Connecting "2001" With Its "2010" Sequel

Last year, I shared someone's post on Facebook featuring a segment from an interview conducted with Stanley Kubrick in 1980, but not released until after his death, in which Kubrick explained his intended meaning of the confounding scene at the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey":

The idea was supposed to be that he is taken in by godlike entities, creatures of pure energy and intelligence with no shape or form. They put him in what I suppose you could describe as a human zoo to study him, and his whole life passes from that point on in that room. And he has no sense of time. ... [W]hen they get finished with him, as happens in so many myths of all cultures in the world, he is transformed into some kind of super being and sent back to Earth, transformed and made some kind of superman. We have to only guess what happens when he goes back. It is the pattern of a great deal of mythology, and that is what we were trying to suggest.

Most artists, including movie directors, seem to want not to disclose their intended meaning of a work, but I'm such an irremediably literal-minded person who struggles and usually fails to arrive at any coherent interpretation of artistic or literary metaphors that I'm grateful to have stumbled onto Kubrick's explanation. More or less.

For there's just one problem. How does Kubrick's explanation logically connect with the movie's sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact"? In "2010," astronauts journey to the site near Jupiter where astronaut Dave Bowman disappeared in "2001" to find out what happened to him and more about the godlike aliens implicated in his disappearance. But the problem is that Kubrick's explanation of the concluding scene in "2001" suggests that Bowman returned to Earth years before as a fetal cosmic superbeing poised to effect some kind of massive transformation of the Earth and/or its human inhabitants. Yet, "2010" exhibits no evidence of said transformation nor any mention of Bowman's prior return. 

Well, I suppose one could theorize that when Bowman returned at the end of 2001 as a "Starchild," his celestial presence was unobserved by and, hence, unknown to people on Earth, and so was his carrying out his purpose. Perhaps he was sent merely to observe or monitor Earth activities, or perhaps to effect imperceptibly subtle but important changes facilitating the aliens' later plans which actualize in "2010."

So, if I look at it that way, I guess there's no real "problem" after all. The two movies can be readily reconciled, and all is well. They say writing about something can help you arrive at understandings you might not have had as soon or ever if you hadn't written about what you were trying to figure out. This little blogging exercise is proof positive of that.

Is God a Mass Murderer?

There's a new blog in town. It's called Biblical Bunk and is authored by someone who goes by the improbable name of Adonis Anacondus. His second post is titled Noah's Flood: Is Bible God a Mass Murderer? Here is the post:

Is Bible God a mass murderer of men, women, children, babies and fetuses?

If Noah's Flood actually took place and you worship or pray to Bible God does this mean that you condone mass baby murder?

Since Satan never killed anyone in the Bible does this mean he is Good and Bible God is Evil?

Why do Christians often declare they detest murder yet go to all lengths to defend what looks like the mass murder of Bible God?

This is how I replied:

The Bible literally says that God killed countless men, women, children, babies, and fetuses. So if we read it as literally true in these accounts, God killed all of these people. But did his killing constitute the "murder" you say it does? One definition of "murder" is: "The unlawful killing of one human by another." I often define murder as "unjustified homicide." Do God's killings meet the first definition? No, since the biblical God is not a human being. What about my second definition? Christians reply that since God is and does only good, he cannot do something that is unjustified; therefore, his homicides are justifiable. I think this is debatable, but I won't elaborate right now. Some Christians also reply that these stories should not necessarily be interpreted literally. Rather, they should be seen as metaphors authored by ancient people to eff ineffable truths about the awesomely incomprehensible nature of God. Thus, if you ask them what these metaphors tell us about the living God, they say that this can't be precisely expressed in literal language but can only be understood to any degree via some complex and prolonged process of faith-based study and contemplation.

I confess that I don't know what to make of all this. It seems to me that there can be no justification for God's literal acts of mass-killing; I can't imagine how even a metaphorical interpretation of them tells us anything valid about a true God who is truly as supremely loving, just, and merciful as Christians believe him to be; and, finally, if we aren't to interpret THESE stories as literal fact, why should we interpret miraculous stories about Jesus' virgin birth, unique divinity, and bodily resurrection as literally true? Yet, can someone who doesn't interpret them in this way be Christian? I understand that such a person cannot.

That is one reason why I do not consider myself Christian.

Having It Both Ways

Don’t ask me why, but I’ve been having a discussion on a message board about how the OT depicts God as a mass-murdering monster. The well-educated Catholic gentleman with whom I’ve been engaging in most of this discussion argues that this is only the OT God and not the NT one. I reply by asking him where the NT and Catholic Church assert that we are not to accept the OT stories in question as historical fact. He replies that this is beside his point that the NT does not portray God this way. I reply that if it and the Church do not refute the murderous acts of the OT God, then the NT and OT God are reasonably seen as one and the same God. He replies that I need to bone up on metaphorical interpretation of scripture. I reply by asking where the NT or Church teach that the OT stories in question should be interpreted only metaphorically rather than literally. I haven’t received an answer.

This points to a beef I have with Roman Catholicism. It seems to want to have things both ways. On the one hand, it counsels people to look for the metaphorical meaning of biblical stories that we find repugnant and reasonably doubt on a literal level. On the other hand, it never, so far as I’m aware, comes right out and claims that any of these stories are literally false. I surmise that this is because, if it did, it would be more difficult for it to maintain that literal biblical passages granting it the power it has over its followers and its authority to interpret biblical passages metaphorically can be taken seriously. So, like I said, the Church tries to have it both ways and hopes that nobody notices.

Most people seem not to notice, but some of us do.