Chronicle (the Movie)

I think there is much more to this movie than meets the eye.

Spoiler Alert: Don’t read if you want to see the movie.

Storyline: Three high school friends gain telekinetic powers after making an incredible discovery of a strange object in a cave. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as one of them embraces his darker side.

What would happen if you gave a group of teenagers extremely strong telekinetic powers?

It depends on the teenagers. In this movie you have three very different teenagers brought together by accidently gaining telekinetic powers from an unknown source. They bond together as they learn what they can do with their powers. Steve is running for class president and is the most popular kid in school. Andrew is an unpopular misfit with a dying mother and alcoholic abusive father. Matt fits in somewhere between the two.

Andrew uses his powers and accidentally hurts someone. Matthew, his cousin, says they need to come up with rules on when and how to use the powers. I can see him quoting Uncle Ben from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this situation, Matt was pleading for an moral standard.

Together they continue to learn and grow their powers. However, giving people powers that are not prepared for it can be devastating. Andrew and Steve do a magic show during the schools talent show. Andrew’s reputation changes instantly; finally, he is popular. However, Teenagers’ feelings are fickle, so when Andrew pukes on a girl at the after party, the taunting becomes worse that it was before. In addition, his father becomes more abusive as he thinks his son is up to no good. Andrew starts to feel the walls closing in.

Out of anger, Andrew accidentally kills Steve, who was trying to tell him he was still his friend. He then confronts his father and beats him up for a change. This becomes the beginning of the end, as if Andrew had tasted blood for the first time.

In a key scene to the story Andrew sits in a junk yard and crushes a car with his mind. In his internal monologue Andrew uses naturalistic evolutionary bases to explain his justification for his coming actions. His first premise is the idea that an apex predator does not feel guilt in killing inferior animals. His next premise is that he is now a superior being. His conclusion is that he then should not feel guilty if he harms others.

The final straw comes when he cannot buy medicine to ease his mother’s pain. He then rationalizes robbing people. When a robbery at a gas station goes wrong and the station explodes, Andrew ends up unconscious in the hospital. His dad comes in and tells him his mother has died and blames him because he had to go look for him that night.

Andrew snaps and the mayhem begins. Matt goes to talk to him and reason with him, but he won’t listen. The talk deteriorates to an all-out brawl. They tear the city up with their fight. In the end his anger gets the best of him, and Matt has to kill him.

You can see the materialistic naturalism based morality play out with the Judeo-Christian based objective morality being contrasted as the story progresses.[1] The self-destructive materialistic naturalism played out to it’s natural conclusion. The moral of the story: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you don’t believe you have a responsibility, you will follow self-gratification to your own destruction, leaving behind untold carnage. This is a powerful story with a powerful message.

Movie Information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

Footnote:

[1] Both materialistic naturalism and Judeo-Christian moralities are objective. I just want to point out they are both based on something rather than the relativist position where morality depends on any number of factors. Materialistic naturalism is very much like social Darwinism (social evolution). Naturalism holds that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe and not supernatural ones, i.e. God. Materialism holds that the only things that exist in the Universe are matter and energy. Morality is thus derived as a result of material interactions i.e. genetics. It follows from this that if there is no higher power, why do we have constraints on behavior? Why not live out survival of the fittest? Morality is thus objective because you are hardwired for it. Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?

On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian view is that morality comes from the Creator. Especially in Christian doctrine, every person was created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and thus has value. It follows then that killing of people is wrong because there is a command not to from God and because people are of value to God.

One could argue that the movie does not specifically show Matt’s position as Judeo-Christian. I guess that is true, it could be based on Jainism where all life and non-violence is considered sacred. Some Native American tribes would have a similar quasi-pantheistic or animistic view. In any case Matt’s view of morality is transcendent (being entirely beyond the universe) while Andrews is materialistic (being entirely in the universe).

This is first in a series of posts about miracles. I have wanted to explore miracles for some time now. Lately, I have had some time to think about miracles while reading some materials preparing a class. This is a very interesting subject and there are a number of theories out there. People tend to hold to their theories very strongly. I am not sure why people hold their theories so strongly, given proving one way or another may be impossible. Proving any theory on miracles is out of reach at the moment. The best we can do is, objectively, explore the possibilities and see which one fits best with what we know.

This will be a series of posts, as I don’t think I can contain all of my thoughts in one short post. Difficult topics are never easy or straightforward. As I explore this topic, I welcome your comments. I welcome them because that is how we learn and there is nothing an amateur philosopher likes more than to be challenged. ;-)

In order to have a meaningful conversation about miracles, we are going to have to nail down the theories of causation first. We have to start with causation because a miracle, by definition, is something unnatural, unwarranted and unexplained. In other words, the only explanation, or cause, is something beyond our normal natural experience. Since we don’t see an obvious cause, we then theorize about what the cause might have been. God is generally seen as the cause, however others may see the cause as something spiritual or even some type of non-cognizant power or energy. For this first post, I will limit my comments to God as the cause and simply note that I understand there are other points of view. I hope to address these other theories in future posts.

In western cultures, there are two opposing theories about causation, Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

Supernaturalism posits a Universe where God is the cause of all things. Supernaturalism holds that God is the immediate cause of all effect. In other words, if you place water on a gas stove it would not be the flames or heat that boils the water, it is God who boils the water. Supernaturalism in this sense is not necessarily the action of spirits, ghost or the paranormal. Supernaturalism requires one cause; multiple causes (various spirits etc…) would be causing different things in different ways and nothing would be predictable. However, our experience is predictable.

I can see three problems with Supernaturalism. First, scientific inquiry seems like it would be impossible. Science requires predictability. If God intervenes unpredictably or does not cause water to boil just once, science is rendered useless. Second, supernaturalism leaves us with a deceptive God because the universe appears to follow natural laws. Finally, if God causes all things, it is not the ax murderer who kills people, it would be God. In addition, there would be no such thing is free will. Again, we seem to have a free will and if we seem to and we don’t, we end up with a deceptive God again.

A key thing to remember about supernaturalism is that science does not disprove this position. Science and predictability would only prove that God, “the cause of all things” is consistent, as consistent as the laws of nature.

Naturalism, in the classic sense, posits a God who created the Universe, the laws that govern it and was the primal cause by starting all things. Think of a line of dominoes, you hit the first one and then the one you hit, hits the next one and so on. If we look at the last domino to fall we can determine that the cause was the previous domino falling on it. We can look at all the dominos and see that this cause and reaction are predictable. We call the predictability natural laws and they are and we can determine their immediate cause. You can make the case that you dropped the last domino though secondary causes or a type of causal change. God is the primal cause and thus the source through inheritance for all other causes. In creation, we call this causal chain the cursus communis naturae or the common course of nature.

One problem with naturalism is it seems to support either a deist or atheist position. In its extreme form, naturalism is a deist position. God, like a watch maker, winds up the universe and lets it run without intervention. Naturalism denies miracles and requires an, as of yet anunknown, cause for anything that is labeled as a miracle. This position militates against many religions and theologies that see God as intervening in the world.

These two theories are seen as extreme ends of a large continuum of intermediate positions. Through most of Church History the majority position has been that God created the Universe with natural laws to govern them and that, on rare occasions, God intervenes. These rear incidents are considered miracles because they don’t fit in the normal course of nature. This position squares better with what we know from our experience and revelation.

In a later post I will explore some different questions about miracles:

• What if a miracle has a natural cause? Is it still a miracle? 
• Can science explain all miracles? If we can show a scientific explanation or natural causes for miracle, does that disprove God?
• What about the objection that eventually our science will catch up to the point that we will be able to explain miracles. Just because it can’t now, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
• What about some of the extreme positions on miracles?
• Do you have a question about miracles?

Bibliography
Principe, Lawrence M. "Science and Religion." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2006.
Williams, Thomas. "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company, 2007.

Notes of a Baptist Exorcist: New Testament Teachings and Examples for Exorcising Demons Today
by Dr. Roderick H. Pyatt Ph.D.

I really liked this book and the balanced approach of Dr. Pyatt. The problem of most Protestants is they tend to gravitate to the extremes on the topic of possession and exorcism. Either they ignore the topic politely out of some sort of embarrassment or concern of how they will look to others or they see demons in everything and anything bad that happens to you is a direct action of the devil. Neither of those positions is supported by scripture. Dr. Pyatt addresses the topic in a manner that is biblical and not to the extreme. The book is more or less his notes on the subject. I think it would get better reception if it was more academic. For example, I would like to see it include footnotes and endnotes and if he spent time teasing out some of the finer points.

Characteristics of Possession

Pyatt also relates one way in which people can be possessed. Demons have to have some type of entry, in other words, they are invited. Often people will consult items such as Ouiji boards for some selfish reason. The items do not necessarily have power, for example the Demon is not in the Ouija board. He does however recommend disposing of such items. Not because they have power but for the sake of others.

Dr. Pyatt’s relates the following characteristics of possession. People, while possessed, will speak in a voice that is not their own. The demons typically show themselves intermittently with no set schedule. Demons will have some type of entry, typically using the spiritual or paranormal for selfish reasons. During active possession, the person is usually locked out by the demon that is in total control. The activity, duration and intensity of possessions are variable. When the demon is not active, we don't know if it leaves or becomes dormant. Dr. Pyatt’s position is that locations can be possessed (or infested [my word]) in addition to people. Does that mean animals can be possessed? He also believes that ghosts are disembodied human spirits and that ghosts can be tormented be demons. In one story he relates a story of a ghost that was hiding from what the ghost communicated was the "Dark Man" (demon). When a demon is present, people can sense an instant subtle change in the atmosphere of the house or location. Once a demon is cast, out it may return and may bring friends. Dr. Pyatt also believes that property can be possessed.

Pyatt's Approach to Exorcism

Pyatt believes people can have the God-given gift of discernment. With this sense of discernment, people can sense when demons are near and when a person or property is possessed. We should look to God for guidance on all things, including exorcism. Catholics require diocese bishop approval "Official Permission" to perform exorcism. Dr. Pyatt feels all Christians have the authority. In contradistinction to Catholic exorcism, ritualism is not Biblical. In the Bible, exorcisms were plain and simple. For Pyatt, Christians don't need anything more than Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Not by our power but the power of Christ, simple faith on what Jesus promised He would do for us. Likewise, he views Holy or blessed items, such as crosses or Holy water, as having no innate power. In addition he feels knowing the name of the demon has no bearing what-so-ever on the success or failure of an exorcism.

For Pyatt the purpose of exorcism is to bring glory to God and not the exorcist. He warns anyone who uses paranormal or metaphysical powers for selfish means or profit should be avoided.

Pyatt has a Shot-gun exorcism (his definition) he uses when there is no definite target. He asks the Holy Spirit to touch everyone in the room. He references God as the One to whom he represents, the One who is with him. When he addresses the demons, he talks to them as if they are human adversaries. He takes the fight out of them by making them expend lots of energy by getting them angry and upset. Not sure if it is the demon that gets tired or the host. This may take many hours. Typically, the demon will leave suddenly and everyone will notice a sense of lightness in the room.

Demons

Pyatt relates a number of characteristics of demons in his book. First off, in secular paranormal genre, they are often referred to as elementals or poltergeists. Demons have a hierarchy. Prime demons are the most powerful of the demons and the subordinate, or lesser demons are less powerful. In spite of popular belief, demons are not in Hell. They are roaming around hunting. Not only do demons have the ability to speak but they have a will, intelligence, emotions and they are self-aware. Demons can make mistakes and have negative reactions.

Pyatt's Take on Ghosts

Pyatt does not have a problem with ghosts being disembodied spirits, although Some Churches teach the belief that ghosts are demons. There is no proof-positive either way and there is nothing pro or con in the Bible about ghosts being departed humans. Pyatt also makes the claims that ghosts cannot be exorcised because they are not demons.

Pyatt’s take on Sensitives

People that are 'Sensitive' can sense demons and ghosts. He warns us to be wary of them and extremely cautious because many are charlatans. He says there is nothing wrong with someone who is a sensitive. The only wrong part is if they use their gift for personal gain.

The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist
by Matt Baglio

This was a good book, well written and engaging. I really liked the Catholic treatment of exorcism. They seem to have a very balance approach, not falling into the extremes such as seeing every illness as possession and not denying all possessions as frauds or myth. I have seen other Protestants criticism of Catholics for relying too much on the superstitious use of relics like crucifixes as if they were somehow endowed with magical power or having some spiritual energy or force in and of themselves. According to Baglio the focus is on the power of God and the faith of the exorcist and that the Rite and relics are only aids. Baglio quotes Father Candido Amantini, "We can do only our best, and then we must leave the final decision up to God."

The exorcism account in the book of Tobit is an important story for us to study as it gives us an understanding of second temple period Judaism and early Christian views on the topic of demon possession and exorcism.

Background of Tobit
Tobit was from Israel and part of the deportation to Assyria. This story should give some insight in how Jews saw demon possession. This would be either from the time of the exile, although others would give the book a later date sometime during second temple period.

Situation
A girl named Sarah was possessed by a demon named Asmodeus and that demon caused the death of 7 of her husbands. I have to wonder how the 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 husbands felt about their respective engagements. I would be leery if I was husband 2 let alone 7. Sarah's solution to this problem was suicide; however, she did not go through with it. Instead she prayed to God to take her life, rather than bring dishonor to her father by committing suicide. Her concern about suicide was not the disposition of her soul; she wanted to protect her families honor over relief from her possession.

One noteworthy part of this story is the desire for the possessed person to seek death. Sarah sought suicide but ultimately did not. Contemporary cases of supposed demon possession often include suicidal tendencies. Her we have a correlate between ancient evens and contemporary events leading us to the conclusion that one indication of possession is the desire to relief themselves by committing suicide.

In answer to Sarah's prayer, Raphael (one of the 7 archangels) was dispatched and Sarah was given Tobit's son Tobis for marriage. God answered her prayer to take her life with an alternative she did not ask for. I wonder why she did not ask for a solution other than death. In any case God answer the prayer with angelic assistance.

Events were arranged to bring Tobis to Sarah. Raphael disguised as a distant relative agrees to accompany Tobis for protection on a trip for him to recover money for his father. Raphael accompanied Tobis on that trip, and during their travels they stop along the way and Raphael tells him to catch a fish and gut it.

“Cut open the fish and take out its gall, heart, and liver. Keep them with you, but throw away the intestines. For its gall, heart, and liver are useful as medicine.” Tobit 6:5 NRSV

Raphael later explains why he wanted Tobis to keep the fish guts.

“As for the fish’s heart and liver, you must burn them to make a smoke in the presence of a man or woman afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, and every affliction will flee away and never remain with that person any longer. And as for the gall, anoint a person’s eyes where white films have appeared on them; blow upon them, upon the white films, and the eyes will be healed.” Tobit 6:8–9 NRSV

Raphael arranges for Tobis to meet Sarah and take her as wife. Raphael gives Tobis instructions on how to expel the demon.

"When you enter the bridal chamber, take some of the fish’s liver and heart, and put them on the embers of the incense. An odor will be given off; the demon will smell it and flee, and will never be seen near her any more. Now when you are about to go to bed with her, both of you must first stand up and pray, imploring the Lord of heaven that mercy and safety may be granted to you. Do not be afraid, for she was set apart for you before the world was made. You will save her, and she will go with you." Tobit 6:17–18 NRSV

This is an interesting text. Apparently, according to this text, demons, which are spiritual entities, have senses here in the physical world. Did they use the senses of Sarah or did they have their own? Does the fish liver and heart have some sort of energy or power? Some exorcists claim that objects can by bless, that is imbued with some sort of spiritual power, most notably Catholics. Other exorcists, however, do not feel that objects such as holy water or crosses have any power or do anything to remove demons. They feel the power that removes the demon is the name of Jesus Christ or the faith of the exorcist in conjunction with the faith of the possessed. In this story the burning of the fish liver and heart acts as an irritant and there is no indication that there is some sort of spiritual power related to burning the dead fish parts. I guess dead fish smell is so bad it can scare demons away ;-).

Another interesting point here is that Raphael promises the demon will not return. However we will see later that Jesus indicates demons can return and even stronger (Luke 11:24-26). Raphael also tells them to pray for safety. Today paranormal investigators and sensitives will often prey for protection if they think they are going into a hostile area. Again we see a correlation between modern activities and ancient ones.

Tobis follows Raphael's instructions.

"Then Tobias remembered the words of Raphael, and he took the fish’s liver and heart out of the bag where he had them and put them on the embers of the incense. The odor of the fish so repelled the demon that he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt. But Raphael followed him, and at once bound him there hand and foot." Tobit 8:2–3 NRSV

I have to admit the resolution is not what I expected. The demons fled to Egypt and Raphael bound him there. What does that mean? Why did the demon go to Egypt? Is this how Raphael knows that the demon would not return because he was going to bind him?

Footnote
Tobit is an apocryphal book used by most Christian groups Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and some Protestants. It is also included in LXX, [Septuagint], Vulgate and five fragments were found at Qumran.
The cannon was created to include books that were thought to be inspired by God. This does not mean books outside of cannon are not true, it simply means some people don't think it is inspired by God. I include this as an example of Jewish exorcism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Book: Secrets from Beyond the Grave, By Perry Stone

I actually never finished reading the book; I just could not get myself to finish it. I might add I am fairly open minded about differing points of view and willing to hear someone out. While some assertions where logical many where unsubstantiated. The hermeneutics are poor throughout the book. For example his claim that hell is under the Dead Sea or that it is one of many gateways to hell from here on Earth. The passages (biblical references) he uses are out of context and many require an illogical leap. Other points he makes in the book I have no issue with, however there is nothing new or groundbreaking on those topics. Sorry, I wanted to like it.

Secrets from Beyond The Grave