通天神探狄仁傑

去年在香港電影金像獎中,「通天神探狄仁傑」獲得六項大獎。其中四項是技術獎,在當今香港影壇缺乏大製作下,由這套豪華陣容製作鉅資的電影奪取,完全是意料中事。徐克獲得最佳導演也實至名歸,從他初出道拍的「蝶變」開始,這類武俠科幻片是他的拿手好戲。借用古代的武俠設定,揉合懷舊復古科幻風格的發明,構成一個虛幻充滿創意的世界。至於劉嘉玲當上影后實在有點莫名其妙,戲中武則天戲份不多根本不是女主角,若她拿最佳女配角倒沒有問題,大慨這只是個豬肉獎分給陪跑了這麼多年的劉嘉玲。

徐克的電影如果沒有走火入魔,拍到觀眾不知道他想講什麼,只要他能兼顧商業元素,其實是很刺激的視覺娛樂。看徐克的電影,不要追問戲中世界的合理性,不要問為什麼古代會有機闤槍,也不要問為什麼唐代會有自由神像,只要欣賞他精彩的影像畫面便好了。故事完全天馬行空,其實看見那座超越現代建築科技的神像,已知道電影不會有多少歷史真確性。電影除了借用武則天和狄仁傑的名字,所有劇情全屬自行創作。劇本的最大敗筆,是通天神探所謂的查案,只不過是按指示一步步走下去,走到最後卻是很老土古龍式的身邊朋友才是敵人。狄仁傑如果一早聽拍檔的話,把梁家輝拉去嚴刑拷問,便不用兜一大個圈,死一大堆人可破案。還有一點想不明白,梁家輝不過是個監工,橫看豎看也不像最終壞蛋,還有他的壞蛋手下不知從那兒走出來。如果有能隊夠在京城來去無蹤,行兇殺人如入無人之境的殺手組織,便不用大費周章去讓神像倒塌,直接攻入宮中行刺武則天豈不更快捷。

歷史中的狄仁傑,也是個文武兼備的奇才,他替武則天當過宰相,也領兵打過突厥。電影中狄仁傑因謀反被判入焚字獄,歷史上他可是忠於武則天,被人誣告謀反查明是冤案後,也只是被貶去當地方官數年。電影中唯一與歷史相乎的情節,大慨只有狄仁傑勸武則天,要把帝位傳回唐室太子一事矣。

Level-E 靈異E接觸

日本動畫界當前的危機,便是新作過份商業主導,一切都經過精心的公式計算,務求賣出最多周邊產品,從消費者身上賺取最多利潤,反而忽略了最重要的動畫本身。上一季二十多套新番動畫中,最好看的作品竟然是改篇自十多年前的舊漫畫,相比之下新作完不撼入目,不能不慨嘆日本動畫界的凋澪。

「靈異E接觸」很多年前我曾經看過,但已完全忘記了劇情內容。當年冨樫義博還未成為富奸,不會經常脫稿一年只連載三話,也不會把未完成的草稿交出來敷衍讀者。或多或少富奸是被少年Jump週刊,流水作業式的環境迫成的。當年「幽遊白書」能夠賣紙,便把漫畫拖長至爛尾,到了「Hunter x Hunter」更是死不斷氣。反而被譽為富奸代表作的「靈異E接觸」,因為風格不乎合賺錢公式,只出了三期便被腰斬了。

十多年前的漫畫,雖然現在才改篇為動畫,但完全沒有過時的感覺。富奸天馬行空的想像力,在不受少年漫畫的公式限制下,像萬花筒般不停為觀眾帶出驚喜。不得不佩服富奸扭橋的創意,出乎意料之外的計中計中計,不出章出牌玩轉常理之餘,還能夠讓觀眾到最後彷然大悟,呀的一聲叫好,還說原來是這樣為什麼我沒有想到。

動畫版只有十三話,收錄了原作的大部份的內容。每集也是獨立單完,有點無頭無尾,不過原著也是這個風格。劇情週繞著智商過人,但整天只愛捉弄別人取樂的外星王子,來到地球的故事。富奸的搞笑能力不用置疑,他不是生硬地加插笑料惹發笑,而是通過正常和不正常角色間的互動,用掩眼法故意誤導觀眾錯落產生的錯落,從而構架一個荒謬絕倫的世界,去諷刺我們熟識的現實世界。

每個故事的主題也很特出,有別於其他動畫的表達手法。其中我最喜愛是原色戰隊的故事,一口氣完轉特攝系列和電玩RPG遊戲。外星王子綁架了五個小學生,強迫他們載上變身手帶,原本要他們去對付原本是外星殺手,現在過著隱居生活他們的小學老師。事情發展當然不如王子所願,老師和學生變成十分有人情味的結局。於是王子改變計畫,送他們去RPG遊戲星球救公主打魔王。觀眾一直以為王子把小學生心儀的女同學捉了來當公主,到公主出場時竟然是王子男扮女裝,原全給富奸擺了一道。最後出場的非一般魔王讓觀眾再次吐血,成為史上唯一會反思統治世界的意義的魔王,把打打殺殺的RPG遊戲變為模疑城市般的益智建設遊戲。原色戰隊續篇的故事,他們救了被人口販子販賣的外星人魚,亦同時帶出小學生純真的友誼,故事簡單但十分感人。

很可惜漫畫存貨已差不多全被改篇,剩下來大慨只能夠拍一套ODA。富奸靠「幽白」和「HxH」早已賺夠收山上岸,加上他的老婆是畫「美少女戰士」的武內直子,不知道他以後還會不會再畫漫畫,看來「靈異E接觸」將成為富奸的絕響。

Slaying the Cable Monster: Why HDMI Brands Don’t Matter

I have been keep saying those who buy expensive HDMI cable are idiots and now here is the prove.

By Will Greenwald, May 13 2011, PC Magazine
For the vast majority of HDTV owners, a $5 HDMI cable will provide the same performance as a $100 one.

You’ve probably experienced this when shopping for a new HDTV: A store clerk sidles up and offers to help. He then points you toward the necessary HDMI cables to go with your new television. And they’re expensive. Maybe $60 or $70, sometimes even more than $100 (You could buy a cheap Blu-ray player or a handful of Blu-ray discs for that price!). The clerk then claims that these are special cables. Superior cables. Cables you absolutely need if you want the best possible home theater experience. And the claims are, for the vast majority of home theater users, utter rubbish.

The truth is, for most HDTV setups, there is absolutely no effective difference between a no-name $3 HDMI cable you can order from Amazon.com and a $120 Monster cable you buy at a brick-and-mortar electronics store. We ran five different HDMI cables, ranging in price from less than $5 up to more than $100, through rigorous tests to determine whether there’s any difference in a dirt-cheap cable and one that costs a fortune.

HDMI Basics

The first thing to remember about HDMI is that it is a digital standard. Unlike component video, composite video, S-video, or coaxial cable, HDMI signals don’t gradually degrade, or get fuzzy and lose clarity as the signal fades or interference grows. For digital signals like HDMI, as long as there is enough data for the receiver to put together a picture, it will form. If there isn’t, it will just drop off. While processing artifacts can occur and gaps in the signal can cause blocky effects or screen blanking, generally an HDMI signal will display whenever the signal successfully reaches the receiver. Claims that more expensive cables put forth greater video or audio fidelity are nonsense; it’s like saying you can get better-looking YouTube videos on your laptop by buying more expensive Ethernet cables. From a technical standpoint, it simply doesn’t make sense.

This doesn’t mean that all HDMI cables are created equal in all cases. HDMI includes multiple specifications detailing standards of bandwidth and the capabilities of the cable.

The current HDMI specification, version 1.4a, requires all compliant cables to support 3D video, 4K resolution (approximately 4000-by-2000-pixel resolution, or about four times the detail of the current HD standard of 1080p), Ethernet data transmissions, and audio return channels. Each of these features requires more bandwidth, and considerably older HDMI cables (and all older HDMI-equipped devices) rated at HDMI 1.3b or lower can’t handle that much bandwidth. For most users, 3D is the only feature they’ll use. Ethernet over HDMI is used mostly for networking devices instead ofconnecting viapure Ethernet or Wi-Fi (the methods most consumer electronics products use). Audio return channels are only useful in certain situations with dedicated sound systems (and the same task can be accomplished by running an audio cable to the system). And there aren’t currently any consumer-grade displays or playback devices capable of handling 4Kresolutions (the least-expensive 4K projector you’ll find is more than $75,000). In all of these cases, it’s a yes or no question: does it support these features? There is no question of clarity or superior signal.

That said, there are cases where higher quality cables and going to lengths to maintain signal quality are important. They just aren’t cases that apply for most HDTV owners. If you’re going to run an HDMI cable for lengths longer than 10 feet, you should be concerned about insulation to protect against signal degradation. It’s not an issue for 6-foot lengths of cable, but as the distance between media device and display increases, signal quality decreases and the more susceptible the signal becomes to magnetic interference. In fact, for distances of over 30 feet, the HDMI licensing board recommends either using a signal amplifier or considering an alternate solution, like an HDMI-over-Ethernet converter. When you’re running up against the maximum length, the greater insulation and build quality of more expensive cables can potentially improve the stability of your signal. However, if there’s a 30-foot gap between your Blu-ray player and your HDTV, you might want to rearrange some furniture. Or just use a technology designed for long distances.

The second thing to know about HDMI cables is that they are almost always expensive when you buy them at brick-and-mortar stores. If you walk into a Best Buy or Radio Shack, you can expect to pay at least $40 for a 6-foot HDMI cable. Even at discount stores like Wal-Mart and Target, the cheapest, most generic HDMI cables retail for $15 and more. Online, you’ll do a lot better on prices. Amazon.com and Monoprice.com (the “ancient custom installer’s secret”) slash even Wal-Mart’s HDMI cable prices into tiny bits. Both sites sell several models of HDMI cables for as little as $1.50. These are generally generic HDMI cables, or seldom-heard-of brands, but they work just fine for most HDTV users. We can be certain of this, because we tested them in the PCMag Labs.

Testing the Cables

We tested five cables including Monster Cable’s 1200 Higher Definition Experience Pack, a combination HDMI/Ethernet bundle that lists for $119.95 but we found for $79.95 at Amazon.com, the Monster Cable HDMI 500HD High Speed Cable ($59.95 list, we got it at Amazon for $52.62), the Spider International E-HDMI-0006 E-Series Super High Speed HDMI with Ethernet cable ($64.99 list price and a $45.29 Amazon price), the Cables Unlimited 6-Foot HDMI Male to Male Cable (PCM-2295-06) that Amazon carries for $3.19, and an unbranded, OEM cable from Monoprice that was shipped in a Belkin bag but doesn’t match any of the company’s own HDMI cables (and retails for $3.28, or $2.78 if you buy 50 cables or more).

We’ve left out some of the more lavishly expensive HDMI cables, like the AudioQuest series of HDMI cables, because they retail for nearly $700. Unless those cables can let me eat the food I see on the Food Network, they’re not worth the price of an actual HDTV.

Based purely on the cables’ specs, Monster Cable’s HDMI cables are superior. Of course, that’s because Monster Cable is the only company of the four to offer any notable specifications. Spider International and Cables Unlimited offered very little information in the way of the cables, and the generic cable had no specifications besides it being 28 AWG (American Wire Gauge), a number that simply references the width of the wire used in the cable (28 AWG is a standard measurement, though some cables can be slightly thicker at 26 or 24 AWG). HDMI standards require that all HDMI 1.4 cables be able to handle a bandwidth of 10.2 gigabits per second (Gbps). The Monster Blu-Ray 1200 Higher Definition Experience Pack has a rated speed of 17.8 Gbps. Again, what really matters is whether the cable is HDMI-1.4-compliant, and it can support the necessary features mentioned above. The higher bandwidth doesn’t matter for HDTV signals. It might make a difference with 4K-video, but since HDTVs currently top out at 1080p, that point is moot.

As long as the cable is HDMI-1.4 compliant and it can hit 10.2 Gbps, which is will if it’s 1.4-compliant, it will do the trick. Also, we couldn’t find a cable that wasn’t 1.4-compliant, so that shouldn’t be a problem.

For consistency, we used only 6-foot or 2-meter (6.6-foot) cables to ensure that cable length didn’t affect the results of the tests. We paired a Sony Bravia KDL-46EX720 3D HDTV with an LG BD670 Blu-ray player for all tests. The television was set to standard, default image settings, and the Blu-ray player was set to output only a 1080p video signal. We put the cables through three different tests: a technical quality evaluation, a blind video test, and a 3D-support test.

For the technical quality evaluation, we used the HQV video benchmark Blu-ray Disc. For each cable, we ran through the gamut of HQV video tests, which checks video for numerous image processing, frame-rate synchronization, and color-correction capabilities. The tests include numerous patterns and animations to expose possible display problems. All five cables passed HQV’s tests with flying colors, with a single exception, which was consistent across all of them (and thus more likely a flaw of either the HDTV or the Blu-ray player): 2:2 film pull-down looked a bit jerky, a minor issue that doesn’t affect the cables individual performance.

The blind video test involved the assistance of five volunteers in the PCMag Lab. They were shown the same scene from Predators on Blu-ray with different cables. They were not told which cable was which until the end of the test. No one saw any appreciable difference between the $3 cables and the $120 cable, or any of the cables in between. However, we did notice a curious phenomenon: the screen appeared slightly darker and a bit more saturated when connected to the Blu-ray player with the Monster Cable 1200 High Definition Experience Pack cable. The HDTV showed that it was receiving the same 12-bit color depth information through each cable, so the more-expensive Monster cable wasn’t pushing through more color detail. Again, the difference was minimal, and could be corrected by calibrating your HDTV.

Finally, we loaded the 3D Avatar Blu-ray to check that the cables could handle an HDMI 1.4 standard feature: 3D content. Again, every cable, including the cheap $3 cable, carried a 3D video feed to the HDTV easily.

If you’re like the vast majority of HDTV users and have a fairly simple setup that isn’t spread across a large area, there is absolutely no reason to spend more than $10 on an HDMI cable, never mind more than $100 on one. Any possible benefit that could come from an over-engineered, overpriced HDMI cable simply won’t show up in your home theater. If you’re running a 4K projector, or have a 25-foot hallway between your Blu-ray player and HDTV, or want to show off how big your home theater budget is, that’s one thing. If you just want to hook up your Blu-ray player, cable box, or video game system to your HDTV, bypass the big stores and big brands and reach into the Web bargain bin. Then use the money you saveto buy more electronics that need to be connected to one another.

Liar’s Poker – Michael Lewis

早陣子和一個轉行不當工程師,跑去讀MBA入投資銀行賺大錢的舊同事吃飯,很自然聊起早兩年金融海嘯。當全世界也一至認為貪得無厭的金融行業,是海嘯的元兇,我的朋友身為局內人,卻持相反的意見。他認為政府只看選票的短視經濟政策,和盲目追逐利潤的投資者,才是真正的元兇,金融行業只不過是過水濕腳的中間人,時勢造英雄讓他們賺大錢。儘管我不同意他的觀點,但與他談話很有啟發性,亦引證了Liar’s Poker一書的可信性。

這本書雖然二十年前出版,但現在看也完全沒有過時的感覺,大慨金融行業中人性貪婪是恆古常理。據聞此書是華爾街MBA人手執一本的求生指南天書。這本書的作者本身也是個傳奇人物,英國名校MBA畢業,入職投資銀行Salomon Brothers,不知怎樣有金融才俊不做,轉行跑去當記者。他的研究報導改變了整個美國職棒界,他的書更屢獲新聞大獎,長期入選紐約時報暢銷書排行榜。Liar’s Poker是他的第一本著作,半自傳式的記錄了他在投行工作那幾年間的所見所聞。

Liar‘s Poker是華爾街流行的賭博遊戲,與我們去卡拉OK玩的大話骰玩法相似,分別只是估從口袋隨手抽張一元美金上鈔票編號上的數字。或許這個遊戲便是整個華爾街的縮影,金融行業只是一班人在比賽膽色的賭錢遊戲。這本書大約分為三個剖份,第一部份寫作者初入行到紐約接受培訓的經歷,他以風趣的文筆,加插幽默的趣聞逸事,把華爾街這個弱肉強食的森林世界,銀行家目空無人自大狂的性格,活露活現地描寫出來。想入職金融行業,面試時千萬別說投身這行業是想賺很多錢,儘管這是每一個金融行業中人入行的真正理由。投資銀行以業績論英雄,誰能夠為公司賺錢,誰便有權有勢,在公司內可以橫行無忌。

第二部份可說是全書最精彩的部份,講述投行Salomon Brothers的興衰史,從如何發明並壟斷按揭債卷市場,躍身成為華爾街最大投資銀行。又因為分花紅孤寒縮數,把懂得操控按揭的債卷經紀迫走去競爭對手,一手摧毀自已的市場壟斷地位。書中有很多曾經吒咤一時的名字,Ranieri從信差到紅褲子經紀的出身,一路爬到按揭債卷部總裁是個傳奇故事,而按揭債卷市場的興起更是完全出人意料。Ranieri測期按揭債卷會是個大市場的原因完全不兌現,但市場卻因為美國政府的減稅政策憑空創造出來。二十年後的次按危機,其起源可以說直接追溯至Salomon Brothers當日發明的按揭債卷。

第三部份作者受訓完畢,回倫到敦新丁上班,一直到作者離開金融業為止。從入職最初給高級經理當雜役無異,到學懂在交易場上的生存之道,在追求盈利不擇手段的環境下,投行把當顧客是水魚,互相搶奪同事間的功勞,彷彿是天經地義的事情。雖然作者也不是完全很有商業道德,書中記錄他幾場投資戰記,與其說他眼光準確,不如說他政治權力手段高明,加上有點運氣市場之神站在他那邊,才可以安然渡過升為Big Swinging Dick,交易場上的大碌炮。後來Salomon Brothers連翻投資錯誤,錯過企業垃圾債卷的機會,在錯誤時機把按揭債卷的本金和利息分拆出售,一夜間差不多蝕光所有,作者亦退出金融業,書中的故事便到此唯止。

書中最後一章,作者反思自已離職的決定,質疑整個金融行業的存在意思。試問天下間有那一行,可以讓二十多歲的年輕人,從大學畢業還不過兩年,便每年賺取過百萬美元的收入。而且他的賺錢能力,也不知有多少是基於實際的知識和能力,又有多少是純萃運氣的成份。金融行業只是金錢流動的中間人,他們的工作對社會又有多少貢獻可言,值得收取這巨額的費用嗎?

No Hell. Pastor Rob Bell: What if Hell Doesn’t Exist?

I am not as liberal as Rob Bell, I believe Hell does exist, but it is only reserve for truly evil people like Mao Tse Dong or Muammar Gaddafi (maybe George W. Bush too). I definitely won’t agree only Christians can go to heaven and everybody else goes to hell.

I am joining a reading group starting in May on Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. For those who are interested, please register here

By Jon Meacham, Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011, Times Magazine

As part of a series on peacemaking, in late 2007, Pastor Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Bible Church put on an art exhibit about the search for peace in a broken world. It was just the kind of avant-garde project that had helped power Mars Hill’s growth (the Michigan church attracts 7,000 people each Sunday) as a nontraditional congregation that emphasizes discussion rather than dogmatic teaching. An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi. Hardly a controversial touch, one would have thought. But one would have been wrong.

A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: “Reality check: He’s in hell.” Bell was struck.

Really? he recalls thinking.

Gandhi’s in hell?

He is?

We have confirmation of this?

Somebody knows this?

Without a doubt?

And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?

So begins Bell’s controversial new best seller, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Works by Evangelical Christian pastors tend to be pious or at least on theological message. The standard Christian view of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is summed up in the Gospel of John, which promises “eternal life” to “whosoever believeth in Him.” Traditionally, the key is the acknowledgment that Jesus is the Son of God, who, in the words of the ancient creed, “for us and for our salvation came down from heaven … and was made man.” In the Evangelical ethos, one either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell.

Bell, a tall, 40-year-old son of a Michigan federal judge, begs to differ. He suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal — meaning that, as his book’s subtitle puts it, “every person who ever lived” could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be. Such a simple premise, but with Easter at hand, this slim, lively book has ignited a new holy war in Christian circles and beyond. When word of Love Wins reached the Internet, one conservative Evangelical pastor, John Piper, tweeted, “Farewell Rob Bell,” unilaterally attempting to evict Bell from the Evangelical community. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says Bell’s book is “theologically disastrous. Any of us should be concerned when a matter of theological importance is played with in a subversive way.” In North Carolina, a young pastor was fired by his church for endorsing the book.

The traditionalist reaction is understandable, for Bell’s arguments about heaven and hell raise doubts about the core of the Evangelical worldview, changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation. “When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction between the church and the world,” says Mohler, “then you don’t need the church, and you don’t need Christ, and you don’t need the cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it’s Rob Bell’s tragedy in this book too.”

Particularly galling to conservative Christian critics is that Love Wins is not an attack from outside the walls of the Evangelical city but a mutiny from within — a rebellion led by a charismatic, popular and savvy pastor with a following. Is Bell’s Christianity — less judgmental, more fluid, open to questioning the most ancient of assumptions — on an inexorable rise? “I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian,” Bell says. “Something new is in the air.”

Which is what has many traditional Evangelicals worried. Bell’s book sheds light not only on enduring questions of theology and fate but also on a shift within American Christianity. More indie rock than “Rock of Ages,” with its videos and comfort with irony (Bell sometimes seems an odd combination of Billy Graham and Conan O’Brien), his style of doctrine and worship is clearly playing a larger role in religious life, and the ferocity of the reaction suggests that he is a force to be reckoned with.

Otherwise, why reckon with him at all? A similar work by a pastor from one of the declining mainline Protestant denominations might have merited a hostile blog post or two — bloggers, like preachers, always need material — but it is difficult to imagine that an Episcopal priest’s eschatological musings would have provoked the volume of criticism directed at Bell, whose reach threatens prevailing Evangelical theology.

Bell insists he is only raising the possibility that theological rigidity — and thus a faith of exclusion — is a dangerous thing. He believes in Jesus’ atonement; he says he is just unclear on whether the redemption promised in Christian tradition is limited to those who meet the tests of the church. It is a case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude.

From a traditionalist perspective, though, to take away hell is to leave the church without its most powerful sanction. If heaven, however defined, is everyone’s ultimate destination in any event, then what’s the incentive to confess Jesus as Lord in this life? If, in other words, Gandhi is in heaven, then why bother with accepting Christ? If you say the Bible doesn’t really say what a lot of people have said it says, then where does that stop? If the verses about hell and judgment aren’t literal, what about the ones on adultery, say, or homosexuality? Taken to their logical conclusions, such questions could undermine much of conservative Christianity.

What the Hell?

From the Apostle Paul to John Paul II, from Augustine to Calvin, Christians have debated atonement and judgment for nearly 2,000 years. Early in the 20th century, Harry Emerson Fosdick came to represent theological liberalism, arguing against the literal truth of the Bible and the existence of hell. It was time, progressives argued, for the faith to surrender its supernatural claims.

Bell is more at home with this expansive liberal tradition than he is with the old-time believers of Inherit the Wind. He believes that Jesus, the Son of God, was sacrificed for the sins of humanity and that the prospect of a place of eternal torment seems irreconcilable with the God of love. Belief in Jesus, he says, should lead human beings to work for the good of this world. What comes next has to wait. “When we get to what happens when we die, we don’t have any video footage,” says Bell. “So let’s at least be honest that we are speculating, because we are.” He is quick to note, though, that his own speculation, while unconventional, is not unprecedented. “At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church,” Bell writes, “have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.”

It is also true that the Christian tradition since the first church has insisted that history is tragic for those who do not believe in Jesus; that hell is, for them, forever; and that love, in the end, will envelop those who profess Jesus as Lord, and they — and they alone — will be reconciled to God. Such views cannot be dismissed because they are inconvenient or uncomfortable: they are based on the same Bible that liberals use to make the opposite case. This is one reason religious debate can seem a wilderness of mirrors, an old CIA phrase describing the bewildering world of counterintelligence.

Still, the dominant view of the righteous in heaven and the damned in hell owes more to the artistic legacy of the West, from Michelangelo to Dante to Blake, than it does to history or to unambiguous biblical teaching. Neither pagan nor Jewish tradition offered a truly equivalent vision of a place of eternal torment; the Greek and Roman underworlds tended to be morally neutral, as did much of the Hebraic tradition concerning Sheol, the realm of the dead.

Things many Christian believers take for granted are more complicated than they seem. It was only when Jesus failed to return soon after the Passion and Resurrection appearances that the early church was compelled to make sense of its recollections of his teachings. Like the Bible — a document that often contradicts itself and from which one can construct sharply different arguments — theology is the product of human hands and hearts. What many believers in the 21st century accept as immutable doctrine was first formulated in the fog and confusion of the 1st century, a time when the followers of Jesus were baffled and overwhelmed by their experience of losing their Lord; many had expected their Messiah to be a Davidic military leader, not an atoning human sacrifice.

When Jesus spoke of the “kingdom of heaven,” he was most likely referring not to a place apart from earth, one of clouds and harps and an eternity with your grandmother, but to what he elsewhere called the “kingdom of God,” a world redeemed and renewed in ways beyond human imagination. To 1st century ears in ancient Judea, Jesus’ talk of the kingdom was centered on the imminent arrival of a new order marked by the defeat of evil, the restoration of Israel and a general resurrection of the dead — all, in the words of the prayer he taught his disciples, “on earth.”

There is, however, no escaping the fact that Jesus speaks in the Bible of a hell for the “condemned.” He sometimes uses the word Gehenna, which was a valley near Jerusalem associated with the sacrifice of children by fire to the Phoenician god Moloch; elsewhere in the New Testament, writers (especially Paul and John the Divine) tell of a fiery pit (Tartarus or Hades) in which the damned will spend eternity. “Depart from me, you cursed [ones], into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” Jesus says in Matthew. In Mark he speaks of “the unquenchable fire.” The Book of Revelation paints a vivid picture — in a fantastical, problematic work that John the Divine says he composed when he was “in the spirit on the Lord’s day,” a signal that this is not an Associated Press report — of the lake of fire and the dismissal of the damned from the presence of God to a place where “they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

And yet there is a contrary scriptural trend that suggests, as Jesus puts it, that the gates of hell shall not finally prevail, that God will wipe away every tear — not just the tears of Evangelical Christians but the tears of all. Bell puts much stock in references to the universal redemption of creation: in Matthew, Jesus speaks of the “renewal of all things”; in Acts, Peter says Jesus will “restore everything”; in Colossians, Paul writes that “God was pleased to … reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

So is it heaven for Christians who say they are Christians and hell for everybody else? What about babies, or people who die without ever hearing the Gospel through no fault of their own? (As Bell puts it, “What if the missionary got a flat tire?”) Who knows? Such tangles have consumed Christianity for millennia and likely will for millennia to come.

What gives the debate over Bell new significance is that his message is part of an intriguing scholarly trend unfolding simultaneously with the cultural, generational and demographic shifts made manifest at Mars Hill. Best expressed, perhaps, in the work of N.T. Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham, England (Bell is a Wright devotee), this school focuses on the meaning of the texts themselves, reading them anew and seeking, where appropriate, to ask whether an idea is truly rooted in the New Testament or is attributable to subsequent church tradition and theological dogma.

For these new thinkers, heaven can mean different things. In some biblical contexts it is a synonym for God. In others it signifies life in the New Jerusalem, which, properly understood, is the reality that will result when God brings together the heavens and the earth. In yet others it seems to suggest moments of intense human communion and compassion that are, in theological terms, glimpses of the divine love that one might expect in the world to come. One thing heaven is not is an exclusive place removed from earth. This line of thinking has implications for the life of religious communities in our own time. If the earth is, in a way, to be our eternal home, then its care, and the care of all its creatures, takes on fresh urgency.

Bell’s Journey

The easy narrative about Bell would be one of rebellion — that he is reacting to the strictures of a suffocating childhood by questioning long-standing dogma. The opposite is true. Bell’s creed of conviction and doubt — and his comfort with ambiguity and paradox — comes from an upbringing in which he was immersed in faith but encouraged to ask questions. His father, a central figure in his life, is a federal judge appointed by President Reagan in 1987. (Rob still remembers the drive to Washington in the family Oldsmobile for the confirmation hearings.) “I remember him giving me C.S. Lewis in high school,” Bell says. “My parents were both very intellectually honest, straightforward, and for them, faith meant that you were fully engaged.” As they were raising their family, the Bells, in addition to regular churchgoing, created a rigorous ethos of devotion and debate at home. Dinner-table conversations were pointed; Lewis’ novels and nonfiction were required reading.

The roots of Love Wins can be partly traced to the deathbed of a man Rob Bell never met: his grandfather, a civil engineer in Michigan who died when Rob’s father was 8. The Bells’ was a very conservative Evangelical household. When the senior Bell died, there was to be no grief. “We weren’t allowed to mourn, because the funeral of a Christian is supposed to be a celebration of the believer in heaven with Jesus right now,” says Robert Bell Sr. “But if you’re 8 years old and your dad — the breadwinner — just died, it feels different. Sad.”

The story of how his dad, still a child, was to deal with death has stayed with Rob. “To weep, to shed any tears — that would be doubting the sovereignty of God,” Rob says now, looking back. “That was the thing — ‘They’re all in heaven, so we’re happy about that.’ It doesn’t matter how you are actually humanly responding to this moment …” Bell pauses and chuckles ironically, a bit incredulous. “We’re all just supposed to be thrilled.”

Robby — his mother still calls him that — was emotionally precocious. “When he was around 10 years old, I detected that he had a great interest and concern for people,” his father says. “There he’d be, riding along with me, with his little blond hair, going to see sick folks or friends who were having problems, and he would get back in the truck after a visit and begin to analyze them and their situations very acutely. He had a feel for people and how they felt from very early on.”

Rob was a twice-a-week churchgoer at the Baptist and nondenominational churches the family attended at different times — services on Sunday, youth group on Wednesday. He recalls a kind of quiet frustration even then. “I remember thinking, ‘You know, if Jesus is who this guy standing up there says he is, this should be way more compelling.’ This should have a bit more electricity. The knob should be way more to the right, you know?”

Music, not the church, was his first consuming passion. (His wife Kristen claims he said he wanted to be a pastor when they first met early on at Wheaton College in Illinois. Bell is skeptical: “I swear to this day that that was a line.”) He and some friends started a band when he was a sophomore. “I had always had creative energy but no outlet,” he says. “I really discovered music, writing and playing, working with words and images and metaphors. You might say the music unleashed a monster.”

The band became central to him. Then two things happened: the guitar player decided to go to seminary, and Bell came down with viral meningitis. “It took the wind out of our sails,” he says. “I had no Plan B. I was a wreck. I was devastated, because our band was going to make it. We were going to live in a terrible little house and do terrible jobs at first, because that’s what great bands do — they start out living in terrible little houses and doing terrible little jobs.” His illness — “a freak brain infection” — changed his life, Bell says.

At 21, Rob was teaching barefoot waterskiing at HoneyRock Camp, near Three Lakes, Wis., when he preached his first sermon. “I didn’t know anything,” he says. “I took off my Birkenstocks beforehand. I had this awareness that my life would never be the same again.” The removal of the shoes is an interesting detail for Bell to remember. (“Do not come any closer,” God says to Moses in the Book of Exodus. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”) Bell says it was just intuitive, but the intuition suggests he had a sense of himself as a player in the unfolding drama of God in history. “Create things and share them,” Bell says. “It all made sense. That moment is etched. I remember thinking distinctly, ‘I could be terrible at this.’ But I knew this would get me up in the morning. I went to Fuller that fall.”

Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif., is an eclectic place, attracting 4,000 students from 70 countries and more than 100 denominations. “It’s pretty hard to sit with Pentecostals and Holiness people and mainline Presbyterians and Anglicans and come away with a closed mind-set that draws firm boundaries about theology,” says Fuller president Richard Mouw.

After seminary, Bell’s work moved in two directions. He was recovering the context of the New Testament while creating a series of popular videos on Christianity called Nooma, Greek for wind or spirit. He began to attract a following, and Mars Hill — named for the site in Athens where Paul preached the Christian gospel of resurrection to the pagan world — was founded in Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1999. “Whenever people wonder why a church is growing, they say, ‘He’s preaching the Bible.’ Well, lots of people are preaching the Bible, and they don’t have parking problems,” says Bell.

Mars Hill did have parking problems, and Bell’s sudden popularity posed some risks for the young pastor. Pride and self-involvement are perennial issues for ministers, who, like politicians, grow accustomed to the sound of their own voices saying Important Things and to the deference of the flock. By the time Bell was 30, he was an Evangelical celebrity. (He had founded Mars Hill when he was 28.) He was referred to as a “rock star” in this magazine. “There was this giant spotlight on me,” he says. “All of a sudden your words are parsed. I found myself — and I think this happens to a lot of people — wanting to shrink away from it. But I decided, Just own it. I’m very comfortable in a room with thousands of people. I do have this voice. What will I say?”

And how will he say it? The history of Evangelism is in part the history of media and methods: Billy Sunday mastered the radio, Billy Graham television; now churches like Bell’s are at work in the digital vineyards of downloads and social media. Demography is also working in Bell’s favor. “He’s trying to reach a generation that’s more comfortable with mystery, with unsolved questions,” says Mouw, noting that his own young grandchildren are growing up with Hindu and Muslim friends and classmates. “For me, Hindus and Muslims were the people we sent missionaries off to in places we called ‘Arabia,'” Mouw says. “Now that diversity is part of the fabric of daily life. It makes a difference. My generation wanted truth — these are folks who want authenticity. The whole judgmentalism and harshness is something they want to avoid.”

If Bell is right about hell, then why do people need ecclesiastical traditions at all? Why aren’t the Salvation Army and the United Way sufficient institutions to enact a gospel of love, sparing us the talk of heaven and hellfire and damnation and all the rest of it? Why not close up the churches?

Bell knows the arguments and appreciates the frustrations. “I don’t know anyone who hasn’t said, ‘Let’s turn out the lights and say we gave it a shot,'” he says. “But you can’t — I can’t — get away from what this Jesus was, and is, saying to us. What the book tries to do is park itself right in the midst of the tension with a Jesus who offers an urgent and immediate call — ‘Repent! Be transformed! Turn!’ At the same time, I’ve got other sheep. There’s a renewal of all things. There’s water from the rock. People will come from the East and from the West. The scandal of the gospel is Jesus’ radical, healing love for a world that’s broken.”

Fair enough, but let’s be honest: religion heals, but it also kills. Why support a supernatural belief system that, for instance, contributed to that minister in Florida’s burning of a Koran, which led to the deaths of innocent U.N. workers in Afghanistan?

“I think Jesus shares your critique,” Bell replies. “We don’t burn other people’s books. I think Jesus is fairly pissed off about it as well.”

On Sunday, April 17, at Mars Hill, Bell will be joined by singer-songwriter Brie Stoner (who provided some of the music for his Nooma series) and will teach the first 13 verses of the third chapter of Revelation, which speaks of “the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God … Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” The precise meaning of the words is open to different interpretations. But this much is clear: Rob Bell has much to say, and many are listening.