Brothers of the Head

Brothers of the Head—directed by Louis Pepe and Keith Fulton (Lost in La Mancha) and written by Tony Grisoni (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, In This World)—is actually an adaptation of Brian Aldiss’ book of the same title. Brothers of the Head is also produced by Simon Channing Williams, who produced Fernando Meirelles’ acclaimed The Constant Gardener.

The movie is a much-anticipated release done in a dead-pan pseudo-documentary style representing a fictional/historical account of conjoined twins Tom and Barry Howe (Luke and Harry Treadaway), who are discovered by an obscure rock promoter and groomed into a freakish punk show. Representing an “inside” look into the nascent world of Punk Rock in the 70s, the story grapples with seemingly impossible love, artistic rivalry, inner demons and the music such a combination can produce.

The movie highlights Tom and Barry’s rise to success, and then takes a darker turn when journalist Laura Ashworth (Tania Emery as the younger Laura and Diana Kent as the older Laura) is sent to do a story regarding the exploitation of the boys for the sake of the show. While the brothers aren’t interested in the story, they both become quite interested in the pretty Laura, and the rivalry begins. Laura soon becomes a fixture in the studio and at the concerts of the “Bang Bang” (that’s the name of the band), and begins to fall in love with Tom (the gentler and less dark of the brothers). This leaves Barry out, causing a split and a bitterness between an otherwise unified and ostensibly univocal being.

The rift causes a creative spurt that launches “Two Way Romeo” as their signature song, and makes The Bang Bang a freakish side show favorite of the burgeoning Punk crowd in 1970s England. As usual, fame comes with its price, especially when it is discovered that there is a third malign triplet embedded into Barry’s shoulder—representing a demon rearing its ugly head, sending Barry into a darker world of drugs and alcohol and depression. The movie ends with raucous mayhem at their final concert, forcing Tom to take matters into his own hands by attempting the suicidal impossibility of cutting himself free from his other self, Barry.

Artistically this movie has its merits. It does a phenomenal job of creating a story that looks real, drawing us into the lives of Tom and Barry through many interviews, and clips of the concerts and lives of these twins. It blends the lines of truth and fiction, and causes you to question whether or not this story actually happened, or is just a fantasy in the writer’s mind. It gives you insight into the impermanent nature of truth from a human perspective. Not that truth isn’t objective, but it can be created and formed by a camera lens, and the mind of the creators. We so often fall for someone’s story as reality, when the goal was to simply present an opinion in as real a manner as possible.

I don’t, however, believe that this film is a film many people could enjoy. It does take a look at an interesting segment of music history, but I didn’t find much redemptive in the film. It just seems pointlessly tragic, highlighting the human tendency to turn on the ones we love when temptation and desire enter the fray.

Still, there are two metaphors or themes that we can see in this movie. The first is that even complimentary forces that sincerely love one another can be destroyed by the intrusion of a third-party temptation. I am reminded of The Gods Must Be Crazy, in which a peaceful indigenous tribe is torn apart by jealousy and competition upon the introduction of a Coke bottle into their exclusive culture. Brothers of the Head is metaphoric of internal struggles and forces that create chaos and turmoil in our own selves when foreign temptations enter our lives. It highlights the darkness inherent in all of us. Ultimately in this dark tragedy, the annihilation of the self is the only option.

A second theme is expressed in the words of screenwriter Tony Grisoni: “The aesthetic of Tom and Barry Howe was us freaks against the world, and that fit perfectly with the punk ethos. It was great conceit. It meant that they could fit into the world as we know it.” This seems to resonate with the rebellious world of rock that says, “I will exist in your established system the way I want. I won’t be shaped by your institutions!” From Iggy Pop and David Bowie to The Sex Pistols and the Ramones, we see an alternative style and look that forces itself upon the scene, questioning ‘normality’ along the way.

This same ethos has dominated the arts forever and can be seen from Degas to Marilyn Manson. Charisma, energy, and individualism has made rock and roll great, yet equally destructive. Brothers of the Head demonstrates that humanity is equally sublime and subversive. We so badly desire to create and redefine ourselves from a creatively constructive point of reference—as Van Til wrote, a Receptively Reconstructive point of reference. We are either discrete beings who are analogues (or derivatives) of our creator, or we are transcendent and co-equal with the creator.

Yet this movie reminds us that our deep inner desire is to be self-referential and original, without ever acknowledging that everything we create is merely an archetype of the original. I didn’t find this movie to be uplifting, nor did I find it to be redemptive. I found it to be a tragic reminder of what living life as our own gods can look like.

The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (Nonfiction)

Author: Jeffrey Sachs
Category: Nonfiction
Publisher: Penguin
Format: Hardback
Pub Date: December 2005
Price: $27.95
ISBN: 1594200459

I was excited to hear that Jeffrey Sachs, the famed economist, had published The End of Poverty. I first heard about it in a Time magazine article of the some title, which I read on a flight home from India in 2005. The article stated that Sachs believes extreme poverty [1] could be eliminated by the year 2025. That’s in our lifetime.

This issue is dear to my heart, and I firmly believe that evangelicals often avoid responsibility for caring for the poor and marginalized. Christians are called to be God’s presence in this world, both with the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the living out of that gospel in suffering with those who are marginalized. Since this article won’t explore this theological reality, this sentiment will have to suffice. But I do believe that if the Church put its energy into helping the world’s poor and marginalized—as much energy as it does to thwart gay marriages and teach intelligent design in the schools—we would see the world respond to the Church, and ultimately to the gospel, in vastly different ways.

Ironically, I was reading the Time article while sitting next to a young, liberally-minded female from Seattle who was returning from Guatemala where she had done relief work. She noticed that I was part of a large group, and asked about our trip. I told her that I taught at a pastor’s conference while the group worked in an Indian children’s home for mostly Untouchable children. She was excited that we had helped some of India’s poorest, but it became clear that she viewed our efforts as an imperialistic imposition of Christian poison in an otherwise beautiful land. While she remained gracious and cordial, it came to a head as we began to discuss the Time article, and how an end to such a horrific problem could be found. I indicated that groups like World Vision, which has done an incredible job of aiding the marginalized and poor all over the globe, need to be supported. Her response was striking. She said, “I don’t know what I think about that,” and continued, “Well, it’s a Christian organization and the idea of anyone forcing their religious views on to unassuming cultures under the guise of relief is questionable.”

While the woman on the plane was in step with Jeffrey Sachs’ theory of exterminating extreme poverty, her attitude is one that epic novels like The Da Vinci Code capitalize on—one that sees Christianity, and religion for that matter, as part of the problem and hardly part of the solution. The Church has lost its compass and become something utterly different than that for which it was intended. To this idea, Rodney Stark, former professor of sociology and comparative religions at the University of Washington, writes this:

Unfortunately in today’s intellectual environment, [the idea that Christianity has played a significant role in the advance of scientific knowledge and social justice] is widely regarded as both unfortunate and false. Proponents of the revisionist claim overcome its inherent contradiction by assigning many of the most unfortunate aspects of history to religious causes, while flatly denying even the most obvious and overwhelming evidence that religion was the basis for the “good” things that have come to pass. For example, it is argued that Christianity played no significant role in sustaining the abolitionist cause but was a major factor in justifying slavery.

No doubt Christianity has earned its reputation. But, at the heart of the biblical message is the call to glorify God in everything we do. There are many factors to solving world hunger, a fact Sachs quite aptly points out. But to downplay the need for faith and suggest that scientific technology and human reason will eradicate poverty is naïve and a residual effect of tired enlightenment promises and cheesy boomer optimism. Sachs emphasizes, “Four overarching ideas of the enlightenment inspire us today.” The first is that “political institutions are human constructs that should be fashioned consciously to meet the needs of society.” Note the stress on “should.” These constructs have been used for both good and evil, which is the nature of their creators. Secondly, “The economic system could similarly be shaped to meet human needs.” Note the use of “could.” Thirdly, Sachs quotes Immanuel Kant from a text written in 1795, “calling for an appropriate global system of governance to end the age-old scourge of war.” Sachs’ fourth point is the idea that science and technology, fueled by human reason, can be a sustained “force for social improvements and human betterment.”

These governing truths are positive contributions to a solution, but only if they are placed in the context of the origin of the enlightenment, which has been richly influenced by a Christian morality and assume a free democracy. The fact is, human reason has led us to Marxism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and so forth. Whose reason is correct? Which technology is good or evil, and who makes that call?

Science and technology have given humanity a phenomenal advance in education and the health sciences, but technology is also responsible for nuclear weaponry, environmental hazards, and the fragmenting of culture. Science, technology, and reason aren’t used in a vacuum; Sachs’ attempt to deify them only exacerbates the issue at hand. The chapter entitled “Myths and Magic Bullets” most emphasizes Sachs’ lack of education in the cross disciplines of sociology, social biology, anthropology, and comparative religion. He acknowledges some problems with his own world view, like social Darwinism, but does a poor job of dealing with the human nature behind the problem. This is due to his “enlightened” view of human nature, which can never account for the real “evil” in this world. Thinking good thoughts and crunching numbers to pay for the United Nations’ “Millennial Development Goals” signed by every nation in the Great Eight, including the United States, doesn’t appear to be enough; none of the nations have made good on their promises. Sachs seems to disregard greed and the will to power as a problem of human nature.

He is right to conclude that ending poverty is our duty, but he fails miserably, in his chapter entitled “Why We Should Do It,” to actually tell us why we should do it. He merely offers the old American western boomer bootstrap mentality that “We’re all winners” (to borrow a line from a Seinfeld episode). I do not think that “Christianizing” the world is going to eradicate hunger and poverty, but I do believe that if we continue to try to do ethical and moral things apart from an ethical and moral God, we will continue to run in to the empty, soulless, and shallow promises that modernism has delivered. Technology and reason have done wonderful things for mankind. And as Rodney Stark reminds us, Christianity played a huge role in advancing the scientific theory that advances that technology. However, technology and reason have also shaped the bloodiest and vilest century humanity has ever seen. Human reason is flawed and limited, and decisions will continue to be made out of expedience and self interest, spelling disaster for the victims in its wake.

Although aspects of the book were upsetting, I do believe that it is a worthwhile read. I resonate with Sachs’ heart for the poor. I concur with his plea that this project is the moral thing to do; it is also very dear to the heart of the God many of us claim to worship.

Scores of verses from Genesis to Revelation remind us that “he who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him” (Proverbs 14:31). Believers in a creator should be championing attempts to end injustice and promoting organizations like Jubilee 2000 and the One Campaign—groups that lobby the Great Eight, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank to eradicate debt for the poorest countries in the world. Most of these countries cannot put any of their gross natural product toward the education and health of their people, as they are too busy paying off trillions of dollars of debt to the world’s richest nations.

Sachs eradicates the myth that if governments eliminate debt and give these nations money, corrupt leaders will take the money and use it for their own pleasures. This is a myth that is most often used as a justification of why these countries shouldn’t be given aid. Sachs argues rightly that “Africa’s governance is typical for countries at the same level of income.” He goes on to state that issues of good governance, freedom, and democracy will come more as a result of a stable economy, not the other way around.

I also appreciate his research regarding the needed amount of money to end this travesty. Many people wrongly perceive that billions have been given to these countries and the money has been squandered in poor planning or corruption. In reality, as Sachs indicates in this book, the money given is simply not enough and is usually spent on immediate needs and debt relief instead of programs that would begin to end poverty and hunger. Subsequently, he calls for the wealthy nations to honor their commitment to the United Nations “Millennium Development Goals” written and agreed on in 2001 by the Great Eight. The goals are to:

• Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
• Achieve Universal Primary Education
• Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
• Reduce Child Mortality Rates
• Improve Maternal Health
• Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Infectious Diseases
• Ensure Environmental Sustainability
• Develop a Global Partnership for Development

These goals are achievable and morally sound according to Sachs. However, skepticism abounds; Sachs observes that despite the “1978 Pledge of ‘Health for All by the Year 2000’ the world arrived in 2000 with the AIDS pandemic, resurgent TB and malaria, and billions of the world’s poor without reliable, or sometimes any, access to essential health services.” He goes on to say that wealthy nations—who pledged 0.7 percent of their GNP to help this cause—actually decreased their giving from 0.3 to 0.2 percent in the 1990s, which was considered a time of economic boom for many of these countries. I believe that Sachs is in denial when he claims that morality and values aren’t relevant, because this is a matter of greed and power, not resources. The United States, widely believed by many to be the largest benefactor, does indeed give more money annually than any other country—but is only the seventh highest donor in the developed, western countries by percentage of GNP. [2]

Can the United States afford to give more? No doubt. In 2000, the IRS released a report on the richest taxpayers. The top 400 richest taxpayers alone had a combined income of $69 billion, which is $12 billion more than the combined GNP of four indebted countries [3] on President Bush’s “Tropical Tour.” Once again we see that the problem is one of value, not resources. All the technology and human reason so cherished in the West is not going to eradicate poverty in our lifetime when the wealthiest countries continue to give less than 0.2 percent of their GNP.

I appreciate Sachs’ heart for this issue. He is concerned that decreasing U.S. giving will hurt its place in world politics. In truth, the United States has much to offer a world that will only sink deeper and deeper into modernist/Marxist utopias if we fail to obey God’s desire to help the poor. This issue should be on the forefront of any Christian-led political agenda, but it is not. This leads many to skepticism, and fear—especially of the religious right, who, although a minority in the United States, have the political voice of a majority.

Reading Sachs’ book, I was convicted in my own hypocrisy of being a pseudo-liberal decrying the evils of multi-national corporations and capitalism. While I agree with Sachs that the anti-globalization movement has challenged the Great Eight, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank for their “self-serving accolades,” they have been misinformed and sometimes a bit hypocritical. Sachs challenged me to rethink wealth-building and even to look at it from a biblical perspective.

Neither wealth itself nor the people given the ability to make wealth are evil. Such people are in a position to effect change in this world. The Gates Foundation alone is doing more than any single foundation or religious institution, period. They must be recognized for that, and hopefully their generosity will challenge the Church to similarly give to causes outside of its own four walls. While I am still reserved on my economic views, as I believe that people should regard money from a stewardship point of view, I have been clearly challenged to think beyond a simple gut-reaction.

But I was disappointed with two aspects of Sachs’ world view. First, he fears the religious right’s “powerful force,” due to his perception that belief in the “end of the world” from a Left Behind perspective fuels the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Where does this idea come from? Second, and this is admittedly a nitpick, Sachs takes the righteous highroad when he discusses his involvement in Poland’s economic recovery only after they adopted a free democracy. He then goes on to praise China and works readily with them in their economic recovery, in spite of their communism and gross, documented human rights violations.

So what should the Church do? I want to suggest a few things, some inspired by Sachs.

1. Make a commitment to help with the world’s hunger, disease, and economic
issues.

2. Begin to listen to, and raise the voice of, the poor in our land—and especially abroad.

3. Make a personal commitment to living out the gospel in ways that reflect the heart of God.

4. Preach a gospel that includes a lived-out lifestyle and not just a personal/individualistic salvation.

5. Encourage setting aside money and human resources to help social causes that are not only outside our church’s walls, but that do not necessarily benefit our own congregation.

6. Include in matters of our holiness/sanctification our responsibility to our communities and the world.

7. Communicate the world’s heartaches to our people, so that they can make well-informed decisions and prayers.

8. Ask God to break our hearts, so that we love the things He loves and hate the things He hates.

I don’t know if we are going to end poverty, but I do believe Christians are called to care about the plight of the suffering, poor, and marginalized. The Gospel is best served through a congregation living it, serving and loving the people to whom God has called them. We would be amiss to serve only our immediate neighbor, when Christ Himself has defined a neighbor as the one in need.

Notes
[1] Extreme poverty, unlike moderate or relative poverty, means that the households cannot meet basic needs for survival such as food, clean water, health care, education, and basic shelter and clothing; subsequently many of these people die daily from very preventable diseases, over-exposure to the elements or hunger. Approximately 1.1 billion people (nearly 20% of the world’s population) live in extreme poverty.
[2] The current figure for the U.S. is 0.15% or 0.18% if you include private citizens and the non-profit giving sector.
[3] Botswana, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda.

The Da Vinci Code

— Overview
— Cast and Crew
— Photo Pages

The Da Vinci Disappointment

OK, we all know that this is a Christian web site, and that I, of course, am a Christian. And for sure, according to men like Robert Langdon, I have no ability to remain unbiased about my view of this movie. Let the reader beware.

Ah, maybe that's true; but certainly any amateur historian can tell that the "facts" in this movie are, er, well, even more skewed than in Dan Brown's novel. All that aside (and I swear there will be no mention from here on in regarding the theology and fictional nature of this movie), it was a huge disappointment nonetheless. I should have known a movie with this much hype would have failed to deliver. Still, I wasn't really that surprised.

What really surprised me was how the book became such a bestseller in the first place. It was severely preachy (in a way that prevented you from drawing your own conclusions, or even thinking for yourself) and dull, with limited action. I have said all along that Brown's Angels and Demons would have made for a better movie.

In spite of the talents of one of our nation's premiere actors (Tom Hanks) and directors (Ron Howard), this movie is choppy and rushed, yet still too long (with awkward dialogue reminicsent of The Omega Code and Left Behind). I had a similar feeling reading the book, which was 100 pages too long. So I don’t really think that the problem was completely with Howard or Hanks. There simply wasn’t enough legitimate storyline in the book to make it a go. Hanks' and Howard's biggest faux pas is the fact that they took the gig in the first place.

I did feel, however, that Ian McKellen was convincing as Leigh Teabing. (I guess when you hate the Church as much as he does, it’s easy to play a guy that hates the Church?) What I don’t get is how the famed Roger Ebert can say, "The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations." What "startling revelations" did he see? Was he high? This movie is severely enslaved to the obvious. The alleged "startling revelations" have long been drawn out in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Tomb of God and The Jesus Mysteries. There are no new startling revelations—just old revelations made far more concrete and unengaging. The only thing startling is the fact that this movie will gross millions.

I was disappointed the most because I actually expected Howard and Hanks to make this movie better than the book, and had heard that there were some plot twists that would "blow my mind." Well, they did clean up a few inaccuracies—like, Silas the homicidal, albino monk has blue eyes instead of red like in the book. We can thank NOAH (National Organization of Albinism and Hypo-pigmentation) for that, and Howard even made Langdon a spokesman for some of the counter arguments of Teabing's rant in regard to Christianity being a fabrication based on pagan religions.

That lasts for, oh, about two minutes, until even Langdon is rescued from the miry clay of Christianity's dirt and becomes a true believer in the grail legend.

The one thing the movie did reveal to me was the absurdity of that legend's claims. It made National Treasure look like a documentary. As a matter of fact, I think the comparison is very valid. National Treasure was entertaining, and The Da Vinci Code was, well, read above. Both movies had a conspiracy theory as the main story, but one preached and the other showed. They both found their treasures at the end, but one was worth something and the other was dissatisfying. They both were supposed to be intriguing, and one was and the other wasn’t.

Instead of continuing my rant, I will attempt to make two observations that underlie this movie. The first of these is a positive look at Sophie's rise from skepticism to belief. The book conveys the impression that it's more important that Sophie find her family than that she find the Holy Grail. But in the movie, family issues are wholly secondary (her brother is even written out of the script), and it is revealed that Sophie is indeed the last remaining descendent of Jesus Christ. In a scene at the end of the movie, Langdon (Hanks) asks Sophie (Audrey Tatou) if knowing that she was from the line of Jesus would change her view in regards to faith and her place on earth. You got a sense that she has been struggling with her identity, and what to do with it. In spite of Hanks' New Age lines “It only matters what you believe,” and “What's divine? Maybe the divine is in all of us,” we do feel that maybe her struggle is similar to the universal struggle of coming to terms with an identity in Christ.

We all struggle with or against faith (one way or another) and what we should do as a result—and Sophie, at least, matures into her role as a descendent of Jesus Christ. She is a stark contrast to Silas, who seeks redemption through self-flagellation, while never coming to a knowledge of the truth. But Sophie comes to saving knowledge, of a sort, by realizing her identity is in Him and not herself.

My second observation ends with a whimper. Teabing fights hard to reveal the heinous coverup of the Church, one that made Jesus Christ a god who died for our sins while vitiating the "sacred feminine" in its path. He mouths the skeptic's mantra that "a belief in one true god means killing in his name." It's important for Teabing to reveal the truth, so that the world can find out that the "greatest story ever told is a lie."

I am trying to analyze that as a believer, trying to objectively think through its ramifications. Is it better to make Jesus a man who got married and did some decent things (and even that’s debatable) and then dies, or to portray Him as the God/Man who, because of His great love for His Father and His creation, came to earth to put His life down for the sake of others so that His justice could prevail in a very unjust land, bringing hope to millions in an otherwise meaningless existence? Maybe the divine is in all of us, and we have killed millions in our own name!

Whether the biblical story is true or not is certainly up for debate, as the movie weakly demonstrates. But it is still the greatest story ever told. There is no greater story than love conquering hate through sacrifice. And this is ultimately the movie’s greatest flaw. Though the ending of Dan Brown's book was equally non-redemptive, it was at least open-ended and embraced a sense of mystery. But the movie changes the ending and reveals the physical hiding place of the Holy Grail.

But in spite of the glorious music that accompanies the find, I found myself saying, "So what! Where's the hope? Is this startling revelation all you have?"

Unfortunately, the answer is "yes."

Idealism: The Philosophy of The Matrix (Nonfiction)

Author: Harun Yahya
Category: Nonfiction
Publisher: Global Publishing
Format: Paperback
Pub Date: 2003
Price: $22.99
ISBN: 9756426322

Idealism: The Philosophy of the Matrix and the True Nature of Matter

I was asked to review this book because of my fondness of the Matrix trilogy, and my basic knowledge of Islam. The book is written by a Muslim scholar, and Hollywood Jesus felt that it would be interesting to get another perspective on the movie itself. After all, the majority of what is written on this site is done by Christians.

To be perfectly honest, I found this book to be one of the weirdest I have ever read. First of all, I have rarely seen a book of its nature to be so illustrated with full color pictures, and ornate borders on every page. I have to suppose that this the modern equivalent of “illuminated” texts, a basic attempt at contextualization since ancient holy scriptures are written in the same ornate fashion.

Secondly, even though the book is 285 pages long, it only has approximately 150 pages of content—all of which appears to be saying the same thing. It was almost as arduous to read through as the Quran or Leviticus since it was so redundant, and didn’t appear to make any point except that matter is ultimately an illusion of the mind. Yahya spills an untold amount of ink trying to explain away matter scientifically, and then uses the last few chapters to decry the modern scientific theories of evolution.

How could he use highly theoretical ideas found in such disciplines as virtual reality and neurobiology, and then trash the same said science as fallacious in the end?

The author makes his case that the Matrix reflects the philosophy of “idealism,” an “approach to philosophical enquiry. As a basis for cosmology, or an approach to understanding existence, idealism is often contrasted with materialism, both belonging to the class of monist as opposed to dualist or pluralist ontologies.” The idea of the philosophy is that ultimately there is no “real reality.” Matter is an emanation of consciousness, or of an ultimate consciousness in the case of eastern monism. Yahya argues through his entire book that all of our senses are being fooled into believing that material things exist outside of our perceptions of them in our brain. The following quote underscores his main point:

“Everything a person thinks he possesses—house, car, family, job and friends—are all composed of images and sensations that occur in the brain. Anyone who understands this will also understand that the one who has created these images in his brain is God, to whom all things belong. For that reason, those who are emotionally attached to the life of this world greatly fear this reality.

Now, I do agree with him that The Matrix reflected an idealist philosophy (not to mention enough philosophical worldview for everyone from Christians to Buddhists to claim the movie as their own); but I would also point out the problems that the movie ultimately ran into because of it.

First, our author believes that the images God created aren’t real. Therefore there is really nothing that really belongs to Him. He is ultimately just part of His creation, which is surprising given the ostensibly monotheistic leanings of Islam.

Second, since nothing was really real in the matrix, except for the possibility of a hyped-up computer sending light impulses to the brain, nothing ultimately mattered in the movie; this became the movie's own bane. This is the problem I do believe with monistic religions and philosophies. If everything is an emanation from the one, then there really is no transgression against anything real. From this standpoint, sin ultimately is non-existent.

This is the problem Augustine runs into, too, when he accepts a Platonic view of evil as a privation rather than real transgression—the view of the Greeks who believed that matter was evil and the spirit was good. This is why Greek gods like Dionysius, who is allegedly the precursor for the “divine-man, savior God” we see in Christian mythology (Jesus’ story of God becoming man, and dying and resurrecting) is spurious. First of all, it is hard to determine which myth borrowed off the other since the mystery religions never wrote down or canonized their “doctrine,” and secondly Dionysius could never have been seen as flesh and as a sacrifice for anything, since the gods could never truly become human and remain gods at the same time.

Subsequently, since matter was evil, it was seen as illusory or immaterial, didn’t ultimately matter, and had no real need for a savior. This is why I do believe that monistic religions view “salvation” as merely some form of enlightenment (an awareness of the pathway towards healing, holiness, nirvana, etc.) rather than atonement for real sins against a real God.

Islam therefore doesn’t believe in the cross, or have a need for the cross, because all that man needs is to be properly pointed back to the law so that they can live their lives in ways that are pleasing to Allah.

Finally, Yahya, sets up his idealism against scientific materialism, without allowing the possibility that God could create real material, and might be the sovereign agent behind that matter. This is the difference between the Quran’s creation out of existing matter, and the Bible’s creation out of nothing. Biblically, creation isn’t the result of something that took human consciousness and “reprogrammed” it to think that reality and matter exist— it is in fact a “substance” that is distinct, yet originating from a creator.

All in all, I found this book too pedantic and redundant, failing to deal with the plot and the myriad of metaphors that the movie allows, choosing instead to preach religion without opening up the possibility of other themes.

In spite of the fact that much of this book is redundant, and might reflect a flawed philosophy, Yahya makes a decent point that not everything we see is everything that there is. We both disagree with the materialist viewpoint that the material world is all that matters. But without a reality connect to the material, there really is no foundation for otherness—and without otherness, there is no real foundation for virtues like love or compassion.