I've felt able to get this off my chest. Until now I'd kept a lot of this fairly private... but I want to wrestle with this openly now. Sometimes you just have to come about and tack into the wind and face down what is coming at you...

... and I'm through running.

Latest Thoughts on Doctor Who

I think watching Doctor Who last night might just rank as one of the most terrifying televisual experiences of my entire life.

The plot was a "Doctor lite" episode and revolved around the idea that the Doctor and Martha had been cast back to 1969 by a species of interstellar psychopathic "assassins" known as "the weeping angels". They don't kill you exactly... they remove you from your current life and send you back to some obscure point in the past, to live out your days among strangers. Fortunately for us, these assassins are "quantum locked" - if anything living sees them, they instantly turn to stone. Furthermore, they are a little like the gorgons from Greek mythology... for if they look upon one of their own kind, they become forever set in stone. Here is a clip of them in action... but I don't recommend looking at it if you are easily scared. Never has a statue been as terrifying:

I was genuinely petrified (pardon the pun).

Still... in between the heart attacks, I was more than compensated by the pleasing on screen demeanour of Carey Mulligan:

Wow! I was a very happy man. I may even have to consider making an exception to my "No Jane Austen" rule (she appeared in the recent big screen adaptation). I really hope we see much more of her acting on stage and screen... it seems likely as judging by the roles she has been winning for herself, her star is in ascendancy.

All the same, I don't think I'll be attending a cemetery or figurine sculpture exhibition for a long time to come after watching Blink. All in all, an excellent one shot drama in it's own right it was a strong enough plot not to require the presence of the Doctor.

This episode followed in the wake of last week's conclusion to a two part Doctor Who adventure... and that gave me a lot to think about.

First we had the Doctor, in the guise of "John Smith" - facing his own Gethsemane moment. To avoid being captured by "The Family of Blood" (although really as it turned out, he was trying to hold himself back from judging them), the Doctor took on human form, storing his personality in a pocket watch. Unfortunately, the problem with taking on human form, is that you also take on human feelings and human desires. It isn't long before the Doctor falls head over heels for a matron in 1913 and has grown very attached to his mortal life.

Unfortunately the Family of Blood have managed to track down the Doctor and set about causing mayhem, in pre WWI England. the only person who can stop them is The Doctor... but the Doctor is John Smith now... and if John Smith chooses to become the Doctor, then John Smith dies.

We are treated to a glimpse of what life would have held for John Smith if he had remained as a human and not become a timelord. His life literally flashes before his eyes. This is very much the kind of idea explored by Scorsese in The Last Temptation. The idea of an alternate future being presented to the hero (the Doctor/Christ), as a form of temptation. You really gain a small insight into how hard a choice Jesus made, when you look at it in that way.

That said, once the Doctor is re-established, he acts like a god... but in some ways he comes across more like a Greek god... rather than the more benevolent Christian God (I'm not saying that God does not judge, but he always offers people the opportunity to repent). He consigns all the troublemakers to live out eternity under individual terrible punishments:

• wrapped in unbreakable eternal chains
• thrown into the event horizon of a dying sun
• trapped in every mirror in existence
• and lastly...

... and most poignantly of all, one of his enemies is put to work watching the fields of England as a scarecrow. He becomes the symbol of John Smith's death and The Doctor's victory, for all to see... and as a scarecrow he tellingly symbolises that paradox, cruciform - the shape of the cross.

Here is a visual summary I found on YouTube, set to the music of Evanescence... it's been put together really well:

A good couple of episodes... and now we are hurtling towards the climax - the final three episodes of the series. I can't wait.

In a couple of days I'm going to respond to an article I read in a recent science fiction magazine. that attacked the idea of religious concepts being used as credible themes in the science fiction genre. It may be quite hefty... so watch out for it!

Disagreeing With Theological Giants

This probably isn’t as in depth as the original, which for some reason disappeared into the ether… great!!!! All thanks to MSN Spaces, where this was originally posted back in 2005.

I think my understanding of spiritual condition and sin is radically different from the versions put forward by both Augustine and Pelagius.

My understanding of “original” sin, is that the guilt for it lies solely with the original perpetrators, but the consequences of it still lie with us. Augustine would probably agree with this but the buck probably stops there.

Augustine would have us believe that our nature is changed to one of evil, that without baptism, we are all doomed from birth; even infants would not escape hellfire. This doesn’t fit with scripture, because scripture teaches us that we are judged by the light we receive. I think that people who have not developed a proper understanding of right and wrong, are not held accountable. God is completely righteous, completely loving and completely just.

Pelagius believed that our nature was essentially good, and that God would not call us to be good if we didn’t have the means within us to achieve this in the first place.

I disagree here with both of them. I agree our nature changed, but not in a sense of good or evil, just in attitude.

What we lost as a race when we fell, was not our capacity to do good, it was our ability to be in direct fellowship with God. This meant that we were made much more susceptible to evil desires. We were acting independently of God. It means that we cannot have a proper relationship with God though, one without true union. Although this makes us sinful, it doesn’t make us inherently evil by nature. Sin, as I have mentioned before came from an archery term meaning “to fall short”. In this state, how we fall short is up to us. We can try and keep God’s commands (but we will fail at some point), or we can openly rebel against God. However, in the final analysis… without God’s intervention both paths unfortunately end in destruction.

As an example, think of a broken tooth that becomes rotten. The break itself will not cause death, but it will attract more tartar and plaque which will lead to it’s death through rotting. We can obey God’s Law (which I suppose is equivalent to brushing your teeth and flossing), or we can openly rebel by refusing to do that and worse… eat sugary foods that we know are harmful.

By observing God’s will for us in our actions, we “clean our teeth”, by acting in rebellion to God we hasten our spiritual demise.

However, observance of the Law in itself is not sufficient (because we will always fail to some degree). The damage done to us means the eventual balance will lead to spiritual death. What we need is something that plugs the gap in our broken tooth.

That, would be Jesus. By dying for our sins, he restored the gap in our broken tooth. No, even more than this… he recreated us in his image, we are new creations… complete in god’s sight through Christ’s sacrifice. We can still sin of course, and that will harm the eventual condition of the tooth… but it will never rot to a point where it dies. This is why it is important to avoid sinning… scripture clearly teaches us that after death, Christians are still accountable for what they do with their salvation, it’s just that the eventual discipline does not result in eternal death.

Where Augustine believed mankind is fundamentally bad, Pelagius believed that mankind’s nature was fundamentally good. I believe that mankind is fundamentally broken, but has a diverse nature… Many of us are on the whole good, many essentially bad… but when we have reached that certain point of accountability in our life, we ALL require divine grace in order to attain salvation.

Both Pelagius and Augustine were of their time, as was Calvin… so I try not be too hard on them.

Calvin used the scripture “those God foreknew, he predestined” to propagate the idea that God only bothers trying to save a lucky few. If that were true, how would you explain the parable of the sower? Or the fact that according to Peter, Jesus preached to the Flood dead?

I find that teaching completely abhorrent. I believe that God loves and reaches out to all, equally and without discrimination. He does this despite the fact he knows people will reject him. This is perhaps the most tragic yet moving thing about his love for us. You might be an atheist from the cradle to the grave, and God will know this... he will know the fruitlessness of reaching out and attempting to save you... but do you know what, even with a 0% possibility of you choosing to accept him... he still reaches out.

There is a much used statement about Christ's sacrifice that is true: If by dying he could only save one person, and that person was you... he'd still do it.

What I believe is also true, is that even if NOBODY had chosen to accept his gift of salvation, he would still have offered it.

Pelagius, Augustine and Calvin all have to some degree or other, valid points. However, they all fall short because they do not have a proper understanding of how time works. They all favour either free will or destiny, without trying to properly explain the role of the other they have rejected.

God is outside of and yet permeates time completely. To him, all the past and all the future is happening in the present tense (can you even imagine the complexity of that?). He knows and loves you to the very core of your being. He knows every choice you have made, and will make, and why you made or will make them. He knows the way you will jump in every conceivable scenario, even when the interaction of others is involved. Each person’s individuality from the dawn of time till the end of days is taken into consideration; we therefore all have free will and the freedom to make any choice we wish. However, God also has a complete and perfect plan for the human race, which we all play our part in. So we have a destiny

That is the beautiful paradox. We are both completely free and completely destined. Recently I came across a proverb, which I believe backs this idea up:

“In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.” - Proverbs 16:9

So based on my conclusions here and in other blog entries, I believe if I had existed at some point between 300 and 1700 AD, I would have been burned at the stake by at least one denomination.

So on a heresy rating of 1-10, where do you guys rate me? If you think I’m wrong, tell me. If you have your own comments on the thoughts of Pelagius, Augustine and Calvin… do tell. If I’ve gotten anything out of context please comment.

Blessings and regards

Nick

Obscene

And so it begins...

No sooner have people received Live8 tickets, then this starts to happen:

Live8 Tickets on Ebay

his is obscene. £10 million for a pair of tickets? I would assume that the reason they've come up so soon, is because a group of individuals have texted blocks of applications in the competition in the hope of profiteering from it. It makes sense, because if their numbers appear that frequently in the draw, then it is logical to assume they will have early success.
I'm totally against touting, it ruins it for people who have a genuine interest in whats going on. I don't mind if someone can't go to something, them selling it on at or around cost... but you cannot apply that principle here.

You could say I'm jealous, and maybe I am a little. However my main anger stems from the notion that the amount of money some decadent people are spending is a substantial amount of the Gross Domestic Product of the worst off countries.

To some people, money truly is their god, and the love of it a root of all kinds of evil. I don't deny it's a valuable resource or tool, but that is all it should be... otherwise it becomes too important in our lives.

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Luke 16:13

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:9,10

Star Trekking

I was watching Enterprise the other day (I have to say I think the souped up version of the theme sounds really naff and US sitcom or Aussie soap-like). There were a couple of points I wanted to make about it.

The first thing is with regard to what has become a running joke with the T4 presenters at the end of each episode. The Enterprise fan's campaign to save the show at a cost of $30,000,000!
The fans of Enterprise have lost the plot a bit if you ask me. Although I'm not a humanist, I recognise that some of the Star Trek's ideology has value in the real world... namely: not being materialistic and working together as a race to overcome common problems. What could be more hypocritical than a group of people who like are inspired by a TV programme that preaches those values, clubbing together to raise money for a television programme? Think of the amount of good causes that money could be invested in... think of how such a sum could contribute to tackling some of the world's major problems! They should stop being so materialistic and let the programme die. there have been dozens of programme's I have liked, but when they've gone the way of the dodo, I've accepted it and moved on.

Having said that. I also wanted to make a point about the episode on Sunday. In it, one of the major character's falls in to a coma, and the Captain and Dr make a tough decision with regards to saving him. They take his DNA and inject it into a larvae that will take on the person's DNA and grow from infancy into a carbon copy of the character (in an accelerated life-span of 15 days). However it also acquires the personality and memories of him, as he reaches the approximate age of those memories.

The problem is, that the clone has been bred for one reason and one reason alone... to save the life of the genuine character. As he reaches a level of consciousness and awareness, he develops his own dreams, memories and attachments... he wants to live his life out himself irrespective of the consequences for the original character.

However, in the end he knows what the right thing to do is, and he does it. By losing his own life, he saves the life of a man who could not be saved by any other means.

This really came across to me as a parable of the story of Christ. He too, was born for a single purpose... he could have rejected that purpose and been whoever he wanted. Thank God, he didn't!

Scandal

Ever since the publication of the Da Vinci Code, people have been going round with the assumption that it's true. Newsflash... it's cobblers! Anyone who saw the Tony Robinson documentary on it will have seen that nearly all of the major issues raised by the book were deconstructed and debunked thoroughly.

The Priory of Sion does not exist. It was invented in the 60's by a small band of French eccentrics, one of whom fantasised about having claims to the French throne. When a previous scandal mongering book came out that made similar claims to the Da Vinci Code, the hoaxers came forward and admitted what they had done. They in no way wished to be associated with the idea that they may be thought of as descendants of Jesus.

The Knight's Templar were not trying to protect descendants of Jesus when they fled the besieged French Templar stronghold. They were trying to protect gnostic teaching. The Catholic church was going after them for two reasons 1) To seize their lands and fortunes and 2) To eradicate heretical teaching.

The second reason was valid, but not worth killing over. Gnosticism is heretical because it claims the physical world is an evil lie created by an evil god. It claims that Jesus was sent by the true spirit god and resurrected only in spirit and that salvation is not by grace through faith but through "special knowledge" (gnosis is a greek word meaning "to know"). Gnosticism survives today in institutions such as Freemasonry (but that is only one of the evils that Freemasonry plays host to).

Gnostic heresy is evil because it in effect claims Satan made the earth, and everything physical is evil. A cute baby, a beautiful woman, the awe inspiring stars, the tender texture of a flower, the sweet sensation of fresh water running through your fingers... gnostics would say all these are evil, because of their physicality. It also suggests that Jesus was in part evil because he had physical form. It also denies the physical resurrection of Christ, whereas the Gospel tells us Jesus was raised in body because he ate and touched after he returned to us. Gnosticism is a complete pile of crud!

OK now to the issue of Mary Magdalene. The only proof we have of a physical relationship with Jesus is the gospel of Philip which is... yep you guessed it a GNOSTIC gospel. It is at odds with apostolic teaching in regards to salvation and it's authorship is severely questioned... THAT is the reason it's omitted from the Bible. Even if this were not so, the "gospel" attributed to Philip only mentions that Jesus kissed her once, and the disciples got jealous. OK, now if I come and kiss you lot... does that mean your my wives and the bearers of my progeny? I don't think so! Mind you, if you are my future wife and the bearer of my progeny, please do step forward and introduce yourself LOL!

Brown in his book uses French folk stories of middle eastern women (some called Mary) fleeing the War of the Jews, to back up his idea that Mary Magdalene was fleeing persecution with a child. However, there were plenty of people called Mary in 1st century Israel. Heck there were plenty of people called Jesus too! there still are today... is your name Joshua? Congratulations you're name is Jesus (Joshua is the nearest modern Hebrew version of Jesus name... Jesus being the Greek)!

In short, Dan Brown knitted together a series of conspiratorial fictions to make a mountain of cash for himself. Of course, he acknowledges and stresses his work is fiction. I think I heard he had an unhappy Roman Catholic upbringing... so it wouldn't surprise me if he was secretly pleased that his fiction is giving the established church a headache, it is probably repression kicking in. We could just ignore him, if he hadn't tried to pass of his "work" as historic fact. SECULAR historians (not Christians) have big problems with authors like Dan Brown because they sensationalise history and deliberately take things out of context for artistic licence.

So, why do people want to buy his books? It's about the darker side of human nature I suspect. We live in a culture that thrives on scandal and we have an obsession with conspiracy. The media feeds us the rise and fall of celebrity. People by OK and Hello, to watch the big names take a big fall... and oh how people love to read about it happening. Inside we have a dark desire to believe the worst in everything. Everybody will fail, everybody will fall, every major event and or. So when a book comes along saying that the Church is built on lies, it's no different. It fills the need of that dark corner of the soul.

Keep on reading gossip and scandal and you feed your soul poison though! I could quote reams of scripture on the subject of slander and all kinds of behaviour... but a children's song sums it up quite eloquently:

Oh, be careful little ears, what you hear (repeat)
For the Father Up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little ears what you hear.

Oh, be careful little eyes, what you see, (repeat)
For the Father up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little eyes what you see.

Oh, be careful little mouth, what you say, (repeat),
For the Father up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little mouth what you say.

Oh, be careful little hands, what you do (repeat),
For the Father up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little hands what you do

Oh, be careful little feet where you go (repeat)
For the Father up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little feet,where you go.

Oh, be careful little mind what you think (repeat)
For the Father up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little mind, what you think.

Oh, be careful little heart what you love (repeat)
For the Father up above,
Is looking down in love,
So be careful little heart, what you love.

Whatever you believe... just please BE CAREFUL!

Human Nature

I'd like to share my views on the controlling aspect of our human nature.

Firstly I'd like to take a look at Genesis chapter 3, principally the bit where man receives his "punishment":

"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Sometimes I wonder, just how much of that is actually punishment, and just how much is consequence of what Man had become by taking the fruit of the tree and good and evil?

What do I mean?

Well, before the Fall, everything we received came from God. but when we begin thinking like God, start developing independence, we tend so start not to rely on him.... seeking instead to provide for our own needs and the needs of those around us. With this new found ability, you might think God would be pleased at the opportunity to put his feet up.

Yet clearly in the Bible, there are instances where God provides for his people when they call on his name. The Israelites in the wilderness, Hagar and Ishmael at death's door. Over and over, when a person's own resources are spent, they call upon God and he answers.

What is the key to this? I believe the answer lies in the following passage:

"But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

What does that mean? Well think about a little child for a moment. a child cannot fend for itself, it relies up on it's parents and benefactors to provide for it, until it is ready.

I think that's what Jesus is saying. That we need to stop thinking we have to do this in our strength. That instead we should rely upon his power, trust purely in him... easier said then done, I know. However, I still believe it should be our aim.

After all, all the major instances of revival in this nation have been when people in the Church get on their knees and say sorry for trying to run God's Kingdom for him.

God is sovereign, he alone knows whats best for us as individuals and in the Church as a whole.

We don't need to be INDEPENDENT, we need to be IN DEPENDENCE.

Blessings to you

Nick