Dubs' Domination (and Other Thoughts on the 2014-15 NBA Season)

The Golden State Warriors owned the 2014-2015 NBA season.  Amazingly, they were first in defensive efficiency (98.2) and a close second (they only trailed by .1) in offensive efficiency (109.7).  They finished the regular season with a league best 67-15 record (which is also the franchise’s best).  They never lost three straight all season long.  Stephen Curry broke his own record for most three-pointers in a single season and then broke the record for most three-pointers done in a playoff run, as well as winning the regular season MVP along the way.  Klay Thompson broke the record for most points in a quarter with 37 (Curry and Thompson, the “Splash Brothers”, also broke the record for most three pointers by a pair of teammates in a single season).  Draymond Green nearly won the Defensive Player of the Year award.  There were All-Star, All-NBA, and All-Defensive selections among the Warriors roster.  Throughout this season, it was fairly obvious that the Warriors this season was definitely a championship pedigree team.

The championship was principally theirs for the taking.  The only way they could have failed was if they have an epic playoff meltdown.  But throughout the playoffs, the Warriors basically played the way they did when they dominated the season: poised and purposeful.  Even when down 2-1 during the series against Memphis and in the Finals itself, I never ever felt that this team was going to lose (okay, maybe a bit during the Finals).  It is because throughout this season, in dealing with any conflicts or setbacks, the Warriors never lost cool and focus.  If there were any worries, internal squabbles, or voicing out of displeasure, it was quietly dealt in the locker room.  There was no drama.  No distractions.  This was a team that never showed any signs of implosion.

Moreover, the Warriors were a real team-centric team.  Sure, Stephen Curry is the face of the Warriors, but it can never be truly said that the excellence of this team was an extension of his individual excellence.  This Warriors team actually functioned similarly to last year’s star-less Spurs mold rather than a team revolving around a superstar.  Sacrifices defined this team as scoring opportunities, starting positions, and rotation minutes were willingly given up to provide match-up advantages and development of younger players; which led to different players stepping up at different points during the season and playoffs (that’s why there was an opportunity for another Warrior aside from Curry or All-Star Thompson to win the Finals MVP). The Golden State Warriors’ whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts.

The Golden State Warrior’s domination of the season and the first title for the franchise in 40 years tells us several things.  First, though their championship-clinching “small ball” lineup isn’t the first to show us that a “small ball” team can win a championship – that would be the Miami Heat three seasons back – this Warriors proved that a team using an offense that heavily relies on jump shots over inside scoring – as long as it’s complemented by a topnotch defense, fast pace, and smart ball movement – can win a championship.  Second, contrary to what LeBron thinks, this basic basketball truth is validated: championships aren’t necessarily won by the best player but by the best team.

STEPHEN CURRY

Ever since his performance in the Warriors’ first round series against the Nuggets back in the 2013 playoffs and discovering that he’s a professing Christian, I’ve been a fan of Stephen Curry.  Hence, I was thrilled when Stephen Curry won the championship and the regular-season MVP.

First and foremost, as a Christian myself, it always cheers me whenever a Christian artist or athlete receives success since they are able to get the opportunity to direct the glory to God in front of the world.  And that’s what Curry has done amidst his accomplishments this season.  Being a Christian athlete, Curry displays the same attitude as fellow Christian NBA player Jeremy Lin to be the best basketballer he can possibly be so that the excellence of his talents would ultimately point towards the glory of God.  As Stephen Curry declared:

“I love that basketball gives me the opportunities to do good things for people and to point them towards the Man who died for our sins on the cross. I know I have a place in heaven waiting for me because of Him, and that’s something no earthly prize or trophy could ever top.  There’s more to me than just this jersey I wear, and that’s Christ living inside of me.”

Moreover, there is genuine joy in watching Curry play.  His skills in ball handling, passing, and – especially – shooting are so spectacular.  Despite his fragile stature, he has this noticeably formidable presence on the court.  Can’t help but be awed of the guy.

FINALS MVP

I’ve always liked Andre Iguodala.  A few years back, I was even hoping my Lakers would trade for him (instead, he was part of a multi-team trade that brought Dwight Howard to the Lakers and sent him to the Nuggets).  Hence, I really am glad that he got the Finals MVP.

This isn’t really the first time that someone unexpected won the Finals MVP, but Iguodala winning the Finals MVP is still a delightfully remarkable happening.  It’s quite ironic, actually.  He got this individual glory by sacrificing his pride and settling with a supporting player role.  At the start of the season, Iggy, a starter for his entire career, was asked by Coach Kerr to come off the bench and give his spot in the starting five to developing young forward Harrison Barnes.  And he unselfishly agreed to do so for the sake of the team’s success.  Throughout the season, he would play the role of the Dubs’ sixth man.

The voters could have gone the clichéd approach by awarding the Finals MVP to the winning team’s star player – in this case, regular-season MVP Stephen Curry – regardless of the fact that a teammate has been more consistently impactful as far as the games of the Finals are concerned.  Or the Finals MVP could have gone to LeBron (appropriately and interestingly, only Iggy and LeBron received votes for Finals MVP, with the former edging the latter 7 to 5) since his spectacular performance and stats had established him as the best player in this Finals and there was a legitimate cause to believe he was set to become the first Finals MVP belonging to the losing team since Jerry West in 1969.

But I believe the voters got it right picking Iggy.  A bench player from the start of the season until Game 3 of the Finals, Iggy proved to be the piece on which Warriors’ success in the Finals was hinge on.  The Cavs’ defense dared him to shoot, and he obliged, making them pay dearly, contributing heavily on offense.  But what made him Finals MVP is being able to be an impact in defense as much as offense.  He was given the task to guard LeBron, but though LeBron was a dominant force in the Finals, Iggy was able to defend him well enough to prevent his dominant play into translating into wins.  LeBron did score a lot as well as assisted on much of the Cavaliers’ points, but Iggy made him work hard to get them – depleting his energy down the stretch.  Also, LeBron had to take a lot of shots to get his points, and Iggy made him miss a significant amount.    Meanwhile, other Warrior defenders like Barnes and Thompson always got bullied whenever they found themselves guarding James.  Basically, if Iggy wasn’t around, the already dominating LeBron would actually have dominated much more, and could have probably carried the Cavs to a championship.   As someone who loves defense, I really appreciate what Iggy accomplished on the defensive end in this Finals.

COACH KERR

I have always known that Steve Kerr has a brilliant basketball brain.  When he was still an NBA player, he got the chance to be coached by Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich – arguably two of the greatest coaches of all time – and this definitely contributed much in giving him the deep understanding of the game that he possesses.  He was my most favorite basketball writer/analyst when he still worked for Yahoo! Sports, and his basketball smarts were apparent by how his articles oozed with thoughtfulness and insight.  He was also pretty sensible and eloquent when he worked as a TV analyst.

Hence, when he replaced Marc Jackson as head coach of Golden State Warriors, I was intrigued.  I felt that this team under Kerr could become something special.  Employing the principles he learned from his mentors – Jackson and Popovich – as well as the principles of his assistant coaches Ron Adams (one of the best defensive coaches now) and Alvin Gentry (known for his up-tempo offense), Coach Kerr did just that, developing the Golden State Warriors into a team that excelled in both ends of the floor.

Moreover, he successfully established a culture of sacrifice and teamwork (as mentioned earlier) in the team.  He willingly listened to suggestions, and give credit to whom is due.  Thus, his players and staff considered Kerr “the best boss in the world” (words of assistant coach Luke Walton), and trusted him enough to completely invest into every detail of whatever game plan he would prepare – even if it was pretty unconventional or perplexing.  And since Kerr’s decisions and adjustments generally proved to be masterful and yielded results, the team would trust him some more.

Unfortunately, Kerr lost to Atlanta Hawks coach Mike Budenholzer in consideration for Coach of the Year.  Nevertheless, a championship is much more important.  And by leading the Warriors through a history-making season, Kerr has established himself as the most successful rookie head coach in NBA history and a legitimate, elite head coach to be reckoned with in the future.

* * *

Miscellaneous thoughts about the 2014-2015 NBA season:

• Interesting trivia and image from Bleacher Report: Stephen Curry is the first player in history to beat every other member of the All-NBA First Team on his way to a title.
• For a while there, the depleted Cavs had me worried a bit that they could actually pull off an epic upset of the Warriors.  LeBron James on “basketball god mode” putting up phenomenal numbers in the Finals made it seem that Timofey Mozgov and Matthew Dellavedova were enough to fill in for injured Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving.   Nonetheless, even when the Cavs were up 2-1, I was confident the Warriors would still win for two reasons: a.) Coach Kerr’s knack of making successful adjustments kept the Warriors from losing three straight all season long; and b.) exhaustion should eventually set in on the Cavs’ short rotation.  As it had proven to be in Game 4, I was right in both counts.
• I’m first and foremost, an LA Lakers fan.  But as an NBA fan as well, I need a team to root for in the playoffs, and after I became a Stephen Curry fan, I have always rooted for the Warriors come playoffs time since the Lakers are unavailable in the playoffs in the past few seasons.
• I’m happy with Kawhi Leonard winning Defensive Player of the Year.  At last, a perimeter defender wins for the first time since Ron Artest in 2004.  I was tired of big men winning the DPOY year in, year out. 
• We never saw what Julius Randle – the pick Lakers earned for their awful 2013-2014 season – can do since he was brought down by a season-ending injury at opening night.  It was an indication on where this Lakers team was going for the rest of the season.
• The 2014-2015 Los Angeles Lakersturned out to be the most horrible team in franchise history.
• It’s official: time and wear-and-tear have already caught up with Kobe Bryant, and he’s simply isn’t the player we have been spoiled of knowing.  He no longer has the capacity to carry a subpar roster by himself as he did during the 2005-2007 seasons.  He still averaged 22.3 ppg but got there at 37.3 FG%.  I would love to see him back to elite form next season, but that looks unlikely at this point.    
• During the season, Kobe overtook Jordan as the 3^rd all-time leading scorer, but he also earned the record for missing more shots than any other NBA player in history. 
• Thank God for Kobe Bryant’s Muse, however.  
• And there’s some nice silver linings resulting from another failure of a Lakers season.  First, Jordan Clarkson, the 46^th pick of last year’s draft, was given ample playing time and proved to be a promising Laker.  And by being part of the All-Rookie First Team, Clarkson is basically the fifth best rookie of the batch at least.  Not bad for a second-rounder.
• Also, the Lakers’ awfulness earned them the second pick for this year’s draft!  With that draft expected to turn out being a talented center in Jahlil Okafor or Karl-Anthony Towns, the Lakers’ future looks bright with a trio of young potential franchise players in Randle, Clarkson, and whoever the result of the 2^nd pick be (just don’t mess it up, Mitch and Jim).
• Of course, I want the Lakers to win the championship next year.  But if that won’t be the case, I prefer the Dubs to repeat.

Read More

Mayweather Might Not Have Out-Fought Pacquiao, but He Absolutely Out-Boxed Him

As a Filipino and a PacMan fan, of course, I rooted for Manny Pacquiao.  But let me be objective here.  As far as the performance on the ring is concerned, Floyd Mayweather beat him fair and square. 

People who wanted to witness an exciting, full-on brawl is frustrated by how Mayweather refused to engage Pacquiao in a slugfest by constantly running away and clinching (hugging).  They thought of his style as dull and cowardly – or even a form of “cheating.”   However, what was displayed was actually boxing savvy. 

It is a misconception to equate boxing with brawling.  Mayweather’s “running” and “hugging” is within the parameters of the sport of boxing and he smartly used it to negate Pacquiao’s “slugger” advantage.  He ran away to avoid turning the fight into a slugfest, something he can’t win and doesn’t need to win; and clinched (hugged) whenever Pacquiao was gaining momentum.  Meanwhile, he collected points by connecting careful, well-picked shots out of Pacquiao’s initiated assaults.  It might be unsatisfying and boring to watch, but that was simply a perfect execution of smart, efficient, clinical boxing.  In spite of Pacquiao being the more active fighter, Mayweather’s style allowed him to dictate the pace and to land the cleaner punches.

I’ve always thought that it’s unlikely for Pacquiao to beat Mayweather via score cards (especially since he could be favored by the judges).  That’s why I believed that Manny could only win if he knocked Mayweather out – or, at least, knocked him down several times – and that his best gameplan was to go for broke and seek the knock out win as soon as possible.  If this had been the actual plan by Pacquiao’s corner all along, I never felt it during the match.  Yes, Pacquiao was the more aggressive fighter, as usual, but I never felt that he dominated.  

Pacquiao is definitely the better – or, some might even say, the only – fighter in that match.  That is something that can’t be denied.  However, by incorporating the exploitation of the flaws of the sport to his technique, Mayweather has made himself the superior boxer.  Mayweather knows that he doesn’t need to out-fight Pacquiao to win.  He just needs to out-box him.  Sorry to say, that’s exactly what happened.      

Miscellaneous musings:

• All that said, still, it would be nice if boxing rules are revised to penalize too much running and hugging.
• The Compubox stats had surprising results.  Mayweather having more punches landed and better accuracy is not really a shocker, but also having more total punches thrown?  Possibly true, but really hard to believe. 
• Manny Pacquiao is still the People’s Champion.  It was apparent from the crowd’s reaction.  He lost the so-called “Fight of the Century” but he will never lose the love and respect of the people.
• No matter the result, as long as Pacquiao does his best to glorify God, he is the winner in a more important matter. 
• Just as he promised during Pacquiao’s latest guesting in Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Jimmy really dressed up like Justin Bieber when he walked with Pacquiao into the ring.  Cracked me up.      
• I know Jamie Foxx can sing (he even won an Oscar by portraying rhythm and blues legend Ray Charles in Ray), but his singing of the American national anthem was hilariously awful.  The accompanying organ was just as bad.     
• I feel a mix of amusement and irritation by all the sour-graping in my Facebook news feed.  Understandable, but I wish for a little bit of classiness.
• It was said that Pacquiao was denied by the Nevada Athletic Association to take anti-inflammatory drug for his shoulder injury prior the fight.  Hence, Pacquiao was not in 100% condition.  Shame.  Could have had an opposite outcome if Pacquiao wasn’t injured, or was allowed some painkillers for the injury.    
• In an alternate universe, Pacquiao catches up with Mayweather’s running, corners him completely, and sends him falling to the canvass after a hard left hook.  Referee counts to ten.  Manny wins by knockout.  Immediately, the date of Manny’s return to the Philippines is declared as a special non-working national holiday to honor him.  Filipinos around the world are euphoric for weeks.
• There’s no reason for Mayweather to give Pacquiao a rematch.  But I wish there will be one.

Read More

Why 'Digimon' is Objectively Better than 'Pokemon'

I’ve grown up enjoying both Pokemon and Digimon.  But though Pokemon is the bigger and more popular franchise, I’ve always held the belief that – at least with regards to anime series – Digimon is better than Pokemon (but with regards to games and other products, I have no say on the matter since I’ve only got the chance to play Pokemon video games and card games and never with any Digimongames, though I’m familiar with the gameplay of Digimon World 2).

As far as premise is concerned, there is more substance in Digimon’s than Pokemon’s.  Both shows involve humans directing “monsters” to battle.  However, in Pokemon, the whole battling is primarily intended for human amusement.  It’s basically a reinvented form of cockfighting.  On the other hand, in Digimon, the battling has a nobler purpose – usually, to protect the world or humanity from evil threats.  Moreover, a Digimon acts more of a partner to the human in battle rather than just being a pawn as with the relationship of a Pokemon and its owner/trainer.  

Pokemon tells the story of a boy named Ash Ketchum who left home to travel the world to find and collect as much Pokemon as he can, then oblige them to battle with other people’s Pokemon, so that he can be the greatest Pokemon master ever.  The charm of Pokemon is hinged on the appeal of collecting, and as a collector of stuff myself (comics, books, toys, etc.), I understand the thrill of collecting things.  But, seriously, even if all these Pokemon don’t mind or even fancy being collected and used by humans for sport, there’s something selfish and petty about Ash’s motivation as well as the concept of Pokemon collecting and battling.   

Actually, I disdain Ash Ketchum.  Though he has some likable qualities, like genuinely loving his Pokemon and sincerity in offering friendship to everyone (even his antagonists), he is, nevertheless, an incompetent, dumb, bland, and annoying character.  It’s so frustrating how he is easily gullible and lacks some form of tactical talent as a Pokemon trainer (especially when you get to play his doppelganger, Red, in the games.  Red is a more interesting character and makes much smarter decision than Ash – primarily because Red is your virtual avatar.  Also, the characters in the manga – including Red, who happens to also star on a Pokemon manga series – have more personality and more interesting Pokemon lineups).  And there hasn’t been much character development with Ash either.  He’s basically what he is now as he was about eighteen year ago.            

And that’s another thing.  Ash – unappealing of a character that he is – has been the central character of Pokemonall this time.  That’s 18 seasons being stuck with this character.  And his characterization and purpose is basically intact all this time: travel the world, collect Pokemon, have mediocre adventures, battle with other trainers, so that he “can be the very best.”  Yada, yada. 

In Digimon, there are diverse protagonists, so you have the option of choosing which character you want to root for or relate to.  In the first series of Digimon, there were seven (which became eight later on) main protagonists.  And that’s just the first series, there have been more series after that, hence, more characters.  Moreover, actual character developments are happening with these characters.  They are not stagnant, but dynamic.  These characters grow up.  These characters change.  New characters are introduced.  It’s just like the character pool of Power Rangers. 

As what was already mentioned in the previous paragraph, Digimon also has the advantage of having different series like the Gundam franchise.  With each Digimon incarnation, there is a different set of characters and premises and rules.  Again, just like Gundam.  It keeps everything fresh and exciting.       

 

In terms of strorytelling, Pokemon is dumber, goofier, and more light-hearted, which is actually not a problem, but it makes the extent of its storytelling limited.  It doesn’t help either that the writing on Pokemon is just plain bad a significant amount of time.   On the other hand, Digimon’s storytelling is smarter and purposeful.  Yes, there is some amount of campiness on Digimon, of course, but that’s just for the sake of creating humor (it’s still a kid’s show after all).  Nonetheless, because of its more substantial premise, Digimonis able to have much more depth and stakes (i.e. death and tragedy happens) in its storytelling. 

And because there is more maturity in its storytelling, Digimon’s villains are often more interesting.  Digimon’s villains are more ambitious and ruthless.  Most Digimon villains are consistently in “global menace” level.  In Pokemon, though Ash encounters some serious threats once in a while (especially in the movies), the campy Team Rocket serves as the regular antagonists.  Now, I like their trademark chant and member Meowth (since I have an affinity to cats), but Team Rocket is just a pesky group of antagonists that we just can’t take seriously. 

Speaking of Meowth, he is one of the rare Pokemon that can communicate by human language.  Almost all other Pokemon merely utter their names (or syllables from their names).  But all Digimon can talk!  The ability to talk does not only give Digimon more personality and appearance of intelligence and independence, but also establishes better relationship between the Digimon and his human (again, they are partners).

The nature of evolution is also more interesting with Digimon than Pokemon.  A Pokemon evolves in a ladderized manner, and once it gets to the next level, it permanently stays at that form.   On the other hand, a Digimon’s evolution to a higher form isn’t permanent.  It can always go back to its status quo. Moreover, aside from evolving into a higher form, there are other varieties of Digimon evolution.  For example, Digimon can combine (temporarily, of course) with another Digimon to form a new Digimon form.  Also, humans can even (temporarily) combine with or transform into Digimon.  Evolution is definitely more exciting and complex in Digimon.   

Simply put, Digimon has the superiority in plot, premise, characters, and even in some other small details – like, Digivices and tags and crests are aesthetically cooler, more personalized, and has much more utility than Pokedexes and gym badges.  So those who say that Digimon is just an inferior imitation of Pokemon don’t really know what they are saying – either they haven’t watched enough episodes of both shows or they simply lack good taste.  Pokemon might have come first, but Digimon is objectively better. 

Read More

China's Invasion of the Philippines Will Happen in Our Lifetime

Satellite photo of the development of a Chinese military base in the West Philippine Sea

I have joked in the past that the Philippines is more or less ready for Chinese occupation due to the reality that most of our rich people have Chinese ancestry and surnames, numerous Chinese temples are scattered across the country, and Filipinos are fond of buying cheap, China-made knockoffs.  But, seriously, I extremely hate to see a Chinese invasion happening – to have the Philippines go to war with China, lose, and be occupied.  It’s a troubling scenario. 

Besides, if the Philippines will go to war, I will be probably be drawn to the conflict – whether by being conscripted to the Philippine military, or helping in the resistance.  It’s something I’m not particularly equipped for.  I’m awfully out of shape.  And after experiencing riding or witnessing some rides in Enchanted Kingdom about a year and a half ago, I learned that I’m pathetic in facing life-threatening danger.  I will arguably be useless in a fight.

I wish I’m just fooling around with the title of this article.  But there’s half of me that really believes the Chinese will make a move to invade us.  Probably not soon.  But maybe within the next two decades.  Yes, China has been historically controversially aggressive, but it seems that the communist country has been more so recently.  Sure, other countries are presently threatened by China, too.  But, looking at the signs being shown by our current status quo, if ever China decides to go an invasion spree, the Philippines is the likeliest first target.        

For years, China has constantly disrespected the sovereignty and boundaries of the Philippines.  But its recent construction of artificial islands and military bases within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone is its most disturbing action so far.  Some of those bases are only a little bit over a hundred kilometers away from Philippine mainland!  If ever China decides to invade the Philippines, its military logistics will easily flow through those military bases as entry points.  Definitely, China’s behavior is a clear prelude to invasion.  In fact, by clear violation of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone set by UNCLOS, it is already, technically, an invasion.        

This issue regarding China’s penetration into Philippine waters and its building of military bases should be dealt with ASAP.  I’m a bit upset that there seems to be a general ignorance and apathy about the matter, not only in the international community, but among Filipinos as well.  It is a matter that I believe deserves everyone’s utmost attention and should be addressed urgently.  Here are some things that I would like to see happen right now:      

Filipinos should be more attentive regarding the matter.  I understand that our country is dealing with countless problems internally.  But I still believe that the issue with China deserves a top priority.  I hope that the Philippine government and media will provide the attention that the issue deserves.  How can other nations see the urgency and magnitude of the problem if we Filipinos aren’t giving it the concern it deserves?  I understand that P-Noy wants to leave a great legacy.  And there’s probably no greater legacy than managing to address this matter, or at least, laying the groundwork for the next president to do it.

The Philippines should start lobbying for other countries’ support.  If the Philippines fall, other countries in the region is also open to invasion.  As early as now, the Philippines and other countries (India, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.) that have problems with China should openly declare an alliance already.  I want all these countries to strongly imply that they will gang up on China if necessary.

Strong reassurance from the US.  Our main military ally is the US.  The US promised that it will take military response if China continues to push its aggressiveness.  But, more than this, I hope the US will tangibly provide military assistance now by giving (or loaning) the Philippines a couple of modern military hardware.  A couple of drones, especially.  Such gesture will not only provide us some valuable weapons when time comes, but it will send the message to China that the US is committed on aiding us if they continue their aggressiveness.  In fact, I wouldn’t even mind if the Philippine government will officially declare what the Chinese are doing now is an invasion (which technically is exactly that anyway) and then request US aid in destroying those bases.

A US military base in Mindanao.  It has always been one of my realistic – because I also have a couple of far-fetched ones – dreams for this country, up there with a modern rail system operating in Luzon.  Let that sink in.  Think of the huge effect that a US military base will provide.

The US and the UN declaring an ultimatum for China to remove those bases.  If China refuses to comply, sanctions should be given.  The Philippines had already filed a case against China in the world court.  This case is a sure win for the Philippines (since simple common sense shows that China is at fault here), but China has made it clear that they won’t adhere to any decision in favor of the Philippines.  UN should grow a pair, and make a clear, firm statement right now of the actions they will take to enforce their ruling on the matter.

Diplomacy and taking legal action – which are the only things the Philippines is doing at the present – are of course the ideal ways to resolve this.  But the Philippines should, at this point, seriously consider what should be done once this channel is exhausted.  I’m not asking the Philippines to make a strong, hasty mobilization for war against China right now (besides, we don’t have the firepower to back it up).  But I believe it is necessary for the Philippines to relay the message that, regardless of our limited capability, we are prepared to make a move and destroy those Chinese bases once UN makes a resolution regarding the matter and China refuses to comply.  Moreover – and most importantly, because we can’t do this alone – the Philippines should also actively request the UN, the US, and our other allies to make official statements and pledges on what they intend to do if China will choose to disregard UN decision and continue their aggressive behavior.             

There’s the saying, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”  China’s bases within Philippine waters are the metaphorical “inch” we can’t afford to yield.  Therefore, what I would really like to see is for the Philippines to prioritize this matter and make substantial, calculated moves right now.  We should not wait until China is already comfortably positioned to take the metaphorical “mile.”    

Read More

The Existence of the Universe is a Definitive Affirmation of the Existence of God

Looking at the awesomeness of Creation – how mindblowingly complex it is, how marvelously beautiful it is, how gloriously big it is – and, by extension, all the incredible creations and accomplishments that have come out of human imagination, creativity, intellect, resolve, and talent, I am deeply perplexed that some people can dare conclude that all of these “just happened.”  To me, with my daily encounters with reality and its wonders, it is very much apparent that there is Someone Bigger beyond all of these.  Yes, it is based on faith.  But it’s not an irrational faith.  In fact, as a Christian, is it with Spirit-driven faith that I was able to think more rationally – to sincerely seek truth.           

Pompous “enlightened people” pretend to have all the answers.  They believe they are superior because they aren’t a “superstitious bunch” that believe in a Supreme Being.  But upon meticulous scrutiny, you will see that they are hypocritical, that their presuppositions are also based on faith – and a faith working on a foundation something actually shakier than a faith in God at that!

For example, the strongest “evidences” out there for the Theory of Evolution are almost solely limited to “microevolution” – wherein an animal or plant develops an additional function in response to particular stimuli.  And that doesn’t prove Evolution at all.  An illustration of microevolution is a fish developing a camouflage in order to avoid predators; in that scenario, the fish’s nature as fish remains intact.   But a fish transforming into a bird is the kind of dramatic change that Evolution is claiming as possible – that’s “macroevolution” – and there are no empirical data to support such absurdity.  More so with Abiogenesis – wherein an inanimate object is supposed to dramatically transform into a living thing.  Macroevolution and Abiogenesis are ridiculous, proof-less claims; without these two, the Theory of Evolution falls apart.  And yet people will readily accept Evolution’s infallibility!  Most atheists I encounter that believes in Evolution or the Big Bang or any other theory that denies God creating life and the universe simply accepts these theories are true without really thoroughly understanding them (or they pretend that they do).  They embrace these as truths without any struggle, without further reflection or discernment, just because a famous scientist or philosopher said so.   In fact, if they choose to exert an effort in honestly examining these for themselves, they might discover that these presented ideas don’t really have airtight, empirical proofs.  Hence, they might not have faith in God, but the manner of how they strongly believe in the ideas of Evolution or Big Bang or Sagan or Dawkins or Darwin – without genuine comprehension of them and without finding definitive proofs to support them – is some kind of faith.    

 

Science is a great, great thing.  But it is not God.  Science should lead us to God.  And if more scientists are more honest with themselves, and not give in to peer pressure, and really apply objective thought, and get rid of prejudices and double standards, they would definitely see God in the wonders of the universe that they discover through Science.

When one truly fathomed the awesomeness of life and the universe, one won’t really be comfortable of accepting that all of these were brought about by random accidents.  The existence of life and the universe – Creation – is clearly a definite affirmation of the existence of God – the Creator (for, in fact, Creation is the physical manifestation of God’s glory).  The intrinsic beauty and complexity found in every detail of Creation are something that I can never rationally accept as things that “just happened.” 

The Law of Cause-and-Effect states that, for every effect, there should be an appropriate, reasonable cause that made it so.  And the only “appropriate, reasonable” cause there is for an “effect” of such magnitude as the universe is an infinite, intelligent God.  To think that the universe has been brought about by a “cause” lesser than that is ridiculous. 

If one denies an eternal Creator has made the universe, one has to embrace the belief of either: a.) the universe created itself; or b.) the universe originated from a finite cause – either a finite catalyst or a creator, who himself has been created by something or someone.  Both options are obviously absurd.  The first option is contradictory.  How can something create itself?  For the universe to be capable of creating itself, it should first have to be.  It would have to be before it was.  And that’s an impossibility.  Even God can’t create himself, because he wouldn’t be present to create himself in the first place.  God is – by essence and definition – infinite, un-created, and exists before time came to be.         

The second conclusion – that the universe originated from a finite creator/catalyst – is very problematic because, ultimately, it relies on the belief that an actual infinity of finite things is possible.  One would have to wrestle with the problem: if the universe is created by an A, what is the B that created A in the first place?  How was B created then?  By a C?  Then what created C?   And so on.  Ad infinitum.  And that is just plain nonsense.  If one subscribes to such thought that an infinite chain of finite causes is possible, one also has to subscribe to a belief that time has been running eternally since an infinity of finite causes would require infinite time to work on.  The problem however is that infinite yesterdays is unthinkable for it’s an impossibility to cross through eternity.  You won’t be able to go through an infinite number of yesterdays to get to today just as a negative infinity can’t “count down” towards zero.  If it has been going on forever, it can’t possibly get to today.                

So for this universe to exist, it should have been created by something eternal – something that existed before time even existed – and is infinite in essence.  It’s the only possible solution.   Furthermore, this infinite something can’t be something without awareness.  It should be something – someone – with intelligent consciousness – a supreme intelligent consciousness.    

When I was still a kid who had never even ridden in a plane yet, airplanes provoked awe in me.  I was curious of its engineering (or whatever term the concept of engineering represented in my mind then); my mind was asking things like “How something heavy was made to fly?”  I knew that the answers would be complicated and I probably had to get a bit older to understand.  However, I knew that this complex airplane couldn’t possibly have “just happened”; its complex, purposed design required a conscious, intelligent effort to be.   Now, life and the universe have much more complex engineering in it than an airplane.  It definitely couldn’t “just happened”!  Believing that is more ridiculous than believing that an airplane can be made out of an exploding junkyard.    

Even if, let’s say, experiments using the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland supposedly proved the Big Bang Theory or how matter exploded out of energy, it doesn’t necessarily is a point against Creationism and a point for Anti-Creationism theories.  What was done to simulate the supposedly beginning of the universe hasn’t been something random, undirected, or unsupervised.  There were scientists who had consciously worked, assembled, and directed the factors to bring the creation of matter about.  It didn’t really happen chaotically.  There was a conscious, intelligent effort behind it.   It’s not the same thing as what atheists believe in – that the universe just “exploded” into being without conscious guidance.   

The universe exists because an infinite and intelligent and living God created it.   It’s the only logical conclusion.  The Apostle Paul revealed in the first chapter of Romans that men have no excuse in denying the existence of God because the universe clearly manifests His being and glory.  The existence of the universe should be a sufficient – no, overwhelming – objective proof for the affirmation of God’s existence. 

But why are there atheists?  Why aren’t everyone compelled to believe in God if the universe compellingly proves his existence?  Well, it’s because humans are sinners, and our sinful and depraved nature won’t allow us to be persuaded by the overwhelming proof.   We are blinded (or prefer to be blinded).  The truth never really mattered to us.  We prefer to deny the existence of the Creator since we don’t want to acknowledge our accountability to our Creator. 

But through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the stubbornness and pride brought by our depraved nature will be shattered.  We will be able to humbly embrace truth and instruction.  And it is only by this time that our reasoning won’t be hindered when we argue or encounter arguments for truth.  When proof of the existence of God is brought forth by the universe, we can now allow ourselves to be persuaded.  From the point where we can wholeheartedly acknowledge God’s existence, then we can proceed to the next step of wholeheartedly acknowledging His lordship over us, and decide to live – to exist – solely for declaring His glory – just as what He has always intended for His Creation to be.

Read More

Savoring the Glory of God By Means of Man-Made Pleasures

This essay is somewhat of a sequel to an essay I wrote about two years ago entitled “The Purpose of the World’s Pleasures” (I encourage you to read that one first before proceeding).  These are basically the important points of that particular essay: 

• There are, of course, sinful pleasures – things that God has explicitly commanded us to avoid.  And even innocent pleasures can tempt us to idolatry.  But the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures by itself is not automatically sinful.
• God has designed us to have desires.  And God is the Author of the world’s pleasures.  God intended for us to enjoy them.  God intended for us to be thankful for them.
• The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  The purpose of the world’s pleasures is the same as the purpose of the world’s pains: it should lead us to God.  The world’s pleasures should eventually bring us to the realization that God is the only source of Ultimate Pleasure; the world’s pleasures should help direct our innate desires to Him.  The delight found in Him is incomparable, unspeakable, and full of glory.  Pleasures given up for it and pains endured for it are all going to be infinitely worth it. 
• If we fail to seek the Pleasure beyond the world’s pleasures – settling with and prioritizing these lesser pleasures – then we dishonor God.  We pathetically give up the greatest glory for something preposterously lesser.  We are like, as the great C.S. Lewis puts it, “half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.”       
• Not all aspects of the world’s pleasures are good or helpful.  Our faith, our understanding for the purpose of pleasure, and our desire to glorify God will serve as “filters” when we are in the act of enjoying the world’s pleasures – retaining the positive, and discarding the negative.   

Now in this new essay, I will be expanding a bit more about the topic, but I will be focusing more on – as the title has made obvious – man-made pleasures. 

“Man-made pleasures”, for a better term escapes me at the moment, are all the products of human arts and mass media that we derive enjoyment from.  This includes pop culture, music, literature, gadgetries, movies, TV shows, games, etc.  In this essay, I will be arguing that God can and will use these “lesser pleasures” in revealing His infinite glory to us.  (Of course, it’s always a possibility that I err with my understanding and, thus, also err with my arguments.  I welcome correction from those wiser than me.) 

HOW TO ENJOY THE WORLD’S PLEASURES WITHOUT BEING “WORLDLY”

I have already tackled this in the previous essay.  But let me elaborate.  Let us start with what 1 Timothy 4:4-5 says:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

The passage provided these important points:

1. God’s Creation – which includes the world’s pleasures – is good. 
2. These are God’s gifts.  And we should receive them with thankfulness.
3. These gifts – these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy – are sanctified.  

To be “sanctified” means setting something apart or transforming something into a means or state that can and will be used to glorify God.  This applies to everything (as stated by 1 Timothy 4:4) created by God – which includes, by extension, the creations of His creatures (I’ll get to this later).  Sanctification applies to people (John 17:17, 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.); sanctification applies on other things as well: food, money, property, practices (like what early Christians did with Christmas Day, December 25, which was formerly a date for a pagan festival), etc. 

So how are these things – particularly the world’s pleasures – sanctified?  In two ways, according to 1 Timothy 4:5: God’s Word and prayer. 

Firstly, God’s Word provides us with parameters on how to enjoy the world’s pleasures (no love for money, no sex outside of marriage, no drunkenness, no idolatry, etc.) as well as the revelation that God’s glory is manifested in the physical world and that the delight we derive from them must bring us to the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, Psalm 148:1-6, Colossians 1:16, Psalm 108:5, etc.).  So our adherence to God’s standards and willingness to learn about what He has to say about these pleasures brings sanctification to our enjoyment of the world’s pleasures. 

Secondly, through prayer, we are able to acknowledge that these pleasures that God allows us to enjoy are His gifts, and thank Him sincerely for we are able to freely enjoy His blessings because Christ already paid for them (Romans 8:32).  But aside from a means to say “thank you” to God, most importantly, prayer is the way we can ask His blessing and the Holy Spirit’s guidance in being able to really see the glory of God through the world’s pleasures.  By our own, we will easily fall to temptation and idolatry.  Only God can truly prepare our hearts to enjoy the world’s pleasures in the way He intended.  Only God can truly sanctify.   

DON’T JUST “LOOK AT THE BEAM”, BUT “LOOK ALONG THE BEAM”

The Bible has made it apparent that the majesty of the physical realm – Creation – serves as “appetizers” or “signposts” that should direct us to the glory of the Creator.  As what Psalm 19:1 says of the wonders of the heavens, they “declare” the glory of God.  C.S. Lewis shared this anecdote to wonderfully illustrate how the majesty and pleasures of this world are merely pointing us to the Source of supreme majesty and pleasure:

I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place.  Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it. Then I moved so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

“Looking at the beams” is settling with the world’s beauty and pleasures – hence, idolatry.  “Looking along the beams” is tracing back the “beams” of the world’s pleasures towards its Source, which is God, where supreme beauty and pleasure lie. 

BUT DOES THE FUNCTION OF THE WORLD IN POINTING TO THE GLORY OF GOD ALSO EXTEND TO MAN-MADE PLEASURES?

Absolutely. 

We are created by God in His image.  God designed us to have innate creativity, intellect, and capability of making beautiful creations in our own limited attempt to physically express or represent God’s glory, just as what the Creator did with His Creation.  Whenever we create – making the most of our God-given talents and abilities – we also “declare” the glory of God as much as what the heavens do in Psalm 19:1.  Therefore, man-made creations, are still, by extension, part of God’s Creation wherein he reveals His glory. 

Even the artistic outputs of non-believers – people who create without God consciously in mind – can still “declare” the glory of God.  Art is art, and beauty is beauty, regardless of who made it – a Christian or a non-believer.  Art and beauty are concepts invented by God, hence, ultimately, art and beauty comes from God.  Every human being – Christian or non-believer, consciously or unconsciously – deeply aches for God’s glory and is always compelled by the intuitive sense – whether he or she admits to it or not, realizes it or not – that there is Something beyond, Something bigger than what he or she can physically perceive.  Thus, human efforts and artistic outputs are still governed by a sovereign God that directs everything so that His intention of displaying His glory through physical representations – which includes man-made pleasures – comes through, regardless of the creators’ personal motivations.  A non-believing creator might have not honored God with his purpose, but, unbeknownst to him, he was nonetheless used by God to declare His glory when he exercised his creative impulses.    

The danger of a man-made pleasure is not necessarily because of the non-believer that created it.  Enjoying man-made pleasures created by non-believers is never an issue.  In this world, we always come into contact with services, products, and goods handled or built by unbelievers.  Your lunch might have been the cumulative contribution of an unbelieving farmer, an unbelieving fisherman, an unbelieving proprietor, and an unbelieving cook, and yet you still eat it.  The doctor that you have consulted about your health might be an unbeliever.  The mechanic that you went to to fix your car might be an unbeliever.  Your employer – the man providing your income – might be an unbeliever.  And so on.  It’s basically the same principle with enjoying a man-made pleasure created by an unbeliever.  God is sovereign over this world and everything we receive ultimately comes from God by using people – Christians or non-believers.           

Man-made pleasures, even those created by non-believers, are permissible to a Christian to enjoy (1 Cor. 6:12) because they are ultimately from God, and everything from God is good (1 Timothy 4:4), and God can sanctify them (1 Timothy 4:5) and make use of them to reveal His glory.  So for a Christian, someone who knows the truthful connection between the world’s pleasures and God’s glory, there is really no such thing as “secular.”  When he’s enjoying something secular by itself, like a Michael Jackson concert, it becomes sanctified when he is enjoying it with the holy purpose of seeking God’s glory – “looking along the beam” of MJ’s amazing talent. 

FICTION IS THE DEEPER REVELATION OF REALITY BY LIKENING IT TO WHAT IT IS NOT

The world’s pleasures, by stirring our sensations and emotions, arouse our deeper, inherent yearnings for greater awesome things than what we see in this world.  And, personally, outside of the complexity and loveliness of natural Creation, no other pleasure of this world is able to match fiction on blowing my mind away and awakening the desire in me for something bigger beyond my perceived reality.  That’s why I’m extremely fond of fiction. 

Some think that fiction is merely a “distraction” or an “escape” from reality.  Nothing can be more wrong.  Fiction “awakens” us to reality.  Kevin Vanhoozer wrote:

The sad truth is that many of us are, at best, only half awake. We think we’re engaged with the real world—you know, the world of stock markets, stock-car racing, and stockpiles of chemical weapons—but in fact we’re living in what [C.S.] Lewis calls the “shadowlands.” We think we’re awake, but we’re really only daydreaming. We’re sleepwalking our way through life—asleep at the wheel of existence—only semi-conscious of the eternal, those things that are truly solid that bear the weight of glory.

The world is full of wonders.  When we first come in contact with them, we probably had been awed.  But, over time, we got used to these wonders, taking them for granted, and our sense of awe is replaced with boredom and apathy – we “fall asleep.” And one of the best ways for us to “wake up” is through fiction.  For fiction articulates reality in a new light, providing for us an enhanced focus on the actual marvels found in things we had dismissed as ordinary.  As what G.K. Chesterton has perfectly analyzed:

When we are very young children we don’t need fairy tales: we only need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales— because they find them romantic… This proves that even nursery tales only echo an almost pre-natal leap of interest and amazement. These tales say that apples are golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.

Once our sense of awe on the world’s wonders and miracles are rekindled, fiction could then further reveal to us what reality really is.  Often it is not enough to just describe reality for what it is.  When the Source of the deepest meaning of reality lies beyond it, then likening reality to what it is not actually reveals more deeply what it is (it’s another C.S. Lewis-ian concept).  Fiction does this. 

Besides, God himself opted to display His Reality through representation, making Creation – our reality – as means of revealing His glory to us.  In the same way, fiction serves as representation of our reality.  Of course, I’m not implying that we are merely God’s “computer simulations” in a The Thirteenth Floor sort of way (it’s a cool, underrated movie by the way) – that our existence lacked no real substance.  It’s just that God’s Reality is so grand, that our physical reality is much of a “figment” of God’s Reality as fiction a “figment” of our physical reality.                  

Simply, we are creatures that often require metaphors and analogies and illustrations and such to thoroughly grasp concepts and aspects of reality.  It’s simply the way we are designed by our Creator.  There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables.  God has always intended fiction to serve as a means of intensifying our appreciation, understanding, and perspective of reality – and beyond! 

THE DANGER OF MAN-MADE PLEASURES

Of course, the fact that God reveals His glory through man-made pleasures is no excuse for us to consume every piece of it just because.  What do I mean by that?  We still have responsibility of choosing wisely the kind and amount of man-made pleasures that we choose to enjoy.  Seeking God’s glory is the chief reason for everything we Christians do in this world, including our choice of man-made pleasures.  Thus, if it’s already apparent that God’s glory is absent from a particular man-made pleasure, or it’s failing to bring us towards Christ, but, on the contrary, is actually leading us away, then there’s no reason to continue consuming it. 

We all have to constantly remember that the greatest danger of enjoying the world’s pleasures is how easily the Devil can use them to tempt us to idolatry.  If we are just immersing ourselves to banal entertainment – failing to “look along the beam” – we are vulnerable to the Devil’s attack.  Just like with idle hands, idle minds are also the Devil’s playground.  Man-made pleasures, whether enjoying them properly or not, will always arouse our desires.  When we fail to direct these aroused desires towards God, the Devil always jumps at the opportunity to exploit and redirect our desires towards idols.  Looked at how the Serpent tempted Adam and Even to eat the Forbidden Fruit when their imaginations and desires (“You will be like God!”) were aroused. 

Hence, we have to be honest with ourselves if a particular man-made pleasure is truly aiding us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or if it’s turning out to be a genuine unhelpful distraction.  Are we more engrossed during prayer than watching a movie?  Are we spending more time reading our Bibles than novels?  Are we more thrilled with God than Stephen Amell?

If we discover upon reflection that enjoying a particular man-made pleasure is not really helping us in our pursuit of God’s glory, or, worse, it’s actually leading us to sin, then we should completely abstain from it.  The Bible calls for radical cutting off of things that tempt us to sin.  Matthew 18:6-9 tells us:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!  If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

Jesus means business.  If you’re always being lured towards pornographic sites, then cut off your Internet service.   If you’re spending more time and delighting more in watching TV than praying and reading the Bible, then sell or give it away.  If you’re always succumbing into drunkenness whenever you taste alcohol, then completely abstain from alcoholic beverages.

Take in mind that God doesn’t exclusively reveal His glory through man-made pleasures.  He can use other kinds of innocent pleasures as well.  He can even use suffering.  Abstaining from a man-made pleasure when necessary is not a loss at all.  Don’t think of it that you’re missing out on something.  Ultimate Pleasure is found in God anyway, and God has continually guaranteed that giving up something for Him is infinitely worth it. 

USING CREATION AND MAN-MADE PLEASURES TO DELIGHT IN GOD

In conclusion: if God chooses to display his glory through something, whether through the natural facets and elements of Creation or through man-made pleasures, then we should proceed to enjoy them.  God designed us to have physical desires and sensations so that we can perceive God’s glory through physical manifestations.  And through them, we will realize that there is more to it than these, that there is a Delight that transcends the pleasures of the world.  The world’s pleasures are not the ends.  They are merely the means to sharpen our longings for something – Someone – greater than physical pleasures.  The ultimate objective has always been about finding our complete, supreme joy in God alone.  

Read More

The Christian's Freedom of Making Moral Choices Without Fear

Let’s have a thought experiment…

Imagine that you are a government secret agent tasked on protecting the city from a terrorist attack.  You were able to capture the terrorist.  Unfortunately, he was able to hide, arm, and start the timer on the bomb before he was caught.  The nuclear bomb can explode at any second, and there’s no time to evacuate the city.  The only way to save the city, particularly the millions of lives in it, is to extract the information of the location of the bomb from the terrorist.  However, the terrorist is an extreme fanatic; he has no fear of dying and won’t be broken by torture.   On the other hand, you got your hands on the terrorist’s family – who have no idea what the husband/father/terrorist was into – and there is a good chance that he will give you the location of the bomb if you torture his wife and children instead.  Will you do it?  To save millions of lives, is torturing the innocent wife and children the right thing to do?

The thought-provoker above is called the “Ticking Time Bomb Scenario” – a thought experiment on the morality of torture (this has been constantly explored in the TV series 24).  It’s a complex moral dilemma that we definitely don’t want to encounter.

In our actual lives, we probably don’t have dilemmas that are as complicated as the “Ticking Time Bomb Scenario”, but we are nonetheless put in situations where making the right choice is difficult, for we don’t know what the right choice is.  Moral or ethical choices are not always about picking between the “black” and the “white.”  There are times that it is hard to determine which is “black” or “white”, or if there’s actually a “black” and a “white” at all. 

Of course, as Christians, we need to consciously pursue the right thing and what will glorify God the most.  The guidance of the Holy Spirit and the instructions of the Word of God help us in choosing.  But there will be times that we fail to discern the Holy Spirit’s guidance and can’t comprehend what the Word’s instructions are.  We are human after all.  We fall.  We make fool of ourselves.  We make mistakes.  That is simply part of the Christian journey.  Until we get to Heaven and have glorified bodies, we still need to endure the difficulties of the battlefield of Christian life.  Which includes the complexity of moral struggles. 

   

Fortunately, we Christians are under God’s grace.  Though we aren’t free yet from undergoing these complex moral battles, we however have been given freedom to engage in these battles without fear of the results.   Our sins – past, present, and future – are forgiven.  Thus, we will no longer receive condemnation if we ever made the wrong choice. 

It doesn’t mean we should just impulsively make choices without seeking God’s will.  Or still make the wrong choice when we already know it’s the wrong one.  Again, we should consciously pursue the right thing and what will glorify God the most.  If we are convicted by the Spirit that a particular choice is a wrong one or would dishonor God, why still proceed to choose it?  The freedom of making moral choices, like all other aspects of God’s grace, should never be abused, but treasured and esteemed.

God understands our limitations.  We should just do our best in carrying on the purpose of our existence: bringing glory to God.  If we ever err in our choices and methods, let it be out of ignorance or unintended blunder, and NOT deliberately.  There might still be earthly consequence that may arise from these mistakes we made, but God’s mercy is likely to shield us from most of it, and, most importantly, there will be no eternal judgment that will be passed on us.

I still don’t know what I will precisely do if I get into complex moral dilemmas like the “Ticking Time Bomb Scenario.”  But by God’s grace, I know I can make a choice without fear. 

Read More

Evaluating DC's TV Series Programming

PART 1: The Dominance of DC Over Marvel in the Small Screen

Through the years, Marvel has not only been taking the lion share in comic book sales most of the time, but they have been also kicking DC’s butt in the market that really matters: the big screen.  To be fair with DC, they do make the better direct-to-video animated movies (I think “Hulk vs. Wolverine” is the only Marvel animated film that I get to really enjoy).  But the money in direct-to-video is incomparable from the money earnings from theatrical blockbusters, which will come from ticket sales to merchandising.  So unless DC ever figure out how to create an engaging and profitable cinematic universe as Marvel’s, Marvel, which has a clear plan already until 2018, will continue to be the winners for a couple more years.    

However, DC has been clearly more productive over Marvel in the small screen.  Not only does DC make more good-quality animated TV series (Marvel had produced great animated TV series, too, but DC has three for every good one Marvel makes; also, for every good Marvel animated series, there are two bad ones) but they also have the most success in producing noteworthy live-action series, both in volume and value. Up until now, Adam West’s campy Batman series from way back in ’66 is still beloved by many.  There was the delightful Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman in the 90’s, which Marvel had no answer.  Then, there’s Smallville, which despite its many flaws had its awesome moments as well, which, again, Marvel had no answer.     

In the present, Marvel now has Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., which had weak early episodes but eventually improved into a must-watch show.   In fact, despite the lack of a legitimate superhero presence, AoS is as intriguing as DC superhero shows, Arrowor The Flash.  However, though S.H.I.E.L.D. is a concept originally from the comics, AoS is nonetheless more of a spin-off of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) rather than an avenue for Marvel to freely render their comic book universe into the small screen.  Hence, in this case, DC is having more success with Arrow and The Flash in translating their comic book universe into a TV universe. 

In terms of quantity, there are four ongoing DC TV series right now.  Three of which have just premiered this fall of 2014.  Clearly, DC went into “aggressive TV series production” mode, probably to keep a foothold in their dominance of the small screen.  

Sure, several Marvel shows are coming up; there’s the Agent Carterseries, and then a couple of Netflix TV series featuring Marvel’s street-level superheroes like Daredevil and Luke Cage (which I presume will also take place in the shared MCU).  However, a lot more DC shows are also rumored in production.  It’s as if that for every one that Marvel plans to make, DC has two.  And I’m quite excited with some of the titles being mentioned.  Maybe not all of them will rock.  But considering the fact that I like 3 out of the 4 DC TV series right now, and my dislike for the 4^th one is not because it sucks (I will be discussing this later), it’s presumable, based on historical data, that all will at least be watchable and entertaining enough. 

The advantage that Marvel has here is their TV series will exist in the same universe as their movies.  Again, the potential awesomeness in crossovers alone is worth being excited about.  If it works, Marvel’s approach of expounding one shared universe instead of establishing several universes for their properties will pay big dividends.     

Nonetheless, even if not all of DC shows exist in the same universe, as long as they can be individually enjoyable, or at least adequately fun, it’s still going to be DC’s win due to the sheer volume of their properties that they manage to get on screen.     

 

PART 2: Pros and Cons of Each Present DC TV Series

Constantine

PROS:

→ Matt Ryan nailed John Constantine.  

→ It’s turning out to have the same charm and humor that made Sleepy Hollow a regularly entertaining supernatural/horror/fantasy series to watch.

→ It has been made apparent that this show will feature many of DC’s supernatural characters.  

CONS:

→ Charles Halford’s Chas doesn’t give the same vibes as the Chas in the comics, who was a great supporting character.  

→ It’s not “R”, hence, Constantine is restrained in bringing into the small screen many of the things that made John Constantine an awesome character and Hellblazer as one of the most well-written comic book series ever.  It feels too tame to give Constantine and Hellblazer justice.       

→ Its primary setting is in the US instead of England.  Ugh.  

The Flash

PROS:

→ It got me to finally check Arrow out.  

→ Grant Gustin is the greatest Barry Allen version of any medium, including comics, ever.  As I’ve explained in my post after watching the leaked pilot months ago:

The Flash’s Barry Allen is “Peter Parker-esque” – it’s as if there’s a lot of Parker’s trademark geeky charm, strong sense of moral responsibility, and bearing in The Flash’s depiction of Barry Allen – making this version mightily interesting.  If this is sustained through the show, there’s a chance that this Flash could become my favorite speedster.   

→ Jesse L. Martin as Detective Joe West and Tom Cavanagh as the mysterious Dr. Harrison Wells are consistent in providing the strongest performances in the show.  Because of the magnificent acting from these two, we can always expect compelling scenes whenever their characters are part of the scenes.  

→ Clever premise of how super powers became possible.     

→ It has massive potential.  The fun and intrigue it creates offset the aggravation that any weak writing brings.  It hasn’t been a strong series so far, but it has made itself as something worth being patient about.  

CONS:

→ There is lack of chemistry between Barry Allen and Iris West.  And, no, It’s not the race difference.  There’s just no “spark” between that makes me care for them as a couple (to be fair, I also feel no interest rising from Oliver Queen’s parings in Arrow).  In fact, the whole Barry-Iris angle feels like a distraction to me.    

→ Aside from Barry, Joe, and Dr. Wells, the other characters are not easily likable.  They might grow on me eventually.  But, as of now, I can’t bring myself to be invested in them. 

→ When Arrow’s Felicity Smoak visited, that was the highest point of the show so far.  And it’s just a bad thing that for The Flash to have its best episode, it has to rely on a character (and the writer/s that probably came with the character) from another show.  There’s no interesting female character in The Flash so far. Moreover, Felicity’s effortless chemistry with Barry also emphasized Barry’s lack of such with Iris.     

→ The Flash suffers from uncreative and dumb writing half of the time.  Most of the episodes have plots that are generic or Smallville-like.  And there are many dialogues that are excruciatingly cheesy.         

Arrow

PROS:

→ This is easily the best among the current line-up of DC TV series.  It’s not perfect, but it is engaging and well-plotted most of the time.

→ It nailed what Green Arrow should be, a Batman analogue that happens to work with bow and arrows. 

→ Since a Batman TV series seems to be impossible at this point, I’ll take Arrow.

→ Oliver’s lateral pull-up/climbing exercise is awesome.  First time I saw such thing.    

→ The charming Felicity Smoak.  Could be the most likable character in the series. 

→ Interesting supporting and recurring characters. 

→ It is bringing as much of the DC Universe as it can possibly can to the small screen, without making it too crowded. Amanda Waller (which I hoped would have the original fat appearance). Suicide Squad.  Deathstroke.  Huntress.   League of Assassins.  Ra’s al Ghul.  Etc.  Just awesome.    

→ Superman as the Atom.  Brandon Routh’s charming portrayal of Ray Palmer is as fantastic as Emily Bett Rickards’ Felicity Smoak. 

→ I appreciate the unique narrative style:  flashbacks that reveal the happenings during Oliver Queen’s five year-hiatus from Starling City running alternately with the present narrative.  This definitely enhanced the storytelling, and made the whole show more intriguing.  

→ Great development of the character from vigilante to hero.

→ It spun-off The Flash.  The implication?  The creation of a big DC TV Universe.  I really hope The Flash is not the last spin-off happening from this shared universe.  If many other non-Batman-Superman-Wonder Woman (since these three are likely reserved for the movies) superheroes pop out in Arrow and The Flash, or have their own spin-off shows, and they form a Justice Society of America (since the Justice League of America is likely to be exclusive for the movies), it’s going to be the best thing to happen in TV ever.           

CONS:

→ It’s not a Batman TV series.  This show’s existence sometimes drives me crazy since that there is no Batman TV series instead.   

→ It kind of annoys me that the promotion for Arrow seems to always involve Stephen Amell being shirtless.  To be fair, the man is pretty.

→ I feel that there is lack of usage and variations of trick arrows.  

→ It’s not always good.  The plot kinds of feel tiresome sometimes.  Only sometimes.  I can’t really explain it much, only that I feel that it’s not fun sometimes.  Again, only sometimes.  Can’t stress “sometimes” enough.     

Gotham

PROS: 

→ Strong, winning performances from Ben McKenzie as James Gordon, Donald Logue as Harvey Bullock, and Robin Lord Taylor as Oswald “The Penguin” Cobblepot.  

→ Beautiful production value.

CONS:

→ It’s not a Batman TV series. 

→ My dream prologue Batman series is that of young Bruce Wayne traveling around the world as he acquires the skills and trainings that would prepare him as Batman when he returns to Gotham.  The existence of a Gotham TV series means that my fantasy Batman prologue TV series hasn’t happened, and has no chance of happening in the near future. 

→ The fine production value means much effort is exerted in creating a good Gotham setting and mood.  Thus, it frustrates me that such effort is not applied on a straight-up Batman TV series.  Too much Batman allusions are being done anyway, why not make the whole thing centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman then?   

→ Right from the start, I never got sold with the whole premise of the show.  I gave it a chance.   But I gave up on the third episode.  The whole thing just reeks of gimmickry to me – pretending that making it centered on James Gordon is a creative concept, when the reliance of adding too much Batman Easter eggs is very much apparent as gratuitous and having no confidence on establishing something original.      

→ I understand why this show might work on others, but it’s not my cup of tea.

→ I might get into this series in the future, especially if the kind hype is created wherein it’ll make me feel that I’m missing out of something awesome and important.  But with lots of great TV series to choose from each week, I have no problem of not getting into Gotham early.  I don’t think I will be missing out much.

Read More