Free Hand Thinker

My wife and I are huge House fans. Every Monday night, we have our "House date" were one of us makes dinner, and we sit on the couch together and watch House. The build up to last Monday's episode left our breaths' bated in anticipation. And we were not let down. Kutner committed suicide.

I thought it was an odd "twist". Like the show said, he never seemed like he was suicidal. It didn't make sense. It was obvious that the spontanious death was triggered by something other than the need for a plot device. Our first thought was that he (the actor Kal Penn who played Kutner) died in real life. So, I hit the internet and found this:

"House" star Kal Penn -- whose character was killed off on Monday's episode -- is taking a sabbatical from acting to work for President Obama. The 31-year-old actor, first launched to fame as a stoner student in the "Harold and Kumar" movies, is coming to Washington to be associate director in the White House Office of Public Liaison, Entertainment Weekly first reported yesterday.

My wife and I rolled our eyes (we are not Obama supporters in case you can't tell) and shrugged it off. What was done is done. But then I was reading one of my more favorite blogs and found the blogger, Ed Morrissey, thought this:

Actually, I found the suicide to be the most objectionable part of the story, and I’m not sure why.  Maybe it’s because the series treated suicide as an easy way out of a staffing jam rather than a serious subject.  It seems almost grotesque to concoct a character’s suicide just to get the actor a gig in politics.  Why not just give the character a job somewhere else?

I thought this was profound. Why did they have him commit suicide? There were better ways to do this. He could have taken another job. That job could have been at the White House, actually putting the truth in the plot instead of killing him off. They could have used Kutner's death as a good plot device. House thought he was murdered at one point. They could have ran with that. I even came up with the theory that Taub killed him because of jealous over the last case (let's face it, Taub is a train wreck). Instead, they are letting it be. No more investigation into his death. Just, "he's dead, oh well, except it."

So why the suicide? Could it be a statement? Could it be a metaphor for Kal Penn's future with the Fox network or acting in general? Could it be as simple as the writers lashing out over the bomb shell Penn dropped in their storyline? I mean, he is dead. Now there is no way he can come back.

Whatever the reason, I wish Penn the best, and he will be missed as Kutner.

I was surfing through the net, and I saw an interesting question that someone had asked to disprove the existence of God. I can't find the exact link to the question, but needless to say, there were not good answers used to help this logical-thinking atheist along.

I went something like this:

God is all-powerful. Can God create a rock that even He can not move? If He can make the rock and He actually can't move it, He is not all-powerful. If He can due to the fact that He can move any rock He wants, then again He is not all-powerful because He failed to create an unmovable rock.

I'll spare you the answers used and just dive right in with my own explanation. This question, on its face, is logically flawed. Let me start by giving you an analogy:

Humans can create triangles, yes? Sure they can, do it now. Go ahead; get some paper and make a triangle. Good. Now, make a 2-sided triangle. Can't do it? Well, by using the same logic the original questioner afforded above, you do not exist.

The idea of an unmovable rock is logically flawed. Every rock in the universe can be moved. As a matter of fact, there isn't any material object in the universe that can not be moved one way or the other. Planet sized asteroids drift through space and no one thinks twice if that piece of matter can be moved or not.

The "Logic Bomb" ends up being a Bomb lacking in Logic. Asking if God can create an immovable rock is like asking if God can create a circle with 3-sides. It can not be done. Besides, there are many things that God can not do. God can not lie (Hebrews 6:18), He can not be tempted (James 1:13), and there are others. In order for God to exist, He, Himself, must exist within a certain set of parameters in which we can define Him. If we were unable to define God, then we would have a real crisis of His existence. Likewise, we could name anything God (including a Flying Spaghetti Monster). We have to have something to point to when describing God, else we could define Him as anything! If He is everything to everyone, how do we know He is anything at all?

The bottom line is this: Christians need to stop accepting the questions of non-believers as if they are correct on their face. Many non-believers do not want nor care to believe in our God, so if an illogical question will make a Christian go "wide-eyed" than, rest assured, they will throw it around any chance they get. Just remember:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26: 4-5

Let me finish up by saying that this "skepticism" I am advocating towards a question like this should be used for many questions and objections atheists have for Christianity. Consider the questions about Christianities roots in pagan religions. And that is just one example.

For those few who actually follow my blogging, your probably asking yourself, "Didn't you just create a new blog?" Well, yes. And though I can't guarantee that I won't move in the near future, I can tell you that I feel certain that I won't be moving again.

There are several reasons for the move. None that matter to anyone but myself, but then again, who else matters? First of all, I didn't like the name of my last blog. Intellectual Solider? Admittedly, I just kind of thought that one up on a whim and ran with it. Free-Hand Thinking is a much better description of me and my blogging techniques. My blog posts tend to be long runs on a single thought I have on a particular issue (be it economic, political, theological, or whatever).

Another reason is that one of the blogs I read on a daily basis (HotAir.com) requires you to have a wordpress account in order to comment. So, after creating the account and looking around at some of the blogging tools and templates they have available, I decided to make this my new home.

So! Change your bookmarks folks! I will be here for a while.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

So, today the DOW hit 8000. World markets are starting to surge. So, how long will it be before all the credit for this action--which is historically cyclical--becomes an accomplishment of Obama and his administration?

A better question, though... How long before our economy falls into another recession thanks to the massive injection of printed money meant to get us out of the current recession?

The magic number strikes again! Plastered at the top of Drudge:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says leaders at the G-20 summit have agreed to give $1 trillion to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help struggling nations around the world.

Brown also says the 20 countries at the summit will enact common policies to crack down on tax havens, regulate hedge funds, and rebuild trust in the financial system to "prevent a crisis such as this from happening again."

If $1 Trillion didn't help our country, why do we think it will help others?

As usual, it takes a satirical take on a serious issue to make it make sense. Here is South Park's take on how the government comes up with all its policies during this erratic economy.