Below you will find my second batch of definitions. The first can be accessed here [1], and as with the first this list may be updated or otherwise altered.
Science
Scientific method--procedure moving from observation to hypothesis to testing to conclusion
Hypothesis--hypothetical theory proposed as a possible explanation for something
Empirical testing--use of repeated testing to verify a hypothesis
Natural sciences--sciences which study the natural world, such as physics and geology
Physics--study of matter and energy
Cosmology--study of the universe
Cosmogony--branch of cosmology studying the beginning of the universe
Astronomy--study of celestial entities like stars
Biology--study of living organisms
Neuroscience--study of the brain and the nervous system
Matter--physical substance that occupies space
Antimatter--matter made of antiparticles with the same mass as ordinary particles but with opposite charges
Space--area in which matter resides
Subatomic particle--particle much smaller than an atom
Quantum physics--the study and theory of matter and particle behavior at a subatomic level
Quantum particle--subatomic particle
Anthropic principle--refers to the observation that earth seems to possess the ideal variables and conditions for human life to develop and/or flourish
Steady state theory--idea that the universe is eternal and never had an actual beginning
Big Bang--explosion which created our universe, including all matter, time, space within it
Universe--the material world created by the Big Bang
Multiverse--hypothetical idea of the cosmos where multiple or an infinite number of universes exist
Cosmos--totality of the material world; includes the universe and any possible multiverse
Christian Theology
Soteriology--study of salvation, its requirements, and its effects
Eschatology--study of future or last events
Christology--study of the being and nature of Christ
Ecclesiology--study of theology of the church
Justification--act of God making a sinner right with him by lifting the ultimate punishment for sin
Sanctification--act on behalf of a Christian of becoming more holy
Evangelism--sharing the Christian gospel with non-Christians
Apologetics--defense of an idea or a worldview, not necessarily of one Christian in nature
Presuppositional apologetics--defense of Christianity that presupposes or assumes its validity beforehand
Classical apologetics--apologetics that starts with rationalistic/syllogistic arguments for general theism before defending Christianity in particular
Experiential apologetics--relating personal experiences in order to persuade someone that Christianity is true
Theodicy--defense of God's existence or goodness in spite of the problem of evil
Imago Dei--Latin phrase for "image of God", which the Bible states all humans bear
Sensus divinatis--Latin phrase for "sense of the divine", coined by John Calvin to refer to supposed innate knowledge of God
Antinomianism--belief that Christians are not bound by Old Testament ethical revelation
Calvinism--theological system centered around predestination and God's sovereignty, started by John Calvin
Annihilationism--belief that unsaved humans will not suffer eternal conscious torment in hell and will at some point be destroyed or annihilated
Universalism--belief that all humans (and perhaps fallen angels) will eventually become saved beings
Marcionism--belief, started by Marcion, that the gods of the Old and New Testaments are separate deities and that the Old Testament God is evil
Pelagianism--belief, started by Pelagius, that human free will is sufficient to choose to do good apart from intervention from God
Logical Fallacies
Ad hominem--rejecting an argument out of dislike for the one making the claim instead of for its potential logical faults
Appeal to authority--claiming something is true because an authority figure, leader, or other individual says so
Appeal to tradition--claiming an idea is true because it has been held to be so in the past
Appeal to novelty--claiming an idea is true because it is new
Appeal to popularity--claiming an idea is true because others concur that it is
Appeal to probability--claiming that a point should be accepted because it is very likely true
Appeal to ignorance--claiming something is true because it cannot be disproven or refuted
Appeal to emotion--using subjective emotions to persuade someone of an argument instead of rational proof
Naturalistic fallacy--making a moral judgment about how things should be based on observation of how things are
Moralistic fallacy--claiming that a condition (such as women serving men) is how things should be because it is how things are or have always been
Anecdotal fallacy--appealing to personal experience as verification of a conclusion instead of a logical argument
Genetic fallacy--attempting to invalidate an idea by dismissing its place of origin or background
Red herring--use of a point that has nothing to do with the subject of a debate, usually employed as a distraction
False dilemma--treating a dilemma as if only two legitimate options exist when in reality there are three or more
Slippery slope--rejecting something because of where it might lead
Fallacy of composition--assuming that what is true of the part is true of the whole
Circular reasoning--using what should be a conclusion to an argument or syllogism as a premise in it
Begging the question--assuming a statement to be true
Divine fallacy--assuming God is responsible for whatever aspects of reality are not currently understood
Fallacy fallacy--rejecting a conclusion because the argument used to reach it committed a logical fallacy
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/defininitions-part-1.html
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Movie Review--Don't Breathe
"There is nothing a man cannot do once he accepts the fact that there is no God."
--The Blind Man, Don't Breathe
An impressive 90 minute horror thriller I did not even learn of until recently, Don't Breathe pleasantly surprised me with its intelligent structure and intriguing villain, not to mention the disturbing but clever and shocking plot twists in the later half.
Production Values
First, I have to comment on the way the Blind Man shown in the trailer was presented. Veteran actor Stephen Lang (Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Avatar) performs terrifically as the unnamed blind owner of the house much of the movie elapses in. When he begins feeling around or slowly advancing, especially when trying to attack someone, he exudes a truly chilling aura and for the entire movie he was exceptionally believable as his casted character. He did an amazing job with the character, which could have been another generic horror/thriller villain.
The script of the film is excellent though it has very little actual dialogue but a great emphasis on story progression. And though almost the whole movie occurs in one location, the location is utilized in the story to great effect and the film brims with suspense and clever plot development. The cinematography was effective and great camera shots subtly notice important items returned to later, such as certain locks . . .
In short, it had great production values.
Story
A group of young thieves seeks to leave Detroit once they obtain sufficient funds, and their last target proves far more deceptively difficult than they would have expected. A blind war veteran inhabits a small house along with a rumored $300,000. Attracted to the lure of such a large amount of money in the possession of a defenseless blind man, the three thieves, among them the female protagonist Rocky, decide to enter his house and find his savings. Of course, as depicted in the trailers, the old man does not submit to this invasion and aggressively defends himself. To betray more story details here might honestly diminish the enjoyment derived from watching this movie, and I certainly won't mention the plot twist in this section.
Intellectual Content
The morality of the behavior of various characters is certainly the greatest intellectual theme in Don't Breathe, especially the morality of self-defense and the behaviors of each character. Interestingly, the Old Testament mentions the moral parameters involving the very scenario in the movie--a thief or thieves entering someone's home at night and the defender killing the intruders.
--Exodus 22:2-3--"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."
It wouldn't have been immoral for the Blind Man to kill one of the invaders out of shock or concern for his safety. He is blind, after all, and the thieves did enter his house at night. But even before the major plot revelation nearer to the end, I lost sympathy for him because of how he maliciously hunted all the remaining thieves and intentionally prevented them from escaping. Killing in justified self-defense is permissible, but purposefully attempting to kill someone in the act of fleeing and then doing one's best to forcefully render them unable to depart is not admirable or just.
(SPOILERS BELOW!!!!)
The great twist of the film obviously revolves around the revelation that the Blind Man kidnapped a woman who accidentally killed his daughter in a vehicle accident caused by drunk driving, impregnated her against her will, and incarcerated her in his basement for months. Clearly this changes how the viewer morally judges his character.
One of the most fascinating moments was a brief scene of dialogue between the captured Rocky and the Blind Man which reveals that the blind homeowner is an atheist who simultaneously rejects God because of tragedy ("What kind of God would allow this?", he asks, likely in reference to his loss) while admitting that there is "nothing a man cannot do once he accepts the fact that there is no God". Similar to the quote frequently attributed to Dostoevsky--"If God does not exist, everything is permissible"--this line, though short, shows that the surprisingly honest antagonist lives in blatant contradiction, raging against an alleged evil and then dismissing the existence of evil the next moment.
The thieves seem like moral failures until the movie exposes how the Blind Man is a kidnapper, a murderer, and a type of rapist. "I'm not a rapist", he claims. "I've never forced myself on anyone". And he is right if he limits the definition of rape to one human forcibly having sex with another, but he committed rape with a certain object and impregnated a woman against her will. Rape with an object may not be identical to "traditional rape", but it remains a vile form of sexual abuse.
According to the Christian worldview, the Blind Man deserves to be executed for his three capital crimes [1]. He actually represents one of the most unanticipatedly effective antagonists in cinema this year.
Conclusion
Thus far, despite some disappointments, 2016 has produced some excellent horror movies, with The Witch and The Conjuring 2 displaying a particular mastery of the genre. While Don't Breathe may not technically be classified explicitly as a horror film, perhaps more of a home invasion suspense thriller instead, it showcases a tense atmosphere that demands the attention of the viewer. A welcome deviation from titles this year that have relied on underdeveloped plots and relentless jump scares, this film creatively interacts with its genre and the final product successfully entertains and features a wonderfully depraved villain. It definitely helped satisfy my horror urge as I wait for the Blair Witch release date.
Content
1. Violence: The movie shows some killings and extended scenes portraying intense struggles and assaults that leave characters with visible wounds.
2. Profanity: There are several uses of the f-word, but little else.
3. Sexuality: A dramatic plot development involves (SPOILER!!!) forced impregnation of a kidnapped victim and for a moment it seems as if someone will sexually violate another person, but not in the sense of traditional rape.
[1]. See below:
A. Murder--Exodus 21:12-14--"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."
B. Kidnapping--Exodus 21:16--"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
C. Rape--Deuteronomy 22:25-27--"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her."
--The Blind Man, Don't Breathe
An impressive 90 minute horror thriller I did not even learn of until recently, Don't Breathe pleasantly surprised me with its intelligent structure and intriguing villain, not to mention the disturbing but clever and shocking plot twists in the later half.
Production Values
First, I have to comment on the way the Blind Man shown in the trailer was presented. Veteran actor Stephen Lang (Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Avatar) performs terrifically as the unnamed blind owner of the house much of the movie elapses in. When he begins feeling around or slowly advancing, especially when trying to attack someone, he exudes a truly chilling aura and for the entire movie he was exceptionally believable as his casted character. He did an amazing job with the character, which could have been another generic horror/thriller villain.
The script of the film is excellent though it has very little actual dialogue but a great emphasis on story progression. And though almost the whole movie occurs in one location, the location is utilized in the story to great effect and the film brims with suspense and clever plot development. The cinematography was effective and great camera shots subtly notice important items returned to later, such as certain locks . . .
In short, it had great production values.
Story
A group of young thieves seeks to leave Detroit once they obtain sufficient funds, and their last target proves far more deceptively difficult than they would have expected. A blind war veteran inhabits a small house along with a rumored $300,000. Attracted to the lure of such a large amount of money in the possession of a defenseless blind man, the three thieves, among them the female protagonist Rocky, decide to enter his house and find his savings. Of course, as depicted in the trailers, the old man does not submit to this invasion and aggressively defends himself. To betray more story details here might honestly diminish the enjoyment derived from watching this movie, and I certainly won't mention the plot twist in this section.
Intellectual Content
The morality of the behavior of various characters is certainly the greatest intellectual theme in Don't Breathe, especially the morality of self-defense and the behaviors of each character. Interestingly, the Old Testament mentions the moral parameters involving the very scenario in the movie--a thief or thieves entering someone's home at night and the defender killing the intruders.
--Exodus 22:2-3--"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."
It wouldn't have been immoral for the Blind Man to kill one of the invaders out of shock or concern for his safety. He is blind, after all, and the thieves did enter his house at night. But even before the major plot revelation nearer to the end, I lost sympathy for him because of how he maliciously hunted all the remaining thieves and intentionally prevented them from escaping. Killing in justified self-defense is permissible, but purposefully attempting to kill someone in the act of fleeing and then doing one's best to forcefully render them unable to depart is not admirable or just.
(SPOILERS BELOW!!!!)
The great twist of the film obviously revolves around the revelation that the Blind Man kidnapped a woman who accidentally killed his daughter in a vehicle accident caused by drunk driving, impregnated her against her will, and incarcerated her in his basement for months. Clearly this changes how the viewer morally judges his character.
One of the most fascinating moments was a brief scene of dialogue between the captured Rocky and the Blind Man which reveals that the blind homeowner is an atheist who simultaneously rejects God because of tragedy ("What kind of God would allow this?", he asks, likely in reference to his loss) while admitting that there is "nothing a man cannot do once he accepts the fact that there is no God". Similar to the quote frequently attributed to Dostoevsky--"If God does not exist, everything is permissible"--this line, though short, shows that the surprisingly honest antagonist lives in blatant contradiction, raging against an alleged evil and then dismissing the existence of evil the next moment.
The thieves seem like moral failures until the movie exposes how the Blind Man is a kidnapper, a murderer, and a type of rapist. "I'm not a rapist", he claims. "I've never forced myself on anyone". And he is right if he limits the definition of rape to one human forcibly having sex with another, but he committed rape with a certain object and impregnated a woman against her will. Rape with an object may not be identical to "traditional rape", but it remains a vile form of sexual abuse.
According to the Christian worldview, the Blind Man deserves to be executed for his three capital crimes [1]. He actually represents one of the most unanticipatedly effective antagonists in cinema this year.
Conclusion
Thus far, despite some disappointments, 2016 has produced some excellent horror movies, with The Witch and The Conjuring 2 displaying a particular mastery of the genre. While Don't Breathe may not technically be classified explicitly as a horror film, perhaps more of a home invasion suspense thriller instead, it showcases a tense atmosphere that demands the attention of the viewer. A welcome deviation from titles this year that have relied on underdeveloped plots and relentless jump scares, this film creatively interacts with its genre and the final product successfully entertains and features a wonderfully depraved villain. It definitely helped satisfy my horror urge as I wait for the Blair Witch release date.
Content
1. Violence: The movie shows some killings and extended scenes portraying intense struggles and assaults that leave characters with visible wounds.
2. Profanity: There are several uses of the f-word, but little else.
3. Sexuality: A dramatic plot development involves (SPOILER!!!) forced impregnation of a kidnapped victim and for a moment it seems as if someone will sexually violate another person, but not in the sense of traditional rape.
[1]. See below:
A. Murder--Exodus 21:12-14--"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."
B. Kidnapping--Exodus 21:16--"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
C. Rape--Deuteronomy 22:25-27--"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her."
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Definitions (Part 1)
Here I simply wanted to begin a series of posts with the definitions of terms I have used but may not have defined. This list is not exhaustive or complete, nor is it the sole one I will upload. It is subject to expansion, revision, and change as I decide to place more definitions in these three categories. Other definitions in separate categories will be uploaded at a later time.
PHILOSOPHY TERMS
Philosophy--study of belief systems, reality, and thought
Epistemology--study of knowledge, including how it is justified or obtained
Ontology--study of reality
Metaphysics--study of what exists
Theology--study of God
Natural theology--study of God based on the natural material world
Ethics--study of moral beliefs and what humans are morally obligated to do
Aesthetics--study of art and beauty
Other minds--phrase referring to minds that exist independent of and other than the mind of a particular individual
External world--space containing physical items that exist external to and independent of an individual
Philosophical zombie--a hypothetical being that appears and acts like an ordinary person which does not possess sentience or consciousness
Cognitive dissonance--condition of holding two contradictory or opposing beliefs simultaneously
Paradox--statement or conclusion that seems inconsistent or impossible but isn't
Occam's razor--principle stating that if two or multiple hypotheses are available describing something the one of the smallest number of assumptions or minimal complexity should be chosen
Existential crisis--time during which an individual contemplates his or her existence, reality, and whether or not meaning or purpose exists
PHILOSOPHIES
Empiricism--belief that all or most knowledge is derived from experience or sense perception
Scientism--belief that science alone reveals truth
Rationalism--belief that reason reveals or confirms truth
Foundationalism--belief that there are undeniable foundational axioms upon which all other knowledge is based
Naturism--belief system advocating respect for nature and/or nudism
Naturalism--belief that nature is all that exists and that nothing transcends it
Materialism--belief that nothing immaterial exists; related very intimately to naturalism
Determinism--belief that every action and event is inescapably determined by preceding actions or events
Fatalism--belief that certain events will simply occur despite the protest or actions of humans
Compatibalism--belief that free will and some form of fatalism (usually theistic predestination) can coexist simultaneously
Transhumanism--belief that humans should infuse their bodies with technology to improve the human race
Egalitarianism--belief that people are equal and should be treated likewise
Ethnocentrism--belief that one's culture is superior to other cultures
Objectivism--belief that concepts like morality or beauty have objective standards that exist independent of and regardless of human awareness, preference, or practice
Relativism--belief that a concept like morality or beauty is purely subjective and relative to some other authority (such as a situation, government, or individual) where it is subject to change
Emotivism--belief that moral statements are merely expressions of subjective emotion with no correspondence to a higher reality
Deontological ethics--belief that if an action is morally wrong that it is always wrong in every circumstance and is never justifiable
Utilitarianism--belief that the wellbeing of the majority matters more than the wellbeing of individuals and that an action is moral or immoral inasmuch as it furthers the wellbeing of the majority
Hedonism--belief that pleasure is the greatest good and thus humans should pursue it
Legal positivism--belief that human political laws are not subject to a higher moral authority because no such standard exists
Pacifism--belief that violence is never morally justifiable in any context
Pluralism--belief that differing claims about something (like religion) can be or are right at the same time
Nihilism--belief that there is no meaning to life or the universe
Skepticism--belief that knowledge about something is uncertain or unknowable; sometimes the belief that it is impossible to know almost anything about reality
Probablism--belief that if proof of a matter is inaccessible then probability determines what is a justified belief
Absurdism--belief that life is absurd due to limitations on knowledge and an inability to discover the objective meaning of life; a type of skepticism that does not deny objective purpose but resigns it to the unknown
Simulation hypothesis--belief or hypothesis that the external world we perceive with our senses is not the real external world and that we exist within a simulation
Solipsism--belief that the only thing we can know for sure is the existence of our own minds
Anti-realism--belief that there is no objective external world, or the belief that there is no objective truth with regard to specific things (such as the existence of other minds or ethical obligations)
VIEWS ON GOD
Theism--belief in a deity that created the material world, usually one with traditionally-ascribed attributes
Religion--organized theological belief system
Monotheism--belief in a single god
Polytheism--belief in multiple or many gods
Henotheism--belief that multiple gods exist but preference or special worship for a single deity
Fitheism--belief that God does exist but reason is incapable of discovering him and that God must therefore be wholly embraced on blind faith
Deism--belief that a deity created the universe and then either departed or refuses to interfere with it
Pantheism--belief that God and the universe are synonymous, that they are one and the same
Agnosticism--belief that whether or not a god exists is uncertain or unknowable; uncertainty about a proposition (such as the statement that God exists)
Atheism--belief that there is no god
Antitheism--a form of atheism that militantly and hostilely opposes religion
Theistic rationalism--a combination of either a generic or specific form of both theism and rationalism
Skeptical theism--belief that God exists but his motivations and reasons for allowing evil cannot be known in this life
Christianity--monotheistic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and both the Old and New Testaments
Judaism--monotheistic religion based on the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature
Islam--monotheistic religion based on the Quran and the Hadith, started by Mohammed
Mormonism--religion based on the Bible and the Book of Mormon, started by Joseph Smith
PHILOSOPHY TERMS
Philosophy--study of belief systems, reality, and thought
Epistemology--study of knowledge, including how it is justified or obtained
Ontology--study of reality
Metaphysics--study of what exists
Theology--study of God
Natural theology--study of God based on the natural material world
Ethics--study of moral beliefs and what humans are morally obligated to do
Aesthetics--study of art and beauty
Other minds--phrase referring to minds that exist independent of and other than the mind of a particular individual
External world--space containing physical items that exist external to and independent of an individual
Philosophical zombie--a hypothetical being that appears and acts like an ordinary person which does not possess sentience or consciousness
Cognitive dissonance--condition of holding two contradictory or opposing beliefs simultaneously
Paradox--statement or conclusion that seems inconsistent or impossible but isn't
Occam's razor--principle stating that if two or multiple hypotheses are available describing something the one of the smallest number of assumptions or minimal complexity should be chosen
Existential crisis--time during which an individual contemplates his or her existence, reality, and whether or not meaning or purpose exists
PHILOSOPHIES
Empiricism--belief that all or most knowledge is derived from experience or sense perception
Scientism--belief that science alone reveals truth
Rationalism--belief that reason reveals or confirms truth
Foundationalism--belief that there are undeniable foundational axioms upon which all other knowledge is based
Naturism--belief system advocating respect for nature and/or nudism
Naturalism--belief that nature is all that exists and that nothing transcends it
Materialism--belief that nothing immaterial exists; related very intimately to naturalism
Determinism--belief that every action and event is inescapably determined by preceding actions or events
Fatalism--belief that certain events will simply occur despite the protest or actions of humans
Compatibalism--belief that free will and some form of fatalism (usually theistic predestination) can coexist simultaneously
Transhumanism--belief that humans should infuse their bodies with technology to improve the human race
Egalitarianism--belief that people are equal and should be treated likewise
Ethnocentrism--belief that one's culture is superior to other cultures
Objectivism--belief that concepts like morality or beauty have objective standards that exist independent of and regardless of human awareness, preference, or practice
Relativism--belief that a concept like morality or beauty is purely subjective and relative to some other authority (such as a situation, government, or individual) where it is subject to change
Emotivism--belief that moral statements are merely expressions of subjective emotion with no correspondence to a higher reality
Deontological ethics--belief that if an action is morally wrong that it is always wrong in every circumstance and is never justifiable
Utilitarianism--belief that the wellbeing of the majority matters more than the wellbeing of individuals and that an action is moral or immoral inasmuch as it furthers the wellbeing of the majority
Hedonism--belief that pleasure is the greatest good and thus humans should pursue it
Legal positivism--belief that human political laws are not subject to a higher moral authority because no such standard exists
Pacifism--belief that violence is never morally justifiable in any context
Pluralism--belief that differing claims about something (like religion) can be or are right at the same time
Nihilism--belief that there is no meaning to life or the universe
Skepticism--belief that knowledge about something is uncertain or unknowable; sometimes the belief that it is impossible to know almost anything about reality
Probablism--belief that if proof of a matter is inaccessible then probability determines what is a justified belief
Absurdism--belief that life is absurd due to limitations on knowledge and an inability to discover the objective meaning of life; a type of skepticism that does not deny objective purpose but resigns it to the unknown
Simulation hypothesis--belief or hypothesis that the external world we perceive with our senses is not the real external world and that we exist within a simulation
Solipsism--belief that the only thing we can know for sure is the existence of our own minds
Anti-realism--belief that there is no objective external world, or the belief that there is no objective truth with regard to specific things (such as the existence of other minds or ethical obligations)
VIEWS ON GOD
Theism--belief in a deity that created the material world, usually one with traditionally-ascribed attributes
Religion--organized theological belief system
Monotheism--belief in a single god
Polytheism--belief in multiple or many gods
Henotheism--belief that multiple gods exist but preference or special worship for a single deity
Fitheism--belief that God does exist but reason is incapable of discovering him and that God must therefore be wholly embraced on blind faith
Deism--belief that a deity created the universe and then either departed or refuses to interfere with it
Pantheism--belief that God and the universe are synonymous, that they are one and the same
Agnosticism--belief that whether or not a god exists is uncertain or unknowable; uncertainty about a proposition (such as the statement that God exists)
Atheism--belief that there is no god
Antitheism--a form of atheism that militantly and hostilely opposes religion
Theistic rationalism--a combination of either a generic or specific form of both theism and rationalism
Skeptical theism--belief that God exists but his motivations and reasons for allowing evil cannot be known in this life
Christianity--monotheistic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and both the Old and New Testaments
Judaism--monotheistic religion based on the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature
Islam--monotheistic religion based on the Quran and the Hadith, started by Mohammed
Mormonism--religion based on the Bible and the Book of Mormon, started by Joseph Smith
Monday, August 29, 2016
The Reliability Of Authority Figures
Many people assume that their parents, authorities, and those older than them automatically possess some special knowledge or alignment with objective truth simply by virtue of being a parent, authority, or older. Usually, of course, people assume this at the urging of the very same class of individuals they are supposed to look up to. I have realized that I never have a reason to submit to someone--whether a general adult, a teacher, a prominent figure, a leader--simply because of their age or social influence.
You know one thing that infuriates me about older adults? They likely reached their current age without any true epistemological reflection and just inherited beliefs from society, their family, or their preferences, and they likely apply their beliefs inconsistently, usually without even knowing what logically follows from holding a particular position. Do young people succumb to this also? Of course, but I have noticed that adults and the elderly frequently avoid the process of challenging beliefs to find the truth. If an ordinary adult believes in nationalism, he or she will likely not change no matter how thorough a refutation is supplied to them. An older person with incorrect positions who has been a Christian for decades will likely credit himself or herself with the benefit of the doubt since he or she has been in the church for so long or because he or she has studied the Bible for so many years. Older people are likely to either cling to an idea because their traditions and emotions are attached to it or to adopt a new philosophy because the next generation has, yet they teach children and younger adults to grant them some special respect as if they deserve some immunity to criticism or confrontation for their irrationality and nonsense because they have lived for a longer number of years. They are usually the ones who insist that the younger generation respect their feelings and opinions when neither carries any objective weight or meaning. Reason, not social respect or personal feelings or untested opinions or a long life, reveals the truth.
As I have implored before, assume nothing. Do not respect someone intellectually simply because they are older, but instead demand consistent, verifiable, knowable reasons for a belief from your teachers and elders [1]. Never treat adults, teachers, authority figures, elderly people, or anyone else as if they are knowledgable until they prove it. Yes, there are many adults that I intellectually respect, yet I'm frustrated with the assumption that age equals wisdom or enlightenment. Obviously, one must avoid the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and truth is just as binding and rational when found and promoted by a 12 year old as it is when a 38 year old public leader discovers it. Do not ever allow someone's youth to interfere with your ability to recognize any truths they acknowledge or to set high standards for their expected knowledge, and do not give an older person the benefit of the doubt. Follow reason, not people.
[1]. I clearly did not say to disrespect anyone, I merely said not to intellectually respect someone just because of their age or influence. There is a distinct difference between the two and I do not want anyone to straw man me here.
You know one thing that infuriates me about older adults? They likely reached their current age without any true epistemological reflection and just inherited beliefs from society, their family, or their preferences, and they likely apply their beliefs inconsistently, usually without even knowing what logically follows from holding a particular position. Do young people succumb to this also? Of course, but I have noticed that adults and the elderly frequently avoid the process of challenging beliefs to find the truth. If an ordinary adult believes in nationalism, he or she will likely not change no matter how thorough a refutation is supplied to them. An older person with incorrect positions who has been a Christian for decades will likely credit himself or herself with the benefit of the doubt since he or she has been in the church for so long or because he or she has studied the Bible for so many years. Older people are likely to either cling to an idea because their traditions and emotions are attached to it or to adopt a new philosophy because the next generation has, yet they teach children and younger adults to grant them some special respect as if they deserve some immunity to criticism or confrontation for their irrationality and nonsense because they have lived for a longer number of years. They are usually the ones who insist that the younger generation respect their feelings and opinions when neither carries any objective weight or meaning. Reason, not social respect or personal feelings or untested opinions or a long life, reveals the truth.
As I have implored before, assume nothing. Do not respect someone intellectually simply because they are older, but instead demand consistent, verifiable, knowable reasons for a belief from your teachers and elders [1]. Never treat adults, teachers, authority figures, elderly people, or anyone else as if they are knowledgable until they prove it. Yes, there are many adults that I intellectually respect, yet I'm frustrated with the assumption that age equals wisdom or enlightenment. Obviously, one must avoid the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and truth is just as binding and rational when found and promoted by a 12 year old as it is when a 38 year old public leader discovers it. Do not ever allow someone's youth to interfere with your ability to recognize any truths they acknowledge or to set high standards for their expected knowledge, and do not give an older person the benefit of the doubt. Follow reason, not people.
[1]. I clearly did not say to disrespect anyone, I merely said not to intellectually respect someone just because of their age or influence. There is a distinct difference between the two and I do not want anyone to straw man me here.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Anticipating The Quran
Tomorrow, my third semester and second year of college both commence. And, amusingly, one thing I am most looking forward to is an instance of mandatory reading for a discussion class. I know, unusual, right? The assignment in question is reading select chapters of the Quran.
Already I've had some Christians widen their eyes in shock or suspicion as they learn what I will soon read at a Christian university. Many Christians have never read the Quran and are likely to misrepresent it, but I have glimpsed enough to realize that the book itself most certainly cannot be reconciled to Old Testament revelation as Islamic teachings attempt to do. Thus far, I have examined the Quran enough to know that it contradicts the Bible on significant moral, punitive, and theological issues. For instance, I know that the Quran itself condones immoral behavior like excessive corporal punishment (Surah 24:2), wife-beating (in a limited sense--Surah 4:34), and crucifixion (Surah 5:33). I know that Quranic theology endorses the idea that righteous deeds must outweigh or surpass negative deeds in order for someone to obtain salvation. The Quran is flawed, contains evil commands, and cannot boast philosophical support like Christianity can. So I clearly oppose Islam, though I have grown tired of correcting misguided conservative Christian arguments targeting all people who profess to be Muslims.
While I do not yet know the other contents of the Quran I will read by the end of the week, I want to remind Christians that they cannot escape the necessity of and the obligation to use reason and that information alone equips the rationalist to make correct judgments and statements. It is not sinful to read the literature of a false religion, nor is it wrong to approve of and even applaud the elements of truth it may include. Though many Christians view seriously studying religious texts other than the Bible as dangerous, failing to become aware of other religions actually carries the true danger. Christians would find their intellects and abilities to reach Muslims greatly stimulated and enhanced by their familiarity with the doctrines and specific verses of Islam itself, not straw man distortions and unverified rumors promoted by mindless conservatives. Soon I will know for sure what unread portions of the Quran (unread by myself) teach and I await the use of this knowledge to further my intellectual and spiritual growth.
Already I've had some Christians widen their eyes in shock or suspicion as they learn what I will soon read at a Christian university. Many Christians have never read the Quran and are likely to misrepresent it, but I have glimpsed enough to realize that the book itself most certainly cannot be reconciled to Old Testament revelation as Islamic teachings attempt to do. Thus far, I have examined the Quran enough to know that it contradicts the Bible on significant moral, punitive, and theological issues. For instance, I know that the Quran itself condones immoral behavior like excessive corporal punishment (Surah 24:2), wife-beating (in a limited sense--Surah 4:34), and crucifixion (Surah 5:33). I know that Quranic theology endorses the idea that righteous deeds must outweigh or surpass negative deeds in order for someone to obtain salvation. The Quran is flawed, contains evil commands, and cannot boast philosophical support like Christianity can. So I clearly oppose Islam, though I have grown tired of correcting misguided conservative Christian arguments targeting all people who profess to be Muslims.
While I do not yet know the other contents of the Quran I will read by the end of the week, I want to remind Christians that they cannot escape the necessity of and the obligation to use reason and that information alone equips the rationalist to make correct judgments and statements. It is not sinful to read the literature of a false religion, nor is it wrong to approve of and even applaud the elements of truth it may include. Though many Christians view seriously studying religious texts other than the Bible as dangerous, failing to become aware of other religions actually carries the true danger. Christians would find their intellects and abilities to reach Muslims greatly stimulated and enhanced by their familiarity with the doctrines and specific verses of Islam itself, not straw man distortions and unverified rumors promoted by mindless conservatives. Soon I will know for sure what unread portions of the Quran (unread by myself) teach and I await the use of this knowledge to further my intellectual and spiritual growth.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
The Danger Of Rationalism
Many worldviews, even if true, can be misused by their adherents in a dangerous manner. A Christian who understands that Christ alone can save them, for instance, may indulge in wicked behaviors because he or she realizes that Christ has offered him or her forgiveness and restoration and that no righteous behavior can earn redemption. Of course, this embodies a severe distortion of Christianity, for moral obligations become no less binding simply because someone has been reconciled to God. A Jewish follower of Judaism might falsely conclude that Yahweh has chosen his or her ethnicity to be superior to others and can act accordingly. Of course, this represents a drastic misunderstanding of Judaism.
People, including myself, have misused rationalism as well.
And I'm not the only one I've heard say this. Philosophy and reason are indescribably helpful and necessary, but I have justified abstaining from doing what I recognized as the right thing because I needed to "think about it more". Actually, one can easily avoid ethical obligations by trying to determine if they are legitimate or not. Honestly, I still can struggle quite deeply with not acting in the most loving or empathetic manner, partly due to philosophical revelations which forced me to realize the general lack of epistemological value emotions have (which therefore led to me ignoring the feelings of others) and partly because of a depressing hardening process that has occurred in the past year of my life. It is interesting that I will passionately and wonderfully defend moral truths with my intellect using the most inescapable logical proofs, support the full spectrum of Biblical human rights, and rebuke and refute others who claim humans don't possess a special value, but then I might ironically turn around and treat others in suboptimal ways that do not emphasize their worth. Worse, I can misapply the same thing that led to me defending human value--reason--to justify this. I might do everything from ignoring someone because they aren't as rational as I am to acting coldly towards them because their feelings aren't correctly aligned with truth.
I am not saying to just blindly follow your conscience or intuitions or to not seriously contemplate the morality of an action or thought. Skepticism is required to learn, but once you know something, including how to rightly treat others, do not act like a skeptic about the issue any longer. Rationalism is still unavoidably necessary, but people should use it to lead others to the truth about ethics and God instead of using it to dismiss others who are ignorant. Knowing for sure that there is a God should produce just and loving treatment of all people without excluding those who have yet to experience a Damascus road moment with reason, reality, and God. I have unfortunately failed at this, and not only a minor handful of times. In all honesty, I have not yet discovered how to properly do this.
This is indeed a potential danger of rationalism, as no truth is dangerous in and of itself, but it is one I must heed, for I have failed in this way far too often.
People, including myself, have misused rationalism as well.
And I'm not the only one I've heard say this. Philosophy and reason are indescribably helpful and necessary, but I have justified abstaining from doing what I recognized as the right thing because I needed to "think about it more". Actually, one can easily avoid ethical obligations by trying to determine if they are legitimate or not. Honestly, I still can struggle quite deeply with not acting in the most loving or empathetic manner, partly due to philosophical revelations which forced me to realize the general lack of epistemological value emotions have (which therefore led to me ignoring the feelings of others) and partly because of a depressing hardening process that has occurred in the past year of my life. It is interesting that I will passionately and wonderfully defend moral truths with my intellect using the most inescapable logical proofs, support the full spectrum of Biblical human rights, and rebuke and refute others who claim humans don't possess a special value, but then I might ironically turn around and treat others in suboptimal ways that do not emphasize their worth. Worse, I can misapply the same thing that led to me defending human value--reason--to justify this. I might do everything from ignoring someone because they aren't as rational as I am to acting coldly towards them because their feelings aren't correctly aligned with truth.
I am not saying to just blindly follow your conscience or intuitions or to not seriously contemplate the morality of an action or thought. Skepticism is required to learn, but once you know something, including how to rightly treat others, do not act like a skeptic about the issue any longer. Rationalism is still unavoidably necessary, but people should use it to lead others to the truth about ethics and God instead of using it to dismiss others who are ignorant. Knowing for sure that there is a God should produce just and loving treatment of all people without excluding those who have yet to experience a Damascus road moment with reason, reality, and God. I have unfortunately failed at this, and not only a minor handful of times. In all honesty, I have not yet discovered how to properly do this.
This is indeed a potential danger of rationalism, as no truth is dangerous in and of itself, but it is one I must heed, for I have failed in this way far too often.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
A Superior Evaluation System
When I review a video game or a film, readers may notice that I never assign a number based score (i.e. 8.5/10) to anything. I divide my movie reviews into the categories of Production Values, Story, and Intellectual Content, and in video games I add a fourth section called Gameplay, but I never refer to any score on a numeric spectrum. Why?
Well, there is a very specific reason I avoid this. Giving a game or movie an 8/10 or a 9.2/10 (or any other such score) is purely subjective. How can I prove that a game deserves 7 out of 10 points? Such a rating system is hopelessly subjective and unhelpful. However, making statements like "The game's multiplayer features an extraordinary amount of content", "The visuals of the game exceed its prequel in quality and clarity", or "The combat system has more complexity and creativity in this installment" does not resort to subjectivity and these statements can be verified or refuted. I can recognize that a game has objectively impressive graphics after assessing the type of gaming system, year of release, and other considerations. I can tell if a game has superior graphics to its younger predecessor from three years ago. I can tell if the actors/actresses in a movie produced far more realistic and plausible performances than the common generic movies of our day. I know if a plot twist is simple, cliche, and predictable, or if it is ingenious, inventive, and original. These things can be judged objectively, but number scores cannot be. What one person assigns a 6 might be an 8 to someone else, and no one can prove such claims. But if someone offers a claim about the visuals, story, intellectual content, or production values in a game or movie, then the statement in question can be legitimately proved or at least addressed on a far more objective level.
No, entertainment reviews are not all based on subjective preferences. Some games do have objectively better graphics than others and some movies have plot arcs that are objectively far more sophisticated and unique than others. People need to abandon the popular review style of number-based grading and replace it with simple, verifiable claims about how a movie or game succeeds or fails in a particular aspect.
Well, there is a very specific reason I avoid this. Giving a game or movie an 8/10 or a 9.2/10 (or any other such score) is purely subjective. How can I prove that a game deserves 7 out of 10 points? Such a rating system is hopelessly subjective and unhelpful. However, making statements like "The game's multiplayer features an extraordinary amount of content", "The visuals of the game exceed its prequel in quality and clarity", or "The combat system has more complexity and creativity in this installment" does not resort to subjectivity and these statements can be verified or refuted. I can recognize that a game has objectively impressive graphics after assessing the type of gaming system, year of release, and other considerations. I can tell if a game has superior graphics to its younger predecessor from three years ago. I can tell if the actors/actresses in a movie produced far more realistic and plausible performances than the common generic movies of our day. I know if a plot twist is simple, cliche, and predictable, or if it is ingenious, inventive, and original. These things can be judged objectively, but number scores cannot be. What one person assigns a 6 might be an 8 to someone else, and no one can prove such claims. But if someone offers a claim about the visuals, story, intellectual content, or production values in a game or movie, then the statement in question can be legitimately proved or at least addressed on a far more objective level.
No, entertainment reviews are not all based on subjective preferences. Some games do have objectively better graphics than others and some movies have plot arcs that are objectively far more sophisticated and unique than others. People need to abandon the popular review style of number-based grading and replace it with simple, verifiable claims about how a movie or game succeeds or fails in a particular aspect.
Monday, August 22, 2016
A Defense Of The Metal Genre
There are many popular targets for Christian legalists, but music has always remained one they are eager to oppose. Specifically, certain types of music. Certain genres. Especially metal and rock, the "devil's music", which some Christians speak of as if Satan personally created and approved of every song from both genres.
Now I have encountered many erroneous and unjustifiable beliefs about the alleged sinfulness of secular music or even Christian Rock or metal music offends God. Really? So certain sounds produced by instruments really carry some innate evil presence or message even apart from lyrics? According to some people, yes. But music itself does not convey a particular moral or sinful tone; after all, it's just sounds generated by instruments. These critics cannot appeal to any passage in the Bible or any objective moral principle to condemn these genres, but they continue to invent and defend such baseless ideas. I've even had someone inform me that music which "makes" someone shake their head is permissible but music that "makes" someone lift and drop their feet on the ground goes too far. Besides the obvious fallacy of saying that music can make someone do anything, I love the wonderful nonexistent moral line drawn here. As for the belief that non-Christian songs disrespect God, it is obvious that secular people also have reason and a conscience (Romans 1-2) and that they can grasp truth just like Christians can, even if in a more limited or incomplete sense. And nothing about shallow, repetitive, irrelevant Christian lyrics combined with an absence of any deeper theological or intellectual substance and (in many cases at least) any musical creativity and sophistication glorifies God. I just wanted to say that. I am not arguing that some rock/metal singers like Marilyn Manson aren't disgusting and evil, I am merely rebuking attacks on the genre as a legitimate and allowable style of music.
My favorite bands--Disturbed, Device, and Breaking Benjamin--are undeniably secular metal or rock groups, though David Draiman has expressed a belief in some supernatural force and the singer for Breaking Benjamin is a professed Christian. But there is no sinful aspect to their selected genres. Actually, I've sometimes heard far more sophisticated, relevant, deep, meaningful, and ethical statements in songs by these bands than in many Christian songs.
Disturbed in particular enjoys addressing social or moral issues. Interestingly, the singer, David Draiman, is a proud Jew who obtained a degree in philosophy of all things. He speaks more passionately than many in our current society do about issues he feels attached to or a special obligation to immerse himself in, and the band's lyrical content can be quite fascinating as a result. Never Again acknowledges the depravity of the Nazi Holocaust and demands that we never again allow something so perverse. Innocence rages against a corrupt and futile justice system that entraps innocents while subtly asking if anyone is truly innocent. Facade sympathizes with a female victim of domestic abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or "lover". Believe criticizes people who use religion to oppress others, labeling their lifestyles a "lie" and repeating that "penance can't absolve your sin". Prayer presents a conversation between David Draiman and God, inspired by the story of Job, where David discusses the renowned problem of evil with God, saying "You made me turn away". Liberate declares that we still await our "modern messiah" who will erase hatred, adding that we are "still awaiting I". I could continue listing songs like these with relevant worldview ramifications or statements that people should learn about. Holocaust awareness, a disgusting legal and prison system, religiously-motivated atrocities, the seeming problem of evil, and the other subject matter in lyrics by Disturbed should be directly confronted and correctly assessed by Christians, and we should applaud any talented secular musicians who seek to join us in these endeavors. Christians can attack Disturbed for their unique but dark album artwork or their prominence in the world of metal, but they cannot say David Draiman doesn't have a strong conscience or natural intelligence. For various reasons Disturbed has provoked more thought out of me in one year than years of Christian music has. Honestly, I wish a Christian band would imitate their style and willingness to approach legitimate problems and philosophical positions like Disturbed does. Most Christian material scarcely even attempts to mention or dissect anything beyond yet another repetitive reference to God's sovereignty or very generic, cliché struggles. I would certainly appreciate more.
Do all Christians need to listen to secular or metal music? Of course not! But let us not pretend like some imaginary Biblical restriction opposes them or that God dislikes a song just because non-Christians designed it. We can indeed learn from secular sources just as we can glean something from many people. Seeing as I had already posted refutations of misguided Christian beliefs about other practices, I, as someone who enjoys the metal genre for many reasons, wanted to clarify some crucial facts about this issue also--that the Bible does not condemn metal, that no musical style could possibly be sinful, and that secular musicians can honor their intellects and consciences despite not being Christians.
Now I have encountered many erroneous and unjustifiable beliefs about the alleged sinfulness of secular music or even Christian Rock or metal music offends God. Really? So certain sounds produced by instruments really carry some innate evil presence or message even apart from lyrics? According to some people, yes. But music itself does not convey a particular moral or sinful tone; after all, it's just sounds generated by instruments. These critics cannot appeal to any passage in the Bible or any objective moral principle to condemn these genres, but they continue to invent and defend such baseless ideas. I've even had someone inform me that music which "makes" someone shake their head is permissible but music that "makes" someone lift and drop their feet on the ground goes too far. Besides the obvious fallacy of saying that music can make someone do anything, I love the wonderful nonexistent moral line drawn here. As for the belief that non-Christian songs disrespect God, it is obvious that secular people also have reason and a conscience (Romans 1-2) and that they can grasp truth just like Christians can, even if in a more limited or incomplete sense. And nothing about shallow, repetitive, irrelevant Christian lyrics combined with an absence of any deeper theological or intellectual substance and (in many cases at least) any musical creativity and sophistication glorifies God. I just wanted to say that. I am not arguing that some rock/metal singers like Marilyn Manson aren't disgusting and evil, I am merely rebuking attacks on the genre as a legitimate and allowable style of music.
 |
| Legalists who condemn music produced by certain instruments like electric guitars can only appeal to fallacies and subjective extra-Biblical preferences to ground their ideas. |
My favorite bands--Disturbed, Device, and Breaking Benjamin--are undeniably secular metal or rock groups, though David Draiman has expressed a belief in some supernatural force and the singer for Breaking Benjamin is a professed Christian. But there is no sinful aspect to their selected genres. Actually, I've sometimes heard far more sophisticated, relevant, deep, meaningful, and ethical statements in songs by these bands than in many Christian songs.
Disturbed in particular enjoys addressing social or moral issues. Interestingly, the singer, David Draiman, is a proud Jew who obtained a degree in philosophy of all things. He speaks more passionately than many in our current society do about issues he feels attached to or a special obligation to immerse himself in, and the band's lyrical content can be quite fascinating as a result. Never Again acknowledges the depravity of the Nazi Holocaust and demands that we never again allow something so perverse. Innocence rages against a corrupt and futile justice system that entraps innocents while subtly asking if anyone is truly innocent. Facade sympathizes with a female victim of domestic abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or "lover". Believe criticizes people who use religion to oppress others, labeling their lifestyles a "lie" and repeating that "penance can't absolve your sin". Prayer presents a conversation between David Draiman and God, inspired by the story of Job, where David discusses the renowned problem of evil with God, saying "You made me turn away". Liberate declares that we still await our "modern messiah" who will erase hatred, adding that we are "still awaiting I". I could continue listing songs like these with relevant worldview ramifications or statements that people should learn about. Holocaust awareness, a disgusting legal and prison system, religiously-motivated atrocities, the seeming problem of evil, and the other subject matter in lyrics by Disturbed should be directly confronted and correctly assessed by Christians, and we should applaud any talented secular musicians who seek to join us in these endeavors. Christians can attack Disturbed for their unique but dark album artwork or their prominence in the world of metal, but they cannot say David Draiman doesn't have a strong conscience or natural intelligence. For various reasons Disturbed has provoked more thought out of me in one year than years of Christian music has. Honestly, I wish a Christian band would imitate their style and willingness to approach legitimate problems and philosophical positions like Disturbed does. Most Christian material scarcely even attempts to mention or dissect anything beyond yet another repetitive reference to God's sovereignty or very generic, cliché struggles. I would certainly appreciate more.
Do all Christians need to listen to secular or metal music? Of course not! But let us not pretend like some imaginary Biblical restriction opposes them or that God dislikes a song just because non-Christians designed it. We can indeed learn from secular sources just as we can glean something from many people. Seeing as I had already posted refutations of misguided Christian beliefs about other practices, I, as someone who enjoys the metal genre for many reasons, wanted to clarify some crucial facts about this issue also--that the Bible does not condemn metal, that no musical style could possibly be sinful, and that secular musicians can honor their intellects and consciences despite not being Christians.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Opposite Gender Friendships (Part 1)
"Not until the sexes can look into each other's faces and see an ally, not a competitor, a friend, not a seductress, a companion, not a breadwinner will we know we've reached a meaningful peace."
--Jonalyn Fyncher [1]
This post is dedicated to my opposite gender BFF Gabi. Thank you, Gabi, for both consciously and unknowingly helping me to realize many of these and other truths during a time in my life when I began to question everything I had ever believed or been taught. I deeply cherish our friendship and I pray that it only continues to deepen and teach us both over time!
Almost everyone these days seems to think that emotional closeness between two people of opposite genders inevitably and naturally leads to romantic desire and then that eventually becomes sexual desire and activity. If one or both of the friends are married, the suspicion and moral judgment heightens immediately. But my misguided and pathetic American culture holds incorrect ideas about relationships between the two genders, and so does a good portion of the Christian church in America.
My best friend, whom I dedicated this article to above, is a female. And there's nothing wrong with that on the Christian worldview, as I will prove.
I have noticed since the time this friendship formed that the church often doesn't address the issue at all except to bombard those in such friendships with the advice to use severe caution or to sever the relationship once either friend marries. I have encountered very few who accurately declare that the church should be at least the one place where deep, intimate friendship between the two genders is not sexualized or threatening, though fortunately some Christian bloggers like Dan Brennan and Jonalyn Fincher have contributed greatly to promoting awareness of the topic and endorsing and defending friendships between men and women--even (GASP!) married ones. What's that? Oh, according to evangelicals I just unlocked and opened Pandora's Box? I'm sorry, my bullshit detector is activating. My false assumption detector also.
Though many neglect this fact, there is no verse in the Bible that condemns opposite gender friendships or speaks negatively of them in any way, regardless of their closeness or the marital status of either friend. But judging from the reactions some Christians offer, one would think the 11th of the Ten Commandments had been violated every time someone enters or continues a friendship of this nature. The Bible doesn't support segregation of the sexes anymore than it condones segregation of different ethnicities. It infuriates me that churches attempt so hard to separate men and women at (sometimes) every available opportunity. Oh, we can't have a regular Bible study with both males and females participating, right? Then they might start to realize that they enjoy the presence of the opposite gender or see that the two aren't ultimately that different after all! Well so what? The common objections to true fellowship between both genders in the church usually appeal to either one of two false positions. The first is that men and women are dangerous to each other because they simply will tempt the other gender or cause them to sexually sin. The second is that men and women possess such different inherent biologically-ingrained traits that to deeply minister to both simultaneously is ineffective and imprudent. Both concepts are false, by the way.
It is important to note that if opposite-gender friendships are not sinful (and there is no "line" where such friendship becomes "too intimate" or "too close" [2]), then there can be nothing sinful about engaging in such friendships while married. In my post on the idiocy of evangelical modesty teachings, I wrote that "If an unmarried man or woman can enjoy the beauty of the opposite gender without sinning, then it logically follows that a married person can do the same [2]." In another post, I proved that "It is simply untrue and deceptive to claim the Bible teaches that only someone's spouse has the right to view their nude body [3]." The exact same logic beneath each of the two quotes also applies to cross-gender friendships. The Bible never teaches that married people should or need to keep any aspect of their lives besides their sexual activities exclusive. These facts stand immutable and blatant, no matter what legalistic preachers or theologians might attempt to argue.
Now I wish to explain why I hope my future wife has deep cross-gender friendships of her own and why the cries of "emotional adultery" by evangelical legalists do nothing but enrage me. Yes, trust and transparency are very important. Look, I'm an extremely transparent person, so I never conceal anything from other people, and I would expect my future wife to act similarly towards me. I will not marry someone unless I trust her before she even becomes my wife, so I would not anticipate anything too abnormal or unexpected from her. In short, I will not enter a marital relationship with someone I fear might commit what the Bible calls adultery. I want my spouse to know that society is WRONG when it teaches that all relationships and activities are sexual or have sexual overtones or undertones; the church alone promotes or implies such nonsense enough on its own anyway, and she needs to understand this. I want my wife to enjoy the beauty of non-sexualized intimacy with the opposite gender! I will not demand or request that, to demonstrate her love for me, she alleviate or abstain from other forms of non-threatening love. After all, pretending like one person can fulfill all of an individual's relational and social needs with the opposite gender is unnatural, illogical, and doomed for failure. Intimate cross-gender friendships represent another innocent and beautiful thing that the church has opposed and suppressed, and I will not participate in the absurd and baseless opposition of them at all. Anyway, I'm not responsible for the actions of my wife or anyone else, nor will I act like it. I wouldn't marry someone who sexualized everything to begin with and I won't wait until I get married or after that moment to tell her these and many other things. And I'm intelligent enough to know that "emotional adultery" is not synonymous with emotional attachment or intimate closeness or anything except the emotional desire to commit the physical act of adultery. Married people have an exclusive sexual relationship as the Bible explicitly states and protects, but nothing else about their relationships is Biblically exclusive or needs to be lived as such, and to live like it can produce damaging results. Christians, amend your views accordingly.
Christian websites often warn people about how dangerous the opposite gender is, yet their stupidity provides opportunities for a small minority to say things like the following:
Apart from the comment about being more than 30 years old, the highlighted sentences above describe me perfectly. I'm not sacrificing, abandoning, or restricting a beautiful, fulfilling, and deep friendship that came before any relationship with a significant other in order to satisfy the fallacies or jealous impulses of some illogical legalist. As with many other issues, I will address this quickly and firmly if I begin dating someone. I will not develop an intense emotional attachment to a significant other before I bring this (and numerous other things) up and will promptly explain that I am not changing certain habits of mine (like cherishing opposite gender friendships, practicing rationalism, or using profanity, for instance) for the sake of the subjective preferences of another person. Since I would never postpone such discussions very long, I would have little trouble ending the relationship before it progressed because I purposefully did not allow it to become more intimate before addressing these issues. If a girlfriend doesn't trust me even though I am by nature a very transparent person, then why the hell would I ever consider marrying such a person? I wouldn't marry someone like that!
Which marriage or relationship is healthier--one where both partners understand the needless burdens of legalism and jealousy based on evidence-less feelings or one where one or both partners suspect the actions and motives of the other? I prefer to inhabit the first kind of marriage. If someone romantically interested in me does not share that mindset, then I won't engage in a romantic relationship with that person. Since the Bible condemns those who proclaim that activities it does not declare sinful are indeed sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2)--and since no one can harbor anti-cross-gender friendship ideas without resorting to multiple logical fallacies--no opponent of my attitude towards this matter can ever legitimately argue that I have an erroneous mindset. They can act according to wholly subjective, arbitrary preferences, but they cannot raise any actual moral, logical, or Biblical objections to such a practice.
A handful of the logical fallacies committed by those who oppose opposite gender friendships include the following: appeal to emotion (outrage at these friendships on the grounds of unprovable feelings); the fallacy of composition (saying that because an individual or group couldn't properly handle close cross-gender friendships that therefore no one can); appeal to tradition (support of stupid legalistic ideas in the church); non sequitur (assuming that cross-gender relationships between non-spouses, non-significant others, and non-siblings must be sexual or romantic); and the anecdotal fallacy (claiming that because you could not have cross-gender friendships both intimate and non-romantic/sexual then therefore such relationships are impossible). Logic does not stand on the side of those who would oppose the contents of this post. I have enough experience to realize that many people do not honor logic as the supreme source of knowledge, so it does not surprise me that fallacies have crept into positions on opposite gender friendships, as obvious fallacies have infiltrated the minds of most people I have met.
The blatant and idiotic legalism against nonsexual relationships between the sexes found in Christian circles is associated with but not identical to the similar belief that men and women should never be alone together (even if engaged in some circles!), physically embrace each other (again, even if engaged sometimes), form strong emotional bonds, or just relate to each other like humans made in God's image were intended to. Some Western people seem to actually believe that most activities and desires must somehow contain sexual components or that most behaviors or relationships will by inescapable logical necessity lead to sexual activity or feelings.
I am deeply disappointed with how Christians handle this issue, if they mention it at all. About 18 months ago, I realized that I had failed to challenge this destructive cultural idea when it had appeared before in my life, though that changed dramatically soon after. Oh, I had encountered this bizarre belief before, but I hadn't yet challenged those who asserted it. After all, I never cared about anyone's social norms or preferences because they possess no significance or authority or objective truth. I've already blogged about why profanity, video games, and nudity aren't objectively evil, and I knew I wanted to obliterate the cultural and "Christian" assumptions against intimate friendships between men and women. I want to be known for many particular and distinct things, and having wonderful, deep cross-gender friendships is one of them--friendships that refute the mistaken belief that male-female relationships must be sexual or romantic and the notion that cross-gender friendships threaten marriages by their very nature. Besides, I wouldn't consider marrying anyone who believed such relationships are sinful or intrinsically evil or damaging, just like I would never marry anyone who doesn't care about apologetics and philosophy or someone who is a complementarian. Just as I would never repeatedly attend a church that wanted me to surrender my intellectualism or love of reason, I would never marry someone who wants me to abandon my close opposite gender friends or to treat my best friend differently than I do now. I truly want my own spouse to have close, refreshing, inseparable friendships with the opposite gender; I will welcome these friends as blessings. I want her to help me prove society and the evangelical church wrong; I want her and I to expose that there is no rational proof or moral flaw or divine decree one can cite against this.
In conclusion, I will quote the words of Alise Wright, words which apply to me perfectly (besides the fact that I am a man and my best friend is a woman and that neither of us is married):
"My best friend is a man. We are both married, though not to one another. We have a deep love of one another. We do not deny our maleness and femaleness when we are together, but we do not allow it to be the lone descriptor of our friendship. We are not 'just' or 'only' friends - we are intimate friends whose souls are weaved together [4]."
[1]. http://www.sacredunionssacredpassions.com
[2]. For related examples of similar truths in other blog posts which can serve as an analogy as to why there is no line where friendship between men and women becomes "too intimate" or "too close", see below:
A. "And people can't object to violence and profanity as universal reasons why someone shouldn't play a game because there is no objective line that marks when something has become too violent or too riddled with profanity. Some people will watch a movie or play a game with mild, infrequent profanity or with a few bloodless killings. Doing so does not at all mean they will begin practicing these things. But their neighbor might be fine with slightly more profanity and deaths involving more brutality. Then someone else may watch movies with strong profanity and more intense violence but think that entertainment with constant profanity and extreme torture is wrong. Where can we draw the line? While the Bible prohibits the actions of murder and assault and kidnapping and robbery, we cannot claim there is some way to know if visual depictions of such things go "too far". God has revealed no special knowledge on this matter."
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-artistic-legitimacy-of-gaming.html
B. "Suppose a woman who is swimming wears a tankini--some people will label her modest and others will inevitably object. If she wears multiple layers, some people can still object. Whether she wears a bikini or not someone will accuse her of immodesty . . . But this is bullcrap reasoning. For instance, how many inches of the legs must be covered? Ask anyone who believes in modesty why an inch or millimeter further isn't the standard. Not only will no one concur about where the line is, but they will have no explanation as to why their choice is correct but a less 'modest' line isn't. In philosophy, that's called 'begging the question'."
--https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
[4]. https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/alise-wright-cross-sex-friendships
--Jonalyn Fyncher [1]
This post is dedicated to my opposite gender BFF Gabi. Thank you, Gabi, for both consciously and unknowingly helping me to realize many of these and other truths during a time in my life when I began to question everything I had ever believed or been taught. I deeply cherish our friendship and I pray that it only continues to deepen and teach us both over time!
Almost everyone these days seems to think that emotional closeness between two people of opposite genders inevitably and naturally leads to romantic desire and then that eventually becomes sexual desire and activity. If one or both of the friends are married, the suspicion and moral judgment heightens immediately. But my misguided and pathetic American culture holds incorrect ideas about relationships between the two genders, and so does a good portion of the Christian church in America.
My best friend, whom I dedicated this article to above, is a female. And there's nothing wrong with that on the Christian worldview, as I will prove.
I have noticed since the time this friendship formed that the church often doesn't address the issue at all except to bombard those in such friendships with the advice to use severe caution or to sever the relationship once either friend marries. I have encountered very few who accurately declare that the church should be at least the one place where deep, intimate friendship between the two genders is not sexualized or threatening, though fortunately some Christian bloggers like Dan Brennan and Jonalyn Fincher have contributed greatly to promoting awareness of the topic and endorsing and defending friendships between men and women--even (GASP!) married ones. What's that? Oh, according to evangelicals I just unlocked and opened Pandora's Box? I'm sorry, my bullshit detector is activating. My false assumption detector also.
 |
| Nowhere does the Bible prohibit or discourage relational intimacy or close friendships between members of the two genders who are not married or dating. |
Though many neglect this fact, there is no verse in the Bible that condemns opposite gender friendships or speaks negatively of them in any way, regardless of their closeness or the marital status of either friend. But judging from the reactions some Christians offer, one would think the 11th of the Ten Commandments had been violated every time someone enters or continues a friendship of this nature. The Bible doesn't support segregation of the sexes anymore than it condones segregation of different ethnicities. It infuriates me that churches attempt so hard to separate men and women at (sometimes) every available opportunity. Oh, we can't have a regular Bible study with both males and females participating, right? Then they might start to realize that they enjoy the presence of the opposite gender or see that the two aren't ultimately that different after all! Well so what? The common objections to true fellowship between both genders in the church usually appeal to either one of two false positions. The first is that men and women are dangerous to each other because they simply will tempt the other gender or cause them to sexually sin. The second is that men and women possess such different inherent biologically-ingrained traits that to deeply minister to both simultaneously is ineffective and imprudent. Both concepts are false, by the way.
It is important to note that if opposite-gender friendships are not sinful (and there is no "line" where such friendship becomes "too intimate" or "too close" [2]), then there can be nothing sinful about engaging in such friendships while married. In my post on the idiocy of evangelical modesty teachings, I wrote that "If an unmarried man or woman can enjoy the beauty of the opposite gender without sinning, then it logically follows that a married person can do the same [2]." In another post, I proved that "It is simply untrue and deceptive to claim the Bible teaches that only someone's spouse has the right to view their nude body [3]." The exact same logic beneath each of the two quotes also applies to cross-gender friendships. The Bible never teaches that married people should or need to keep any aspect of their lives besides their sexual activities exclusive. These facts stand immutable and blatant, no matter what legalistic preachers or theologians might attempt to argue.
Now I wish to explain why I hope my future wife has deep cross-gender friendships of her own and why the cries of "emotional adultery" by evangelical legalists do nothing but enrage me. Yes, trust and transparency are very important. Look, I'm an extremely transparent person, so I never conceal anything from other people, and I would expect my future wife to act similarly towards me. I will not marry someone unless I trust her before she even becomes my wife, so I would not anticipate anything too abnormal or unexpected from her. In short, I will not enter a marital relationship with someone I fear might commit what the Bible calls adultery. I want my spouse to know that society is WRONG when it teaches that all relationships and activities are sexual or have sexual overtones or undertones; the church alone promotes or implies such nonsense enough on its own anyway, and she needs to understand this. I want my wife to enjoy the beauty of non-sexualized intimacy with the opposite gender! I will not demand or request that, to demonstrate her love for me, she alleviate or abstain from other forms of non-threatening love. After all, pretending like one person can fulfill all of an individual's relational and social needs with the opposite gender is unnatural, illogical, and doomed for failure. Intimate cross-gender friendships represent another innocent and beautiful thing that the church has opposed and suppressed, and I will not participate in the absurd and baseless opposition of them at all. Anyway, I'm not responsible for the actions of my wife or anyone else, nor will I act like it. I wouldn't marry someone who sexualized everything to begin with and I won't wait until I get married or after that moment to tell her these and many other things. And I'm intelligent enough to know that "emotional adultery" is not synonymous with emotional attachment or intimate closeness or anything except the emotional desire to commit the physical act of adultery. Married people have an exclusive sexual relationship as the Bible explicitly states and protects, but nothing else about their relationships is Biblically exclusive or needs to be lived as such, and to live like it can produce damaging results. Christians, amend your views accordingly.
Christian websites often warn people about how dangerous the opposite gender is, yet their stupidity provides opportunities for a small minority to say things like the following:
 |
| Comment on an article found at http://archives.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationships/no-married-people-shouldnt-text-opposite-sex |
Apart from the comment about being more than 30 years old, the highlighted sentences above describe me perfectly. I'm not sacrificing, abandoning, or restricting a beautiful, fulfilling, and deep friendship that came before any relationship with a significant other in order to satisfy the fallacies or jealous impulses of some illogical legalist. As with many other issues, I will address this quickly and firmly if I begin dating someone. I will not develop an intense emotional attachment to a significant other before I bring this (and numerous other things) up and will promptly explain that I am not changing certain habits of mine (like cherishing opposite gender friendships, practicing rationalism, or using profanity, for instance) for the sake of the subjective preferences of another person. Since I would never postpone such discussions very long, I would have little trouble ending the relationship before it progressed because I purposefully did not allow it to become more intimate before addressing these issues. If a girlfriend doesn't trust me even though I am by nature a very transparent person, then why the hell would I ever consider marrying such a person? I wouldn't marry someone like that!
Which marriage or relationship is healthier--one where both partners understand the needless burdens of legalism and jealousy based on evidence-less feelings or one where one or both partners suspect the actions and motives of the other? I prefer to inhabit the first kind of marriage. If someone romantically interested in me does not share that mindset, then I won't engage in a romantic relationship with that person. Since the Bible condemns those who proclaim that activities it does not declare sinful are indeed sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2)--and since no one can harbor anti-cross-gender friendship ideas without resorting to multiple logical fallacies--no opponent of my attitude towards this matter can ever legitimately argue that I have an erroneous mindset. They can act according to wholly subjective, arbitrary preferences, but they cannot raise any actual moral, logical, or Biblical objections to such a practice.
A handful of the logical fallacies committed by those who oppose opposite gender friendships include the following: appeal to emotion (outrage at these friendships on the grounds of unprovable feelings); the fallacy of composition (saying that because an individual or group couldn't properly handle close cross-gender friendships that therefore no one can); appeal to tradition (support of stupid legalistic ideas in the church); non sequitur (assuming that cross-gender relationships between non-spouses, non-significant others, and non-siblings must be sexual or romantic); and the anecdotal fallacy (claiming that because you could not have cross-gender friendships both intimate and non-romantic/sexual then therefore such relationships are impossible). Logic does not stand on the side of those who would oppose the contents of this post. I have enough experience to realize that many people do not honor logic as the supreme source of knowledge, so it does not surprise me that fallacies have crept into positions on opposite gender friendships, as obvious fallacies have infiltrated the minds of most people I have met.
 |
| Men and women, even separately married ones, can certainly be intimate lifelong friends without having sex or without the interference of romantic feelings. Society and the church need to awaken to this fact. |
I am deeply disappointed with how Christians handle this issue, if they mention it at all. About 18 months ago, I realized that I had failed to challenge this destructive cultural idea when it had appeared before in my life, though that changed dramatically soon after. Oh, I had encountered this bizarre belief before, but I hadn't yet challenged those who asserted it. After all, I never cared about anyone's social norms or preferences because they possess no significance or authority or objective truth. I've already blogged about why profanity, video games, and nudity aren't objectively evil, and I knew I wanted to obliterate the cultural and "Christian" assumptions against intimate friendships between men and women. I want to be known for many particular and distinct things, and having wonderful, deep cross-gender friendships is one of them--friendships that refute the mistaken belief that male-female relationships must be sexual or romantic and the notion that cross-gender friendships threaten marriages by their very nature. Besides, I wouldn't consider marrying anyone who believed such relationships are sinful or intrinsically evil or damaging, just like I would never marry anyone who doesn't care about apologetics and philosophy or someone who is a complementarian. Just as I would never repeatedly attend a church that wanted me to surrender my intellectualism or love of reason, I would never marry someone who wants me to abandon my close opposite gender friends or to treat my best friend differently than I do now. I truly want my own spouse to have close, refreshing, inseparable friendships with the opposite gender; I will welcome these friends as blessings. I want her to help me prove society and the evangelical church wrong; I want her and I to expose that there is no rational proof or moral flaw or divine decree one can cite against this.
In conclusion, I will quote the words of Alise Wright, words which apply to me perfectly (besides the fact that I am a man and my best friend is a woman and that neither of us is married):
"My best friend is a man. We are both married, though not to one another. We have a deep love of one another. We do not deny our maleness and femaleness when we are together, but we do not allow it to be the lone descriptor of our friendship. We are not 'just' or 'only' friends - we are intimate friends whose souls are weaved together [4]."
[1]. http://www.sacredunionssacredpassions.com
[2]. For related examples of similar truths in other blog posts which can serve as an analogy as to why there is no line where friendship between men and women becomes "too intimate" or "too close", see below:
A. "And people can't object to violence and profanity as universal reasons why someone shouldn't play a game because there is no objective line that marks when something has become too violent or too riddled with profanity. Some people will watch a movie or play a game with mild, infrequent profanity or with a few bloodless killings. Doing so does not at all mean they will begin practicing these things. But their neighbor might be fine with slightly more profanity and deaths involving more brutality. Then someone else may watch movies with strong profanity and more intense violence but think that entertainment with constant profanity and extreme torture is wrong. Where can we draw the line? While the Bible prohibits the actions of murder and assault and kidnapping and robbery, we cannot claim there is some way to know if visual depictions of such things go "too far". God has revealed no special knowledge on this matter."
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-artistic-legitimacy-of-gaming.html
B. "Suppose a woman who is swimming wears a tankini--some people will label her modest and others will inevitably object. If she wears multiple layers, some people can still object. Whether she wears a bikini or not someone will accuse her of immodesty . . . But this is bullcrap reasoning. For instance, how many inches of the legs must be covered? Ask anyone who believes in modesty why an inch or millimeter further isn't the standard. Not only will no one concur about where the line is, but they will have no explanation as to why their choice is correct but a less 'modest' line isn't. In philosophy, that's called 'begging the question'."
--https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
[4]. https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/alise-wright-cross-sex-friendships
The Pitfall Of Superficiality
Humans can be very superficial--almost everyone likely realizes this, but few can ever escape the negative enslavement to the superficial that infests our American society.
People immerse themselves in work and escapism to conceal their pains and questions, yet these necessities and charades never quite erase the problems. People rush from one source of amusement to the next (hence the overwhelming quantity of absolutely asinine and pointless YouTube videos and Instagram selfies) in an effort to avoid the need to find a solution to the human condition or thinking about dark, demanding matters like ethics and purpose, yet reality does not change because they do not want to embrace it or collide with it. They pursue pleasure because they hope for it to numb them to the agonies and terror of human life.
The dread of uncertainty about important questions and truths has not motivated people to explore these questions, but has frightened people away from thinking too seriously about the deep matters of living. People can excel all too greatly at neglecting their own emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs by focusing on mediocre and trivial things--a brief laugh, a fleeting moment of excitement--as if the burdens of existence as a spiritual and intellectual being will vanish. But occupying your time with insignificant matters will not relieve you of your pain or questions--instead it deprives you of opportunities to address them. Hedonism--living for pleasure--and avoiding a confrontation with the grand realities of the universe and God will not benefit anyone in the end.
I am NOT against entertainment, leisure, pleasure, or working a lot. Am I saying not to socialize, relax, laugh, or be lighthearted? Not at all! I just want to remind people that they can't allow these things to be elevated to idols that rob the heart and mind of fulfilling their true purposes. Do not allow them to hinder spiritual, emotional, and intellectual honesty and progress. And when one begins to discover what is real and true and meaningful, then one will not wish to exchange the difficult truths for superficialities instead. So enjoy life. Appreciate pleasure, for God delights when we do so! But never hide from questions and, far more importantly, from answers behind flimsy barricades of escapism and misuse of pleasure to numb anguish, the anguish that forces us to seek relief from an external source, and do not neglect the intellect, the intellect that recognizes and verifies the solution to our condition of misery and the desire for an unchanging purpose.
People immerse themselves in work and escapism to conceal their pains and questions, yet these necessities and charades never quite erase the problems. People rush from one source of amusement to the next (hence the overwhelming quantity of absolutely asinine and pointless YouTube videos and Instagram selfies) in an effort to avoid the need to find a solution to the human condition or thinking about dark, demanding matters like ethics and purpose, yet reality does not change because they do not want to embrace it or collide with it. They pursue pleasure because they hope for it to numb them to the agonies and terror of human life.
The dread of uncertainty about important questions and truths has not motivated people to explore these questions, but has frightened people away from thinking too seriously about the deep matters of living. People can excel all too greatly at neglecting their own emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs by focusing on mediocre and trivial things--a brief laugh, a fleeting moment of excitement--as if the burdens of existence as a spiritual and intellectual being will vanish. But occupying your time with insignificant matters will not relieve you of your pain or questions--instead it deprives you of opportunities to address them. Hedonism--living for pleasure--and avoiding a confrontation with the grand realities of the universe and God will not benefit anyone in the end.
I am NOT against entertainment, leisure, pleasure, or working a lot. Am I saying not to socialize, relax, laugh, or be lighthearted? Not at all! I just want to remind people that they can't allow these things to be elevated to idols that rob the heart and mind of fulfilling their true purposes. Do not allow them to hinder spiritual, emotional, and intellectual honesty and progress. And when one begins to discover what is real and true and meaningful, then one will not wish to exchange the difficult truths for superficialities instead. So enjoy life. Appreciate pleasure, for God delights when we do so! But never hide from questions and, far more importantly, from answers behind flimsy barricades of escapism and misuse of pleasure to numb anguish, the anguish that forces us to seek relief from an external source, and do not neglect the intellect, the intellect that recognizes and verifies the solution to our condition of misery and the desire for an unchanging purpose.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Game Review--Until Dawn (PS4)
"I did something. I MADE you believe in the world I created and I showed you parts of yourself you were too afraid to visit."
--Josh, Until Dawn
"There was a tribe that lived in these mountains. The Cree. Their shamans tell stories of a tall creature, "BORN IN ICE" . . . It can perfectly MIMIC its prey . . . But try not to kill them."
--The Stranger's journal, Until Dawn
As evidenced by my reviews of the Saw films, I cherish the horror genre, yet video games can struggle to create an atmosphere that is truly terrifying and brimming with dread and suspense. Until Dawn actually escapes this and unleashes a creative and at times truly chilling horror narrative. This game is legitimately not for children* and I usually don't emphasize things like this. Seriously, this game received an M rating for excellent reasons.
And now we will proceed to my usual categories of assessment.
Production Values
The production values for this game are so phenomenal and astonishing that I have never played anything that equals its motion capture realism and its excellent graphics. It utilizes the graphical capabilities of the PS4 in a fantastic manner that dramatically heightens the immersion. Pausing the game brings up an image of the face of whichever character you're playing as, further showcasing the exceptional lifelike quality of the facial animations. The voice acting and sound also match the visuals in quality. Professional actors, including one from Agents of Shield, produce great performances in both voice acting and the motion capture recording. Hayden Panettiere in particular did a great job at expressing her character.
Gameplay
Not so much a traditional video game as an interactive cinematic experience, Until Dawn allows the player to move a character from one location to another but reaching the destination introduces cutscenes, which occupy the majority of the game's time. In between walking sections and cutscenes are quick time events and segments where a choice must be made by tilting the right analog stick left or right. So in one sense, little about the game besides the quick time events and scattered walking moments resembles a normal gaming experience. However, the developers executed this well. A level of immersion so unique it surpasses other games of its type compensates for the different gameplay style. For instance, to grab a weapon or flashlight or open or lock a door the player must press the correct button, rotating the analog stick to twist a doorknob, (optionally) shifting the gyroscopic controller to aim a shotgun, or holding the controller very still to avoid being noticed or seen by pursuers.
As crucial as the unusual style of gameplay is, the story needed to succeed for Until Dawn to work.
Story
Sam, Chris, Ashley, Jessica, Mike, Josh, Emily, Matt. Eight college (or high school?) students who journey to a remote mountain property to party and relax. There's the intelligent and kind female lead, the sex-obsessed couple, the black guy, his girlfriend, the funny and "nerdy" guy, the nerdy girl, the creepy friend. So many slasher cliches. With all of these tropes, what could go wrong, right?
Everything could, of course!
It turns out that a year ago this group of friends plotted and enacted a humiliating prank against one of Josh's sisters named Hannah while his other sister Beth walked around downstairs. When the prank backfired and Hannah ran from the house in frustration, Beth pursued her to calm her sister, but she witnessed a stream of flames in the distance and dropped her phone, soon finding Hannah. Then they both heard an imposing shriek and fled to a cliff side drop off. After stumbling off and grabbing a handhold, a man clad in black gloves and a mask extended his hand. The player, as Beth, can choose to let go of Hannah and seize the stranger's hand or to simply fall along with Hannah into the darkness below. Regardless of the choice, both sisters plummet into a mine.
A year later, the same group of friends return to the mountain lodge to, surprise, party and bond. When they all gather, it becomes clear that another person resides with them on the mountain. Multiple appearances confirm that this person is indeed following and perhaps stalking the protagonists. Then everything disintegrates as a character is kidnapped and a strange figure chases a different character through the lodge, with Mike running into a sanitorium after an unidentified man. A Jigsaw-like killer has arranged some scenarios that seem borrowed straight from the Saw universe, but I will not divulge their exact nature here.
Characters can sporadically find messages like "LET US OUT! WE ARE STARVING. FREEZING!! I WILL MAKE YOU PAY STOP TESTING US NOW!!" in the different environments. Apparently something far darker and more terrifying than a prank has occurred, and far longer ago than a year. Lost sisters. Isolated miners. An abandoned sanatorium.
The relentless cliche jump scares one expects from cheap horror continue until true dread replaces them.
(SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!)
Eventually Josh unmasks himself as the killer who has tormented the friends. He concocted a VERY elaborate revenge prank to force his companions to experience the emotions he presumes his sisters did a year before, earning him the anger of those he has "tested".
But the game shows that Josh was not responsible for kidnapping the missing character earlier in the story and that he is not the man in dark clothes periodically depicted observing the protagonists in silence. The man who Mike followed into the sanatorium--the same man seen at the beginning of the game as the group arrived--has been using a flamethrower to combat and frighten away a horde of malicious creatures called Wendigos. The Stranger, as he is then called, enters the house to converse with most of the remaining survivors. "Should any man or woman resort to cannibalism in these woods the spirit of the Wendingo shall be unleashed", he says. The player can then deduce that Hannah, an assembly of miners trapped in 1952, and the former inhabitants of a sanitorium have all succumbed to cannibalism and transformed into Wendigos. Beth, it turns out, died upon striking the ground after her fall from the cliff, but Hannah survived and buried Beth only to excavate her corpse for food.
From there, everyone can either live or die as they progress to the fitting final scene. Everyone who survives until dawn can board rescue helicopters and leave the entire situation.
Intellectual Content
(There are some spoilers throughout this section.)
Michael Crichton's masterpiece science fiction thriller Jurassic Park first introduced me to a detailed explanation of chaos theory and the butterfly effect, the butterfly effect referring to how something as simple or unimportant as a butterfly flapping its wings may create conditions or a chain reaction that triggers a hurricane on the other half of the planet. I have since noted that the ramifications of chaos theory extend into every dimension of the natural world and human life and can affect practically anything that occurs after an initial even, however seemingly minor. Until Dawn incorporates this by elevating even trivial decisions--like whether or not a character hurls a snowball at a bird in the opening scenes--to a status where they can alter major moments hours later. For instance, offending a character by opting to kill her at a time when one of two characters must die (even though she encourages the player to do so) leads to the death of someone near the finale of the game. Even different dialogue options or obtaining collectibles change the relationships between characters and can avert or cause negative situations or bouts of good fortune. Entire levels can be accessed or skipped depending on the characters that die and survive, meaning multiple replays are necessary to view all of the combinations for the end scene alone. Do you want to defuse verbal fights? Split up from the group to follow a voice that seems to belong to a lost friend? Hide from a pursuing creature or continue fleeing on foot? Befriend a hostile dog or attack it in anticipation of it possibly harming you? You can choose the reactions and fate of every playable character. All of them can live, or all of them can die.
The butterfly effect, of course, is perhaps presented no better than the times it affects moral choices or moral choices affect other events. For instance, would you:
1. Defuse a possible verbal fight, side with the person attacking your significant other (perhaps they are in the right), or support your significant other despite his or her potential fault in the discussion?
2. Shoot yourself or someone else in a situation where one of you must die or you both will?
3. Be able to choose which friend to direct a saw blade toward if two of your friends were restrained and a rotating saw blade will kill one for sure but you choose where to direct the blade?
4. Kill someone bitten by a Wendigo if you don't know whether or not a Wendigo bite triggers a transformation?
5. Shout at a Wendigo to distract it away from a friend if it meant endangering your own life?
6. Investigate the voice of your friend calling for help if you know that Wendigos can imitate voices?
7. Cut off your fingers to free your hand from a bear trap or attempt to pry it open with a machete, breaking it in the process and thus depriving you of a usable weapon for later?
Games like this force reflection on the significance and unforeseen implications of our actions we choose with our own volition and the moral aspects of those actions. A submenu logs significant choices and their aftermath, which connects sometimes obscure examples of cause and effect that don't become obvious until much later.
Some of the most intriguing and fascinating parts of the game are the periodic sessions where an initially unknown character is interviewed by Dr. Hill, a professional psychiatrist. As he asks you which of several images frightens you the most or which character you like the least, the player realizes these choices can affect gameplay in subtle ways. Whatever you claim to be more afraid of will appear during gameplay more often. But as the game continues, Dr. Hill seems to become more morally judgmental of the unknown interviewee's actions elsewhere in the game, especially when the game reveals Josh as the subject of the interrogation, and later on a clip shows that Dr. Hill only existed in the mind of Josh. It seemed to me once the psychiatrist is shown to be a figment of Josh's imagination it becomes apparent that the imaginary "doctor" served as his conscience during significant points in the story. "What gives you the right to play god in these people's lives?" he asks Josh. "You psychopath!" he charges. Josh even physically strikes the psychiatrist once in a sequence, perhaps representing the violent suppression of his conscience as he continues his malevolent prank. During the second half of the story Hill asks if Josh is contrite or unrepentant, with the player selecting the answer. Eventually, the psychiatrist embodying Josh's conscience informs him that their sessions have produced no results and it is time to end them.
Speaking of mental illusions and questions of the mind, during one level Chris and Ashley explore the basement of the Washington home and Ashley repeatedly claims to see a ghost, which Chris predictably fails to turn around and witness. Chris is skeptical about the ghost Ashley reports to him about, replying that their minds are so "fried" that he doesn't even trust what he's been seeing. Josh later exorcizes illusory voices of accusation from his head in a scene that perhaps shows him confronting his own guilt amidst horrific hallucinations, and then he shouts at a Wendigo that arises out of water to attack him. "NO you're not real! No, you're not", he cries. After all, following the hallucinations about the psychiatrist, his sisters, macabre visions (near the end), and the voices, could he truly discern reality in the material world from the illusions of his mind? Can we trust our minds, senses, and experiences in moments of prolonged and intense stress and terror? Unfortunately Until Dawn does not try to answer this question.
Of course, the story doesn't mention alleged actual cases of Wendigo existence and activity. As someone who has long enjoyed studying cryptozoology--the study of mythical or unconfirmed animals (Bigfoot, Owlman, etc)--I had heard of Wendigos years before playing this game. I had partially suspected that the game would feature Wendigos because of the Indian totems and unexplained deer sightings, because the Wendigo is an Indian legend about humans that transform into a humanoid entity with a deer-like skull with antlers upon engaging in cannibalism. Some parts seemed to confirm my hypothesis, especially random red drawings in caves of a skull with antlers that resembled that of a deer. But the Wendigos turn out to appear more like bipedal bluish-grey Gollums than the traditional depiction of the creatures. I would love to learn the true origin of the Wendigo mythology (or the first record of their existence?). Did someone suffering from a severe case of demonic possession kill and cannibalize another human or just eat a corpse? Did Indians contrive the story to explain the dark action of cannibalism? Did they see or experience something that really convinced them of the legend? I don't know.
A brief conversation between Chris and the Stranger ("flamethrower guy") ponders whether or not Wendigos, as possessed or former humans, can be killed ethically. Chris asks if a cure for the Wendigo transformation exists, to which the Stranger says "They surrender human rights the moment they eat one another. There is no cure. There is no redemption," he explains to Chris that he can take "the high road" and refuse to kill them in self-defense--he just won't be on that road for very long.
One more thing--Ashley has an interesting comment about the prematurely-ended prank on Hannah and Beth at the beginning of the game:
"I can't imagine doing anything worse to somebody."
Really Ashley? I guess a prank ended before almost anything even happened is worse than murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, or torture. I always find it hilarious when people say some miscellaneous evil is "the worst thing they can imagine" because it usually isn't. I see these claims all the time. Logic, people. It is helpful.
Conclusion
Part Saw, part Heavy Rain, and part Friday the 13th, Until Dawn succeeds on almost every level--the visuals, immersion, terror, cinematic presentation, voice acting, story, and effectiveness of the butterfly effect. I thoroughly enjoyed the unique story and game mechanics, with the undeniable terror enhancing the experience in every scene it appeared. Until Dawn truly earns its title as an actual horror game that teases but then defies the plot cliches that fans of slasher films and horror tales expect from this genre.
*Content
1. Violence: With violence ranging from minor blows to grotesque killings, this game displays an abundance of violent and sometimes surprisingly graphic deaths. The Wendigos can decapitate the protagonists if the player doesn't use caution and precise timing to save them, and they can also impale them through the throat or eyes, rip their jaws off, fasten them on meat hooks, and crush their skulls. In addition, a character is sawed in half regardless of the in-game choice pursued.
2. Profanity: There is a great plethora of profanity including a wide variety of specific words. "D-mn", "sh-t", "f-ck", and many uses of the words "God" and "Christ" as profanity are frequently heard throughout the entire campaign. I estimate that there are possibly 130+ uses of profanity in the game.
3. Sexuality: As expected from a slasher style story, the teenagers in the game (really, more like two or three of them honestly) make frequent sexualized jokes and innuendos in the introductory levels. This leaves the game as events become more serious and humor becomes less appropriate for the circumstances.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Corporal Punishment (Part 2)
In the first entry in my series on corporal punishment [1] I proved that the corporal punishment laws in the Bible honored human rights and were nowhere near as severe or brutal as those of Gentile nations like Egypt, Rome, and Assyria. In this post, I will prove that Biblical corporal punishment is superior to the modern American prison system in effectiveness, respect for humanity, and justice.
I want to demonstrate that people who object to the Bible endorsing limited flogging while defending American prisons are guilty of great inconsistency. Anyone who truly believes that a prison system that squanders taxpayer and government funding, steals years and decades from the lives of offenders, separates them from their families for prolonged periods of time, places them in an environment with confirmed systematic acts of assault, murder, and rape, and releases them to face a social stigma is more humane and just than swift and humanitarian physical punishment with a rod or calfskin whip is honestly ignorant, stupid, evil, or all three. American prisons have failed on every level and have done little but produce more depraved crimes and violence even within their walls, while Mosaic corporal punishment quickly punishes certain illicit behaviors with heavy emphasis on the dignity of the offender and then restores the criminal back to liberty in his or her society and to reconnect with his or her family. Yes, instead of being rejected from potential jobs because of a widespread stigma, Jewish criminals simply received their penalty and then readjusted to normal life. Prisons not only endanger the wellbeing and safety of the incarcerated, but they can also offer new opportunities to learn from other criminals how to practice crimes in more professional or sophisticated ways. Numerous flaws with the American punitive system exist and show no indication of abating.
Which do you think prisoners would prefer (not that anyone's preference makes Biblical punishments just or true)? A sentence of 1-40 possible lashes to be administered publicly and swiftly, or one of isolation for up to decades in a location where few, if anyone, will deliver them from abuse and exploitation? It is obvious that God never authorized or condoned prisons and that ours teem with corruption and evil. But Americans are amusing and uneducated people, believing that Biblical laws are outdated and barbaric--with their mild executions and limited physical punishments--while supporting a vicious culture that shrugs at mass prison rapes and abortions. American hypocrisy is pervasive, revolting, and deeply ignorant. This fact only proves that in all the millennia that have elapsed since God revealed Mosaic Law, despite all of humanity's alleged moral "progress", we usually fail to even meet the minimum standards of civil justice and human rights presented in the Old Testament, though it is impossible to improve upon perfect justice to begin with.
I once listened to a sermon recorded online where it was suggested that corporal punishment could have been the solution to punishing attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, attempted rape, and other such crimes not specifically mentioned in Mosaic Law. Though actual murder, kidnapping, and rape received execution, attempts at these evils do not have a specific penalty and likely were punished by proportionate corporal punishment. Surely it could have and likely would have served as the punishment for miscellaneous crimes unregulated by Mosaic Law like rape with objects, severe cases of public slander, and sexual harassment. For more details on the corporal punishment in the Bible, visit my first post in this series on the topic.
Ultimately, there is no valid objection the modern man or woman can erect towards corporal punishment as outlined in Deuteronomy 25:1-3. The prison system largely selected by the modern world either does not punish enough or punishes inhumanely, yet I still encounter people, even Christians, who panic when I suggest replacing our pathetic and unjust laws with something directly from the same Bible many Americans both worship and misrepresent. Opponents to Christian reconstructionism have no theological, moral, rational, or philosophical basis for attacking it, yet they continue to. And I'm tired of this nonsense.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/corporal-punishment-part-1.html
I want to demonstrate that people who object to the Bible endorsing limited flogging while defending American prisons are guilty of great inconsistency. Anyone who truly believes that a prison system that squanders taxpayer and government funding, steals years and decades from the lives of offenders, separates them from their families for prolonged periods of time, places them in an environment with confirmed systematic acts of assault, murder, and rape, and releases them to face a social stigma is more humane and just than swift and humanitarian physical punishment with a rod or calfskin whip is honestly ignorant, stupid, evil, or all three. American prisons have failed on every level and have done little but produce more depraved crimes and violence even within their walls, while Mosaic corporal punishment quickly punishes certain illicit behaviors with heavy emphasis on the dignity of the offender and then restores the criminal back to liberty in his or her society and to reconnect with his or her family. Yes, instead of being rejected from potential jobs because of a widespread stigma, Jewish criminals simply received their penalty and then readjusted to normal life. Prisons not only endanger the wellbeing and safety of the incarcerated, but they can also offer new opportunities to learn from other criminals how to practice crimes in more professional or sophisticated ways. Numerous flaws with the American punitive system exist and show no indication of abating.
Which do you think prisoners would prefer (not that anyone's preference makes Biblical punishments just or true)? A sentence of 1-40 possible lashes to be administered publicly and swiftly, or one of isolation for up to decades in a location where few, if anyone, will deliver them from abuse and exploitation? It is obvious that God never authorized or condoned prisons and that ours teem with corruption and evil. But Americans are amusing and uneducated people, believing that Biblical laws are outdated and barbaric--with their mild executions and limited physical punishments--while supporting a vicious culture that shrugs at mass prison rapes and abortions. American hypocrisy is pervasive, revolting, and deeply ignorant. This fact only proves that in all the millennia that have elapsed since God revealed Mosaic Law, despite all of humanity's alleged moral "progress", we usually fail to even meet the minimum standards of civil justice and human rights presented in the Old Testament, though it is impossible to improve upon perfect justice to begin with.
I once listened to a sermon recorded online where it was suggested that corporal punishment could have been the solution to punishing attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, attempted rape, and other such crimes not specifically mentioned in Mosaic Law. Though actual murder, kidnapping, and rape received execution, attempts at these evils do not have a specific penalty and likely were punished by proportionate corporal punishment. Surely it could have and likely would have served as the punishment for miscellaneous crimes unregulated by Mosaic Law like rape with objects, severe cases of public slander, and sexual harassment. For more details on the corporal punishment in the Bible, visit my first post in this series on the topic.
Ultimately, there is no valid objection the modern man or woman can erect towards corporal punishment as outlined in Deuteronomy 25:1-3. The prison system largely selected by the modern world either does not punish enough or punishes inhumanely, yet I still encounter people, even Christians, who panic when I suggest replacing our pathetic and unjust laws with something directly from the same Bible many Americans both worship and misrepresent. Opponents to Christian reconstructionism have no theological, moral, rational, or philosophical basis for attacking it, yet they continue to. And I'm tired of this nonsense.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/corporal-punishment-part-1.html
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
You Shall Cut Off Her Hand?
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
--Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV
So many people who have encountered these two verses either respond with confusion or volatile anger. They can appear puzzling, especially in the random context of a chapter regulating corporal punishment, circumstantial marriage, and honesty in dealings with others. And they can also appear unjust and outright evil to many people.
There are actually two possibilities for the type of punishment debated by theologians: cutting off the woman's hand or shaving her pubic hair. Some teachers say severing the woman's hand served as an extension of the "eye for eye" laws because the woman does not have the same genitals and therefore sacrificed her hand instead; some say that since she sexually humiliated a man she was sexually humiliated by public groin shaving.
I will address each option below.
Nothing To Do with Lex Talionis
First of all, it makes no sense at all to label this law a part of the Lex Talionis ("eye for eye") laws because there is no indication in the text whatsoever that the woman injured the man's penis at all, only that she seized it. Nowhere does it say or even slightly imply that any sort of injury was sustained, much less a permanent one. Even if amputation of the hand is the true penalty, it is applied for simply seizing the man's genitals and therefore would apply to any offense greater, such as if the woman castrated or physically abused (which is different than mutilating or removing) or injured the man's sensitive body part. I will compare this to the Biblical laws on kidnapping for an analogy. Kidnapping someone deserves the death penalty (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), but so does kidnapping and forced enslavement for multiple years. If just kidnapping someone deserves death or just aggressively seizing a man's male organs deserves removal of the hand, then more severe sins that follow would still be punished with either execution or amputation respectively. So if the amputation translation is correct, the woman seizing the man's sex organs or doing anything beyond that would receive the loss of her hand. This has nothing to do with Lex Talionis, obviously.
Even the "humiliation for humiliation" interpretation (where the woman's pubic hair is shaved) isn't true mirror punishment. For physically and violently seizing a man's penis and possibly inflicting great pain in the process, the woman is subjected to involuntary removal of her vulva hair. Little about these two actions is the same, except for how they both target the sex organs. While the shaving would likely be intended to sexually humiliate a woman who sexually humiliated a man, calling this "mirror punishment" is dishonest, misleading, and not specific enough. It is sexual humiliation used to punish a type of sexual assault; a significant difference exists. According to the vulva shaving theory, God never allowed for sexual assault on the woman's groin area in the way she assaulted the man, only a form of sexual humiliation. For a fuller dissection of Lex Talionis and how God actually never said to punish someone by returning whatever abuse or evil they inflicted on the victim, see here [1].
An Alternative Hypothesis
However, some scholars and apologists would concur that the pubic hair shaving translation is superior and correct due to a Hebrew word other than the one for hand used to refer the "hand" that must be cut off. Involuntary depilation is their favored understanding. The true translation, according to these scholars, would be more like this:
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall shave the hair of her groin. Show her no pity."
So if a woman intervened in a fight by illicitly seizing or assaulting a man's penis, she would be convicted by a judge on the testimony of at least two witnesses (probably the two men who were fighting) and would very likely be briefly stripped naked and have her pubic hair publicly shaved from her vulva as punishment--according to this minority view. This punishment would be humiliating but swift. It would seem that this law would hold were the genders in the scenario reversed; if a man aggressively grasped a woman's groin to overpower her in a fight he would likely have his own pubic hair shaved off in public too (or his hand cut off). If so, this translation submits an improved legal response over foreign contemporary laws of the time, which possibly prescribed mutilation of the eyes for a similar act by a woman. Honestly, I don't really appreciate either legal penalty, as I don't like mutilation or sexual humiliation, but I must respect God's civil justice; my preferences do not reveal or dictate what is good or evil.
Shaving Theory Contradicted
Now I will explain why I don't think the original translation implies shaving. The Jewish Rabbis thought the punishment was amputation and softened the penalty from mutilation to a severe financial penalty. Every translation I have ever seen in person or online clearly states that the judges must remove the woman's hand, not shave her groin. I have also searched the original Hebrew translation [2] and noticed the Hebrew word for cut/cut off (×›ָּרַת, karath) present instead of the word for shave/shave off (×’ָּלַ×—, galach). I am not arguing that the shaving theory is incorrect simply because it is new and does not align with the normal understanding and commentaries (you will certainly find no appeals to tradition, authority, or novelty on this blog), but I am explaining why the new theory seems quite impossible and absurd from a translational and linguistic standpoint. Another factor that must be considered is that Deuteronomy 25:3 takes great care to prohibit any punishment--even types of flogging--that causes someone to be "degraded" or in some translations "humiliated [3]", yet the alternative penalty suggested by some scholars would certainly humiliate the woman in a sexual manner to a great extent and would be somewhat degrading. This seems to contradict Deuteronomy 25:3 in the very same chapter as the case law in question. God assigns punishments for sexual assaults and offenses such as rape, bestiality, and adultery in non-sexualized manners elsewhere (Deuteronomy 22:25-27; Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16; Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10), and it is quite likely that the Jews correctly understood the action of the woman seizing a man's penis in a fight as a type of unjustified sexual assault, not identical to a woman raping a man (which is possible and has happened) but a degrading sexual assault nevertheless. They may have compared her behavior to rape because both actions sexually violate the victim. Seeing that God never used sexual humiliation in punishment of sexual offenders elsewhere [4], it would be an anomaly for him to here punish a sexually violating act with another. God hates all forms of sexual assault and never permitted something resembling it to be used as a punishment.
Summary of observations:
1. If this law does prescribe amputation of the hand, it is the one single law besides the "hand for hand" legislation that authorizes mutilation as punishment for any crime.
2. Some recent scholars have disagreed with the traditional translation and believe that the law does not say to "cut off her hand" but instead says to "shave the hair of her groin".
3. If the alternative translation is correct, this law is the only example of sexual humiliation used as a punishment. It would be the only time other than physical mutilation that a punishment for a crime would be identical to or very similar to the original offense.
[Edit (3/7/11): I just watched the movie Deadpool for the first time several evenings ago. While watching I noticed something that likely exemplifies hypocrisy shown towards sexualized assault depending on the gender of the aggressor. During a scene in a bar where Wade Wilson (who becomes Deadpool) meets his future fiancé Vanessa, a large man slaps Vanessa's butt and turns around when Wade places a hand on his shoulder. At this point Vanessa swiftly grabs his penis or testicles or both until "fat Gandalf" apologizes, and this aspect of the scene clearly seems intended for comedic value. No matter how many Americans laughed at this part during theatrical or home viewings, I highly doubt that they would have reacted the same if a man grabbed a woman's groin or vulva to pressure her into apologizing for something. The individuals who laughed likely would have experienced revulsion towards a male character who grabbed at a woman's genitalia to exert power over her--yet they laughed when a female sexually assaulted and humiliated a male in this manner for comedy value. Hypocrisy such as this is unacceptable and despicable, but unfortunately this is not the only way that my American society tolerates female aggression towards males while harshly condemning the slightest abuse of women by men.]
[1]. Not only was Lex Talionis ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth") something that is explicitly not applied in even certain injuries or mutilations described in passages like Exodus 21, but it applied to nothing other than permanent physical injuries or mutilations. As explained in the link below, sins like assault, kidnapping, forced slavery, rape, and certain forms of torture were specifically not assigned "mirror punishment" and are objectively, universally wrong.
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/eye-for-eye-part-1.html
[2]. http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/deuteronomy/25.html
[3]. The ISV (International Standard Version) uses this word, and several others such as the Good News Translation also use it or a variant of the verb.
[4]. There are theologians who point to Hosea 2:3 and Ezekiel 16:39 as evidence that part of the punishment for adultery was involuntary public stripping and forced nudity and therefore did involve a sexually humiliating aspect, but Mosaic Law never includes this detail. It merely demands execution, not ritual humiliation.
--Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV
So many people who have encountered these two verses either respond with confusion or volatile anger. They can appear puzzling, especially in the random context of a chapter regulating corporal punishment, circumstantial marriage, and honesty in dealings with others. And they can also appear unjust and outright evil to many people.
There are actually two possibilities for the type of punishment debated by theologians: cutting off the woman's hand or shaving her pubic hair. Some teachers say severing the woman's hand served as an extension of the "eye for eye" laws because the woman does not have the same genitals and therefore sacrificed her hand instead; some say that since she sexually humiliated a man she was sexually humiliated by public groin shaving.
I will address each option below.
Nothing To Do with Lex Talionis
First of all, it makes no sense at all to label this law a part of the Lex Talionis ("eye for eye") laws because there is no indication in the text whatsoever that the woman injured the man's penis at all, only that she seized it. Nowhere does it say or even slightly imply that any sort of injury was sustained, much less a permanent one. Even if amputation of the hand is the true penalty, it is applied for simply seizing the man's genitals and therefore would apply to any offense greater, such as if the woman castrated or physically abused (which is different than mutilating or removing) or injured the man's sensitive body part. I will compare this to the Biblical laws on kidnapping for an analogy. Kidnapping someone deserves the death penalty (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), but so does kidnapping and forced enslavement for multiple years. If just kidnapping someone deserves death or just aggressively seizing a man's male organs deserves removal of the hand, then more severe sins that follow would still be punished with either execution or amputation respectively. So if the amputation translation is correct, the woman seizing the man's sex organs or doing anything beyond that would receive the loss of her hand. This has nothing to do with Lex Talionis, obviously.
Even the "humiliation for humiliation" interpretation (where the woman's pubic hair is shaved) isn't true mirror punishment. For physically and violently seizing a man's penis and possibly inflicting great pain in the process, the woman is subjected to involuntary removal of her vulva hair. Little about these two actions is the same, except for how they both target the sex organs. While the shaving would likely be intended to sexually humiliate a woman who sexually humiliated a man, calling this "mirror punishment" is dishonest, misleading, and not specific enough. It is sexual humiliation used to punish a type of sexual assault; a significant difference exists. According to the vulva shaving theory, God never allowed for sexual assault on the woman's groin area in the way she assaulted the man, only a form of sexual humiliation. For a fuller dissection of Lex Talionis and how God actually never said to punish someone by returning whatever abuse or evil they inflicted on the victim, see here [1].
 |
| Besides grabbing a man's penis to overpower him, the only crime the Bible prescribes the amputation of a woman's (or man's) hand for is if she cuts off the hand of a man or woman. |
However, some scholars and apologists would concur that the pubic hair shaving translation is superior and correct due to a Hebrew word other than the one for hand used to refer the "hand" that must be cut off. Involuntary depilation is their favored understanding. The true translation, according to these scholars, would be more like this:
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall shave the hair of her groin. Show her no pity."
So if a woman intervened in a fight by illicitly seizing or assaulting a man's penis, she would be convicted by a judge on the testimony of at least two witnesses (probably the two men who were fighting) and would very likely be briefly stripped naked and have her pubic hair publicly shaved from her vulva as punishment--according to this minority view. This punishment would be humiliating but swift. It would seem that this law would hold were the genders in the scenario reversed; if a man aggressively grasped a woman's groin to overpower her in a fight he would likely have his own pubic hair shaved off in public too (or his hand cut off). If so, this translation submits an improved legal response over foreign contemporary laws of the time, which possibly prescribed mutilation of the eyes for a similar act by a woman. Honestly, I don't really appreciate either legal penalty, as I don't like mutilation or sexual humiliation, but I must respect God's civil justice; my preferences do not reveal or dictate what is good or evil.
Shaving Theory Contradicted
Now I will explain why I don't think the original translation implies shaving. The Jewish Rabbis thought the punishment was amputation and softened the penalty from mutilation to a severe financial penalty. Every translation I have ever seen in person or online clearly states that the judges must remove the woman's hand, not shave her groin. I have also searched the original Hebrew translation [2] and noticed the Hebrew word for cut/cut off (×›ָּרַת, karath) present instead of the word for shave/shave off (×’ָּלַ×—, galach). I am not arguing that the shaving theory is incorrect simply because it is new and does not align with the normal understanding and commentaries (you will certainly find no appeals to tradition, authority, or novelty on this blog), but I am explaining why the new theory seems quite impossible and absurd from a translational and linguistic standpoint. Another factor that must be considered is that Deuteronomy 25:3 takes great care to prohibit any punishment--even types of flogging--that causes someone to be "degraded" or in some translations "humiliated [3]", yet the alternative penalty suggested by some scholars would certainly humiliate the woman in a sexual manner to a great extent and would be somewhat degrading. This seems to contradict Deuteronomy 25:3 in the very same chapter as the case law in question. God assigns punishments for sexual assaults and offenses such as rape, bestiality, and adultery in non-sexualized manners elsewhere (Deuteronomy 22:25-27; Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16; Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10), and it is quite likely that the Jews correctly understood the action of the woman seizing a man's penis in a fight as a type of unjustified sexual assault, not identical to a woman raping a man (which is possible and has happened) but a degrading sexual assault nevertheless. They may have compared her behavior to rape because both actions sexually violate the victim. Seeing that God never used sexual humiliation in punishment of sexual offenders elsewhere [4], it would be an anomaly for him to here punish a sexually violating act with another. God hates all forms of sexual assault and never permitted something resembling it to be used as a punishment.
Summary of observations:
1. If this law does prescribe amputation of the hand, it is the one single law besides the "hand for hand" legislation that authorizes mutilation as punishment for any crime.
2. Some recent scholars have disagreed with the traditional translation and believe that the law does not say to "cut off her hand" but instead says to "shave the hair of her groin".
3. If the alternative translation is correct, this law is the only example of sexual humiliation used as a punishment. It would be the only time other than physical mutilation that a punishment for a crime would be identical to or very similar to the original offense.
[Edit (3/7/11): I just watched the movie Deadpool for the first time several evenings ago. While watching I noticed something that likely exemplifies hypocrisy shown towards sexualized assault depending on the gender of the aggressor. During a scene in a bar where Wade Wilson (who becomes Deadpool) meets his future fiancé Vanessa, a large man slaps Vanessa's butt and turns around when Wade places a hand on his shoulder. At this point Vanessa swiftly grabs his penis or testicles or both until "fat Gandalf" apologizes, and this aspect of the scene clearly seems intended for comedic value. No matter how many Americans laughed at this part during theatrical or home viewings, I highly doubt that they would have reacted the same if a man grabbed a woman's groin or vulva to pressure her into apologizing for something. The individuals who laughed likely would have experienced revulsion towards a male character who grabbed at a woman's genitalia to exert power over her--yet they laughed when a female sexually assaulted and humiliated a male in this manner for comedy value. Hypocrisy such as this is unacceptable and despicable, but unfortunately this is not the only way that my American society tolerates female aggression towards males while harshly condemning the slightest abuse of women by men.]
[1]. Not only was Lex Talionis ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth") something that is explicitly not applied in even certain injuries or mutilations described in passages like Exodus 21, but it applied to nothing other than permanent physical injuries or mutilations. As explained in the link below, sins like assault, kidnapping, forced slavery, rape, and certain forms of torture were specifically not assigned "mirror punishment" and are objectively, universally wrong.
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/eye-for-eye-part-1.html
[2]. http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/deuteronomy/25.html
[3]. The ISV (International Standard Version) uses this word, and several others such as the Good News Translation also use it or a variant of the verb.
[4]. There are theologians who point to Hosea 2:3 and Ezekiel 16:39 as evidence that part of the punishment for adultery was involuntary public stripping and forced nudity and therefore did involve a sexually humiliating aspect, but Mosaic Law never includes this detail. It merely demands execution, not ritual humiliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)