It makes sense, but I agree only partly. I'll give you the whole apocalypse/rapture thing, because it's not fully told yet. But other parts of the story are complete and they do bear comparison. Not by saying "Ah why is he not Alan Moore" but by pointing out the weaknesses that often shine up in comparison, I'm not saying Whedon should use poetry and esoterics to do his exposition, but something more innovative than Giles bible belt babble. Not even if the whole thing is to be subverted, is it not argued well enough. It's a pathetic Mephistopheles and even C.S. Lewis allows his green witch to make a better case for atheism in the Narnia books.