timeimmortal

Mark Shea has a powerful article up at Catholic Exchange, and I was particularly struck by this paragraph in it.

When we put it that way, we suddenly realize: Knowing that the baby is going to die sooner rather than later is no reason to kill the baby. It is, says Janet, a reason to love the baby for as long as you can while it’s here. That’s very painful, but that is the risk we take every time we choose to love because everything we love in this world is mortal. It may be objected that an anencephalic baby cannot appreciate our love. I would reply that a healthy baby does not appreciate our love either, because a healthy baby has no more mind than a baby born without a brain. The whole point of parenthood, especially in its earliest stages, is radical self-giving (like Christ) to a being who is wholly incapable of giving anything back besides a sucking reflex. It’s an analogy of the grace of God, the great wake-up call, enfleshed, that It’s Not about Me and What I Get from It. A short course in the life of the Blessed Trinity.

I think this hints at exactly what is wrong with abortion, both including and apart from the fact that an innocent life is take. What is seriously wrong is that the entirety of the act is marked by a profound lack of love, of a certain kind. Babies require unconditional, self-giving love from their parents if they are to have any chance of development, formation, and maturation; even a perfectly healthy baby will wither if it is not showered with affection to give it is first ever lessons about the existence of something that exists beyond itself.

Note, O Reader, that what I’m talking about is not the same as an inability to love; all human beings are capable of loving something. Rather like the question of Religion, the issue is not whether we love, but what we love. And in the case of abortion, all we demonstrate the capacity to love is ourself. And in so doing, we effect a most terrible destruction not only on human life in its most fragile and innocent state, but on the world around us as well.

Love is a terrible risk, and love of anything outside the self necessarily leaves us vulnerable to being hurt in a multitude of powerful, shocking, and terrifying ways. But that’s the risk we accept, because to love something outside ourselves is also an act of majesty and beauty that is unparalleled by anything else in this mortal, temporal world.

And love — that ability to love another — is what is truly lacking in the act of abortion and the desire to seek the service out. It is a depravity that is, quite frankly, horrifying. And here’s the rub: this is just as true in the case of a disabled/terminally malformed baby as it is in the case of a pregnancy due to rape. Whatever the deformity, and whatever the trauma, there is an innocent life there which we should only ever love and see brought into the world (if only for a few moments); any other response diminishes and demeans not only that new and innocent life, but us as well.

It speaks volumes about Canada that we saw fit to give a man a medal for his efforts in making such an abhorrent thing legal in this country.

Does the Roman Catholic Church teaches that faith alone in Christ is all that is necessary for salvation?

Does the Roman Catholic Church not teach that according to Roman Catholicism, man cannot be saved by faith alone in Christ alone?

Do they not teach that a Christian must rely on faith plus “meritorious works” in order to be saved?

Is it essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation that one participate in the Seven Sacraments, which are: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance [also called Reconciliation], Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony?

These will be the first four questions answered in what I hope will become an ongoing series. In truth, I’d prefer to answer only the first three at this time, but there’s a problem with that. Catholic doctrine is not a series of atomic statements, but rather a unified body of teachings that build off of, play into, and complement and enhance each other. In other words, and more plainly put, it would be impossible to discuss what the Church teaches about salvation without discussing, at least in brief, the various Sacraments of the Church.

But before we begin, let’s look at the short answers to each of the above questions:

1. If you mean: do Catholics acknowledge sola fides as it is commonly articulated? No.
2. If you mean: do Catholics reject sola fide as it is commonly articulated? Yes.
3. No. A more appropriate term would simply be “merit.”
4. No, not all of those seven.

Now, let’s unpack those answers a little bit, shall we?

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, Count Roland also wrote in with some thoughts on this article, about how many Canadians profess greater love for their pet dog than for their own father. I’ve just been lax in posting his thoughts.

They do need to give their heads a shake. But it may be to remind themselves of the meaning they are imparting when they speak of ‘love‘.

Today we have lost the Greek nuance and use love to mean many different things, from pleasure-induction (”I love chocolate”) to self sacrifice (the love of husband and wife for one another and for children for whom they and their friends express gratitude to God, pray for the new family as nurturing gifts from God and give congratulations for expanding the universal Church through the expansion of the domestic Church for which the blessings of God are asked for).

They may be correctly using a weak and partial meaning of love insofar as pets can give things — such as companionship and acceptance — which may be lacking from otherwise good parents for reasons beyond either party’s control. But love as it means in its fullness this is not. And to miss this difference is to impoverish our language and our lives.

I think it almost can be taken as a given that when anyone in the media speaks of “love,” they are not speaking of love in the fullest sense of the word, and certainly they are not capturing all the nuance imparted to the concept of love by the Greeks. But then, the same could be said of most musicians (I will grant some exception for a few country artists) and actors/actresses. Love is very poorly understood by our modern, post-Christian culture, and I cannot help but think that the departure of our society from Christian ideals has both precipitated and paralleled our departure from understanding what love really is.

Since the following no longer contains spoilers — at least as far as Grace is concerned, which is all I was really worried about — I am moving it up to today, so that I can officially say that I’m putting my chips into the pot as far as “final Cylon” speculation is concerned********.

I’ve been kicking around the idea that one of the Adamas — the admiral, Lee, or possibly even Zak (the dead brother) — is the final Cylon. I tend to agree with the analysis at Battlestar Wiki that the final member of the twelve Humanoid Cylons “would probably need to be a more prominent character than those of the Four.” In the Wiki’s analysis, that pretty much limits the field to Roslin, Admiral Adama, Lee, Baltar, and Starbuck.

Of course, I also happen to think that revealing some of the above as being Cylons would also be…anticlimactic, and in some cases just dumb. Take Roslin for example, and the way that Baltar is able to temporarily cure her cancer. It would seem to me that if the introduction of Cylon (or, to be completely specific, humano-Cylon) blood was enough to cure Roslin (albeit briefly), that pretty much cements the fact that she herself does not have anything Cylon about her physiology.

Likewise, revealing Baltar as a Cylon would, given the events in the middle of Season 3 (i.e. Baltar’s own uncertainty as to whether he is human or Cylon, and his desperate quest for answers in this regard), would be a let-down — really, it would seem contrived.

To be fair, I can see the merit of the argument that Baltar could be revealed as a sort of Cylon “Christ”, especially in regard to the prophecy of the First Hybrid in Razor:

The First Hybrid who says his children believe he is a god, makes a prediction about the final Cylon: “…the fifth is still is in shadow, drawn toward the light, hungering for redemption, that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering.” (Razor) This statement, while not concrete, may relate to Baltar. Of the major living characters, he most has begged for redemption, and is most in need of it, and it will indeed be painful for him. While Lee Adama seeks redemption for the Olympic Carrier this has been at best a minor theme in his character. Only Baltar begs for it, and only Baltar has said he would find redemption in learning he was a Cylon.

But equally, I just don’t think it’s Baltar. He strikes me more as a sort of “false prophet,” really — a misguided human demagogue who attempts to take on the mantle of an authority figure (first as a scientist, then as a politician, and now as a quasi-religious guru) in order to advance his own agenda (which, experience shows, typically involves the contents of his pants). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Baltar’s “saviours” in the last episode of Season 3 were all beautiful women.

And let’s not even begin to discuss Starbuck. Yes, I know she died (or seemed to die) in Maelstrom. Yes, I know she came back in the last episode of the Season 3. Yes, I know she has a destiny. No, I still don’t think she’s a Cylon.

There’s also a logistical consideration that gets in the way of Starbuck’s being a Cylon. One of the things we know about the Final Five is that none of the other seven humanoid Cylons have any clue who the Final Five are. If Kara Thrace was really a Cylon, resurrected and sent back to the Colonials in a captured (and then nicely shined-up) Viper, it stands to reason that when she appeared to Lee, she must have come from one of the nearby Cylon ships (Vipers, as far as we know, do not have FTL jump drives), possibly a Resurrection Ship. It seems pretty incredible to suggest that the Cylons could have built a shipboard resurrection apparatus that included copies of the bodies of at least one of the Final Five and still remained “in the dark” about who the Five were. The only possible dodge that Ron Moore could use here, I think, is to say that the Colonials have somehow gotten very close to the Cylon homeworld, but I don’t think he’s going to go there.

And then there’s the fact that it would just be too bloody obvious if Starbuck were a Cylon. Her “resurrection” is significant, but it’s also a red herring as far as speculating who the final Cylon might be is concerned. Starbuck’s death was a rite of purification that she had to pass through before she could take on the task her destiny had appointed for her (ostensibly, to guide the Colonials to Earth, or possibly to their extinction).

And really, I think I’m even going to add at least two of the Adamas to that list as well. I know that Leoben said that “Adama is a Cylon”, but that was well before the writers had decided on who the final Cylon was (and, indeed, well before the search for the Final Five became a significant component of the show’s plot). I think it would be somewhat dramatically compelling if Admiral Adama did turn out to be a Cylon, but at the same time it would also be contrived given both his experiences during the First Cylon War and given the fact that his closest buddy from the war, Saul Tigh, has already been “outed.”

Lee being revealed as being a Cylon would be a bit more dramatic, and certainly would seem to meet two important criteria of the First Hybrid’s prophecy concerning the last Cylon (Lee has a ton of regrets and stabs of guilt — “hungering for redemption” — and has recently set himself on a course that utterly defies everything his father stands for — “still in shadow, drawn toward the light”). Then again, though, more than a few people seem to be guessing that Lee is a shoe-in for the final Cylon, and Ron Moore is (I think) too crafty to let folks off the hook that easily. Additionally, it would be tricky to explain how exactly Lee could be a Cylon, given that the Adama family has a pretty well-known history. Suggesting that perhaps the real baby Lee was switched at birth with a Cylon infant would be one possible explanation…but that raises more questions than it answers. Who carried out the switch? Was it a human or a Cylon? If it was a Cylon, how do the other Cylons not know about (at least) this one member of the Final Five? If it wasn’t a Cylon, what motive did that person have?

Too complicated, kind of contrived, and not the sort of road one wants to wander when one only has one season of episodes left to produce; the final season is a time for tying up loose threads, not picking new ones free of the fabric.

And of course, it would be remiss to not mention the fact that Ron Moore himself doesn’t want to reveal Admiral Adama, Lee Adama, or Laura Roslin as being the final Cylon.

Revealing Zak Adama as a Cylon would certainly be compelling, although I think Zak might be too obscure a character; everyone who knows the series knows that Admiral Adama had a son named Zak, and that said son died, but I doubt many BSG fans would know Zak on sight. The character that is the final Cylon needs to be someone who is instantly recognizable. Even having William Adama exclaim “Zak!” is too much time to waste during the revelation scene — the audience has to know instantly who it is.

Besides, how would Zak even get to the Colonial Fleet in the first place? He’d either have to be waiting for them on Earth (which prompts the question: how?) or he’d have to be on a Cylon basestar, awaiting his moment in the Sun (so to speak). The same logistical objection I have to Starbuck’s being a Cylon I can now raise here as well.

So there’s my lengthy explanation of who I don’t think will be the final Cylon, and especially where Zak Adama is concerned it’s as much a repudiation of my own prior theories as it is a rejection of any of the current theories that are out there. Who then, the Reader may yet be wondering, do I think the final Cylon actually is?

Remember what I said above, how the final Cylon would have to be someone at once instantly recognizable, and also someone whose revelation as a Cylon would be even more dramatic than learning that Chief Tyrol or Saul Tigh were Cylons? There’s only one person I can think of whose revelation would be that dramatic. Briefly, I think it’s Karl “Helo” Agathon. Yes: Helo. The same Helo who fathered a child with Sharon “Athena” Agathon.

And in fact, a goodly number of my reasons for thinking this center around little baby Hera, supposedly special as a humano-Cylon hybrid. If in fact her partly human, partly Cylon parentage makes Hera unique and pivotal to the plot of the series, then the revelation that Nicholas Tyrol is also a hybrid strips that away from her, which seems anti-climactic to me. It doesn’t really make all that much sense to build up Hera’s significance for the better part of an entire season, only to discard it second-hand with the revelation that she isn’t the only one with a Cylon for a parent after all.

Hera is special. But evidently, being a half-human, half-Cylon child is not so special anymore. So why is Hera special? Could she be a child of a Cylon/Cylon union?

“But wait!” the Reader may now be about to exclaim. “Cylons cannot reproduce with Cylons!” In my defence, I would like to point out that we don’t exactly know that Cylons can’t reproduce with each other. All we know is that Cylon experimentation in this area has thus far been fruitless. But fruitless doesn’t necessarily mean impossible.

In the analysis for “The Farm”, the writers at Battlestar Wiki note the following:

• Love serves as a theme in this episode. First, we find out how important love is for the Cylons: it is considered essential for Cylon procreation. In the first episode, Number Six asked Dr. Baltar several times if he loved her. Number Six also said that “God is love”. That was after she tried to conceive from him. Love is also the reason Sharon aids Helo and the reason Helo accepts her help. Also we hear that Starbuck was abused as a child. In the last episode she said that everyone seems to fight to get their old life back and she fights because it’s all she knows how to do. In this episode she seems to develop affections to Anders. Will Starbuck find ‘reason’ in love? Commander Adama tells his subordinates that he loves them. He asks Chief Tyrol if one could love a machine. Ultimately, Commander Adama weeps over Galactica-Sharon’s body because he loved her
• Number Six mentioned that “procreation is one of God’s commandments” in the first episode, “33″. This could mean that the Cylons are trying to procreate out of a feeling that they are sinning by not being able to have children on their own

If love is such a necessary component of Cylon procreation, it stands to reason that it makes rather a lot of sense why the “in the lab” results of procreation experiments amongst the Cylons all came up negative. When one is reduced to taking a clinical approach to such things, or when one acts out of fear that by not acting one is committing a sin, one’s actions are not motivated by love. Guilt? Yes, probably. Inquiry and curiosity? Most assuredly. But love? No, probably not.

Now, we know based on the events of the first season surrounding baby Hera’s conception that the “love” necessary in a sexual union does not have to be bi-directional. The Reader may recall that while Helo very genuinely loved Sharon Valeri, the Sharon that he impregnated was (at the time) working for the Cylons and was, we can assume, very likely acting not out of love, but out of a Cylon scheme. Is it possible that Helo, ignorant of his Cylon nature and ignorant of the difficulties of Cylon/Cylon procreation surrounding the issue of genuine love, acted out of genuine love and was able to impregnate Sharon?

“But wait!” the Reader may now be about to exclaim. “What about the odd fetal blood work? Doesn’t that cement the fact that Hera is part human and part Cylon?” And I will grant that it is true that Hera’s blood, as discovered by Dr. Cottle and Dr. Baltar during the debate over whether or not Sharon’s pregnancy should be forcibly terminated, has some unique properties. But it’s those very unique properties that make me doubt that she is in fact a half-human, half-Cylon child.

Baltar explained fairly plainly that human blood contains antigens, and that Hera’s blood contains no antigens at all. We can perhaps infer that she got this from her Cylon mother…but then, that doesn’t make sense, because one would think that Baltar’s Cylon detector would have been a lot less complicated if all Cylons had antigen-free blood. Moreover, wouldn’t Dr. Cottle have noticed something “damn odd” about Sharon’s blood work? And wouldn’t an injection of Sharon’s own blood have been sufficient to cure Roslin’s cancer in that case? I think we can safely conclude that Sharon’s blood is not as easily distinguished from human blood as in the example Baltar draws for Admiral Adama.

There is something special about Hera’s blood that her parents lacked. But how can that be? If neither her father nor her mother had antigen-free (or “damned odd,” to use Cottle’s term for it) blood, where did she get it from? What if the unique structure of Hera’s blood is analogous to, say, the way that Frank Herbert’s Bene Gesserit breeding program and the ultimate goal of the Kwisatz Haderach? What if, because of the union of two Cylons and the emergence of a pregnancy from that, a special category of being was created that did have truly antigen-free blood (among other differences)? What if that’s the real reason that the Cylons were attempting to breed? What if that’s the real reason Virtual Six, the image of Six that Baltar keeps seeing, called the child a “miracle from God?”

THe above becomes especially important when one considers, again, the presence of Nicholas Tyrol, the Chief’s son. It stands to reason that if Nicholas was the same manner of being as Hera (that is, half-human and half-Cylon) that his blood would have similar properties; Dr. Cottle was on New Caprica during the time that Cally was pregnant, and would almost certainly have given the pregnant woman a good standard of care, including fetal blood work. Failing that, he would have likely done as much once Nicholas was born, and realized either way that baby Nicholas also had something “damned odd” about his blood. That, in turn, would have cast suspicion on either Chief Tyrol or Cally as being possible Cylons. And yet, none of these plot threads came up in the third season of BSG.

That would seem to suggest, to me at least, that humano-Cylon children are not really all that special, nor does it suggest to me that there is anything particularly unique about their physiology. And I think don’t think Ron Moore overlooked, by accident, the fact that Tyrol’s being outed as a Cylon would have undercut Hera’s significance if she were in fact a human/Cylon hybrid. I think that Nicholas Tyrol is a vehicle for a subtle clue that Moore is giving to the audience: Hera is significant, but half-human, half-Cylon children aren’t.

And the only way I can think that he can make Hera significant is if she is neither a human child nor a humano-Cylon child; she can only be significant if she is the offspring of two Cylons: Sharon and Helo.

Which could explain Number Three’s surprised exclamation when she meets the Final Five and looks upon the face of one of them: “You… forgive me… I had no idea.” That’s not merely an excited outburst caused by having seen one of five forbidden faces — that’s genuine surprise at something she didn’t think was possible. We know that, as , the Threes came face to face with Helo once before. Could Helo have been the face that she saw?

At this point, we should ask what the nature of the Humanoid Cylons is, and what Ron Moore’s intent as a writer was when he created that plot idea:

The idea was that these models of Cylon were sort of developed out of their own study of us. The Cylons on some level looked at humanity and said ‘You know what? There’s really only twelve of you.’ If these are the twelve, and sort of if you look at them they each represent different archetypes of what humanity is.”

So what traits have we seen manifest in the Cylons presently known, and what trait(s) are still missing?

• In the Threes, we see a calculating duplicitousness, a manipulative behaviour that sees even fellow Cylons as tools to be used. There is also a religious streak to the Threes that draws its inspiration from experiences of the divine
• In the Fives (the Aaron Doral model), we militant fanaticism, and a willingness to resort to anything, from deliberately sowing confusion to outright suicide bombing, “for the cause.”
• In the Sixes, we see two almost competing ideas. On one hand, this model seems to rely very heavily on sex and seduction to advance its goals, but on the other hand it is very intensely religious about them, and a real focus on the concept of revelation and personal communication with God’s will
• In the Eights we see the soldier and spy, the sabotage expert and the “field operative.” These models are also regarded as defective for their ability to love selflessly. All business, these ones…but with one key weak spot. She’s the woman who could have everything and be anything…and who would let it all go for love
• In Simon, we see an intellectual and possibly a scholar
• In Leoben, we see the mystic and the prophet, and also the model most obsessed with the idea of procreation. At Batttlestar Wiki, he is likened to the serpent in Genesis, tempting with knowledge and half-truths and then sitting back and enjoying the show as the chaos that comes with having that knowledge takes its toll on humanity
• In Cavil, we have the single-minded, sardonic, atheistic “strongman.”
• In Tigh, we have the flawed man, the hard drinker and the coward
• In Tyrol, we have the “everyman” — proud but competent, agnostic but also inexorably tethered to the faith of his past
• In Anders, we have the jock, but underneath that exterior there’s a man who both hates what fates have befallen him and a man who realizes when a job needs to be done, and who jumps at the chance to do it
• And in Tory Foster, we have the consummate career girl; all business, but coming apart at the seams and not above a little casual hookup. At the same time, she too is willing to cheat and manipulate, cajole and barter, in order to achieve her goals

When I look at that list (and yes, some of it is just speculation on my part), what I notice as being missing is someone who is genuinely humble, the “good man” who tries, at every turn, to do the right thing. Helo’s sense of right and wrong is second to none in the series, even if his standing up for what is right poses, to him,, a genuine risk.

To enumerate just briefly:

• He gives up his seat so that Baltar can escape the colonies
• He goes out of his way to make Sharon feel at ease when they find the bomb shelter in the café
• He can’t bring himself to abandon Sharon after it appears that she has been captured by the Cylons
• He refuses to let Starbuck kill Sharon when the former returns to Caprica to retrieve the Arrow of Apollo. He later defends Sharon from Lee Adama and President Roslin as well
• During the trek to the Tomb of Athena, Helo cares for Sharon and is obviously in love with her. When she asks for his trust, he gives it, despite his reservations
• When the crew of Galactica ostracizes him, Helo keeps to himself quietly, sharing his time only with Starbuck and spending every free moment visiting Sharon in the ship’s brig. He nevertheless does not give up hope, even going so far as to suggest the use of carbon composite for the hull of the stealth ship that Chief Tyrol’s deck crew builds
• He rushes to intervene when Sharon is attacked and nearly raped
• When Roslin and Dr. Cottle stage their duplicitous exchange of Hera for a dead baby, Helo stands by his wife and attempts to console her, despite the obvious grief he himself feels
• He steps into the XO’s role when Adama has to send Tigh away
• When Adama and Roslin decide to attack the Cylons with biological warfare, Helo intervenes and kills (by sabotaging the atmospheric system in the brig) Cylons infected with a virus that is deadly to them
• He is Adama’s “voice in the wilderness” when another doctor begins to exterminate Sagittaron patients
• He senses that “a storm is coming” just as the Fleet is about to jump to the Ionian Nebula

There’s a lot there, but the general picture it paints is of a man who tries his level best to be selfless and humble, caring and giving — all traits that are, more or less, missing from the current crop of features evident in known Cylon models. If we can take Ron Moore at his word that each Cylon acts out a human archetype, Helo becomes an even better prospect for being the final Cylon, because he is perhaps the most unique character in the series for how he constantly strives for what is righteous and true.

Now, what do we know about the final Cylon? Most of our clues come from the utterances of the First Hybrid, which read (in part) as follows:

The denial of the one true path, played out on a world not their own, will end soon enough*. Soon there will be four, glorious in awakening, struggling with the knowledge of their true selves**. The pain of revelation bringing new clarity and in the midst of confusion, he will find her***. Enemies brought together by impossible longing. Enemies now joined as one****. The way forward at once unthinkable, yet inevitable. And the fifth, still in shadow, will claw toward the light, hungering for redemption that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering. I can see them all. The seven, now six, self-described machines who believe themselves without sin*****. But in time, it is sin that will consume them. They will know enmity, bitterness, the wrenching agony of one splintering into many******. And then, they will join the promised land*******, gathered on the wings of an angel. Not an end, but a beginning.

The final Cylon is “hungry for redemption that will only come in the howl of terrible suffering.” Now, we’ve discussed some of what Helo has done that is righteous, and that he has always tried to do what is right. Like every human being, he has failed on some accounts. Here’s a short list.

• He has to gun down a civilian in order for Sharon’s Raptor to be able to take off and escape the Colonies
• He abandons, and then later shoots Sharon when he first realizes what she is
• He murders an officer. Even though the guy was about to rape Sharon, Helo is still a military man, and can appreciate the gravity of his action
• To prevent genocide, Helo has to kill several Cylons. I think Helo is righteous enough to realize that even though he prevented a greater evil, the lesser evil was still just that — evil
• He has to summon the ability to kill the mother of his child when he learns that Hera is still alive and on one of the Cylon basestars
• And really, it was only because of his actions in the first place that Baltar survived and became the menace that he did

I think this last point may be the most significant. As yet, we haven’t seen much of Helo’s reaction to what Baltar has become, but I don’t think anyone, especially Ron Moore, has forgotten Helo’s initial role in ensuring that Baltar escaped from Caprica alive. I think, in the coming season, we’re going to see Helo struggle immensely with this, torn between his desire to always do what is right (and saving Baltar was the right thing to do) and his regret at the destruction that has been visited upon humanity because of the choice he made. I think, especially as Baltar’s influence as a quasi-religious figure grows during the progression of the fourth season, we’ll see Helo suffer terribly for the choice he made — maybe even to the point of losing some or all of his loved ones. Sharon Agathon might not survive the fourth season, after all******.

I realize that suggesting that Helo is the final Cylon puts me in a definite minority, and I realize that I’m putting myself at risk of having any number of BSG fanatics (that is, people more fanatical than myself) swoop in with various bits of evidence that I’ve missed so as to refute the points I’ve made here. And that’s fair, if it happens; I could easily be wrong about all this. But for what it’s worth, I think that Helo is the most probable choice for the final Cylon. And I do believe that his revelation as such would be way more dramatic a thing than any of the Adamas, because it would change not only our perceptions of who Helo himself is, but of who his daughter is and why she really is so significant to the Cylons and to the Virtual Six that only Baltar can see, who claims to be an “angel of God.”

FOOTNOTES (may still contain spoilers regarding the fourth season)

* this would seem to be a reference to the Colonial’s polytheism (’denial of the one true path’) and the nature of their worlds (colonies could technically be considered worlds ‘not their own’)

** this would seem to be a reference to the four Cylons revealed at the end of the third season

*** this would seem to be a reference to Lee meeting up with Starbuck in the Ionian Nebula, after she was supposedly killed several weeks prior

**** rumours about the fourth season suggest that there will be much more human/Cylon interaction, and that the Cylons, upon learning of the existence of some of the Final Five amongst the Colonials, will cease attacking the Fleet

***** this would seem to be a reference to the seven Cylon models known as of the end of the second season (one of which, the Threes, was subsequently ‘boxed’)

****** another rumour about season four involves one or two Cylon models orchestrating a rebellion by the Cylon Centurions that results in the deaths of two or three other Cylon models

******* Jamie Bamber, the actor who plays Lee Adama, let slip that the Colonials do in fact reach Earth by at least the middle of the fourth season

******** Since first posting this speculation over a month ago, I’ve remained relatively certain that Helo is, in fact, the final Cylon. However, as a hedge bet, I’m willing to grant that Cally is a decent second suspect, with Zak Adama bringing things to an even three. The only reason I suspect Zak is that he got another mention in the first episode of Season Four (Lee asks Admiral Adama how he would have reacted if Zak, not Kara, had just miraculously appeared, and if that meant that Zak had always been a Cylon), although the hint was probably too obvious for it to be worth anything.

Count Roland writes in with some thoughts about some recent promotional material for a series we both enjoy watching — Battlestar Galactica. While the picture itself dates back to a promotional campaign that the SciFi Channel ran back in January of this year, I haven’t really commented on the image….well…because let’s face it: rip-offs of the famous painting of Christ and the apostles sitting at the table are a dime a dozen.

Have you seen the picture on scifi.com’s BSG page? It is The Last Supper but with Caprica Six presiding and BSG characters attending. I was surprised to see it, but it seems to be in some taste - not raunchy, say - and it would seem to be in jest. Especially since the Cylons are the monotheists and Caprica saved them from their destructive path (sort of…).

I wonder, O Writer, if this would generate problems and if it generates less than the homosexual parody, then perhaps the Muslim response is made at least more understandable if not condonable. If we react less harshly to fiction than doctrine parodies, perhaps they react more strongly for dogma than we do for doctrine.

But wait, fiction, such as The Satanic Verses, has caused quite vehement response too. Perhaps the dogma of “Islam and Muhammad are always right” creates a great deal more fiction than our dogmas, the creeds for Christians and some others, such as inspiration of Scripture not specifically mentioned in the creeds. Maybe , too, our dogma of love impels us to a different response than the dogma of shame and retribution.

Here’s the picture to which Roland is referring, just for reference (corrected — oops!):

As noted above, I am aware of the “Last Supper” promo picture, and I am equally aware of the various ways in which it alternatively is and is not supposed to be concerned with the identity of the final Cylon, whoever he or she might be. I don’t think it is in the best taste, but I certainly don’t find it offensive. The positioning of Tricia Helfer’s “Head Six” at the center of the table is interesting, and may be a commentary on the nature of the being that only Gaius Baltar can see (she does assert, often, that she is “an angel of God“). More interesting, I think, is the positioning of Jamie Bamber’s Lee Adama in the place of Judas Iscariot, and the fact that the seat of Simon Peter is yet empty*.

I may be misunderstanding Roland‘ second paragraph, but I don’t think anything about this picture — the intent that went into it, its composition, or the reaction to it from both Christians and non-Christians — in any way condones some of the more violent reactions that one sees from the Islamic community against similar, greater, and sometimes lesser slights. That’s not to say that a response is not justified — it is simply to remark that if the response takes the form of murderous riots, it has become far worse than that which it protests, and is a grave moral evil.

I think Roland hits the mark exactly by mentioning the concept of fiction, which I think is key in forming a proper response to what could be called parodies of representations of religious figures. In much the same way as anyone who thinks that the Da Vinci Code has anything more than a coincidental relationship to reality needs to give his or her head a shake, so too does anyone who is offended by a fiction-derived representation of a real religious figure need to pause and consider carefully his or her reaction. Fiction is just that — fiction, not reality. It doesn’t matter where Head Six is positioned in the picture, nor does it matter who occupies the central position of the picture, so long as in reality that position was and is occupied by Christ. And it is, just as it was.

I think that Roland also hits the mark by noting a major difference between Islamic theology and Christian theology — whereas Christian Theology is predicated on the concepts of love and mercy, Islamic theology seems to be predicated on doctrines of submission and militarism. And so while the Christian response to a perceived blasphemy (because really, that is what is at issue here) might be to shake one’s head and wonder at the reasoning behind the composition, the Islamic (Islamist?) response seems to be to demand that the errant composer be made to suffer for his actions.

The question, I suppose, becomes why Islam tends toward the violent response, whereas Christianity tends toward the non-violent, when the issue at hand is something which is perceived to be a slight against each respective religion. One thought which I keep returning to is that the only real reason to act violently in response to a blasphemous or insulting depiction of a religious figure is if the true nature of the figure depicted is more accurately revealed in the blasphemous image than in the traditional depiction, and if the intended goal of the violence is to suppress that truth. I don’t suggest that I am condoning violence in the cause of a cover-up — I am merely noting that, to me at least, that’s really the only thing I can think of when I try to imagine a motive that would cause a person to act out violently against a cheap-shot blasphemous image. In essence, the violence emerges when the blasphemy hits too close to home.

Since I regard Muhammad as a false prophet, and as a generally unsavoury person, I regard depictions of him which dispute his sanctity as being more accurate than those which affirm it, and I realize that I admit a certain bias in my thinking if this latest statement is considered in parallel with the previous paragraph. I submit, nevertheless, that the preceding is still a valid point for consideration.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

* although the traditional left-to-right order of apostles lists Judas as being to the left of Peter, a closer look at the picture shows that Peter’s seat is left of that of Judas’, and that Peter is leaning over toward John (who is to the right of Judas).

The following contains a few spoilers. Skip this post if that’s not your bag of chips.

In my previous review of I Am Legend, I wrote the following:

Having recently isolated a promising strain of his anti-viral treatments, Neville elects to capture one of this clan of infected, and does so. It is at this point that his world will begin to unravel, although he doesn’t realize it. And I have to say, I think that a big part of why everything comes apart for him has to do with his atheism and, I think, his need to analyze everything through purely scientific categories. The vampire he captures appears to be an 18-year old girl, and just as the trap he sets is sprung, Neville witnesses something odd: another vampire, this one looking much older, briefly peers out of the darkness from which the girl was taken, staring at Neville with an expression that suggests both rage and loss. His face begins to burn from the light, and he withdraws. Later on, Neville remarks — in a video journal entry he is making for himself — that in his estimation, the social de-evolution of humanity is complete; the infected are now incapable of recognzing when actions will or will not be harmful. He misses entirely the significance of his own actions: he took the girl from her clan, or possibly her family. As primal and as violent as the vampires are, love — in the form of devotion to family — still exists even in them. Neville cannot see that, and his inability to recognize something very human in the infected will have dire consqeuences in the near future.

As I was watching the movie for the second time, I wondered in the back of my mind what would have happened if Will Smith’s character, trapped in his basement by the “vampires” and apparently left with no choice but to sacrifice himself to protect Alice Braga’s character so that she can escape and take the cure for the KV “vampirism” virus to the other human survivors, had shown the suddenly healed girl to the attacking “vampires”. It was only after he took the girl that the “vampires” really took a vested interest in hunting him down, and I opined in my first review of the movie that love was what motivated them to act so uncharacteristically — they wanted their “family” back together.

As it turns out, almost the same scenario was supposed to be the original ending of the movie. The difference being, I see, that the girl was not cured.

And while I usually tend to agree with the people at LIBERTAS, this time I have to take exception with their conclusions. I don’t think this alternate ending would have diminished the religiosity of the film one iota, at least not in terms of symbolism. Smith’s character still have realizes that he was wrong, both in his assumptions about the vampires and in his assumptions about God. His line to Alice Braga — “I’m listening.” — is still there, and just as powerful as he walks out into a room full of “vampires.” Indeed, the message might almost have been more powerful — the scientist who had previously not even thought that love might exist amongst the “vampires” suddenly realized that even in the midst of hell, love remains.

Maybe it’s just because it was yesterday and everyone’s feelings about love and romance are all out of whack, but there have been a lot of posts this week looking at the growing trend among men to put off marriage. From discussions of how society’s instant gratification-oriented, over-permissive, abortion-as-birth control society is encouraging men to have immature attitudes toward commitment, to discussions of how society’s attitudes toward divorce and the tendency of more and more women to choose to put off marriage until their 30s is teaching men, often through hard and bitter disappointment, that marriage is simply not worth it, there’s been a glut of commentary that, on the face of it, would seem to be rather “down” on the whole concept of long-term love and marital commitment.

On the flip side, though, there have also been a number of enlightening articles on the effect that marriage has on men, the maturation that it effects. The cure for our post-modern culture is not to make our attitudes toward casual sex and abortion even more liberal and permissive, but to reverse the trend entirely; fiery romance has its place, but it is in giving rise to new life that the purest joy of love is made known to a couple. Strangely, more than a little commentary has been devoted to the notion that “settling” for a good partner when the opportunity arrives, rather than waiting until that Prince Charming or Princess…whatever name you give a Disney princess…comes along (and thus passing up any number of reasonably suitable other people), is in fact a very good decision, and one that will promote both the emotional maturation of both men and women, but will also contribute to the long-term stability of a relationship (as compared to the dreamers who await that perfect someone).

For my own, I think marriage is worth it — in fact; I think marriage is very worthwhile, and (moreover) the highest calling I’ve ever received in my mortal existence. And perhaps I’ve been fortunate in that the girl that I married was not only the first (and only) girl I ever really fell into romantic love with, but was also a genuinely great person to be in love with. I didn’t “settle” when I married Grace. One hates to use a “gaming” metaphor, but in marrying Grace I “won,” and by no small margin either.

I can see where a lot of the negativity many men feel toward marriage comes from when I look out at what’s left of Canada’s post-Christian society. divorce is very heavily stacked in favour of women, so much so that it’s no surprise that many men simply feel it’s not worth the time and effort to get married in the first place. Men tend to be analytical thinkers by their very nature, and most men tend to look at life with a “pros and cons” or “profit and loss” category set. Unfortunately, for many men, contemplating marriage puts a lot of entries on the “cons” list, and few enough in the “pros” list.

Divorce, which I mentioned above, is one easy example, and that goes double (or more) once kids are involved. The process, in most Western nations, is stacked very much in favour of women, and men can face the prospect not only of financial ruin, but also career ruin, if a vindictive ex-wife makes even a hint of a false allegation of abuse or sexual misconduct. I also think that many women either do not know, or do not care to know, the way men function, or what their emotional and spiritual needs may be. Despite the stereotypical images, I think many men are actually fairly private individuals, and I think a goodly number of women make the mistake of forcing extreme openness onto men at too early a stage. That’s not to say that men cannot be open, nor is it to say that men should not be open, but it is to remark that for a lot of men the process of opening up to women (or to anyone) is a long-term thing. I also happen to think that too many women take it upon themselves to try and “change” their men, whatever that means — that’s also something destined to fail in most cases, and ranks high on the list of “cons” many men see when they comtemplate marriage. The expectation of semi-constant nagging and unreasonable burden of personality and habit reformations is, frankly, a pretty large put-off.

Again, I’ve been lucky, almost unnaturally lucky, because Grace is none of the above things. She believes in the sanctity of marriage, believes in its permamence, and is willing to let me be who I am, and to change at the pace I need to change at. Sometimes the shifts are very gradual, and sometimes they’re very sudden…this goes to the maturing effect that marriage tends to have on men (also mentioned above).

In the years that I’ve known Grace, there were several years in which my outlook on life could best be described as bitter. God forgive me for who I became during and after my foray into liberal Catholicism (a pit from which Grace helped to pull me). During that time, both as a result of my warped views and as a result of the more or less complete self destruction of the faith life of most of my family (which took with it a lot of their happiness and ability to love and trust, incidentally — atheists out there who think of the waning of faith as a good thing might want to pause and reconsider the consequenes of that waning). In fact, even up until the date of the wedding, and for a while after, I wasn’t the most pleasant person to be around. Not by a long shot.

But something began to happen after a couple of months. All that pent up frustration, all that bitterness, all that disappointment…it all just began to let go. Troubles I thought I was facing turned out to be…well…no trouble at all. And this girl that I’d married, this girl that I thought for sure I loved so very much…well…it turns out that I’d only been loving her a fraction as much as she deserved from me. And out of that, I knew one thing: I wanted to grow. I wanted to be the husband someone like Grace deserves, wanted to take how much I loved her already and love her even more, because that’s what she’s really worth. And I did that…just like that, basically.

Grace was (understandably) weirded out by some of it, but there it was. And I realized something again just last night: I’m married to a wonderful young woman, and that is an amazing thing. And I love her at least as much (read: a heck of a lot more) as I did when I first met her. And yes, I loved her from the moment we met, and even in our darkest times I couldn’t let that go.

But I wanted even that love to grow, because she’s the sort of person who deserves even better than that. So…I made a choice, and that love grew. That’s maturity, and the “in action” example of the maturing effect that marriage has on men. And while I’m happy that for the time being, we’re not trying to get pregnant, in a certain sense I cannot wait to have kids, because I know that there’s going to be even more opportunities to grow and mature in that adventure.

This isn’t some sappy Tom Cruise “you complete me” sentiment — this is me saying that the girl I found, the girl I married, inspires me to realize that I can always be a better man, and stokes in me the desire to reach for that goal.

I think its lamentable that men and women both put off marriage. They do it for different reasons, most of which are tragic at best and abhorrent at worst, but all in all it’s a lamentable thing indeed. Marriage is an amazing gift, and if you do it right it’s an adventure and a fulfilling experience like no other. It’s a great opportunity to grow, although you can only really expect to grow in it if you can be mature enough beforehand to accept that you are capable of growth. It does change you, but it should change you in ways that are beneficial to both you and your spouse.

And I think it’s a shame how, in our post-modern world, we’ve forgotten those simple truths, and erected so many roadblocks to achieving that real happiness in matrimony. Grace and I are, unfortunately, something of a rarity these days, and that’s not the way it should be at all. I think society has a duty to expect better from its men and women.