What is heresy? In the endeavor of protecting truth and safeguarding correct doctrines, Christians must be aware of what constitutes an error so great that one cannot claim to operate on behalf of the Christian deity if he or she holds to it. One must be careful to not level charges of heresy lightly, as heresy is a far deadlier class of error than that encompassing superficial mistakes. I myself would probably be called a heretic by the idiotic standards of some Christians due to the extreme controversy in everything that comprises my worldview, from the thoroughly rationalistic epistemology of my worldview all the way to issues like theonomy, annihilationism, and affirmation of aspects of God's nature that many shy away from.
Heresy is a belief or doctrine that contradicts God's nature as revealed by the Bible, not as represented by any historical Christian council, creed, or consensus. The Bible alone determines Christian doctrine wholly independent of preferences or tradition. It follows logically, then, that any genuine heresy is something that opposes Biblical doctrines, not something that contradicts the fallacies and inventions of humans. This means that any belief held up as Christianity which one cannot prove that the Bible teaches does not divide heresy from orthodoxy, nor does any tradition from any period of church history. I would be called a heretic by the standards of some, yet I do not fear their petty objections.
When Christians challenge my positions, I utilize reason and Biblical knowledge to refute their errors, uncaring of anyone's personal feelings or any deviation from the agreement of others. This is the way to identify and confront actual heresy: in a manner totally detached from the influence of emotions and a concern for long-standing traditions. If a Christian discovers that for centuries the church as a whole has been in error, he or she is not a heretic for abandoning what other Christians are illicitly comfortable with. Let those who seek to judge a belief as heresy absorb this fact into their minds lest they make a hasty, irrational, and untrue judgment about the Biblicality or rationality of a claim.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
The Delusion Of Inverse Morality
Christians who tell me the words "I believe in the Bible" almost never mean that they think that people who strike their parents should be executed (Exodus 21:15), that people with working minds who don't intellectually test everything are sinning (1 Thessalonians 5:21), that capital punishment for adultery is just (Deuteronomy 22:22), or that in the Christian worldview there are no moral obligations outside of the ones God has revealed (Deuteronomy 4:2). They usually don't really know, understand, or follow the morality of the Bible. As a result, it can be a nightmare navigating the fallacies and errors relied on by many of them with regards to moral reasoning. They are prone to selectively affirming and dismissing Biblical injunctions, allowing their emotions, preferences, and cultures to shape their understanding of ethics.
As a theonomist and a rationalist, I find it very odd that Christians squirm when atheists sometimes accuse them of cherry picking what Old Testament commands to follow (as an aside, much of the Old Testament is grossly misunderstood by every party). That is exactly what American Christians do much of the time. They flee from admitting that the Bible commands execution for certain moral offenses and then, of all the damn things they could have picked out of the Old Testament to rally around, they seem to focus disproportionately on the fact that Mosaic Law condemns homosexuality. Most people I have met who call themselves Christians neither believe nor enact the actual system of ethics taught in the Bible. If they did either, they would completely reorient their moral epistemology and would stop condemning both what the Bible commands and things it does not call sin.
I have never heard or read a sermon that targeted anti-intellectualism (1 Peter 3:15, Proverbs 19:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:21), prison rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) or by extension the heinously unbiblical American prison system, or the very foundations of the impulse to believe in extra-Biblical moral obligations (Deuteronomy 4:2). But I've definitely heard and read sermons condemning all sorts of activities that the Bible does not condemn or even sometimes calls good:
1. Being alone with members of the opposite gender
2. Unmarried men and women praying together alone [1]
3. Close opposite gender friendships [2]
4. Use of profanity [3]
5. Public nudity [4]
6. Non-Christian music [5]
7. Bikinis [6]
8. Lack of adherence to gender roles that are nonexistent on the Christian worldview [7]
9. The sound position that the obligatory nature of Mosaic Law did not change during or after the ministry of Jesus [8]
Churches seem to largely have replaced legitimate Biblical ethics with cultural mores or personal preferences, ignoring what the Bible actually tells them to do while instead condemning things it never does. In fact, many Christians I have met will at best claim to follow Biblical values like justice or sexual morality and then merely adopt a kind of cultural relativism with regards to what the specifics of those values look like. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and utterly inept reasoning that I see in many Christians--in my talks with Christians I've had to beat down so many non sequiturs, appeals to emotion, appeals to tradition, appeals to popularity, and plenty of other fallacies. Mosaic Law revealed specific moral obligations for humans to uphold and prohibited addition to God's commands (Deuteronomy 4:2) and Jesus upheld the veracity of Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19) and condemned those who added to God's revealed obligations (Matthew 15:3-9), yet the congregations of many churches trample on these instructions. They instead choose to pursue an inverse morality totally foreign to Christianity and reason.
God reveals what sin is, and I, left to myself, do not know how to identify it. Any other human who shares my limitations does not know either. Not only do reason and philosophy point to theonomy--by establishing moral skepticism about the human conscience, that morality cannot exist in an atheistic universe, that morality (if it exists) is a reflection of God's nature, and that I know only my own nature and not that of an outside God (thus any external God must reveal his nature to me for me to know it)--but in the Bible itself we read of Paul affirming how apart from God's moral revelation of Mosaic Law he could not know what sin is (Romans 7:7). Only God can reveal the nature of sin to humans. And yet many Christians arbitrarily reject Biblical moral teachings or cherry pick which ones to adhere to while devising extra-Biblical moral systems and acting as if their subjective preferences and traditions have any objective moral authority.
Christian readers, do you believe in Biblical morality? Do you really?
[1]. One person at my current church actually said from the pulpit that praying with someone the opposite gender in solitude other than your spouse is a level of intimacy reserved only for marriage! What the fuck goes through the minds of these fallacious people? Sex is the only damn thing the Bible says married people aren't to engage in with other people!
[2]. See here for refutations of common beliefs in the church about this and related issues:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/fear-byproduct-of-complementarian.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
[3]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-fallacies-of-anti-profanity.html
[4]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/bible-on-nudity-part-2-refutation-of.html
[5]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-defense-of-metal-genre.html
[6]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
[7]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
[8]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/jesus-and-paul-on-mosaic-law.html
As a theonomist and a rationalist, I find it very odd that Christians squirm when atheists sometimes accuse them of cherry picking what Old Testament commands to follow (as an aside, much of the Old Testament is grossly misunderstood by every party). That is exactly what American Christians do much of the time. They flee from admitting that the Bible commands execution for certain moral offenses and then, of all the damn things they could have picked out of the Old Testament to rally around, they seem to focus disproportionately on the fact that Mosaic Law condemns homosexuality. Most people I have met who call themselves Christians neither believe nor enact the actual system of ethics taught in the Bible. If they did either, they would completely reorient their moral epistemology and would stop condemning both what the Bible commands and things it does not call sin.
I have never heard or read a sermon that targeted anti-intellectualism (1 Peter 3:15, Proverbs 19:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:21), prison rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) or by extension the heinously unbiblical American prison system, or the very foundations of the impulse to believe in extra-Biblical moral obligations (Deuteronomy 4:2). But I've definitely heard and read sermons condemning all sorts of activities that the Bible does not condemn or even sometimes calls good:
1. Being alone with members of the opposite gender
2. Unmarried men and women praying together alone [1]
3. Close opposite gender friendships [2]
4. Use of profanity [3]
5. Public nudity [4]
6. Non-Christian music [5]
7. Bikinis [6]
8. Lack of adherence to gender roles that are nonexistent on the Christian worldview [7]
9. The sound position that the obligatory nature of Mosaic Law did not change during or after the ministry of Jesus [8]
Churches seem to largely have replaced legitimate Biblical ethics with cultural mores or personal preferences, ignoring what the Bible actually tells them to do while instead condemning things it never does. In fact, many Christians I have met will at best claim to follow Biblical values like justice or sexual morality and then merely adopt a kind of cultural relativism with regards to what the specifics of those values look like. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and utterly inept reasoning that I see in many Christians--in my talks with Christians I've had to beat down so many non sequiturs, appeals to emotion, appeals to tradition, appeals to popularity, and plenty of other fallacies. Mosaic Law revealed specific moral obligations for humans to uphold and prohibited addition to God's commands (Deuteronomy 4:2) and Jesus upheld the veracity of Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19) and condemned those who added to God's revealed obligations (Matthew 15:3-9), yet the congregations of many churches trample on these instructions. They instead choose to pursue an inverse morality totally foreign to Christianity and reason.
God reveals what sin is, and I, left to myself, do not know how to identify it. Any other human who shares my limitations does not know either. Not only do reason and philosophy point to theonomy--by establishing moral skepticism about the human conscience, that morality cannot exist in an atheistic universe, that morality (if it exists) is a reflection of God's nature, and that I know only my own nature and not that of an outside God (thus any external God must reveal his nature to me for me to know it)--but in the Bible itself we read of Paul affirming how apart from God's moral revelation of Mosaic Law he could not know what sin is (Romans 7:7). Only God can reveal the nature of sin to humans. And yet many Christians arbitrarily reject Biblical moral teachings or cherry pick which ones to adhere to while devising extra-Biblical moral systems and acting as if their subjective preferences and traditions have any objective moral authority.
Christian readers, do you believe in Biblical morality? Do you really?
[1]. One person at my current church actually said from the pulpit that praying with someone the opposite gender in solitude other than your spouse is a level of intimacy reserved only for marriage! What the fuck goes through the minds of these fallacious people? Sex is the only damn thing the Bible says married people aren't to engage in with other people!
[2]. See here for refutations of common beliefs in the church about this and related issues:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/fear-byproduct-of-complementarian.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
[3]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-fallacies-of-anti-profanity.html
[4]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/bible-on-nudity-part-2-refutation-of.html
[5]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-defense-of-metal-genre.html
[6]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
[7]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
[8]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/jesus-and-paul-on-mosaic-law.html
Monday, May 29, 2017
Movie Review--Logan
"Charles, the world is not the same as it was."
--James Logan Howlett, Logan
"I did something. Something unspeakable. I've remembered what happened in Westchester."
--Charles Xavier, Logan
"We struggled with the X-23s. We assumed, because they were children, we could raise them without a conscience. But you can't nurture rage. You must simply design it from scratch."
--Dr. Zander Rice, Logan
James Mangold's Logan towers above other films I viewed which were released this year in terms of developing characters, focusing a story, and utilizing every scene left in the final cut--all while truly ending the 17 year reign of a cinematic legend. Depicting a world without mutant saviors where shadow organizations experiment on children, where safety and hope seem absurd fantasies, and where time and grief have reduced great heroes to impotent old men, this movie succeeds entirely on practically every level. Although it does fit into the X-Men cinematic universe, one can enjoy it alone and not have the experience seem incomplete--one of the movie's many unique qualities.
Production Values
Logan has excellent acting on all fronts. Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart ARE their characters (not that I expected anything else). Stewart plays a seizure-ridden old man who is losing control of his mind very effectively and Jackman outdoes all of his previous Wolverine performances in terms of showing his character's torment and personality. Dafne Keen did not allow herself to get overshadowed by the cinema giants she shares the screen with, as her ferocious and acrobatic X-23 was quite impressive. Truly, for her to star in a movie alongside Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and still contribute noticeably well is no small feat. Steven Holbrook did a wonderful job bringing his role of Donald Pierce to life, even though his character is a relatively cliche/basic one. That did not stop Holbrook from truly embracing the character and giving an utterly spectacular performance, it just means that his villain's personality is not the most original or unique despite the great execution.
In this movie, practical effects supersede overuse of CGI. This helps ground the sense of realism that permeates the story and preserve the tone of the film. Where superhero movies like Age of Ultron or Suicide Squad bombard audiences with large-scale multi-hero fights within CGI environments, Logan avoids relying on elaborate computer effects to hold audience attention and instead relies on beautifully-executed practical effects combined with extraordinary acting and expert writing and pacing.
Many scenes (especially the dinner scene!) truly showcase an expertly-constructed script. Dialogue flows naturally and reveals the hearts of the characters; every scene is either absolutely necessary for the story or very useful in furthering it. The writing elevates the characters in the film far above the generic superhero tropes of other similar movies.
Story
An attempted carjacking and violent fight in the first scene of Logan set the tone for the grim and bloody story to follow. James Howlett (Wolverine) awakens in a leased limo he uses to drive people around for cash as a band of thugs attempts to remove the tires. His most recent years have not been kind to him. 2029 finds his eyesight, healing regeneration, claw extension speed, moral compass, and stamina degrading. His physical prowess has disintegrated to such an extent that ordinary humans can gang up on him and briefly overpower him. Charles Xavier is in his 90s, as a brief verbal spar with villain Donald Pierce reveals. His mind has fractured to the point where he occasionally has seizures of such devastating power that nearby beings can die from them. Both Logan and Charles live with Caliban, a rare living mutant who can track other mutants and who says that Charles is telepathically communicating with someone. Mutant births have dropped dramatically if not vanished entirely, for reasons revealed later in the story.
By various turns in the plot, Logan finds himself offered a $50,000 job: the transportation of a young girl to a place called Eden in North Dakota. Her name is Laura. However, a corporation called Transigen wants her too. Donald Pierce and his transhumanist Reavers, a group of cybernetic ally enhanced humans, pursue the trio intent on reclaiming Transigen's lost child, as Laura was one of a batch of mutant children raised in a laboratory to become psychopathic soldiers. She was fashioned from Wolverine's DNA. Zander Rice, the leader of Transigen, even tells Logan at one point that he knew Rice's father during the infamous Weapon X Program where Wolverine received the adamantium coating for his skeleton and claws.
(SPOILERS!!!)
The journey to Eden proves difficult and full of loss. Logan has to confront a Transigen clone of himself called X-24--not Laura, but a clone that resembles him in height and appearance. Beloved characters die. But at the end of the story, the legendary Wolverine performs one last bout of heroism and then finally has his dreadful existence ended by a combination of battle wounds and adamantium poisoning. The final shot of the film shows the children he died protecting hold a brief funeral service for him before fleeing to the Canadian border--and viewers do not see if they make it or not.
Intellectual Content
The story and characters are quite existential, especially for a movie of this genre. Wolverine has always dealt with his violent nature, his mutation, social ostracism, the death of those he becomes attached to, and the natural immortality that perpetuates his woes by preventing his life from ending. Considering the existential side of the Wolverine character, it was no uninspired touch to introduce Laura--a type of clone of himself that Charles notes is "very much like you"--and have Logan fight X-24, a literal clone of him in his youth. It is also (SPOILER) very fitting and symbolic for the wounds inflicted on him by X-24 to kill him (along with adamantium poisoning). In a sense, it is as if after a lifetime of despair and pain Wolverine has finally killed himself. His own immortality has always been his most dreaded and tyrannical opponent, and Mangold weaves rich layers of significance into the finals days of the character.
The western overtones of the film heighten this, as things like having characters watch a potent scene from Shane introduce western themes. In the funeral scene at the very end, Laura quotes Shane: "A man has to be what he is, Joey". Of course, as with many of us humans, Logan can be quite confused about just what he is other than hurt (by the way, the Johnny Cash song Hurt that accompanied the teaser trailer last year matches the tone of the movie splendidly). At one point he bluntly tells Laura that he is not what she thinks he is. In a drastically different way than Ryan Reynold's Wade Wilson, Logan seems to view himself as someone who is not a superhero. A Transigen defector describes his X-24 clone as being "without a soul", so viewers must ask if this also describes Wolverine himself. But despite his jaded and battered heart, Logan resigns himself to a final act of heroism and imparts Laura in his dying words to not "be what they made you". Perhaps this meant that she should not be like him. Whatever the specific meaning, it beautifully captured designed he advice the character would give to a younger incarnation of himself. Wolverine is a man haunted by pain, tortured by the length of his life, and yet one who ultimately allows selflessness to overcome his cynicism. If nothing else, Logan offers a very honest depiction of a man confused, lost, and beaten down by continually shitty circumstances before showing this man receive the death he avoided for so long.
As exemplified by the scene where Wolverine dies, Logan embraces actual stakes. The once-mighty Wolverine can now be physically overpowered and cherished characters do die. Whereas in earlier movies audiences rarely had any reason to fear for the life of Wolverine, fights and gunshots can now incapacitate or even kill him. For perhaps the first time since Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, while watching a comic book movie I noticed a sense of genuine realism. In one scene Wolverine even mocks the X-Men comics Laura reads by saying "You do know they're all bullshit, right? Maybe a quarter of it happened, and not like this. In the real world, people die." The willingness to translate what Logan calls "the real world" into a comic book movie, along with all the other brilliant aspects of the film, show that perhaps the superhero genre is growing up into the cinematic equivalent of mature adulthood. If Logan is any indication of where the genre will head in the future, I am quite excited!
Conclusion
Logan is the most complete, satisfying movie I have seen in a while, a triumph in almost every way. Director James Mangold improved on his previous film The Wolverine in just about every way I can think of. One of the moments I connected with the most was when Logan stands over the (SPOILER!!!!!) grave of Charles, mourning, bitter, and frustrated. All the anger, grief, existential longing, and sadness of the character seemed to appear on Jackman's face, presenting together perhaps the most emotionally vulnerable superhero in cinema to this date. Ultimately, this ability amounts to one of Logan's greatest strengths. Instead of the ridiculous and now-cliche CGI ensemble fights around portals to the sky that populate other comic book movies, Logan opts for a screenplay that elevates intimacy, vulnerability, and honesty about the human condition over the repetitive effects and relatively shallow comedy that other movies of its type aim for. This movie has characters that seem real, thus permitting the audience an actual opportunity to truly connect with the pain and heartbreak they feel. With the exception of The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent Batman Begins), I can't think of any other superhero movie that so boldly embraces a somber, realistic tone and expresses it so beautifully.
Marvel fans will cherish this send off to Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman for years. This film could easily become the nostalgic classic of the golden age of superhero movies in cinema. With absolutely splendid acting on all fronts, a return to practical effects, a heartfelt script, and excellent character development--and, of course, some vicious and long-awaited R-rated Wolverine action--Logan soars above not just the majority of the other X-Men movies but above many movies I've seen recently period.
Hugh Jackman said this would be his last time to play Wolverine, and he certainly made his final offering count. The last frames of the movie will be remembered as an emotional goodbye to a veteran actor and the beloved character he portrayed across nine films and 17 years. May Logan be long remembered for sending off a favorite character and for the genuine humanity it so wonderfully portrays!
Content
1. Violence: We finally get to see Wolverine's claws impale heads, faces, and arms onscreen. The camera does not turn from the blood, decapitations, and vicious flurries of stabs that Wolverine fans have wanted to see in a film for so long.
2. Profanity: Wolverine uses a variety of words considered profanity, including "Fuck" and "Shit". Even Charles joins in, dropping four f-bombs in his first scene he appears in alone!
3. Nudity: A girl being transported in Logan's limo exposes her breasts for several moments.
--James Logan Howlett, Logan
"I did something. Something unspeakable. I've remembered what happened in Westchester."
--Charles Xavier, Logan
"We struggled with the X-23s. We assumed, because they were children, we could raise them without a conscience. But you can't nurture rage. You must simply design it from scratch."
--Dr. Zander Rice, Logan
James Mangold's Logan towers above other films I viewed which were released this year in terms of developing characters, focusing a story, and utilizing every scene left in the final cut--all while truly ending the 17 year reign of a cinematic legend. Depicting a world without mutant saviors where shadow organizations experiment on children, where safety and hope seem absurd fantasies, and where time and grief have reduced great heroes to impotent old men, this movie succeeds entirely on practically every level. Although it does fit into the X-Men cinematic universe, one can enjoy it alone and not have the experience seem incomplete--one of the movie's many unique qualities.
 |
|
Production Values
Logan has excellent acting on all fronts. Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart ARE their characters (not that I expected anything else). Stewart plays a seizure-ridden old man who is losing control of his mind very effectively and Jackman outdoes all of his previous Wolverine performances in terms of showing his character's torment and personality. Dafne Keen did not allow herself to get overshadowed by the cinema giants she shares the screen with, as her ferocious and acrobatic X-23 was quite impressive. Truly, for her to star in a movie alongside Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and still contribute noticeably well is no small feat. Steven Holbrook did a wonderful job bringing his role of Donald Pierce to life, even though his character is a relatively cliche/basic one. That did not stop Holbrook from truly embracing the character and giving an utterly spectacular performance, it just means that his villain's personality is not the most original or unique despite the great execution.
In this movie, practical effects supersede overuse of CGI. This helps ground the sense of realism that permeates the story and preserve the tone of the film. Where superhero movies like Age of Ultron or Suicide Squad bombard audiences with large-scale multi-hero fights within CGI environments, Logan avoids relying on elaborate computer effects to hold audience attention and instead relies on beautifully-executed practical effects combined with extraordinary acting and expert writing and pacing.
Many scenes (especially the dinner scene!) truly showcase an expertly-constructed script. Dialogue flows naturally and reveals the hearts of the characters; every scene is either absolutely necessary for the story or very useful in furthering it. The writing elevates the characters in the film far above the generic superhero tropes of other similar movies.
Story
An attempted carjacking and violent fight in the first scene of Logan set the tone for the grim and bloody story to follow. James Howlett (Wolverine) awakens in a leased limo he uses to drive people around for cash as a band of thugs attempts to remove the tires. His most recent years have not been kind to him. 2029 finds his eyesight, healing regeneration, claw extension speed, moral compass, and stamina degrading. His physical prowess has disintegrated to such an extent that ordinary humans can gang up on him and briefly overpower him. Charles Xavier is in his 90s, as a brief verbal spar with villain Donald Pierce reveals. His mind has fractured to the point where he occasionally has seizures of such devastating power that nearby beings can die from them. Both Logan and Charles live with Caliban, a rare living mutant who can track other mutants and who says that Charles is telepathically communicating with someone. Mutant births have dropped dramatically if not vanished entirely, for reasons revealed later in the story.
By various turns in the plot, Logan finds himself offered a $50,000 job: the transportation of a young girl to a place called Eden in North Dakota. Her name is Laura. However, a corporation called Transigen wants her too. Donald Pierce and his transhumanist Reavers, a group of cybernetic ally enhanced humans, pursue the trio intent on reclaiming Transigen's lost child, as Laura was one of a batch of mutant children raised in a laboratory to become psychopathic soldiers. She was fashioned from Wolverine's DNA. Zander Rice, the leader of Transigen, even tells Logan at one point that he knew Rice's father during the infamous Weapon X Program where Wolverine received the adamantium coating for his skeleton and claws.
(SPOILERS!!!)
The journey to Eden proves difficult and full of loss. Logan has to confront a Transigen clone of himself called X-24--not Laura, but a clone that resembles him in height and appearance. Beloved characters die. But at the end of the story, the legendary Wolverine performs one last bout of heroism and then finally has his dreadful existence ended by a combination of battle wounds and adamantium poisoning. The final shot of the film shows the children he died protecting hold a brief funeral service for him before fleeing to the Canadian border--and viewers do not see if they make it or not.
Intellectual Content
The story and characters are quite existential, especially for a movie of this genre. Wolverine has always dealt with his violent nature, his mutation, social ostracism, the death of those he becomes attached to, and the natural immortality that perpetuates his woes by preventing his life from ending. Considering the existential side of the Wolverine character, it was no uninspired touch to introduce Laura--a type of clone of himself that Charles notes is "very much like you"--and have Logan fight X-24, a literal clone of him in his youth. It is also (SPOILER) very fitting and symbolic for the wounds inflicted on him by X-24 to kill him (along with adamantium poisoning). In a sense, it is as if after a lifetime of despair and pain Wolverine has finally killed himself. His own immortality has always been his most dreaded and tyrannical opponent, and Mangold weaves rich layers of significance into the finals days of the character.
The western overtones of the film heighten this, as things like having characters watch a potent scene from Shane introduce western themes. In the funeral scene at the very end, Laura quotes Shane: "A man has to be what he is, Joey". Of course, as with many of us humans, Logan can be quite confused about just what he is other than hurt (by the way, the Johnny Cash song Hurt that accompanied the teaser trailer last year matches the tone of the movie splendidly). At one point he bluntly tells Laura that he is not what she thinks he is. In a drastically different way than Ryan Reynold's Wade Wilson, Logan seems to view himself as someone who is not a superhero. A Transigen defector describes his X-24 clone as being "without a soul", so viewers must ask if this also describes Wolverine himself. But despite his jaded and battered heart, Logan resigns himself to a final act of heroism and imparts Laura in his dying words to not "be what they made you". Perhaps this meant that she should not be like him. Whatever the specific meaning, it beautifully captured designed he advice the character would give to a younger incarnation of himself. Wolverine is a man haunted by pain, tortured by the length of his life, and yet one who ultimately allows selflessness to overcome his cynicism. If nothing else, Logan offers a very honest depiction of a man confused, lost, and beaten down by continually shitty circumstances before showing this man receive the death he avoided for so long.
As exemplified by the scene where Wolverine dies, Logan embraces actual stakes. The once-mighty Wolverine can now be physically overpowered and cherished characters do die. Whereas in earlier movies audiences rarely had any reason to fear for the life of Wolverine, fights and gunshots can now incapacitate or even kill him. For perhaps the first time since Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, while watching a comic book movie I noticed a sense of genuine realism. In one scene Wolverine even mocks the X-Men comics Laura reads by saying "You do know they're all bullshit, right? Maybe a quarter of it happened, and not like this. In the real world, people die." The willingness to translate what Logan calls "the real world" into a comic book movie, along with all the other brilliant aspects of the film, show that perhaps the superhero genre is growing up into the cinematic equivalent of mature adulthood. If Logan is any indication of where the genre will head in the future, I am quite excited!
Conclusion
Logan is the most complete, satisfying movie I have seen in a while, a triumph in almost every way. Director James Mangold improved on his previous film The Wolverine in just about every way I can think of. One of the moments I connected with the most was when Logan stands over the (SPOILER!!!!!) grave of Charles, mourning, bitter, and frustrated. All the anger, grief, existential longing, and sadness of the character seemed to appear on Jackman's face, presenting together perhaps the most emotionally vulnerable superhero in cinema to this date. Ultimately, this ability amounts to one of Logan's greatest strengths. Instead of the ridiculous and now-cliche CGI ensemble fights around portals to the sky that populate other comic book movies, Logan opts for a screenplay that elevates intimacy, vulnerability, and honesty about the human condition over the repetitive effects and relatively shallow comedy that other movies of its type aim for. This movie has characters that seem real, thus permitting the audience an actual opportunity to truly connect with the pain and heartbreak they feel. With the exception of The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent Batman Begins), I can't think of any other superhero movie that so boldly embraces a somber, realistic tone and expresses it so beautifully.
Marvel fans will cherish this send off to Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman for years. This film could easily become the nostalgic classic of the golden age of superhero movies in cinema. With absolutely splendid acting on all fronts, a return to practical effects, a heartfelt script, and excellent character development--and, of course, some vicious and long-awaited R-rated Wolverine action--Logan soars above not just the majority of the other X-Men movies but above many movies I've seen recently period.
Hugh Jackman said this would be his last time to play Wolverine, and he certainly made his final offering count. The last frames of the movie will be remembered as an emotional goodbye to a veteran actor and the beloved character he portrayed across nine films and 17 years. May Logan be long remembered for sending off a favorite character and for the genuine humanity it so wonderfully portrays!
Content
1. Violence: We finally get to see Wolverine's claws impale heads, faces, and arms onscreen. The camera does not turn from the blood, decapitations, and vicious flurries of stabs that Wolverine fans have wanted to see in a film for so long.
2. Profanity: Wolverine uses a variety of words considered profanity, including "Fuck" and "Shit". Even Charles joins in, dropping four f-bombs in his first scene he appears in alone!
3. Nudity: A girl being transported in Logan's limo exposes her breasts for several moments.
An Explanation Of Asexuality
As I have mentioned before at various points on my blog, I am an asexual. Several people I have met have deduced this about me through observation, but most people react with surprise or confusion when they learn this. I have decided to define and explain what it means to have this condition and address some things that Christians, whether they be genuine or pretenders, have said about the matter.
Asexuals have little to no sexual desire. I say "little" only in comparison to non-asexuals, as I don't even know what it means for something to be little in and of itself, only by comparison to something else. Asexual people still have both genitals and the physical capability to have sex, but they simply lack the natural desire to do so. Their bodies can become sexually aroused although their minds do not necessarily desire sexual expression of any form. Despite this, they can still have a "normal" or strong desire for romantic relationships. It seems to me that at best only a very small amount of the people I have met or will encounter are asexual.
But asexuality's uncommon nature does not mean it is sinful. Nothing in the Bible says that asexuality is sinful or lessens a person's value or ontological status. As it is, not everyone needs or is obligated to get married or have sex to begin with. And never once does the Bible teach that sexual activity is required to experience the most satisfying or best life possible! I have found some asinine comments about asexuality made by self-proclaimed Christians on certain sites quite amusing and irritating, but no one's preferences, emotions, or traditions affect the truth.
Lunatic Christian arguments (I mean arguments used by ignorant and fallacious Christians, not arguments originating from legitimate Christian theology or philosophy!!) against asexuality seem to usually propose either that 1) asexuality is wrong if one is married or 2) asexuality is wrong because it is a perversion of natural sexuality alongside homosexuality. Regarding 1), asexuality itself is never itself sinful, but married individuals are obligated to have sexual relations to some degree as mutually desired by both spouses (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Thus asexuals should not get married unless their spouses either agree to have no sex or unless they are willing to satisfy their partners' sexual desires to at least some degree. As for 2), the Bible condemns homosexual activity but not being born with what we call a homosexual orientation (I am not claiming that homosexuality is chosen or innate, but am distinguishing between orientation and actions). However, neither asexual "orientation" or the resulting lack of sexual desire and actIvity is condemned in any way.
Although reason and experience easily prove that not everything in life has a sexual dimension--though my damn American culture sure likes to pretend otherwise sometimes--asexuality only reinforces that awareness. Rationalism proves that most things are not sexual even if some people view them as such, but asexuality leads to the natural perception that most things are not sexual, a perception that logic verifies. I am totally content with my condition. I fully understand that there is more to life than sexuality and that a person is much more than his or her sexuality, and I am very grateful for this knowledge. The Bible does not condemn this condition and ultimately teaches that neither humans nor human life are solely defined by sexuality.
Asexuals have little to no sexual desire. I say "little" only in comparison to non-asexuals, as I don't even know what it means for something to be little in and of itself, only by comparison to something else. Asexual people still have both genitals and the physical capability to have sex, but they simply lack the natural desire to do so. Their bodies can become sexually aroused although their minds do not necessarily desire sexual expression of any form. Despite this, they can still have a "normal" or strong desire for romantic relationships. It seems to me that at best only a very small amount of the people I have met or will encounter are asexual.
But asexuality's uncommon nature does not mean it is sinful. Nothing in the Bible says that asexuality is sinful or lessens a person's value or ontological status. As it is, not everyone needs or is obligated to get married or have sex to begin with. And never once does the Bible teach that sexual activity is required to experience the most satisfying or best life possible! I have found some asinine comments about asexuality made by self-proclaimed Christians on certain sites quite amusing and irritating, but no one's preferences, emotions, or traditions affect the truth.
Lunatic Christian arguments (I mean arguments used by ignorant and fallacious Christians, not arguments originating from legitimate Christian theology or philosophy!!) against asexuality seem to usually propose either that 1) asexuality is wrong if one is married or 2) asexuality is wrong because it is a perversion of natural sexuality alongside homosexuality. Regarding 1), asexuality itself is never itself sinful, but married individuals are obligated to have sexual relations to some degree as mutually desired by both spouses (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Thus asexuals should not get married unless their spouses either agree to have no sex or unless they are willing to satisfy their partners' sexual desires to at least some degree. As for 2), the Bible condemns homosexual activity but not being born with what we call a homosexual orientation (I am not claiming that homosexuality is chosen or innate, but am distinguishing between orientation and actions). However, neither asexual "orientation" or the resulting lack of sexual desire and actIvity is condemned in any way.
Although reason and experience easily prove that not everything in life has a sexual dimension--though my damn American culture sure likes to pretend otherwise sometimes--asexuality only reinforces that awareness. Rationalism proves that most things are not sexual even if some people view them as such, but asexuality leads to the natural perception that most things are not sexual, a perception that logic verifies. I am totally content with my condition. I fully understand that there is more to life than sexuality and that a person is much more than his or her sexuality, and I am very grateful for this knowledge. The Bible does not condemn this condition and ultimately teaches that neither humans nor human life are solely defined by sexuality.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Misrepresented Harshness--Deuteronomy 25:17-19
It's time for the second entry in my sporadic series on misrepresented and misunderstood portions of Mosaic Law (for the first, see here [1]). As with before, the text to be addressed is from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 25:17-19--"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
Some readers and critics seem to believe that this passage encourages ethnic cleansing--that is, widespread killing of a people group for racist reasons. The meaning of the verse is undeniably clear: Yahweh instructed the Israelites to exterminate the Amalekites at a future point in time. Passages like this often frighten both Christian and non-Christian readers. Is Yahweh racist? Is this genocide morally justifiable?
Deuteronomy 25:17-19 prescribes what amounts to capital punishment on a national scale for the transgressions of the Amalekites. I have proven elsewhere that the Bible opposes racism in all its forms [2]. This slaughter is not authorized merely because the Amalekites were outsiders and foreigners, but because they had oppressed God's people during an important event: they had oppressed the Jews during their exodus from Egypt. The prescribed future killing of the Amalekites in this passage has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with God demanding terrestrial justice, one of the primary themes of Mosaic Law as a whole. As humans made in God's image, the Amalekites held just as many ontological moral rights as the Jews. As people who committed an act of great evil, the Amalekites deserved to die. While many readers will surely still be disturbed by Deuteronomy 25:17-19, they cannot legitimately charge the passage with actual racism.
This killing was not instructed because the Amalekites merely inconvenienced the Jews. Instead, they had actively attacked stragglers migrating away from Egypt, a place where the Jews had experienced severe mistreatment and oppression on racial grounds. Their attacks would have likely targeted the weak, sick, elderly, and young who gravitated towards the rear of the advancing Jewish group. King Saul eventually carries out this command--partially--in 1 Samuel 15.
When bothered by things like this, Christians need to evaluate if they derive their ethics solely from divine revelation and purely logical extensions of it [3] and non-Christians need to realize that they have no supportable basis for making objective moral claims. Muslims rely on a book that contradicts the Old Testament, which the Quran claims to align with; atheists (and, by extension, everyone else who isn't a rationalistic theonomist!) can cite only their own personal, arbitrary, subjective discomfort or the contradicting moral traditions and fads of their respective cultures to reinforce their moral beliefs; collective societies can merely adopt inherited moral traditions or act according to either the random decrees of an elite leader (or group of leaders) or the happenstance consensus of the majority; other groups or individuals fare no better. Religious texts containing verifiable contradictions and errors, social popularity, and personal conscience are not sound sources of moral knowledge! Since Christianity is the only religion that can be supported with external facts, its ethical system is the only one that can be rationally defended. With all this in mind, we must remember that we cannot hope to discover moral truths on our own--they must be revealed to us by God.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/misrepresented-harshness-deuteronomy.html
[2]. In short, God imbued all humans with his image (Genesis 1:26-27), secured moral rights for all humans (Leviticus 24:22), and repeatedly condemned discrimination against and exploitation of foreigners (Exodus 23:9, for example), and thus all racism stands in direct opposition to Biblical morality and theology. See here:
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-foundations-of-racism.html
[3]. By purely logical extension I mean something that follows logically without resorting to any fallacies. For example, consider pedophilia. The Bible does not mention pedophilia specifically in Mosaic Law, but it condemns rape and bestiality, both forms of non-consensual sex, as capital crimes (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and Exodus 22:19 respectively). It also says that unengaged and unmarried singles who have sex should get married (Exodus 22:16-17; no, premarital sex is not sinful in and of itself--see http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html) and married people are forbidden from having extramarital sex (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 22:22). Based on these various passages, it is explicitly clear that the Bible condemns sex that is forced and that does not either lead to or occur in a committed relationship. Thus, although the Bible does not condemn pedophilia by name, pedophilia is condemned by a purely logical extension of explicit Biblical commands.
Deuteronomy 25:17-19--"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
Some readers and critics seem to believe that this passage encourages ethnic cleansing--that is, widespread killing of a people group for racist reasons. The meaning of the verse is undeniably clear: Yahweh instructed the Israelites to exterminate the Amalekites at a future point in time. Passages like this often frighten both Christian and non-Christian readers. Is Yahweh racist? Is this genocide morally justifiable?
 |
| What should Christians, theonomists and non-theonomists alike, make of genocides authorized by God in the Bible? |
Deuteronomy 25:17-19 prescribes what amounts to capital punishment on a national scale for the transgressions of the Amalekites. I have proven elsewhere that the Bible opposes racism in all its forms [2]. This slaughter is not authorized merely because the Amalekites were outsiders and foreigners, but because they had oppressed God's people during an important event: they had oppressed the Jews during their exodus from Egypt. The prescribed future killing of the Amalekites in this passage has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with God demanding terrestrial justice, one of the primary themes of Mosaic Law as a whole. As humans made in God's image, the Amalekites held just as many ontological moral rights as the Jews. As people who committed an act of great evil, the Amalekites deserved to die. While many readers will surely still be disturbed by Deuteronomy 25:17-19, they cannot legitimately charge the passage with actual racism.
This killing was not instructed because the Amalekites merely inconvenienced the Jews. Instead, they had actively attacked stragglers migrating away from Egypt, a place where the Jews had experienced severe mistreatment and oppression on racial grounds. Their attacks would have likely targeted the weak, sick, elderly, and young who gravitated towards the rear of the advancing Jewish group. King Saul eventually carries out this command--partially--in 1 Samuel 15.
 |
| Not all genocide is motivated by racism, although many illicit genocides have been enacted in the name of cleansing the world from a deficient or inferior ethnicity or people group. |
When bothered by things like this, Christians need to evaluate if they derive their ethics solely from divine revelation and purely logical extensions of it [3] and non-Christians need to realize that they have no supportable basis for making objective moral claims. Muslims rely on a book that contradicts the Old Testament, which the Quran claims to align with; atheists (and, by extension, everyone else who isn't a rationalistic theonomist!) can cite only their own personal, arbitrary, subjective discomfort or the contradicting moral traditions and fads of their respective cultures to reinforce their moral beliefs; collective societies can merely adopt inherited moral traditions or act according to either the random decrees of an elite leader (or group of leaders) or the happenstance consensus of the majority; other groups or individuals fare no better. Religious texts containing verifiable contradictions and errors, social popularity, and personal conscience are not sound sources of moral knowledge! Since Christianity is the only religion that can be supported with external facts, its ethical system is the only one that can be rationally defended. With all this in mind, we must remember that we cannot hope to discover moral truths on our own--they must be revealed to us by God.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/misrepresented-harshness-deuteronomy.html
[2]. In short, God imbued all humans with his image (Genesis 1:26-27), secured moral rights for all humans (Leviticus 24:22), and repeatedly condemned discrimination against and exploitation of foreigners (Exodus 23:9, for example), and thus all racism stands in direct opposition to Biblical morality and theology. See here:
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-foundations-of-racism.html
[3]. By purely logical extension I mean something that follows logically without resorting to any fallacies. For example, consider pedophilia. The Bible does not mention pedophilia specifically in Mosaic Law, but it condemns rape and bestiality, both forms of non-consensual sex, as capital crimes (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and Exodus 22:19 respectively). It also says that unengaged and unmarried singles who have sex should get married (Exodus 22:16-17; no, premarital sex is not sinful in and of itself--see http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html) and married people are forbidden from having extramarital sex (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 22:22). Based on these various passages, it is explicitly clear that the Bible condemns sex that is forced and that does not either lead to or occur in a committed relationship. Thus, although the Bible does not condemn pedophilia by name, pedophilia is condemned by a purely logical extension of explicit Biblical commands.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
What A Worldview Is Not
Which holds more significance for a worldview--questions or answers? Depending on how you answer my question, whatever you say to this--even internally to yourself alone--will reveal to you the manner in which you view reality. Here are several miscellaneous questions that I have explained answers for on my blog throughout its almost year-long life:
Is logic reliable?
How can we know if something is morally right or wrong?
Does the Bible have sexist teachings?
Can men and women be friends?
Can we trust our senses?
What distinguishes legitimate skepticism from irrational skepticism?
Can science prove anything?
What does the Bible say about justice?
I have not merely asked these things on my blog, but I have answered them because I have used reason to analyze and respond to each as a rationalist and as a Christian. Do questions have value for thinkers? Of course! But to have a worldview one must do more than just ask something.
Questions are useful for three things: 1) provoking thought that leads to answers, 2) exposing areas of ignorance so one does not offer an incorrect answer, and 3) providing an opportunity to declare known answers. The epestemic importance and value of a question always reduces down to the relationship that question has to a verifiable answer. Do not let anyone foolishly persuade you that questions matter more than answers. After all, how can a question affect one's philosophy unless it relates to an answer of some sort? Indeed, only proximity to some kind of answer grants any weight to questions at all! Even if the answer amounts to skepticism regarding some matter, a conclusion has been reached. To deny this one has to proclaim, ironically, an answer to the question I asked at the beginning of this post.
A worldview is not a group of questions or inquiries; it is the collection of answers one uses to respond to questions. It is both the framework one uses to answer questions and the answers themselves. By this definition, to construct a worldview one must do more than merely ask and seek--one must have a solution of some sort, a response to the inquiries made. A worldview does not magically form itself out of interrogatories, investigations, and hypothetical speculation. We adopt or discard a worldview when we hold a conclusion up to a question and say to ourselves or to others, "I know the answer here!", even if our answers are partially or wholly incorrect.
Is logic reliable?
How can we know if something is morally right or wrong?
Does the Bible have sexist teachings?
Can men and women be friends?
Can we trust our senses?
What distinguishes legitimate skepticism from irrational skepticism?
Can science prove anything?
What does the Bible say about justice?
I have not merely asked these things on my blog, but I have answered them because I have used reason to analyze and respond to each as a rationalist and as a Christian. Do questions have value for thinkers? Of course! But to have a worldview one must do more than just ask something.
Questions are useful for three things: 1) provoking thought that leads to answers, 2) exposing areas of ignorance so one does not offer an incorrect answer, and 3) providing an opportunity to declare known answers. The epestemic importance and value of a question always reduces down to the relationship that question has to a verifiable answer. Do not let anyone foolishly persuade you that questions matter more than answers. After all, how can a question affect one's philosophy unless it relates to an answer of some sort? Indeed, only proximity to some kind of answer grants any weight to questions at all! Even if the answer amounts to skepticism regarding some matter, a conclusion has been reached. To deny this one has to proclaim, ironically, an answer to the question I asked at the beginning of this post.
A worldview is not a group of questions or inquiries; it is the collection of answers one uses to respond to questions. It is both the framework one uses to answer questions and the answers themselves. By this definition, to construct a worldview one must do more than merely ask and seek--one must have a solution of some sort, a response to the inquiries made. A worldview does not magically form itself out of interrogatories, investigations, and hypothetical speculation. We adopt or discard a worldview when we hold a conclusion up to a question and say to ourselves or to others, "I know the answer here!", even if our answers are partially or wholly incorrect.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
The Nature Of Absolute Certainty
This morning I thought it might prove beneficial to readers if I define "absolute certainty" directly and explain what I mean when I use the phrase. As with certain other posts this year, I am partly writing this in response to some very irrational claims I have heard in the last four to five months.
The paradox of reason is that people are capable of doubting logic and accusing it of circularity only because they innately grasp and cannot avoid logic; otherwise they would have no grounds to work out that logic is unreliable or that it even exists as an abstract system. To know with absolute certainty that something is true is to be aware that it is how reality is and that there is no way that you could be wrong about it.
To doubt something is merely to entertain the possibility that it is false, with something false being something that is not true. Accordingly, doubting something which you cannot be wrong about does not affect the fact that you have or can have absolute certainty about select truths. After all, doubting certain things only confirms that they are true. No one can doubt his or her existence unless he or she exists; no one can doubt that truth exists unless it is true that doubt exists, meaning that truth exists; no one can doubt that he or she can know anything at all without knowing that he or she is doubting if knowledge is possible. To doubt things which are self-evident or true by necessity--things you can know with absolute certainty--does not negate the fact that absolute certainty is possible concerning those truths. As I just showed, it actually confirms that some things are true despite the greatest and most sophisticated doubts, which cannot refute, discredit, or evade these foundational truths.
Allow me to summarize my definitions presented here again:
Doubt--to entertain the possibility that something is false; distrust in an idea
False--something that is not the way reality is
Absolute certainty--someone has absolute certainty about a truth if there is no way he or she could be wrong (there is no way the belief can be false)
I hope that this clarifies what I mean when I use the words "absolute certainty". I do not have absolute certainty about a great amount of things, but it is impossible for me to not possess it with regards to certain knowledge [1]. The epistemological and philosophical cruciality of this point cannot be emphasized enough when conversing with those who deny or doubt self-evident truths! May this information be useful and reaffirming.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
The paradox of reason is that people are capable of doubting logic and accusing it of circularity only because they innately grasp and cannot avoid logic; otherwise they would have no grounds to work out that logic is unreliable or that it even exists as an abstract system. To know with absolute certainty that something is true is to be aware that it is how reality is and that there is no way that you could be wrong about it.
To doubt something is merely to entertain the possibility that it is false, with something false being something that is not true. Accordingly, doubting something which you cannot be wrong about does not affect the fact that you have or can have absolute certainty about select truths. After all, doubting certain things only confirms that they are true. No one can doubt his or her existence unless he or she exists; no one can doubt that truth exists unless it is true that doubt exists, meaning that truth exists; no one can doubt that he or she can know anything at all without knowing that he or she is doubting if knowledge is possible. To doubt things which are self-evident or true by necessity--things you can know with absolute certainty--does not negate the fact that absolute certainty is possible concerning those truths. As I just showed, it actually confirms that some things are true despite the greatest and most sophisticated doubts, which cannot refute, discredit, or evade these foundational truths.
Allow me to summarize my definitions presented here again:
Doubt--to entertain the possibility that something is false; distrust in an idea
False--something that is not the way reality is
Absolute certainty--someone has absolute certainty about a truth if there is no way he or she could be wrong (there is no way the belief can be false)
I hope that this clarifies what I mean when I use the words "absolute certainty". I do not have absolute certainty about a great amount of things, but it is impossible for me to not possess it with regards to certain knowledge [1]. The epistemological and philosophical cruciality of this point cannot be emphasized enough when conversing with those who deny or doubt self-evident truths! May this information be useful and reaffirming.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Zeal Without Knowledge
The Bible does not oppress or suppress the intellect, despite the multitude of contrary claims one can find. Indeed, it supports and even demands thorough use of the intellect [1]--in fact, it outright condemns zealousness for God not founded on sound knowledge of him. Zeal and passion do not inherently threaten Christianity or use of reason, yet Proverbs instructs that intellectual caution not be exchanged for haste, nor knowledge for unfounded zeal:
Proverbs 19:2--"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way."
Passion for God and Christianity must be accompanied by theological knowledge or that passion remains aimless. Alone, passion can lead people astray intellectually, morally, and spiritually, but knowledge can impose restrictions on the extent to which individuals yield to their passions. There is nothing intrinsically damaging or wrong about emotion and passion according to Christianity, yet misinformed passion stymies rationality, personal growth, and adherence to true beliefs.
An anti-intellectual or un-intellectual religion will likely not survive very long in the modern world, nor is there any reason to fret over this fact. If a religion (or any other belief) cannot withstand examination, seekers of truth will discard it as a legitimate worldview option, at least until genuine evidence or proof for it surfaces. The Bible does not teach blind trust in a particular theological ideology; instead, it commands its readers to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to not indulge in zeal that stands apart from knowledge, and Proverbs 19:2 reinforces this objective unmistakably and blatantly.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-necessity-of-reason.html
Proverbs 19:2--"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way."
Passion for God and Christianity must be accompanied by theological knowledge or that passion remains aimless. Alone, passion can lead people astray intellectually, morally, and spiritually, but knowledge can impose restrictions on the extent to which individuals yield to their passions. There is nothing intrinsically damaging or wrong about emotion and passion according to Christianity, yet misinformed passion stymies rationality, personal growth, and adherence to true beliefs.
An anti-intellectual or un-intellectual religion will likely not survive very long in the modern world, nor is there any reason to fret over this fact. If a religion (or any other belief) cannot withstand examination, seekers of truth will discard it as a legitimate worldview option, at least until genuine evidence or proof for it surfaces. The Bible does not teach blind trust in a particular theological ideology; instead, it commands its readers to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to not indulge in zeal that stands apart from knowledge, and Proverbs 19:2 reinforces this objective unmistakably and blatantly.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-necessity-of-reason.html
Friday, May 19, 2017
On Alleged Differences Between Men And Women
You've almost certainly heard someone tell you sometime during your life that since you, a man or a woman, belong to a certain gender, there are social customs you must adhere to and gender-specific expectations you must conform to. And, quite possibly, you have been bothered or even very personally frustrated by these judgments. Here I hope to concisely explain the irrationality of belief in any difference between men and women other than one pertaining to the appearance and function of the body and anatomy.
Note that I did not say that no differences of any kind exist between men and women. That claim would ignore clear physical differences, such as sexual anatomy and average length of hair. But many people who claim that men and women are naturally different refer to more than just physical distinctions. People commonly assert that men and women naturally have different skills, personalities, motivations, and desires.
This is bullshit, as I will delightedly demonstrate. Other than physical and anatomical differences, no verifiable universal differences between men and women exist--and experience, Scripture, and reason demonstrate to me all the time that social stereotypes and gender roles amount to nothing but bullshit accepted because of popularity or familial/social conditioning. My experiences contradict all sorts of entrenched beliefs about inherent male (and female) nature; the Bible does not teach that these non-physical differences exist and actively teaches otherwise; logic proves that the arguments for these beliefs hinge entirely on fallacies and erroneous assumptions. All alleged non-physical and non-anatomical differences inevitably reduce down to differences in individual personality and the product of social conditioning.
Stereotypes often become the justification for the construction and support of arbitrary gender roles. The fallacy of composition--a very common flaw in many arguments--reminds us that what is true of the part is NOT necessarily true of the whole. In other words, just because some women or men may act in a certain way does not mean that they are or aren't in accordance with some (nonexistent) natures or obligations that God allegedly assigned to either gender. And physical and anatomical differences between the two genders do not indicate the presence of moral obligations to behave in certain ways. The naturalistic fallacy preys on this type of faulty reasoning--for instance, it may be objectively true that women are generally physically weaker than men, but it does not in any way follow that they should be confined to certain roles in society in the name of some unproven moral obligation.
The beliefs that result from gender stereotypes and assumptions about how men and women are or should be do not possess any logical defensibility. For example, the idea that men are or should be emotionless and that women are or should be emotionalistic has no intellectual support. The idea that men should be the ones making money to support their families while women remain at home has no intellectual support. The idea that men should initiate dates and women should be pursued in romantic relationships, not pursue, has no intellectual support. Neither the Bible nor reason teaches any of these asinine concepts.
I find it very ironic and amusing that the Bible, a book so often believed to demand various gender roles, actually does not attach these "obligations" and stereotypes to either gender. Read here if you are interested in hearing more about this from a Biblical standpoint [1]. What the Bible teaches about this matter may surprise quite a few in the church--and may liberate some from false expectations, beliefs, and anxieties. After all, the truth sets people free from falsities; it alone releases people to face reality.
I hope to write more about this subject and related ones in the future!
[1]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-poisonous-offspring-of.html
Note that I did not say that no differences of any kind exist between men and women. That claim would ignore clear physical differences, such as sexual anatomy and average length of hair. But many people who claim that men and women are naturally different refer to more than just physical distinctions. People commonly assert that men and women naturally have different skills, personalities, motivations, and desires.
This is bullshit, as I will delightedly demonstrate. Other than physical and anatomical differences, no verifiable universal differences between men and women exist--and experience, Scripture, and reason demonstrate to me all the time that social stereotypes and gender roles amount to nothing but bullshit accepted because of popularity or familial/social conditioning. My experiences contradict all sorts of entrenched beliefs about inherent male (and female) nature; the Bible does not teach that these non-physical differences exist and actively teaches otherwise; logic proves that the arguments for these beliefs hinge entirely on fallacies and erroneous assumptions. All alleged non-physical and non-anatomical differences inevitably reduce down to differences in individual personality and the product of social conditioning.
Stereotypes often become the justification for the construction and support of arbitrary gender roles. The fallacy of composition--a very common flaw in many arguments--reminds us that what is true of the part is NOT necessarily true of the whole. In other words, just because some women or men may act in a certain way does not mean that they are or aren't in accordance with some (nonexistent) natures or obligations that God allegedly assigned to either gender. And physical and anatomical differences between the two genders do not indicate the presence of moral obligations to behave in certain ways. The naturalistic fallacy preys on this type of faulty reasoning--for instance, it may be objectively true that women are generally physically weaker than men, but it does not in any way follow that they should be confined to certain roles in society in the name of some unproven moral obligation.
The beliefs that result from gender stereotypes and assumptions about how men and women are or should be do not possess any logical defensibility. For example, the idea that men are or should be emotionless and that women are or should be emotionalistic has no intellectual support. The idea that men should be the ones making money to support their families while women remain at home has no intellectual support. The idea that men should initiate dates and women should be pursued in romantic relationships, not pursue, has no intellectual support. Neither the Bible nor reason teaches any of these asinine concepts.
I find it very ironic and amusing that the Bible, a book so often believed to demand various gender roles, actually does not attach these "obligations" and stereotypes to either gender. Read here if you are interested in hearing more about this from a Biblical standpoint [1]. What the Bible teaches about this matter may surprise quite a few in the church--and may liberate some from false expectations, beliefs, and anxieties. After all, the truth sets people free from falsities; it alone releases people to face reality.
I hope to write more about this subject and related ones in the future!
[1]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-poisonous-offspring-of.html
Moral Truths Are Not Necessary Truths
Moral truths do not contain certain properties that some Christian apologists attribute to them. I particularly have in mind the fact that nothing about moral claims--besides how moral truths must be consistent if they exist--has the same necessary veracity as logical truths. By this I mean that, unlike truths about logic, ethical truth claims do not possess some inherent, immediately verifiable trueness. For instance, the claim "Truth exists" is true by inescapable necessity and the utter impossibility of its falsity [1]. In contrast, the claim "Stealing is wrong" is not true by necessity--in other words, it is at least hypothetically possible that it is untrue, unlike the claim that truth exists.
I will list some reasons why moral claims are not true by necessity:
1). My sense of moral outrage over certain acts or attitudes does not mean that moral truths exist, whether my moral compass was conditioned in me by a particular society or innate in me from birth.
2). The near universality of moral impulses in humans alone does not mean that moral truths exist.
3). Unlike how no one can deny (at least certain) logical truths without affirming them either unknowingly or knowingly, one can deny or doubt the veracity of moral claims without falling into contradiction.
This might help people comprehend why in an atheistic universe nothing could ground moral truths. Moral truths do not possess the same properties as purely logical or mathematical truths; whereas it is absolutely impossible for logical and mathematical truths (ultimately nothing but logic involving numbers) to not be true and they would hold even in the absence of an uncaused cause or some other supernatural entity outside of the material world, no one can rationally claim that moral truths are immediately obvious in an epistemological or ontological sense on the basis of reason or experience, nor can they rationally believe that moral truths must or can exist at all apart from God's existence the way logical truths do [2].
Moral epistemology and ontology are not simple, trivial, or irrelevant to everyday life, but many people do fail to recognize that discovering facts about them does not come easily. Ultimately, no one can correctly or soundly propose that moral truth claims are true by pure logical necessity or that one can identify true moral claims with the ease some Christian apologists imply one can. Hopefully more people can recognize this and spare themselves and others the fallacious moral arguments one can commonly find in my culture.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-axioms.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
I will list some reasons why moral claims are not true by necessity:
1). My sense of moral outrage over certain acts or attitudes does not mean that moral truths exist, whether my moral compass was conditioned in me by a particular society or innate in me from birth.
2). The near universality of moral impulses in humans alone does not mean that moral truths exist.
3). Unlike how no one can deny (at least certain) logical truths without affirming them either unknowingly or knowingly, one can deny or doubt the veracity of moral claims without falling into contradiction.
This might help people comprehend why in an atheistic universe nothing could ground moral truths. Moral truths do not possess the same properties as purely logical or mathematical truths; whereas it is absolutely impossible for logical and mathematical truths (ultimately nothing but logic involving numbers) to not be true and they would hold even in the absence of an uncaused cause or some other supernatural entity outside of the material world, no one can rationally claim that moral truths are immediately obvious in an epistemological or ontological sense on the basis of reason or experience, nor can they rationally believe that moral truths must or can exist at all apart from God's existence the way logical truths do [2].
Moral epistemology and ontology are not simple, trivial, or irrelevant to everyday life, but many people do fail to recognize that discovering facts about them does not come easily. Ultimately, no one can correctly or soundly propose that moral truth claims are true by pure logical necessity or that one can identify true moral claims with the ease some Christian apologists imply one can. Hopefully more people can recognize this and spare themselves and others the fallacious moral arguments one can commonly find in my culture.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-axioms.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Misrepresented Harshness--Deuteronomy 21:18-21
This post marks the beginning of a sporadic series about individual passages in Mosaic Law that, in my experience, people seem to horrendously misrepresent. I have encountered multiple websites, some Christian and some hostile towards Christianity, which proclaim things about the meaning of these verses that the verses themselves do not say. Now, when an atheist website or some other non-Christian source does this, the words "straw man" immediately come to my mind. But when Christians do it . . . come on, why the hell do Christians sometimes misrepresent their own religious text?
This time the passage in question is from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21--"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."
Often one will see this passage represented as if it teaches that Mosaic Law prescribes execution of sons and daughters for mere lack of compliance with the instructions of their parents. But upon an examination that both takes the whole passage into account (not just one verse of it!) and one that goes beyond interpretive superficiality, this represents a misunderstanding of the text. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not say that children should be put to death for refusing to sit in time out or for questioning the reasoning of their parents! I will repeat that point--the Bible does NOT say to execute children for mere disobedience! Also, the parents were not killing children guilty of this offense; the community killed capital offenders and was only authorized to by Biblical law upon the honest testimony of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15). The degree of disobedience mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a type of selfish and apathetic rebellion drenched in gratuitous, habitual recklessness and disregard for one's parents, not casual disobedience that practically every child commits at one time or another. The words of the parents to the elders in the text itself demonstrate this.
These four verses do not teach what many fallaciously represent them as teaching. The Christian deity never commanded anyone to stone children for acts of simple disobedience, but for prolonged, unrepentant, dangerous disobedience--perhaps kinds that might develop into sociopathic behavior. That last part is not mentioned in the text and the Bible never says to punish someone for what he or she might eventually choose to do, but this would serve as a benefit obtained from adherence to this passage.
As this is the first post in a series, I will sporadically upload short corrections of misrepresentations of various verses in Mosaic Law. Until then, remember to not read into the Bible--or the Quran or any other document, religious or otherwise--what its own words do not permit as a rationally and textually legitimate interpretation.
This time the passage in question is from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21--"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."
Often one will see this passage represented as if it teaches that Mosaic Law prescribes execution of sons and daughters for mere lack of compliance with the instructions of their parents. But upon an examination that both takes the whole passage into account (not just one verse of it!) and one that goes beyond interpretive superficiality, this represents a misunderstanding of the text. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not say that children should be put to death for refusing to sit in time out or for questioning the reasoning of their parents! I will repeat that point--the Bible does NOT say to execute children for mere disobedience! Also, the parents were not killing children guilty of this offense; the community killed capital offenders and was only authorized to by Biblical law upon the honest testimony of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15). The degree of disobedience mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a type of selfish and apathetic rebellion drenched in gratuitous, habitual recklessness and disregard for one's parents, not casual disobedience that practically every child commits at one time or another. The words of the parents to the elders in the text itself demonstrate this.
These four verses do not teach what many fallaciously represent them as teaching. The Christian deity never commanded anyone to stone children for acts of simple disobedience, but for prolonged, unrepentant, dangerous disobedience--perhaps kinds that might develop into sociopathic behavior. That last part is not mentioned in the text and the Bible never says to punish someone for what he or she might eventually choose to do, but this would serve as a benefit obtained from adherence to this passage.
As this is the first post in a series, I will sporadically upload short corrections of misrepresentations of various verses in Mosaic Law. Until then, remember to not read into the Bible--or the Quran or any other document, religious or otherwise--what its own words do not permit as a rationally and textually legitimate interpretation.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Gaming And The Intellect
All photos used in this post were taken by myself using Nintendo Miiverse and the screenshot function of the PS Vita and iPhone.
As a gamer since childhood--though admittedly I returned from an approximately four-year gaming hiatus only last summer--I have had others tell me, usually adults who like to assume the truth of their own propositions, that video games cause or amplify many problems. Well, it turns out that they used a lot of fallacies in their arguments. Appeals to popularity, non sequiturs, fallacies of composition, and so forth. One semi-popular claim that specifically stupefies me is the stereotypical assertion that video games rot the intellect and foster mental laziness.
I usually find myself quite amused that I, someone who rather loved video games during my childhood and once played them extensively, have ended up as someone far more intellectually-oriented than most people. If anyone doubts the latter part of the previous sentence, may he or she examine my blog and find that I am indeed quite intellectually active and strong far beyond the threshold I notice many people gravitate towards. Now that the summer has come yet again, I will have more time to play old classics and new adventures, meaning I will also likely have to critique this BS objection to the most inventive style of entertainment produced by humanity thus far. And, just as I will enjoy refuting stupidity regarding other issues this summer, I will be quite willing to refute these mistaken arguments.
I have defended the artistic legitimacy of gaming near the beginning of my blog's existence [1] and have also discussed why it is important for Christians to be actively aware of entertainment [2], but I wanted to address once again the pathetic belief that gaming diseases the mind, preventing intellectual growth or maturity. People who make this claim are either ignorant or downright illogical. I would personally be quite amused to watch these fallacious objectors complete the infamous Water Temple in Ocarina of Time, pass Hera's Garden in God of War III, find all the Chozo artifacts without help in Metroid Prime, discover all the bonus health extensions in Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, or progress even halfway through some of gaming's finest examples of creativity and challenge throughout the past two decades.
Gaming is more immersive, creative, and intellectually (and even physically) demanding than any other medium of entertainment, yet it is the one that receives the most misrepresentation and criticism on false grounds. I, for one, challenge anyone who thinks gaming and gamers are dumb to complete games in series like Zelda or Metroid. I would likely perceive the results to be hilarious.
Video games do not represent some blight on the intellect but an ally to it. Sure, some games do not encourage deep reflection, caution, or thought--but some books and movies also fail here and yet people largely understand that this does not at all indicate that books and movies as mediums are devoid of intellectual engagement and stimulation. Rightly so, for to do otherwise would be to commit the fallacy of composition and say of the whole what is only true of a part. For some reason society treats gaming, the one entertainment medium that demands far heightened and realistic senses of immersion and input, as if it serves as a cancer that will afflict the mind and diminish its capabilities. Ironically, the inverse can be true, as many games promote quick reflexes, problem solving skills, pattern recognition, exploration, social teamwork, strong memory, and overall mental coordination.
People who claim gaming results in or epitomizes dumbness, laziness, sluggishness, and ignorance probably know little to nothing about gaming or reason. After years of noticing subtle and overt appearances of this belief, it feels good to explain how utterly irrational it is. As always, if you seek truth, pay no attention to myths and fallacies but challenge every assertion with the light of logic. I wish my fellow Christian gamers a fun summer and great success in their gaming pursuits!
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-artistic-legitimacy-of-gaming.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/christianity-and-entertainment.html
As a gamer since childhood--though admittedly I returned from an approximately four-year gaming hiatus only last summer--I have had others tell me, usually adults who like to assume the truth of their own propositions, that video games cause or amplify many problems. Well, it turns out that they used a lot of fallacies in their arguments. Appeals to popularity, non sequiturs, fallacies of composition, and so forth. One semi-popular claim that specifically stupefies me is the stereotypical assertion that video games rot the intellect and foster mental laziness.
I usually find myself quite amused that I, someone who rather loved video games during my childhood and once played them extensively, have ended up as someone far more intellectually-oriented than most people. If anyone doubts the latter part of the previous sentence, may he or she examine my blog and find that I am indeed quite intellectually active and strong far beyond the threshold I notice many people gravitate towards. Now that the summer has come yet again, I will have more time to play old classics and new adventures, meaning I will also likely have to critique this BS objection to the most inventive style of entertainment produced by humanity thus far. And, just as I will enjoy refuting stupidity regarding other issues this summer, I will be quite willing to refute these mistaken arguments.
 |
| From top to bottom: The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D (3DS), Super Metroid (3DS eShop virtual console), and Lara Croft GO (PS Vita)--merely three games I have that feature rather sophisticated puzzles or exploration. I find that people who call gaming and gamers dumb usually can't beat or understand games like these! |
I have defended the artistic legitimacy of gaming near the beginning of my blog's existence [1] and have also discussed why it is important for Christians to be actively aware of entertainment [2], but I wanted to address once again the pathetic belief that gaming diseases the mind, preventing intellectual growth or maturity. People who make this claim are either ignorant or downright illogical. I would personally be quite amused to watch these fallacious objectors complete the infamous Water Temple in Ocarina of Time, pass Hera's Garden in God of War III, find all the Chozo artifacts without help in Metroid Prime, discover all the bonus health extensions in Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, or progress even halfway through some of gaming's finest examples of creativity and challenge throughout the past two decades.
Gaming is more immersive, creative, and intellectually (and even physically) demanding than any other medium of entertainment, yet it is the one that receives the most misrepresentation and criticism on false grounds. I, for one, challenge anyone who thinks gaming and gamers are dumb to complete games in series like Zelda or Metroid. I would likely perceive the results to be hilarious.
Video games do not represent some blight on the intellect but an ally to it. Sure, some games do not encourage deep reflection, caution, or thought--but some books and movies also fail here and yet people largely understand that this does not at all indicate that books and movies as mediums are devoid of intellectual engagement and stimulation. Rightly so, for to do otherwise would be to commit the fallacy of composition and say of the whole what is only true of a part. For some reason society treats gaming, the one entertainment medium that demands far heightened and realistic senses of immersion and input, as if it serves as a cancer that will afflict the mind and diminish its capabilities. Ironically, the inverse can be true, as many games promote quick reflexes, problem solving skills, pattern recognition, exploration, social teamwork, strong memory, and overall mental coordination.
 |
| Hell, even a game like Call of Duty: Zombies (an IOS port of the zombie mode from Call of Duty: World at War) requires strategy, quick thinking and responses, and (with multiplayer) teamwork and coordination! The mind is more active when playing video games than it is during many other activities. |
People who claim gaming results in or epitomizes dumbness, laziness, sluggishness, and ignorance probably know little to nothing about gaming or reason. After years of noticing subtle and overt appearances of this belief, it feels good to explain how utterly irrational it is. As always, if you seek truth, pay no attention to myths and fallacies but challenge every assertion with the light of logic. I wish my fellow Christian gamers a fun summer and great success in their gaming pursuits!
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-artistic-legitimacy-of-gaming.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/christianity-and-entertainment.html
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Defining Intuition
Does intuition offer legitimate knowledge about reality? Is it reliable? Over the next few days (or weeks) I will contemplate the nature of intuition with the goal of answering these questions--but to understand intuition I first need to know exactly what I mean when I use the word. Precise definitions and consistent use of them must precede investigation in this case (and many others). Because I have encountered several different intended meanings when people use the word "intuition", I have listed the primary options and briefly explained each below.
Intuition can refer to:
1. A "gut feeling" acquired and/or honed by experience.
People might call someone's survival instinct or hunch at work intuition according to this definition. For instance, a police officer could call a correct suspicion that her fellow cop was corrupt an "intuition" by this meaning. At this level, this meaning of intuition just a glorified judgment of probability based on remembered past experience--nothing more than trained expectations.
2. Innate knowledge of something.
According to this definition, someone who subscribes to a particular view of moral epistemology would say that a person who experiences guilt or moral outrage about certain actions is acting upon innate knowledge that he or she is born with. The looming issue with this position, of course, is that one person will dismiss what another person calls innate knowledge, leading to contradictory claims and actions based on nothing more than subjective perceptions taken for innate knowledge.
3. Understanding something without any prior reasoning.
People, for instance, do not often have to consciously reason out why they find certain people attractive, and while they may be able to identify reason why this is the case, some reactions like this simply happen because they do, with no conscious reasoning whatsoever. These perceptions are not conclusions reached by logic; they are simply recognized as they occur. By this definition I could call my recognition of the color I call red a type of intuition, as I do not have to mentally recite a syllogism each time I see a red object to know that I am seeing something I consider red. I know with absolute certainty that when I see something I call red I am seeing something I call red and this requires no effort. Whether or not the object itself is actually red constitutes a separate matter. Here I speak of how I have awareness of my perception, not how I can know if something I view as red truly is that color.
The definitions we ascribe to words inevitably affect our communication of ideas and how we dwell on concepts after others bring them to our attention. The utter arbitrary relativity of language does not mean communication is impossible, only that it is not perfect. With the contending definitions of intuition somewhat addressed, I will consider the nature of intuition, its reliability, and its usefulness in decision making in the near future. Hopefully I will have more to post about regarding intuition soon!
Intuition can refer to:
1. A "gut feeling" acquired and/or honed by experience.
People might call someone's survival instinct or hunch at work intuition according to this definition. For instance, a police officer could call a correct suspicion that her fellow cop was corrupt an "intuition" by this meaning. At this level, this meaning of intuition just a glorified judgment of probability based on remembered past experience--nothing more than trained expectations.
2. Innate knowledge of something.
According to this definition, someone who subscribes to a particular view of moral epistemology would say that a person who experiences guilt or moral outrage about certain actions is acting upon innate knowledge that he or she is born with. The looming issue with this position, of course, is that one person will dismiss what another person calls innate knowledge, leading to contradictory claims and actions based on nothing more than subjective perceptions taken for innate knowledge.
3. Understanding something without any prior reasoning.
People, for instance, do not often have to consciously reason out why they find certain people attractive, and while they may be able to identify reason why this is the case, some reactions like this simply happen because they do, with no conscious reasoning whatsoever. These perceptions are not conclusions reached by logic; they are simply recognized as they occur. By this definition I could call my recognition of the color I call red a type of intuition, as I do not have to mentally recite a syllogism each time I see a red object to know that I am seeing something I consider red. I know with absolute certainty that when I see something I call red I am seeing something I call red and this requires no effort. Whether or not the object itself is actually red constitutes a separate matter. Here I speak of how I have awareness of my perception, not how I can know if something I view as red truly is that color.
The definitions we ascribe to words inevitably affect our communication of ideas and how we dwell on concepts after others bring them to our attention. The utter arbitrary relativity of language does not mean communication is impossible, only that it is not perfect. With the contending definitions of intuition somewhat addressed, I will consider the nature of intuition, its reliability, and its usefulness in decision making in the near future. Hopefully I will have more to post about regarding intuition soon!
Thursday, May 11, 2017
The Unbiblicality Of Postmillennialism
Eschatology is a branch of Christian theology so often neglected, ignored, feared, and suppressed. But for all its perceived obscurity and irrelevance, eschatology carries great significance for the Christian worldview. The Bible attaches special significance to the Second Coming of Christ in particular--and how one views the predicted occurrences around that event can drastically affect one's theology.
Postmillennialism is one such position regarding the events around the return of Jesus. It posits that, due to successful efforts of Christian evangelism and the benevolence of God, the world will experience a large-scale revival of sorts before Christ returns, holding that the millennium--the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20--will transpire before Christ's next advent, though it may actually last longer than 1,000 literal years. In this post I will explain why this idea contradicts overt teachings in the Bible.
First of all, chronologically speaking, the Second Coming of Jesus described in Revelation 19 precedes the thousand year reign of Christ addressed in Revelation 20. From a chronological standpoint this is indubitable. The millennium occurs after Jesus returns if Revelation 19-20 occur in the order one reads them in. However, since some Christians will not find themselves satisfied with an objective examination of the sequence of future events as detailed by the Bible, to discredit postmillennialism I need to prove that the Bible denies that the Second Coming will follow some golden age of Christian morality and influence.
In Matthew 24 Jesus predicts that certain negative events--wars, persecution, and so on--will intensify and worsen like violent birth pangs until the time of the Second Coming. Since militaristic violence, persecution of Christians, and many other associated behaviors are evil according to the Bible, the Bible therefore prophesies that world conditions will not largely improve before Jesus returns--in many ways they will disintegrate instead. Birth pangs become more vehement and powerful as a birth approaches; likewise, the signs that Jesus spoke of will grow more frequent and overpowering as his return nears according to Matthew 24. Matthew 24:9-13 alone describe the last days before the end of the age as days characterized by persecution of Christians (24:9), apostasy in the church (24:10), false prophets and deception (24:11), and an absence of love (24:12-13).
Further confirming the fact that the Bible teaches that the days immediately preceding the return of Christ will not be a time of dramatic moral renaissance, 2 Timothy says the following:
2 Timothy 3:1-5--"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."
Yes, it is certainly true (if what we believe about history is true) that by Biblical standards the last two millennia have seen explicit moral improvement in specific ways. The inhabitants of the modern age, at least in the western world, largely do not tolerate racism, sexism, militarism, and a host of other despicable evils that the Bible condemns. In some ways the moral climate of my country today is vastly superior to that of horrendous empires like Rome, Assyria, and so forth. I want to emphasize that I meant only in some ways, not all. But Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy 3 indisputably teach that Christ will return to a world drenched in moral darkness and brutality, not a world where Christians have become the majority and have renovated the moral landscape of the globe.
Nowhere does the Bible inform Christians that their efforts will somehow trigger the return of Christ, as if God needed human assistance in establishing his kingdom! Never does Scripture teach that times of benevolence and astonishing moral progress will mark the period before the Second Coming (although passages in Isaiah definitely indicate that tranquillity and righteousness will flourish after that coming).
I find it odd that theonomy is often associated with postmillennialism, yet nothing about theonomy necessitates belief in postmillennialism to accompany it. Theonomy stands or falls on entirely separate grounds. I can understand why postmillennialists would emphasize theonomy, as the only standard by which to judge moral growth in the world is the one that conforms to God's nature and that God has revealed, although no direct link exists that tethers theonomy to postmillennialism.
Postmillennialism simply cannot be supported by Scripture. A bleak view of the future need not replace an optimistic one that recognizes the impending display of Christ's supremacy, yet honest handlers of the Bible cannot legitimately teach a postmillennial eschatological framework. Christians still have a Biblical obligation to strive to transform the ideological atmosphere around them--but do not expect these efforts to signal the return of Jesus or to succeed permanently.
Postmillennialism is one such position regarding the events around the return of Jesus. It posits that, due to successful efforts of Christian evangelism and the benevolence of God, the world will experience a large-scale revival of sorts before Christ returns, holding that the millennium--the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20--will transpire before Christ's next advent, though it may actually last longer than 1,000 literal years. In this post I will explain why this idea contradicts overt teachings in the Bible.
First of all, chronologically speaking, the Second Coming of Jesus described in Revelation 19 precedes the thousand year reign of Christ addressed in Revelation 20. From a chronological standpoint this is indubitable. The millennium occurs after Jesus returns if Revelation 19-20 occur in the order one reads them in. However, since some Christians will not find themselves satisfied with an objective examination of the sequence of future events as detailed by the Bible, to discredit postmillennialism I need to prove that the Bible denies that the Second Coming will follow some golden age of Christian morality and influence.
In Matthew 24 Jesus predicts that certain negative events--wars, persecution, and so on--will intensify and worsen like violent birth pangs until the time of the Second Coming. Since militaristic violence, persecution of Christians, and many other associated behaviors are evil according to the Bible, the Bible therefore prophesies that world conditions will not largely improve before Jesus returns--in many ways they will disintegrate instead. Birth pangs become more vehement and powerful as a birth approaches; likewise, the signs that Jesus spoke of will grow more frequent and overpowering as his return nears according to Matthew 24. Matthew 24:9-13 alone describe the last days before the end of the age as days characterized by persecution of Christians (24:9), apostasy in the church (24:10), false prophets and deception (24:11), and an absence of love (24:12-13).
Further confirming the fact that the Bible teaches that the days immediately preceding the return of Christ will not be a time of dramatic moral renaissance, 2 Timothy says the following:
2 Timothy 3:1-5--"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."
Yes, it is certainly true (if what we believe about history is true) that by Biblical standards the last two millennia have seen explicit moral improvement in specific ways. The inhabitants of the modern age, at least in the western world, largely do not tolerate racism, sexism, militarism, and a host of other despicable evils that the Bible condemns. In some ways the moral climate of my country today is vastly superior to that of horrendous empires like Rome, Assyria, and so forth. I want to emphasize that I meant only in some ways, not all. But Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy 3 indisputably teach that Christ will return to a world drenched in moral darkness and brutality, not a world where Christians have become the majority and have renovated the moral landscape of the globe.
Nowhere does the Bible inform Christians that their efforts will somehow trigger the return of Christ, as if God needed human assistance in establishing his kingdom! Never does Scripture teach that times of benevolence and astonishing moral progress will mark the period before the Second Coming (although passages in Isaiah definitely indicate that tranquillity and righteousness will flourish after that coming).
I find it odd that theonomy is often associated with postmillennialism, yet nothing about theonomy necessitates belief in postmillennialism to accompany it. Theonomy stands or falls on entirely separate grounds. I can understand why postmillennialists would emphasize theonomy, as the only standard by which to judge moral growth in the world is the one that conforms to God's nature and that God has revealed, although no direct link exists that tethers theonomy to postmillennialism.
Postmillennialism simply cannot be supported by Scripture. A bleak view of the future need not replace an optimistic one that recognizes the impending display of Christ's supremacy, yet honest handlers of the Bible cannot legitimately teach a postmillennial eschatological framework. Christians still have a Biblical obligation to strive to transform the ideological atmosphere around them--but do not expect these efforts to signal the return of Jesus or to succeed permanently.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Fear: A Byproduct Of Complementarian Practice?
It seems to me that complementarianism, though not an ideology that directly demands fear of the opposite gender, often naturally fosters a sense of disunity and distrust between the two genders. The results of this unease can include segregation of the genders during activities like Bible studies, frowning upon authentic friendships between men and women, belief in societal gender stereotypes that hurt relationships of all kinds, and the ignoring of gender interaction issues that can plague the American evangelical church.
Fear of the opposite gender may not be an explicit tenet of complementarianism, but it certainly has a noticeable correlation to beliefs of complementarianism. I am not straw manning complementarian theology or saying that these observations themselves refute complementarianism (though I have refuted it elsewhere [1]); I am just noting something I have repeatably detected in many of my interactions with complementarians. Complementarianism's emphasis on alleged non-biological differences between men and women often manifests itself through anxiety, insecurity, distrust, and suspicion. These fears seem natural byproducts of the lifestyles many complementarians pursue. It is, in my experience, for example, almost exclusively complementarians who devise absurd legalistic principles like the Billy Graham rule [2] that directly suffocate non-marital relationships between men and women and prevent many from deepening. Whereas egalitarians often have comfort and peace with the opposite gender, complementarians do not.
I have realized for some time now that Christians, if operating according to the core principles of their own worldview in its actual form, should be the group most eager to promote reconciliation of the genders, to criticize barriers that separate men and women socially and relationally, and to find comfort in the wholeness of the family of God. I have embraced these goals wholeheartedly, yet I cannot rely on many Christians to do the same. Fear and insecurity abound where there could be peace and security. Truly, this fear proves far more dangerous to the health of the church and of individuals than the challenging of traditional beliefs ever could--and this fear is irrational, destructive, hindering, gratuitous, vile, and unbiblical.
My rationalism, Christianity, and personality have fortunately made it easy for me to reject the fear of the other gender so often bred by complementarian practice. For instance, I am a major supporter of deep cross-gender friendships [3], and the ramifications of my worldview in this area are not subtle or obscure. I hug my female friends because I love them. I freely hang out with them alone because I don't fear them. I text them because that's what I do with my friends. And I don't give a shit about the mistaken perceptions or insecurities of other people, the subjective emotions I might upset in doing these things, or the bubbles of ignorance around me that I pop as I continue these activities. I will not live in fear of asinine nonsense; I will not neglect to strive to improve relations between men and women in the church; I will not endorse any construct that hinders the genuine fellowship and growth that men and women should share. I truly hope that during my lifetime the American church will see the removal of fear from cross-gender interactions within the church--may that day arrive soon!
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-poisonous-offspring-of.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
Fear of the opposite gender may not be an explicit tenet of complementarianism, but it certainly has a noticeable correlation to beliefs of complementarianism. I am not straw manning complementarian theology or saying that these observations themselves refute complementarianism (though I have refuted it elsewhere [1]); I am just noting something I have repeatably detected in many of my interactions with complementarians. Complementarianism's emphasis on alleged non-biological differences between men and women often manifests itself through anxiety, insecurity, distrust, and suspicion. These fears seem natural byproducts of the lifestyles many complementarians pursue. It is, in my experience, for example, almost exclusively complementarians who devise absurd legalistic principles like the Billy Graham rule [2] that directly suffocate non-marital relationships between men and women and prevent many from deepening. Whereas egalitarians often have comfort and peace with the opposite gender, complementarians do not.
I have realized for some time now that Christians, if operating according to the core principles of their own worldview in its actual form, should be the group most eager to promote reconciliation of the genders, to criticize barriers that separate men and women socially and relationally, and to find comfort in the wholeness of the family of God. I have embraced these goals wholeheartedly, yet I cannot rely on many Christians to do the same. Fear and insecurity abound where there could be peace and security. Truly, this fear proves far more dangerous to the health of the church and of individuals than the challenging of traditional beliefs ever could--and this fear is irrational, destructive, hindering, gratuitous, vile, and unbiblical.
My rationalism, Christianity, and personality have fortunately made it easy for me to reject the fear of the other gender so often bred by complementarian practice. For instance, I am a major supporter of deep cross-gender friendships [3], and the ramifications of my worldview in this area are not subtle or obscure. I hug my female friends because I love them. I freely hang out with them alone because I don't fear them. I text them because that's what I do with my friends. And I don't give a shit about the mistaken perceptions or insecurities of other people, the subjective emotions I might upset in doing these things, or the bubbles of ignorance around me that I pop as I continue these activities. I will not live in fear of asinine nonsense; I will not neglect to strive to improve relations between men and women in the church; I will not endorse any construct that hinders the genuine fellowship and growth that men and women should share. I truly hope that during my lifetime the American church will see the removal of fear from cross-gender interactions within the church--may that day arrive soon!
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-poisonous-offspring-of.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
Monday, May 1, 2017
The Divinity Of Christ
A core difference between Christianity and Judaism is the position each takes with regards to the person and nature of Christ. Without the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, Christianity would lose many of the doctrines that distinguish it from Judaism. The doctrine possesses severe gravity, as Christianity conforms to reality or doesn't based upon the truth of that claim. Thinking about this recently, I realized that the Biblical affirmations that Christ is a deity (I say a deity because Jesus and Yahweh are clearly distinct logically and in the Biblical texts [1]) aren't quite as common as some Christians may think.
Nowhere that I can think of do the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) ever explicitly reveal that Jesus has a divine nature. In fact, passages like Mark 10 when the rich young ruler consults Jesus can even seem to strongly imply that Jesus is not divine, as when the ruler calls Jesus good Jesus objects by saying, "Why do you call me good? . . . No one is good--except God alone." Hold on--I'm not claiming that the Bible does not say that Jesus is not a deity, only that the first three gospels do not ever actually assert this. Those claims are not synonymous!
No, the miracles in the other gospels alone don't count as evidence for Christ's divinity because men and women of God performed all sorts of spectacular miracles in the Old Testament without any of them being more than mere humans. The fact that Matthew and Mark and Luke present Jesus as performing miracles demonstrates that the Bible views Jesus as a servant of Yahweh, but nothing more on its own, and the same applies to the relational closeness Jesus shares with Yahweh throughout the synoptic gospels. Although those three books are consistent with the concept of Christ's divinity--meaning they do not legitimately contradict the notion of Christ's divinity--they do not actually ever directly affirm that Jesus is God.
The book of John contains multiple references to the divinity of Christ. The first chapter in particular opens with the declaration of Christ's identity.
John 1:1-3--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
John 8:58--"'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"
John 1:1 undeniably identifies the Word as divine, continuing to say that the Word "became flesh and made his dwelling among us" as Jesus (John 1:14). While the testimony of an apostle in the book of John does not quite have the same level of directness as Jesus openly declaring himself God, Peter expresses the belief that Jesus was God in John 21:17 (see also John 21:12). Even certain Messianic prophecies state that the Messiah would be not just a human individual but divine (Isaiah 9:6, for instance). With this knowledge, passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that affirm Christ as the Messiah indirectly confirm his divinity by recognizing him as the redemptive figure prophesied in the Old Testament, but without awareness of this no one can ever reach the sound conclusion that any of those three gospels actually demonstrate that Jesus had a divine nature.
Please note that I have only said that the synoptic gospels alone do not prove that the Bible affirms the divinity of Jesus, as I have specified--quite explicitly--that the gospel of John and certain Messianic prophecies do plainly assert this doctrine! But if one reads the synoptic gospels apart from these other books of the Bible, it is objectively true that the material present remains inconclusive about that issue. Have I denied that Jesus is a divine being? Not at all! I have just commented on an underreported textual reality.
Major ramifications to the doctrine of Christ's divinity exist. If Jesus were not God, then his death could in no way secure the salvation of humans, for if no human can save himself or herself from sin, how could that person save others from sin? Even apart from the veracity of the Bible or Christian philosophy--even if Christianity was untrue--it would remain objectively impossible from a logical standpoint for someone who has violated even a single moral obligation to save himself or herself from the ontological guilt associated with an act of evil. No one needs to profess Christianity to recognize the logical truth of this point. If someone lived a wholly morally perfect life other than even a moment of internal transgression, no amount of good deeds after that moment would actually nullify the fact that he or she had sinned.
Though the doctrine of Christ's divine nature possesses extreme importance, Christians need to exercise more caution when they proclaim that the Bible obviously states that Jesus is God. Yes, it is obvious from a reading of the Bible that Jesus is divine--but only from a reading of certain passages. The book of John especially informs us with great clarity that Jesus is God. Because of this, relying on the synoptic gospels to persuade Muslims, for instance, of Christ's divine nature will probably not yield the desired results. When reflecting on the divine nature of Jesus, contemplate the book of John in particular, and when evangelizing with Muslims or other sects that deny this doctrine, tailor your approach accordingly.
Nowhere that I can think of do the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) ever explicitly reveal that Jesus has a divine nature. In fact, passages like Mark 10 when the rich young ruler consults Jesus can even seem to strongly imply that Jesus is not divine, as when the ruler calls Jesus good Jesus objects by saying, "Why do you call me good? . . . No one is good--except God alone." Hold on--I'm not claiming that the Bible does not say that Jesus is not a deity, only that the first three gospels do not ever actually assert this. Those claims are not synonymous!
 |
| Although the divinity of Christ stands as a central concept in Christian doctrine, it is objectively unclear from a reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke alone that Jesus is God. |
No, the miracles in the other gospels alone don't count as evidence for Christ's divinity because men and women of God performed all sorts of spectacular miracles in the Old Testament without any of them being more than mere humans. The fact that Matthew and Mark and Luke present Jesus as performing miracles demonstrates that the Bible views Jesus as a servant of Yahweh, but nothing more on its own, and the same applies to the relational closeness Jesus shares with Yahweh throughout the synoptic gospels. Although those three books are consistent with the concept of Christ's divinity--meaning they do not legitimately contradict the notion of Christ's divinity--they do not actually ever directly affirm that Jesus is God.
The book of John contains multiple references to the divinity of Christ. The first chapter in particular opens with the declaration of Christ's identity.
John 1:1-3--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
John 8:58--"'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"
John 1:1 undeniably identifies the Word as divine, continuing to say that the Word "became flesh and made his dwelling among us" as Jesus (John 1:14). While the testimony of an apostle in the book of John does not quite have the same level of directness as Jesus openly declaring himself God, Peter expresses the belief that Jesus was God in John 21:17 (see also John 21:12). Even certain Messianic prophecies state that the Messiah would be not just a human individual but divine (Isaiah 9:6, for instance). With this knowledge, passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that affirm Christ as the Messiah indirectly confirm his divinity by recognizing him as the redemptive figure prophesied in the Old Testament, but without awareness of this no one can ever reach the sound conclusion that any of those three gospels actually demonstrate that Jesus had a divine nature.
Please note that I have only said that the synoptic gospels alone do not prove that the Bible affirms the divinity of Jesus, as I have specified--quite explicitly--that the gospel of John and certain Messianic prophecies do plainly assert this doctrine! But if one reads the synoptic gospels apart from these other books of the Bible, it is objectively true that the material present remains inconclusive about that issue. Have I denied that Jesus is a divine being? Not at all! I have just commented on an underreported textual reality.
 |
| If Jesus was not a divine figure, then he could not have redeemed anyone by his death. |
Major ramifications to the doctrine of Christ's divinity exist. If Jesus were not God, then his death could in no way secure the salvation of humans, for if no human can save himself or herself from sin, how could that person save others from sin? Even apart from the veracity of the Bible or Christian philosophy--even if Christianity was untrue--it would remain objectively impossible from a logical standpoint for someone who has violated even a single moral obligation to save himself or herself from the ontological guilt associated with an act of evil. No one needs to profess Christianity to recognize the logical truth of this point. If someone lived a wholly morally perfect life other than even a moment of internal transgression, no amount of good deeds after that moment would actually nullify the fact that he or she had sinned.
Though the doctrine of Christ's divine nature possesses extreme importance, Christians need to exercise more caution when they proclaim that the Bible obviously states that Jesus is God. Yes, it is obvious from a reading of the Bible that Jesus is divine--but only from a reading of certain passages. The book of John especially informs us with great clarity that Jesus is God. Because of this, relying on the synoptic gospels to persuade Muslims, for instance, of Christ's divine nature will probably not yield the desired results. When reflecting on the divine nature of Jesus, contemplate the book of John in particular, and when evangelizing with Muslims or other sects that deny this doctrine, tailor your approach accordingly.
[1]. See here for a refutation of common Trinitarianism:
Bikinis Are Not Sinful
Though I have addressed many of these points before (and I placed links to previous posts on these issues at the bottom), I offer one more basic summary of why evangelical modesty teachings are absolutely the products of nothing but ignorance, fallacies, assumptions, and contra-Biblical principles.
On the Christian worldview, bikinis are not sinful because:
1) God did not make males more visual and sexual beings than females.
Proponents of modesty teachings aim their beliefs almost exclusively at women, as they usually believe that for some absurd reason God decided to make men hypersexuals, but women asexuals (having a lack of sexual feelings) or demisexuals (with emotional intimacy triggering sexual attraction). Therefore, according to these sexist teachings, in an effort to protect males from their own depraved natures, women must dress a certain way. If they don't, they may even allegedly cause males to sin.
It's all bullshit: the Bible acknowledges that women are visual and sexual beings [1], with no indication that God created either gender to generally be more visual than the other. Imagine the great stupidity of doing something like that! However, none of this prevents people from having the ability to enjoy nonsexual physical admiration of male and female bodies, nor does it mean that men and women cannot engage in deep relational intimacy without the relationships having any romantic or sexual dimensions. The idea that men and women have universal differences in how they perceive the beauty of the opposite gender only represents one of many flawed, unbiblical concepts appealed to by those who support modesty.
 |
| Evangelical hypocrisy can be strong. Although logic and the Bible contradict their modesty teachings and the insistence that women cover their bodies, many supporters of modesty have drifted into outright sexism. |
2) Attraction is not lust.
Matthew 5:28 says not to lust after other people, not to never look at them or appreciate their appearances. Many Christians seem to mistake attraction or recognition of beauty for lust or objectification, knowing the Bible condemns lust, and then erroneously try to suppress any attraction they experience towards the opposite gender. Mistaking attraction for objectification and admiration for a desire to commit actions the Bible classifies as sexual immorality will only lead to false guilt, distortion of Biblical teachings, and great confusion.
The Biblical word lust refers to coveting something or someone that does not belong to you (compare the Greek word in Matthew 5:28 with the Hebrew word for covet in the Decalogue). With this definition understood, it becomes clear that not only, for instance, can two single people not lust after each other, but God never condemned finding someone attractive or sexy. Judging a married person attractive or sexy is not synonymous with having a desire to take him or her from his or her spouse or to commit acts of sexual immorality. I also need to define sexual objectification. Objectification is reducing someone to only one aspect of their personhood, meaning that it has nothing to do with clothing or beauty or attraction. Someone objectifies another person when he/she ignores the other dimensions to that person's humanity. One could do this with regards to someone's intelligence, possessions, influence, sexuality, athleticism, beauty, emotionality, or any other aspect of their personhood. Objectification is evil, but not what the Bible means by the word lust.
The Bible records that certain men and women in ancient times were very physically beautiful [2]; it does not tell people to not notice or admire the beauty of the human body. There can be nothing immoral about recognizing and appreciating God's ultimate creation, however uncomfortable it might make legalists!
Also, bikinis are not sexual in any way. Some people may subjectively, arbitrarily associate certain kinds of clothing with sexual expression, but there is no logical connection between bikinis and sexuality, just as there is no logical connection between male shirtlessness and sexuality. That some men might find some bikinis sexually attractive and that some women might find some male bodies to be sexually attractive doesn't mean that those things themselves are sexual. They are not sexual, despite whatever cultural conditioning people might be taught.
3) There is no standard of modesty found in logic or in the Bible.
By modesty I mean the idea that men or women should cover a certain amount of their bodies. Anyone who proposes a standard for modesty (by this definition) will have to commit a variety of logical fallacies--including appeals to emotion, appeals to the stone, appeals to ignorance, slippery slopes, circular reasoning, and instances of begging the question. From a Biblical perspective, no command exists which a pro-modesty person can appeal to as proof that the Bible calls shirtless males or women in bikinis immodest. This means that since God said not to add to his moral commands (Deuteronomy 4:2) and Jesus condemned people for ignoring revealed commands and inventing extra-Biblical ones (Matthew 15:3-9) if Christianity is true, there is no such thing as a universal objective obligation to cover one's body. But what of 1 Timothy 2:9-11? I have stated elsewhere:
"--1 Timothy 2:9-11--"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."
Let's inspect the ONE brief passage that people who tell women to cover themselves endlessly appeal to. Christians can be quite fond of claiming that the sight of an attractive person can cause someone else to lust after them, and the danger only increases with lesser amounts of clothing. Does this passage have anything at all to do with instructing women not to wear bikinis when swimming or not to wear whatever the culture considers 'appropriate'? It has nothing to do with that. First of all, the text clearly defines the modesty it refers to as having to do with not wearing 'expensive clothes' or 'gold', not with how much skin is exposed. Do expensive clothes or inexpensive ones cover less of the body? Clearly the inexpensive ones. Yet this is exactly what Paul is commanding people to wear. His instructions here have nothing to do with condemning attraction or teaching shame about the human body. The modesty he describes has to do with the expense of clothing, not its size [3]."
Whenever you ask people why their particular standard of modesty is correct and others are not, they cannot have a legitimate reason for selecting the lines that they did. Everything about their judgments reeks of subjectivity, arbitrariness, and perhaps their own insecurities about the human body. But there is not even an objective but unidentifiable line dividing modesty from immodesty within Christian doctrine, because the Bible simply does not support the lunacy that modesty teachings do. If Christianity is true, there is no such thing as an objective amount of clothing someone should or shouldn't wear, and men and women can decide what they want to wear according to their own preferences and feelings.
 |
| Where is the line? Logic alone induces skepticism about this issue and the Bible tells us that there is no moral obligation to cover our bodies to a certain degree. |
People who believe in evangelical modesty teachings violate both the Bible and reason with their absurd position. As I explained in another post, "Legalism is when people take something God has revealed to be evil and either declare that anything that might lead to it is also sinful or that people need to abide by extra-Biblical moral rules in order to uphold what the Bible actually says. The Bible condemns drunkenness and alcoholism, and the legalistic response would be to call consumption of any alcohol sinful or dangerous. Of course, this position is nothing more than a massive slippery slope, and one that Scripture itself specifically refutes with its many positive examples and allowances of alcohol use [4]."
The positions many Christians hold about modesty are simply unbiblical, illogical, and inconsistent--because the ideas they propose amount to nothing more than illusions based upon misunderstanding of the Bible and a plethora of logical fallacies.
4) No one can cause other people to sin.
A significant component of modesty teachings is the heinous idea that one person can be responsible, directly or indirectly, for another person's sins. The Bible affirms moral responsibility of each individual repeatedly (for example, see Deuteronomy 24:16). No woman can make a man lust after her, and no man can make a woman lust after him. This kind of victim blaming, which is always an enormous injustice, argues that a woman who is raped can in some way be at fault for the actions of her rapist, when such a thing is impossible. Any idea about moral responsibility that involves victim blaming fully contradicts the most basic Biblical doctrines about sin. It does not require enormous intelligence to realize this.
5) The human body is not shameful, sinful, or inherently sexual, nor is it sinful to view nudity or be naked in public.
The Bible clearly teaches that God:
1. Created people naked (Genesis 2:25)
2. Called the human body very good (Genesis 1:31)
3. Allowed public nudity in Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:26-27)
4. Instructed Isaiah to be naked in public for three years (Isaiah 20:1-6)
5. Never once commanded people to always wear clothes in public
6. Told people to not add to his moral commands (Deuteronomy 4:2)
If nudity is not sinful, then how can wearing bikinis be sinful? Logic dictates that if the former is not immoral, then the latter cannot be. Christians in American churches seem to largely be unaware that the Bible actually supports public nudity. Points 2) and 3) from this post combined with point 5) prove that if the Bible is true then there is nothing morally wrong about people admiring the bodies, clothed or nude, of other people, regardless of the marital status of anyone involved [5]. This is not adulterous, degrading, sinful, or unbiblical; it is a Biblical fact.
 |
| The naked male and female body are not moral affronts to God or causes of sin. Likewise, neither are bikinis. |
Conclusion
This post does not address specific facets of the fallacies and errors inherent in modesty teachings with the same degree of depth as some of my other posts have, but let it remind people as summer nears that there is nothing sinful about bikinis, attraction, beauty, or the male or female body. Anyone who claims otherwise does not know what reason, the Bible, or Christian morality say about the issue. Do not fret over these things. Live in avoidance of incorrect reasoning. And remember that even if certain things offend your conscience, that does not in any way mean that other people have an objective moral obligation to act in accordance with your subjective preferences.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html; see also http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
[4]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/sexual-legalism.html
[5]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/bible-on-nudity-part-2-refutation-of.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)