“Sherlock” Series 3 – BBC One – Resurrection?


In one of my previous posts I argued the new atheist producers of the BBC series “Sherlock” were using the popularity of Sherlock Holmes to further the new atheist movement.

Over recent days we have seen the new trailer teaser for “Sherlock” series 3.

I will not put to fine a point on it but it seems quite clear to me that this trailer is presenting a subtle mind seed for an appearance of a resurrection. Obviously, I doubt the first episode will attempt to claim that Sherlock actually died? but what is certainly clear from the trailer is the attempt to present an idea based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is rather obvious when the word resurrection is spoken, most people think of Jesus Christ.

Thus, it seems clear to me there is a continuous aim from the new atheist producers to sow mind seeds against Christianity by using the medium of popular culture. The producers of “Sherlock” could be said to have made this rather obvious when the first series began with presenting a new, fresh take on Sherlock Holmes, thus worming people in, then the continuous use of blasphemy against the name of ‘Jesus’ and “Jesus Christ” and then the atheist mindset of certain attitudes and philosophies of this so-called Irene Adler, who in episode 1 of series 2, accuses Sherlock of being “delusional” because he was in disguise as a priest who she says is delusional because he “believes in a higher power”.

Then of course brother Mycroft and maybe even certain attitudes of Sherlock himself? and now we have a simulation of how a man could appear to die and convince people of his death? yet in reality there was no actual death at all but it was only made to appear to them.

This is what polemical scholars have been attempting to say about the resurrection of Christ for a long time.

The typology is made clear, if only in the trailer when Sherlock, appears to a woman Mrs Hudson first, Lestrade second, Mycroft third, Molly fourth, Watson fifth. I think I need not mention the way the resurrection of Jesus is written about in the four gospels, where He appeared to a woman first and then individuals later.

What is clear to me is that the new atheists are attempting to gain the spotlight and making the theory of atheism the new norm. But it is a pretty sad and stupid thing to do to use the theistic Sherlock Holmes to further their myths and fairy tales. Pretty soon they’ll be making a film or TV series on King David, making him out to be a doofus atheist too?

Best watch out producers and scriptwriters, as you sow so shall ye reap.

Advertisements

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by A good atheist on March 9, 2017 - 12:38 AM

    As Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, he has no views as he has no conscious awareness.

    If the writers are atheists, then it would be their views that were being portrayed if indeed such views were being portrayed. However, logic is truly the enemy of religious faith since religious faith requires blind belief without evidence because the evidence can’t be there because the belief is, in fact, inaccurate.

    People pretend because they want to believe what they were told as a child. People want to suspend the use of their logical brain because it will contradict what they wish to believe to be true. That is a fact.

    Sherlock Holmes is, at least in theory, supposed to be an intelligent rational, and honest thinking person. Therefore, were he to exist in real life, he would not be a religious believer.

    • #2 by simon peter sutherland on March 9, 2017 - 9:51 AM

      Thank you for your comments.

      I agree with some of the things you have said, but there is a lot I do not agree with.

      1) Agreed. Sherlock Holmes is fictional, and yes, the writers of this TV show are ‘atheists’ and the script certainly reflects their views.

      2) You have said “However, logic is truly the enemy of religious faith since religious faith requires blind belief without evidence because the evidence can’t be there because the belief is, in fact, inaccurate.”

      A) Those claims are very assumptive and are very inaccurate. For one: Logic is certainly not the enemy of ‘religious faith’ and ‘religious faith’ does not require “blind belief”. I have been following the Lord Jesus Christ now for about 31 years, and reason is not my enemy, neither do I believe and ‘trust’ in Him blindly. What evidence do you have that He was not the ‘Messiah’ or that He was not crucified for our sin and died and was laid in a tomb in Jerusalem and raised from the dead?

      3) You say “People pretend because they want to believe what they were told as a child.”.

      A) I agree. There may be some, but that is a very general and assumptive claim to make, that would imply that the majority of historic and learned Theological scholars and Christians merely believe what they were told as children. I certainly could not agree with that, since many Christians have totally rejected what they were raised to believe, especially those many Christians who converted from Roman Catholic to Protestant, or from Islam to Christianity, or from atheism to Christ.

      Surely you have made too many assumptions there and I would conclude you have read and taken seriously ‘the God delusion’. Thus, what you have wrote is not “fact” since your assumption only works within the context of those who believe what they were told as kids. It does not work beyond that idea.

      4) You wrote: “Sherlock Holmes is, at least in theory, supposed to be an intelligent rational, and honest thinking person. Therefore, were he to exist in real life, he would not be a religious believer.”

      A) Yes, Sherlock Holmes was in “theory” a rational, intellectual, therefore, I would say that he could not possibly have been an atheist.

      How could any rational, intelligent person believe that the magnitude of matter and physics and consciousness and oxygen and gravity and human blood exists without the hand of a genius minded Creator?

      Surely he would agree with me that the earth and the complexity of human and animal life is far too profound too exist without the genius of some pre-existent being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: